Community Vote on "Cottaging" Powers?

[biostem]

18 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

Lets take a step back here. Of course everyone doesn't mean "Everyone". 100% unanimous decisions will never ever happen. 

 

But, lets say like there was a hypothetical vote on [Detention Field] that was something along the lines of "This power is on the table for a possible redesign. Would the players like to see it redesigned? Y / N". If the result of the vote was like 800 yes vs 200 no, that is the opinion of 1000 players where 80% said "yeah, change it" or at least "we'd be cool with changing it". That'd be a super majority and essentially "everyone".

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.

Edited January 28, 2020 by biostem

[biostem]

1 minute ago, Galaxy Brain said:

It sounds like you would not like the playerbase to vote on exactly what changes, but what about "if it should be changed"?

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. 

[biostem]

3 minutes ago, Super Atom said:

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.

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.

[Leogunner]

1 hour ago, Super Atom said:

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.

And I was one of those that opposed it primarily because it was something flavorful to accent a character meant to be particularly athletic...but also because it didn't make a difference!  People still whine about END.  If anything, it just made people worse at managing their own END.  I'd have much rather they kept Fitness its own pool and then make the pool better (and most pools in general) so that CHOICE matters more.

 

But then changing Fitness to be inherent isn't changing the powers in Fitness.  You're making an argument for power creep via majority rule.  Don't do that.

[Super Atom]

2 minutes ago, biostem said:

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.

 

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.

 

 

[The_Warpact]

No, the majority does not necessarily mean the right decision.

I like alot of the unpopular powers/sets because I want to try to make it work in a new way.

So because the majority doesn't like it you should force me and others like me to give up what we enjoy?

No, make new sets, new AT's, etc. 

[Super Atom]

4 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

And I was one of those that opposed it primarily because it was something flavorful to accent a character meant to be particularly athletic...but also because it didn't make a difference!  People still whine about END.  If anything, it just made people worse at managing their own END.  I'd have much rather they kept Fitness its own pool and then make the pool better (and most pools in general) so that CHOICE matters more.

 

But then changing Fitness to be inherent isn't changing the powers in Fitness.  You're making an argument for power creep via majority rule.  Don't do that.

 

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.

Edited January 28, 2020 by Super Atom

[biostem]

Just now, Super Atom said:

If a majority of people voted that a power was in need of change, that would imply something is probably wrong with the power.

No no, a million times no!  That is the entire point of the fallacy I linked all the way back!

 

1 minute ago, Super Atom said:

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?

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.

 

2 minutes ago, Super Atom said:

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.

That is not how the world works - just ask a police officer, (or any public official, for that matter).

 

3 minutes ago, Super Atom said:

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.

Wrong again.  It seems *you* are having an issue understanding my point.  Read up on the fallacy I linked to.

[Leogunner]

1 minute ago, Super Atom said:

 

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.

And I'd say does it really matter if the power is under performing?  What's important is if the POWER *SET* is under performing.  If you're trying to make every power within every viable set nearly equally desirable, then it's no longer a question of "should this power be changed" but "what portion of the rest of the set are you willing to give up for it"?  I suppose it's in our nature to ask for things and offer nothing in return, but it gets annoying seeing people constantly asking for free lunches.  What you gonna pay for your lunch?

 

 

[Super Atom]

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.

 

[biostem]

2 minutes ago, Super Atom said:

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.

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...

[Super Atom]

1 minute ago, Leogunner said:

And I'd say does it really matter if the power is under performing?  What's important is if the POWER *SET* is under performing.  If you're trying to make every power within every viable set nearly equally desirable, then it's no longer a question of "should this power be changed" but "what portion of the rest of the set are you willing to give up for it"?  I suppose it's in our nature to ask for things and offer nothing in return, but it gets annoying seeing people constantly asking for free lunches.  What you gonna pay for your lunch?

 

 

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.

[Super Atom]

Just now, biostem said:

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...

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.

[Leogunner]

3 minutes ago, Super Atom said:

 

This makes no sense. You would have preferred they buffed it so people would still get it anyway and be more powerful? 

Are you oblivious?  It still requires 3+ power picks.  What we got (inherent fitness) is making people more powerful moreso than having a pool that people feel bogged down taking being more attractive but still competing with other pools.

 

6 minutes ago, Super Atom said:

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.

***** please.  I didn't put words in your mouth.  I state your intent.  If people asked for power creep by majority, you're applying the rational that it is justified.  That is exactly what you implied.  You may not have explicitly said "power creep" but you didn't make an exception for such a situation but rather double downed on your argument.  That must mean you endorse power creep if everyone else is on board.

[biostem]

2 minutes ago, Super Atom said:

" 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.

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".

[Super Atom]

3 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

Are you oblivious?  It still requires 3+ power picks.  What we got (inherent fitness) is making people more powerful moreso than having a pool that people feel bogged down taking being more attractive but still competing with other pools.

 

***** please.  I didn't put words in your mouth.  I state your intent.  If people asked for power creep by majority, you're applying the rational that it is justified.  That is exactly what you implied.  You may not have explicitly said "power creep" but you didn't make an exception for such a situation but rather double downed on your argument.  That must mean you endorse power creep if everyone else is on board.

 

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.

Edited January 28, 2020 by Super Atom

[Widower]

While I appreciate the concern for our bills getting paid, can you all step away for a moment and take a deep breath?

[Leogunner]

7 minutes ago, Super Atom said:

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.

And that's not changing a power.  Please stay on focus within the scope of the discussion.

 

We're talking about changing tier 7 into a single target attack that debuffs the target instead of just a moderate damage AoE.  Even in your example, where a tier 2 is garbage, it's completely ignoring what the rest of the set does.  If the rest of the set is balanced, what do you think buffing one of the attacks might do?  It might push it over the edge of balanced.

 

But again, that isn't in the scope of what we're talking about.  It's changing the function of a power to not resemble its previous function for the sake of being more powerful.

 

 

[Monos King]

28 minutes ago, biostem said:

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:

I would also like to note that you just accused Super of giving their own opinion too much weight, yet you are now speaking very dogmatically. Everyone wants their opinion to be heard; that's why we have these forums to begin with. Efficacy is ever-desired. You're sitting on the other side of the extreme, where you are obsessed with data and numbers and another might be obsessed with popular opinion. I think it's important to hear everyone out, and discuss why or why not you think changes should be made to the current meta and or paradigm.

 

And let me introduce you to a fallacy. Argument from Fallacy. You really need to stop highlighting all these fallacies as if it immediately invalidates that person in questions opinion, because it doesn't. It would be better of you to just ask them to articulate their argument in a way thay you better understand.

[Leogunner]

7 minutes ago, Super Atom said:

 

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.

And people still sometimes moan about ED and the various nerfs.

 

And I'll fuck off right about when people accept nerfs as willingly as they'll accept buffs...which is likely never.

[Super Atom]

1 minute ago, Leogunner said:

And that's not changing a power.  Please stay on focus within the scope of the discussion.

 

We're talking about changing tier 7 into a single target attack that debuffs the target instead of just a moderate damage AoE.  Even in your example, where a tier 2 is garbage, it's completely ignoring what the rest of the set does.  If the rest of the set is balanced, what do you think buffing one of the attacks might do?  It might push it over the edge of balanced.

 

But again, that isn't in the scope of what we're talking about.  It's changing the function of a power to not resemble its previous function for the sake of being more powerful.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

And people still sometimes moan about ED and the various nerfs.

 

And I'll fuck off right about when people accept nerfs as willingly as they'll accept buffs...which is likely never.

 

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.

 

[Leogunner]

2 minutes ago, monos1 said:

And let me introduce you to a fallacy. Argument from Fallacy. You really need to stop highlighting all these fallacies as if it immediately invalidates that person in questions opinion, because it doesn't. It would be better of you to just ask them to articulate their argument in a way thay you better understand.

I started to be come wise to my own failings in doing that.  In essence, the various forms of fallacy are merely tropes that, if you can find fault in someone's position (easier if they use some sort of absolute statement or do not mention explicitly or implicitly that exceptions could put their stance in the wrong) you can basically categorize the whole argument as some sort of fallacy.

 

I try to always take a central stance as it's easier to adjust as people present more information or persuasive arguments and it makes thrusting certain positions (such as @Super Atom's and others on this topic) into their logical extreme. 

 

And to @Super Atom, it's apparent @biostem's stance is it's not about votes (because that is popularity, not data) but rather if it can be proven to be in need of change.  That instigates change even in circumstances where the majority is ignorant of an imbalance existing.  I believe that's the point.

[Bionic_Flea]

I don't think voting or polls are a way to design or maintain a game.  Sometimes things need changing even if people don't want it to change.  Sometimes things shouldn't be changed even if people want it.

 

[Monos King]

1 minute ago, Bionic_Flea said:

I don't think voting or polls are a way to design or maintain a game.  Sometimes things need changing even if people don't want it to change.  Sometimes things shouldn't be changed even if people want it.

 

I agree. I think regardless of the majority or minority opinion, if someone can bring evidence to the table the matter should be considered. And it shouldn't be immediately confirmed or declined based off majority opinion either. But because everyones opinion does matter, the amount of people in favor is significant too. A fine balance ultimately determined by the developers. 

 

I believe here we were simply discussing which of those leanings would be ideal for permitting the cottaging.

[biostem]

8 minutes ago, monos1 said:

I would also like to note that you just accused Super of giving their own opinion too much weight, yet you are now speaking very dogmatically. Everyone wants their opinion to be heard; that's why we have these forums to begin with. Efficacy is ever-desired. You're sitting on the other side of the extreme, where you are obsessed with data and numbers and another might be obsessed with popular opinion. I think it's important to hear everyone out, and discuss why or why not you think changes should be made to the current meta and or paradigm.

 

And let me introduce you to a fallacy. Argument from Fallacy. You really need to stop highlighting all these fallacies as if it immediately invalidates that person in questions opinion, because it doesn't. It would be better of you to just ask them to articulate their argument in a way thay you better understand.

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".