Fuck the lab

"

Player089 wrote:

Not everything in every game is fun. There is always a part that has to be done in order to grow your character, which is the essence of an RPG.
And in that sense it still is enjoyable to do, because you know you are doing something challenging in order to significantly boost your characters strength.

I don't know how people can have such massive issues with something that takes them an hour to complete when they put easily over hundred hours into one character.
You cant tell me you have to RIOT something that occupies less than a single percentage of your characters play time.
Get real.

While I agree with you for the most part, I still find myself just ever so slightly still in the lab hater circle.

As a HC only player I have to run the lab three times for each character, and in a normal season I usually rip three-four sometimes five times in the first few weeks. I'm running lab over and over again... I don't even bother with the uber-lab or the trials. most of my friends do, but the way I see it, its just not worth the risk once I actually have a character capable.
(I tried it once a few seasons ago with a lv 90 and 10ex worth of gear, and died at izaro - I don't know if they made it easier since then, and I'll never know)

What I hate the most still is the traps. I know they have toned them down and all (?), but as a HC player I PAINC when my character takes thousands of damage in a fraction of a second with no monsters around. I tend to hit all my life flasks and if I'm with other players, they will often go ahead and kill every monster so I'm left with no way to refill... (thank goodness for soul of Ryslatha -provided I remember to switch it in before I run it) The panic is like cheep 'jump scares' in horror moves, I hate that shit.

I accept the lab for what it is, I still don't like it, but as you say, we are not expected to like everything.

"

Player089 wrote:

Not everything in every game is fun. There is always a part that has to be done in order to grow your character, which is the essence of an RPG.
And in that sense it still is enjoyable to do, because you know you are doing something challenging in order to significantly boost your characters strength.

Unless you're farming uber lab at 85+, in which case it's neither challenging nor boosting your character's strength.

"

sidtherat wrote:

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

"

the rewards ARE in the lab. it is still one of the best places to make steady money, esp after lab changes that made both 'getting ascendancies' easier and uber lab far, far, far more profitable than before

Here you demonstrate that you didn't understand Phrazz's primary point at all, which is probably why you unintentionally supported it instead of arguing against it. Those are all extrinsic motivators.

if possible, id like to talk to people i actually replied to. having others paraphrase and (possibly) twist our words - doesnt bring us nowhere. so please, if you want to comment/agree/disagree with what i wrote - refrain from making assumptions and speak only on your own behalf

regarding intristic/externistic motivation - im not familiar with these terms - but i bet lines between are blurry at best.

You need to familiarize yourself with a concept before shitting on it, sir.

I'm allowed to post this, right? I mean, I can say things in response to what you said, since you actually did "respond" to me?

I don't want to break your forum rules. ;)

"

so, again, i have no idea about this intr/extr motivation theories - but the big part might be that SOME people like the lab regardless of rewards. it seems that some hate it so much that they think THEIR hatred is the 'default' approach but you have to understand it IS NOT

It is not "regardless of rewards." It is about reward distribution coupled with compelling gameplay. But that will make much more sense to you if you familiarize yourself with the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and I recommend you do so regardless, because it's actually an interesting distinction applying to things as diverse as job satisfaction and training your dog. It is not a "theory" but rather a simple description of an actual phenomenon, and it applies to many things other than games.

It will also help you understand the opposing viewpoint better (or at all), if you are interested in doing so. Because, and forgive me for being blunt, your characterizations of that viewpoint in this and other threads are remarkably consistent about demonstrating that you do not understand.

"

undeniable fact is - lab is only or one of the very few places in the game when player matters more than his/her character. and players that fail this test are salty and angry (denial of their shortcommings and anger that others have little to no similar problems). thus all the BS about 'you need this and this and this to complete it, my EV/Acro char CANNOT DO IT and dies all the time' yet i do not remember having such issues with my EV/Acro archers or trappers/miners..

On this point we agree. But you need to learn to separate the wheat from the chaff. There is something called "argument from fallacy" in which we can be tempted to assume that one fallacious premise means the conclusion must also be invalid. Here's an example.

Player 1: Lab is impossible for evasion builds. Therefore the Lab needs improvement.
Player 2: You are wrong about the Lab being impossible for evasion builds. Therefore the Lab does not need improvement.

In the above example, Player 2 is "arguing from fallacy," which itself is logically fallacious. The fallacy in question is actually one of relevance: "The Lab is perfectly possible for evasion builds" is irrelevant to the question at hand.

I don't think you fall for this fallacy completely, but when you harp on and on about people's fallacious arguments for the lab needing improvement, you spend a lot of time talking about irrelevant things.

"

note: people play maps because maps drop money. remember how people 'loved' breach? have you seen players using vaal breach for reason other than melting bosses with chain/heralds? no? neither did i. why is that? because vaal breach drops no items and grants no xp. breach was loved because it dropped and still drops EXTREMELY stupid item quantity and xp. it is all reward bribery and players fall for it in drowes

This is a good example of the role of extrinsic rewards in ARPGs. But consider this: Breaches can be quite rippy. I personally think they are rippier than the Lab, depending on variables of course. But the Lab is also super-rewarding in terms of loot! And yet Breach was widely (though not universally) loved and the Lab widely (though not universally) hated. Think about it.

Equally important to numbers is the qualitative content of the dislike. When people say "XYZ is annoying as fuck and makes me want to quit the game," I can guarantee to you that there is something behind that hatred other than mere difficulty or willingness/ability to adapt, regardless of what XYZ is.

lots of words just to make your theories facts?

first - write whatever you want but once you start speaking on behalf of others or pretend to know what they 'meant by that' it gets laughable and it is difficult to take you seriously. so refrain from doing that in the future it will help you in the long run.


second - fallacies? the fallacy YOU start from is that YOUR theory about like/dislike something is a fact. why is that? because i CLEARLY marked two groups of people in this thread: group A having a design-based issues and group B being bad at the game and admitting it openly or covering it up with some made up bs lies

i ignore group A (likes and dislikes are personal) but bring group B to the 'shame walk' light they deserve.

and i think that it is reasonable to assume people are in group B once they start complaining about basic mechanics and/or difficulty. why? because they are not there yet to criticise the design if they fail at it. beat it, then we can talk. while player from group B tries to bruteforce traps time and time again (and dies) he is not there yet to comment on the design of things he do not understand nor makes any reasonable effort to overcome

he does not like being smacked - and i understand that - but fun aside, he is just ignorant of what is going on.

as for the int/ext theory - ill decide later if it is worth my time to read up this matter. many theories float the internet/books and given how many of them contradict each other - there is a serious risk this one is also a hot baloon. but if you are into such things: read up Dunning-Kruger effect and apply that theory to people complainig about the lab and seeing the 'fault' everywhere but in them.
and think for a moment how big of an enforcing effect being able to effortlessly clear entire map with tornadoshot or other idiocy has on that effect in relation to Lab.


and to conclude - your biggest fallacy is the sweet one: that i do not see that lab needs improvements. think about it for a moment and read your posts. see?

"

sidtherat wrote:

Spoiler

lots of words just to make your theories facts?

first - write whatever you want but once you start speaking on behalf of others or pretend to know what they 'meant by that' it gets laughable and it is difficult to take you seriously. so refrain from doing that in the future it will help you in the long run.


second - fallacies? the fallacy YOU start from is that YOUR theory about like/dislike something is a fact. why is that? because i CLEARLY marked two groups of people in this thread: group A having a design-based issues and group B being bad at the game and admitting it openly or covering it up with some made up bs lies

i ignore group A (likes and dislikes are personal) but bring group B to the 'shame walk' light they deserve.

and i think that it is reasonable to assume people are in group B once they start complaining about basic mechanics and/or difficulty. why? because they are not there yet to criticise the design if they fail at it. beat it, then we can talk. while player from group B tries to bruteforce traps time and time again (and dies) he is not there yet to comment on the design of things he do not understand nor makes any reasonable effort to overcome

he does not like being smacked - and i understand that - but fun aside, he is just ignorant of what is going on.

as for the int/ext theory - ill decide later if it is worth my time to read up this matter. many theories float the internet/books and given how many of them contradict each other - there is a serious risk this one is also a hot baloon. but if you are into such things: read up Dunning-Kruger effect and apply that theory to people complainig about the lab and seeing the 'fault' everywhere but in them.
and think for a moment how big of an enforcing effect being able to effortlessly clear entire map with tornadoshot or other idiocy has on that effect in relation to Lab.


and to conclude - your biggest fallacy is the sweet one: that i do not see that lab needs improvements. think about it for a moment and read your posts. see?

I care about logic and logic only, sidtherat. If you don't want to "take that seriously," that's your decision. From where I stand, anything else is just hot air.

Focusing on Group B and and dismissing the criticisms of Group A as mere subjective "likes and dislikes," as you yourself describe it, is exactly why your posts are not convincing.

Your decision not to take the five minutes necessary to educate yourself on the meanings of the words "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" speaks volumes about your willingness to pursue an understanding of viewpoints which are not your own, as does your desire to use dismissal tactics such as ascribing Dunning-Kruger to those holding those viewpoints.

But before you learn those terms, I recommend you learn what a fallacy is. Especially if you want to use logical terms to prove a point and actually remain coherent.

Words have meaning, sir. If you remain ignorant of those meanings (willfully ignorant in your case), rational discussion becomes difficult at best.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

And I withdraw one thing I said earlier. Choosing not to take the five minutes necessary to educate yourself on the meanings of the phrases "intrinsic motivation" and "extrinsic motivation" speaks volumes about your willingness to pursue an understanding of viewpoints which are not your own. But you have bigger fish to fry.

Is it me or is your entire argument with this guy based on the premise that every part of a game has to trigger intrinsic motivation in the player to actually play it?
The premise is questionable at best, I don't know why you would make it such a strong premise of your arguments.

You say it's "not a theory" - it is. The definitions of the words may not be, but claiming that "good" gameplay design triggers intrinsic motivation is.

"

Player089 wrote:

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

And I withdraw one thing I said earlier. Choosing not to take the five minutes necessary to educate yourself on the meanings of the phrases "intrinsic motivation" and "extrinsic motivation" speaks volumes about your willingness to pursue an understanding of viewpoints which are not your own. But you have bigger fish to fry.

Is it me or is your entire argument with this guy based on the premise that every part of a game has to trigger intrinsic motivation in the player to actually play it?
The premise is questionable at best, I don't know why you would make it such a strong premise of your arguments.

You say it's "not a theory" - it is. The definitions of the words may not be, but claiming that "good" gameplay design triggers intrinsic motivation is.

The definitions of the words are exactly what I am talking about. There is no "theory" about what a word means. (Actually there is, but let's not turn this into a metaphysics debate.)

To answer your question, no. Not every part of a game has to trigger intrinsic motivation to be playable. But if people use the word "hate" and "forced" to describe a piece of content, it is useful to consider whether extrinsic factors are primarily at play. Furthermore, good game design does not rely solely on extrinsic motivation. (Also popularly known as "bribes.")

In fact these are the only assertions I've made about the Labyrinth in this thread, to my recollection (other than to praise GGG's recent design changes which recognize the importance of making the process itself fun, which is obviously connected to intrinsic motivation). I did not realize they would be so controversial.

Do you disagree with them?

Edit: I will submit that "Good games and/or gaming sessions are fun while playing them, and not just upon finishing them" is just a theory. Since I did make that statement in this thread. From a pure-art POV the statement would be very easy to pick apart and demonstrate as just plain wrong. But I've never really considered PoE to be a pure-art game, with intent not to provide pleasure but to make an artistic statement, in the same loose category as movies which are unpleasant to watch, and you never want to watch them again, but you are glad to have watched them once just the same. (There are indeed games which legitimately fit this category, but I don't think PoE is one of them. Nor do I think the Labyrinth was designed to make a point about ennui, pointlessness, or frustration, a lá the recent computer game "Getting Over It.")

I originally hated Labyrinth and its initial implementation. I grew accustomed to it eventually but only run it as a necessity to get ascendancy points for my characters.

GGG made several changes to the lab, which definitely helped those who do not like the Lab and only do it once for each ascendancy tier. Normal, Cruel and even Merciless labs (or their post-3.0 counter-parts) are in good spot in terms of time investment, difficulty and rewards.

I now can quite enjoy Labyrinth and even make character dedicated to farming it. However, I still maintain my position that Labyrinth is unfair to certain builds and forces players to adapt too harshly.

"

sidtherat wrote:

...
first - write whatever you want but once you start speaking on behalf of others or pretend to know what they 'meant by that' it gets laughable and it is difficult to take you seriously. so refrain from doing that in the future it will help you in the long run.
...
read up Dunning-Kruger effect and apply that theory to people complainig about the lab and seeing the 'fault' everywhere but in them.
and think for a moment how big of an enforcing effect being able to effortlessly clear entire map with tornadoshot or other idiocy has on that effect in relation to Lab.
...

sidtherat accuses gibbousmoon for speaking on behalf of others or pretending to know what they meant.

Yet, THAT IS EXACTLY what sidtherat does so often and is so fond of doing exactly that in these threads. See the next piece of sidtherat's post. He just loves to disparage people that say they don't find the loathsome labyrinth as fun because they are just bad at labyrinth. The chucklehead thinks that he knows our own mind and likes and dislikes better than we do!!! Sorry sidtherat, you are just wrong. Sure this might be true for one person out of a thousand. For the other 999 though, they knew that they disliked labyrinth probably from the first time they went in there. My thought was, what is this crap doing in the game that I used to love! I've gotten much better at the loathsome labyrinth. It is still loathsome crap content. Despite sidtherat thinking he knows better than me what I like and dislike!!!

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

Zalhan2 wrote:

I hate the choice of giving up decent mats for 5 minutes work vs just doing the fucking retarded trial for free loot.

I do the fucking trial since I always need something, making me a bad person I suppose because some developer with a hardon for the lab is keeping those stats I bet to "prove" I like the lab.

The context is that speculation on my part is following.

Generally people posting on these PoE forums are the more advanced players. As such a much higher percentage of the people that post here complete 6 or 8 ascendancy points per character. I also assume that GGG is able to tabulate the percent of people that complete what labyrinths per character. Those numbers likely indicate fewer people complete the labyrinths than GGG would like to see. This assumption is based on this GGG thread, Changes to the Labyrinth. Also slightly supporting this assumption is the fact that soon after labyrinth release GGG released some information about number of people playing labyrinth and seemed to indicate that the reports would continue but, they did not.

In conclusion, I agree that the tendency would be for GGG to conclude that most people that complete labyrinth runs do not mind it too much. I will also guess/hope that the reports likely indicate that a lower percentage of people complete 3 or 4 labyrinths per character than GGG would like to see.

I think they will keep adding features, end game content to the game and additional loot that's a slight power creep. I think the additional shaper and jewel permanent additions are designed to make the game easier for the casual by pushing items that before used to cost 50c+ down to 5c to an alc this season.

A side effect for us non casuals who know how to farm is the ability to rather cheaply make Lab runners that can run thru traps and do really fast good damage to the boss and trivialize the Lab as a whole.

It limits builds which sucks (I miss my leech archers with low life) but I do not emo spiral any more now that I limit what I play since a good 25% of viable builds I would guess are lab tolerable.

The major issue left with the lab is its diversity destruction. If they insist you cheat (for lab unfriendly builds) to do the lab then (LIKE TRADE), they need to make better in game mechanics to allow commerce in this game.

Like the uber lab door will not open till the person who did the lab for you is paid. Trade needs a whole system.

The Lab is no longer a reason I will not play this game but it also needs to not limit build diversity.