SET FREE THE ASCENDANCY POINTS (or rework the lab) [New ascension methods/lab rework ideas]

"

Albinosaurus wrote:

Who needs facts when you assumptions work even better, right?

I'm sorry, I thought you were ignoring me ?

The guy has nothing better than "No you can't" whatever I say, so I guess all I need to do is to throw "yes I can" ;]]].
Sorry for calling captain obvious, one more time ....

"

Fruz wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

The work in creating a new league is the game play changes that they might decide to implement in the new league. But just creating a new league should be trivial. For an example, doing the 3-d art for a unique item would probably be more work than creating a new league. Caveats: While I have plenty of programming experience, I have never worked on graphic art type stuff nor have I ever worked on game programming. Although the argument about not implementing a self-found league because it would splinter the population doesn't make sense to me because you'd think self-found players would have very little interaction anyway. So, there is probably other reasons like the effort to disable trading but still allow partying.

It was just one argument, there are other reasons why they do not want it, surely.

Yes, but we got off topic a bit there. Yes, there are some options in the OP that would be lots of work, I'm sure. Only one of the options would need to be implemented to "fix" the problem though. GGG could much better evaluate what among the options, including their own ideas, would work the best.

Take 2. Remove Ascend from lab. We need this. For all that is holy and right with the world. Free the points. FREE I SAY! Discuss

"

Fruz wrote:

"

Albinosaurus wrote:

Who needs facts when you assumptions work even better, right?

I'm sorry, I thought you were ignoring me ?

The guy has nothing better than "No you can't" whatever I say, so I guess all I need to do is to throw "yes I can" ;]]].
Sorry for calling captain obvious, one more time ....

Actually, you have that completely about face. As I said before, provide me with a detailed SRS and RTM, for any of the aforementioned changes. At that point, we can start to have a conversation about feasibility. However, if your only answer is, it's hard/can't be done/will take too long etc., because I said so, then you have nothing to contribute apart from ill-informed speculation and assumption based on nothing more than hot air.

And that's why I blocked him, Kellog. It's funny he thinks I was addressing him and not just agreeing with you. What kind of ego does that take?

"

Kellog wrote:

"

Fruz wrote:

"

Albinosaurus wrote:

Who needs facts when you assumptions work even better, right?

I'm sorry, I thought you were ignoring me ?

The guy has nothing better than "No you can't" whatever I say, so I guess all I need to do is to throw "yes I can" ;]]].
Sorry for calling captain obvious, one more time ....

Actually, you have that completely about face. As I said before, provide me with a detailed SRS and RTM, for any of the aforementioned changes. At that point, we can start to have a conversation about feasibility. However, if your only answer is, it's hard/can't be done/will take too long etc., because I said so, then you have nothing to contribute apart from ill-informed speculation and assumption based on nothing more than hot air.

If you cannot understand what I said earlier, sad for you dude.
But you have obviously no clue what you're talking about.
Sucks to be you then, whatever.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Yes, but we got off topic a bit there. Yes, there are some options in the OP that would be lots of work, I'm sure. Only one of the options would need to be implemented to "fix" the problem though. GGG could much better evaluate what among the options, including their own ideas, would work the best.

Absolutely, I didn't say all of them of course, some of them might be trivial, but I really think that those would not be good for the game ( like just putting the points after Malachai ).
So even some suggestion do have some appeal ( like a rework of the lab, or providing another route with puzzles and stuff ), I would prefer dev to work on something else instead.


/facepalm for the last post, I think that's what fit the most in this situation lol.

"

If you cannot understand what I said earlier, sad for you dude.

Had you said anything of note, we probably wouldn't be here now.

"

But you have obviously no clue what you're talking about.
Sucks to be you then, whatever.

Ah! when in doubt resort to ad hominem. Good for you.

"

Kellog wrote:

"

If you cannot understand what I said earlier, sad for you dude.

Had you said anything of note, we probably wouldn't be here now.

I have, which brings it back exactly to what you were quoting .... and then to the second quote.
np.

"

Fruz wrote:

I have, which brings it back exactly to what you were quoting .... and then to the second quote.
np.

Ok, lets see exactly what you've said:

"

Many suggestions that have been done here would definitely, without any doubt whatsoever require a significant amount of time, that is a certainty.
I'm not talking about any given time it would take ( like "hey this needs 2 months" or "hey this would need 3 months" ), I'm just saying that for some of those changes, it would be significant.

Speculation. You do not work for GGG, you have no direct knowledge of what they have in place or how easy it may or may not be to implement any changes.

"

Those facts can be built from observations on how much time it took them to develop the different parts of the game, how much time it takes them to fix some things already in the game, and also it could come from personal coding / developing experience, who knows.

There are no 'facts' in any of you posts. All you're doing is attempting to extrapolate from past experience, which is completely meaningless in the current context. Moreover, just because some past addition/fix whatever took 'x' amount of time, is in no way indicative of how long 'y' may take now.

"

Here, some suggestions are clearly talking about reworking the lab, which will need some development, not like a new league ( or at a completely different level ), it's a really different case.

How can you say with certainty, that just as GGG have put in place ways to create leagues quickly, they have not done the same for other parts of the game. You can't. So making statements about what they may or may not have, about which you have no factual knowledge, is, once again, speculation.

"

There are here changes that would need significant development time, period.
This is not an accurate thing with a given development time, but it would be significant, that I can tell you.

Some suggestions may take time, some may not, but neither you or I have anyway of knowing which or how long.

As I've intimated several times, if you worked at GGG or had a direct line to someone who really understands the ins and out of whats being requested/suggested, I'd be happy to listen to real, informed, commentary. The thing is, you don't, so as I've also said several times, the best you can do is guess. Who knows, you may well be completely right, but until we have real, hard, from the horses mouth, facts, everything else is hearsay/assumption/speculation nothing more.

On that note, the thread has gone completely off topic with this nonsense, so unless you have any real facts to present, it's probably better to refrain from beating this particularly dead horse any longer.

Kellog, the guy's a troll. His entire intent is to derail it. It's a common tactic around here for the metathesiophobes. Just ignore him and respond to posts that matter.