biostem

I'm having a bit of "character block" with this one. I'll have to give it some more thought. If you have any more specific details, that may spark some ideas, I'm all ears. Thanks!

So, then, it *would* be possible to have an inherent that applies stacks of a flat damage buff while enemies are not near you?

To take your examples, you only really hear about how good powers like "gang war" are; Other powers in that same position aren't given the same praise, (smoke flash, repair, fortify pack, etc). Maybe this means that "gang war" is actually over-performing. We'd have to break down the numbers and really dig into things. Confront is a tricky circumstance on its own; I attributed much of this to how the game has changed since launch; Scrappers were kind of able to fill in the role of "tank" in some cases, but weren't meant to completely overshadow them. It's a tool with some uses, but since scrappers are rarely called upon, (or players simply choose not to play them as), "off-tanks", said power is often passed over. The question isn't necessarily whether confront should be changed or replaced, but what are scrappers meant to do, and does confront contribute to that goal. The great thing is that no one is forced to take confront, and practically all builds take some pool power or another, so having the option to take confront or not isn't a bad thing. I think of it like this: You have this awesome screwdriver set, and there's this weird star bit in there that you seem to never use, but in that super rare case when you need it, you'll be thankful that it's there. Even though 99.9% of people will never use that "star bit", does that mean that it should be removed?

One aspect of Champions Online that I rather like is how they gave almost every melee set a "lunge" power, which allows you to quickly close the distance. I suspect that spring attack, shield charge, and lightning rod were, (at least in part), meant to fill this role...

It depends - is the goal to get an even distribution of all power picks across the relevant set(s) or AT(s), or just to create powers that follow consistent rules and fit with the theme of their respective sets?

Granted, certain outlier powers would need a bit more consideration, but even then, you can draw some baseline values for it, (those having been drawn from other calculations). Even ignoring that, I still hold that the outcome of any power change should be the result of a careful examination of the power's values/effects, and not a simple vote.

As I said, the criteria used to determine what is or is not balanced/in need of change, will ultimately be decided upon by someone's opinion, (be it the devs or otherwise). Once those criteria are chosen, objective, (i.e. independent of anyone's opinion), judgments can indeed be made.

You may be able to vote on what criteria you are going to consider, but once you do, an objective evaluation can be made based upon them; Are we using damage per second? Are we using damage per endurance? Are we using other metrics or some combination of multiple ones? Once you agree on those criteria, no further opinion need be considered...

Sorry, I don't vape. I don't even smoke. But, hey... what was that about glass houses and stones?

You seem to be making an attempt at revising history. Unless your last name is 'McFly' or you are a Timelord, I recommend against such endeavors...

Then why argue for changing things based upon a vote? Either a power or set is demonstrably underperforming, (in which case votes are irrelevant - the numbers speak for themselves), or no change is needed at all, so no number of votes in favor should be considered. Now, let me switch things up a little, to a circumstance where a vote would actually make more sense. Imagine the following hypothetical: "We can demonstrate with [insert data here] that sets or powers A and B need adjusting. We only have time to work on one of the sets/powers right now, so which do you think we should prioritize."

I never stated that giving your opinion was wrong. What I did state was that presenting your opinion, in the guise of representing some hypothetical "everyone", is giving said opinion too much weight, and that even if I did grant that premise, "everyone" voting for something doesn't mean that it should be done/changed/implemented. What you say is my being "obsessed with data and numbers", I see as wanting someone's proposal to change things be backed up by actual reasons. I also wasn't arguing that the other person's statements were false simply because they included a fallacy - rather, I stated that they were false, and pointed to the fallacies that demonstrated them to be false. In other words, not "A is false because A has a fallacy in it", but rather "A is false and here is the fallacy that demonstrates its state of being false".

You keep rephrasing the fallacy and you're just not getting it. Additionally, "common sense" told us the sun goes around the earth. "Common sense" showed us that the earth was flat. "Common sense" is not a good thing to appeal to. In fact, it has its own fallacy too: "Argument from ignorance" or "Argument from incredulity".

That is because before fitness was inherent, taking it meant the player had to pay the opportunity cost; You could have better end recovery, but then you'd have 3 fewer power picks to build your character with. Similarly, you could opt to not take fitness, but instead devote more enhancement slots toward reducing your per-second endurance consumption. Perhaps you'd rather take a few hits than use up that heavy end-cost attack to finish them off, and wait until a cheaper power comes off of cooldown...

No no, a million times no! That is the entire point of the fallacy I linked all the way back! Yes, and it is because of the EVIDENCE that a power should be changed, not because of the vote. The two are not intrinsically linked. That is not how the world works - just ask a police officer, (or any public official, for that matter). Wrong again. It seems *you* are having an issue understanding my point. Read up on the fallacy I linked to.

I feel like certain supports sets, which include self-granting defense/resistance/status protection, would perform much better than, say, something like trick arrow or empathy. Did you have any ideas for an inherent? Would you rearrange the order of the powers in the sets at all? What kind of damage/defense scales would this AT have?

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...