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

People like the changes because you have to be in the lab for less time, that is a good thing for a lot of people. At a game play perspective... how do these labs prepare you for things like merc or uber? Barely any traps, a watered down izaro who can't even use all his abilities. The trials offer nothing as well, why go through them if they barely/don't even make an appearance when you go into the lab itself.

People have been vocal about the lab everywhere, not just in these 2 forums threads that have a ton of views/replies. You have people coming in saying how great the lab, when it clearly has problems.. even GGG seem to be addressing. While I don't personally like the watered down versions, there probably won't be a change that makes me enjoy the lab because the whole lab itself isn't fun for me. I'd prefer more Izaro like gameplay with trap and monsters combined, but that would require a ton of work.

Everyone talking about statistics when nobody has them. You could however open your eyes. When the lab came out, this was very big on the forums/reddit for people voicing their dislike of it. Majority.. minority... who cares.. I remember opening up the forums to seeing threads everywhere on this. I still see them crop up time to time. And I see still people going back on forth on these 2 large forum threads. Albeit the main topic has gone off the beaten path now.

"

EnjoyTheJourney wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

...

4. Your stated purpose here was to make sure that GGG didn't cave in to the cry babies complaining about labyrinth. GGG caved.

I'm not certain I'd use the word "cave" to describe GGG's periodic, ongoing efforts to make lab less unpalatable to many who play the game. That's just listening to feedback and being somewhat sensible.

But, oh, the irony nonetheless. A small but highly determined band of similarly-minded posters didn't just fail to achieve their goal of preventing the ongoing series of changes to lab; their efforts have probably boomeranged big-time and were actually key for giving efforts to get lab changed a higher profile.

Going forward, we'll probably get exactly the same stuff from the same small band of would-be GGG protectors and those efforts will probably have exactly the same effect as in the past. But, they'll probably be earnestly typing away anyways, day after day and month after month.

I was using Fruz's term for it. I agree that GGG was just listening to feedback and made the best of the situation with the resources and time available to them at that point.

The current change to the first 2 labyrinths is very similar to Regulator's "Lab Rework Ideas" 2 and 7, that's in the big thread. I am looking forward to eventually trying PoE out again after 3.0 comes out. I agree that Fruz and the like minded "vocal minority" are ironically helping the cause more than hurting it by keeping the Labyrinth threads active and visible. Although, I suspect things will drop off significantly heading forward. There is much less of the bad content to dislike now after all.

"

Fruz wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

1. A free to play game is not going to have nearly as many dissatisfied customers that complain as a product with paying customers.

That may have been true before the internet.
People now have no problem bitching about something that they haven't given a dime for anymore, that's how it works now.
People behave like a bunch of kids that feels entitled to everything and think that they are hidden from everyone else, that's what the internet is.
And an obvious example of that is that huge pathetic other thread that has already more than 600 pages.
QQ, QQ, QQ and QQ.

That is total nonsense.

If something is "free", then it still has to meet the expectations of people, else it´s not good for them and they skip it. If I go to the gym, I can take various streets and will pick the one I feel most comfortable with.

Gaming works the same, if something is not good, then people will raise their dissatisfaction with the product. To believe that only people who paid for something, are allowed to have an opinion is stupid and I hope you know that.

The truth is, you are the entitled person here, you are the one who believes to be something better than everyone else and this is a terrible attitude, but sadly very common among our elitist society.

"

Turtledove wrote:

[Some blather by that ETJ guy, whomever the heck he is]

I was using Fruz's term for it. I agree that GGG was just listening to feedback and made the best of the situation with the resources and time available to them at that point.

The current change to the first 2 labyrinths is very similar to Regulator's "Lab Rework Ideas" 2 and 7, that's in the big thread. I am looking forward to eventually trying PoE out again after 3.0 comes out. I agree that Fruz and the like minded "vocal minority" are ironically helping the cause more than hurting it by keeping the Labyrinth threads active and visible. Although, I suspect things will drop off significantly heading forward. There is much less of the bad content to dislike now after all.

You may be right. The irritation level will go down as lab becomes less a part of people's experience of the game. There are a few "X" factors, though.

The oddness and monotony of re-running the same content multiple times per character in a game that will pride itself on not doing that for everything else will stand out, as of 3.0. The lore can't help but stand out because it's that bad, especially as it was created for the earlier game. Plus, players are generally OK with not easily finding items. But, when players don't finish up uber lab then they aren't fully developing their character; we'll see how well players accept that, going forward.

Finally, what GGG is doing with lab is just plain odd. Nobody is rushing to copy what they're doing with lab, which is not a strong endorsement. Also, "we have the biggest maze and associated platform mini-game in an ARPG and we gate character progression behind it" isn't exactly likely to draw in many players. Overall, lab has the look and feel of something pushed internally by a limited number of people. The internal politics in GGG of lab are probably divisive, despite the consistent image being presented externally.

"

EnjoyTheJourney wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

[Some blather by that ETJ guy, whomever the heck he is]

I was using Fruz's term for it. I agree that GGG was just listening to feedback and made the best of the situation with the resources and time available to them at that point.

The current change to the first 2 labyrinths is very similar to Regulator's "Lab Rework Ideas" 2 and 7, that's in the big thread. I am looking forward to eventually trying PoE out again after 3.0 comes out. I agree that Fruz and the like minded "vocal minority" are ironically helping the cause more than hurting it by keeping the Labyrinth threads active and visible. Although, I suspect things will drop off significantly heading forward. There is much less of the bad content to dislike now after all.

You may be right. The irritation level will go down as lab becomes less a part of people's experience of the game. There are a few "X" factors, though.

The oddness and monotony of re-running the same content multiple times per character in a game that will pride itself on not doing that for everything else will stand out, as of 3.0. The lore can't help but stand out because it's that bad, especially as it was created for the earlier game. Plus, players are generally OK with not easily finding items. But, when players don't finish up uber lab then they aren't fully developing their character; we'll see how well players accept that, going forward.

Finally, what GGG is doing with lab is just plain odd. Nobody is rushing to copy what they're doing with lab, which is not a strong endorsement. Also, "we have the biggest maze and associated platform mini-game in an ARPG and we gate character progression behind it" isn't exactly likely to draw in many players. Overall, lab has the look and feel of something pushed internally by a limited number of people. The internal politics in GGG of lab are probably divisive, despite the consistent image being presented externally.

Agreed that the lab lore and repeating it 3 or 4 times per character sticks out like a sore thumb. Those considerations along with GGG finally acknowledging that something needed to be done about the lab would seem to indicate to me that improving labyrinth will remain on GGG's radar. Can't know their priority for it though?

A sore point with the labyrinth for the less vocal minority is the lack of checkpoints/way-points. I mean that's less problematic for me as well as many other of the active anti-lab crowd (I'll guess) but, it seems to be a more widely shared "irritation" regarding lab in general. Meaning a fair percentage of first time complaints seem to include or focus on that aspect, those first time posts seem to indicate that. That will continue to generate new threads also, I think. It is likely something that could easily be changed, from a development resource perspective.

"

mezmery wrote:

0.01% significant indeed

Had you known anything about statistics, you would know that distribution in a sample is much more important than the size of the sample.

"

Nishrek wrote:

"

mezmery wrote:

0.01% significant indeed

Had you known anything about statistics, you would know that distribution in a sample is much more important than the size of the sample.

And the distribution in this sample is especially bad :)

"

e1337donkey wrote:

People have been vocal about the lab everywhere, not just in these 2 forums threads that have a ton of views/replies.

Of course, I was only referring to the silly crusade of a handful of people in the forum.
And the trials give you the basics for traps, that's what it has always been.

I do not know how much the early labs have changed, I have participated in the beta, I hope that they didn't cut the trap density much, on top of shortening it ( I heard there are still some traps ).

"

e1337donkey wrote:

.. I remember opening up the forums to seeing threads everywhere on this.

Do you remember when a4 came out ?
Same kind of effect, and it was pretty big also from what I remember.

"

Turtledove wrote:

The current change to the first 2 labyrinths is very similar to Regulator's "Lab Rework Ideas" 2 and 7, that's in the big thread.

No it's not, stop trying with delusional lies please.
Those things are only "remove all traps that are required to beat the labyrinth".

And no, "cave" is a word that you started using on the previous page, in this thread.
wtf.

"

Ygidua wrote:

Gaming works the same, if something is not good, then people will raise their dissatisfaction with the product. To believe that only people who paid for something, are allowed to have an opinion is stupid and I hope you know that.

You didn't understand me I guess.
Having an opinion and giving feedback is fine, it's a very good thing.
Coming and crying, being sometimes (often for some) insulting is a different thing, believing that the whole internet must be shaped according to one's desire just because is also silly.

And yeah, I have no trouble better better than some, some who are just throwing tantrums like kids and insulting others, including the devs, shadowing actual constructive feedback.
But you might not have been using the forums a lot, so you might not be aware of it.

"

EnjoyTheJourney wrote:

Overall, lab has the look and feel of something pushed internally by a limited number of people

And another silly statement pulled out of .....
sigh

"

Nishrek wrote:

"

mezmery wrote:

0.01% significant indeed

Had you known anything about statistics, you would know that distribution in a sample is much more important than the size of the sample.

Had you known anything about statistics, you would know that the distribution is absolutely not in your favor, lol.

"

Fruz wrote:

Had you known anything about statistics, you would know that the distribution is absolutely not in your favor, lol.

By simple logic, distribution in forum posting and forum non-posting users is very similar (if not the same).
So the distribution is in my favor. You simply can't accept that. Your delusions. your problem.

"

Nishrek wrote:

"

Fruz wrote:

Had you known anything about statistics, you would know that the distribution is absolutely not in your favor, lol.

By simple logic, distribution in forum posting and forum non-posting users is very similar (if not the same).
So the distribution is in my favor. You simply can't accept that. Your delusions. your problem.

We've been over this the total sampled size of users is 100% of people who know the forum exists, then correct for users who just don't feel like giving feedback. Market research says that correction for basically everything is 96% of people don't give feedback. You just multiply the number by 25, so here we have 910*25. So you come to about 25,000 people (assuming that the only thing you care about is people who have ever had a negative opinion about the lab).

The reasoning for this is simple, you're not actually sampling active forum users, you're sampling people who know that they could post on the forum. It's the same as feedback generated from a hotline, you're asking everybody who knows that the could call the hotline not everyone who does call it.