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

"

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.

So bad news. I didn't check for Wave 4 in the beta , but it appears what I said is no longer is true for 3.0.



Still at least normal/cruel should be much easier to handle now that they're no disruptors or essences. This isn't a spoiler because it's in the patch notes.

"

Fruz wrote:

"

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".
...

LOL, delusional lies? You're losing it Mr. Fuz. The changes to the first 2 labs is very similar to 2 and 7 whether you like it or not. The first two sentence's of the OP is

"

I understand GGG has put a lot of effort on the expansion and what im asking is too much, but ascendancy points should be freed from the labyrinth's tyranny. In no way im asking for ascendancy points to be completely free but freed from labyrinth play-style, meaning that GGG can put them as rewards for something else.

Simply removing a significant portion of the trap gauntlet game play is what 2 and 7 are all about. The main difference being, in my view, is that there's an assumption in Regulator's OP that the labyrinths would all remain more similar to one another than the partial solution that GGG settled on. And so, Regulator was more concerned about replacing the removed trap gauntlets with something else and GGG was not concerned with that in their solution.

"

j33bus wrote:

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.

And then, you need to consider that people having a particular incentive to complain ( = that dislike the content enough ) are more likely to get to know about the forums.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Simply removing a significant portion of the trap gauntlet game play is what 2 and 7 are all about.

No it's not, it's removing all traps ( "but freed from labyrinth play-style" ... "freed" /rofl ).
And you have no clue, what the lab is actually like in 3.0.0.
I checked a video quickly yesterday ( normal lab beta ), and the traps are still there, and on top of that, the trials to access the normal lab are also still there.
If we factor trials + normal lab, the traps concentration is overal likely higher in 3.0.0 ( the trap concentrations in the lab only ... I don't know, it could likely be higher just for the lab ).


Wake up,! GGG didn't "remove the traps", they shortened the lab in normal and a bit in cruel, which means that areas without traps got significantly shortened as well as the whole thing, they didn't just "Simply removing a significant portion of the trap gauntlet game play".

LMAO.

"

Slicer9875 wrote:

So bad news. I didn't check for Wave 4 in the beta , but it appears what I said is no longer is true for 3.0.

Spoiler

Apparently you do need to all trials before entering the corresponding lab now. Otherwise you get a "you do not have the required quest state". It was a bug or got corrected.

Still at least normal/cruel should be much easier to handle now that they're no disruptors or essences. This isn't a spoiler because it's in the patch notes.

That was obvious.
And thank you for showing that difficulty is an issue, at least for you, and very likely many others ( pretty sure most ) of the QQers.

"

Fruz wrote:

"

j33bus wrote:

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.

And then, you need to consider that people having a particular incentive to complain ( = that dislike the content enough ) are more likely to get to know about the forums.

One might think that but the data does not bare that out. Very few first posters are complaining about the labyrinth.

"

Fruz wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Simply removing a significant portion of the trap gauntlet game play is what 2 and 7 are all about.

No it's not, it's removing all traps ( "but freed from labyrinth play-style" ... "freed" /rofl ).
And you have no clue, what the lab is actually like in 3.0.0.
I checked a video quickly yesterday ( normal lab beta ), and the traps are still there, and on top of that, the trials to access the normal lab are also still there.
If we factor trials + normal lab, the traps concentration is overal likely higher in 3.0.0 ( the trap concentrations in the lab only ... I don't know, it could likely be higher just for the lab ).


Wake up,! GGG didn't "remove the traps", they shortened the lab in normal and a bit in cruel, which means that areas without traps got significantly shortened as well as the whole thing, they didn't just "Simply removing a significant portion of the trap gauntlet game play".

LMAO.

What a silly man trying to tell me what is important and not important to me!

Getting back to your ridiculous ratio of good versus bad argument, I see? You're being irrational if you think that idea 7 got rid of all traps, read it again, sheesh you've really gone off the deep end. The important part is getting rid of the bad game play. If getting rid of some of the good game play in the process is completely irrelevant. Yes the whole thing was made shorter. The important part though was the removing significant portion of the traps. But thank you for proving my point that you have lost it.

I did not say that people would come to complain only about the lab.

"

Turtledove wrote:

The important part is getting rid of the bad game play. If getting rid of some of the good game play in the process is completely irrelevant

Of course it is.
If you put a huge concentration of something that people don't like at the same place, they will likely feel it much, much more than something spread in a much larger context.

I am being pragmatic.
You are just being irrational, trying to find whatever "excuse" you find convenient to try to push your agenda, as usual.
( Plus they could have removed only 10% of the traps, I'm pretty sure that you would start saying "it's significant to me !!" lol! You don't for yourself, how much the lab has changed, and you will keep bitching about the whole lab experience in 3.0.0 anyway ).

It's like the "I did not use 'cave', it's Fruz's word !!!" from earlier, jus trying to use whatever you can find ( or make it up when you can't ) to try to make it look like what you are doing has a meaning.
It hasn't.


It's like if GGG would remove the full "belly of the beast" area one day, you would say "Oh, they removed a significant portion of the bosses of act4 !!!" ...
:/
You really have actually nothing more to say, don't you ....

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

Fruz wrote:

"

j33bus wrote:

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.

And then, you need to consider that people having a particular incentive to complain ( = that dislike the content enough ) are more likely to get to know about the forums.

One might think that but the data does not bare that out. Very few first posters are complaining about the labyrinth.

"

Fruz wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Simply removing a significant portion of the trap gauntlet game play is what 2 and 7 are all about.

No it's not, it's removing all traps ( "but freed from labyrinth play-style" ... "freed" /rofl ).
And you have no clue, what the lab is actually like in 3.0.0.
I checked a video quickly yesterday ( normal lab beta ), and the traps are still there, and on top of that, the trials to access the normal lab are also still there.
If we factor trials + normal lab, the traps concentration is overal likely higher in 3.0.0 ( the trap concentrations in the lab only ... I don't know, it could likely be higher just for the lab ).


Wake up,! GGG didn't "remove the traps", they shortened the lab in normal and a bit in cruel, which means that areas without traps got significantly shortened as well as the whole thing, they didn't just "Simply removing a significant portion of the trap gauntlet game play".

LMAO.

What a silly man trying to tell me what is important and not important to me!

Getting back to your ridiculous ratio of good versus bad argument, I see? You're being irrational if you think that idea 7 got rid of all traps, read it again, sheesh you've really gone off the deep end. The important part is getting rid of the bad game play. If getting rid of some of the good game play in the process is completely irrelevant. Yes the whole thing was made shorter. The important part though was the removing significant portion of the traps. But thank you for proving my point that you have lost it.

I will have to disagree with the ''getting rid of some of the good game play in the process'' part. That analogy is the reason GGG sucks at balancing. Look at the whole es fiasco . They overnerfed es into oblivion because 0.5% of the population that plays standard could reach up to 25k with vaal pact, headhunter and other crap. The result?over-nerf overboard for es which might hit the top 0.5% a bit and fucked the rest of the folks big time. Now a ton of builds are unusable and more prone to get killed thanks to the massive reduction. But guess what, standard folks won't get affected since the items will become legacy.

So overall what did GGG ''pro'' balancing team did? screwed the majority of players playing leagues that don't live on this game.