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

"

Fruz wrote:

"

aDuke wrote:

I ran into this thread today and was quite amazed that one very simple solution for the problem has not been mentioned at all

It has, many times actually.

Touch monsters can be overleveled. so no.
A path that takes much more time, and is more tedious but without traps ( maybe with many puzzles ), why not I guess.
But it would be worse for those who complain about the length of the lab.

I agree. The Laby needs to be made less tedious, not more. And more challenging in a meaningful sense. Harder monsters. Inability to cheese the layout by looking it up every day on reddit (i.e., a true labyrinth, which changes every time). Fewer non-monster pinatas spread throughout, and monsters instead. Eliminating easily cheesed traps. Eliminating traps which force players to stand and do nothing for long chunks of time.

Overall, less cheese and more game. Less waiting and more action. That kind of thing helps the game anywhere, and the Laby is no exception.

The Labyrinth is such a fantastic idea. It can be saved.

"

Fruz wrote:

It has, many times actually.

Maybe my bad. #5 in 'Laby rework ideas' could intend what I have in mind, but it doesn't exactly say that.

"

Fruz wrote:

And it would require dev time, ...

Not if the generator was implemented well.
We already have
- alternate paths on the meta-map level ('Current location')
- alternate paths in a map area since day one.
What might be missing is a hasTraps attribute for a path in the generator.

So, if we are very lucky, it could be less dev time than the time to decide to actually do it ;)

- There would still be the "normal" way to go through = so not more tedious.
But the alternative way would need to be, definitely.

- Of course this kind of thing requires dev time ( significant dev time ). They'd need to design where the path would be, how easy to find, how long, what to put in there, to balance it so that it isn't easier than the rest, etc ....
And if they had generators perfectly fit for it already, we would see them somewhere in the game.
Including traps in it.

"

Fruz wrote:

- Of course this kind of thing requires dev time ( significant dev time ).

Admitted. But even for me (I'm the guy who wrote the new map generator for UFO:AI) it is impossible to tell from the outside how much. Can be easy, can be tough.
And we all know Murphy's Law ...

"

aDuke wrote:

"

Fruz wrote:

- Of course this kind of thing requires dev time ( significant dev time ).

Admitted. But even for me (I'm the guy who wrote the new map generator for UFO:AI) it is impossible to tell from the outside how much. Can be easy, can be tough.
And we all know Murphy's Law ...

We do not know how easy or tough it will be, that's for sure, but I think that it's safe to admit that nothing is trivial, especially on a game of such a scale.

And they have their own engine, which makes it even more difficult to tell lol.

"

aDuke wrote:

"

Fruz wrote:

It has, many times actually.

Maybe my bad. #5 in 'Laby rework ideas' could intend what I have in mind, but it doesn't exactly say that.

"

Fruz wrote:

And it would require dev time, ...

Not if the generator was implemented well.
We already have
- alternate paths on the meta-map level ('Current location')
- alternate paths in a map area since day one.
What might be missing is a hasTraps attribute for a path in the generator.

So, if we are very lucky, it could be less dev time than the time to decide to actually do it ;)

aDuke, your wonderful suggestion has done a number of valuable things.
1. An intellectual level of discourse has occurred.
2. You've finally convinced Fruz into being a lab hater! (just kidding)
3. I can now at least add Fruz to the list of people that have posted in support of fixing labyrinth! (just kidding about that too)
3. You've bumped this thread to let GGG know that the issue is important to the player base.
4. I've added your name to the list of people that have posted in support of fixing labyrinth. Over 270 threads discussing labyrinth problems with over 640 posters in support Anyone lurking but never posting their opinion, if you post an opinion then you too may be added to the list. (very exciting, isn't it :-) )

So what was or is more important, the master improvements that GGG are making or adding an additional path in the lab with less traps and more monsters or puzzles?

Because its clear which one they've done and just wanted to gauge everyones thoughts on that for a second.



Aside from masters, which is now years later, what other content have they went back on and pretty much redesigned or heavily changed? Content, not design choices.

"

goetzjam wrote:

So what was or is more important, the master improvements that GGG are making or adding an additional path in the lab with less traps and more monsters or puzzles?

The master improvements as announced sound nice, but for laby-haters they are much less important than a way to cicumvent the traps, believe me ...

Also, the haters want NO traps, not just less.

Turtledove, thanks for doing some statistics. It might be of help for the voiced opinions.

I think there is NO way for a laby-lover to convince a hater or vice versa to convert to the other side. My point is that both groups and the devs should strive for a solution that accomodates both sides.

The laby-lovers have their way as of now. However, even they should vote for such a solution. Why ? Because if shit happens and a large part of the playerbase goes away, it means: less players = less money = less devs = less new content for the laby-lovers !

"

aDuke wrote:

"

goetzjam wrote:

So what was or is more important, the master improvements that GGG are making or adding an additional path in the lab with less traps and more monsters or puzzles?

The master improvements as announced sound nice, but for laby-haters they are much less important than a way to circumvent the traps, believe me ...

Also, the haters want NO traps, not just less.

I would like to be able to play an ARPG when I open PoE. That means the game play is "kill monsters get loot". Running through screens full traps is not ARPG game play. It is not "kill monsters get loot" game play. It is fine if there is optional game play besides ARPG game play for a game in the ARPG genre. If it is not "kill monsters get loot" game play then it should be optional.