Change Confront and Assassin's Strike into a distance-closing attack

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, InvaderStych said:

Dude, settle down. Seriously. Completely unnecessary.

 

I thought it was funny lol.

1 hour ago, InvaderStych said:

Please don't be obtuse for the sake of continuing this nonsensical argument.  There are 4 (maybe 5) different options available for creating a gap closer among various power pools.  Please stop talking around your desire to get one of those options without sacrificing a precious "Meta Pool".  It is not going to happen.  That ship sailed two years ago.  Either use one of the available gap closing options or don't.

 

Sure, maybe you could give me a list of all the other things that are not to be considered for...reasons. Thx.

1 hour ago, arcane said:

1. Uh, no, you and the other folks have literally stated that it would be nice to not have to dip into a power pool. Do you need people to quote things at you again.

 

2. It would work both ways if our positions were equal. But the Cottage Rule plainly dictates that precedence is given to that functionality which already exists, so “no u” doesn’t work here because the burden is entirely on you to explain why Scrappers are in such a dire place that we need to completely take a core functionality of a power out of a set completely.

 

3. K

 

1. Quote away if that's your thing. Just only quote me, I'm not responsible for other people's comments. Saying that it would be nice to not dip into a power pool is not the same as saying this change would be good with respect to easing build restrictions. There is a lot more to unpack in the latter.

 

2.  The cottage rule was coined by Castle back in 2007. He made plenty of boneheaded decisions and is no longer a developer for this game. So it might be your preference to adhere to this philosophy, but that's all it is. It's a bad dogma in light of gaming in 2022 imo.

[InvaderStych]

  

39 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

Dude, he was clearly joking here. Someone else used that word in this thread, and then someone else repeated it, and then he jokingly referred to it.

 

Fair enough.  Tone of everything else around it certainly did not lead me to infer jocularity, but whatever. 🍻

 

I followed the thread of it and I hear it in Skwisgaar's voice every time Bill uses the phrase.  😉

 

Take-Off does sound hilarious though.

 

28 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Sure, maybe you could give me a list of all the other things that are not to be considered for...reasons. Thx.

 

That's an outright deflection and you know it. 😛

 

Tell me, if you had the ability to take a CT clone instead of confront, what power pools would you then take on that character?  What pool, specifically, are you not able to access because you have to take one of the 4 available choices which contain gap closing powers? Oh, was it Speed pool for Hasten?  Was it Leaping for CJ and those precious defense set unique pieces? Fighting for Tough and Weave?

 

Constraint Fosters Creativity.

 

The real irony is that there is actually a technical precedent for a solution that would resolve main point of contention surrounding this change, but I'm not going to bring it up because there are other reasons outlined above that Confront shouldn't be made into a gap closing power that I've already gone on and on about.  Gap closing powers are fine in power pools, and more would be nice to have for thematic variety.

Edited May 12, 2022 by InvaderStych
repetition removed

[Luminara]

2 hours ago, GM Impervium said:

And also, holy heck guys, it's gotten a bit heated in here, can we cool it down a notch?

 

[arcane]

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

 

2.  The cottage rule was coined by Castle back in 2007. He made plenty of boneheaded decisions and is no longer a developer for this game. So it might be your preference to adhere to this philosophy, but that's all it is. It's a bad dogma in light of gaming in 2022 imo.

Because it is glaringly obvious to me that the spirit of the cottage rule is still adhered to by the HC devs, I would need them to explicitly and directly deny this to believe for one moment that the general principle of the cottage rule is not still in play.
 

Just because Castle happened to be the one to coin the term doesn’t mean the general principle isn’t clearly followed to this day if you examine how the HC devs tend to make changes.

 

[I am currently looking for direct proof that I think is out there, but not 100% sure]

Edited May 12, 2022 by arcane

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, InvaderStych said:

That's an outright deflection and you know it. 😛

 No, not really. I think you're stifling discussion based on a set of assumptions and pre-drawn conclusions. So you and others could maybe put together a group document that lists all the ships you think have already sailed. That way people who get fired up about an idea could read it and have their enthusiasm immediately squashed without putting in the effort of trying to pitch something to an unsympathetic audience. For example, I went back and forth a bit with arcane about this idea. Then after some exchanges, he mentioned that he didn't want anything that would buff scrapers in terms of attacks or utility. Well that would've been good to know from the outset because the specifics of the provoke argument are irrelevant to his overall stance on the AT.

 

I don't have a specific build in mind. I've often had issues trying to fit in everything I need in terms of pool choices in one build, but that's a general concern. I think there should be more options in general. I'm not going to ask for a change to a specific power, of a specific AT in order to get the general flexibility I want. I'm generally interested in a replacement for what a see as a generally useless ability (taunt) on the scrapper. AND I'm curious to see what kind of build options open up as a result. 

[arcane]

So, you’re correct if you say the Cottage Rule is not a hard line never to be crossed at all. However, note Jimmy’s clear statement pasted at the bottom of this post.

 

Replacing Confront with a gap closer violates this general philosophy moreso than any other change made by the HC devs that I can think of. Unlike the other slight violations he mentions, nothing is being proposed at all that keeps the core functionality there in the set for people that like it. 

 

Yes, you can point to issues and imperfections in this argument like this being Jimmy’s personal opinion, but no, you cannot claim that the general principle behind the cottage rule is not something the current developers consider. That would be blatantly untrue. Clearly the devs are interested in giving deference to people that like existing functionalities. So, again, you don’t get to claim that we’re making equal and opposite arguments. You want to take existing core functions of powers away from players, and we don’t.

 

Again, just another reminder that adding another effect or two to Confront while keeping its current functionality as is… would not violate this design philosophy, and I would support strengthening the power that way.

 

“For me, the most important thing is that a powerset / character doesn't completely lose a capability or function that it already has - even if an individual power is completely changed, or a respec is required, or some effort needs to be put in.” - Jimmy

 

Edited May 12, 2022 by arcane

[arcane]

13 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

 
Then after some exchanges, he mentioned that he didn't want anything that would buff scrapers in terms of attacks or utility. Well that would've been good to know from the outset because the specifics of the provoke argument are irrelevant to his overall stance on the AT.

Sorry, we all have a lot of opinions at once and it didn’t seem relevant to state that I don’t want the new Scrapper “gap closer” to be like Burst of Speed or whatever when I don’t want said new Scrapper gap closer to exist in the first place for entirely different reasons.

[InvaderStych]

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

I think you're stifling discussion based on a set of assumptions and pre-drawn conclusions.

 

There is no discussion to stifle as the circular nature of the last several pages demonstrates.  Never mind that this was hashed out two years ago; if the goal is to make Confront useful then we should be talking ways to accomplish that because that would be useful.  5 pages of circular discussion surrounding your insistence that you get access to both the power you want and the 4 pools of your choice is not going to get the job done.  Just going to get the thread closed.

 

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

I'm generally interested in a replacement for what a see as a generally useless ability (taunt) on the scrapper.

 

Not everyone agrees with this position; furthermore it is beside the point.  What *you* see as useful/useless is not as important as the overall health of game-play.  Granting scrappers a gap closing ability that already exists in 4 different available pools simply reinforces existing meta and does nothing to evolve builds towards different solutions than the "Big 4 pools."
 

 

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

I don't have a specific build in mind. I've often had issues trying to fit in everything I need in terms of pool choices in one build, but that's a general concern.

 

This is as much of a validation of my assertion as I'm going to get in this thread, and it is all that is needed. Emphasis mine.

 

Constraints Foster Creativity.  What you want to have already exists in the game. It's on you to adapt to include it.

 

Edited May 12, 2022 by InvaderStych
word choice

[Akisan]

5 hours ago, InvaderStych said:

Nope.  Nice to see alternatives, but nope.  There are already 3 available power pools with a gap closing tool within them, 4 if we're counting Spring Attack.  There's no reason to change any scrapper primary powers for this purpose.

 

And I'd agree with you there - we don't need any more gap closers.  What would be more useful would be Confront preventing enemies from moving further away from you - completely stopping runners, and severely limiting the options of enemies that are approaching your (somewhat squishier) teammates.

 

2 hours ago, Sakura Tenshi said:

Can we all agree before any of this stuff to Assassin’s Strike happens… it needs the long version from hide needs to become Autohit when buildup is used in PvE? Just so disappointing to be like “HERE COMES THE PAIN TRAIN!!!” And whiff.

 

Yes please, especially if the same treatment is applied to Slow Snipe, since that draws aggro on a miss, and, IIRC, AS doesn't.

[Rudra]

If Confront overrode the run away mechanic, that would be a great modification to it.

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, InvaderStych said:

5 pages of circular discussion surrounding your insistence that you get access to both the power you want and the 4 pools of your choice is not going to get the job done.

 

Except you're lying. I never insisted that I wanted a power and access to 4 pools of choice. You're inferring that because it's part of this "big 4" conspiracy you've got going on. I just said that a perk would be more build varieties. That might involve builds that take fewer power pool options.

 

1 hour ago, InvaderStych said:

Not everyone agrees with this position; furthermore it is beside the point.  What *you* see as useful/useless is not as important as the overall health of game-play.  Granting scrappers a gap closing ability that already exists in 4 different available pools simply reinforces existing meta and does nothing to evolve builds towards different solutions than the "Big 4 pools."

 

This is a simple point, yet seems impossible for some people to understand. The proposed power DOES NOT exist. The point of this thread should be to ideate what that power would be. Yes gap closers already exist. Other things also exist. "I want to propose a new scrapper set. It has attacks." "No." "Why?" "We already have a bunch of scrapper sets and they have attacks."

Also, faulting this suggestion because it doesn't evolve builds away from the "Big 4 pools"--who stated that this was a particular goal of this change? Again, you're projecting on to the proposal.

 

2 hours ago, InvaderStych said:

This is as much of an admission of my assertion as I'm going to get in this thread, and it is all that is needed. Emphasis mine.

 

Sad. Really disingenuous. Two sentences later I said this:

 

"I'm not going to ask for a change to a specific power, of a specific AT in order to get the general flexibility I want." 

 

You are truly desperate to not engage honestly and hear what you want.

[battlewraith]

2 hours ago, arcane said:

So, again, you don’t get to claim that we’re making equal and opposite arguments. You want to take existing core functions of powers away from players, and we don’t.

 

You're assuming more than I am. I have a hard time thinking that makes your position stronger. I also think this tendency to speak as if one knows the minds of the devs or the overall health of the game is irrelevant for the purposes of discussing ideas. They will do what they want anyway. Posters shouldn't have license to talk out of their ass and deride other people's ideas because they are secretly roleplaying the devs.

 

 

 

 

[Rudra]

On 4/28/2022 at 2:29 PM, Solvernia said:

Giving melee ATs the ability to close the distance does not fundamentally change the game. They can already do this albeit at the cost of having to waste a power pool selection to do so (Experimentation, which is a set that is 80% useless, or Teleport, which is 60% useless.) If you pick Speed of Sound, you can't pick any other origin-based pool sets.

 

Taking a gap closer as a melee AT requires you to sacrifice other pool power selections to do so, which is not fun. Making it a core feature of the AT by replacing the useless taunt/confront would give them better options for pool power picks, which means more fun.

 

On 4/28/2022 at 2:36 PM, Solvernia said:

The addition of Combat Teleport and Speed of Sound was fantastic and alleviated a lot of the problems I had with combat mobility, but it's not enough. They still require you to waste one of your four pool picks on a single power.

 

23 hours ago, battlewraith said:

 

If this change went through and you lost your taunt, you would have options. You are rejecting this idea because it runs contrary to what you feel is essential to YOUR playstyle. And you are doing exactly what you are asking them not to do--you are forcing your preferences on other people who would like to have other options. Now if the idea of your scrapper having to take taunt from a pool is horrible and somehow detrimental to your build philosophy--well is it that hard to relate to people who feel saddled with a worthless taunt power that could be something cooler like a gap closer? I definitely have builds that could use that. But it's not worth consideration because someone wants to taunt a grate?

 

18 hours ago, battlewraith said:

 

The OP's suggestion is:

(A) Obviously wanted by someone or else they wouldn't have bothered posting it. 

(B) Maybe not helpful to you? I could see uses for it. 

(C) Duplicates functionality. Sure, with benefits that you are ignoring. And the idea that someone can just pick up a power pool is true in your direction as well. If you lose your taunt, just grab one from the pool powers.

 

The crux of the issue is not about defending the status quo so that "nobody's playstyle is changed." You're defending the status quo so that your build preference remains unchanged. Nothing about this suggestion means you can't taunt on your scrapper.

 

I haven't taken taunt on a scrapper in years. I can't remember the last time I teamed with a scrapper that was taunting. IMO to a lot of people, confront on a scrapper is a worthless power. So do you change it into something more interesting that frees up some build options or keep it the same for the faction that wants to keep things the way they have been from the onset. My vote is the former. That's me stating my preference. I get what your preference is. I don't fault you for wanting to have things your own way. But be honest about it. Don't crap on the idea and cop this attitude like it's somehow objectively bad and not worth discussing. If you don't want to discuss it, then don't. This game has gone through waves and waves of buffs, nerfs, and changes. Some were good, some were bad, and many were player driven. Some of these changes ruined the enjoyability of certain character builds for me. I didn't then park myself in the suggestions section and start pissing on ideas I didn't like. Not that you're the worst in this regard. On the contrary, I think you're one of the more reasonable posters on this board, but I think you're being very myopic here.

 

18 hours ago, battlewraith said:

 

Again. Something maybe much less useful to YOU. The arguments about a gap closer being redundant are also completely missing the point. If I take this power or this power or another power, I can get there faster than a teleport. What if I don't want to take those powers? What if my build doesn't have vertical mobility and the gap closer fills that hole. What if I legitimately have some issues moving my character in other ways and want something to allow precision placement (again without being committed to the teleport pool)? I have a character with no +perception. If the gap closer was an aoe attack of some sort, it would help me deal with hidden targets. As it stands, confront does nothing for me. What if you found out that 95% of scrappers skip confront? Would you still be making this argument?

 

I read you prior post. I think the actions of the devs in that beta and the reaction of the players then is pretty irrelevant. This is a proposal to change (not remove) one power option.

 

 

 

36 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

This is a simple point, yet seems impossible for some people to understand. The proposed power DOES NOT exist.

Yeah. There's this. The OP is about folding an existing pool power into an existing AT primary power so that the pool power can be accessed without taking the pool and enabling the OP to keep the Fab 4 pool sets. Your entire argument from the beginning has been supporting that position. If you do not support that position and instead hold the position that Confront needs to be improved, then we can all throw ideas at improving Confront. No one responding negatively to this thread is against improving Confront.

 

If Confront is turned into a gap closer, as you have supported in this thread, that is not an improvement except in the eyes of some players. It is a massive downgrade in the eyes of others. You want to improve Confront? Let's talk ways to improve it. This thread and your own posts do not attempt to improve Confront.

 

And even if Confront as a gap closer retains a taunt component? It is still not Confront. It is a taunting combat teleport. Confront is used to pull enemies to the character by the players that have the power and are arguing against this thread.

 

I even gave an opinion on how Confront could be improved. So have multiple other individuals. In this thread. And yet you seemingly have nothing to say to those comments and you keep entrenching yourself to defend this thread. So of course you are going to be held to be in support of turning Confront into Combat Teleport.

Edited May 12, 2022 by Rudra
Edited to add combat to teleport.

[arcane]

44 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

 

You're assuming more than I am. I have a hard time thinking that makes your position stronger. I also think this tendency to speak as if one knows the minds of the devs or the overall health of the game is irrelevant for the purposes of discussing ideas. They will do what they want anyway. Posters shouldn't have license to talk out of their ass and deride other people's ideas because they are secretly roleplaying the devs.

 

 

 

 

I literally searched the forums and quoted a dev to avoid a post like this being considered a valid response. But I guess the devs’ own words on design vision have no weight.

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, arcane said:

I literally searched the forums and quoted a dev to avoid a post like this being considered a valid response. But I guess the devs’ own words on design vision have no weight.

It has weight. But it's not the silver bullet you think it is. Even Jimmy's post was more flexible on this issue than I was expecting. 

[arcane]

2 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

It has weight. But it's not the silver bullet you think it is. Even Jimmy's post was more flexible on this issue than I was expecting. 

I acknowledged in my own post that it wasn’t bullet proof, but it doesn’t have to be. You pretty much said the idea behind the cottage rule has zero meaning except to Castle and the devs of his era, and that much is obviously untrue. Literally every example Jimmy cited as the most extreme deviations from the rule in HC, is less extreme than your idea to remove a power’s core functionality from a set entirely. But again, I can tell this has accomplished nothing. Guess I gotta know when to give up.

[InvaderStych]

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

"I'm not going to ask for a change to a specific power, of a specific AT in order to get the general flexibility I want." 

 

As has already been demonstrated in a wall of quotes of your posts, this is, literally, what you are arguing/asking for.  I am sorry that you cannot see that.

 

Enjoy the rest of the thread.  Said my piece. 🍻

[PeregrineFalcon]

2 hours ago, battlewraith said:

Except you're lying. I never insisted that I wanted a power and access to 4 pools of choice.

True. But if the change that you're asking for happens it will have that effect. Invaderstych isn't lying, he's making the good faith assumption that you're intelligent enough to foresee that fact. Rather than be insulted you should be flattered that he's assuming you are intelligent until proven otherwise, instead of doing what most internet people do, which is the opposite of that.

 

 

2 hours ago, battlewraith said:

"I want to propose a new scrapper set. It has attacks." "No." "Why?" "We already have a bunch of scrapper sets and they have attacks."

False equivalency. Building an entirely new set is not the same as changing the powers in old sets.

 

Now normally I'd be in favor of creating new sets, especially one that has a gap closer. However, back on April 29th I issued an injunction against creating any new power sets until Energy Aura has been ported to tanks.

 

Motion denied!

 

Relax. It's just a joke.

[battlewraith]

2 hours ago, InvaderStych said:

As has already been demonstrated in a wall of quotes of your posts, this is, literally, what you are arguing/asking for.  I am sorry that you cannot see that.

 

Oh you mean the wall of quotes that is not all me? The one where he mixed in quotes from somebody else? That wall?

You people are something else.

[Rudra]

Yes. The wall of quotes that included two quotes from the author to highlight what you were defending so emphatically. The idea you were arguing needed to be implemented that you are now saying you were not arguing to have implemented. That wall of quotes.

[battlewraith]

2 hours ago, Rudra said:

Yes. The wall of quotes that included two quotes from the author to highlight what you were defending so emphatically. The idea you were arguing needed to be implemented that you are now saying you were not arguing to have implemented. That wall of quotes.

 

No you are a liar, The quotes from myself alone don't say what you and Stych are claiming. They are not defenses of his ideas, they me arguing for the type of utility I see possibly coming out of this change. That's why my first quote you list is what, 2 weeks after his? Unbelievable. Didn't think my opinion of you could be lower champ but you did it. You broke through the floor. 

 

This was my first post in the thread, which you downvoted:

 

 

Quote

Okay, so I think the general consensus here is that confront is worthless on a scrapper. So let's focus on that. 

 

 

Is a gap closer a good idea? Yeah could be cool. Could look cool. Could free up a power pool slot and allow for some cool builds that are not currently possible. These are legitimate reasons for consideration.

 

What about the objections?

 

1. Thematic. Why would a character with say a staff be teleporting? Grow an imagination. Maybe the staff is magical or shoots out a grappling hook or something. The game is already full of weird powers that don't make a lot of sense (eg. the blaster martial arts secondary that lets you teleport).

 

2. You can achieve the same effects with power pools.

 

So what? First of all, anyone can get a crappy taunt from pools. Secondly, I might be looking to make some kooky ass build that doesn't take the pool powers that would get me this effect. What happened to the "play your own way" ethos? People that arguing that pool powers already let you build for this are basically just saying that you should share their preferences.

 

3, It's not faster.

 

Again, so what. There's a difference between the speed of a movement and the experience of using it. Also your build might have SS but no other travel power. The vertical movement from the gap closer could have a lot of utility. You might have no travel powers and want to pretend your batman scooting around with a grappling hook.

 

 

 

It makes no reference to his posts. It only deals with scrappers. And it doesn't have anything to do with optimizing for the "big 4 powers." Liars. Don't know why I'm surprised. 

 

 

Edited May 13, 2022 by battlewraith

[Rudra]

Showing the context of a thread does not make a person a liar. Forum posts are not thoughts in a void. If you do not want your defense to be associated with the OP, then you need to say as much. Else there is no reason for anyone to think your commentary is not to support the OP you are being read as defending.

 

As far as the original post you say I am ignoring? That is the basis of the perception you want Confront turned into Combat Teleport so you and the OP can keep access to the Fab 4 power pools.

36 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Is a gap closer a good idea? Yeah could be cool. Could look cool. Could free up a power pool slot and allow for some cool builds that are not currently possible. These are legitimate reasons for consideration.

Your words. Want to try again?

[Greycat]

22 hours ago, battlewraith said:

 

No. To make it *objectively different.*

 

 

Currently:

 

I can stand at range and taunt. I do not end up in the middle of a mob as a result, aggroing the lot of them.

 

OP's suggestion:

 

Taunt, wind up teleported (or whatever) there in the middle of a mob I don't want to be in the middle of.

 

Yes, that is *objectively worse.* Saying "it doesn't affect anybody's build" is a flat out lie and you should be (but I can tell won't be) ashamed, as to get *original, useful* functionality back would require respeccing, dropping that power and going into a power pool - if they can fit that into their build.

 

Yes, that's "objectively different." So would making Confront into a power that turns your character into a flowerpot for five minutes. Frankly, the second would be more useful, as it would at least be amusing during RP. "Different" is not "better" or even "more interesting."

Also, no.

What I'm hearing is that the OP needs to stop worrying about what they want and spend more time worrying about what you want.

 

Pot, kettle? You refuse to see JUST HOW BAD this suggestion is, and want to blow off anyone and everyone giving VERY SOLID REASONS why it's bad. Frankly, it's not worth interacting with you any longer over this, and I'm honestly not sure over anything else given what I've been consistently seeing here, which is a pity.

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, Rudra said:

Showing the context of a thread does not make a person a liar. Forum posts are not thoughts in a void. If you do not want your defense to be associated with the OP, then you need to say as much. Else there is no reason for anyone to think your commentary is not to support the OP you are being read as defending.

 

As far as the original post you say I am ignoring? That is the basis of the perception you want Confront turned into Combat Teleport so you and the OP can keep access to the Fab 4 power pools.

Your words. Want to try again?

 

Connecting my statements, made at a later date, to his and saying that I am defending his ideas is lying. You are not showing context, you are stripping away things that were actually said in the discussion. And I've made it clear elsewhere that I have only been speaking for myself.

 

Saying that a gap closer could be cool, look cool, and could free up a power slot is not the same as same saying that a power needs to be changed so that somebody can get all their desired pool powers. In that post I talk about jumping around like Batman with no other travel powers. Of course that doesn't help your narrative so you're ignoring it. 

 

The only basis for the perception you keep droning about is utter lack of reading comprehension and dishonesty, now that i'm pointing at what I actually said. You got this wrong. Stop with the bullshit.

[Rudra]

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

Again, so what. There's a difference between the speed of a movement and the experience of using it. Also your build might have SS but no other travel power. The vertical movement from the gap closer could have a lot of utility. You might have no travel powers and want to pretend your batman scooting around with a grappling hook.

Having a gap closer, you target a mob and use the now taunting combat teleport, will not give you any travel benefits. It will send you to the target. So, yes, I ignored it as being a contrived defense.

 

Edit: It is an attack set power. Using Confront as the basis. That is a ST mob ability. Not like Shield Charge, Savage Leap, or the other 2 that are AoE attacks you target a location with.

 

Edit again: As a reminder, in your post, you were the one that said you wanted a power pool slot freed up.

Edited May 13, 2022 by Rudra