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

"

Maswasnos wrote:

Nope Nope Nope, keep ascendancy points in the labyrinth. OP is missing the entire point of this expansion.

you do know they were developed separately right and tied later. They just know no one will do the bad content if they aren't tied to excessive loot and progression and apparently they spent a lot of resources on it so it must be done.


It's like if you bought this horrible painting and insist on hanging it in the living room not because it's good but because you payed to0 much for it.

"

Zalhan2 wrote:

"

Maswasnos wrote:

Nope Nope Nope, keep ascendancy points in the labyrinth. OP is missing the entire point of this expansion.

you do know they were developed separately right and tied later.

No.

They had the ideas separately.
But they basically developed them together at the end, they were thinking about ascendancies, and then they came up with the lab and though that it would be a good idea to couple both ideas.

Which is different.
Of course, one could say that the thinking process (the beginning of the design process) is part of the development, that would not be wrong, but you are implying that they had been basically completely developed before separately, and nothing indicates such a thing.

"

Zalhan2 wrote:

"

Maswasnos wrote:

Nope Nope Nope, keep ascendancy points in the labyrinth. OP is missing the entire point of this expansion.

you do know they were developed separately right and tied later. They just know no one will do the bad content if they aren't tied to excessive loot and progression and apparently they spent a lot of resources on it so it must be done.


It's like if you bought this horrible painting and insist on hanging it in the living room not because it's good but because you payed to0 much for it.

I don't think they were actually developed separately, I think the original concept of AC points did come first, but it wasn't until later that they thought about the AC points we see now and created the lab (after fixing desync) to be the challenge for the points.


Regardless if created separately or not though, they are together now and its written all over the lore and it makes sense conception ally, that doesnt really get changed...


In regards to resources or the necessity of it being done, you gain a massive power spike as a player, so you should have to do something worthy in order to get it, if you don't think thats necessary then you don't understand ARPG games at all.

"

Zalhan2 wrote:

"

Maswasnos wrote:

Nope Nope Nope, keep ascendancy points in the labyrinth. OP is missing the entire point of this expansion.

you do know they were developed separately right and tied later. They just know no one will do the bad content if they aren't tied to excessive loot and progression and apparently they spent a lot of resources on it so it must be done.


It's like if you bought this horrible painting and insist on hanging it in the living room not because it's good but because you payed to0 much for it.

Yes, except it's not YOUR painting, or your house, or your call on keeping it up or not.
You're just a guest. You can complain about it, sure. But if they keep it on the wall, you're going to have to live with it.

All of you seem to think just because a few people call it bad, it has to therefor be removed. Heck, if 95% of us thought it was bad and GGG didn't, we'd be out of luck. Would that be a smart move on their end? Highly doubtful, but nonetheless it's THEIR CALL, it's their game and their world made in their vision. And guess what? It's here to stay.

So buckle up and shine your boots, because you'll be running Lab for a lot longer still.

"

Zalhan2 wrote:

They just know no one will do the bad content if they aren't tied to excessive loot and progression and apparently they spent a lot of resources on it so it must be done.


It's like if you bought this horrible painting and insist on hanging it in the living room not because it's good but because you payed to0 much for it.

I believe the expression you are seeking is "effort justification."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effort_justification

I talked about exactly this in my very first feedback post on the Labyrinth, about a week after Ascendancy's release, but then deleted that part, because "assuming bad faith" in others is an aggressive and usually ineffective tactic, regardless of whether it is a reflection of reality.

It is also entirely possible that the devs genuinely thought this content was good and would be better received than it ended up being before they released it, and not due to the effort justification phenomenon.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

It is also entirely possible that the devs genuinely thought this content was good and would be better received than it ended up being before they released it, and not due to the effort justification phenomenon.

That is completely baseless assumption. Where is the data that proves that claim? Where are the numbers that you base this on? How do you know it wasn't well received? This thread with a handful of people complaining? You're under the illusion still that this holds any significance whatsoever?

Show me data and I'll agree.

"

Xavathos wrote:

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

It is also entirely possible that the devs genuinely thought this content was good and would be better received than it ended up being before they released it, and not due to the effort justification phenomenon.

That is completely baseless assumption. Where is the data that proves that claim? Where are the numbers that you base this on? How do you know it wasn't well received? This thread with a handful of people complaining? You're under the illusion still that this holds any significance whatsoever?

Show me data and I'll agree.

It isn't entirely baseless. If you've read the various posts on reddit/forums, looked at various polls that have gone around, and talked to people in game.. you get to this. Generally speaking, people either hate it, love it, or in the middle.

As a developer, you'd want people to enjoy your product. But most of the people fall in the middle of this spectrum where they don't really care that much. They run it and get it over with. I wouldn't consider that a huge success. I'd dare say that the minorities are actually both ends of the spectrum.

"

e1337donkey wrote:

"

Xavathos wrote:

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

It is also entirely possible that the devs genuinely thought this content was good and would be better received than it ended up being before they released it, and not due to the effort justification phenomenon.

That is completely baseless assumption. Where is the data that proves that claim? Where are the numbers that you base this on? How do you know it wasn't well received? This thread with a handful of people complaining? You're under the illusion still that this holds any significance whatsoever?

Show me data and I'll agree.

It isn't entirely baseless. If you've read the various posts on reddit/forums, looked at various polls that have gone around, and talked to people in game.. you get to this. Generally speaking, people either hate it, love it, or in the middle.

As a developer, you'd want people to enjoy your product. But most of the people fall in the middle of this spectrum where they don't really care that much. They run it and get it over with. I wouldn't consider that a huge success. I'd dare say that the minorities are actually both ends of the spectrum.

Like I said, data please. It's pointless to discuss the opinion of one or two people when planning large changes like this.

GGG like any company, plans their actions using data analysis. If data suggests something should be changed, it will. But it most likely didn't as they have not addressed this in 3.0.

So again I say provide data to prove your claims or let the ones responsible handle this.

"

Xavathos wrote:

Like I said, data please. It's pointless to discuss the opinion of one or two people when planning large changes like this.

GGG like any company, plans their actions using data analysis. If data suggests something should be changed, it will. But it most likely didn't as they have not addressed this in 3.0.

So again I say provide data to prove your claims or let the ones responsible handle this.

Actually this contradicts an email I got from customer service which says they don't like to be reactionary, they build content they feel is good for the game and tend to be resistant to changing things unless they feel the content needs tuning. They do not feel that making it a popularity contest is good for the game.

In this case a huge number of people think they made a mistake and they are being myopic in their view and missing the big picture, which can happen when you spend a lot of resources on something.

"

Zalhan2 wrote:

"

Xavathos wrote:

Like I said, data please. It's pointless to discuss the opinion of one or two people when planning large changes like this.

GGG like any company, plans their actions using data analysis. If data suggests something should be changed, it will. But it most likely didn't as they have not addressed this in 3.0.

So again I say provide data to prove your claims or let the ones responsible handle this.

Actually this contradicts an email I got from customer service which says they don't like to be reactionary, they build content they feel is good for the game and tend to be resistant to changing things unless they feel the content needs tuning. They do not feel that making it a popularity contest is good for the game.

In this case a huge number of people think they made a mistake and they are being myopic in their view and missing the big picture, which can happen when you spend a lot of resources on something.

A huge number of people, WHERE???

/facepalm

You just don't listen. It's not a popularity contest, it's business planning using data analysis. Where is yours??