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

"

raics wrote:

"

KiadawP wrote:

! thing I don't understand about the mindset of the developer is. They KNOW most players want lab to be shorter. So they make lab shorter, but not for merciless & Uber? Does it not occured to GGG, that when players said they want lab to be short, they meant ALL.

I think they said somewhere that normal lab is too cumbersome to make for a good introduction to the system, that sounds like the real reason they changed it. A noob goes into normal lab for the first time and spends half a day in there or gets creamed by charged Izzy, that's most likely the feedback they reacted to, not some of us saying that traps suck in general.

The labs SHOULD get more longer and more difficult as you step up in tiers. Make each bonus harder to get. The rewards for running Eternal lab are also 942390483904830934893 times (approximately) as good as Normal lab, running Eternal should require much more time/effort.

"

Zalhan2 wrote:

"

raics wrote:

And all of you can thank me for the CoC and AoE nerfs, they were done according to my posted specifications in their entirety.

I'm eagerly awaiting your heartfelt thanks, please don't hold back.

COC was bullshit I remember watching pressstartforpaws on stream make hardcore 100 ignoring all content and having people clean up loot slower she could make it.

Their initial solution was make the build expensive so only l33t people could afford it then nerf affordable builds and ignore COC.

At least your judgement is better than theirs at times.

As I said they do respond its just really baffling slow.

How did your convince them?

Oh, no need for false modesty in this thread so I'll just say that good suggestion always come through in the end.

Shitting you not, I gave them two suggestions to nerf CoC, one was limiting it to one cast per event and the other was good ol' cooldown boost. They were so goddamn impressed that they did both.

"

Archwizard wrote:

The labs SHOULD get more longer and more difficult as you step up in tiers. Make each bonus harder to get. The rewards for running Eternal lab are also 942390483904830934893 times (approximately) as good as Normal lab, running Eternal should require much more time/effort.

My point exactly, they did two things that make a lot of sense, so unless we're assuming total and utter lack of that in the GGG office claiming credit for any of it shouldn't really be made seriously. Yeah, we do a lot of horsing around in here.

"

raics wrote:

"

Zalhan2 wrote:

"

raics wrote:

And all of you can thank me for the CoC and AoE nerfs, they were done according to my posted specifications in their entirety.

I'm eagerly awaiting your heartfelt thanks, please don't hold back.

COC was bullshit I remember watching pressstartforpaws on stream make hardcore 100 ignoring all content and having people clean up loot slower she could make it.

Their initial solution was make the build expensive so only l33t people could afford it then nerf affordable builds and ignore COC.

At least your judgement is better than theirs at times.

As I said they do respond its just really baffling slow.

How did your convince them?

Oh, no need for false modesty in this thread so I'll just say that good suggestion always come through in the end.

Shitting you not, I gave them two suggestions to nerf CoC, one was limiting it to one cast per event and the other was good ol' cooldown boost. They were so goddamn impressed that they did both.

Are you saying that he suggestions in this thread aren't good enough to come through?

"

Pyrokar wrote:

Are you saying that he suggestions in this thread aren't good enough to come through?

Assuming the comment was serious... no idea, we'll know it once something does.

The whole thing is hella sketchy, really, as far as I know GGG has never credited anyone for ideas except supporters for their uniques, and brother Laz I suppose. Which is a pretty smart thing to do if you think about it, because there would be no end to 'see, I suggested that way back in 2014, post 65, thread 453677' or 'oh yeah? I said the exact same thing on 10.2.2013 when talking down my parrot for arguing with the cat about oil prices'. I mean, sure, it was originally your idea, but it wasn't the one GGG saw and acted upon, so who to credit? Can't blame them for wanting no part in that mess.

Ah well, we say a lot of things in here so some of it is bound to match, there's probably no need to credit anyone in the first place.

"

Archwizard wrote:

"

raics wrote:

"

KiadawP wrote:

! thing I don't understand about the mindset of the developer is. They KNOW most players want lab to be shorter. So they make lab shorter, but not for merciless & Uber? Does it not occured to GGG, that when players said they want lab to be short, they meant ALL.

I think they said somewhere that normal lab is too cumbersome to make for a good introduction to the system, that sounds like the real reason they changed it. A noob goes into normal lab for the first time and spends half a day in there or gets creamed by charged Izzy, that's most likely the feedback they reacted to, not some of us saying that traps suck in general.

The labs SHOULD get more longer and more difficult as you step up in tiers. Make each bonus harder to get. The rewards for running Eternal lab are also 942390483904830934893 times (approximately) as good as Normal lab, running Eternal should require much more time/effort.

I think you missed th part where I said, the older people get, the less time we have, hence game seesion (see MOBA; FPS shooters, overwatch), are design that each session/match last no more than 30mins (give & take).

DIfficult, no problem, but longer is actually very ignoring for older people with less time. We have to be very selective on what we do in free time.

"

KiadawP wrote:

I think you missed th part where I said, the older people get, the less time we have, hence game seesion (see MOBA; FPS shooters, overwatch), are design that each session/match last no more than 30mins (give & take).

DIfficult, no problem, but longer is actually very ignoring for older people with less time. We have to be very selective on what we do in free time.

Nope, I ignored it as silly. You cannot expect every game to have 30 min play sessions or that every element in every game is able to be completed in 30 minutes. That's just ludicrous.

And yes, I am on the older side so I'm not some 22 year old with assloads of time. Heck, my kids are about that old.

"

Archwizard wrote:

"

KiadawP wrote:

I think you missed th part where I said, the older people get, the less time we have, hence game seesion (see MOBA; FPS shooters, overwatch), are design that each session/match last no more than 30mins (give & take).

DIfficult, no problem, but longer is actually very ignoring for older people with less time. We have to be very selective on what we do in free time.

Nope, I ignored it as silly. You cannot expect every game to have 30 min play sessions or that every element in every game is able to be completed in 30 minutes. That's just ludicrous.

And yes, I am on the older side so I'm not some 22 year old with assloads of time. Heck, my kids are about that old.

Find me where I said every game has to have 30mins session or less!

I am saying many games these day are made to have shorter sessions, one reason is growing average age of gamers.

As for every element can be complete within 30mins, again, not what I said. If you have a long session, most games have check points or save points.

Name me a modern game where you can go hours without checkpoints/save point in between.

Give me a reason they the lab can't have check points? I get the argument that if something is worth it, have to have some effort, & making long session is not an issue, just that the session can be divided into smaller parts.
Effort do not change, but people don't have to dedicated huge amount of single sessioncan still play. If people have the time, they can do in one go, WIN/WIN.

"

KiadawP wrote:

Name me a modern game where you can go hours without checkpoints/save point in between.

MA Andromeda for instance, some main campaign fights are very long on higher difficulties and you have to do it all over again if you mess up, we aren't talking hours but I could probably do the lab in that time. It was an unexpected change from previous installments and kinda nostalgic, never realized I've even missed it.

Hmm, other modern games... maybe Survival mode in Street Fighter 5, you need it to unlock costume colors, it takes ages and there are obviously no checkpoints.

"

raics wrote:

Sure, not saying it isn't possible they just painted it pretty. But what they did helps the little guy the most so they aren't contradicting themselves.

It would be naïve to suggest or believe that the largest Labyrinth changes were not due primarily to the flood of unceasing negative feedback, by a huge mix of players, both old and new.

"

And yeah, I don't think anyone was saying the existing system with optional rewards and trinkets was working fine and their stats were likely showing it too. It would be nice if it drove us to explore the lab but it didn't, which I think most of us here agreed with, so they just scrapped the concept and made them less detourish.

That's one thing they did. The other, which I see pretty much no one here talking about, was randomize certain rewards. This gives a higher (relative) advantage to players who think using Reddit to cheat is BS and/or don't even know about poelab. That is important because non-randomized rewards published on reddit was a very important factor in the Labyrinth discouraging exploration.

If we consider "Labyrinth discourages and punishes exploration" to be a problem (applicable equally to new and old players, imo), the three most obvious solutions are as follows:

1. Render the issue moot, by heavily decreasing the amount which can be explored.
2. Individualize the experience more, in order to make players feel less punished for stepping off the beaten track and/or not exploiting reddit.
3. Make the content 100% optional.

GGG has applied #1 to the earlier labs, and #2 to all labs. #1 is the more obvious and dramatic change (thus everyone talks about it), but its substantive impact is arguably much smaller. #2 is an actual revision to content, as opposed to a band-aid solution of reducing the content, and as such deserves more attention.

I'm not saying their work is done (far from it), but any useful critical evaluation of the current state of things must acknowledge and consider the totality of their revisions so far, in order to guide their trajectory moving forward.