biostem

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...

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...