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

"

Pyrokar wrote:

"

vio wrote:

and having to solve a complicated puzzle only to get a rare helm from a supply cache at best is ... underwhelming.

Have these puzzles open up secret passageways that bypass traps. Is that so hard to do?

amazing idea, really!

"

Fruz wrote:

...

Sorry mate, I don't give two fucks about that argument. I happily rest my case. And don't worry, you aren't in any way unique by using ad hominems. It's common in these threads. I just singled you out because your timing was so perfect.

"

Xtorma wrote:

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

"

vio wrote:

some players would shitstorm about anything, if there would be no labyrinth they would shitstorm about low drop rates, overpowered bosses, one shot deaths and so on.

wait, in fact they did. as a consequence one can now stand in the torture chamber's boss' lighning beam without dying. nice achievement, really.

A lot of labyrinth fans use this defense, but I have yet to see a single one give an example of an equally controversial addition to the game with either as much depth of hatred or staying power of hatred (let alone both, which the labyrinth boasts).

You implied that there are many examples, but I am only asking for one. If you can do that, I will cede your point.

1. Trade
2. Map pools too hard to sustain
3. Remove Cruel.
4.desync

Also you have the new exp changes for red maps, which is a newer change, but garners tons of hate.

These are controversial... how?

#3 is the only one I can imagine anyone arguing about, and the threads I've seen on cutting out normal/cruel are nowhere near filled with poison the way anti-lab threads are.

"

Xtorma wrote:

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

"

vio wrote:

some players would shitstorm about anything, if there would be no labyrinth they would shitstorm about low drop rates, overpowered bosses, one shot deaths and so on.

wait, in fact they did. as a consequence one can now stand in the torture chamber's boss' lighning beam without dying. nice achievement, really.

A lot of labyrinth fans use this defense, but I have yet to see a single one give an example of an equally controversial addition to the game with either as much depth of hatred or staying power of hatred (let alone both, which the labyrinth boasts).

You implied that there are many examples, but I am only asking for one. If you can do that, I will cede your point.

1. Trade
2. Map pools too hard to sustain
3. Remove Cruel.
4.desync

Also you have the new exp changes for red maps, which is a newer change, but garners tons of hate.

These are controversial... how?

#3 is the only one I can imagine anyone arguing about, and the threads I've seen on cutting out normal/cruel are nowhere near filled with poison the way anti-lab threads are.[/quote]

Controveries that always happen.
giving rise or likely to give rise to public disagreement:

1. Should/shouldn't be auction house/should shouldn't be auto trading.
Devs stating trade should require personal interaction. Many posts disagreeing.
2. End game shouldn't be gated behind rng/learn to roll maps,buy maps.
Devs stating red maps should not be sustainable. Many posts disagreeing.
3. You are in agreement here.
4. You are correct here, no arguments for this. My apologies.

"

vio wrote:

"

Pyrokar wrote:

"

vio wrote:

and having to solve a complicated puzzle only to get a rare helm from a supply cache at best is ... underwhelming.

Have these puzzles open up secret passageways that bypass traps. Is that so hard to do?

amazing idea, really!

It is a cool idea, but many of the lab haters use the argument "doesn't fit in my definition of this game's genre". If they use that argument for traps, they'll use that argument for puzzles.

Oh, and we can't forget the constant controversy over legacy items. Every time one is made people bitch. Every time one is not made people bitch. Some people even bitch between these two times.

"

Xtorma wrote:

Controveries that always happen.
giving rise or likely to give rise to public disagreement:

1. Should/shouldn't be auction house/should shouldn't be auto trading.
Devs stating trade should require personal interaction. Many posts disagreeing.
2. End game shouldn't be gated behind rng/learn to roll maps,buy maps.
Devs stating red maps should not be sustainable. Many posts disagreeing.
3. You are in agreement here.
4. You are correct here, no arguments for this. My apologies.

Point is, those ideas don't divide the community. In most cases they unite us. ;)

You are talking about players disagreeing with the devs. I was talking about "divisive content" (to use Chris's words). I.e., content that some players love and other players hate.

I don't believe there is another expansion that divided the community the way Ascendancy did. That is NOT good for a f2p game.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

"

Xtorma wrote:

Controveries that always happen.
giving rise or likely to give rise to public disagreement:

1. Should/shouldn't be auction house/should shouldn't be auto trading.
Devs stating trade should require personal interaction. Many posts disagreeing.
2. End game shouldn't be gated behind rng/learn to roll maps,buy maps.
Devs stating red maps should not be sustainable. Many posts disagreeing.
3. You are in agreement here.
4. You are correct here, no arguments for this. My apologies.

Point is, those ideas don't divide the community. In most cases they unite us. ;)

You are talking about players disagreeing with the devs. I was talking about "divisive content" (to use Chris's words). I.e., content that some players love and other players hate.

I don't believe there is another expansion that divided the community the way Ascendancy did. That is NOT good for a f2p game.

sorry for the misunderstanding. I suppose we have different definitions of controversy.

@Xtorma

That's a cheap cop out, and it doesn't address the issue.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

I don't believe there is another expansion that divided the community the way Ascendancy did. That is NOT good for a f2p game.

Every season/expansion has players that like or dislike it on a personal level, but the Lab has actually divided the community. Gib is absolutely right that this is unhealthy for a f2p game. The part that's ridiculous, in my eyes, is that the solution is very obvious, but GGG (Chris, especially) is just being stubborn about it.

They are caught between two primary types of players, the "Dark Souls" types and the "God of War" types. I'm assuming you can infer the meaning based on what kinds of games those are. The issue is that the game probably cannot sustain itself by pandering only to the "Dark Souls" players; there simply aren't enough of them, and unless they all become whales, the bottom line will be in red. They cannot pander only to the "God of War" types because the game risks following the path that WoW did--oversimplification, dumbing down, removal of choice, etc.

Not only are the devs caught between these types of players, but the players are in constant conflict with each other too, so it becomes hard to go to them for ideas. The "Dark Souls" guys (and our resident Dung Beetle) are afraid of any kind of change, because "casualization is bad, mmkay?" The "God of War" types tend to propose convoluted solutions for simple problems, because they don't understand game systems well enough to see the easier solutions.

There are people in between. That's why that "Set free the Ascendancy" thread exists. There are people who want to improve the game without completely changing its identity. I know I can be fairly trolly here and there, but when it comes to serious discussion, I'm one of these people too. I'm not quite sure where you and Gibbous fall in this, but we need more moderates if we are going to have constructive discussion. We also need GGG to be more moderate as well.

It's an interesting analogy, but let's not create false dichotomies here. I don't believe it is the case that traps = hardcore-ish gameplay and that those who dislike traps are simply not hardcore enough to enjoy them. That's probably not what you meant, but it could be interpreted that way.

The game can retain its hardcore identity without forcing players to endure a new type of gameplay which they hate and which is (imo) ill suited to an online-only game, let alone one controlled with a mouse. There is a huge difference between challenging/fun and challenging/tedious, and I think GGG needs to sit up and start thinking about this distinction before they go full-on retard mode* and continue aping MMOs more and more with a strategy of forcing players to "work for rewards" instead of playing for them.

My first impression of Ascendancy talks about the distinction in more depth: https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1602221

My ideal solution? Fix the labyrinth:

1. Make it more challenging. NOT by forcing players to endure it longer or to endure more of what they already hate, but by raising the difficulty of the monsters to more closely match the (fun) difficulty of Izaro. Right now the labyrinth is simply tedious work, not play. Give us something to play instead.

2. Remove the need to tolerate the traps. Waiting isn't fun gameplay, and that's what characterizes many of the traps. Door spikes. Lava. Ugh. These things are not threats, unless you get impatient. They are only threats to your sanity. Who the hell thought standing there and waiting is a fun thing to do in an ARPG? Create an alternate path through the labyrinth. Give it more monsters and fewer bonus chests, add more puzzles, I don't care.

Sadly, I think it is FAR more likely that GGG will simply remove the Ascendancy points from the labyrinth, because it is the simpler and cheaper solution, and leave the awful labyrinth exactly as it is, to be enjoyed in perpetuity by anyone who isn't in the "vocal minority."


*And I wouldn't blame you for thinking push-boxes and uber-lab were full-on retard mode, but they are not. They are merely the completion of a trajectory which was already planned well in advance.

Well, Lab isn't just about traps, so you're right that I wasn't talking about just that. I also made it a point to illustrate that it is not a dichotomy. I simplified it between the two polar extremes and those closer to the median. In truth, it's more of a spectrum that it is hard categories, but the illustration was useful to get the point across.

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--they don't enjoy it, for far too many reasons. However, everyone (with very few exceptions) seems to enjoy Ascendancy, so the problem is obvious. No matter what else is wrong with Lab, this is inescapable.

One argument I hear often around here is that the risk and reward need to be proportional, but I find this to be extremely dubious. Who is evaluating the risk? The reward? How do you even quantify this? How is Lab a risk for non-HC players, especially when they can just pay for runs? Doesn't the fact that people can/do pay for runs say something about the Lab itself? I don't buy into this argument, because it's far too subjective.

What isn't subjective is that keeping Lab and Ascendancy coupled like this has divided the community, and has lost them players. All this just so that GGG could try to put a square peg (out of character game elements) into a round hole (PoE). I appreciate that they were inspired by other games, but it's a simple case of what sounds good on paper not actually being good in game. There's little harm in trying--and failing--but there is great harm in refusing to admit the mistake and letting it remain.