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

The ruleset of the lab is the same than all the game, and it is fair between players, period.
This is a very simple concept, the lab treats all players equally, end of the story.

For example, the connections are irrelevant here, it's not related to the game anymore, it's related to everything in the game that happens in real time.


If we look at a definition of fair on the internet for example :

"treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination."

That's exactly what the lab does.
Now the game gives you tools, those are at everyone's disposition.
And as I stated earlier, the game favors some tools at certain moments of the game (otherwise it would be much less interesting, obviously), and I believe that an overall good game balance evens all of it for most ( if not all ) archetype.
Now we all now that the balance isn't that good, and that some archetype are ( imho ) too favoured in the lab, I could agree with that ( however all type of builds can run it, and it's far from an insurmountable task ).


This discussion started on the thing that I just quoted as a reminder, trying to debate of what others think of fairness in PoE is kinda pointless, really.
The "especially for Hardcore" clearly shows us that it was a really unthought thing to throw and a pitifull excuse to complain about/blame the lab.

The lab is fair as a whole, it treats all players equally.
Just throwing "duh ! the lab isn't fair" is a false statement.
If you specify a context/perspective, then a discussion might be possible, but then it won't be just the lab that will be unfair.

Are the spike traps fair to evasion based characters ? No, but that is a different question, and that is not what the original statement that started this was.


We do partly agree there.

"

Zrevnur wrote:

And it again shows exactly what I meant: You assume a different context(evasion == faster) than me(no such "faster" assumption). So you may say "its fair" and I may say "its unfair".

It shows that you missed a crucial balancing factor.

Let's take that mod I've worked on lately as an example. In vanilla game you can equip your character with a dagger and kill dragons easily, in my mod you can kiss its scaly ass. You'd claim I'm being unfair to dagger users, in the big picture it means I'm forcing you to have a balanced team, daggers are good for many things but killing dragons is not one of them.

so there is actually 6 less trials we have to do in 3.0 if i understand the manifesto correctly. 3 for cruel/3 merciless. too bad the rest of the labyrinth will remain the same. what will happen to the offerings for endgame lab?

"

kompaniet wrote:

so there is actually 6 less trials we have to do in 3.0 if i understand the manifesto correctly. 3 for cruel/3 merciless. too bad the rest of the labyrinth will remain the same. what will happen to the offerings for endgame lab?

The way I understood the whole problem, trials are being removed because we can't access those areas anymore in later acts. Nothing is supposed to change about endgame lab as far as I know.

"

Fruz wrote:

The ruleset of the lab is the same than all the game, and it is fair between players, period.
This is a very simple concept, the lab treats all players equally, end of the story.

For example, the connections are irrelevant here, it's not related to the game anymore, it's related to everything in the game that happens in real time.

If we look at a definition of fair on the internet for example :

"treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination."

People (me here) do not use the word "fair" in such a limiting manner. This is also not the general meaning/definition of fair.
You use "player" here. Whereas I used "player including connection" as the entities to compare.

"

Fruz wrote:

This discussion started on the thing that I just quoted as a reminder, trying to debate of what others think of fairness in PoE is kinda pointless, really.

I dont try that (debating what others mean with "fair"). Which is sort of part of my point.

"

Fruz wrote:

If you specify a context/perspective, then a discussion might be possible, but then it won't be just the lab that will be unfair.

Yes. So maybe you do actually understand (but not "accept") what I am trying to say...

--

"

raics wrote:

"

Zrevnur wrote:

And it again shows exactly what I meant: You assume a different context(evasion == faster) than me(no such "faster" assumption). So you may say "its fair" and I may say "its unfair".

It shows that you missed a crucial balancing factor.

I think you totally missed my point...

"

Zrevnur wrote:

I think you totally missed my point...

So what was the point, that anyone can make up his own set of rules that will show that element X is being unfair to element Y? Well duh, but that won't get us anywhere, rules don't work unless they're universal so we should always look for the common ground.

"

raics wrote:

Mark is just saying your list might be a bit outdated, you can't really claim otherwise with any certainty so there's no reason for you to get offended. It's just a list of people that at some moment in time had any amount of beef with the labyrinth, if devs made any action based on the premise that such a list exists I'd be questioning their sanity.

I suppose you could assemble quite a list of people that complained about, say, gem socket system at some point on any grounds (and I'd also be on it), and the actual value of that list from a game developer standpoint would be similar to a chewed-out gum or a used condom.

that is true but it's the best (and only?) list we have. why don't you and others start your own thread and do it right then?

i believe turtledove is doing the best he/she can. do you not agree?

"

kompaniet wrote:

i believe turtledove is doing the best he/she can. do you not agree?

Sure am, he's polishing a turd to the utmost best of his/her ability. If I ever start one of those shady companies that sell stuff like those license plate foils that supposedly hide it from cameras I'll waste no time looking and hire mr/miss/mrs Turtledove right on the spot if he/she/it is is interested.

"

raics wrote:

"

Zrevnur wrote:

I think you totally missed my point...

So what was the point, that anyone can make up his own set of rules that will show that element X is being unfair to element Y?

My point was to point this out ~= bring it to "conscious awareness".

"

raics wrote:

"

kompaniet wrote:

i believe turtledove is doing the best he/she can. do you not agree?

Sure am, he's polishing a turd to the utmost best of his/her ability. If I ever start one of those shady companies that sell stuff like those license plate foils that supposedly hide it from cameras I'll waste no time looking and hire mr/miss/mrs Turtledove right on the spot if he/she/it is is interested.

Getting GGG to recognize the scale and the ongoing nature of the negative response to lab, after it was publicly written off by a key representative of GGG as involving not much more than a handful of people, is an essential first step to achieving change. Regulator's mega-thread and this thread have been effective at highlighting the ongoing controversies surrounding lab. They both contribute to serving that purpose, along with the hundreds of other threads criticizing lab that have lower post and read counts.

Even if lab doesn't change, the ongoing public backlash about lab during the past year-plus doesn't help GGG market their game or burnish their reputation as game-makers. It doesn't exactly burnish the reputation of key figures in their company as being particularly good at reading and anticipating their playerbase, either. As it should not.

In the bigger picture, the ongoing backlash about lab in this game will likely have knock-on effects on the development of other games. The (by now) relatively high profile of POE as an ARPG makes that particularly likely. As a past example, a lot of people (including in Blizzard) paid attention to the widespread hatred directed at involuntary PKing in Diablo 2 and you'd really need to have your head buried deep inside the ground to believe that had no effect.

If you'd like to argue threads like this offer up useless data and shouldn't have an effect, then that's your right. Everybody has a right to an opinion, after all. But, if you do then you might want to carefully reflect about whose argument, in the end, is actually the turd.