biostem

No, the problem is you cannot separate out the various aspects of my argument. Let me restate them once more: 1. A majority of people voting for something is not, in and of itself, reason to change/implement what they voted on. 2. There currently is no issue with funding Homecoming, nor has a significant enough proportion of those that do contribute, expressed such a level of dissatisfaction that they'd stop doing so. 3. You are certainly free to stop replying.

Incorrect. A power should be changed if and only if it can be demonstrated that there is something wrong/underperforming about it. Let me rephrase: "100% people voted to change power X" is not a good enough reason. "Power X is underperforming in categories A, B, and C", (backed up with evidence), is.

No. Use clearer language, especially if one is trying to put forth or support a proposition. Even taking your hypothetical example, it implies that it is the devs that are putting the power change up for a vote, not simple player fiat. It also doesn't include any details about the proposed change, so there simply isn't enough information to go on.

Let me distill things down for you, then: 1. Should powers be changed if most people voted for it? No, for reasons I've outlined previously. 2. Should powers be changed if everyone voted for it? Still no, again for reasons I've outlined in thread. 3. Should powers be changed if a coherent and demonstrable reason be given for said change? Absolutely! Notice how it wasn't until now that you've backtracked to include "checks and balances in the devs". Notice how you went from "should powers be changed if people vote on it" to "even approach changing a power". Look up "motte and bailey", because you keep jumping between an indefensible position "change powers if people vote on it" to your more defensible "approach changing a power". No need for "fake scenarios" at all.

Except you are now moving the goalposts. You repeatedly used terms like "everyone", which is decidedly different from "most people". Regardless, a power should be changed if it is underperforming, NOT just because people voted for it. Sure, the two may frequently coincide, but that is not necessarily the case. People may not like a power, but it may fit perfectly with the set it is a part of, so maybe it's the rest of the set that needs to be examined for not living up to that expected performance. Power and set balance is very nuanced, and shouldn't be messed with as a result of a majority vote.

Well, isn't part of the reasoning behind the power that since a blaster has higher damage, but is more fragile, that positioning becomes that much more vital to their survival? That being said, the ability to blink/flash-step as other ATs would be quite cool.

I wonder if they could break the power up into, say, 2 or more "pulses", with an ability to interrupt the animation between pulses, (perhaps just by trying to move).

You are misunderstanding. First, demonstrate that there is actually a *need* for any powers to be changed, based upon the criteria of "everyone" you have set forth. Second, if the donation requests are being met, then enough people are satisfied with the game and the dev team as-is/with the direction they're leading the game, for your concerns to be unwarranted. If and when the situation changes, then we can discuss what kinds of changes would keep the donations coming in.

The come back when EVERYONE, (and I mean literally everyone, since you are using that word so freely), agrees to a change...

Yes. The same ones which are generally met within minutes or even seconds of opening. You can say you told me so when it takes more than a few hours or days. There you go generalizing again. YOU are not the community. Even if we took all the people in these forums, they still do not constitute the entire Homecoming community. You are giving your own opinions way more weight than they deserve.

No. What I'm saying is that YOU, or others advocating for power change under the guise of "everyone wants this power changed", should stop doing so, because YOU don't actually know that "everyone" does in fact want said change. The fallacy I linked to was pointing out that, even *if* everyone wanted something, (which let's be honest is not going to be the case), that it still shouldn't be done/granted just by virtue of that fact.

If they were a for-profit entity, perhaps. Since they are not, and so long as the bills are getting paid, no. EDIT: Also, please stop with these strawmen "if everyone ___", because those cases almost never happen...

At the time, it may in fact have been correct to make stamina inherent. It was *never* the case, however, that it needed to be so. It was just the easier solution than the more arduous task of slotting end reduction enh's and learning better end management. Power creep and IOs have drastically changed the game, however, and they are even easier to get here in Homecoming. Yes, this is a video game, but there are aspects of character creation, power slotting. and enhancement choice that do and should continue to matter. When I hear people say something like "obviously wrong", what I hear in my head is "I don't like X, so change it" or "I want Y to be/work like this instead, so change it". Now, if you could actually make a cogent argument to change a power or a set, backed up with empirical evidence in an actual play environment, then I'm with you - but not just because "people want it"...

But, to take your example, *why* would 100% of the player base want sprint to grant a defense bonus, (and let's be honest - you're not going to get 100% of the player base to agree on something like that)? What if they wanted it so it's easier to soft cap defense? Maybe, even if everybody wanted it, it's still not the right thing to do...

Just because people want something, even unanimously, doesn't make it right/correct: Argumentum ad populum

Interesting approach. Question: Do all powers have extra coding to allow for the extra damage from a power like 'assault', or can this hypothetical AT's inherent just work like that?

Homecoming doesn't seem to have any issues meeting their donation goals. The game code is already out in the wild, so it's unlikely that CoH will be dead permanently. Pretty much anyone who wants to play, can. Would it be nice for Homecoming to "go legit"? Sure! But as long as we can play, I really can't fault the devs for, well, anything...

Could you narrow things down at least a little? Regular male or huge? Any idea on powersets or maybe even a bit of this character's backstory?

So then work with what you *do* have - demonstrate those areas in which you excel.

The code for CoH is "out in the wild", so to speak; Get a hold of it, learn it, and implement a few of your proposed changes as part of your resume, then submit what you did to the devs here...

Well, you could have it be an innate that grants a damage debuff for every enemy within 10'-15', and a defense bonus at the same time. EDIT: I was also thinking: This hypothetical assault-using AT could have an inherent that pulses out a small AoE every few seconds - if any enemies are found, grant a def/res buff for each, (up to some cap), and if no enemies are found, grant a damage buff...

What if it placed a debuff on the target, which pulsed every few seconds and granted you a bonus to crit chance?

What if it also did psionic & fire damage to reflect the sick burn you inflicted upon your target's ego? 😉

I don't think you can get past a *word* and whatever immediate impulse/emotional reaction said word has for you. Yes, "Corruptors" started out as a villainous AT, but there's such a thing as an antihero or a heel-face-turn. If *you* as a player cannot separate the name of an AT from what that character's backstory is or how they conduct themselves, then that is on you... Poison, darkness, necromancy, etc, can all be used for good, and CoH isn't the 1st game or form of media to depict it...

How about something that is the antithesis of the destruction a fire/fire brute would bring; A nature affinity/water blast defender!