SET FREE THE ASCENDANCY POINTS (or rework the lab) [New ascension methods/lab rework ideas]

"

Albinosaurus wrote:

Very funny, Fruz. Go back to your main now.

LOL

quoted for future easy /facepalm.

"

Regulator wrote:

Also, obligatory 200page milestone comment. 1 month comrades, 1 month.
Albi, Anuhart has been a member of our community since a long time, definately not fruz, and you can see that by the tone and the way of his writing.

Remember anyone in the whiteknight/bully brigade group writes the exact same things with the exact same attitude it easier than doing the lab to understand them.

bolded part made me laugh.

And another paranoia "bully brigade" quality post, nice.

I was being facetious, because most of the post didn't seem to have any rationale behind it. It was a dressed up "no u" post.

"

Albinosaurus wrote:

I was being facetious, because most of the post didn't seem to have any rationale behind it. It was a dressed up "no u" post.

As a post it contains probably the most rationale ITT.

You may not like it, I don't like it. But I'm not going to pretend.

Why pretend when you can just delude yourself instead?

"

Albinosaurus wrote:

Why pretend when you can just delude yourself instead?

OK, set aside the design priorities of GGG that are evident in the design of everything and always have been, priorities that have persistently had huge negative effects on play-ability in favour of economy stimulation. Set aside all the mechanical evidence of lab design, Izaro credit, trials, offerings, enchant system, etc, etc...


and delude yourself that the lab being content that many will dislike, few will monopolise and works 1,000 times better as an economy stimulant than as enjoyable content was simply a whoopsie rather than fully WAI design.


Funny thing is, had I laid these truths down without the harsh point about a 2,000 post thread of lab hate having the opposite effect you might wish, you'd probably have lapped it up.

No. I'd still think your points come from a skewed view of things, because they do. If Perandus and Prophecy are any indication, there is definitely some drive for the devs to make the game more accessible. Everything you are describing is the opposite. You're out of touch with the facts.

"

Albinosaurus wrote:

No. I'd still think your points come from a skewed view of things, because they do. If Perandus and Prophecy are any indication, there is definitely some drive for the devs to make the game more accessible. Everything you are describing is the opposite. You're out of touch with the facts.

Perandus that was specifically designed so that a GG item would spawn in a map, which you had no way of farming up the coins for, but could then buy the coins from other players and get the item or sell the loot rights to someone else.

Perandus that never made it to the core game.

Prophecy that was specifically designed so you had to either repeatedly clean out pointless prophecies by running the content you disliked or by sealing them, requiring more coins than you would pick up.

Yeah. Both leagues were designed, blatantly, as economy stimulants with the downside of sucking if you didn't engage in such economy stimulation.


If someone at GGG came up with content that was amazing play-ability but had little to no economical value, it would not, under any circumstances make it as content.

If someone at GGG came up with content that sucked balls in play-ability but was a real good economy stimulant, it would be top priority to make it in game.

Where do you think the lab falls?

OK, you explain to me the design of the lab, trials, enchant system. Why is it the way it is?

For play-ability, or for economic stimulant?

So I have thought long and hard about this subject, and come to some conclusions that I previously did not consider. ( I am an old retired guy, so I have plenty of time to mull over things, if I want to)

Now the reason why I never considered them, is because, like most people, my reasoning was tainted by personal belief. I believe in artistic freedom and integrity. Make of that what you will, it is a holdover from my university days. That had a lot to do with my advocacy toward not changing the lab.

Once I recognized this flaw ( which is highly subjective, some may see this flaw as instrumental in making a decision) in my reasoning, I decided to try and extrapolate that belief out and take a look at the issue again.

so I went back and read all the threads (quite a feat) and came to the conclusion that most of the arguments for and against the lab were also based on individual bias. So I also disregarded them all.

The next thing I looked at were peoples solutions. There was no real need to evaluate pro lab solutions, because they are all the same. Leave it as it is. The second set of solutions were those proposed by the folks who dislike the lab, for whatever reason. There were quite a few , but they all centered around removing ascendancy points from the lab, as is the topic of this thread.

I am not going to go into all the pros and cons of this solution, because if you take the issue seriously, you have already done that yourself, and once again, those pros and cons will be tainted by personal belief.

What did I come up with? If the only reason I believe that the lab should not be changed is because of my bias toward artistic integrity, then it is a selfish reason to oppose change.

The next thing I considered is how the anti-lab lobby's solution would effect the game as a whole. I was unable to come up with a reason that was not selfish or dependent on my personal beliefs.

Conclusion: Although I personally believe the lab should stay as is, and that changing it is disrespectful to the artists and engineers that created it, removing ascendancy points from the lab will not hurt the game or my enjoyment of it.

That's why most of us are advocating for Ascendancy to be removed from the Lab rather than changing the Lab itself. There are people who like the Lab, and it's equally selfish to demand that be taken from them, and it's possible (likely?) the Lab itself would not have received this kind of vitriol if Asc had not been put behind it in the first place.

"

TheAnuhart wrote:

,

Regarding the theory about economy, I think it may have some merit. Although, I don't think anyone could really have the foresight to have predicted all of those outcomes. It also seems overly Machiavellian to me. One thing that GGG has done that probably reduces "economy" but is better for the game is increasing the drop rate of high tier uniques by 4x. This has made it much harder to become "rich" but made many previously too expensive builds accessible to most people. That would seem to negate (wouldn't it?) your theory about GGG holding the economy is such overwhelming regard? Although maybe the argument might be that it made trading even more critical to becoming rich?