[Removed by Support]

"

GrimJoker7777 wrote:

The ascendancy lab is so stupid and retarded, if I'd like to play some stupid maze running shit then I wont be playing HACKNSLASH.Yeah, thats what your game is, hack'n'slash.Now how the hell you get to the idea of putting some boring long-ass maze into a hack'n'slash? Its like you want to lose more players to d3 or what? [Removed by Support] and you had a next great idea of putting deadly-as-can-be traps into the most boring maze ever? [Removed by Support] when you have decided to award players on hc with game-over for trying your new astonishing idea.I have less % deaths on pvp then in your stupid maze, why then dying in a pvp doesnt ends game on hc? Pvp is just as much broken as this maze.
This ascendancy bs is just bad at its very core, first of all it forces you to play your character only in a few supported by it ways, i.e. playing minion builds on anything other than witch has no point at all now, if you try it on scion (it should be possible cause nodes are very close) you will miss a very powerfull necromancer buffs from witch asc, and the game difficulty is adapted to heroes with ascendancy so its forces players not only to do it but also to play chars in some already established corny ways, sounds like a perfect pair to a boring maze.I think you could have been sabotaged, it looks like inside job guys, seriously.
No regards.

Someone is a little late..... ^^

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

mark1030 wrote:

A person with one post who complained about something is further evidence that any gathered data about the percentage of people who dislike something is heavily biased. How many people who like the lab but never post would bother to post that they like it as their first/only post?

At this point the list is pointless. The point was made and GGG has responded. The best change you'll probably get will be the changes coming in 3.0. That's about as much win as you'll be able to get. They'll never get rid of the lab or separate ascendency from it.

You posting about non-existent claims about percentages again? Silly nonsense but if it makes you happy, I guess?

Just in the context of peole using the claims minority or majority. I highly doubt I would not find those words in your posting history.

It's kinda funny calling anything nonsense when you keep a nonsence list, dontcha think?

I like the lab.
Did you try linking your skills to support gems, if you cant handle cruel without an ascendancy?
Lab gets easier if you are overleveled and have good items.

i like how support quickly changed the title from "Lab is [Removed By Support]" to not give the wrong impression :)

"

goetzjam wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

goetzjam wrote:

making it shorter doesn't make it closer to "regular poe gameplay"

Hell you dont know what regular poe gameplay is you haven't played in over a year at this point have you?

Getting rid of much of the horrible trap game play (platformer-jump-here-run-there) definitely makes it closer to the wonderful PoE regular game play (arpg-kill-monster-get-loot).

Please reread my post above if you're really interested in the last time I played PoE.

You actually stopped playing 3 leagues ago, so you can keep track of a massive list of people that say anything negative about the lab but can't spend 20 seconds actually being "right" about the last time you played the game.


GGG released essence league early September, given how many challenges you have done from the previous league we know you didn't play til the end of the prior league before that so its been over a year.

Goetzjam, this little exchange is an excellent summary of how your posting in the labyrinth threads generally work.

It starts off with a false assertion and insult on your part.

"

goetzjam wrote:

making it shorter doesn't make it closer to "regular poe gameplay"

Hell you dont know what regular poe gameplay is you haven't played in over a year at this point have you?

I then respond with a correction and you charge on with less assertions about PoE and more false personal attacks.

"

goetzjam wrote:

You actually stopped playing 3 leagues ago, so you can keep track of a massive list of people that say anything negative about the lab but can't spend 20 seconds actually being "right" about the last time you played the game.


GGG released essence league early September, given how many challenges you have done from the previous league we know you didn't play til the end of the prior league before that so its been over a year.

So typical, you think you know better than I when I stopped playing. You then use a false argument to back up your pathetic attempt at trying to prove me a liar. Instead you expose yourself as a someone that keeps shooting themselves in the foot as they spew false insults at others. As I mentioned above, I played an existing character in standard to avoid the not fun labyrinth bad part of the game. I thought I'd give you a chance to apologize for your mistake before making this post. Of course, you're not a man of honor or civility and so that didn't happen. Hence, this post.

Making the lab shorter does not make it closer than it was to the rest of the game, game-play wise.

"

Fruz wrote:

Making the lab shorter does not make it closer than it was to the rest of the game, game-play wise.

Trap game play is mediocre platformer-jump-here-run game play. The rest of PoE is best in the genre argp-kill-monster-get-loot game play. Therefore, if you cut some of the trap game play out of labyrinth then labyrinth game play is more like the best in the genre argp-kill-monster-get-loot game play in PoE.

"

Fruz wrote:

Making the lab shorter does not make it closer than it was to the rest of the game, game-play wise.

It sort of does. It decreases the likelihood of encountering the traps to begin with.

In longuer labs, there are sometimes areas where you run 10 sec and find the next door, without traps.

The proportion of traps might actually be higher in a shorter version of the lab.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Therefore, if you cut some of the trap game play out of labyrinth

Not what they did.
they cut part of the lab,they likely kept a minimum of traps, which means that the concentration of traps might just be higher.

"

Fruz wrote:

In longuer labs, there are sometimes areas where you run 10 sec and find the next door, without traps.

The proportion of traps might actually be higher in a shorter version of the lab.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Therefore, if you cut some of the trap game play out of labyrinth

Not what they did.
they cut part of the lab,they likely kept a minimum of traps, which means that the concentration of traps might just be higher.

Not sure why you continue to be confused? Proportion of good versus bad game play is not the issue. the issue is the bad game play. Bad is bad. The rest of PoE is good yet I stopped playing PoE because of the bad game play. GGG could add 2 hours of good game play in labyrinth and I'm sure even more people would just complain even more voraciously. So your assertion that proportion of good versus bad is what is important is a fallacious argument. The bad game play is the bad part. Reducing the bad content is good.

Here's the facts, the mediocre platformer-jump-here-run is something that I and others do not like. The rest of PoE is best in the genre arpg-kill-monster-get-loot game play. Cutting out the bad stuff is good. The best thing by far about labyrinth was Izaro, for example. I understand that critical part is still there. If some of the other best in the genre arpg-kill-monster-get-loot game play gets cut but the most unique part stays, Izaro, I don't give a shit. PoE is about that wonderful argp-kill-monster-get-loot game play that can be had anyplace else you go in PoE out side PoE. Not sure why you think that it would be upsetting to me or anyone that some of the great game play gets cut in order to cut out some of the horrible mediocre platformer-jump-here-run-there?

Of course, the best solution would have been to do something more in line with making the points available outside the labyrinth or making the labyrinth fun to run through. I understand that the partial solution that GGG choose to implement was much easier to implement. That is important because it meant that it's a partial solution that could be implemented in the time left before the launch of 3.0. Sometimes pragmatic considerations must take precedence over ideal solutions.