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

To me this has just turned into a joke thread. This thread is like the guy you pass walking to work in the city with the "End poverty, raise the minimum wage to $50 an hour" sign. "Look at my petition , I have a thousand signatures of people that agree with me!

There is light at the end of the tunnel for the crusaders though. Eventually (perhaps a few hundred years) the minimum wage may get to $50 , so if we find a cure for death, he may live long enough to say "SEE they agreed with me!"

"

ampdecay wrote:

Haven't been on the forums or played the game in awhile, just noticed I wasn't marked as a supporter in the OP list of thread starters.

Just showing my supporter titles and letting the Devs know, I'm still not coming back until they get rid of requiring the lab for ascendancy points.

also made my profile Public again if anyone wanna lurk it.

Have fun exiles its a shame this drove me away from the game.

I have bought plenty of games that moved in a direction , or implemented a feature I didn't like. I left my feedback, and moved on if it didn't change. You seem to have done the same. Props to you. You understand what feedback is all about.

"

stardustjenny wrote:

i dont like the labyrinth.
in essence league i played to lv 86 and didnt even finish normal lab :D.

one of the reasons why i dont like the labyrinth is because it is forced on me as part of my char progression.

another one is that i mostly play as scion and the scion ascendancy is the worst, scion might as well have no ascendancy compared to what the other classes get.
so i play content wich i dont like but it is forced on me only then to feel bad because the reward is bad

then one other issue is that the lab by itself is nice actually with traps and hidden rooms and puzzles to unlock doors for supply/treasure chests, but the game just does not support that kind of gameplay because the movement and the movement skills feel so bad and are so inaccurate.

in Perandus league there were at least challenges to explore the labyrinth now ist just rushing through for the points and/or the emperor treasure chest/s.

Thank you for posting your opinion on labyrinth. You're number 693 on the list. We don't talk frequently in these threads about the movement skill problem in the labyrinth but, it's a real problem that is felt by most everyone I suspect, at least if they dislike labyrinth. It is what I consider part of the bad game play in labyrinth. The classic example is a "cubicle" with a lever at the end of the cubicle and spike traps at the entrance. There's a saw blade running back and forth outside the cubicle wall. One clicks on the lever, the spikes pop up immediately after the click and the toon is blocked from the lever so instead runs along the saw blade outside the cubicle wall. GGG gets an extra slurry of cuss words from me at that point.
_________________________________________
edit:

"

ampdecay wrote:

Haven't been on the forums or played the game in awhile, just noticed I wasn't marked as a supporter in the OP list of thread starters.

Just showing my supporter titles and letting the Devs know, I'm still not coming back until they get rid of requiring the lab for ascendancy points.

also made my profile Public again if anyone wanna lurk it.

Have fun exiles its a shame this drove me away from the game.

Just to be clear to others here. Ampdecay was on the list but I had not indicated that he had a supporter title on his account name. I have fixed that now.

Thank you ampdecay. Here's my assessment of the "fix" for the problem. GGG is a smart and successful company that wants to continue that historical trend. I thought that if they were going to fix it using one of the cheaper methods similar to some of the proposals in the OP of SET FREE THE ASCENDANCY POINTS (or rework the lab) [New ascension methods/lab rework ideas] then we might see the fix in 2.4 (IIRC). So at that point was stating in the forums that I was hoping the fix would be in there. Of course that didn't happen. So that meant to me that they had likely decided instead to move the points behind a new challenge. Well 3.0 is a major release with major changes. They have to make some changes to the allocation of the points anyway since it appears they will be removing a difficulty level anyway. The point being, check back again for 3.0.

"

Emphasy wrote:

He essentially just mixes valid concerns about certain issues with his agenda to remove the lab or move the ascendancy out of there which isn't what a lot of those threads are about.

I have just documented the threads as specified in the OP. Those specifications were designed in large part to minimize the required judgment on my part for whether or not a thread should be included. I didn't want to be a judge. I want to be more of a historian in this role. I am not the person that created the threads. If you want a list that communicates different things then make you own list.

"

mark1030 wrote:

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

I see. So this entire vendetta is about making sure one poster recants his words, and nothing else?

Forgive me for assuming it was something more, um, substantive and relevant to the thread. I will try not to make that same mistake again.

I genuinely do my best to assume the best intentions of others, especially when it comes to communications on the internet, which are often ambiguous. So I assumed that you and Shovelcut weren't REALLY spending the good part of eight thread pages on such a ridiculous mission.

It's not a vendetta. It's about calling somebody out on BS claims that are blatently false. If you don't think honesty, integrity, and truthfulness are important in this thread, then so be it. I do. Don't state something as provable and factual when it's not provable at all. It's a guess. An assumption. The only reason it became a big deal is you guys kept ignoring that and pretending we were arguing another point that you had your response all ready to go.

It's funny that people blame Chris for not not being truthful about a "vocal minority", yet they can make shit up and call it a fact. And others go along with it as if it were provable.

What have I said that is blatantly false? You seem to have done a poor job communicating this since the only thing I can think of is you or Shovelcut falsely claiming that I'm being deceitful because I have alt-accounts on the list. Which is really a very stupid claim IMHO. Someone with an alt-account has as much right to their opinion as anyone else. That doesn't mean they have two account names in the list.

How about this, I will go back and send a PM to account name DC2K16. He's the last person I added that I thought was an alt-account. I'll let him know that I'd like only one account name per person. I'll ask him in the PM to please send me a PM from any account he would like the account name removed from the list in order to try to meet this goal of one account name per person. Then you fellows can give me a list of other accounts names and if I think it is reasonable and not some silliness to get me to meaninglessly harass me and a bunch of other people then I'll do the same.

If I have still not properly guessed what you're talking about then let me know or not. When I thought you were being paranoid I could have a goal of trying to ease your fears so that you could begin the healing process. Since that is apparently not the issue you guys have been whining about then I see no point or goal. I really am getting tired of these ridiculous exchanges about alt accounts that have no apparent goal.

edit:
_________________________________
Open letter:
Hi DC2K16,

I'm sending this PM to let you know that my list of account names of people that have stated their opinion that labyrinth has problems that are alienating to people or at least need to be fixed, has a goal of only one account name per person in the list. In order to better meet this goal I'm explicitly asking some people to send me a PM from any account name that they would like removed from the list. https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1702621

Kind regards,
Turtledove
________________________________
second edit:
break down of symbols after account names This was done at the current count at 693 names in the list
* 23
$ or o$ 323
o$ 316
$ 7
o 344
+ 161

Note that there are two account names that had apparently been deleted in between the time that they were added to the list and this latest analysis was done, then there's an account name "Deleted" which is a GGG forum place holder. Those are not included in any of these counts but instead were kept separate from these counts, except for a + on Deleted.

"

mark1030 wrote:

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

I see. So this entire vendetta is about making sure one poster recants his words, and nothing else?

Forgive me for assuming it was something more, um, substantive and relevant to the thread. I will try not to make that same mistake again.

I genuinely do my best to assume the best intentions of others, especially when it comes to communications on the internet, which are often ambiguous. So I assumed that you and Shovelcut weren't REALLY spending the good part of eight thread pages on such a ridiculous mission.

It's not a vendetta. It's about calling somebody out on BS claims that are blatently false. If you don't think honesty, integrity, and truthfulness are important in this thread, then so be it. I do. Don't state something as provable and factual when it's not provable at all. It's a guess. An assumption. The only reason it became a big deal is you guys kept ignoring that and pretending we were arguing another point that you had your response all ready to go.

An ongoing argument

1. against a single individual
2. which is off-topic and irrelevant to the thread's topic (to the extent you are telling the truth when you say it is not about the accuracy of the number of unique thread creators) and
3. which has gone on for the better part of eight pages (soon to be nine).

I don't know, mark1030. It looks suspiciously like a vendetta to me.

"

Turtledove wrote:

What have I said that is blatantly false?

Read these:

"

Turtledove wrote:

I'm not inflating any numbers. Like I stated there are only 3 or 4 alt accounts in the list.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Dance around facts all you want but NOTHING you've said casts any doubt on the fact that it is not a handful of people that make up the list of 691 accounts.

You are saying it's a FACT that there are only 3-4 alt accounts in your list. You cannot possibly know that. Only somebody with access to IP addresses can reasonably make that claim. Regardless of whether or not you are right, you can't say it's a fact. You don't know that! You can't know that! You can suspect that. You can assume that. You can even conclude that. But none of those makes it a verifiable fact. And I know you're not stupid so I know you can tell the difference between an assumption and a statement of fact. So either you're being deliberately sneaky by pretending you don't understand what I'm saying, or you do understand and are just trolling me.

Like you said, there are legit reasons for making alt accounts. I agree. I even showed you I had one. That you would rate with an "o" and a "$". Having an alt account doesn't mean somebody is using that account to be deceptive. But claiming you know which accounts are alts and what their motives are looks like you are the one being deceptive and it undermines your credibility. If you want GGG to take you seriously, you have to look like you're legitimately arguing. By claiming you know facts that only GGG can know is the opposite of that.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

"

mark1030 wrote:

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

I see. So this entire vendetta is about making sure one poster recants his words, and nothing else?

Forgive me for assuming it was something more, um, substantive and relevant to the thread. I will try not to make that same mistake again.

I genuinely do my best to assume the best intentions of others, especially when it comes to communications on the internet, which are often ambiguous. So I assumed that you and Shovelcut weren't REALLY spending the good part of eight thread pages on such a ridiculous mission.

It's not a vendetta. It's about calling somebody out on BS claims that are blatently false. If you don't think honesty, integrity, and truthfulness are important in this thread, then so be it. I do. Don't state something as provable and factual when it's not provable at all. It's a guess. An assumption. The only reason it became a big deal is you guys kept ignoring that and pretending we were arguing another point that you had your response all ready to go.

An ongoing argument

1. against a single individual
2. which is off-topic and irrelevant to the thread's topic (to the extent you are telling the truth when you say it is not about the accuracy of the number of unique thread creators) and
3. which has gone on for the better part of eight pages (soon to be nine).

I don't know, mark1030. It looks suspiciously like a vendetta to me.

If any post that calls into question the validity of claims made by the OP is considered off topic, then this thread is 94 pages too long and should just be deleted.

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

Emphasy wrote:

He essentially just mixes valid concerns about certain issues with his agenda to remove the lab or move the ascendancy out of there which isn't what a lot of those threads are about.

I have just documented the threads as specified in the OP. Those specifications were designed in large part to minimize the required judgment on my part for whether or not a thread should be included. I didn't want to be a judge. I want to be more of a historian in this role. I am not the person that created the threads. If you want a list that communicates different things then make you own list.

The thing is how is a thread complaining about having to do the trials on every character in a league in any form valid if you don't have to do the trials on every character in a league anymore. How is a thread complaining that CI has a hard time in the lab valid if it gets such huge advantages now that they basically can idle on traps (although it was questionable if CI had issues with the lab before). How is a thread about unfinishable layouts valid anymore if they don't exist anymore.

These threads raised valid concerns or mentioned actual bugs that were all fixed. I can't say how some of those people feel about the lab now. Also calling some of these threads "discussing labyrinth problems" is very far fetched.

https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1752674
https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1752386
https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1727600

This is not what I would call a discussion. Well maybe elsewhere standards are a bit lower on such things.

https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1747571

And this, while partially touching the labyrinth is not a thread that should be in the list. He wants to start farming the lab as it seems and can't get the trials, so if your issue isn't making trials more accessible you shouldn't include such threads.


So still the question is about the goal. If the goal of this thread collection is to demand an alternative way to get ascendancy points than it should only keep the threads that include that topic. Because I assume tons of the threads that consist of an opening thread including the words "lab" and "sucks" and hardly anything else just hate the lab because they can't suicide through it, which is a viable concern, however they should have the balls and call it that. If you feel the lab is too hard because of that you should say it and not hide behind useless phrases like "lab sucks" etc.

"

mark1030 wrote:

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

"

mark1030 wrote:

It's not a vendetta. It's about calling somebody out on BS claims that are blatently false. If you don't think honesty, integrity, and truthfulness are important in this thread, then so be it. I do. Don't state something as provable and factual when it's not provable at all. It's a guess. An assumption. The only reason it became a big deal is you guys kept ignoring that and pretending we were arguing another point that you had your response all ready to go.

An ongoing argument

1. against a single individual
2. which is off-topic and irrelevant to the thread's topic (to the extent you are telling the truth when you say it is not about the accuracy of the number of unique thread creators) and
3. which has gone on for the better part of eight pages (soon to be nine).

I don't know, mark1030. It looks suspiciously like a vendetta to me.

If any post that calls into question the validity of claims made by the OP is considered off topic, then this thread is 94 pages too long and should just be deleted.

Check what I bolded. In a nutshell, if it isn't a vendetta then it is about the accuracy of the list. You seem to be saying it is the latter, but you got really pissed off earlier when Turtledove (and later I) implied that that was your primary concern, so now it appears that you are contradicting yourself.

Can't have it both ways. Are you

1. pissed off at a single individual, such that you are willing to spend eight pages trying to prove that that single individual is wrong wrong wrong, or

2. are you questioning the validity of the thread itself due to the presence of more than a handful of alts?

You vehemently denied #2, but now you appear to be claiming #2 as evidence that you are not stating #1.

Admitting to either is not flattering, yes, but everything I have read so far slots quite neatly into either one or the other.