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

"

Xavathos wrote:

That wasn't a typo though, Phrazz. ;)

But then it can mean a lot of things. He's "reflecting" over the arguments in a very elementary way or it can even mean "what goes around, comes around".

I'm too stupid to reflect over this. I just take Vaal Pact so I don't have to think :)

There is one of two things happening:
1. The guys using phase run are going so fast they can't properly aim the movement skill and therefore are not using one at all. If that's the case... Oh PoE what have you become.
2. The guys you are talking about aren't smart enough to use a movement skill and i'd say that i could easily beat them by using one if i wanted to.

"

Xavathos wrote:

"

Invasive_Species wrote:

4 mandatory runs of the same content on every character to simply develop a character is a bit much. It would make more sense to at least just cut it to 2 runs for 3 ascendancy points per run. One of the main reasons we are seeing act expansions is to cut down on redundancy, and to force 4 runs of this on every character kind of goes against that whole mindset, does it not?

I meant to say 2 runs for four points each.

How many Strand maps will you run after you're done to get 100?
4 runs of something is nothing, and if you don't like repetitive things, this is the wrong game (or genre) for you...

That you run a lot of maps is not exactly the same as this, as You are not forced to run one specific map if you do not like it over and over again. All I suggest is cutting down the number of times you are REQUIRED to run it, over and over again. So the point made is not the equivalent of 4 mandatory lab runs on every character. Also, not everyone runs strand maps over and over again, myself included. I am really not taking a side other than recognizing that being required to run it four times on every character seems a high number. The same content 4 times to fully complete the ascendancy is just bizarre to me. 2 times I could understand, but why four times? It seems to me the decision was just made based off of how many points were to be awarded in each difficulty. But guess what? The difficulties are gone now! Only need 2 runs of it, not four. This will have to change right along with the other changes being made to the game, because the other changes to the game make the basis that led to this "run it four times" decision now obsolete reasoning. They fit the ascendancy structure into the normal, cruel, merciless difficulty format. This is pretty clear.

Similar to what @invasive says....

Does anything really change if you could just do the latest most and get points, for example is GGG solving anything if they gave you the option to only run the merciless one and uber one to get all 8 points?

I honestly don't think it will solve many of these complaints and if its not solving many complaints then is it worth the time and effort to change it?


I don't care if you only run the lab twice or 4 times, just that the lab remains the only way to get the points.

"

goetzjam wrote:

Similar to what @invasive says....

Does anything really change if you could just do the latest most and get points, for example is GGG solving anything if they gave you the option to only run the merciless one and uber one to get all 8 points?

I honestly don't think it will solve many of these complaints and if its not solving many complaints then is it worth the time and effort to change it?


I don't care if you only run the lab twice or 4 times, just that the lab remains the only way to get the points.

It would change a great deal IMO.

What a lot of people do now, is to wait until end game to run all three labs. NO ONE needs their point until they reach end game. And if you at that point are "ready to face" Merciless lab, why force you through normal and cruel lab?

It wouldn't make the content itself "better", but it would give you a way to ignore some of it. A choice. Choices are good.

I'm not completely entitled. I don't demand the lab to change, and I will play the game regardless. But compromises are often a good thing, and I see NO NEGATIVE repercussions if they offered this possibility. I DO love to see the amount of runs done in normal and cruel lab if this change did come. Because the lab "is not a disliked and unpopular"...

"

Phrazz wrote:

"

Fruz wrote:

If what ?

I'll just post my entire answer from the other page, maybe you'll read the whole thing this time, and get my point, instead of focusing on 10% of it + "autism".

I think that you missed the original quote to which I was answering :

"Even the the fact that jumping skills are almost universally suggested in the labyrinth."

And NO, that isn't the case.
And as an example, the most efficient way is not to even take any of those "jumping" skills.

They can help a bit, but are less efficient, that's the thing.
There is no "if" in this situation, I never said that anybody should avoid those or anything, you definitely don't need them, they don't change much ( give a little convenient in some situations ), and are not even the "best" ( as = most efficient/fast ) way to go through the lab.
And that is obviously not from a top ladder perspective.

And I said those things already, so please don't come at me @"maybe you'll read the whole thing this time" ...

"

Phrazz wrote:

"

goetzjam wrote:

Similar to what @invasive says....

Does anything really change if you could just do the latest most and get points, for example is GGG solving anything if they gave you the option to only run the merciless one and uber one to get all 8 points?

I honestly don't think it will solve many of these complaints and if its not solving many complaints then is it worth the time and effort to change it?


I don't care if you only run the lab twice or 4 times, just that the lab remains the only way to get the points.

It would change a great deal IMO.

What a lot of people do now, is to wait until end game to run all three labs. NO ONE needs their point until they reach end game. And if you at that point are "ready to face" Merciless lab, why force you through normal and cruel lab?

It wouldn't make the content itself "better", but it would give you a way to ignore some of it. A choice. Choices are good.

I'm not completely entitled. I don't demand the lab to change, and I will play the game regardless. But compromises are often a good thing, and I see NO NEGATIVE repercussions if they offered this possibility. I DO love to see the amount of runs done in normal and cruel lab if this change did come. Because the lab "is not a disliked and unpopular"...

Are you not considering the changes to the game in 3.0 though?

If you've participated in the beta you would understand that you want the AC points for various boss encounters in act 5 and maybe some of the later ones, especially act 7 as well too. I think GGG is really encouraging people to get the points earlier because the leveling content seems more difficult.

One could argue that GGG will nerf these into irrelevance, but I don't think they should, I think they should keep these bosses more difficult and in turn that is encouragement to get the AC points at the appropriate levels as well.


I know what people do now, because the game isn't setup in such a way to require or really encourage the player to get the points. One could argue they perhaps left act 4 a little bit more difficult so you had some incentive to get the points, but its honestly not enough currently, but in 3.0 I feel like it is.


Choices can be dangerous, if GGG wants to keep the content in act 5 and beyond as difficult as it is now, without the additional power from AC at the appropriate time people are going to complain the content might be too difficult. If they give you the option to skip normal and cruel level labs, they are accepting that people want to do it less and in turn the people that would struggle with the content otherwise feel like the content that is more difficult should be made easier, instead of the other way around, getting the power to make the content easier.


Again, I don't think it changes that much except potentially limits GGGs options in designing the difficult of acts 5-10, in which case its quite a large deal.

"

goetzjam wrote:

If they give you the option to skip normal and cruel level labs, they are accepting that people want to do it less

I'm not trying to dismiss most of your post. You have solid points, and no, I'm not participating in the BETA, so I can't speak about the difficulty curve, and how Ascendancy Points fits in.

But the sentence I quoted, deserves to be read a thousand times. Why in the world shouldn't GGG ACCEPT and RESPECT that players WANT to do it less, if that's the case? If players WANT to do it less, shouldn't they builds around that "fact"?

"Ok, listen up, people want to do the lab less because of 100 different reasons, so we need to "encourage"(read: force?) them to do it by adding content that requires the points". Is this what you think is going on?

Where's the "fun factor"? Games can be both fun AND hard/challenging. Please bring THAT on.

"

Phrazz wrote:

But the sentence I quoted, deserves to be read a thousand times. Why in the world shouldn't GGG ACCEPT and RESPECT that players WANT to do it less, if that's the case? If players WANT to do it less, shouldn't they builds around that "fact"?

Well, we also want to spend less fuses to six link items but I don't think they will budge any further on that account, that permanent quality bonus was probably as far as they're willing to go. Who knows, maybe this lab trimming in 3.0 is also their best offer and maybe not, we'll see.

"

raics wrote:

Well, we also want to spend less fuses to six link items but I don't think they will budge any further on that account, that permanent quality bonus was probably as far as they're willing to go.

That comparison doesn't really deserve an answer, because it's not really comparable to my point at all. I hope I don't have to elaborate on that for you :)

"

raics wrote:

Who knows, maybe this lab trimming in 3.0 is also their best offer and maybe not, we'll see.

Maybe it is. Regardless, I hope the new changes turns out to be positive. Even though game developers often have another definition of the word "significantly" than me, but that may be "on me" :P