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

"

Zaludoz wrote:

Wow, so much lack of understanding and putting words in other people's mouths to argue against... kinda glad I took such a long break from both the game and forums. (just read 40+ pages to catch up)

For me, I can get past traps just fine, and Izaro was challenging, but killable... not an issue of difficulty. I didn't like playing it at all. It's not a skill check; it's not testing worthyness of anyone. It's an exercise in tedium and battling crashes and disconnects and real life. The biggest issues I have with it is what it reveals about the designers. They do not respect my time invested, nor understand how to create a game feature where they KNOW people WILL have issues that make the content as designed either uncompleteable or super irritating to complete.

So as far as I'm concerned, if they won't respect me, or plan ahead realistically, why should I stick around to be disrespected or disregarded? And why should I expect their future designs to be done with realistic understanding of the game format in mind (online, with many reasons for changing connection qualities, some controllable, some not)

As far as the "it's optional content" arguement goes, I play games to progress my characters. To know there are key defining customizations locked away behind something I will not do, kills progression before I get started. What's the point in progressing my character if I know I can't draw out the potential and use it to have fun? Yeah, no point, just regret that I'd invest any time in the game to begin with.

Obviously I'd never invest any of my time in "hardcore" modes of the game, since I hate losing my progress. Insisting on injecting this feeling into the standard game kills my enjoyment.

Overall, the game's core systems of the skill tree, the complex itemization, the combat system in general, the complex interactions between special stats, the customization of my character... is what drew me into this game.

The Labyrinth cancels out all the good, and makes me feel the game isn't worth my time.

P.S.(I didn't even go into how heavily it favors certain builds, when it's the ONLY way to obtain ascention... why not have multiple ways, and just use the method that fits your style of play, showing that you can ascend in that area? Right now, everyone has to prove their build can surpass one challenge that is not an equally balanced check of skill for all character builds... how does the labyrinth make sense? it doesn't... on so many levels, from thematic to technical... it's infuriating and sickening that they think it's so great)

"

Zaludoz wrote:

"

Fruz wrote:

"

Zaludoz wrote:

[...]

"Respect" is a notion that is completely off topic and irrelevant here.
I think that people should stop using this word in any situation thinking that it means something else than what it actually means.

Respect is completely relevant to this topic. It's not important to you maybe, or even the original poster, or anyone else who dislikes the labyrinth. To me, I value my time. You might not value yours. The design decisions incorporated into the labyrinth show a gross disrespect for the time investment of players.

Respect means, according to at least one dictionary, "courteous regard for people's feelings." To be disrespected is to be ignored, not considered when making decisions, inconsequential, even to the point of being insulting or offensive by words, actions or inactions.

Respect for the time investment of players would not allow the design decision to make game crashes cause a player to restart (BY DESIGN, not bug). Having respect, the developers would recognize that this concept does not work in an online game (due to internet stability of varying qualities in a global game), or any game that may quit unexpectedly due to crashes either in client or servers (something plaguing this game since at least Perandus league - at least that's when it started for me).

Respect for player viewpoints would not invalidate a person's viewpoint as a "vocal minority." (even if they are a minority that is vocal, they hold a perfectly valid viewpoint; that attitude is disrespectful) I understand as a small game company, they have limited resources, so they have to prioritize development time. They can't spend that time on trivial changes to pander to the whims of anyone who complains about anything. The labyrinth content has shown itself to be far from a small group. If anything, I'd say the "lab-lovers" who think there is nothing wrong at all with it, are in a much smaller group. I don't think all "lab-lovers" are particularly passionate about the Labyrinth as they are just against changes influenced by complaints on the forums, assuming it's a slippery slope that would lead to some catastrophe. Players do not always know what they want and many are only desirous of change for self-interest, but there are cases, like this, that do not need to lead to such an outcome. Both groups are passionate, but respecting the group that strongly desires change, by implementing one of several solutions presented, will not negatively impact the rest of the playerbase.


I respect that some people like the labyrinth playstyle. I respect that some people like masochistic punishments. I respect that some people like "grinding" for negligable rewards. My personal suggestion to "fix" the labyrinth situation has been posted 2 times (not spammed everywhere because I respect other forum-reader's time, and it's really mainly for GGG's staff to consider, not you) but I will repeat it here, because I respect your time and don't want to waste your time looking it up, since it is my example of a very respectful solution to implementing an alternative to the labyrinth.

It's actually listed in the Original Poster's post now, but seems to be ignored by people who think all "Lab-haters" want everything given away free on a silver platter.

My solution keeps the original labyrinths as-is. Enjoy to your heart's content.
It adds an NPC that opens a secret passage from the intitial entrance, to a sequential battle with Izaro in 1 room. It begins with a wave of undead labyrinth builders who were sealed inside to prevent them from revealing the secrets to future runners. Then comes Izaro in the same room, then another wave of monsters to refill flasks mainly, then 2nd Izaro, then more monsters for flasks, then 3rd Izaro, in the room where everyone else fights him, with all the same mechanics, just no moving between maps.

* This respectful solution maintains the difficulty of the battles.
* It offers no rewards beyond ascention points. (no chests, no drops, no enchants, only ascention).
* It is even potentially MORE dangerous than the original fight, since you don't get the trinkets from the reliquary that can nullify some of Izaro's bonuses on certain days.
* Ascention points are still linked to the Labyrinth and lore therein.
* It uses existing gameplay and battles, which should reduce development time to a bare minimum to resolve the situation.
* A 1-map-battle removes the potential for crashes when moving between maps.
* Ascention points are no longer "trap avoidance points." (people have clearly shown that trap avoidance is a trivial matter, and does not qualify anyone to be considered of greater worthiness to attain the unrelated ascendancy classes. Traps retain their status as dangers that people going for treasures and enchants must navigate. Ultimately, a more fair method, IMO)


There may be other respectful solutions. (I prefer this one)