Replace the Cottage Rule with the Duplex Rule

[Faeriemage]

For some of us, the original concept and implementation of a set is what we want. This so called Cottage Rule is the reason some sets get locked into a specific build and can never be changed. Force Field is definitely one of these. You could make the argument about other sets, but that isn't the reason for this suggestion, only the information regarding the why of the suggestion.

 

Some of us want for the Devs to have the option to completely change some of the older sets in the game, updating them in new and interesting ways, like removing -END from electric, or adding +Absorb to Force Fields, something that can't be done as long as we are beholden to the Cottage Rule.

 

Enter the Duplex Rule. At a certain point, Arachnos Soldiers and Widows are able to pick a path down which they can customize their character, which locks out the other path. They do this by picking one of the power options in the path they want to go down. I am suggesting we do this for any of the power sets that we want to change more than just a little, possibly that will completely change how the set operates and feels. This would allow those who still enjoy the old playstyle to continue with that playstyle without change.  It will also let those people who like the idea of the power set but not the implementation another opportunity for something a little different (like Electric getting +Disorient instead of -End)

 

Yes, I get that this is a huge departure from what has happened in the past. I also agree that not everyone wants certain things to change. This is why you let them keep what they have, while giving the option to everyone else. I mean, CoH is all about options, after all.

[Rudra]

Epic ATs don't play by normal rules. If you want a different version of something that already exists, propose it as a new set and make it sufficiently different to justify its existence. Also, some of the things you are asking for won't happen not because of the Cottage Rule, but because of how OP it would make the set. Like adding absorb to Force Field or electric attacks all getting a disorient component. Disorients stack and if all your electric attacks have just a Mag 1 Disorient, then you can rapid fire your T1 and hit a Mag 10 Disorient effect in just barely over 10 seconds. (Edit: Or just run Lightning Field, slot it with Razzle Dazzle to extend the Disorient's duration, and now not only will you quickly stun everything dumb enough to be close enough to melee you, but they also will find it difficult to stagger away from you due Razzle Dazzle's immob' proc. Which will potentially let you just AFK stand there as Lightning Field's tics of damage rapidly stun even AVs.)

 

Edited September 29 by Rudra

[Greycat]

On top of what @Rudra said, our devs did a "power X or power Y" choice once, and it was such a PITA they've said "never again."

 

(And as a bit of a side topic, I'd *much* prefer being able to pick your path at level 1 for the VEATs rather than having the forced respec at 24. I absolutely hate that implementation, having just gotten another character where VEAT powersets fit the character best to that point. )

[FupDup]

To further elaborate on the branching choices thing, the exact dev reason for not wanting to repeat it is because they didn't want to "open the floodgates" or establish a precedent. They were worried that people would start to expect the same treatment for other powersets every single time they try to change something. 

[Enamel_32]

Yeah, I think if anything this would need to be a whole power set switcheroo kind of thing.

 

I've occasionally wondered about how feasible it would be to allow players to choose older versions of a power set, like having a "classic / pre-shutdown",  "homecoming rebalanced" and even potentially "fully reimagined" or "launch day" versions (except for maybe That One Set). If you wanted, you could even put that option behind some new time travel or alternate dimension related unlock.

 

 

Edited September 29 by Enamel_32

[Luminara]

Doubling or tripling the number of available power sets, resulting in doubling or tripling the maintenance, doubling or tripling the work to fix bugs or make changes, and doubling or tripling the delay between updates isn't really within the scope of the existing development team.  This isn't Ubisoft or Bethesda.

[Jacke]

1 hour ago, Luminara said:

Doubling or tripling the number of available power sets, resulting in doubling or tripling the maintenance, doubling or tripling the work to fix bugs or make changes, and doubling or tripling the delay between updates isn't really within the scope of the existing development team.  This isn't Ubisoft or Bethesda.

 

I agree.  This has already started, what with the rat's nest some Powerset Powers have become when you look at them in CoD2.  We don't want it to get worse, we want it to get better.

[Enamel_32]

1 hour ago, Luminara said:

Doubling or tripling the number of available power sets, resulting in doubling or tripling the maintenance, doubling or tripling the work to fix bugs or make changes, and doubling or tripling the delay between updates isn't really within the scope of the existing development team.  This isn't Ubisoft or Bethesda.

 

How much time is spent maintaining Invulnerability for tankers, or Earth Control for controllers? I'd hope the answer is essentially nothing unless those powers are being re-balanced. I definitely get your point, but I would rather have a developer step in and provide this reasoning than us players. I wouldn't want a suggestion to be shot down because we're not familiar with how the engine works, you know?

[Hyperstrike]

8 minutes ago, Enamel_32 said:

 

How much time is spent maintaining Invulnerability for tankers, or Earth Control for controllers? I'd hope the answer is essentially nothing unless those powers are being re-balanced. I definitely get your point, but I would rather have a developer step in and provide this reasoning than us players. I wouldn't want a suggestion to be shot down because we're not familiar with how the engine works, you know?

No.  You are NOT getting a "God" powerset to fap off on.

Not happening.

No matter how people pout and cry.

[Enamel_32]

8 minutes ago, Hyperstrike said:

No.  You are NOT getting a "God" powerset to fap off on.

 

I don't recall asking for one. I'm curious what you're referring to here, am I missing something? I'm specifically not asking for...

4 hours ago, Enamel_32 said:

That One Set

 

I've been a player since the early days, and generally speaking things have only gotten stronger. Do I want to go back to Energy Aura before it had a heal? Not really. I'm also not asking to bring back anything pre-nerf, like That One Set.

 

If HC went and totally overhauled a set, and it was super cool and made it more fun to play, but it required a full respec, I'd like to choose when to update to that version rather than having a busted character. And potentially someday for a retro experience, I could go back to that older build, if that makes sense.

[Luminara]

32 minutes ago, Enamel_32 said:

How much time is spent maintaining Invulnerability for tankers, or Earth Control for controllers? I'd hope the answer is essentially nothing unless those powers are being re-balanced.

 

The powers are only the end point.  Every time something, a mechanic, an effect, a modifier, an attribute, is changed, everything has to be checked, double-checked, tested and anything that's broken, fixed.  Then the fixes have to be checked, double-checked, tested and possibly fixed.  And they still miss things, because they don't have the time or manpower to find every problem.  Even with scores of dedicated beta testers, bugs are missed, go live and have to be fixed later.

 

Sleeps were changed to be auto-hit in PvE.  If the power does something else, that still has to perform a hit roll.  That introduced a problem with some powers, a problem they have yet to address.  Sentinel Ice Blast's Chilling Ray and all versions of Frozen Aura have Sleeps, and auto-hit those Sleeps in PvE, but because that Sleep is auto-hit, the streak breaker counts that as a forced hit and will never force a hit for the damage roll.  What this means is you can attack with Chilling Ray or Frozen Aura, or any power that Sleeps and deals damage, and miss an infinite number of times.  The Sleep will take effect, but the damage won't, because the streak breaker never forces the damage to hit.

 

No, they aren't going into the power definitions and making adjustments for Invulnerability or Earth Control on a weekly basis.  But they are changing things in the engine, things which affect sets like Invulnerability and Earth Control, and that means they're constantly looking at powers to find problems caused by those changes.  Active development means constant maintenance.

[Hyperstrike]

44 minutes ago, Enamel_32 said:

I don't recall asking for one. I'm curious what you're referring to here, am I missing something? I'm specifically not asking for...

Hence my spinal reflex to the use of the some permutation of "rebalancing".

Along with teaming the phrase "reimagined".

Maybe I'm being conservative and gun-shy in this instance.

Help me out here....

 

5 hours ago, Enamel_32 said:

I've occasionally wondered about how feasible it would be to allow players to choose older versions of a power set, like having a "classic / pre-shutdown",  "homecoming rebalanced" and even potentially "fully reimagined" or "launch day" versions (except for maybe That One Set).

 

Edited September 30 by Hyperstrike

[Enamel_32]

9 minutes ago, Hyperstrike said:

Help me out here....

 

This is the hypothetical next version of a power set. Imagine if there was a new a version of Electric Blast with a "shocked" mechanic, for example. Some players might just want to play the version of the power set they remember from back in the day. I can't say I would personally indulge in them, but I enjoy the idea of a "time capsule" version of power sets. That's really it.

 

 

13 minutes ago, Luminara said:

Every time something, a mechanic, an effect, a modifier, an attribute, is changed, everything has to be checked, double-checked, tested and anything that's broken, fixed.  Then the fixes have to be checked, double-checked, tested and possibly fixed.  And they still miss things, because they don't have the time or manpower to find every problem.  Even with scores of dedicated beta testers, bugs are missed, go live and have to be fixed later.

 

This has been top of mind for me, as well. As a person who frowns at reviews other people's code professionally, I can agree that changes are the enemy of stability. When the engine itself, or a specific interaction is changed, yes, having multiple versions of a power set is extra effort. When you're introducing a change to a power set like a creative new proc mechanic, I would argue it's a benefit. The original powers aren't modified, instead the new version is a copy of its predecessor. You get a direct A/B testing benefit too. Ultimately this is a question of what will be changed vs. added to the game. If changing core mechanics is more common, I concede the suggestion doesn't make as much sense.

 

But ehhh, this isn't a hill I'm willing to die on and I'm not even sure it's in line with the original poster's suggestion. If we don't like it, we don't like it!

[megaericzero]

2 hours ago, Enamel_32 said:

When the engine itself, or a specific interaction is changed, yes, having multiple versions of a power set is extra effort.

That can scale very fast depending on what you're changing. For instance, if they ever tweak Fiery Embrace's potency, pretty literally every damaging melee power has to be reviewed and changed. Add in duplicates and that number grows even faster. That's not even about balance concerns; that's just because things like Fiery Embrace are baked into every individual damaging power across every possible set that can be matched with Fiery Aura.

[Faeriemage]

I get you all saying that a new set be proposed, but then when in the past new versions of Force Field are proposed, the same group of people in this very thread have said that we already HAVE a force field, and even if it's not perfect, they're not going to update it, and just having another one is redundant. I'm sorry, but you don't get to have this argument both ways. Either, we can have two completely separate versions of Force Field, both using basically the same graphics, or we can't and need to do something like herein suggested.

 

If we can have two different variants of Force Field, sure, that "opens the floodgates" of sets they could update...but is that really a bad thing. Isn't fixing an old set easier than making a completely new one to a certain degree?

 

My bro-in-law would love to see a variant of Electric Blast that's "mechanic" is that it has no actual AoE powers, and all AoE in the set is Chain attacks. The 'ST' powers have a very low chance of chaining, and the 'AoE' powers have a much higher chance of chaining. Unfortunately, without being able to add a new Electric Blast set (Possibly Called Lightning Blast) because there is "Already an Electric Blast set" then there is nothing people can do with ideas like this, since they are seemingly universally pushed down in this forum.

 

I was attempting to put forward an alternative idea that might not get the same knee-jerk reaction of 'change bad' I've gotten in the past. Sure, not all of my ideas are great. Many aren't even good, but the lack of actual discussion on any idea I have put forward, and the lack of actual constructive criticism is really difficult to deal with.

[Enamel_32]

I apologize if I took your suggestion and ran with it in the wrong direction. For what it's worth,

20 minutes ago, Faeriemage said:

My bro-in-law would love to see a variant of Electric Blast that's "mechanic" is that it has no actual AoE powers, and all AoE in the set is Chain attacks. The 'ST' powers have a very low chance of chaining, and the 'AoE' powers have a much higher chance of chaining. Unfortunately, without being able to add a new Electric Blast set (Possibly Called Lightning Blast) because there is "Already an Electric Blast set" then there is nothing people can do with ideas like this, since they are seemingly universally pushed down in this forum.

 

This is a really cool idea, and something I'd see as being duplex-worthy.

[Luminara]

34 minutes ago, Faeriemage said:

the lack of actual constructive criticism is really difficult to deal with

 

In what way do you feel that the explanations, facts and references to developer statements which made it clear that the idea wasn't a feasible approach failed to be constructive?

[megaericzero]

1 hour ago, Faeriemage said:

I get you all saying that a new set be proposed, but then when in the past new versions of Force Field are proposed, the same group of people in this very thread have said that we already HAVE a force field, and even if it's not perfect, they're not going to update it, and just having another one is redundant. I'm sorry, but you don't get to have this argument both ways. Either, we can have two completely separate versions of Force Field, both using basically the same graphics, or we can't and need to do something like herein suggested.

Why does it have to be Force Field, specifically? Why not a new Energy Affinity with its own damping shields that can still use the bubble vfx? I ask as a person who has played Force Fields for 18 years that both thinks its performance is already exactly where it should be and who would not trade any of it for +absorb that turns me into some weird pseudo-healer, especially at the expense of my defense buffs' potency.

 

1 hour ago, Faeriemage said:

My bro-in-law would love to see a variant of Electric Blast that's "mechanic" is that it has no actual AoE powers, and all AoE in the set is Chain attacks. The 'ST' powers have a very low chance of chaining, and the 'AoE' powers have a much higher chance of chaining. Unfortunately, without being able to add a new Electric Blast set (Possibly Called Lightning Blast) because there is "Already an Electric Blast set" then there is nothing people can do with ideas like this, since they are seemingly universally pushed down in this forum.

 

The paradigm is not to have direct duplicate sets. That doesn't stop thematically-tangent, mechanically unique, arguably redundant sets from being made. Kinetic Melee on live and Storm Blast on Homecoming were both made even though Energy Melee and Electrical Blast already existed. Storm even has a chain power called Chain Lightning. Electrical Affinity was also made which - while it's a support set - is electricity-themed and centered around chains.

Edited September 30 by megaericzero

[Faeriemage]

4 minutes ago, megaericzero said:

The paradigm is not to have direct duplicate sets. That doesn't stop thematically-tangent, mechanically unique, arguably redundant sets from being made. Kinetic Melee on live and Storm Blast on Homecoming were both made even though Energy Melee and Electrical Blast already existed. Storm even has a chain power called Chain Lightning. Electrical Affinity was also made which - while it's a support set - is electricity-themed and centered around chains.

This, specifically is what I have an issue with. We can't change the sets, because of the cottage rule, because there might possibly be someone who loves it the way it is, and changing it would hurt them, but then again, we're not allowed to "duplicate" sets because that would be too many sets that are "samey".

 

When both of those paradigms are implemented together, you are left with so many sets that would be fun to change, but that you can't change because of how many people will be upset over what you are changing.

[Faeriemage]

38 minutes ago, Luminara said:

 

In what way do you feel that the explanations, facts and references to developer statements which made it clear that the idea wasn't a feasible approach failed to be constructive?

There is a difference between "Well, that doesn't work, but if you move it in this direction..." and "No. The devs say no. Other people here say no."

 

Just saying it doesn't work is rarely constructive feedback. Constructive feedback requires that you actually give points where it can be improved, and methods of how to improve. Often it will state ways in which you personally would improve something. Yes, there is a time and a place for brutal honesty. Brutal honesty is rarely constructive, however.

[Rudra]

1 hour ago, Faeriemage said:

I get you all saying that a new set be proposed, but then when in the past new versions of Force Field are proposed, the same group of people in this very thread have said that we already HAVE a force field, and even if it's not perfect, they're not going to update it, and just having another one is redundant. I'm sorry, but you don't get to have this argument both ways. Either, we can have two completely separate versions of Force Field, both using basically the same graphics, or we can't and need to do something like herein suggested.

 

20 hours ago, Rudra said:

make it sufficiently different to justify its existence.

 If all someone is going to do is ask for a copy of an existing set that changes 1 thing, it isn't different enough to justify its existence. (Broadsword and Katana have 1 thing different between them, but that is how the weapon in question is used. Katana is 2-handed while Broadsword is 1-handed, so Katana cannot be used with Shield Defense. That's a pretty big difference.) So saying "Hey, make a new Electrical Blast set that replaces the -END component with +SnuffyWuffyJuice", then you aren't making a set that is sufficiently different than what already exists. It is very subjective, but there is a point where at least a majority can transition from saying "You're just asking for what we already have" to "That looks different from what we have and seems interesting to play".

[Faeriemage]

5 minutes ago, Rudra said:

 

 If all someone is going to do is ask for a copy of an existing set that changes 1 thing, it isn't different enough to justify its existence. (Broadsword and Katana have 1 thing different between them, but that is how the weapon in question is used. Katana is 2-handed while Broadsword is 1-handed, so Katana cannot be used with Shield Defense. That's a pretty big difference.) So saying "Hey, make a new Electrical Blast set that replaces the -END component with +SnuffyWuffyJuice", then you aren't making a set that is sufficiently different than what already exists. It is very subjective, but there is a point where at least a majority can transition from saying "You're just asking for what we already have" to "That looks different from what we have and seems interesting to play".

A) removing -END is a huge change to Electric Blast, considering the damage would have to be rebalanced, as it is currently balanced around the current mechanic.

B) Changing it to a chain lightning set, is, again, a major departure from the set as it exists.

 

C) The current paradigm still disallows this sort of change. Even if it is "more than one change" since many things have to change from the first to the second, even when you are only, nominally, changing 1 thing.

 

D) at what point are the people who say "that is not interesting to play" more important than those who say "that is interesting to play?" I mean, the cottage rule seems to say "Even if there is only 1 who wants a power as is, we will not change it."  If that is the case, why isn't "even thought there is only 1, that is worthwhile to make" also a thing. Yes, I get it, it is more work to make something than to leave it as is, but under the current paradigm, we are under the tyranny of the small. Just because the small have a voice. But if we are already under the tyranny of the small, then I would like my voice heard as well, and others deserve it more than me, but they're small voices should be heard.

 

The floodgates are already open. They are just going in reverse.

[megaericzero]

2 minutes ago, Faeriemage said:

B) Changing it to a chain lightning set, is, again, a major departure from the set as it exists.

 

Just stop selling it as Electrical Blast 2: Electric Boogaloo. Market it as its own thing like Circuit Blast.

 

We don't need to shift the entire design philosophy to get a tangential set. Again, Kinetic Melee and Storm Blast exist.

 

If you (or your brother-in-law) can live with the mechanics without it being electricity-themed, you could even pitch it as reflecting lasers or chemical reactions and have an even easier time advocating for its implementation.

[Luminara]

2 minutes ago, Faeriemage said:

There is a difference between "Well, that doesn't work, but if you move it in this direction..." and "No. The devs say no. Other people here say no."

 

There is no alternative, no modification that makes it work, with an idea like this because it not being feasible is an across the board problem, not an implementation problem.  

 

2 minutes ago, Faeriemage said:

Just saying it doesn't work is rarely constructive feedback. Constructive feedback requires that you actually give points where it can be improved, and methods of how to improve. Often it will state ways in which you personally would improve something. Yes, there is a time and a place for brutal honesty. Brutal honesty is rarely constructive, however.

 

The why of it not working was very clearly explained.  It doesn't work because the time and manpower required doesn't exist to copy every set two or three times, redesign the copies to do different things, fix problems, test them, et cetera.  You're asking for up to 477 entire power sets to be duplicated at least once and possibly twice, with revisions to each duplicate, new mechanics, specific adjustments designed to differentiate each copy from the original or other copies, from people who take almost a year to make changes to fewer than half a dozen sets... and still make mistakes, like making Chilling Ray bypass the streak breaker entirely, or forgetting to remove the radius tags in Thunder Strike so it actually had a 10' radius, instead of the 7' imposed by those tags (it took them six months to fix that), and who have stated that they will not be making any more powers like the sentinel Master Brawler/Practiced Brawler fork because it was complicated and time-consuming.

 

Your idea leaves no room for improvement, no possibility of refinement, because it's a non-starter.  It is not feasible.  The answers you've received have been as constructive as humanly possible because your proposal cannot be implemented in any way.  Not just in the way you envisioned it, but at all.  So unknot your knickers and move on.

[Faeriemage]

22 minutes ago, Luminara said:

Your idea leaves no room for improvement, no possibility of refinement, because it's a non-starter.  It is not feasible.  The answers you've received have been as constructive as humanly possible because your proposal cannot be implemented in any way.  Not just in the way you envisioned it, but at all.  So unknot your knickers and move on.

I'm sorry you could see no way forward. Others in this thread did.