Castles and Cottages: Ancient History

[arcane]

24 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

By the way, can you name one instance in which the Homecoming developers broke the Cottage Rule?

The literal one linked by Blackbird? Yes obviously. The flexible version of that design vision that I feel has been implemented in reality? Not in HC, no. Fold Space -> Wormhole comes to mind from live.

 

The flexible one meaning the principle that you can fundamentally change a power but only if its core functionalities are preserved within the set.

 

Also, (1) no, I didn’t make a damn thing up. I made a new phrasing specifically because people were struggling with the semantics behind a design approach that has existed for a very long time. And (2) Disdain? If you’re intent is civil discussion, implying nefarious motives that don’t exist is a funny way to show it.

Edited May 5, 2021 by arcane

[tidge]

1 hour ago, arcane said:

So the question is: would you and others prefer that the cottage rule be more strictly taken literally with none of this flexibility? I didn’t think players had much of an appetite for that since most of them react pretty badly when I invoke the thing even in its more flexible form.

 

I prefer to not use the term, and to instead require folks discussing a topic to avoid invoking a nebulously defined rule as a some sort of sine qua non for even considering the topic.

 

Please feel free to /jranger this post.

[PeregrineFalcon]

1 hour ago, arcane said:

The literal one linked by Blackbird? Yes obviously. The flexible version of that design vision that I feel has been implemented in reality? Not in HC, no. Fold Space -> Wormhole comes to mind from live.

 

The flexible one meaning the principle that you can fundamentally change a power but only if its core functionalities are preserved within the set.

 

Also, (1) no, I didn’t make a damn thing up. I made a new phrasing specifically because people were struggling with the semantics behind a design approach that has existed for a very long time. And (2) Disdain? If you’re intent is civil discussion, implying nefarious motives that don’t exist is a funny way to show it.

Blackbird did not link to an example of the Homecoming devs breaking the Cottage Rule.

 

Also, Fold Space becoming Worm Hole is not a violation of the Cottage Rule. A power that allows me to teleport enemies became a power which allows me to teleport enemies. Core functionality is "me teleport enemies." Core functionality preserved, no violation of the Cottage Rule.

 

Here's another one. Stun > Power Crash. A cone, some damage and a cooler sounding name was added to Stun. The core functionality, a melee power that stuns, was not changed. Core functionality preserved. No violation of the Cottage Rule.

 

The Cottage Rule isn't rocket science and it isn't so hard to understand that people need a different name for it. People need to just stop using whatever definition they've randomly made up in their heads and use the one that's written on the wiki page, which is the same one that most of us who aren't confused are using.

[arcane]

I thought the original Gravity Control Fold Space was an ally teleport. Maybe I made that up.

 

And the rest of your message is very confusing to me because it defines the cottage rule exactly as I have been defining it the entire time. AKA we never really disagreed until today.
 

It sounds to me like the attempts to change my rhetoric that I made in reaction to Blackbird’s post really threw you for a loop.

 

I’m gonna check out from here as you two have me twisted up in a logical pretzel. Since people hate the invocation of the cottage rule so much, I’ll have to just switch it up and start using /jranger instead.

Edited May 5, 2021 by arcane

[PeregrineFalcon]

8 minutes ago, arcane said:

And the rest of your message is very confusing to me because it defines the cottage rule exactly as I have been defining it the entire time. AKA we never really disagreed until today.
 

It sounds to me like the attempts to change my rhetoric that I made in reaction to Blackbird’s post really threw you for a loop.

You might be right about that.

 

Starting with when you wrote: "So the question is: would you and others prefer that the cottage rule be more strictly taken literally with none of this flexibility?" and certain things after that, I was under the impression that you were one of the people that didn't understand and/or were trying to change the definition of the Cottage rule.

 

My mistake.

 

I agree with you on not liking it when people invoke the Cottage Rule. As I said much earlier in the thread, it's because the people who do that usually misunderstand the Cottage Rule and they usually invoke it to fight against any change, no matter how small.

 

I also disagree with those people who think that the Cottage Rule must never be broken. Like the Prime Directive, it's something that should only be broken when there's no other good decision to make. And if you do it, you'd better be right.

[Blackbird71]

3 hours ago, arcane said:

@Blackbird71Did you see this post?

 

You are correct that your quoted definition above does indeed refer to a specific power. But I’m saying no one has ever treated that as a hard rule, but they have, as above, tried to make sure core functionalities are not completely destroyed.

 

So the question is: would you and others prefer that the cottage rule be more strictly taken literally with none of this flexibility? I didn’t think players had much of an appetite for that since most of them react pretty badly when I invoke the thing even in its more flexible form.

 

I never said any of that.  I only pointed out that you can't fundamentally change or remove an individual power and still claim the Cottage Rule has been adhered to.

Whether or not the Cottage Rule should be followed strictly in each and every case was not my point; I'm only highlighting the need for consistent definitions and clear communication.  When people apply different meanings to clearly defined terms and rules, it creates confusion, which then breeds mistrust, and does nothing to improve transparency and dev-player relations.  

[Blackbird71]

1 hour ago, tidge said:

 

I prefer to not use the term, and to instead require folks discussing a topic to avoid invoking a nebulously defined rule as a some sort of sine qua non for even considering the topic.

 

Please feel free to /jranger this post.

Except it's not nebulously defined.  People may invoke it incorrectly, but the rule itself is very clear on its meaning and intent.

[tidge]

3 minutes ago, Blackbird71 said:

Except it's not nebulously defined.  People may invoke it incorrectly, but the rule itself is very clear on its meaning and intent.

 

Get with the (Gricean) progam!

[golstat2003]

The bottom line is if you're wholesale changing a power's core function, you should be very careful in considering that. For example, a suggestion to change Blaze (the Fire blaster power) into a power that only stuns and does no damage. That would be bad. Adding a stun to Blaze while it still doing damage (maybe a little less) would not be bad. (Though if I asked I would rather it keep the full damage and the stun idea be put in the trash, but you get the idea).

 

Note that the above is an EXAMPLE! No one I know of has asked this to be done to Blaze. lol

 

Call it rutebega or whatever the heck you want to call it. The idea still stands. 

[Snarky]

They are changing Blaze to a stun only power?

[Ulysses Dare]

3 hours ago, Blackbird71 said:

I only pointed out that you can't fundamentally change or remove an individual power and still claim the Cottage Rule has been adhered to.

A correction: the Cottage Rule never outright prohibited making such changes. It stated that they should be a last resort—used only when absolutely necessary. That still puts the onus on those who demand a change to demonstrate that it's truly needed. But, if they do so, they can't be dismissed by shouting "Cottage Rule!"

[Judasace]

37 minutes ago, Snarky said:

They are changing Blaze to a stun only power?

 

Heading to the feedback forum to make an angry post about this RIGHT NOW!!!11!1!!

[SaintD]

9 minutes ago, Ulysses Dare said:

But, if they do so, they can't be dismissed by shouting "Cottage Rule!"

 

At this point I'm just dismissing anyone who DOES say it. It's almost instantly become shorthand for an ideological stubbornness, like someone swinging around 'SJW'.

 

Just a tag that immediately declares there's no point and to ignore the user.

[Blackbird71]

15 minutes ago, Ulysses Dare said:

A correction: the Cottage Rule never outright prohibited making such changes. It stated that they should be a last resort—used only when absolutely necessary. That still puts the onus on those who demand a change to demonstrate that it's truly needed. But, if they do so, they can't be dismissed by shouting "Cottage Rule!"

 

No, the Cottage Rule does in fact expressly prohibit this, as previously quoted:

 

Quote

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.

 

 

That's not to say that the Cottage Rule can't be broken when required, and sometimes doing so is indeed necessary, but the rule itself is precisely a prohibition against such changes, not a statement of flexibility or "last resort."

 

To quote Castle himself:

 

Quote

I *could* overturn it, in specific cases, if it were truly needed, but in the case being discussed here, it is not truly needed.

 

That does not mean that the definition of the rule itself is flexible, only that there may be occasions which warrant ignoring or breaking the rule if it is justified.  But that does not change the meaning of the rule.

 

[KauaiJim]

56 minutes ago, Snarky said:

They are changing Blaze to a stun only power?

 

I heard they were gonna make it a 30 minute immobilize that gives you the munchies once you get 5 stacks of 'baked'.  🤪

[siolfir]

5 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

Here's another one. Stun > Power Crash. A cone, some damage and a cooler sounding name was added to Stun. The core functionality, a melee power that stuns, was not changed. Core functionality preserved. No violation of the Cottage Rule.

I would say that the core functionality and purpose of the power changed, and the recharge decrease and a look at the design formulas thread would back me up on that. Mez powers tie mez duration to recharge, damage powers tie damage to recharge.

 

Stun went from a primary mez power with a guaranteed stun and a touch of damage to a primary damage power with a (small) chance to stun.

 

The same happened with Cobra Strike in Martial Arts; it stayed closer to its original form by staying single target and having a higher chance to stun, but it still changed from a mez power to a damage power, which caused it to jump from one set of design formula to another - thus changing the core functionality of the power.

[Ulysses Dare]

33 minutes ago, Blackbird71 said:

No, the Cottage Rule does in fact expressly prohibit this, as previously quoted:

No, the admittedly paraphrased rule on the Wiki says it's prohibited. And even there Castle is quoted as saying it can be overturned. I had the good fortune of actually seeing Castle define the Cottage Rule once back on live and the way I described it is taken from that description. The Cottage Rule is a strong guideline, very strong, but it was never absolute.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Ulysses Dare

[Blackbird71]

9 minutes ago, Ulysses Dare said:

No, the admittedly paraphrased rule on the Wiki says it's prohibited. And even there Castle is quoted as saying it can be overturned. I had the good fortune of actually seeing Castle define the Cottage Rule once back on live and the way I described it is taken from that description. The Cottage Rule is a strong guideline, very strong, but it was never absolute.

 

 

Again, a rule that can be overturned or that is not absolute does not change the meaning of the rule itself.  The rule prohibits it.  Overturning, breaking, or ignoring the rule, whatever you want to call it, does not change the meaning of the rule.  The rule itself is that such changes will not be made.  How much the rule is enforced or followed is another matter.

Castle's own words I quoted make that clear.  He mentioned the possibility of overturning the rule, which is flexibility in the application of the rule, not that the rule itself allowed for flexibility.  It's a nuanced distinction, but an important one in defining what the rule actually is.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Blackbird71

[GM Impervium]

It looks like people are arguing just for the sake of arguing at this point! And if that's the case, I don't see anything constructive happening. So...

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by GM Impervium