dukedukes

Let's focus on results, if you want to amend something to the "Concerning this forum..." sticky we should come up with a strong piece of guidance that can help prevent the issues we see. The points you listed aren't quite strong enough to my eye because they get into grey areas: 1. Dev time mentions. This is a grey area issue because sometimes the community has enough expertise to identify an orange as an orange. If you want the entire game to be destructible it's just impossible due to the effort required. This can help the conversation go in a new direction that may actually be possible. There are absolutely cases where people overuse this argument, but how would you phrase guidance to discern between these two cases? Here's what I came up with: 2. We are not voting. Based on the way the sticky is written devs actually value activity for suggestions, which could include vote posts, they mention not responding to a post will implicitly devalue the suggestion as it receives less activity. You should argue against the specific content of the sticky if you feel strongly about this, or an amendment for not allowing the "i dislike this" posts. 3. Shooting down ideas is just not a thing. I feel like positive intent covers this. If you identify a conflict and tell OP the issue it shouldn't be interpreted as "shooting down", you just present a problem with or without a potential solution and see if OP can work their idea around it. You shouldn't have to bend over backward looking for solutions for someone elses idea just to bring up a problem. It's possible to raise criticism with positive intent. This is the kind of friction a sub-forum like this is necessarily going to have. Reading through the sticky I think it does a good job of setting the stage. I don't agree with the GM's interpretation of topic activity being important but it's a small gripe from me.

My visibility suggestion and GooglyMoogly's idea address the potential ideas we could be missing out on, that's all. It's not perfect. I don't know how you could foster more constructive conversation without an increase in moderation and more rules. Yes but it's unclear if using the existing hide option reaches the desired effect. If it does then we should have this in a sticky to increase awareness.

I agree, I think you would see people make topics mirroring the topics we can't respond to. My original suggestion for this was a mod only visibility setting for topics (like the hide option). Something is better than nothing though, so I'd be fine with the GM's idea.

We can't influence peoples expectations on a first impression, there's no real opportunity. Having a reactionless and reply free option like GooglyMoogly mentioned is a good alternative for those who understand (or find out) their ideas will be criticized. Some of us enjoy talking through an idea and I believe this exchange adds value. I specifically have made suggestions here only to understand how the community feels about an argument I have as I felt it was too late to implement the suggestion, but if I saw the community understood and agreed with my perspective then maybe there's a chance for a somewhat drastic change. It can be easier to convince a dev of a change as they are likely more system and balance minded, more logical basically. I can argue a case to people like this much easier than others, but the community is ultimately the recipient of the change and have to be okay with it to a degree.

It's not analogous because art can exist independently, a more analogous situation would be debating whether to hang the art you described in your own home. Suggestions here are potentially integrated into a system we all interact with so we should be very critical of what's in this sub-forum. If you think devs alone can identify bad ideas I wouldn't be so sure, the devs themselves have mentioned they like to hear different opinions from the community and that's exactly how this sub-forum is structured.

I don't think devs would be so willing to share their opinion because it can appear as a promise to implement the suggestion if they like it but that decision isn't necessarily up to them, it's likely up to the team, they also can't guarantee if it could ever be done due to other priorities. I know some devs (not COH related) who get excited and share a lot of thoughts and ideas and honestly it's annoying because it's false promise after false promise. These devs lose credibility and respect to some extent. It might seem backwards but it's good if devs are not so open about supporting specific ideas, at least until it's implemented or guaranteed to be. If there is still room for arguments and facts it can only help to test the idea further, but there is a point where the conclusion becomes subjective and the argument should end then. Does the OP have to engage with any arguments? I agree it's not required but it can help the idea if OP needs to bring some clarity to their suggestion.

Making that info generally available in a sticky would help. Even better if on the topic submission you had a toggle for "mod only" visibility, very similar to "hide topic".

A private or mod only suggestion option would be good to not lose out on ideas, this would address what appears to be the OP's main point of attracting more suggestions. You do need slightly thick skin and somewhere from a decent to strong understanding of the game to handle the feedback you'll get.

It's nice for the tank to get a few seconds lead time over the team to group up mobs that tend to run into melee and getting at least one taunt out on mobs that don't. If the tank leaves like 10 or 15 sec early they're just not a very good tank IMO. It is what it is, try to have fun cleaning up the scraps. It's not just tanks that are guilty of this. I do it playing a fire blaster to keep nuke on CD as much as possible, and nuking a pack no one else is attacking is a more optimal use of a nukes damage, I at least kill the bosses too. The worst case I've seen is confuse controllers running ahead solo wiping over half the pack with confuse, goodbye xp...

I agree for Detention Field, I can't find a use for it, but the other powers are in a good spot IMO. I wrote a Grav/FF guide (in controller section if you want to find it) that utilizes Repulsion Field as its second best power for grouping mobs. It's mostly good thanks to Singularity making RF easier to use. I'll try an FF corruptor some day to see how good RF can be without sing, I know it won't be remotely close but I'm still curious.

Yeah the 10ft version given to blasters is strange... I wouldn't think blasters would get this at all because the 10ft radius doesn't really benefit them. Melee could have used this a bit to hit more targets with cones, it would have been usable, but still the cooldown is way too long.

Black Hole is not for nukes, it can still benefit 15 ft or less AOEs and cones, so there is a purpose to the power. I agree it's too weak though. I would like to see a pseudo-pet persistent trawl effect that lasts a few seconds at least similar to singularity, same radius (20ft), and a shorter cooldown (120sec -> 90sec). I don't understand the 1frame or conditional intangible part, unless it serves a purpose it should really just go in the bin.

Pylons are equal level so you get full -res value. Pylons also have 87% regen resistance so anything doing -regen will be undervalued with these tests. It's an example of why pylons are not a perfect test, but it's something.

Just a grav perspective here: You need to use Sudden Acceleration on Singularity to disable its knockback, Overwhelming Force doesn't do the same thing but it might disable the KB on sings Propel? I don't know for sure. I don't use Overwhelming Force and it doesn't cause a problem. You may want Overwhelming Force on Power Blast instead as it looks like it'll knockback. I assume you are familiar with Singularities trawl effect? You want the pet in the middle of the group of enemies so they all get grouped up with sing. You can use goto commands for this now with the latest patch, but Teleport Target is more consistent and accurate, so I'd recommend getting it. You would want to make use of the pet stay command after the TP so it doesn't try to move around. This is the strongest thing a grav can do so you should try to capitalize on it.

It's not that powers like Axe Cyclone shouldn't exist, I'm arguing for classifying it as a support power. Using repel or kb powers to group mobs is a synergy for everyone on the team, it seems like a control/support role should be doing this. The change to Black Hole mimicking Axe Cyclone I thought was a great change and I argued for it to be buffed, I'd like to see more of these powers be created but with the classification I'm arguing for in mind. Melee and other AT's can have repel powers but with reduced effectiveness like the blaster secondary repel powers (arguably a bit better). So, the fun can exist, you just have to play an AT that owns the effect to do so at full strength. It's the same reasoning that will drive you to play any particular AT, tanks for tankiness, blasters for nukes, etc.