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

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Good morning Vietnam!

oops

oops again

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Good morning Vietnam!

oops

oops again

sorry

Five hundred pages. Five hundred pages of futility.

How does it feel investing all this time and achieving absolutely nothing?

"

Mythabril wrote:

Five hundred pages. Five hundred pages of futility.

How does it feel investing all this time and achieving absolutely nothing?

I think the "good posts" that contain suggestions and discussion about the actual topic have been worth it. The filler arguments based on false assumptions and junk just padded the count. It's been amazing to me, to see so many posts by people who can't seem to understand (and argue vehemently against) the concept that opinions can be different, and still be correct for the individuals who hold them, and that maybe, just maybe, in this case, a game can cater to those with suggestions for reasonable changes, without sacrificing its integrity.

Overall, a worthwhile thread. (and I don't think it has achieved 'absolutely nothing.')

"

Mythabril wrote:

Five hundred pages. Five hundred pages of futility.

How does it feel investing all this time and achieving absolutely nothing?

In terms of getting GGG to take a look at the lab and what not? They're actually changing it and while it may not be removed, it's still more than just GGG 'doing nothing' (as you say) and leaving a poorly implemented piece of game content alone. In terms of fostering good discussion and ignoring the crap from people who can't seem to understand that people have varying opinions and have put forth good arguments as to why the lab should be removed and/or modified...it's done a lot.

So, I hardly see how this this thread has done 'absolutely nothing' unless all you think is in absolute terms and can't take time to read and digest other things in the thread.

"

Mythabril wrote:

Five hundred pages. Five hundred pages of futility.

How does it feel investing all this time and achieving absolutely nothing?

If you'd like to stare into the abyss of futility, look no further than the reactionary posts from those repeatedly jeering or trying to bully those who would like changes to lab. They haven't just failed utterly and completely at their objective. Their responses have helped to keep this issue on or near page one of the trolling and suggestions forum for over a year and pushed read counts for a couple of threads about lab up to population levels for medium sized cities.

Having reached page 500 in this thread, I think it's time to raise a glass in celebration of those who don't get that diversity of opinion is natural and that the real threats that exist in this world are not, in fact, tied to whether or not others get to have their characters progress in a game in a different way than they currently do.

To appropriately honor their efforts, I spent a tremendous sum of money commissioning a work of art that summarizes the extent of their accomplishments:


I raise a glass to you, would-be forum bully who probably lives in their parents' basement.

"

Zaludoz wrote:

It's been amazing to me, to see so many posts by people who can't seem to understand (and argue vehemently against) the concept that opinions can be different, and still be correct for the individuals who hold them, and that maybe, just maybe, in this case, a game can cater to those with suggestions for reasonable changes, without sacrificing its integrity.

Mind you, the usual counterposts (except the most obnoxious ones) do acknowledge the difference in opinions. The matter we don't agree on is: does the player or not have a right to insist on pushing his opinion on the devs if he doesn't have the absolute majority support, or is it going beyond the scope of feedback and suggestions?

"

raics wrote:

"

Zaludoz wrote:

It's been amazing to me, to see so many posts by people who can't seem to understand (and argue vehemently against) the concept that opinions can be different, and still be correct for the individuals who hold them, and that maybe, just maybe, in this case, a game can cater to those with suggestions for reasonable changes, without sacrificing its integrity.

Mind you, the usual counterposts (except the most obnoxious ones) do acknowledge the difference in opinions. The matter we don't agree on is: does the player or not have a right to insist on pushing his opinion on the devs if he doesn't have the absolute majority support, or is it going beyond the scope of feedback and suggestions?

I think we have to right to discuss what we think is wrong with the game and propose something new. People can agree/disagree with opinion. Which is supposed to be what this discussion entails, obviously when you reach this long of thread, it gets derailed a lot into people trying to invalidate one another. It's just a thread on a forum, it's not like people are standing right outside the GGG offices ready to torch the place if no change happens.

And there really is no way to figure the true minority/majority when it comes to several topics regarding this game. People only have their experience to go off of and speak about what they feel is right. That is all you need to offer a feedback and/or suggestion. If GGG feel like something needs to be changed, they can read what goes on in reddit/forums/streams w/e or just figure it out themselves if they want.

"

raics wrote:

"

Zaludoz wrote:

It's been amazing to me, to see so many posts by people who can't seem to understand (and argue vehemently against) the concept that opinions can be different, and still be correct for the individuals who hold them, and that maybe, just maybe, in this case, a game can cater to those with suggestions for reasonable changes, without sacrificing its integrity.

Mind you, the usual counterposts (except the most obnoxious ones) do acknowledge the difference in opinions. The matter we don't agree on is: does the player or not have a right to insist on pushing his opinion on the devs if he doesn't have the absolute majority support, or is it going beyond the scope of feedback and suggestions?

You can take a look at GGG's rules for forum posts and let us know if you see a violation of some kind. I don't see one, but perhaps you might.

I see the (actual) key issues another way.

One issue is that GGG promoted the game as being part of a certain game genre and requested money from those who like that kind of game. Some percentage of players feel that "lab + ascendancies" moved outside the genre, after GGG having first received a lot of money. That doesn't do much to build trust in those who feel that way.

An early "Dev Manifesto" that incorporated elements thought to be in the genre, or an open statement about how we "intend to push the boundaries of what an ARPG currently is" would undoubtedly have been appreciated by many. Some would probably have supported anyways if GGG had been more transparent about their plans for the game, others would have probably have not supported the game.

I would not have supported POE if I had known they'd gate core character progression behind a platform mini-game, especially if knew back then that they'd have bad netcode. I'm certain that I'm a long way away from being alone in that view.

Second, the public statement by Chris of GGG that a "vocal minority" disliked lab was not only dismissive, but probably very much off base. The reality is that GGG is unlikely to have any reliable metrics about whether players like or dislike lab. The only hard data they are likely to have concerns whether or not people complete lab and whether or not they start lab, don't finish, and then never log on again (perhaps not even this, that's pretty fine-grained). It's a good thing that the conversation has continued on for over a year, at this point, and that it shows no sign of ending. It's probably a good thing for GGG, most of all.

"

e1337donkey wrote:

It's just a thread on a forum, it's not like people are standing right outside the GGG offices ready to torch the place if no change happens.

Indeed, some users are less than pleasant in criticizing it and aren't exactly open to discussion but that at least is nothing new or unusual around here. My pet theory is that the purpose of an official game forum is to give people a place to vent, certainly better than letting them spread it around on other boards, it's damage control, so to speak.

"

EnjoyTheJourney wrote:

An early "Dev Manifesto" that incorporated elements thought to be in the genre, or an open statement about how we "intend to push the boundaries of what an ARPG currently is" would undoubtedly have been appreciated by many. Some would probably have supported anyways if GGG had been more transparent about their plans for the game, others would have probably have not supported the game.

I would not have supported POE if I had known they'd gate core character progression behind a platform mini-game, especially if knew back then that they'd have bad netcode. I'm certain that I'm a long way away from being alone in that view.

Second, the public statement by Chris of GGG that a "vocal minority" disliked lab was not only dismissive, but probably very much off base. The reality is that GGG is unlikely to have any reliable metrics about whether players like or dislike lab. The only hard data they are likely to have concerns whether or not people complete lab and whether or not they start lab, don't finish, and then never log on again (perhaps not even this, that's pretty fine-grained). It's a good thing that the conversation has continued on for over a year, at this point, and that it shows no sign of ending. It's probably a good thing for GGG, most of all.

Well, when I started playing the game it was much different, simpler, slower paced, can't say I'm a fan of what it became but hey, I can accept that, people go their own way at their own pace and the same can be said of their work. When a lot of people are working on something it gains a life of its own.

Would I still endorse the game as much as I have if I knew it? Probably, I still got a lot out of this game regardless of what it becomes, yes, even if that isn't an avatar based on my image of a perfect action rpg. If its path diverges from it too much at some point I'll just leave, as simple as that, if I stopped liking it maybe someone else will like it more and it can live just fine without me.

I've probably said enough on the whole vocal minority thing. In a nutshell, devs still got the numbers, not us, and if they don't seem worried, why would I be?