Community Vote on "Cottaging" Powers?

[MunkiLord]

14 minutes ago, Super Atom said:

 

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.

 

I tend to agree with you about nerfs, even if it's one I don't care for. My biggest issue with nerfs is doing a respec sucks and is a shitty experience from start to finish. That gets fixed and I'll make any adjustment to nerfs and they won't be a big deal. To me that is, can't speak for anyone else.

[Monos King]

5 minutes ago, biostem said:

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. 

In that case, we are of a similar mind. I don't think any of us here really disagree with that assessment either, so it was likely just a large misunderstanding.

 

I could be wrong though.

Edited January 28, 2020 by monos1

[Super Atom]

2 minutes ago, monos1 said:

In that case, we are of a similar mind. I don't think any of us here really disagree with that assessment either, so it was likely just a large misunderstanding.

 

I could be wrong though.

You're not, he failed at mentioning evidence in favor of sounding like a douche. Like anyone would disagree with the idea of there being evidence before something is changed lol "oh no i sound like a butthole let me just change my statement to include the obvious"

[biostem]

Just now, monos1 said:

In that case, we are of a similar mind. I don't think any of us here really disagree with that assessment either, so it was likely just a large misunderstanding.

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."

[biostem]

2 minutes ago, Super Atom said:

You're not, he failed at mentioning evidence in favor of sounding like a douche. Like anyone would disagree with the idea of there being evidence before something is changed lol "oh no i sound like a butthole let me just change my statement to include the obvious"

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...

[Super Atom]

Just now, biostem said:

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...

 

HI, I'm biostem. I voted for the middle option. Evidence is needed when changes are at hand.

 

See how easy that was? but nope heres you

 

"TO QUOTE THE GREAT GENERAL PAXTON AT THE BATTLE OF THE SPACE WIZARDS, HE WHO DIES IS DEAD" like we get it you vape

[Monos King]

1 minute ago, biostem said:

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 think that's pretty simple. People might have different findings. Certain data charts might have different considerations, or suggest underperformance in one situation where it would flourish in another. Sides would be considered, and at the end a democratic deliberation would take place which may result in a great majority. And, the devs would have true final say once all the commotion brings it to their attention.

[biostem]

1 minute ago, Super Atom said:

HI, I'm biostem. I voted for the middle option. Evidence is needed when changes are at hand.

 

See how easy that was? but nope heres you

 

"TO QUOTE THE GREAT GENERAL PAXTON AT THE BATTLE OF THE SPACE WIZARDS, HE WHO DIES IS DEAD" like we get it you vape

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

[Super Atom]

Just now, biostem said:

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

They're terrible in the summer and those small ones hurt to step on.

[biostem]

13 minutes ago, monos1 said:

I think that's pretty simple. People might have different findings. Certain data charts might have different considerations, or suggest underperformance in one situation where it would flourish in another. Sides would be considered, and at the end a democratic deliberation would take place which may result in a great majority. And, the devs would have true final say once all the commotion brings it to their attention.

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...

[Monos King]

8 minutes ago, biostem said:

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...

Lol we can agree to disagree there; even a matter such as this difference would ultimately be considered majority vs minority. A few more of people in your mindset could tip the scales to your favor, and I in the minority would see changes based on your preference. It's the same principle, but I don't mind if you don't see it that way.

[biostem]

1 minute ago, monos1 said:

Lol we can agree to disagree there; even a matter such as this difference would ultimately be considered majority vs minority. A few more of people in your mindset could tip the scales to your favor, and I in the minority would see changes based on your preference. It's the same principle, but I don't mind if you don't see it that way.

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.

[Galaxy Brain]

I think what I had tried to convey originally got lost. The basis for my question would be for the "Serums" and the "Time Bombs" , or even the "Confronts" of the world where they are more or less universally seen as a bad pick or are overwhelmingly skipped by everyone. Everyone in this case being a vast majority of players on HC actively not taking the specific powers that'd be voted on. 

 

With that in mind I had thought of the discussion behind such powers and how the "Cottage Rule" sort of prevents many things from being done, like if you were to just replace Serum entirely with some new power, or drastically alter it to be essentially unrecognizable aside from being a buff. This is where a vote would come in to at least gauge the playerbase's willingness to alter such a power drastically, or not.

 

 

[biostem]

2 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

I think what I had tried to convey originally got lost. The basis for my question would be for the "Serums" and the "Time Bombs" , or even the "Confronts" of the world where they are more or less universally seen as a bad pick or are overwhelmingly skipped by everyone. Everyone in this case being a vast majority of players on HC actively not taking the specific powers that'd be voted on. 

 

With that in mind I had thought of the discussion behind such powers and how the "Cottage Rule" sort of prevents many things from being done, like if you were to just replace Serum entirely with some new power, or drastically alter it to be essentially unrecognizable aside from being a buff. This is where a vote would come in to at least gauge the playerbase's willingness to alter such a power drastically, or not.

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. 

[Galaxy Brain]

Just now, biostem said:

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. 

I'm not sure if you are getting what I meant. When a power is literally picked less than like... 1% of the time by everyone who takes the set, that is the examination of it's effects. The vote then would essentially be to say "keep the general theme or redesign it?"

[biostem]

2 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

I'm not sure if you are getting what I meant. When a power is literally picked less than like... 1% of the time by everyone who takes the set, that is the examination of it's effects. The vote then would essentially be to say "keep the general theme or redesign it?"

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?

[Sakura Tenshi]

25 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

I think what I had tried to convey originally got lost. The basis for my question would be for the "Serums" and the "Time Bombs" , or even the "Confronts" of the world where they are more or less universally seen as a bad pick or are overwhelmingly skipped by everyone. Everyone in this case being a vast majority of players on HC actively not taking the specific powers that'd be voted on. 

 

With that in mind I had thought of the discussion behind such powers and how the "Cottage Rule" sort of prevents many things from being done, like if you were to just replace Serum entirely with some new power, or drastically alter it to be essentially unrecognizable aside from being a buff. This is where a vote would come in to at least gauge the playerbase's willingness to alter such a power drastically, or not.

And regardless of how impassioned things have gotten, I stand by that we don't need to do away with the Cottage Rule since there's no need to. As I mentioned the Cottage Rule can effectively be seen as "as long as it does not effectively invalidate the IO sets someone has already slotted into the power, anything else can be changed, even the name"*

 

How could we change time bomb? How about we make it into a 'Volatile bomb' which you 'throw' as a ranged locational AoE and then, when hit by any friendly damage source detonates in a massive explosion with a firepatch DoT? Confront? Make it 'Mark Foe' and give it a -Res and -Def component to add to a scrapper's DPS (I feel AoE taunting is a perfectly legit thing for brutes since, even if MMs are theoretically the Redside tanks, brutes actually have aggro management). Detention Field- okay, this one I'm a little stumped on because foe intangible sucks.

 

But to rehash my summary: in theory, the nature of the cottage rule actually means is that you COULD have build up create a small cottage. It just would have to do that in addition to it's +Damage and +toHit buff.

 

*it should also be noted live devs were willing to redo powers in such ways that it would invalidate normal enhancement slotting, such as removing the use for end reduction enhancements on things like Cauterizing Aura or Field Operative.

[Galaxy Brain]

Just now, biostem said:

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?

 

That is a bit nebulous, but if I had to choose I would say that the goal is sort of both. Lets take Serum as an example as that one is agreed upon to be a bad power on top of having data for not being picked often to a remarkable degree. Other "MM Special Powers" are taken relatively often, especially compared to Serum which raises a question of what makes it stand out among it's peers, and the consensus seems to be that all other MM special powers have much more potency than Serum when compared head to head as well as within the sets. This would be a prime example of a power in a specific "role" in a set that is very much avoided and not performing to the degree that similar powers are. 

 

Another example is Confront. The Single Target Taunts are the least picked powers in the game by far according to the datamines. Are they "bad" or "broken"? No, they do what they are supposed to do well enough. However, the sheer volume of avoidance is telling that the power is in an odd "fit" for the playerbase at large / the AT it is on. This is where community opinion may be welcome.

[biostem]

1 hour ago, Galaxy Brain said:

That is a bit nebulous, but if I had to choose I would say that the goal is sort of both. Lets take Serum as an example as that one is agreed upon to be a bad power on top of having data for not being picked often to a remarkable degree. Other "MM Special Powers" are taken relatively often, especially compared to Serum which raises a question of what makes it stand out among it's peers, and the consensus seems to be that all other MM special powers have much more potency than Serum when compared head to head as well as within the sets. This would be a prime example of a power in a specific "role" in a set that is very much avoided and not performing to the degree that similar powers are. 

 

Another example is Confront. The Single Target Taunts are the least picked powers in the game by far according to the datamines. Are they "bad" or "broken"? No, they do what they are supposed to do well enough. However, the sheer volume of avoidance is telling that the power is in an odd "fit" for the playerbase at large / the AT it is on. This is where community opinion may be welcome.

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?

Edited January 28, 2020 by biostem

[Auroxis]

A good example of how to treat under-performing powers is the Blaster secondary buffs. All of the changed powers kept their existing functionality and merely got extra features.  And if a power is over-performing, you can tweak its numbers or the numbers of other powers in the same powerset. Features and interactions should remain untouched, with the following caveats:

 

1. A new unintentional interaction comes to light (meaning the playerbase hasn't adopted it as a feature yet). See: Fade+Damage buffs and other bugs

 

2. Extreme design space limitations, meaning you have a lot of changes pending but a specific feature is game-breaking. However since this is a 15 year old game, your changes IMO would have to be very worth it in order to break the cottage rule to allow them in. This is where the community can help you decide.

 

SCORE devs have mostly kept true to the Cottage rule (Bruising being one of the few exceptions), and I'd like them to stick to it.

[Megajoule]

A majority of players would probably be in favor of an "Instant 50" button.

That doesn't mean it's a good idea.

[Greycat]

Going from rusty memory here - I think this was just before, or what led to, patron and/or power pools having five powers.

 

The live devs were revamping patron pools and, of course, had them on test. They had massively changed or outright replaced some powers in those pools that, well, "everyone" knew weren't taken or were underperforming or whatnot. (I want to say Bile Spray for brutes was one and a shield in the Doms was another. Again, it has been a long time.)

 

The backlash was *amazing* to behold - and that just from the people who bothered to actually go download the beta builds and test. Amazingly, people used and depended on those abilities. Had those changes gone live, I'm pretty sure the servers would have melted well into the mantle. And again, I'm fairly sure this eventually led to "OK, we're not changing or taking away a power, we're adding one - you have five to pick from," which eventually spread to the other power pools.

 

In short, dev data or not, "everyone's" perception or not... that perception can be very wrong and make a lot of people very angry.

[Leogunner]

10 hours ago, Galaxy Brain said:

I'm not sure if you are getting what I meant. When a power is literally picked less than like... 1% of the time by everyone who takes the set, that is the examination of it's effects. The vote then would essentially be to say "keep the general theme or redesign it?"

I'd say, look to what the power is being used for currently and what the power was intended to do when developed and go from there. 

 

In some cases, you might run into a dead end and the purpose is moot and its use nonexistent. From there I'd say look at the rest of the set and take into consideration if the SET underperforms. If so, you might look into revising that power's intended purpose with the intent in mind. 

 

Basically, there shouldn't be a blanket response. Actions should be contextual. 

[Galaxy Brain]

33 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

In some cases, you might run into a dead end and the purpose is moot and its use nonexistent. From there I'd say look at the rest of the set and take into consideration if the SET underperforms. If so, you might look into revising that power's intended purpose with the intent in mind. 

So, if a set does not underperform and it has 1 throwaway power, should that power just be deleted from the game to make room for other picks?

[Leogunner]

17 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

So, if a set does not underperform and it has 1 throwaway power, should that power just be deleted from the game to make room for other picks?

If the set doesn't under perform and the power has minimal use or function, you can just leave it alone. No need to delete or replace. You could look into making the power more accessible or customizable but if resources are limited, it's best to do nothing.