Why Extensive changes to Existing Popular Power Sets?

[Taboo]

What is the Cottage Rule and why does it matter?

What justification is there to take an existing set so it is better for some but worse for others?

 

If the game is being provided for the players,

how is impacting existing power sets beyond a minor tweak or repair acceptable?

[Coyote]

What?

Are you just trolling, or are you just not realizing when your question is unclear or not reasonable?

 

[Greycat]

Cottage rule.

 

Quote

 

The Cottage Rule is a rule of thumb for the developers, used when talking about altering an existing power.

The term was coined by Castle on the official forums around the time Defiance was altered (December 11, 2007) and discussed.

Castle's original post has been lost to forum purges[1], but the rule, in summary, is this:

An existing power will not have its core functionality and purpose changed, though its strength may be altered and effects secondary to the power's true purpose may be added or removed.

Note that while Castle's original post has been lost to forum purges, the text of that post has been saved in other threads[2]. According to the thread referenced above, the following is the relevant text from Castle's original post:

"Seriously, it *is* a good policy -- it provides structure within which to do things. Without structure, there's chaos. How would you like it if tomorrow you logged in and, say, Build Up now built a small cottage at your chosen location, instead of adding to your damage? It's a silly example, admittedly, but it's to prevent such wholesale changes from happening. I *could* overturn it, in specific cases, if it were truly needed, but in the case being discussed here, it is not truly needed. There are MANY options that have been discussed that do not involve changing the core use of the power."

NOTE: This rule does not apply to new powers still in beta testing. Beta testing can drastically change the way a new power functions.

 

 

Quote

how is impacting existing power sets beyond a minor tweak or repair acceptable?

 

Some sets are showing their age. Some weren't properly balanced or tweaked before sundown. Some were, or are, decidedly over or underpowered. Whatever's best for the health of the game is what should be done, regardless of how popular or unpopular it is. (See ED.)

Edited March 12, 2021 by Greycat

[Saikochoro]

Balancing is common and expected in MMOs, and CoH is no exception. The goal is not to make it better for some and worse for others. The goal is to make the game as a whole better than it was before. As Jimmy mentioned it is an eternal struggle. Due to the nature of balancing it is impossible to please everyone, but it is never the intention to make players unhappy. 

[Troo]

I think we saw quite a few folks unhappy with the last big batch of changes.

 

I'm definitely proponent for just making a new set when it comes to extensive revamps. Small tweaks are going to happen as well and reigning in something that is overpowered.

Balance is a goal and a journey, not a destination.

Not everything has to be the same.

[Snarky]

I would like to add to the question.  How and or why are some things changed and not others that benefit some people but not others and in fact disenfranchise some players who may or may not know to speak up about it with the aforementioned changes causing distress to these (possible) unfortunate players to benefit other players who may or may not have asked for the benefit of a powerset modification in the first place.

[Hew]

9 minutes ago, Snarky said:

I would like to add to the question.  How and or why are some things changed and not others that benefit some people but not others and in fact disenfranchise some players who may or may not know to speak up about it with the aforementioned changes causing distress to these (possible) unfortunate players to benefit other players who may or may not have asked for the benefit of a powerset modification in the first place.

🤪

[Galaxy Brain]

47 minutes ago, Troo said:

I think we saw quite a few folks unhappy with the last big batch of changes.

 

I'm definitely proponent for just making a new set when it comes to extensive revamps. Small tweaks are going to happen as well and reigning in something that is overpowered.

Balance is a goal and a journey, not a destination.

Not everything has to be the same.

 

For this in particular, when pointing to the Cottage Rule, where is the line drawn between small change and revamp?

[Greycat]

1 minute ago, Galaxy Brain said:

 

For this in particular, when pointing to the Cottage Rule, where is the line drawn between small change and revamp?

 

Small change - adding the +recovery to a power for blasters.

Big change - turning the T1 blast into a mez protect toggle.

1 hour ago, Greycat said:

An existing power will not have its core functionality and purpose changed, though its strength may be altered and effects secondary to the power's true purpose may be added or removed.

so, going back to (say) a ST blast, it should remain a ST blast. It can get an effect added to it (or taken away,) have its range, recharge, damage, END cost, etc. changed, but it can't be something other than a blast.

[Coyote]

They made some major changes to the Teleportation pool, breaking the Cottage Rule a bit in some cases... and now a pool that was very rarely taken is now popular enough to merit a thread about the overuse of Fold Space. It's hard to argue against changes that seem so popular. And if it's true that I don't really know how popular they are because there will be a good subsection of players who don't post anything... by the same token, how could anyone complaining know that they really are representing a sizeable minority rather that just a tiny fringe group?

 

In the end, though, the short answer is that the dev team:

1) is and has been trying to make changes that improve the game (both in powers and powerset and other types of changes like easy access to Enhancement Converters)

2) has never claimed that they will keep the game frozen and run a "classic", no-changes server.

 

So, adding 1 and 2... it's hard for me to see any reason in such a generic "change is bad, mmmkay?" post. Now, arguing about a particular change that you disagree with, that's fine, that's what this forum is about. But directionless "I hate changes, don't make any" rants are just 🙄

[Troo]

3 hours ago, Galaxy Brain said:

 

For this in particular, when pointing to the Cottage Rule, where is the line drawn between small change and revamp?

It's not an easy answer.

 

If a set is not popular and folks who do play it are asking for changes there is more room.

If a set is popular the change tolerance shrinks dramatically.

 

Guidance in my opinion:

• A tweak is adjusting a value related to a power.
• A revamp is removing/replacing powers, impacts to functionality, shuffling the order of powers. (this is where guidance typically is to tread lightly)
• It's always easier to give than take away.

 

Edited March 13, 2021 by Troo

[Grouchybeast]

2 hours ago, Snarky said:

I would like to add to the question.  How and or why are some things changed and not others that benefit some people but not others and in fact disenfranchise some players who may or may not know to speak up about it with the aforementioned changes causing distress to these (possible) unfortunate players to benefit other players who may or may not have asked for the benefit of a powerset modification in the first place.

 

I had no idea Sir Humphrey Appleby played on Homecoming.

[Replacement]

5 hours ago, Taboo said:

What is the Cottage Rule and why does it matter?

What justification is there to take an existing set so it is better for some but worse for others?

 

If the game is being provided for the players,

how is impacting existing power sets beyond a minor tweak or repair acceptable?

And!

 

What justification exists for telling people to stop trying to make their private server better?

 

How entitled does someone have to be to soapbox about the nerve of someone else trying their best to improve with the information they have?

 

Someone just lock this now. It's fucking pointless.

[Haijinx]

Ill give this thread props

 

Since I don't even understand the first post , I do not know which day this is.

 

Even Jranger is confused. 

[Alchemystic]

The cottage rule left when Castle did, and in the two years between him leaving and the closure of the game, the design philosophy for powersets only improved.

 

Some powers function differently to what they once were and are better for it, and there are few were replaced entirely. This is most evident with Blaster secondaries, as well as Pool Powers across the board... we're seeing changes that defy the cottage rule and positively impact the game.

 

So why do we now, with a different design team no less, pay heed to this rule when Paragon themselves did away with it?

 

Edited March 13, 2021 by Tyrannical

[SwitchFade]

5 hours ago, Snarky said:

I would like to add to the question.  How and or why are some things changed and not others that benefit some people but not others and in fact disenfranchise some players who may or may not know to speak up about it with the aforementioned changes causing distress to these (possible) unfortunate players to benefit other players who may or may not have asked for the benefit of a powerset modification in the first place.

Do you know where shrek is?!

 

It might not be completely accurate to say that I might not possibly not now know where he couldn't exactly figuratively be... Possibly.

[Night]

Is that like cottage cheese?

[Clave Dark 5]

Well it's not not like cottage cheese...

[Galaxy Brain]

To be fair, there are very little powers that have been "Cottaged" at all. The only one that comes to mind at the moment is Power Crash being something totally different from Stun, but even still it is a Sm/En melee attack that can stun an enemy you target. Same with blaster sustains, they still do the "main thing" they did before but just with added sustain.

 

 

You can make a nuke drop to 30% of it's base damage and then make it deal massive debuffs and crowd control, and it would still not be "cottaged" due to the primary function (damage) being intact. 

[AerialAssault]

The Cottage Rule should always be a taken as a guide and not absolute law.

 

Homecoming can be considered under active development. This means things will change, and anything could be subject to change. As some things are changed, new issues are discovered and brought to light. So it goes, so it goes.

 

Homecoming is not a time capsule, nor a snapshot of the game as it was at Shutdown. It's more and better than that. It means some people are going to be happy with the changes that are made, and some people won't be. The Titan Weapons rework upset a lot of people, but it is ultimately for the better that a wildly overperforming set be reined in. If you want no-holds barred, balanced be damned gameplay, that's what WeHaveCake is for.

 

In the end, Homecoming have an idea of where they want 'The Balance' to be. Not everyone will agree. That's fine. That's life.

[Herotu]

15 hours ago, Greycat said:

Cottage rule.

 

 

 

Some sets are showing their age. Some weren't properly balanced or tweaked before sundown. Some were, or are, decidedly over or underpowered. Whatever's best for the health of the game is what should be done, regardless of how popular or unpopular it is. (See ED.)

That's an interesting perspective and I agree with it, but I don't envision the devs doing something unpopular, do you? 

[Greycat]

1 hour ago, Herotu said:

That's an interesting perspective and I agree with it, but I don't envision the devs doing something unpopular, do you? 

 

... *tries to decide if serious or not*

*Decidesd to go back to bed.*

[First Player]

Cause there's not much else to do 😄

[Alchemystic]

I'll just leave this right here
 

 

[Galaxy Brain]

19 hours ago, Troo said:

It's not an easy answer.

 

If a set is not popular and folks who do play it are asking for changes there is more room.

If a set is popular the change tolerance shrinks dramatically.

 

I agree with the 1st part as often it is unpopular for a reason (look at EM pre/post change)

 

The second I think has wiggle room depending on *why* something is popular. For example, if a set is popular because it has a bug that causes say... a power to triple-crit 75% of the time, then yeah that should be reigned back as it is broken due to a bug despite it being wildly popular due to the bug.

 

The only current example of this I can think of is Titan Weapons, which I will always defend as I believe that I personally had a hand in it's arc of destruction. That was a popular choice even with it's downsides due to how powerful it was compared to every other choice with just about every way you could look at it. Objectively, most any AT that had TW would choose that bar-none when looking for raw effectiveness which is detrimental to balancing other sets as they would either always be in it's shadow, or would overshadow all other sets to match it. The learning curve to use it was an argument, but said curve was present and arguably even more potent in other competing sets (like Staff for instance) without them similarly being way above the rest.

 

Instead of simply being nerfed though, it's "power budget" was distributed into a side-grade where it made it a bit worse but still top-tier, and likewise way more user friendly. With that experience, I am confident that any other changes to popular sets would be handled just as well.

 

 

 

19 hours ago, Troo said:

Guidance in my opinion:

• A tweak is adjusting a value related to a power.
• A revamp is removing/replacing powers, impacts to functionality, shuffling the order of powers. (this is where guidance typically is to tread lightly)
• It's always easier to give than take away.

 

 

The bit about re-ordering powers is kind of iffy as the vast majority of your powers are all usually attainable within the 1st 3rd / half of your hero's leveling time so I personally feel it doesn't have as *big* an impact, but it very much depends on the swap.

 

Removing and replacing powers is 100% something not to take lightly! There are of course situations where it should be done no question tho... like Serum or Repair. Impacts to functionality are kind of on the fence depending on what is done. If a mez attack that say, knocked a foe down and did minor damage and now suddenly does MAJOR damage, the function effectively swaps between a "mez" to an "attack", but it's almost like it was a tweak based on the value definition.

 

I also agree wholeheartedly with the green highlight. Making something "bad" or at least average to start tends to be much harder to do as you need to reign yourself in with your own expectations and knowledge of what is good. However, if it starts out average it can really only go up from there when it comes to further tweaks. I'd say it's easy to make something too good, balanced by how difficult it can be to reign it in once it's out there. The reverse is certainly troo.