The Labyrinth layout should change every time you enter.
" So... You are saying it is unreasonable for players who don't look at the layout ahead of time to take more than 15 minutes? And the description was "15 minutes TOPS," so you think it should take considerably less than that? For people not even looking it up? Sorry, I cannot agree. Or are you saying that most people who run the Labyrinth regularly do not meta-cheese the content by looking it up or by focusing on forgiving layout days? I'm not in a position to agree or disagree, because this is not in the realm of opinion, but that... seems extraordinarily doubtful. In either case, you really should read the whole post before commenting on its validity. The former point is peripheral to the point of the post. The latter is not, but I kind of doubt that that's what you were trying to say. Do you think that a labyrinth should actually be a labyrinth? Wash your hands, Exile!
|
|
|
Read through the rest of OP, pretty well written and well reasoned. I think the main reason my instinct is to just be weirded out by the original post is that I'm primarily a solo, keep-to-myself kind of guy. And like you said, everyone is operating from their own frame of reference. My own frame of reference almost never includes partying, and very rarely pays attention to what is meta or what the top players are doing.
As a result, I only have my own experience to judge, and my own experience with my own expectations says lab is easy. Essentially, I don't actually disagree with the suggestion because the lab as I have experienced it is so easy to navigate that unknown layouts would provide hardly a speed bump. But like I said, my experience is mostly 1-key Merc runs. In contrast, from what I can tell of general grumbling on the forum, other people would say that "lab run" = "4-key uber lab speed run," in which case I could understand locked lab layouts to be an issue. Tldr I like your argument, but your premise just happens to be the opposite of my experience. Basically: "The answer is yes, except that I probably have a very different picture of "most people who run the Labyrinth regularly" means, perhaps because I don't really observe "most people." Notably, we could have different ideas of what constitutes "regularly." I just don't see randomised layouts posing any issue for "an average lab runner." I hope I'm not repeating myself too much, but maybe it'll make it clear that I don't actually oppose your suggestion. I just don't see the issue the suggestion is targeting as a major issue, maybe because my experience is not typical. So, if I were forced to vote, I would say yes, go ahead and fully randomize labyrinth layouts because it doesn't really make a difference to me. " Yes, but current labyrinth is plenty labyrinth-y for me. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, if I had to pick a side, I'd be 100% in support of your suggestion. Edited to have, hopefully, clearer language. Another edit: yes, I think it is fairly typical for the average experienced player to finish 1-key Merc lab runs in considerably less than 15 minutes even when the layout is unknown, but apparently only GGG really knows what is "fairly typical" Need game info? Check out the Wiki at: https://www.poewiki.net/ Contact support@grindinggear.com for account issues. Check out How to Report Bugs + Post Images at: https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/18347 Last edited by adghar on Sep 7, 2016, 2:52:29 AM
| |
|
Admittedly I've only run the labyrinth a few times. My experience is that I would typically try to run it right after dinner. That is soon after the daily reset. There was not a map to look at more often than not. The one time there was a map it seemed foreign and was was not very helpful because I had to learn what the symbols meant, while not being very familiar with the labyrinth anyway. Meaning I had little clue what an easy labyrinth was or how it might differ from a harder day.
Making it total random would not help me in the least. Although it would somewhat level the playing field so it would be much less likely that we'd get people saying irrelevant and stupid things like, "The labyrinth only takes 5 minutes to run. Stop complaining." The labyrinth is just boring, irritating and tedious to run for me. PoE is about killing monsters and collecting loot, not dodging stupid screens full of traps like Frogger, Prince of Persia or Mario type game play. Over 430 threads discussing labyrinth problems with over 1040 posters in support (thread # 1702621) Thank you all! GGG will implement a different method for ascension in PoE2. Retired!
|
|
|
Eh. I don't care to farm the Uber lab, so either way this wouldn't imapct me.
A few things, though. > A labyrinth whose path is known in advance ceases to be a labyrinth. This is a video game. Not an actual labyrinth. This is a strawman. Game design does not need to stick to literal definitions of terms. This is like saying Tornado Shot should fire actual tornadoes, or the Kintsugi shouldn't exist as a chest armour because the actual term is about repairing things with gold. Which makes no sense as a healing mechanic. Nevermind that it's (presumably) some form of leather chestpiece. " Your argument continues to fall apart here. This assumes all players in video game in today's era where there are wiki's available for everything are somehow going to ignore the various knowledge bases that are available in order to become better at the game. What I mean by this is that player mastery and knowledge is a thing. People are at different levels of knowledge about the game, so there is never GOING to be a "same page." I know what you're essentially arguing about is levelling the playing field, but there's no way that's going to happen, on the sheer basis of player mastery. It doesn't matter if nobody knows what the lab layout is. Bottom line is that people who are efficient at running the Labyrinth, and who have the time to be able to invest in the game to get geared quickly in order to take advantage of four-key runs in the shortest time possible with meta clear speed builds, or provide services (which will just charge a higher rate for the time invested), or whatever. All randomizing the layout really does is put the elite players in an even more elite position. On top of all that, because it's an evolving rpg, there are always going to be new things introduced that, one way or the other, have the ability to be used by the playerbase for their economic benefit, should they so desire. Completely randomizing the Lab like normal map instances strips some of this away, reducing the instances/day of successful lab farming. Which has a widespread impact on things like Offering prices, Lab services, enchanted gear prices, etc. In and of itself, I don't particularly see an issue with that, but I imagine GGG does. They want some semblance of consistency in players being able to achieve something, AND with there being disparity in player's ability to do those things, so as to give others something to aspire to. This way, there's a mechanic in the game that offers an economic twist, but at a fairly measured cost. The essence of what you're arguing here is "There's disparity in the meta, and that translates into lab farming disparity. And that sucks." There's nothing wrong with that. At all. And randomizing the lab won't fix that. The arguments about broken meta and OpieOP skills are probably best left to another thread. Jul 27, 2011 - Sept 30, 2018. Last edited by Serleth on Sep 7, 2016, 4:41:23 AM
| |
|
Spoiler
" Your analogies here are as broken as the "Let's randomize the skill tree!" one. "Kintsugi" describes the appearance of the armor. Have you seen it? It looks like a piece of kintsugi pottery... "Tornado shot should fire actual tornadoes," you say? Sigh... I am not advocating the LITERAL application of every single label in the game (speaking of straw men...). Your entire accusation is silly. The Labyrinth has specific attributes which affect its optimal utilization. Namely, the desirability of meta-resources to clear it by the subset of minmax players. Equally important is the non-desirability of those resources among the set of non-minmax (not necessarily casual) players. You understand what I mean by "meta-"resources right? It means "extra-game" resources. "Extra" meaning "outside." Have you ever heard of maphack? That's a classic meta-game resource, and it's banned for a reason: It obviates gameplay design decisions. Looking up the entire Labyrinth layout in advance does exactly the same thing, and quite predictably so, as it is essentially a kind of a sanctioned maphack. Other meta-resources are not banned, such as the online information repositories you reference. The reason for this is obvious, unenforceability aside: Access to such information does NOT obviate gameplay design decisions. And developing ingame knowledge to exploit the game's mechanics is not the same as *cheating* the game's mechanics. Maphack breaks the game for reasons analogous to the unanticipated exploitation of OP skill mechanics breaking the game. This has nothing to do with "leveling the playing field." You imply that trying to do so is a fool's errand, and your implication is 100% correct. But your characterization of my argument as "Disparity in the meta is bad" is both highly convoluted and incorrect. My argument is much simpler: A) Broken-meta activities break the game. Maphack represents a broken meta. Looking up the solution to a maze before entering it is an identically broken meta. B) Those who wish to break the game while playing it and those who wish to play the game without breaking it have a fundamentally different frame of reference, causing intense conflict between the two groups. C) Eliminating the broken meta to eliminate both the conflict and conflicts of interest is a necessary first step to fixing a highly controversial aspect of the game. Wash your hands, Exile! Last edited by gibbousmoon on Sep 10, 2016, 4:36:28 AM
|
|
|
I think you're missing the key point that majority of people look up the layout online since they can't be half assed to figure it out and want to rush through the lab as fast as possible to get their 2 ascend points and then dip.
Potentially maybe farm it a little to get a enchant they want. Maybe people including me don't want to play the lab period, I don't see how randomizing me incentivizes me to actually play it. It's not half meta running the lab and the other half who want to play the lab "the right away" and are left behind. It's more like 5% of people who actually "meta-cheese" the lab and another 5% who actually want to play the lab. Other 90% are varying people just rushing in for their enchant or ascends, with different levels of "meh" or "god this is annoying" to "I hate it because xyz". Last edited by RagnarokChu on Sep 8, 2016, 5:56:55 AM
|
|
" Exactly. Most of the "non-meta" people don't even bother. Believe me when I say that point hasn't escaped me. It is THE point of this thread. Randomizing the lab won't make it any more fun to run. At least not right away. But those who are using broken-meta gameplay to turn a profit will no longer have a vested interest in preserving the status quo. And the status quo, as you rightfully say, is what inspires "meh" or "god this is annoying" or "I hate it because xyz." Let's fix this shit. Make it fun for "legit" players as well, not just meta/minmax/doesn't-matter-if-it's-fun-because-it's-profitable players. Wash your hands, Exile! Last edited by gibbousmoon on Sep 8, 2016, 7:26:08 AM
|
|
" But the problem is your arguing it based on the fact: 1. Even though randomizing it would make lab actually worst for everyone who play it and everyone who doesn't like it, there is some sort of "pay off" if we wait for GGG to fix lab. So why even bother randomizing it and wait until they have a large patch that would "fix" the lab to begin with? You don't need to have a "set up patch" when it does nothing for your game at best and makes the game much worst in the meanwhile. 2. Nobody has a vested interested in preserving the status quo with the massive amounts of weekly complaints we have about the lab, the only people who have a vested interest are an extreme minority so they aren't applicable to GGG decisions if they were going to change the lab anyway. Nobody disagrees that lab should change, people are disagreeing that somehow it's needed to randomize it to help set up for the future of the an better lab. Which as I pointed out has much merit because there's 0 point in making the experience worse for everyone with an unneeded "pre-patch" that can last for months until GGG wants to change lab. They can work on new version lab in internal testing. Last edited by RagnarokChu on Sep 8, 2016, 7:39:54 AM
|
|
" You're not paying attention, are you. ;) " You obviously have far more faith than I. You and other players who don't like the lab are a "vocal minority," didn't you know? The general consensus is that changes in the lab are NOT forthcoming. I wish it were otherwise. This particular change would likely change that consensus, however, and it might be defensible enough to convince, GGG. Especially given their antipathy to maphack. And their (presumable) recognition that a broken meta is never good for the game. You seem to think that leaving things as they are will eventually lead to GGG fixing the unfun nature of the Labyrinth. I wish I could agree, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise. Wash your hands, Exile! Last edited by gibbousmoon on Sep 8, 2016, 8:34:14 AM
|
|
" Lab is always the same, just go to upper right corner and you will find exit. Areas in Poe are pseudo random. Maybe one stone or wall is in different place but layout is the same 90% of the time "Is there such a thing as an absolute, timeless enemy? There is no such thing, and never has been. And the reason is that our enemies are human beings like us. They can only be our enemies in relative terms." Last edited by kamil1210 on Sep 8, 2016, 8:43:31 AM
|
