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

"

ShaUrley wrote:

"

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".

Loool then I'd recommend stop trying to think, it will only get worse. I'm serious, the magic of the Socratic method is that it allows the other person to do the heavy lifting.

It was a simple question (OR SO HE THOUGHT! DUN DUN DUN):

"

dickhole_mcghee wrote:

Is the following an acceptable definition of 'ARPG'?

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

For reference, we can just start with the opening paragraph:

"

Action role-playing games (abbreviated action RPG, action/RPG, or ARPG) form a loosely defined subgenre of role-playing video games that incorporate elements of action or action-adventure games, emphasizing real-time action where the player has direct control over characters, instead of turn-based or menu-based combat. These games often use combat systems similar to hack and slash or shooter games.[1]

Then I said if the answer is no, what is a more acceptable definition?

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

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?

You're a pro, almost godlike...


p.s. I hope you appreciate that the troll accusations are compliments. The alternative is, uh, not so flattering.

Lozl thread cliffnotes:


Person A: *asks yes/no question*

Person B: I'm genuinely mystified by what you're trying to say here.

"

dickhole_mcghee wrote:

It was a simple question (OR SO HE THOUGHT! DUN DUN DUN):

"

dickhole_mcghee wrote:

Is the following an acceptable definition of 'ARPG'?

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

For reference, we can just start with the opening paragraph:

"

Action role-playing games (abbreviated action RPG, action/RPG, or ARPG) form a loosely defined subgenre of role-playing video games that incorporate elements of action or action-adventure games, emphasizing real-time action where the player has direct control over characters, instead of turn-based or menu-based combat. These games often use combat systems similar to hack and slash or shooter games.[1]

Then I said if the answer is no, what is a more acceptable definition?

That will likely go unanswered because it would destroy their entire "it's a different genre" argument in a mortal kombat fatalityesque way. :P

Hey dick, if you want to argue about the word gate or about the wiki definition of an arpg, do it in another thread as i believe it to be offtopic on this one. If it isn't, then plz elaborate.

"

Shovelcut wrote:

That will likely go unanswered because it would destroy their entire "it's a different genre" argument in a mortal kombat fatalityesque way. :P

"

Pyrokar wrote:

Hey dick, if you want to argue about the word gate or about the wiki definition of an arpg, do it in another thread as i believe it to be offtopic on this one. If it isn't, then plz elaborate.

*cough*

"

Shovelcut wrote:

"

dickhole_mcghee wrote:

It was a simple question (OR SO HE THOUGHT! DUN DUN DUN):

"

dickhole_mcghee wrote:

Is the following an acceptable definition of 'ARPG'?

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

For reference, we can just start with the opening paragraph:

"

Action role-playing games (abbreviated action RPG, action/RPG, or ARPG) form a loosely defined subgenre of role-playing video games that incorporate elements of action or action-adventure games, emphasizing real-time action where the player has direct control over characters, instead of turn-based or menu-based combat. These games often use combat systems similar to hack and slash or shooter games.[1]

Then I said if the answer is no, what is a more acceptable definition?

That will likely go unanswered because it would destroy their entire "it's a different genre" argument in a mortal kombat fatalityesque way. :P

Well, if they could avoid a trap so well these threads wouldn't exist. :P

But srsly, it's not even really a trap. It's just standard operating procedure for any debate/discussion that needs specific definitions for words that inherently don't have specific definitions (either vague definitions or multiple definitions). When I think of an Arpg I think of console classics from the late 90s and early 00s while others think of diablo and so-called diablo clones. I understand POE is a so-called diablo clone but should we accept that as a hyper-literal description? I dunno, but this should've been hashed out on the first page.

Instead there have been 1000 posts name dropping Frogger. Look, I played Frogger. I couldn't cast vaal discipline and run through those trucks in Frogger. Or maybe I could, my memory might be hazy. Either way puts the kibosh on the Frogger analogy.

"

Pyrokar wrote:

Hey dick, if you want to argue about the word gate or about the wiki definition of an arpg, do it in another thread as i believe it to be offtopic on this one. If it isn't, then plz elaborate.

This is a very flippityglooboppish statement you just made. Plz don't ask me what 'flippityglooboppish' means as that is offtopic.

Um.

Right, slight lol at 'argue'. We're not even at the arguing stage. Arguing is what the grown folks do. In the OP 'gate' was just tossed around in the commission of two major fallacies, right at the outset:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

They have their own wiki entries, as mischievous and/or stupid people have been committing them since ancient times. For me to 'argue about the word gate' I'd have to know W in TF the OP even specifically meant by 'gate'. Maybe we'll get there in the next 70 pages. By the end of the year I'm fairly confident we'll have reached the first counter rebuttal.

Oh look, baby's first debate!

And just in case anybody thinks I'm out to lunch, oh, look, from the 2nd paragraph of the OP, preemptively defining a term for the purposes of a productive discussion. That's weird:

"

Regulator wrote:

.

For starters its the first time in an expansion that GGG gated such content. With "such" i mean immaterial content aka the ascendancy points that feel way too important, personal and flavourful for character customization, thus making the first non-optional expansion. After all this is an ARPG game where min-maxing and character creation/optimization matter a ton.

"

Pyrokar wrote:

Hey dick, if you want to argue about the word gate or about the wiki definition of an arpg, do it in another thread as i believe it to be offtopic on this one.

exactly this

Dickhole i really dont know what your angle is and honestly i dont care. What i do care is you polluting with rubbish and spam the thread every 5 minutes. Gather your mind and make a meaningful well constructed post instead of countless useless ones. Spamming is one of the four report options for somebodys posts. What you do IS spamming, and i kindly request you to stop it. It makes conversation with people that indeed try to be helpful very difficult, and as is the nature of spamming its also annoying. I hope you understand.

In case you do not though, i ask from any GGG employee who can, to at least merge his spam into one single post, that way at least the thread isnt derailed and degraded in such a major way. Thank you

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

@Regulator (@upforsale):
If the traps stay in, then something else must drastically change in order to make HC no longer broken. I can only think of one additional way to do that (#3 below).

1. Remove traps (already suggested).
2. Make the Labyrinth non-deadly in HC, like PvP (already suggested).
3. Balance the mobs in HC completely separately from SC, based on the fact that fully Ascended characters are and will remain so much rarer in HC. (No way this will happen, and nor should it. Way too much work, and an utter nightmare for GGG.)

I got nothing else. Do you?

If they are going to balance the game after AC (which they probably will) they will make changes to the lab and they ways to ascend on their own, im sure about it. Besides the suggestions offered in this thread from various people, im sure there are other possibilities that we havent yet thought of so the best we can do is share our ideas. For now i got nothing else.

"

Upforsale wrote:

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.

And thats the reason this thread was created mate, we want to have fun like the rest who enjoy the lab, we neither seek to remove lab nor destroy their fun.