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

"

Disrupted wrote:

So many pages, this was probably suggested before but here goes nothing:

I find the idea of free ascendancy points to be terrible, so instead;
If people really hate the lab and traps that much, at start of lab give an alternate entry point, to a "challenge arena", players should be warned that they cannot gain keys or enchants (or maybe you can get enchants solely for normal and cruel since they dont matter that much) by doing this, only ascendancy points.

The arena would be double or triple size (maybe something a bit more intelligent than that) where you fight both Izaro and Argus at the same time (or maybe, Izaro, Argus and Goddess on a pillar in center?), maybe have some more adds/boss/small buffs/random izaro buffs per day? Either way dont make it too easy. No traps obviously. Beat the challenge and you get your ascendancy points for the difficulty

I think this could also double as way to test your character and have a fun, hard fight.


Sorry for the terrible way I wrote this I think this would be pretty cool alternative. Simple and to the point, I believe it should make the people complaining about ascendancy points and how they hate lab happy. its much more in line with "normal" game design

"

Turtledove wrote:

The only thing I disagree with is your assertion that you wrote it in a terrible way. :-) The OP is regularly updated with new suggestions. Please take a look at the OP. It appears to me that your suggestion fits into option II. Take a look and if you disagree then explain what you think is different and perhaps Regulator will add it to the OP>

"

Disrupted wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

The only thing I disagree with is your assertion that you wrote it in a terrible way. :-) The OP is regularly updated with new suggestions. Please take a look at the OP. It appears to me that your suggestion fits into option II. Take a look and if you disagree then explain what you think is different and perhaps Regulator will add it to the OP>

Should have read OP before, my bad.

II is the closest, but I wouldnt say it fits due to 2 details
I meant it without stages and zero traps (guess if we go by stages, third will still have traps)

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

I don't think there is a relevant number for goetzjam. He dislikes almost any feedback critical of the Labyrinth, and therefore thinks it should be ignored by GGG until the quantity of feedback reaches the magic number (subject to change) in his head.

Of course, this rule does not apply to feedback he agrees with, and it CERTAINLY doesn't apply to any feedback he supplies.

I recommend just ignoring his off-topic posts, especially the nasty ones. There is a small minority of posters in the GGG forum community who sometimes like to make personal attacks instead of well-reasoned argumentation, but they are just that: a small and vocal minority.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

Ignore him, turtle.

From the other thread:

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

I don't think there is a relevant number for goetzjam. He dislikes almost any feedback critical of the Labyrinth, and therefore thinks it should be ignored by GGG until the quantity of feedback reaches the magic number (subject to change) in his head.

Of course, this rule does not apply to feedback he agrees with, and it CERTAINLY doesn't apply to any feedback he supplies.

I recommend just ignoring his off-topic posts, especially the nasty ones. There is a small minority of posters in the GGG forum community who sometimes like to make personal attacks instead of well-reasoned argumentation, but they are just that: a small and vocal minority.

The advice applies just as well in this thread.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

Ignore him, turtle.

From the other thread:

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

I don't think there is a relevant number for goetzjam. He dislikes almost any feedback critical of the Labyrinth, and therefore thinks it should be ignored by GGG until the quantity of feedback reaches the magic number (subject to change) in his head.

Of course, this rule does not apply to feedback he agrees with, and it CERTAINLY doesn't apply to any feedback he supplies.

I recommend just ignoring his off-topic posts, especially the nasty ones. There is a small minority of posters in the GGG forum community who sometimes like to make personal attacks instead of well-reasoned argumentation, but they are just that: a small and vocal minority.

The advice applies just as well in this thread.