Community Vote on "Cottaging" Powers?

[Auroxis]

24 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

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. 

Since you're buffing a weak powerset, you can revise a power's purpose without removing the functionality it already has.

 

See the blaster changes for example. Darkness Manipulation had a single target fear power that almost no one used. But instead replacing it and pissing off the few people who used it for its fear function, they added new functionality to the power in the form of a self buff. That saves your developers, your community, and your CM team a whole lot of time and grief and lets you move on to other more pressing developments.

[arcane]

16 hours 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.

 

This guy gets it ❤️

[Leogunner]

5 hours ago, Auroxis said:

Since you're buffing a weak powerset, you can revise a power's purpose without removing the functionality it already has.

 

See the blaster changes for example. Darkness Manipulation had a single target fear power that almost no one used. But instead replacing it and pissing off the few people who used it for its fear function, they added new functionality to the power in the form of a self buff. That saves your developers, your community, and your CM team a whole lot of time and grief and lets you move on to other more pressing developments.

FYI, I usually don't reply back to a post if I agree with it and have nothing to add. 

[Bossk_Hogg]

The cottage rule mostly applied to powerSETS, not individual powers. I'm sure someone liked fear being garbage and making enemies scatter, but the devs shouldnt be beholden to a few masochists. I'm sure someone also liked that armor toggles were mutually exclusive, but we ditched that nonsense early on too.

 

However, garbage powers like Serum, Smoke Flash, Repair, etc can easily be made useful by simply changing their numbers. For example, making repair AE, lower the healing a bit put it on a 60 second timer or so and the power is mostly fixed. Remove the crash from Serum, make whoever thought it needed a fucking 16+ minute recharge apologize, and then lower the recharge to something sane. Smoke Flash can affect multiple henchmen and have its absurd end cost lowered. None of these violate the cottage rule and make them useful.

[Traegus]

On 1/26/2020 at 10:32 PM, Sakura Tenshi said:

 

 

• Up the regen
• Turn it into a HoT
• Make it a locational AoE drop
• Turn it into a following heal pet
• Add a +recovery. damage, tohit, defense, resistance, or any other number of buffs
• Also make it into an immobile gun sentry that shoots nearby teammates with healing bullets

fixed that last one for ya 😉

 

[SpartacusCole]

I voted no. This is likely to have been brought up already, but looking at a single power that is meant to be part of a framework without proper context can have a disastrous effect. The way one of the answers is phrased is a very good example of what I mean: "Only if it is backed by data as a criminally underchosen power".

 

Is it that the power in question is underchosen, or that it has a competitor that's overselected? At first glance this sounds like the same problem, but it isn't. In the former case, it's because the power is too weak. In the latter case, it's because a competing selection is OP, and there is a bias toward selecting it. In that latter case, the proper solution isn't usually to buff the weak power, but rather to nerf the OP power. Then, you get into gameplay functions of the power, and selection biases based on that. Is it a High Chance to Stun power, and people who like high numbers purposely selecting for pure DPS? That's why when a single power is looked at, the whole framework needs to be looked at. Ideally, you'd monitor its affect on the Archetype(s) that can use it in the long-term too.

[Bartacus]

Can't update Voltaic Sentinel! Cottage rule says it has to suck ass and have shitty targeting. 

[Leogunner]

1 hour ago, Bartacus said:

Can't update Voltaic Sentinel! Cottage rule says it has to suck ass and have shitty targeting. 

Well, you could buff Voltaic Sentinel to grant the user a power boost specifically to -END and/or chance of applying -recovery for all your Electric Blasts powers.  Or even some other effect like END>Health conversion so draining END heals you instead.

 

Doesn't change the power from what it currently does but adds more utility to it.

[Trickshooter]

I voted, "No, never," but only because there wasn't really a better option for my opinion. I'm fine with any power being made better in whatever way is deemed best, as long as its original use isn't lost in the process.

 

For example, most people don't like Serum. It's basic functionality is as an omni-buff for pets and I would be against completely removing it and replacing it with, say, an AoE mez or another pet.

 

An example option for Serum that I wouldn't be against would be like: Lowering the buff values enough to warrant dropping the crash and shortening the recharge, and then adding a passive effect for just owning the power (like Fortify Pack) that applies a much smaller portion of some of the buff values at all times to pets in range.

 

The power keeps its basic functionality (the omni-buff), but its use is improved, there's more incentive to take it, and it improves the performance of its powerset as a whole.

[Bartacus]

15 hours ago, Leogunner said:

Well, you could buff Voltaic Sentinel to grant the user a power boost specifically to -END and/or chance of applying -recovery for all your Electric Blasts powers.  Or even some other effect like END>Health conversion so draining END heals you instead.

 

Doesn't change the power from what it currently does but adds more utility to it.

as long as the targetting stays shitty I guess I'm happy. otherwise you're changing what the power originally did.

[Saiyajinzoningen]

1 hour ago, Trickshooter said:

I voted, "No, never," but only because there wasn't really a better option for my opinion. I'm fine with any power being made better in whatever way is deemed best, as long as its original use isn't lost in the process.

 

For example, most people don't like Serum. It's basic functionality is as an omni-buff for pets and I would be against completely removing it and replacing it with, say, an AoE mez or another pet.

 

An example option for Serum that I wouldn't be against would be like: Lowering the buff values enough to warrant dropping the crash and shortening the recharge, and then adding a passive effect for just owning the power (like Fortify Pack) that applies a much smaller portion of some of the buff values at all times to pets in range.

 

The power keeps its basic functionality (the omni-buff), but its use is improved, there's more incentive to take it, and it improves the performance of its powerset as a whole.

what? you voted no, even though u are ok with change, u just weren't happy with the imaginary hypothetical changes that haven't been suggested? 

[Trickshooter]

2 minutes ago, Saiyajinzoningen said:

what? you voted no, even though u are ok with change, u just weren't happy with the imaginary hypothetical changes that haven't been suggested? 

No. The cottage rule has never been "no power can change," it's "no power can do one thing one day, and not do it anymore the next day".

 

I voted no because I'm against removing powers someone loves because someone else doesn't.

 

Don't remove; improve.

 

 

[Saiyajinzoningen]

2 minutes ago, Trickshooter said:

No. The cottage rule has never been "no power can change," it's "no power can do one thing one day, and not do it anymore the next day".

 

I voted no because I'm against removing powers someone loves because someone else doesn't.

 

Don't remove; improve.

 

 

sorry im still confused. you voted no because the option to vote on not removing powers wasn't available? i wasn't aware that was even one of the options......

[Trickshooter]

1 minute ago, Saiyajinzoningen said:

sorry im still confused. you voted no because the option to vote on not removing powers wasn't available? i wasn't aware that was even one of the options......

I voted no because I'm against "cottaging" powers, the specific wording of the thread title, which by its definition means replacing them or changing their functionality completely. There was no option in the poll for "No, don't break the cottage rule; buff the power instead".

 

An example of breaking the cottage rule: Changing Entangling Arrow to Electric Arrow by removing the Immobilize and replacing it with Energy Damage. The original functionality (the Immobilize) is removed.

 

An example of not breaking the cottage rule: Changing Entangling Arrow to Electric Net Arrow by adding Energy Damage to what the power already does. The original functionality remains, more functionality is added to it.

 

If the OP intended the Yes answers to cover this, then they made a mistake referring to this as "cottaging" powers.

[Saiyajinzoningen]

ahh pro buffs anti nerfs category, got it

[Llewellyn Blackwell]

Ah this thread brings back the memories of my teen and early 20s as a game master for my PnP group. Being a GM/DM can be tricky, you have to be one part host to the gathering even if its not at your place. You need to be peace maker when friends get heated and debate turns into argument. And you have to be the rule enforcer. But that didnt mean be a tyrant or make up all the rules. Whenever optional rules, splat books, etc got introduced to our group while I would be the one doing the reading and pondering how the new might impact the old, whenever new additions to be used were decided upon it was usually with the agreement of the core group of regulars and with the expectation if something did seem like it was breaking the game Id do something as GM to smooth out the issue.

 

I do think on one hand meta data should be an important factor for what should be altered. However on the other I feel that how fun something is to use/play is an equally valid factor. As an example Ill mention regen. Many hate on regen, seeing WP and now Bio as doing basically everything it does better. Many who seem to feel that way imo also seem to spout a dislike for click heavy builds and want basically their actions per minute to be entirely DPS based, their only active play their offensive powers. They see protection and self sustaining as irksome chores and are also likely the same types who never ever build team builds, never offer any support to allies, and likely dont even bother to be social with their teams when on them.

 

A game like CoH appeals to both right and left brainers as well as those who are a mixture of both, and imo its important to factor in those who play the game for the feel of it as much as those who play it just to master its systems and conquer it.

[Trickshooter]

11 minutes ago, Bentley Berkeley said:

They see protection and self sustaining as irksome chores and are also likely the same types who never ever build team builds, never offer any support to allies, and likely dont even bother to be social with their teams when on them.

That's just scrapperlock!

[Shazbotacus]

I’d rather say the “cottage rule” should no longer be considered at all. That being said, I can only think of Serum as a power that needs a complete overhaul; it’s utterly useless, and Mercs as a whole would be better served by a power that did something else entirely.

 

Unpopular opinion here, but I believe the “cottage rule” itself is an absurd strawman, assuming any power overhaul could only ever be so useless and outlandish, which was somehow adopted as an axiom. What this rule’s absolute nature tries to fix can be resolved with applied common sense; it is not needed to prevent powers from losing their identity unless it’s Serum which needs full reconstructive surgery anyhow. I never once agreed with it.

Edited January 31, 2020 by Shazbotacus

[Rathulfr]

On 1/28/2020 at 5:00 PM, Bossk_Hogg said:

The cottage rule mostly applied to powerSETS, not individual powers.

That is incorrect, as the original example for the cottage rule was Build-Up, an individual power.  The example was that you can't change Build-Up to build up a cottage, instead of building up damage.

 

https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Cottage_Rule

 

Edited January 31, 2020 by Rathulfr

[Rathulfr]

20 minutes ago, Shazbotacus said:

What this rule’s absolute nature tries to fix can be resolved with applied common sense.

Common sense is usually neither.

[DR_Mechano]

Lets face it there are powers that definitely need changing.

 

Serum, Repair, Time Bomb these three can be changed without breaking the cottage rule. Repair could still heal BUT lets make it an AoE heal with the same effect but keep the long recharge or lower the recharge but lower the amount of healing done since it ONLY affects your pets and not anyone else. Time Bomb could still be a targeted AoE it's just thrown instead of placed and explodes on a shorter timer. Serum could still be a huge boost but with the crash removed and maybe +damage added in to make it like a single pet build up.

 

Now the various Intangible effects WOULD have to break the cottage rule because, on the whole, intangible effects are basically seen as very niche or nigh worthless. There are a few very slim cases where they're useful, one is on the Miss Lib TF where you can use it to shut down one of the towers, ignoring it and dealing with the rest and self intangible is basically an 'oh crap' button which is fair enough (but it needs to be a toggle, not a click and wait power). It's basically the Mob AoE intangible that are pretty much worthless so you'd have to probably change them into something more worthwhile.

 

Regen, for example, could have Instant Healing basically returned to its Toggle state and I think that would address a lot of the complaints. Despite what fellow posters have said, people don't hate Click heavy sets. Bio is INCREDIBLY click heavy, especially at the high end where you clicking the Ghost Widow Patron shield every 15 seconds along with your heals and your shields. TW/Bio is a balancing act to keep all those plates up in the air spinning whilst also dealing damage.

 

Most people dislike Regen because it got overly nerfed due to PvP concerns (for a time it was godlike in PvP) not due to PvE concerns. This was in a game where PvP, even at its height, was done by less than 5% of the population and they introduced Willpower which basically took Regen's schtick but did it better with added resistances in the mix but never fixed Regen because it seemed like they 'never had the time'. Bio is how Regen should have been, heals and high health absorb shields but also backed up by a much higher regen rate.

 

Regen got constantly passed over for a much needed rework apart from the 1 time they changed MoG into an alpha strike taking ability.

Edited January 31, 2020 by DR_Mechano

[Shazbotacus]

Ah, yes, Repair and Time Bomb need help. I forgot those.

[_NOPE_]

It's a good policy, so I don't think the rule should be taken out. People LIKE things and they don't like it when those things are taken away. There's a reason why pure democracy is one of the worst forms of government - because mob rule is notoriously terrible for minorities. If I was in a minority, I'd HATE it if something I liked was completely changed to something else.

 

In my opinion, the cottage rule should stand. In fact, I'd argue that there's no reason for any power to be redesigned and replaced rather than just buffing/tweaking them. Why? Because alternate power choices is already tech that's in the game. You don't like a power, and would rather not have to choose it? Well, the tech exists to make that possible and choose something else. "Power Trees" can be a thing, and already exist in the game. Perhaps they should just be made more pervasive to create more alternatives to lesser liked powers.

 

All that being said, if a power is under-performing, then it should definitely be looked at for buffing.

[Shazbotacus]

1 hour ago, The Philotic Knight said:

It's a good policy, so I don't think the rule should be taken out. People LIKE things and they don't like it when those things are taken away. There's a reason why pure democracy is one of the worst forms of government - because mob rule is notoriously terrible for minorities. If I was in a minority, I'd HATE it if something I liked was completely changed to something else.

 

In my opinion, the cottage rule should stand. In fact, I'd argue that there's no reason for any power to be redesigned and replaced rather than just buffing/tweaking them. Why? Because alternate power choices is already tech that's in the game. You don't like a power, and would rather not have to choose it? Well, the tech exists to make that possible and choose something else. "Power Trees" can be a thing, and already exist in the game. Perhaps they should just be made more pervasive to create more alternatives to lesser liked powers.

 

All that being said, if a power is under-performing, then it should definitely be looked at for buffing.

I don’t think real world government and game development philosophy are alike enough for analogies. It’s always up to certain people within the development team what actions are done, never any sort of “masses.” Even when a team behind a given game releases a poll or survey concerning what actions to take, it’s the developers that pick what is even on the table as plausible for their game. Bringing power overhaul onto the table won’t bring wacky disorder like Castle’s “cottage rule” post says, nor will it necessarily guarantee that any such overhauls will be done if better solutions are found for the game’s underperforming powers. Besides, that same post says he’d overturn it if a core shift in a given power’s primary function were needed. That’s not something we need this “cottage rule” to tell us; it’s just basic wisdom, something I believe our dev team has enough of to make that kind of call.

Edited January 31, 2020 by Shazbotacus

[Leogunner]

3 hours ago, Shazbotacus said:

Unpopular opinion here, but I believe the “cottage rule” itself is an absurd strawman, assuming any power overhaul could only ever be so useless and outlandish, which was somehow adopted as an axiom. What this rule’s absolute nature tries to fix can be resolved with applied common sense; it is not needed to prevent powers from losing their identity unless it’s Serum which needs full reconstructive surgery anyhow. I never once agreed with it.

I don't see how it's a strawman. A generalized example? Sure. 

 

But I feel this whole concept of this "rule" should be contextual. When presented with an alteration, asking if this changes the functionality or if the functionality should be changed is the spirit of the rule. One could say it's common sense but again, it depends. If someone proposed shorten the animation of Shadow Maul, I'd say that's encroaching on removing the powers concept so changing animation times should also be considered in the rule. Or do we want more examples of Energy Transfer animation nerfs? One might consider shortening an animation an overall improvement but it depends on the context of the power and alteration. It's not common sense. 

 

2 hours ago, DR_Mechano said:

Time Bomb could still be a targeted AoE it's just thrown instead of placed and explodes on a shorter timer. 

I've heard suggestions about changing Time Bomb into a toggle that you can initiate or stays on for a set duration before detonating (like Phase Shift having a limited duration as a toggle). 

 

2 hours ago, DR_Mechano said:

Regen, for example, could have Instant Healing basically returned to its Toggle state and I think that would address a lot of the complaints. Despite what fellow posters have said, people don't hate Click heavy sets. Bio is INCREDIBLY click heavy, especially at the high end where you clicking the Ghost Widow Patron shield every 15 seconds along with your heals and your shields. TW/Bio is a balancing act to keep all those plates up in the air spinning whilst also dealing damage.

 

Most people dislike Regen because it got overly nerfed due to PvP concerns (for a time it was godlike in PvP) not due to PvE concerns. This was in a game where PvP, even at its height, was done by less than 5% of the population and they introduced Willpower which basically took Regen's schtick but did it better with added resistances in the mix but never fixed Regen because it seemed like they 'never had the time'. Bio is how Regen should have been, heals and high health absorb shields but also backed up by a much higher regen rate.

 

Regen got constantly passed over for a much needed rework apart from the 1 time they changed MoG into an alpha strike taking ability.

Turing Instant Healing into a toggle is a boring and unsightly solution. If I'm not mistakes, it used to be a bit of a costly toggle to run offset by Quick Recovery... But stalkers don't get quick recovery and turning IH into a toggle again causes imbalances in managing END. 

 

It also just repeats the concept Willpower currently emulates. Those that just want massive passive regen, play WP. Regen is now the "healing" set along with Fiery Aura. If I were suggesting changes to keep Regen competitive with other sets but unique, add a moderate heal to instant healing (so now the set has 4 heals, Recon, Dull, Revive and IH) and then add stacking debuff resistance to all its heals (call it Calluses). Even if it doesn't have native defense (beside the tier 9) it could get defense debuff resistance temporarily comparable to SR among other resistances. 

Edited January 31, 2020 by Leogunner