Over 430 threads discussing labyrinth problems with over 1040 posters in support DONE!!!!!

While we're talking about the meaning of amiguous numbers, when looking at the number of unique posters making lab threads, did anybody look at join dates or determine if anybody created threads using alternate accounts? Not that it matters much, but just like straw polls, anybody can make alt accounts to skew results.

"

mark1030 wrote:

While we're talking about the meaning of amiguous numbers, when looking at the number of unique posters making lab threads, did anybody look at join dates or determine if anybody created threads using alternate accounts? Not that it matters much, but just like straw polls, anybody can make alt accounts to skew results.

Some of these lab haters make it their goal apparently to try and make the issue appear larger, as if that would somehow force GGG's hand. They aren't stupid, they can see IPs of these accounts, they can see the dates they were created, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that while some people dislike the lab, its far more then OP or anyone that dislikes it is making it out to be.

My anecdotal experience is that I quit playing PoE for about a month because of labyrinth but, I'm back, at least for now. I only personally knew one other person playing PoE and he hates labyrinth. He rarely posts in the forum though. Of course, one other person is not really significant evidence either. The over 200 threads is significant, IMHO. There has been probably at least 2 threads about labyrinth problems active since it was released going on for almost 5 months now, frequently more than two threads. I really doubt that has been the case for any other "complaint". I think it is also significant if the prophecy HC league is as much of a ghost town as some have said.

GGG has some real statistics, I'm sure. It's their decision. My assumption is that they will do something about it in 2.4.

Regarding the expressed fears about people disliking the labyrinth creating multiple accounts to create new thread and making more posts, I consider that nonsense to best be shared privately with one's own psychologist. :-)

"

goetzjam wrote:

"

mark1030 wrote:

While we're talking about the meaning of amiguous numbers, when looking at the number of unique posters making lab threads, did anybody look at join dates or determine if anybody created threads using alternate accounts? Not that it matters much, but just like straw polls, anybody can make alt accounts to skew results.

Some of these lab haters make it their goal apparently to try and make the issue appear larger, as if that would somehow force GGG's hand. They aren't stupid, they can see IPs of these accounts, they can see the dates they were created, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that while some people dislike the lab, its far more then OP or anyone that dislikes it is making it out to be.

Typical excuse for someone who is afraid to admit that the issue is larger than they would like it to be.

Also, still waiting for one of you WK's to take a swing. Let's see what you've got.

"

mark1030 wrote:

While we're talking about the meaning of amiguous numbers, when looking at the number of unique posters making lab threads, did anybody look at join dates or determine if anybody created threads using alternate accounts? Not that it matters much, but just like straw polls, anybody can make alt accounts to skew results.

I did check the account names I didn't recognize, none on the list in the OP seem to be new alts. Now if they are old alt accounts, who knows. Most of them had fairly high level characters though. :)

"

Shovelcut wrote:

"

mark1030 wrote:

While we're talking about the meaning of amiguous numbers, when looking at the number of unique posters making lab threads, did anybody look at join dates or determine if anybody created threads using alternate accounts? Not that it matters much, but just like straw polls, anybody can make alt accounts to skew results.

I did check the account names I didn't recognize, none on the list in the OP seem to be new alts. Now if they are old alt accounts, who knows. Most of them had fairly high level characters though. :)

Hey guys this totally isnt an alternate account.

I mean this name isnt even remotely suspicious or my join date.

/s

Whats funny is this was originally intended to be a mule but i was too fucking lazy to use it as a mule and my pc was too poop to run two clients anyways soo i never used it. I think i have one more somewhere, i lost my original beta account somewhere though.

Back when the game was in CB got an invite, thought it would be some shitty generic f2p game, made the mistake of putting it on some old ass email i dont even remember. Not like it matters though because i never got anything exceptionally amazing on it.

I think its pretty likely to assume quite a few people have mules or alternate accounts.

Swapping back over.

If you're going to accuse Lab haters of using alts, you have to equally assume the same of Lab lovers. It's a moot point.

"

Turtledove wrote:

The over 200 threads is significant, IMHO.

. If they had confined all discussion to one thread like they've done for other issues, would you be as sure it was significant? There are some pretty long threads that you probably think of differently.

"

Regarding the expressed fears about people disliking the labyrinth creating multiple accounts to create new thread and making more posts, I consider that nonsense to best be shared privately with one's own psychologist. :-)

If you think my post was expressing fear, you might want to take your own advice. I was pointing out that any numbers, including the "over 200 threads" one, are meaningless.

That's not completely meaningless. The fact that this issue has persisted basically since release shows how divisive it is, and that just goes back to what I was saying earlier.

"

Thinking of it in terms of minority vs majority is the wrong approach, and where I believe Chris_GGG has made an enormous error. Whether you believe they are silent or vocal is also irrelevant. The proper approach is to try to allow those on the hardcore end of the spectrum to have their challenge while allowing softcore/casual players to enjoy the game.

The reason Lab is the source of so much conflict is that softcore/casual players don't appreciate it...

Separating Ascendancy from Lab would be a huge step toward player retention. You'd have to be blind to not see that.

As for the Lab itself--assuming GGG does remove Ascendancy from it--there's already the potential for the huge loot-splosion from the treasure keys, and you get to enchant something. I think letting you enchant one of each available type might be a way to keep some incentive for people to run it without making it feel required. The random loot you get from chests can really be obtained anywhere, so the most valuable thing would be the enchants.

Normal lets you enchant gloves.
Cruel lets you enchant gloves and boots.
Merc lets you do gloves and boots and helm.
Uber would let you do this too, and I'm okay with the last 2 points remaining here as well.

Maybe Lab wouldn't need more incentive than it has. Maybe it would. It's just an idea.

"

Albinosaurus wrote:

If you're going to accuse Lab haters of using alts, you have to equally assume the same of Lab lovers. It's a moot point.

That could be a thing, until you realize you can look at both the join date and the supporter tags to see that isnt the case.