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

"

Shredzilly wrote:

My posting was bond to losing people because of the Lab.

I like your list and agree with all but No. 3., but I don´t see 300 + Threads that scream " I hate 32 bit Client, nearly all my friends quit because there is no 64 bit Client !!! "

So while I agree that alot could need and overhaul, I don´t agree with the sequence of your importance-listing.

Not sure, overall complains about stability and performance are likely far above the lab threads. But they are a lot harder to grasp. If the game has low FPS the player could only suggest improving performance, because he doesn't necessarily know what causes it.

And performance remarks are very common. It's also a more technical issue, so a lot of performance issues end up in the bug forum, instead of feedback. But I would say performance in a game is usual the number one concern for players. But the thing with it is, it is very obvious that GGG does acknowledge that. Why should I complain about performance if literally half of what they have done and are aiming to do right now is improving performance. They are on track with that and I don't want them to delay that, but there is no reason to post about it, since it seems they ignore this thread right now as much as they did for basically all of its existence. They might even have a plan already, but before its put into their schedule they aren't talking about it.

Also there aren't even 300+ Threads, the list that circulates here added basically every thread talking about the lab. He added threads complaining that the lab is too rewarding, he added threads complaining that the lab is too easy, he even added a thread suggestion to add lab mechanics to other parts of the game (which is the exact opposite of what people opposing the lab want). Not to mention that there is one guy making I think at least 11 of those threads during one week. It also includes a lot of threads talking about things that are already fixed, like the disadvantage ES builds had and faulty layouts, which are both fixed (I haven't seen any of those coming up lately).

There is still a lot of viable feedback. DCs are more punishing in the lab (which is why I suggested an option to restore the instance if it is still open, which it usually is), some of Izaros Mechanics (exspecially charges) are unnecessary frustrating and normal and cruel labs don't feel good to do (usually they are overleveled and just rushed through).

the Labyrinth is an awful enforced genre change. any other method to unlock subclasses, be it at some predefined levels, through crafting, vendors, vendor recipes, prophecy chains - would be infinitely preferrable!

"

Emphasy wrote:

...
Also there aren't even 300+ Threads, the list that circulates here added basically every thread talking about the lab. He added threads complaining that the lab is too rewarding, he added threads complaining that the lab is too easy, he even added a thread suggestion to add lab mechanics to other parts of the game (which is the exact opposite of what people opposing the lab want). Not to mention that there is one guy making I think at least 11 of those threads during one week. It also includes a lot of threads talking about things that are already fixed, like the disadvantage ES builds had and faulty layouts, which are both fixed (I haven't seen any of those coming up lately)....

My list is currently at 277. This does not include Izaro only threads nor does it include threads about enchanting. I ignored threads about just Izaro or enchants because my theory about those complaints is that they are not really about the new trap gameplay and other problematic mechanisms added in labyrinth, e.g., no portals. They are normal issues that are always complained about here. I'm sure if those other threads were included it would be over 300. (More Izaro threads than enchant threads, I'd guess.)

Your assertion that there is one account name making 11 threads in a week is plain false and probably even in the silly range. There is not any account that has made 11 threads total. The vast majority of the threads were started by someone that only started one thread. Your other assertions about thread subjects are also false. Although it is true that I have kept threads even if the problem complained about was fixed. These threads stay because they demonstrate the sad state of the Ascendancy Release that had very poor quality in both design and execution.
Some of the intended purposes served by this list are;
- providing anecdotal evidence as to how a significant percentage of the player base dislikes the labyrinth,
- demonstrates that there's been many problems in the labyrinth,
- help bring attention to the issue in the hope that GGG will fix the problem by making labyrinth optional or making ascendancy points available without requiring bad trap gameplay,
- and it demonstrates how horribly divisive the labyrinth has become for the community.

"

jlt314 wrote:

the Labyrinth is an awful enforced genre change. any other method to unlock subclasses, be it at some predefined levels, through crafting, vendors, vendor recipes, prophecy chains - would be infinitely preferrable!

Yes, ARPG game play is kill monsters get loot. The trap game play is not ARPG game play. It is not kill monsters get loot game play.

"

Emphasy wrote:

Well "should" implies they are obligated.

Exactly, I even gave an actual definition ( not "mine" ) right before, it's as simple as that.

Even a conditional statement following would not change that, it would still be wrong because those guys have one more time no idea about how it would turn out if the contidion was not fullfilled.
None.


This is not very important, it's just a semantic thing, I just wanted to mention it.

Now, saying that "I think that they should do this for the better of the game" is a bit different imho.
It would probably do them good to have an alternative way to get the ascendancy points, but many people might keep QQing about it if they want to keep the points gated by some content that you do not cheese as easily as the rest ( by overleveling for example ).

And yeah, I would personally rather have the next act, melee somewhat fixed and performance improvments, definitely.
After then ... why not I guess.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Yes, ARPG game play is kill monsters get loot. The trap game play is not ARPG game play. It is not kill monsters get loot game play.

No.
I will answer to you as long as I see you try to spread those lies.
ARPG means Action Role Playing Game, period.
If we take the wikipedia definition :

"

Action role-playing games (abbreviated action RPG, action/RPG, or ARPG) form a loosely defined subgenre of role-playing video games that incorporate elements of action or action-adventure games, emphasizing real-time action where the player has direct control over characters, instead of turn-based or menu-based combat. These games often use combat systems similar to hack and slash or shooter games.[1]

That is what arpg means, but it's actually completely irrelevant one more time, PoE is PoE, that's it.

This is why this thread is going nowhere, because instead of having constructive contents, some people keep on using as much bad faith as possible thinking that they will get their way.
Not helping imho.

"

Fruz wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Yes, ARPG game play is kill monsters get loot. The trap game play is not ARPG game play. It is not kill monsters get loot game play.

No.
I will answer to you as long as I see you try to spread those lies.
ARPG means Action Role Playing Game, period.
If we take the wikipedia definition :

That is the definition of ARPG not ARPG game play.

ARPG GAME PLAY is kill monsters get loot. The trap game play is not ARPG game play. It is not kill monsters get loot game play.

ARPG GAME PLAY is kill monsters get loot. The trap game play is not ARPG game play. It is not kill monsters get loot game play.

ARPG GAME PLAY is kill monsters get loot. The trap game play is not ARPG game play. It is not kill monsters get loot game play.

ARPG GAME PLAY is kill monsters get loot. The trap game play is not ARPG game play. It is not kill monsters get loot game play.

Is that enough spreading for you? BTW, it is not a lie.

No it is not the "definition".
That is just what is stuck inside your head, but it is not what the ARPG classification means.
And you have shown absolutely nothing to back up those claims so far, funny heh.

Good job splitting hairs btw, demonstration of bad faith here you go, thank you for that.

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

Fruz wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Yes, ARPG game play is kill monsters get loot. The trap game play is not ARPG game play. It is not kill monsters get loot game play.

No.
I will answer to you as long as I see you try to spread those lies.
ARPG means Action Role Playing Game, period.
If we take the wikipedia definition :

That is the definition of ARPG not ARPG game play.

ARPG GAME PLAY is kill monsters get loot. The trap game play is not ARPG game play. It is not kill monsters get loot game play.

ARPG GAME PLAY is kill monsters get loot. The trap game play is not ARPG game play. It is not kill monsters get loot game play.

ARPG GAME PLAY is kill monsters get loot. The trap game play is not ARPG game play. It is not kill monsters get loot game play.

ARPG GAME PLAY is kill monsters get loot. The trap game play is not ARPG game play. It is not kill monsters get loot game play.

Is that enough spreading for you? BTW, it is not a lie.

Following that logic neither are masters.

"

Fruz wrote:

"

aDuke wrote:

In either case, the laby prob is among the things that should be granted top priority ...

That for sure is one thing that you have no idea about.
What you call "prob" might not really be one to them.

I'm sorry for being the cause of a semantic dispute. So let me put my above statement in other words to make it clear:

1. I'm too polite to tell GGG "you must do this". For that part I meant the 'weak' "should".

2. We can safely assume that the vast majority at GGG are lab lovers. They implemented it, and they did it well. But maybe they love it so much that they were suprised how many of the players hate it. We have no exact figures on the percentage (I don't trust the votes in the OP which say 52%), but I hope we can agree that it is more than 20% and that half of them might leave, especially if the lab mechanics would be exported to more areas in the game.

Every middle to large company in this world with a sane management will have red alert if they are endangered to lose 10% of their customers, and countermeasures will be given high priority.

In the latter sense I also meant the 'strong' "should". Not as in 'obligated' but as in 'strongly recommended'.

^
I have no idea about actual numbers, and I think that only GGG actually does.
If they were about to loose 10% of the playerbase due to the lab, they would have done something about it already imo.

Like, most of it would have happened already in 2.4.0, still nothing has changed, this is why the odds are more like .... it's not such a big chunk of the population that really hates the lab.

Now, we have most likely players that dislike it because there is a certain tension running it ( maybe GGG wants that too, probably ), but that don't make a big deal of running it once per difficulty and character ( not old standard ones of course ).
I would say that this part of the playerbase is much bigger than people hating the lab and even going until quitting because of it.

Now how much that is ? idk
How much is GGG fine with ? idk either.
We cannot know without more information.

We will see in 2.5.0 if something happens ... and after in 2.6.0 too.

"

Fruz wrote:

We will see in 2.5.0 if something happens ... and after in 2.6.0 too.

There is no 2.6, it will go to 3.0