Lab is [Removed by Support]- some answers and feedback

"

Nykken wrote:

If you're complaining about uber lab then you're complaining about content that is 100% optional. The arguably non-optional labs are normal/cruel/merciless because those first few ascendancy points are what really matter.

This is your opinion. I do not share it.

"

Nykken wrote:

If you want uber lab enchants, you can just buy the items. Not every build is Atziri viable and people are fine with their characters simply not being built to farm Atziri, many players don't want to deal with the complex systems and RNG involved in crafting items and they're fine with simply paying raw currency for items that someone else has made, lab is no different.

I dont know what exactly you are trying to say or rather how this relates to the post from me which you quoted. It sounds to me like along the lines of "xyz is poorly designed so its ok if abc is also poorly designed". I do not share this perspective in general nor do I believe the comparison (between Atziri and enchantments) is appropriate. Furthermore my opinions are not based on whether some hypothetical other people are "fine" with something. And "for the record": I also dislike the "pure RNG" system of general item drops - although to a lesser degree.

"

Zrevnur wrote:

"

Nykken wrote:

If you're complaining about uber lab then you're complaining about content that is 100% optional. The arguably non-optional labs are normal/cruel/merciless because those first few ascendancy points are what really matter.

This is your opinion. I do not share it.

"

Nykken wrote:

If you want uber lab enchants, you can just buy the items. Not every build is Atziri viable and people are fine with their characters simply not being built to farm Atziri, many players don't want to deal with the complex systems and RNG involved in crafting items and they're fine with simply paying raw currency for items that someone else has made, lab is no different.

I dont know what exactly you are trying to say or rather how this relates to the post from me which you quoted. It sounds to me like along the lines of "xyz is poorly designed so its ok if abc is also poorly designed". I do not share this perspective in general nor do I believe the comparison (between Atziri and enchantments) is appropriate. Furthermore my opinions are not based on whether some hypothetical other people are "fine" with something. And "for the record": I also dislike the "pure RNG" system of general item drops - although to a lesser degree.

I'm saying that you not liking a specific thing doesn't make it poorly designed. Path of Exile has MANY different systems that all work differently, enough that there's probably not a single player on the planet who likes every part of the game and they all choose to muscle through what they don't like when it's required and simply avoid it when it isn't either by paying someone else for the rewards from it or simply going without the rewards.

The non-optional parts of lab are normal/cruel/merciless and maybe a single uber run, but they do not take up a significant amount of the time it takes to level a character compared even to the time it takes to complete the main quests in normal/cruel/merc, much less level grinding in dried lake and maps. The rewards from subsequent lab runs are tradeable and thus the runs themselves are 100% avoidable if you don't like them. In no way should GGG waste even half an hour's worth of their time to remove something you specifically don't like when you already have the option to simply avoid it.

"

Zrevnur wrote:

"

Nykken wrote:

If you're complaining about uber lab then you're complaining about content that is 100% optional. The arguably non-optional labs are normal/cruel/merciless because those first few ascendancy points are what really matter.

This is your opinion. I do not share it.

Uber is optional. The same way that having a lvl 100 char is optional.

If you think that you absolutely need Uber Lab points, then you should make the effort to get them. Those points are for min-maxers & other committed players.

"

Nykken wrote:

I'm saying that you not liking a specific thing doesn't make it poorly designed.

I doesn't make it well designed either. Putting core character development aspects behind an entirely different type of trap gameplay is (in my opinion, and the opinion of many other players -- maybe not yours) far and away the single worst design decision GGG has made with PoE.

And it's exacerbated by the fact that GGG has communicated absolutely nothing about the reasons for that decision or what went into it. The whole thing leaves me with a very bad taste, because -- absent any further explanation from GGG -- it seems to me that the reason is that GGG was so invested in the Labyrinth they used ascendency classes to make damn sure people would run it, whether they like it or not. Now maybe I'm pretty stubborn, but my response to that is either to play some PoE and not run the labyrinth or quit the game.

"

Path of Exile has MANY different systems that all work differently, enough that there's probably not a single player on the planet who likes every part of the game and they all choose to muscle through what they don't like when it's required and simply avoid it when it isn't either by paying someone else for the rewards from it or simply going without the rewards.

I play solo self-found and I have no problem going without high-end uniques or all the rest of it, but ascendancy classes are a completely different story. (I still go without them but I have a big problem with that.)

"

The non-optional parts of lab are normal/cruel/merciless...In no way should GGG waste even half an hour's worth of their time to remove something you specifically don't like when you already have the option to simply avoid it.

Yes indeed, you do have the option to avoid the non-optional parts of the lab, but that non-option isn't sustainable in the long run.

"

ShaUrley wrote:

Yes indeed, you do have the option to avoid the non-optional parts of the lab, but that non-option isn't sustainable in the long run.

Normal/cruel/merc lab is easy. Extremely easy. It's also short.

"

Nykken wrote:

Path of Exile has MANY different systems that all work differently, enough that there's probably not a single player on the planet who likes every part of the game and they all choose to muscle through what they don't like when it's required and simply avoid it when it isn't either by paying someone else for the rewards from it or simply going without the rewards.

Yes but this is a very generic and pretty obvious statement. And I do not see it being helpful either.

"

Nykken wrote:

The non-optional parts of lab are normal/cruel/merciless and maybe a single uber run

So uber lab ascendancy is only "maybe optional" content now (down from "100% optional")?

"

Nykken wrote:

The rewards from subsequent lab runs are tradeable and thus the runs themselves are 100% avoidable if you don't like them.

The whole game is 100% avoidable for people who dont like it. This is however the "Feedback and Suggestions" forum. So I give my feedback here. And people who dont like PoE at all can also give their feedback here. Or rephrased: I do not share at all your opinion: "Nykken believes something is 100% avoidable. Therefore it is ok and feedback is unwarranted."
I do not like the pure randomness of the enchantments and I posted that.

"

morbo wrote:

Uber is optional. The same way that having a lvl 100 char is optional.

In the same way as playing PoE is optional. Or posting in this thread.
Which really means that statements about "optional" are just about word definition or about opinion.
So using such phrases is a good tool for people looking for conflict.

"

Nykken wrote:

In no way should GGG waste even half an hour's worth of their time to remove something you specifically don't like when you already have the option to simply avoid it.

"

Nykken wrote:

Normal/cruel/merc lab is easy. Extremely easy. It's also short.

So you're saying that we don't have the option to simply avoid it?

(btw, I agree that the uber-lab is optional endgame content, whatever "optional" may mean)

"

ShaUrley wrote:

"

Nykken wrote:

In no way should GGG waste even half an hour's worth of their time to remove something you specifically don't like when you already have the option to simply avoid it.

"

Nykken wrote:

Normal/cruel/merc lab is easy. Extremely easy. It's also short.

So you're saying that we don't have the option to simply avoid it?

(btw, I agree that the uber-lab is optional endgame content, whatever "optional" may mean)

Technically you do, but your first 4-6 ascendancy points are essential to a character's power and are often build-defining and I think the power loss from not getting those points would be inexcusable.

However, normal/cruel/merciless lab is so easy and short that at that point you might as well complain about how hard it is to beat normal/cruel Malachai to unlock cruel/merciless.

"

Nykken wrote:

However, normal/cruel/merciless lab is so easy and short that at that point you might as well complain about how hard it is to beat normal/cruel Malachai to unlock cruel/merciless.

We're not talking about Malachai, we just want an alternative way to earn ascendancy points that doesn't involve running through the stupid labyrinth.

There are so many irrelevant responses like this: well (in the tone of a moralistic school-marm) if you're going to remove ascendancy points from the lab, you might as well...not have to defeat Malachai to unlock the next difficulty...or give everyone a mirror of kalandra...or not have to kill mobs to get items...or (make something else up).

As a matter of fact, when Awakening came out there were a lot of complaints about the difficulty of Malachai (although nothing at the level of the complaints about the labyrinth, whatever anyone may try to claim). And you know what, like it or not, GGG nerfed him on normal and cruel, as they have nerfed many other encounters that presumably killed too many players. When Shadow of the Vaal came out, Cha'aska Rainmaker (and several other vaal bosses) was brutal; Magnus Stonethorn's flameblast used to be an absolute one-hit kill (for me anyway); ice-nova boxes were death-traps...

But those issues all involved the basic PoE gameplay and were easy for GGG to fix just by tweaking a few numbers. The Labyrinth is different. GGG can't "fix" it (in the admittedly unlikely event that they want to fix it) unless they make fundamental changes to how traps work or make a structural change to the game to provide another way to get ascendancy points (which might mean that the lab goes the way of PvP).

And one more slightly different but related thing. When Awakening came out, and introduced Malachai, players were exited to see the new content in Act 4 (even if some ended up not liking it) and that was a big draw. When Ascendancy was announced, the new content in the Labyrinth had pretty much top billing with the Ascendancy Classes (Chris posted somewhere in hyping the expansion that "he was going to spend a lot of time in the labyrinth"). Now, not so much. How many players are drawn to PoE because they want to play in the labyrinth (as opposed to getting the rewards at the end of it)?

"

Zrevnur wrote:

"

morbo wrote:

Uber is optional. The same way that having a lvl 100 char is optional.

In the same way as playing PoE is optional. Or posting in this thread.
Which really means that statements about "optional" are just about word definition or about opinion.
So using such phrases is a good tool for people looking for conflict.

Precisely. Which is why the proper thing to do is to establish the context for "optional" or "mandatory." In life, everything is optional except death, if you want to get technical about it; thus "mandatory" always has a context, an over-arching and optional goal for which a certain step towards said goal is required.

If you want an optimal build, you must get all your Ascendancy points. Personally I'd use the word "optimal" instead of "mandatory," it's clearer. Still, by the nature of the word "mandatory," the obvious question should be "to do what?" (establish context), not "no it's not mandatory" (sophist argument, because nothing is mandatory devoid of context).