Super Atom

The cottage rule as it was posted specifically stated that in certain cases a power could be changed outside of its core function. The rule we're even debating already has its own answer. It doesn't even need a debate because the answer is already "Yes under very specific circumstances" which should include proper set balancing being taken into account. I think pretty much anyone could agree on that. Nerfs would be fine if the people suggesting them would take the same care you ask they do for buffs. I personally loved the idea of ED and would welcome said nerfs to far over preforming things. As a personal note, I think you should buff under preforming things more than you nerf over preforming. City of Heroes is casual and always has been. Making sure sets are fun is more important than making sure they can't solo an Itrial.

3+ power picks, which depending on your build is a lot or nothing. This would only make the gap worse between sets. You don't know shit about my intent so don't try to change it. All i agreed to was a power could be looked into if a majority agreed to a problem. You filling in the gaps with your own whining about power creep is your problem. BTW "power creep" fuck off, people could herd entire maps and kill them in a handful of minutes with no effort before IO's or ED. We got less powerful if anything.

To be honest with you, all fitness being an inherent did was open up the problem we see now of people taking maneuvers/cj/weave in every build for the extra recharge. It caused power creep, there is no denying that but I liked it for the reasons of opening up my choices. I felt i had to take stamina. I willingly take manu/cj for the recharge.

What did i just say about words in my mouth? If a power in the set is garbage it should be looked at. If it's mediocre or low tier, probably not. You wouldn't change the damage on a t2 just because the damage on the t7 is higher. You'd change the t2 because its damage is lower than every other power set similar to it and it doesn't do anything differently than other t2s.

This isn't the world this is a private server and is functioning the exact opposite of how you're suggesting it would. Real life examples =/= private server of a dead mmo run on donations. " The two are not intrinsically linked. " Nope, but it's common sense it probably would be if majority who can't agree on what color granite could be changed to agreed on it.

This makes no sense. You would have preferred they buffed it so people would still get it anyway and be more powerful? I wasn't making any kind of argument for anything. I used it as an example of a majority outcry and something being done because of it and my personally belief it was a good idea. You're free to disagree on where the change was good or not but don't put words in my mouth and wag your finger at me like a parent.

1. A majority of people voting for something is not, in and of itself, reason to change/implement what they voted on. True and as i said "This is a video game, not a country." If a majority of people voted that a power was in need of change, that would imply something is probably wrong with the power. You've repeatedly said that if a power is under preforming and there was evidence then you'd support it. Don't you think that if a majority of people were agreeing a power was under preforming then there would likely be evidence to back this up? It's called common sense, if you can't piece that together there is no helping you. 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. This has absolutely nothing to do with the devs listening to player feedback. If people were unhappy with one aspect of the game, it is unlikely they would stop donating, that would cause the server to close and they couldn't enjoy the thousand other parts of the game again this is basic common sense on how something works and as previously stated, the devs do listen. The assertion was the devs themselves do not pay for the server. The players do and as such they should review player feedback during decision making, which again they do. 3. You are certainly free to stop replying. I'd love to, but much like anything else you have to cut a problem at the source. You're desire to sound like you just submitted your thesis for review instead of just getting to the fucking point has caused confusion in a thread simply asking the question about if the cottage rule should be firm or if we could change powers.

Bro you literally started this with just saying no even if people wanted it, changed to they shouldn't be allowed to because devs pay for the server and then changed to the new coherent and demonstrable reason given for a change. You're a huge hypocrite and to be honest with you i still don't think you can read. Stop quoting random bullcrap to sound smart, nobody cares. Also i'm pretty bored of this circle lets just agree to disagree on who meant what and move on.

this is suggested a lot. Personally, and this is entirely personally. I think sentinels aren't good. So if its gonna be sentinels round 2? I could take it or leave it.

I used 'everyone' loosely as an example of a fake scenario in which people could agree on something. You keep harping on it as a factual statement used to support an argument I've never made. Naturally there are checks and balances in the devs. You again though continue to belittle people by insinuating none of this (again this is all a fake scenerio so we could argue forever like this) would be taken into account. You're using wild assumptions to say something shouldn't be done while the question asked is only would it be ok to even approach changing a power.

So, I'm now convinced you at least have trouble with reading comprehension. The question posed. . Do you think that if the playerbase voted on a per-power basis, it would be acceptable to totally redesign certain powers? The answer in question. Yes, if most people agree So what this is implying is that if it was suggested detention field from force field was a bad ability and needed redesign, would it be ok to do so if a vote was held and a majority agreed that yes it could use a redesign. It says nothing else and you've chosen to say that "Just because a majority thinks so, it doesn't make it right". Of course it doesn't automatically make it correct but what it does do is in a setting like a private server suggest a change could be made and a majority of those people, some of whom probably pay for this server to be kept running, think it is correct. For you to chime in and say that you personally don't trust the opinion of people and so the discussion shouldn't even happen is far more egotistical than you've claimed me to be. Yeah it'd be wild if a giant section of the player base hated the product so much the company then made an older version playable to its community based purely on player demand. Wouldn't that be nuts? Could you imagine if a company valued player opinions enough to do that?

You seem to be unable to read. All I've done is give fake scenarios on the basis of the entire community agreeing on something and implying it'd be ok to do so. Never have i ever stated i think anything should be changed based on my own opinion. Please for the love of god be coherent. Either you can what if or you can't, you can't do it and tell others they cannot. The people pay the bills but should not be allowed to have input on the game they pay for?????? Are you serious?

Yeah, you stated an *IF* everyone and i challenged it to being different from your example due to setting. His question is not "Change a power because everyone wants it" It's would it be ok to change a power away from its initial design if everyone agreed to the change. That's entirely different from what your pushing.

Oh i agree with you, the minority of players couldn't balance to save their lives...but the homecoming devs are just a group of players. They are not positron in a mask. They may have a wider view internally, but thats why when they make decisions they are often thorough and have lengthy discussion about the decision. This crap about how they're in charge and can show people the door is a shit way to think. They run on donations by the players and have been extremely good about feedback and suggestions. I often thank the stars powerhouse is the guy making changes because hes done extremely well informed changes so far but to say they shouldn't at least listen to the player base when looking into what or how much things should be changed is pure sillyness.

lmao you literally started the discussion by saying just because everyone agrees to something doesn't make it right/correct and now you're saying to stop talking about if most everyone agreed to something.

the bills the community pay? All of this is a giant what if, and assuming everyone agreed it'd be extremely likely that the decision would be backed by facts and examples. All you did was swoop in and on the same assumptions snub your nose at the community as if everyone of the people here could agree on something it'd still probably be incorrect. Also, again with the difficulty whining. CoH was never hard get over it.

Terrible. If everyone disagreed with their decision, they should absolutely take a step back and re-evaluate the decision.

Random example doesn't matter. Stamina was once in this situation, nearly all agreed that it should be changed because everyone needed it. They agreed and changed it, everyone wanted it and it was the right decision. This is a video game, usually the cry of the majority is in the right. If it's so painfully obivous something is wrong that a large majority of the player base (who can't agree on anything) agree to it, it's very likely the right choice.

You're not wrong but you're also missing the point. if 100% of the coh player base was like "sprint should also give you a small defense bonus", then the correct decision on a developers part would be to give sprint a defense bonus. This is a video game, not a country.

More slots? nah. What would be nice is if certain repeated abilities used the same slotting but were modified by the active form. Kheld's struggle but more slots would be too much.

This needs the option "Cottage rule is stupid, the game changes and so to should certain abilities".

yes I'd live without mez protection. Toggle suppression is a huge QOL imo

you know for some reason i literally didn't see your "gives humans mez protection" part. Just excuse me. @Doomrider my only problem with the other ways to get mez thing is sure on other squishes that makes sense but tri-forming is designed around hot swapping and you literally can't if enemies have holds/stuns on you when you drop from lobster to human. It just feels like bad design. You are right though, it's not THAT big of a deal and would probably be fine giving mez protection through eclipse. Jump in > eclipse is already the play so works out.

Yeah but it wouldn't help tri-form any, it would only further promote singular form play. Which is my issue with it

I think it'd be bad for tri-form because right now on teams you can kind of juggle aggro with other off tanks allowing you to go into human and use your utility without drawing too much fire, Humans not having mezz makes it risky and being forced into lobster without getting to use your utility would kind of defeat the tri-shade strengths. On a perma light form PB, it'd probably be great. @monos1 @sacredlunatic