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

"

Fruz wrote:

Is borderland a heavy grind oriented game?

Not really, unless you're hell bent on farming raid bosses for pearl tier loot, you normally run with what you find on the way. That was probably the whole point, your kill count is several magnitudes lower in BL so you can handle it without the need to be on autopilot most of the time. I don't think a game like PoE would be really suited for HC even if it wasn't online.

Sheesh, now I feel like trying again, maybe they fix those loading crashes here in the meantime, I've been a good sport about it and did my best but I can't play like this anymore.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

How about the rest of you? Are these changes welcome, or are they meaningless?

Already said I'd personally like to see the whole thing random, but it wouldn't be farmable that way so fat chance for that.

"

raics wrote:

"

Fruz wrote:

Is borderland a heavy grind oriented game?

Not really, unless you're hell bent on farming raid bosses for pearl tier loot, you normally run with what you find on the way. That was probably the whole point, your kill count is several magnitudes lower in BL so you can handle it without the need to be on autopilot most of the time. I don't think a game like PoE would be really suited for HC even if it wasn't online.

I disagree, as do probably thousands of other HC players.

Your premise appears to be that any game relying extremely heavily upon iteration in order to obtain optimal power (gear) is intrinsically unsuited to a gameplay style which is not "autopilot" style.

While I can see where you are coming from, it is that very premise upon which most HC players will disagree with you.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

I disagree, as do probably thousands of other HC players.

Your premise appears to be that any game relying extremely heavily upon iteration in order to obtain optimal power (gear) is intrinsically unsuited to a gameplay style which is not "autopilot" style.

I know, because it kinda works. Just saying I wouldn't call it exactly an optimal environment.

"

raics wrote:

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

I disagree, as do probably thousands of other HC players.

Your premise appears to be that any game relying extremely heavily upon iteration in order to obtain optimal power (gear) is intrinsically unsuited to a gameplay style which is not "autopilot" style.

I know, because it kinda works. Just saying I wouldn't call it exactly an optimal environment.

The thing is most HC players concentrate on the autopilot parts anyway and ignore the ones that are actually engaging because they are also the only parts that could put you at risk of dying. Before they lowered the min xp you could get people actually leveled to insanely high levels without even entering maps, which was likely not very efficient but very safe.

"

A more useful track for this thread to take is to analyze and discuss those most recent changes.

Lets see and look at the most recent changes. They are a shorter lab, which provides a better and more gradual learning curve, which is always good and I haven't seen anyone being against it. They also made Izaro easier, which allows doing the lab without overleveling.

However they added traps to multiple of the new areas, so they don't seem to agree that they are an issue. The lab simply had a bad progression if you did them all at their level Normal was the hardest and Merciless the easiest, which was kinda odd.

For me the shorter normal lab actually encouraged me to explore it. Because I wouldn't spend so much time in it and I actually did it on level so the enemies gave me XP and loot I could use at that time. So what those changes did was making the lab fit better into the normal story progression, that is basically all.

So overall if I look at some points that are mentioned here I cannot really see those complains fitting with the changes they made. And many people me included always assumed that they tone down the lab in importance once some time passed like they did with corrupted areas, which got a lower chance to appear after some time just because they caused clutter and just weren't the focus anymore. The Lab and Ascendancy was a 2.0 thing, now is 3.0 time, it was logical lower the focus on the lab to have room to put new things in.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

GGG has already begun addressing (what I think is) the Lab's biggest problem for all players: Its excessive punishment of (let alone absence of reward for) players who enjoy exploring content. (Note that visits to reddit do not constitute "exploration.")

Granted, they haven't taken measures far enough yet imo, but it is evident from the changes in the latest patch that they do acknowledge that this is a problem, and are addressing it.

Those who insist and/or imply that the team at GGG doesn't give a fuck that people hate the Labyrinth (a demonstrably untrue assertion) insult them. I think you think you are defending them, but in fact you insult them.

A more useful track for this thread to take is to analyze and discuss those most recent changes. For people who already enjoy playing this content, does the addition of randomization enhance or detract from your prior enjoyment, and why? For people who don't enjoy playing this content, does the addition of randomization make it any more tolerable? If not, is it because the extent is lacking (i.e., they haven't randomized enough), or is it because the approach itself is lacking (i.e., they shouldn't bother randomizing because that isn't the primary factor making the content unfun)?

You all already know my opinion and answers to the above questions, and I think we can guess what Pyrokar's will be. ;) How about the rest of you? Are these changes welcome, or are they meaningless?

Just out of curiosity. What do you think my answers would be and why?

"

Emphasy wrote:

"

raics wrote:

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

I disagree, as do probably thousands of other HC players.

Your premise appears to be that any game relying extremely heavily upon iteration in order to obtain optimal power (gear) is intrinsically unsuited to a gameplay style which is not "autopilot" style.

I know, because it kinda works. Just saying I wouldn't call it exactly an optimal environment.

The thing is most HC players concentrate on the autopilot parts anyway and ignore the ones that are actually engaging because they are also the only parts that could put you at risk of dying. Before they lowered the min xp you could get people actually leveled to insanely high levels without even entering maps, which was likely not very efficient but very safe.

You can't directly count those who opt out of an experience, in many situations. But, you can make reasonable inferences based on the percentage of hardcore players who went to very high levels while wholly avoiding maps.

I admittedly can't prove it, as I don't have numbers for POE. But, I teamed up with a multitude of hardcore players in D2 and, based on those experiences, I believe that most hardcore players would become so bored that they'd stop playing once the challenge went away.

"

Emphasy wrote:

A more useful track for this thread to take is to analyze and discuss those most recent changes.

Lets see and look at the most recent changes. They are a shorter lab, which provides a better and more gradual learning curve, which is always good and I haven't seen anyone being against it. They also made Izaro easier, which allows doing the lab without overleveling.

However they added traps to multiple of the new areas, so they don't seem to agree that they are an issue. The lab simply had a bad progression if you did them all at their level Normal was the hardest and Merciless the easiest, which was kinda odd.

For me the shorter normal lab actually encouraged me to explore it. Because I wouldn't spend so much time in it and I actually did it on level so the enemies gave me XP and loot I could use at that time. So what those changes did was making the lab fit better into the normal story progression, that is basically all.

So overall if I look at some points that are mentioned here I cannot really see those complains fitting with the changes they made. And many people me included always assumed that they tone down the lab in importance once some time passed like they did with corrupted areas, which got a lower chance to appear after some time just because they caused clutter and just weren't the focus anymore. The Lab and Ascendancy was a 2.0 thing, now is 3.0 time, it was logical lower the focus on the lab to have room to put new things in.

Your perspective on this is interesting. But, the dev manifesto for lab and beta changes thread for lab were loaded with "I dislike / hate lab" and "Remove ascendancy from lab" posts. It seems a bit off to suggest those who want lab gone as a gate for ascendancy like the recent changes for how they introduce a more gradual learning curve for lab. The response to recent changes from many is more along the lines of "less unpleasantness is welcome", rather than much in the way of a positive response per se.

"

Fruz wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

they have made the first two labyrinths acceptable game play to many that had provided feedback that it was not fun. Saying otherwise is merely your opinion, and thankfully GGG does not agree with it. And whatever you say, it won't change that.

If you actually find somebody saying that GGG's changes did not improve the experience for sany of the whiners .... please, show us.

lol

You agree with my example proving that GGG has addressed significant issues with the labyrinth. This was done, in large part because of feedback from the player base saying that trap game play was not fun. (BTW, trap game play is what this thread is about. You are a silly person if you think that it is about Izaro as you falsely claim.) That means that Pyrokar is well within his rights to make his feelings known and your assertions that GGG won't listen to him or agree with him is an assertion without merit.

Here's what you said.

"

Fruz wrote:

Wearing Kaom's heart or not changes almost nothing, it's close to insignificant.
I'm pretty sure that the fact that life flasks become less good against traps the more life you have, is just an oversight from GGG, and since its impact is negligible at best ... whatever.

"

Pyrokar wrote:

It isn't. It's bad hc design and all your assumptions and opinions aren't gonna change that.

Which is merely your opinion, and thankfully GGG does not agree with it.
And whatever you say, it won't change that.

Your assertions about insignificant issues fall into that same category. Where you make the assertion that you know GGG's mind and you know that GGG won't listen or agree with Pyrokar.

"

Pyrokar wrote:

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

Spoiler

GGG has already begun addressing (what I think is) the Lab's biggest problem for all players: Its excessive punishment of (let alone absence of reward for) players who enjoy exploring content. (Note that visits to reddit do not constitute "exploration.")

Granted, they haven't taken measures far enough yet imo, but it is evident from the changes in the latest patch that they do acknowledge that this is a problem, and are addressing it.

Those who insist and/or imply that the team at GGG doesn't give a fuck that people hate the Labyrinth (a demonstrably untrue assertion) insult them. I think you think you are defending them, but in fact you insult them.

A more useful track for this thread to take is to analyze and discuss those most recent changes. For people who already enjoy playing this content, does the addition of randomization enhance or detract from your prior enjoyment, and why? For people who don't enjoy playing this content, does the addition of randomization make it any more tolerable? If not, is it because the extent is lacking (i.e., they haven't randomized enough), or is it because the approach itself is lacking (i.e., they shouldn't bother randomizing because that isn't the primary factor making the content unfun)?

You all already know my opinion and answers to the above questions, and I think we can guess what Pyrokar's will be. ;) How about the rest of you? Are these changes welcome, or are they meaningless?

Just out of curiosity. What do you think my answers would be and why?

Your beef has always been the disconnect between many character development choices and the way in which traps do damage, as well as the fact that the existence of trap gameplay (let's call it PvT) can discourage certain character development choices which would be optimal for PvM gameplay. Fair enough; I can see how people could find that annoying.

I personally am not as annoyed by this, as the damaging aspects of traps can be mitigated with skill, if you are willing to be annoyed by the piloting gameplay per se. My beef has always been that the Labyrinth actively disincentivized exploration to a ridiculous extent (I made an entire thread on the reasons why, so I won't rehash them here). And the existence of PvT gameplay certainly does exacerbate this problem, I do acknowledge.

Therefore, I will guess that the changes I mention (I'm talking more about the randomization and improvements of some of the rewards in the upper labs than the shortening of the lower labs) do not satisfy you, because they fail to address your #1 beef with the content.

"

raics wrote:

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

I disagree, as do probably thousands of other HC players.

Your premise appears to be that any game relying extremely heavily upon iteration in order to obtain optimal power (gear) is intrinsically unsuited to a gameplay style which is not "autopilot" style.

I know, because it kinda works. Just saying I wouldn't call it exactly an optimal environment.

The suboptimality is precisely the point for many HC players, especially SSF ones. Balancing shitty gear with passive tree choices, and seeing how far you can get through the content before dying, makes it almost an entirely different game. It can be a refreshing change from SC, even if you do not play it exclusively (and I do not).

Incidentally, you are right to say that it is counterintuitive to suggest that HC players would hate the Labyrinth even more than SC players: After all, they are used to the "one life" scenario. And yet they do. So it would be more interesting to consider why. I personally think it is not just because the Labyrinth is dangerous per se (displeasing those who prefer safer environments) but also because the nature of the danger can feel unfair. Deaths which feel unfair are less of an issue in SC, for obvious reasons. (I also think one-shot and quasi-one-shot deaths as well as certain map mods are unfair to HC and are further evidence that GGG doesn't give a crap about HC anymore, but that's another topic.)

Furthermore, while an HC player can skip the Labyrinth, that does not mean that the Labyrinth has no impact on that player, because the remainder of the game is balanced around the existence of subclasses, which that player is consequently locked out of. So it would not be reasonable to suggest that their displeasure has no basis in reality, just because they can always choose not to engage that content.

Good guess, but my #1 beef would be that there is no alternative way to get AC points other than trap gameplay.

About the randomisation, i already answered it in here. Not sure if it was you who asked or i just did it without anyone provoking that thought avenue. I find traps to be so boring because they are never random. Everything around them might change but the trap gauntlets' never do. The timing, solution and patterns are almost always identical. How many times is someone gonna play the same mario levels until he turns away in disgust? So unless ggg are willing to continuously implement new trap patterns, this mario content will never be nothing more than a tedious chore.

About the hc talk, i've been playing this game exclusively in hc, before ascendancy and with a few other exceptions (like first char, sc leagues with mtx awards) and i've been trying to get ggg and maybe other people to understand why people might say that lab is bad especially in hc. Furthermore, if i see bad design choices i'd rather point at them so more mistakes like those won't be made and maybe current ones adjusted. You can't expect to take mario gameplay and put it in your game without mario game rules and expect it to perform fairly. Right?

"

Pyrokar wrote:

You can't expect to take mario gameplay and put it in your game without mario game rules and expect it to perform fairly. Right?

Well, they did do that, if you die you restart the level (unless you're on last life). Can't say that Mario really has any other significant rules, maybe if you died when monsters touch you... no, that would be decidedly anti-melee in case anyone still plays it. Maybe if leap slam was an insta-kill? That should make it popular again.

Ah, right, maybe you could get a message saying 'your ascendancy points are in another labyrinth' when you reach the end, that way you could nab them all at once when you complete all four :)