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

This is so bizarre, it's like you people have never willfully debated or been forced to debate anything and don't seem to understand how it even works on a fundamental level.

Ok, so, a definition of terms:

(lol at page 70)

Is the following an acceptable definition of 'ARPG'?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_role-playing_game

If not, how would you amend it?

"

Turtledove wrote:

Your statement

And yet you still didn't even specify which statement. I've made a bunch of statements in this thread. I had to ask because IF you DO mean the one you quoted it still makes no sense.

"

was void of any point or information except your empty unsupported claim with no context that nothing has been explained.

I was responding to you saying that 'they don't understand that for some of us the Labyrinth feels like a completely different game.'

What else is there to add to 'no, we do understand that IS what you're saying'? I might feel that statement is asinine and those feelings ridiculous, but I DO understand that IS what you're saying.

I mean... What?

"

Your statement has no content or substance except to indicate that you disagree. What do you disagree with? Only you know because you said nothing that meant anything.

Again with 'except'... No other content or substance is needed when the reply is 'We DO understand that IS what you're saying'.

This is what I was talking about. The part about disagreeing comes after. At this point you don't even seem to grasp that people DO understand the opening premise at face value.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills BUT I'M LOVIN IT

"

Regulator wrote:

@Upforsale If i got it right, that suggestion is indeed very cheezy and ill explain. The game has two modes as you know, SC and HC. What you suggested for SC might be ok since you know death does not mean absolutely nothing. But HC is completely different. The HC is designed that way : you made a mistake? REROLL, you lagged? REROLL, your screen froze? REROLL. That is simply the nature of HC league. Now what you are proposing is a backdoor to that system, a way to have a SC design in HC environment, and thats really agaisnt the whole purpose of HC. The same thing was suggested with master's missions when they were first indroduced, especially vagan, everyone was asking if in HC the duels were leathal, and thanks god they are, its true to the HC nature that way. Maybe in SC it wouldnt matter but in HC it will be absolutely a step to the wrong direction.
(Sorry if i misinterpreted what you suggested, either way its a point worth analyzing and why it should not be considered at all, at least for HC)

I know its cheesy and I am not saying this is optimal, just a thought I wanted to throw into the discussion.

I know Hc is about.. well, yeah, being able to loose your character, which is fine. I played every Hc-league since Invasion and since then got 2 chars migrated to perma-hc.As you see I die alot. I am not complaining about dieng and never did before. But you cannot compare Lab to masters. I died to vegan, not only once, but I know he can be absurd, maybe he should be balanced, I don't know, I don't care, never whined about any master. Those you can skip without the feeling of something missing to your char, and if you want you can FIGHT em. That is a the big difference, it may be hard or not, but it's a fight, not a trapwalk. I know alot of people complained about haku-missions, I am not a fan either, but still.. Haku-missions are like swimming in a Ball-pool compared to Traps. You will not die with your lvl 90 in a lvl 40 Haku mission, but you will die doing normal Trials with your CI-char. (But yeah, ofc traps teached me now that you can only go es/hybrid AFTER completing all labs.., such a nice game-design)

Rely, every random guy I talked with in Hc they dislike Lab. I talked with the one who is selling Lab runns all day (as Champion ofc.. , because Lab is so balanced for every class ^.-) and even he finds it utter boring, just doin for the cash.

But, for all the people out there that exist who enjoy their lab runs.., I don't wanna ruin it for anyone, I just don't want traps to ruin the game for the rest of us anymore.

Sorry dickhole_mcghee, I can't understand you. Sorry you think it means I don't know how to debate but when I have little clue what you're talking about, I don't understand how you think that I can be blamed?

If you'd like to dive into this then I suggest that you simply pick out the piece of the OP that you disagree with, make it clear what piece you're talking about, perhaps by making a copy of it in your post? Then simply say why you disagree with it. If you think there might be a better way to provide a context as to what it is you would like to debate then please do that but, you have to first say what the debate is about before you can start a debate?

"

Regulator wrote:

A little bit of spamming, some argument/point repeating, some insulting and occasionally some constructive comments/feedback/suggestions made it what it is. Furthermore its an issue that seems to interest quite a few gentlemen (and ladies if they are any). And there are a lot more with 30+ pages too regarding the labyrinth. Russel gonna carry OKC to 4-2 vs the Spurs?

Aye. Honestly we just 2 mice fighting in front of a cobra (GSW) lol.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Sorry dickhole_mcghee, I can't understand you. Sorry you think it means I don't know how to debate but when I have little clue what you're talking about, I don't understand how you think that I can be blamed?

Maybe 'blamed' isn't the right word but this is why we're still stuck at step 1. You (and Regulator et al) haven't seemed to even make the attempt to understand what the people disagreeing with you are saying, only that they vaguely are not agreeing with you.

"

If you'd like to dive into this then I suggest that you simply pick out the piece of the OP that you disagree with, make it clear what piece you're talking about, perhaps by making a copy of it in your post? Then simply say why you disagree with it. If you think there might be a better way to provide a context as to what it is you would like to debate then please do that but, you have to first say what the debate is about before you can start a debate?

I did that with Regulator and he gave me his form letter of insanity.

Also, I don't believe there is any way to make it simpler:

"

dickhole_mcghee wrote:

...
...

Is the following an acceptable definition of 'ARPG'?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_role-playing_game

If not, how would you amend it?

Aha I am getting trolled sooo hard here, well played all around...

"

Turtledove wrote:

...

...

If you'd like to dive into this then I suggest that you simply pick out the piece of the OP that you disagree with, make it clear what piece you're talking about, perhaps by making a copy of it in your post? ...

Remember the 'gate' conversation? It was only a few days ago. That stemmed from picking a piece of the OP and quoting. That was productive and went so well, right?

"

dickhole_mcghee wrote:

Is the following an acceptable definition of 'ARPG'?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_role-playing_game

I'm genuinely mystified by what you're trying to say here. I found two references to the word "trap" on that page:

"

Sega released a Metroidvania-style open-world action RPG for the Master System console, Wonder Boy III: The Dragon's Trap.

"

The new CRPGs had some of the trappings of regular CRPGs.

and approximately 60 references to the word "combat".

"

dickhole_mcghee wrote:

Aha I am getting trolled sooo hard here, well played all around...

"

Turtledove wrote:

...

...

If you'd like to dive into this then I suggest that you simply pick out the piece of the OP that you disagree with, make it clear what piece you're talking about, perhaps by making a copy of it in your post? ...

Remember the 'gate' conversation? It was only a few days ago. That stemmed from picking a piece of the OP and quoting. That was productive and went so well, right?

My recollection of the gate conversation was that it was essentially a semantic argument on your part that you dropped after finding out that I had copied the definition from an on-line dictionary. I'm not sure I'd consider that productive because I never understood why a semantic discussion on the meaning of gate had any relevant to the Labyrinth controversy?