Hop on over to the beta server to test out some Page 5 power updates!

[roleki]

If you read the patch notes and they gave you even the slightest inkling of concern, I would highly suggest heading to the beta server and trying the subject changes out for yourself and get your feedback into the relevant focused thread ASAP.  The track record for "first suggestion wins" around here is staggering.

[Glacier Peak]

56 minutes ago, roleki said:

If you read the patch notes and they gave you even the slightest inkling of concern, I would highly suggest heading to the beta server and trying the subject changes out for yourself and get your feedback into the relevant focused thread ASAP.  The track record for "first suggestion wins" around here is staggering.

This poster is spot on!

[Ukase]

1 hour ago, roleki said:

If you read the patch notes and they gave you even the slightest inkling of concern, I would highly suggest heading to the beta server and trying the subject changes out for yourself and get your feedback into the relevant focused thread ASAP.  The track record for "first suggestion wins" around here is staggering.

Yeah, our HC devs love to cram this stuff down our throats whether it's good for the game or not. 

Very disappointed with the direction they're taking this game. Nerfing burn from my current 8 second recharge to 13 seconds, with nothing to compensate for it. Doesn't make any sense to me at all. 

[@Ghost]

2 hours ago, Shadeknight said:

Image attached has some relevance.

 

I understand the frustration from time to time with people armchair-arguing over changes for pages on end but imo that's the job of moderation to cull when it elevates to a disruptive level. Feedback is feedback, whether it's simple "I like its" or "I'm not a fan of this." Qualified feedback from real game experience is *better* but not always 100% necessary. I don't need to log into beta to think taking the emp>reward merit conversion away was a mistake, but getting a feel of the full scope of Battle Axe changes is difficult to do without.

 

Obfuscating the patch notes to try and coerce people into logging in is, imo, a very large mistake. If anything the patch notes should be *further* detailed with reasoning from the devs about why changes are happening; it's a bizarre state of affairs when you're left to guess or read the tea leaves on stuff when there's no explanation given as for why each one is happening, and dev commentary on patch notes is something that's becoming industry standard from professional studios. Further elaboration for the Emp merit changes were said to be coming, postponed, and now seemingly just off the table. There were 0 dev responses in the last feedback thread about attack typing. imo, communication is key whether it's intent through notes or actively engaging.

[Ruin Mage]

25 minutes ago, @Ghost said:

Further elaboration for the Emp merit changes were said to be coming, postponed, and now seemingly just off the table.

Actually, it was for the Vet level change and with that moved to the Emp Merit change it was given a response in the appropiate thread:



 

 

25 minutes ago, @Ghost said:

Qualified feedback from real game experience is *better* but not always 100% necessary.

For a page that is primarily about Powers, this is 100% necessary IMO.
 

 

25 minutes ago, @Ghost said:

Obfuscating the patch notes to try and coerce people into logging in is, imo, a very large mistake. If anything the patch notes should be *further* detailed with reasoning from the devs about why changes are happening; it's a bizarre state of affairs when you're left to guess or read the tea leaves on stuff when there's no explanation given as for why each one is happening, and dev commentary on patch notes is something that's becoming industry standard from professional studios.

You can thank Page 4 for that, really. The absolute meltdown at Attack Type Changes among other things made it clear that making fully detailed patch notes like what's mentioned in this quote box? It doesn't do any good. That, at least, is a mentality I could see forming after reading various posts through Page 4 and in the aftermath of it going live. The vitriol from people skyrocketed, and annoying that it was so entwined with Patch Note Reactors vs actual testers.

Personally, while it would be nice to know why? It is not owed to us. They're not a professional studio, and they're not earning money from this. It's these reasons and more that cause me to roll my eyes when transparency is mentioned/thrown about. I get that getting crunchy details is becoming the norm, but not everyone will or has to follow the norm of professionals - especially when it wouldn't really sate people. It'd just invite the same stuff that happened with prior pages - arm-chair "developers" and their takes on what makes a "good" change.

 

 

25 minutes ago, @Ghost said:

that's the job of moderation to cull when it elevates to a disruptive level.

And they do try when it breaks the rules of the beta section - but that doesn't stop people from posting "This change is shit." and nothing else. Or harping eternally about conspiracy theories and dead community. It's why I'm more than happy to point them off towards Rebirth or Cake - where they might find more enjoyment if a single change is causing them this much distress and anguish.

 

 

25 minutes ago, @Ghost said:

communication is key whether it's intent through notes or actively engaging.

I would agree with you if circumstances were different. But engaging with this community on the forums is like sticking your hand into a vat of hungry piranhas. 

Detailed notes wouldn't do a thing to lessen the issues the forums create. There's no real perfect solution, but the one of patch notes as they are is what I'd rather have over inviting even more forum warfare over dev decisions/thought process.

I am the Ultra Simp for the dev team because I wouldn't wish the forum community upon even my worst enemies.

Edited October 6, 2022 by Shadeknight

[Tachstar]

3 hours ago, Shadeknight said:

But if you're only reading the patch notes and reacting off of that then that's not helpful. That's not the sort of feedback that's generally looked for - unless there's something to contradict that. That's entirely what made the last page a mess on Attack Type Changes (as an example) and is making feedback on the Levels for Powers change get bogged down - by people going only off the patch notes. If you can't put in the minimal effort to actually give it a shot, then one should not be surprised if people get a bit snippy (even if they shouldn't) - given prior experiences with past pages.

It brings out the worst because people don't want to test - which is the entire point it goes to Open Beta in the first place. They're looking to adjust/improve the changes, or if its really that universally bad, take another crack at it. They're not looking for Random Forum Poster's wall of text about their thoughts from patch notes alone. If that's what they worked off of, we'd be in a way worse position IMO.

Patch Notes -> Feedback tells the devs nothing. It has no real good impact on what's working and what isn't. They're not looking for "I don't like this despite never testing it out.", and that's how it's always worked. Not everyone can access/wants to access beta, sure, but they should give up the ability to give feedback until it hits live. That, while harsh, is just the nature of things - you can't and shouldn't have it both ways.

Image attached has some relevance.

 

I'll do you one better: I don't even need to read the patch notes to know that I don't want any further changes made to what's left of the original game. I didn't want any of the changes that have already been made. All I wanted was something as close as possible to the game I knew and loved all those years ago, before it was so rudely snatched away. That's it and that's all. If the HC devs want to add new stuff like the Sentinel AT and new power sets like Symphony Control? New story arcs? New Task/Strike Forces? Great! Bring it! But all these tweaks and adjustments and 'QOL' changes to the old stuff... I didn't want any of that, didn't ask for any of it, and I'd just as soon see it all revoked. All of it. With every new 'fix', the game gets less and less like the game so many of us were so excited to get to play again, and more and more something that kinda sorta almost looks like it -- if you close one eye and squint. YMMV.

 

TL;DR -- if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

Anyway, that's my feedback.

[Omega-202]

5 minutes ago, Tachstar said:

 

I'll do you one better: I don't even need to read the patch notes to know that I don't want any further changes made to what's left of the original game. I didn't want any of the changes that have already been made. All I wanted was something as close as possible to the game I knew and loved all those years ago, before it was so rudely snatched away. That's it and that's all. If the HC devs want to add new stuff like the Sentinel AT and new power sets like Symphony Control? New story arcs? New Task/Strike Forces? Great! Bring it! But all these tweaks and adjustments and 'QOL' changes to the old stuff... I didn't want any of that, didn't ask for any of it, and I'd just as soon see it all revoked. All of it. With every new 'fix', the game gets less and less like the game so many of us were so excited to get to play again, and more and more something that kinda sorta almost looks like it -- if you close one eye and squint. YMMV.

 

TL;DR -- if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

Anyway, that's my feedback.

There are other servers that stick closer to the "as it was" model.  You can go try those.  Homecoming is what Homecoming is.  They're going to change stuff, so operate under that assumption.  

[Ruin Mage]

Even Rebirth does QOL.

Cake is the wild funserver of the bunch where you can be as OP as you like.

You can't really escape QOL.

[@Ghost]

7 minutes ago, Shadeknight said:

Personally, while it would be nice to know why? It is not owed to us. They're not a professional studio, and they're not earning money from this. It's these reasons and more that cause me to roll my eyes when transparency is mentioned/thrown about. I get that getting crunchy details is becoming the norm, but not everyone will or has to follow the norm of professionals - especially when it wouldn't really sate people. It'd just invite the same stuff that happened with prior pages - arm-chair "developers" and their takes on what makes a "good" change.

 

There's a lot of points here but this makes the least sense to me. Nothing is owed to anyone, ever, and we all know the staff are volunteers, but none of that's a defense for "hey they should not intentionally leave out information, provide clear documentation and state the goals behind changes." Knowing what's trying to be accomplished shapes the feedback people can give. Having clear documentation lets me look at discrepancies and bugs for what is and isn't intended. I'm volunteering my time by logging into beta and testing too, and making that process more difficult helps nobody.

[Seed22]

8 minutes ago, @Ghost said:

 

There's a lot of points here but this makes the least sense to me. Nothing is owed to anyone, ever, and we all know the staff are volunteers, but none of that's a defense for "hey they should not intentionally leave out information, provide clear documentation and state the goals behind changes." Knowing what's trying to be accomplished shapes the feedback people can give. Having clear documentation lets me look at discrepancies and bugs for what is and isn't intended. I'm volunteering my time by logging into beta and testing too, and making that process more difficult helps nobody.

I mean, exactly this.

 

Side tangent: I swear,  it feels like folks think if they say, "Devs volunteer yadda yadda spiel" enough they'll be made one. You won't, they see right through that I'd assume. So, why keep saying it? It's more irritating than the complaining and even LESS effective. In fact, ya' wonder why folks don't want to test anything? There ya go.

Edited October 6, 2022 by Seed22

[Black Zot]

8 minutes ago, Seed22 said:

I mean, exactly this.

 

Side tangent: I swear,  it feels like folks think if they say, "Devs volunteer yadda yadda spiel" enough they'll be made one. You won't, they see right through that I'd assume. So, why keep saying it? It's more irritating than the complaining and even LESS effective. In fact, ya' wonder why folks don't want to test anything? There ya go.

 

Personally, I'm not testing anything because my current work schedule makes playing CoH at all impossible, nevermind the extra time and energy to get onto a whole different server.  Considering the devs' track record, by the time I get a chance to make any feedback the self-appointed forum police would call valid, the chance for it to be considered will be long gone.

[Glacier Peak]

43 minutes ago, Seed22 said:

I mean, exactly this.

 

Side tangent: I swear,  it feels like folks think if they say, "Devs volunteer yadda yadda spiel" enough they'll be made one. You won't, they see right through that I'd assume. So, why keep saying it? It's more irritating than the complaining and even LESS effective. In fact, ya' wonder why folks don't want to test anything? There ya go.

And on the other end of this polarizing conclusion to your post, many folks want to test changes and it's the primary reason why pages and issues make it out the door in months instead of years. Look at the Dr. Aeon SF. Look at the Piecemeal story arcs. Look at the new powersets Homecoming has made. That's just a few things that require hours and hours and weeks of play testing and breaking to ensure it works correctly. How do you think those things got in to the game? Developers made the content, the community tested it, and we all get to enjoy it. It's how this server has ran for the past three years. 

[StrikerFox]

On 10/4/2022 at 3:53 PM, roleki said:

Illusion Dominators?

 

::swoon::

 

Ohhhh! If you create one, call yourself Delusional. Or Dillusional and make your costume look as close to a herb as possible.

[Sanguinesun]

4 hours ago, Omega-202 said:

There are other servers that stick closer to the "as it was" model.  You can go try those.  Homecoming is what Homecoming is.  They're going to change stuff, so operate under that assumption.  

 

Are you promoting a false dichotomy or just towing a dev intended line of intentionally alienating and invalidating a segment of the player base by targeting their game play enjoyment through specific changes with the sole purpose or damn near close to it for that goal or something else?

Edited October 6, 2022 by Sanguinesun

[Xiddo]

What's New in Issue 27, Page 5?

NOTICE: This build's primary purpose is to focus test Page 5's power changes as there are a large number of them. The remainder of Issue 27, Page 5's additions will be detailed at a later time in future patch notes.
 

Just think - this is just the stuff now! There’s more to come 👀🥹 I wonder if any of this new QoL stuff is to do with the other content coming down the pipeline? A man can dream this means a new mid-range TF/SF/Gold TF that they’re giving us buffs for 😉

 

(yes, it also means more potential arguing)

[Wavicle]

9 hours ago, Ukase said:

Yeah, our HC devs love to cram this stuff down our throats whether it's good for the game or not. 

Very disappointed with the direction they're taking this game. Nerfing burn from my current 8 second recharge to 13 seconds, with nothing to compensate for it. Doesn't make any sense to me at all. 

But there's NOT nothing to compensate for it. Fiery Aura is much more durable than before.

[Wavicle]

2 hours ago, Xiddo said:

What's New in Issue 27, Page 5?

NOTICE: This build's primary purpose is to focus test Page 5's power changes as there are a large number of them. The remainder of Issue 27, Page 5's additions will be detailed at a later time in future patch notes.
 

Just think - this is just the stuff now! There’s more to come 👀🥹 I wonder if any of this new QoL stuff is to do with the other content coming down the pipeline? A man can dream this means a new mid-range TF/SF/Gold TF that they’re giving us buffs for 😉

 

(yes, it also means more potential arguing)

 

I think the more to come is mostly already there, it's just not in the patch notes yet.

Edited October 6, 2022 by Wavicle

[Ruin Mage]

5 hours ago, Sanguinesun said:

Are you promoting a false dichotomy or just towing a dev intended line of intentionally alienating and invalidating a segment of the player base by targeting their game play enjoyment through specific changes with the sole purpose or damn near close to it for that goal or something else?

I'm sorry, but what?

Where is the invalidation and alienating?

 

Quote

Side tangent: I swear,  it feels like folks think if they say, "Devs volunteer yadda yadda spiel" enough they'll be made one. You won't, they see right through that I'd assume. So, why keep saying it? It's more irritating than the complaining and even LESS effective. In fact, ya' wonder why folks don't want to test anything? There ya go.

I doubt a majority are looking to do this for a dev spot. That isn't how things work.

However, on the other side of the coin its equally annoying to see the same "devs bad/change bad" spiel from non-testers. Always two sides to a coin.

Edited October 6, 2022 by Shadeknight

[RunoKnows]

9 hours ago, Seed22 said:

Side tangent: I swear,  it feels like folks think if they say, "Devs volunteer yadda yadda spiel" enough they'll be made one. You won't, they see right through that I'd assume. So, why keep saying it? It's more irritating than the complaining and even LESS effective. In fact, ya' wonder why folks don't want to test anything? There ya go.

No one is mentioning that the devs are volunteers because they want to be made developers; some folks have the foresight to realize that we wouldn't make good devs because we don't have the skillsets required for video game development, and we aren't pretending that we do

 

For those who disagree with the devs' decisions, that's fine. Not every decision is going to be perfect, and not every decision is going to be GOOD for that matter, but the way the community presents any criticisms or critique has to be put together in a manner that is conducive to player-dev interaction

 

What isn't fine is trying to pardon yourself for your bad behavior. Stop making excuses for why you think this is an acceptable form of communication and stop making excuses for why you 'don't want to test anything' and go put your money where your mouth is.

 

It is literally that simple: Log onto the test server, actually test things, and submit feedback. If you can't even contribute the slightest modicum of effort when it comes to voicing your thoughts on impending updates, I don't know why anyone would or should take you seriously.

[Omega-202]

6 hours ago, Sanguinesun said:

 

Are you promoting a false dichotomy or just towing a dev intended line of intentionally alienating and invalidating a segment of the player base by targeting their game play enjoyment through specific changes with the sole purpose or damn near close to it for that goal or something else?

 

EDIT: gifs broke, but I don't care enough to fix it.  Billy Madison, "everyone in this room is stupider for having heard what you said", yadda yadda yadda

Edited October 6, 2022 by Omega-202

[Ruin Mage]

I think your gif broke, Omega.

Or maybe its just me.

[Ukase]

1 hour ago, Wavicle said:

But there's NOT nothing to compensate for it. Fiery Aura is much more durable than before.

You cannot see the forest with the trees in the way. 
My FA/Ice tank is durable NOW. It didn't need to be improved in that regard. Fiery Aura is not the most durable of tanks, sure. and the debuffs may be helpful in a small, unnoticeable way. But to reduce burn from a base of 25 to 45 is entirely too long. I now have 5 seconds where I'm literally sitting in this mob of npcs able to do nothing because of the slower recharge. This was an unnecessary change. Not desired, nor required. 

They want us to test - but they don't tell us what it's supposed to be like, what we're testing for. It's not like I can see the combat log stats after the session is over in a text file for easy reading.

I went on test - and I was disappointed. I saw nothing that said I got anything in return for the slower recharge. I didn't notice any more damage. I didn't notice any more survivability. All I noticed was slower recharge. If they're going to do that, they need to do something for that tradeoff. Make burn do more damage. Something noticeable. But there's nothing. The patch change for Fiery Aura is a complete slap in the face to anyone who routinely plays Fiery Aura. It will require a respec for anyone who cares about their characters. That's a lot of damned time they would have us WASTE on top of their time that they already wasted with this needless nerf. 

If they want us to go along with this, they NEED to explain what they're trying to do, and why they're trying to do it. Then we can read that and let them know if it's something we can get behind. Maybe they just want to go back to playing all by themselves again. I've no idea. But changing things that aren't broken isn't the way. 

Nobody ever said "I want to do less damage!" 
Instead, what we hear/read are comments from people who do not play those powersets that chime in "They do too much damage!".  They are jealous because we play them, and are happy enough on our own, and they are mad because they play something that isn't doing much damage. They don't say, "Hey, we should be doing more damage". Instead, they cry out, "Fire is too OP!".  
We tell them the reason it does all the damage it does is because it doesn't have kb protection, and 1 pt that it will now have is not enough. Try 12 pts, just for a start. Then add in some defense debuff resistance, then we can handle the 45 second recharge. 

But this pissant defense debuff is unnoticeable. 1 pt of kb protection is all but useless. Nemesis, yellow mitos and certain other NPCs are still going to toss us around like popcorn unless we specifically devote slots to it that other tanks don't have to spend on it. 

This is poorly thought out. We are not presented with any rationale behind this change. These Power Devs must not be playing this game. If they are, they aren't playing a fire tank or a fire brute. And if they are, what is it that they are trying to do? They need to explain where this 45 second number comes from. What is making that the perfect number over 25? Over 30? Who decided on this value and why? 

And why didn't they bring this up before they waste time coding it? Because they KNEW most of us wouldn't like it. And they don't give a shit. They have literally told us all to leave if we don't like it. Me, I'd rather try to hold them accountable. I want answers. I keep hearing "They're not getting paid". The hell they're not. They get donations every month. It may not go in their pockets, but some of us ARE paying to keep the game going. So it is completely fair for us to ask for this kind of information. They do OWE us the answers. If not, they can pay that money out of their own pocket and do whatever they like. Until then, time to stop with these damned changes until you present the proposed changes before you code them. With the rationale behind the changes. 

I can accept nerfs to my characters that will cause me to waste hours, even if I'd rather not, if there's a reason. And just because some fans of the HC Devs or the HC devs think burn is "broken" or "overpowered" isn't a good enough reason. Burn is the way it is because the armor is so weak compared to the other armors. You muck with that, then the Fire Shield needs to protect against Toxic, and against Negative Energy as well. There also needs to be some DDR thrown in for good measure. 

Hell, there's millions of different ways to improve FA without mucking with burn. But they don't ask us. They just do what they want to do. Until they stop taking money, they need to explain what they're doing and why. 
 

[Xiddo]

I consider a lot of this not unlike negotiating a pay rise.

The boss says they’ll only give you 5% more but really they can afford 20, you would be happy with a 15% increase but know they’ll bring it down regardless of what you say, so you go in and demand 25. Everyone politely discusses it and ‘compromises’, and then everyone feels like they’ve won.

With the toggle suppression it was originally 10 (?) seconds but was reduced after feedback. I wouldn’t be surprised if Burn ends up about 30-ish, if they bump up something like the KB res. Then everyone feels like they’ve won.

[Glacier Peak]

46 minutes ago, Ukase said:

You cannot see the forest with the trees in the way. 
My FA/Ice tank is durable NOW. It didn't need to be improved in that regard. Fiery Aura is not the most durable of tanks, sure. and the debuffs may be helpful in a small, unnoticeable way. But to reduce burn from a base of 25 to 45 is entirely too long. I now have 5 seconds where I'm literally sitting in this mob of npcs able to do nothing because of the slower recharge. This was an unnecessary change. Not desired, nor required. 

They want us to test - but they don't tell us what it's supposed to be like, what we're testing for. It's not like I can see the combat log stats after the session is over in a text file for easy reading.

I went on test - and I was disappointed. I saw nothing that said I got anything in return for the slower recharge. I didn't notice any more damage. I didn't notice any more survivability. All I noticed was slower recharge. If they're going to do that, they need to do something for that tradeoff. Make burn do more damage. Something noticeable. But there's nothing. The patch change for Fiery Aura is a complete slap in the face to anyone who routinely plays Fiery Aura. It will require a respec for anyone who cares about their characters. That's a lot of damned time they would have us WASTE on top of their time that they already wasted with this needless nerf. 

If they want us to go along with this, they NEED to explain what they're trying to do, and why they're trying to do it. Then we can read that and let them know if it's something we can get behind. Maybe they just want to go back to playing all by themselves again. I've no idea. But changing things that aren't broken isn't the way. 

Nobody ever said "I want to do less damage!" 
Instead, what we hear/read are comments from people who do not play those powersets that chime in "They do too much damage!".  They are jealous because we play them, and are happy enough on our own, and they are mad because they play something that isn't doing much damage. They don't say, "Hey, we should be doing more damage". Instead, they cry out, "Fire is too OP!".  
We tell them the reason it does all the damage it does is because it doesn't have kb protection, and 1 pt that it will now have is not enough. Try 12 pts, just for a start. Then add in some defense debuff resistance, then we can handle the 45 second recharge. 

But this pissant defense debuff is unnoticeable. 1 pt of kb protection is all but useless. Nemesis, yellow mitos and certain other NPCs are still going to toss us around like popcorn unless we specifically devote slots to it that other tanks don't have to spend on it. 

This is poorly thought out. We are not presented with any rationale behind this change. These Power Devs must not be playing this game. If they are, they aren't playing a fire tank or a fire brute. And if they are, what is it that they are trying to do? They need to explain where this 45 second number comes from. What is making that the perfect number over 25? Over 30? Who decided on this value and why? 

And why didn't they bring this up before they waste time coding it? Because they KNEW most of us wouldn't like it. And they don't give a shit. They have literally told us all to leave if we don't like it. Me, I'd rather try to hold them accountable. I want answers. I keep hearing "They're not getting paid". The hell they're not. They get donations every month. It may not go in their pockets, but some of us ARE paying to keep the game going. So it is completely fair for us to ask for this kind of information. They do OWE us the answers. If not, they can pay that money out of their own pocket and do whatever they like. Until then, time to stop with these damned changes until you present the proposed changes before you code them. With the rationale behind the changes. 

I can accept nerfs to my characters that will cause me to waste hours, even if I'd rather not, if there's a reason. And just because some fans of the HC Devs or the HC devs think burn is "broken" or "overpowered" isn't a good enough reason. 

In the same post you're demanding that the Homecoming team give you insight as to the reason why they made a PROPOSED change and then later on you say if the Homecoming team thinks the PROPOSED change is needed that isn't a good enough reason.

 

It was an incredibly long post, but you do realize that, right? 

 

Whether the Homecoming team describes the reasoning behind a PROPOSED change or not, there are going to be players who say they aren't satisfied with their reasoning. There are going to be players who aren't pleased by the PROPOSED change whether their given a reason or not. Even though it's on the beta shard for the explicit purpose of being tested to determine the PROPOSED change validity. If you activate said power, does it damage the enemy NPC or does it mapserver the client? There is enough armchair patch note quarterbacks on these forums as many folks in this community have pointed out. 

 

Anyways, my opinion, if I was volunteering my time as a dev, I wouldn't waste my time writing a post to describe why a PROPOSED change is being tested. Look at the past three years on this server and tell me what that has accomplished. Petty bickering from forum posters who drown out the purpose of the thread. Then again, that's just me.

 

And I'll continue to support the Homecoming community both financially and with my free time. 

[Ukase]

6 minutes ago, Glacier Peak said:

And I'll continue to support the Homecoming community both financially and with my free time. 

You've missed the point. Why is this proposed change on the test server? 
Because "they" decided, without any consultation from any of the player that are paying for the servers that it should be changed. 

That is my bone of contention. They didn't ask for insights. They didn't share why they felt the need to propose the change. What is the end goal? They just code it and expect us to determine if something bad happens. The change itself is bad. I tested it. My recharge when from 8 seconds to 13. That is a bad result of a proposed change. 

I am pissed because they wasted time on this, choosing some arbitrary value for a greater recharge time when the time could have been spent doing things that needed changing. This did not. 

You do what you like. But I'm not giving anything until they explain their rationale behind these proposed changes that they've invested time into coding. And you can bet there was some testing before it hit Brainstorm. They've known about this since before page 4 hit. They could have asked then, but they chose not to because you seem to think the opinions of the players aren't worth considering. We will have to disagree on that. My opinion is every bit as valid as yours.