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

"

Phrazz wrote:

I just took some time and read through some of the pages in this thread, and I must say; "jeeze".

Almost the majority of the "counters" to the people disliking the lab, falls into the "I know better how YOU feel than you do yourself. If not, you are lying"-category. It makes we want to ask the following question:

"How's it looking up there, on your high horse?"

Especially one of the people in here, calls people liars as soon as he runs out of arguments. But he isn't the only one. It's kind of sad to read, and makes me understand why some are being provoked.

But I have a couple of questions for the defenders/likers/lovers/tolerators of the lab:

What is it about the lab that makes YOU spend 500 pages+ defending it? What is it about the lab that is so important to keep? Why would a challenging alternative to the lab be so freakin' bad for the game?

You misunderstand, young padawan. This thread isn't really about the Lab.

This thread (IMO, so hold your fire) is trying to undermine the developer's freedom to do as they please in their vision. They do so by playing the feedback card very fondly, but have you noticed that none of them actually play the game? Why would you quit the game over the Lab if that represents less than a percentage of your game time?

It's not the Lab we're defending at all. It's the game and the course of the near future. I think the team at GGG may have caught on to this as well, which explains their reluctance to respond here.

They're trying to slowly push player voting for content and changes into the spectrum when it clearly isn't supposed to be that way. Terms like "donating" are plenty in the earlier pages of this novel, to be used as ammo for the entitlement gun.

I'm convinced that had this been just a thread of constructive feedback concerning the Lab, it would have been reviewed and either dismissed or taken to heart officially by now, as they have done in the past.

Of course, that's just a theory....

"

Xavathos wrote:

You misunderstand, young padawan. This thread isn't really about the Lab.

This thread (IMO, so hold your fire) is trying to undermine the developer's freedom to do as they please in their vision. They do so by playing the feedback card very fondly, but have you noticed that none of them actually play the game? Why would you quit the game over the Lab if that represents less than a percentage of your game time?

It's not the Lab we're defending at all. It's the game and the course of the near future. I think the team at GGG may have caught on to this as well, which explains their reluctance to respond here.

They're trying to slowly push player voting for content and changes into the spectrum when it clearly isn't supposed to be that way. Terms like "donating" are plenty in the earlier pages of this novel, to be used as ammo for the entitlement gun.

I'm convinced that had this been just a thread of constructive feedback concerning the Lab, it would have been reviewed and either dismissed or taken to heart officially by now, as they have done in the past.

Of course, that's just a theory....

So I'm in the wrong thread then, trying to discuss the lab, and the lab alone?

I like GGG and most of their decisions. I'm not trying to undermind them in any way, because I like what they are doing. I do, however, think that the lab was a step in the wrong direction, if we talk about the game as a whole. I think the "crave" for the Ascendancy points could've been handled in a much more creative way, and more in line with the genre and "why" people play this genre.

I AM playing the "suggestion/feedback" card. I think it's an important card, but gets less important the more it gets played.

"

Phrazz wrote:

I just took some time and read through some of the pages in this thread, and I must say; "jeeze".

Almost the majority of the "counters" to the people disliking the lab, falls into the "I know better how YOU feel than you do yourself. If not, you are lying"-category. It makes we want to ask the following question:

"How's it looking up there, on your high horse?"

Especially one of the people in here, calls people liars as soon as he runs out of arguments. But he isn't the only one. It's kind of sad to read, and makes me understand why some are being provoked.

But I have a couple of questions for the defenders/likers/lovers/tolerators of the lab:

What is it about the lab that makes YOU spend 500 pages+ defending it? What is it about the lab that is so important to keep? Why would a challenging alternative to the lab be so freakin' bad for the game?

You are the one who seem to be on a high horse in this message, just saying ...
Should you not at least try wondering why ? :)

And I dislike people spitting nonsense, and that is what most lab haters have been doing here.
Seeing a handful of players (or not players anymore too, which is .... w/e) circle jerking about the lab and throwing antagonizing analogies, insulting the devs and anybody that does not share their "vision" .... I honestly really, really despise what they do.
The things that I feel towards really a few posters here, would probably be better of not being described here because it could just be moderated.
And I'm just being honest here, again.
Note that I haven't said that you were one of those, try not to take that personally as you did take some other things this way, when it wasn't meant to.


So I'm partly here to try to stand for the game, for myself and the few people that are not in that group I mentioned earlier.
Is it stupid of me ? Well probably.


Plus, as Xavathos said, it's also defending the game.

An actually challenging alternative would be potentially bad for the game because :
- if it would actually be challenging, it would likely be in a way that would make many here keeping QQing, even about that new thing, imho. The things that people don't like is mostly the fact that they can't just outlevel the normal lab at level 50, they don't like the traps still dealing damage even at higher levels, with good gear.
(Yes, I am very skeptical, especially for some here)

- if it would not actually be challenging, people would just over level it and roll on it like it was nothing at the end of the day, and that would be a great loss, one more thing given to the "silver-plate" generation

- it would cost money, and time from the dev, for something that the game does not need. Probably the biggest reason.

Some improvement to the lab would be welcome, but I do feel that most here would just keep bitching anyway, because it would not go exactly as they want.
Make the whole thing more randomized ?
Great, I would be all for it, but do you think that people will stop QQing after that ?
No way.
There will have one less "Excuse" to spit on it, they could not spit on the internet map anymore.


And you must definitely not have read much of this thread, if you do not have found those reasons in it ( Although there is so much crap in the thread at this point, that the few interesting things are buried deep down there, likely not worth digging ).

"

Phrazz wrote:

"

Xavathos wrote:

You misunderstand, young padawan. This thread isn't really about the Lab.

This thread (IMO, so hold your fire) is trying to undermine the developer's freedom to do as they please in their vision. They do so by playing the feedback card very fondly, but have you noticed that none of them actually play the game? Why would you quit the game over the Lab if that represents less than a percentage of your game time?

It's not the Lab we're defending at all. It's the game and the course of the near future. I think the team at GGG may have caught on to this as well, which explains their reluctance to respond here.

They're trying to slowly push player voting for content and changes into the spectrum when it clearly isn't supposed to be that way. Terms like "donating" are plenty in the earlier pages of this novel, to be used as ammo for the entitlement gun.

I'm convinced that had this been just a thread of constructive feedback concerning the Lab, it would have been reviewed and either dismissed or taken to heart officially by now, as they have done in the past.

Of course, that's just a theory....

So I'm in the wrong thread then, trying to discuss the lab, and the lab alone?

I like GGG and most of their decisions. I'm not trying to undermind them in any way, because I like what they are doing. I do, however, think that the lab was a step in the wrong direction, if we talk about the game as a whole. I think the "crave" for the Ascendancy points could've been handled in a much more creative way, and more in line with the genre and "why" people play this genre.

I AM playing the "suggestion/feedback" card. I think it's an important card, but gets less important the more it gets played.

No, not at all. You are doing exactly what everyone else should be doing also. Discussing the Lab and alternatives for it. Your feedback as an active player is very valuable, I'd say.

Contrary to popular belief around here, I'm not silencing anyone. I just want to have a discussion instead of a flame war. And yes, I like the Lab. That doesn't mean I'm not open to reasonable alternatives at all. I've just yet to see any reasonable ones from the ones that frequent this thread.

It usually boils down to skipping Lab entirely, cheating, in other words.

"

Fruz wrote:

And you must definitely not have read much of this thread, if you do not have found those reasons in it ( Although there is so much crap in the thread at this point, that the few interesting things are buried deep down there, likely not worth digging ).

The "high horse" comment was directed to the people starting every other comment with "I don't believe you. I DOUBT that you are that good. You can't do it fast, unless you wouldn't find it boring". Classical suppression techniques, trying to undermind the other debaters.

And while I have DEBATED other people's argument, as we do in a debate, I try my hardest to respect the arguments, even though it gets really hard sometimes. I understand if you love the lab, and think of it as good content. But it seems impossible for you to understand that some of us DO NOT like it, and DO NOT see it as good content, even though we can streamroll it.

While you have elements of what I'm talking about several places in you last post, you seem to try and limit yourself by using the word "skeptical" instead of calling them liars straight out. I like it :)

And I'm sure many people would whine no matter what changes they did. We could've said that BEFORE they made the lab too. Creating "whining" should never be an argument against doing something, because people will whine no matter what.

I've tried to be constructive in this thread, but it turned out to be impossible, when my standpoint and point of views directly and indirectly get called "lies". So WHY there isn't much constructive feedback in here, rests on many shoulders, from both sides of the debate. Even when I wrote that I'm excited to test out the changes, it got interpreted in a bad way.

But I am. I am excited to test them out, to see if the lab is a little "lighter" on the temperament. A little less "running to that corner, opening that door, finding that key", and maybe a little more action in form of ARPG elements.

By the way, I don't "love" the lab.
I enjoy it, sure.

"

Phrazz wrote:

And I'm sure many people would whine no matter what changes they did. We could've said that BEFORE they made the lab too. Creating "whining" should never be an argument against doing something, because people will whine no matter what.

I am implying that a significant portion of those already QQing about the law will keep doing so.
If that's the case, would you say that spending GGG's money and time on it would be worth it ?

By the way, since you say you have been reading a bit more of this thread, given the content, don't you understand where I''m coming from, being super skeptical of the "haters" here ?
It didn't start as "bad" as it is right now, the feeling that I described in my previous post, some people definitely "earned" them.

"

Phrazz wrote:

But I am. I am excited to test them out, to see if the lab is a little "lighter" on the temperament. A little less "running to that corner, opening that door, finding that key", and maybe a little more action in form of ARPG elements.

I would probably enjoy such a thing too.

"

Phrazz wrote:

The "high horse" comment was directed to the people starting every other comment with "I don't believe you. I DOUBT that you are that good. You can't do it fast, unless you wouldn't find it boring".

If I had added a "You can't do it fast, unless you wouldn't find it boring [enough to come here and cry a river of tears and start insulting the devs]", would you have had the same answers ?
Because to me, the result is basically the same.
To be honest, maybe I would have been less "radical" 500 pages before, that's possible.

"

Fruz wrote:

To be honest, maybe I would have been less "radical" 500 pages before, that's possible.

Definitely. I've said things here that I would have never even thought of saying in any other situation, online or offline. It's just really hard to have a discussion when you're being baited into a corner half the time, just for the heck of it.

As a result of this, I take people who complain and don't actually play the game, A LOT less seriously.
The way I see it, there's no reason to quit over the Lab alone, at least that'd be a huge stretch. So if you claim so, you will, to my mind, have another reason to be here all together. Which probably isn't to better the game that you have no interest in playing. Having never spent a dime on the game also doesn't help improve that image at all.

While it's a shame that it has to be like that now, assumptions piled on top of one another, I feel the obscene trolling here in the past is to blame for that.

Hopefully it'll get better when everyone else realizes what's really going on here. People like Phrazz who really only came here to talk about the thread's topic, should not have to go through 500 pages of history to understand that the topic has been lost under a pile of ash.

"

Fruz wrote:

I am implying that a significant portion of those already QQing about the law will keep doing so.
If that's the case, would you say that spending GGG's money and time on it would be worth it ?

From my point of view, egoistic, and how I would like the lab to change? Yes. In total? No. But this goes for all content. GGG's time and money are being spent on something all the time, and no matter what they do with it, people will whine.

"

Fruz wrote:

By the way, since you say you have been reading a bit more of this thread, given the content, don't you understand where I'm coming from, being super skeptical of the "haters" here ?
It didn't start as "bad" as it is right now, the feeling that I described in my previous post, some people definitely "earned" them.

I understand perfectly fine where you are coming from. But does that justify that from the moment I entered the thread, from the first post - having to defend myself against being called a liar, and disbelieve about my point of view? Hardly, but maybe. But here I going being personal again :P

"

Fruz wrote:

If I had added a "You can't do it fast, unless you wouldn't find it boring [enough to come here and cry a river of tears and start insulting the devs]", would you have had the same answers ?
Because to me, the result is basically the same.
To be honest, maybe I would have been less "radical" 500 pages before, that's possible.

I have never cried a river, so no, it wouldn't change it all that much. I haver never tried to make it a river (a big deal). I have never seen it as the "end of PoE", "black'n white" or whatever you would call it. I've just tried to shed some light on the "issue". And yes, I would call it an "issue" when such a large part of the player base has some kind of problems with the content.

I've just advocated for some kind of changes or alternatives. Have I "diverted" because of the "mood" in here? Sure, I'm no better than the majority. But now it looks like some kind of changes are coming, and I think we all can look forward to test those out before "going to war" again ;)

"

Phrazz wrote:

I understand perfectly fine where you are coming from. But does that justify that from the moment I entered the thread, from the first post - having to defend myself against being called a liar, and disbelieve about my point of view? Hardly, but maybe. But here I going being personal again :P

Aight, let's say that there was some collateral damage here then!
That + a lot of argumentation about semantic (believe or not, I don't like arguing semantics, I don't do it for the sake of it, but when you're trying to have a discussion and not everyone put the same meaning behind the words when it matters ..... and when some are not even paying attention to specifically used words :/ )

"

Phrazz wrote:

I have never cried a river, so no, it wouldn't change it all that much. I haver never tried to make it a river (a big deal). I have never seen it as the "end of PoE", "black'n white" or whatever you would call it. I've just tried to shed some light on the "issue". And yes, I would call it an "issue" when such a large part of the player base has some kind of problems with the content.

I've just advocated for some kind of changes or alternatives. Have I "diverted" because of the "mood" in here? Sure, I'm no better than the majority. But now it looks like some kind of changes are coming, and I think we all can look forward to test those out before "going to war" again ;)

Well, I guess you were at somewhat of a tension peak when you got in here.
I was basically pointing at some others that do things that you don't, and you jumped in at that moment, kinda advocating for them.
Anyway, I think that you got my point at the end.


And for the underlined part .... peace is an illusion, exile :(.