Community Vote on "Cottaging" Powers?

[MunkiLord]

4 minutes ago, biostem said:

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...

It may not be the right thing to do, but it might be the smart business decision. I realize this isn't a commercial product, but the game is still dependent on revenue, so if 100% of the player base wanted something, it should probably happen. Though 100% will never agree on anything, I agree with you on that.

[Myrmidon]

10 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

Is this another rage thread?

Not yet, but I definitely look forward to the next one.🤣

[MTeague]

Hm... the vote is missing a choice.

I vote "I think the devs should act when they see fit, as they see fit, whether or not the playerbase agrees with them."

[Super Atom]

1 minute ago, MTeague said:

Hm... the vote is missing a choice.

I vote "I think the devs should act when they see fit, as they see fit, whether or not the playerbase agrees with them."

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

[biostem]

10 minutes 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.

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"...

[biostem]

7 minutes ago, Super Atom said:

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

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...

Edited January 28, 2020 by biostem

[Super Atom]

1 minute ago, biostem said:

If they were a for-profit entity, perhaps.  Since they are not, and so long as the bills are getting paid, no.

the bills the community pay?

 

2 minutes ago, biostem said:

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"...

 

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.

[Super Atom]

10 minutes ago, biostem said:

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...

 

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.

[MTeague]

16 minutes ago, Super Atom said:

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

My position remains 100% unchanged.

 

a) I do not have a high opinion of the perceptiveness and rational thinking of a crowd of gamers, and their ability to step back and consider alternate points of view and whether or not there's other angle they should consider.  Case in point.  I see /Regeneration roundly panned by the vast majority of players.  I've never had a problem with it and quite frankly I suspect many people have never touched it, and are going purely by groupthink and crowd opinion instead of actually TRYING IT.  And anytime I see power changes in any game... EverQuest, Diablo2, WoW, CoX, Fallout, etc... that I consider measured and well reasoned, there is always a massive wailing and gnashing of teeth on the forums for that particular game. Without fail.

 

b) ultimately this is not and at root can never be some kind of democracy .  Fundamentally, the devs are hosting us. We play at their sufference and they can show people the door at any time.  That they are a much more levelheaded and reserve that for only gross misbehavior doesn't mean that the fundamental ownership has in any way changed.

 

 

Edited January 28, 2020 by MTeague

[biostem]

1 minute ago, Super Atom said:

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.

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.

[Super Atom]

1 minute ago, MTeague said:

My position remains 100% unchanged.

 

a) I do not have a high opinion of the perceptiveness and rational thinking of a crowd of gamers, and their ability to step back and consider alternate points of view and whether or not there's other angle they should consider.  Case in point.  I see /Regeneration roundly panned by the vast majority of players.  I've never had a problem with it and quite frankly I suspect many people have never touched it, and are going purely by groupthink and crowd opinion instead of actually TRYING IT.  And anytime I see power changes in any game... EverQuest, Diablo2, WoW, CoX, Fallout, etc... that I consider measured and well reasoned, there is always a massive wailing and gnashing of teeth on the forums for that particular game. Without fail.

b) ultimately this is not and at root can never be some kind of democracy .  Fundamentally, the devs are hosting us. We play at their sufference and they can show people the door at any time.  That they are a much more levelheaded and reserve that for only gross misbehavior doesn't mean that the fundamental ownership has in any way changed.

 

 

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.

[Super Atom]

1 minute ago, biostem said:

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.

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.

[biostem]

13 minutes ago, Super Atom said:

the bills the community pay?

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.

 

13 minutes ago, Super Atom said:

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.

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.

Edited January 28, 2020 by biostem

[biostem]

1 minute ago, Super Atom said:

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.

The come back when EVERYONE, (and I mean literally everyone, since you are using that word so freely), agrees to a change...

Edited January 28, 2020 by biostem

[Super Atom]

Just now, biostem said:

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 weigh than they deserve.

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?

[biostem]

Just now, Super Atom said:

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?

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.

[MTeague]

1 minute ago, Super Atom said:

The people pay the bills but should not be allowed to have input on the game they pay for?????? Are you serious?

You may wish to look at how virtually every other game in existence is run.

[Super Atom]

Just now, biostem said:

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.

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.

 

5 minutes ago, MTeague said:

You may wish to look at how virtually every other game in existence is run.

 

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?

 

[biostem]

1 minute ago, Super Atom said:

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.

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.

[Super Atom]

Just now, biostem said:

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.

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.

[Monos King]

33 minutes ago, biostem said:

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. 

I hate to insert myself, but your misunderstanding seems to be digressing the overlying point of this thread. It's really clear to me anyway that Super Atom is not presuming to speak for the community, and was instead positing an instance where complete community concurrence would warrant a change to a function of the game, as part of their argument.

 

Atom just thinks that if everyone agrees to something game related, then that should happen. Whether or not you are of the belief player understanding of such matters should be the ultimate council and last word is another matter.

[Galaxy Brain]

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".

[biostem]

25 minutes ago, Super Atom said:

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.

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.

[Galaxy Brain]

Just now, biostem said:

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.

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

[Super Atom]

5 minutes ago, biostem said:

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.

 

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.

Edited January 28, 2020 by Super Atom