Replace the Cottage Rule with the Duplex Rule

[Faeriemage]

52 minutes ago, megaericzero said:

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.

I currently have characters that use the current electric blast. That is fine. Doesn't mean I don't want something else as well. By using names like "Electric Boogaloo" and "+SnuffyWuffyJuice" you are simply showing your disdain for the idea, which was already patently obvious.

 

Just because you personally disagree that Electric Blast 2 makes sense, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. There current is no set that has a chain attack mechanic. And before you say Beam Rifle, that is a spread effect to everyone around the first target, not a chain that can get longer and longer A La Electric Affinity based upon some specific counter. So, by your own logic, proposing an electricity set that uses the chain mechanic, something not in the game, it should be something we could do, something different enough that it is significant. I mean, we're just taking the mechanic from the Electric Affinity set and making a blast set out of it.

 

I fully and truly understand the current paradigm is to not create a second set that is visually similar to a previous set...but I feel the paradigm should change as it stifles potential options. Should we indiscriminately add MkII, MkIII, MkIV, &ct sets to a specific aesthetic. Of course not. I also don't feel we should remove ideas, whether mine or otherwise, just because they would use the same graphics.

 

I get the original idea was too far in scope, but part of the ridiculousness of the OP it was intended. This whole thread is meant to underscore some of the problems, as I see them, with a number of the paradigms under which the devs operate.

 

Don't get me wrong. I think they have done a superb job so far, or I wouldn't even be here. We, each of us, can always improve, however.

 

Sometimes, looking at the why of something we do is almost as important as, if not more important than, the what of our processes. If we don't take a moment, now and then, to consider why we are doing something, then we will be stuck with nonsensical, irrelevant, inefficient, or downright dangerous processes.

[GM_GooglyMoogly]

A few comments:

 

1) People are free to post suggestions and others are free to critique those suggestions.  Just do it with respect for each other please.  Discuss the ideas, not the personalities.

 

2) The Cottage Rule is really more design etiquette than an actual rule.  Designers should be loathe to change something that does one thing into something that is completely different.  Especially if it has existed one way for a long time.  Doesn't mean it can't happen.  It just means that there needs to be REALLY good reasons for doing so.

 

3) Sorry, but I agree with some of the posters that say that the devs are more likely to create new sets than to create branching options in the same set.  NOTE: I am not a dev, just a humble GM, but I've heard some of them essentially say the same thing.  Again, it's not impossible, just highly unlikely.

 

4) I've also heard the devs say that their time shouldn't be used by players as a rhetorical sword or a shield.  The Devs are big boys and girls and can decide for themselves if they think an idea is worth their time.

 

B.E.T.E.O.

[Luminara]

6 minutes ago, Faeriemage said:

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

 

If you consider being told to just ask for the new set or sets you want as "seeing a way forward", sure.  But if that were the case, you wouldn't be arguing with the people who said it.

 

Bad spin is bad.

[Owl Girl]

for what it's worth: in a hypothetical scenario in which there were time and resources to dedicate to it, alternate versions of already extant powersets is a great idea. it's only in the practical world that we have to consider the likelihood of Brand New sets to be a greater priority.

 

a world where one katana scrapper focuses on an iaijutsu technique while another uses an usagi tactic would be very cool.

[megaericzero]

3 hours ago, Faeriemage said:

Just because you personally disagree that Electric Blast 2 makes sense, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

That argument is a two-way street. Just because you personally feel it's good etc.

 

3 hours ago, Faeriemage said:

Sometimes, looking at the why of something we do is almost as important as, if not more important than, the what of our processes. If we don't take a moment, now and then, to consider why we are doing something, then we will be stuck with nonsensical, irrelevant, inefficient, or downright dangerous processes.

Have you considered that some of us already looked at the "why" and decided the current paradigm is potentially sensical, relevant, efficient, and so on for reasons already stated in the thread? Some of us are regulars here that discuss these things or see them discussed repeatedly, including the cottage rule. It can look like we had a knee-jerk reaction to put down the suggestion because we've been through the song and dance multiple times before. (You should see how many times Magic Blast has been discussed to death.)

 

And no one that I could tell was saying your idea for a mechanic was bad. Just reframe it as its own set. Beam Rifle exists instead of Assault Rifle with laser animations or Energy Blast holding a weapon. Willpower was seen as a viable port of Regeneration for tankers back in the day (more community opinion than dev statement of fact, mind you). Energy Aura was actually stated by the Paragon dev team as Ice Armor for Brutes because they feared Chilling Embrace would hamper Fury generation. And, again again, Kinetic Melee is just Energy Melee patterned after Claws with a Siphon Power-themed Build Up; it's just not called Son of Energy Melee.

Edited September 30 by megaericzero

[Videra]

Bean. Bag.

[Greycat]

3 hours ago, Faeriemage said:

 There current is no set that has a chain attack mechanic.

 

Just noticed this and had to point out Electrical Melee - Chain Induction.

[FupDup]

10 minutes ago, Greycat said:

 

Just noticed this and had to point out Electrical Melee - Chain Induction.

>Storm Blast's Chain Lightning

>Electric Blast's Tesla Cage at full Static

>Ion Judgement probably doesn't count

 

A few more to this list could be nice though, just a matter of finding a place to fit them in. 

[Player-1]

1 hour ago, Videra said:

Bean. Bag.

 

Is a great example of the Cottage Rule in action! GM_GooglyMoogly is right in that it is less of a hard rule and more of a design guidline. The original quote used the analogy of a player using Build Up one day to buff their own damage and tohit, then the next day after a patch it now builds a small cottage at your feet instead. It can be a nice cottage, the best around in fact! But it doesn't buff the player as they had expected anymore. 

 

Funnily enough, if that example were "additionally" and not "instead of", it would have followed the Cottage Rule. The self buff could be altered up or down, the uptime of the power cycle altered, and the cottage summon be condional in some manner. But as long as the original, core functions and purpose of the power is intact it does not violate the rule. A self buff that additionally builds a structure is still a self buff.

 

For context on the quote, Beanbag in Assault Rifle had actually been tested with a cottage rule breaking swap to Aim. This changes the core function of the power from a crowd control tool and into a self buff. This would not only fundamentally change how a veteran of the powerset plays, but can also be dangerous as it breaks enhancement slotting on live player builds with such drastic changes. Ultimately, the goal was to boost the offense of Assault Rifle and in context of all the other changes we chose to make Beanbag a much better attack in its own right so that it can contribute much more to the overall damage output if used in the current form.

 

To the point of this thread, the logistics of making alternates of existing powersets is more work than simply creating new ones. What is the line at which a powerset would have an alternate version, their 1st appearance and then the next major change? Would every change to a powerset need an alternate, or would one be the legacy and the other keeps being worked on over time? At what point does that just become a new powerset entirely outside of the visual? If we are going to go through the effort of effectively making a brand new powerset, we will have new FX alongside it to allow it to stand on its own instead of being anchored to another powerset in its category. 

 

 

[Luminara]

4 minutes ago, Player-1 said:

To the point of this thread, the logistics of making alternates of existing powersets is more work than simply creating new ones. What is the line at which a powerset would have an alternate version, their 1st appearance and then the next major change? Would every change to a powerset need an alternate, or would one be the legacy and the other keeps being worked on over time? At what point does that just become a new powerset entirely outside of the visual? If we are going to go through the effort of effectively making a brand new powerset, we will have new FX alongside it to allow it to stand on its own instead of being anchored to another powerset in its category.

 

So, you're saying that you're not going to spend the next 79.5 years making 954 alternates to existing sets (presuming each takes one month to redesign with different secondary effects or mechanics, rebalance, test, fix, test again, fix again, beta test, fix again, beta test some more, tweak, release to live, fix again)?

 

[Indystruck]

I mean, yeah, alternate power sets with the main difference being a fundamental mechanics change sounds like a way to get new sets that reuse existing animations and effects to get something sorta new with less effort. Sounds neat and a way to give people who play on theme more options to switch it up.

 

edit: Not sure you -have- to necessarily set it up as the way it is for Epic ATs, really, just making a new power selection option would probably be easier? Unless you're proposing this for the purposes of being able to have two of a power set for respec/build change purposes which... would be neat but decidedly more effort, I think.

Edited October 1 by Indystruck

[UltraAlt]

On 9/29/2024 at 4:42 PM, Faeriemage said:

This so called Cottage Rule

Never heard of this term before.

 

On 9/29/2024 at 4:42 PM, Faeriemage said:

Duplex Rule

 

I think you are making up terms.

 

On 9/29/2024 at 4:42 PM, Faeriemage said:

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.

 

You know what changes how a power set feels?

The powers you pick and the powers you don't pick.

 

Though I do that with primaries based on character conception, most likely I will do this mainly with secondary sets (which is also due to character conception).

Dependant up on archetype, these choices are based around focusing on single target or multi-target attacks.

 

On 9/29/2024 at 4:42 PM, Faeriemage said:

Some of us want for the Devs to have the option to completely change some of the older sets in the game

 

I am no one of them.

 

On 9/29/2024 at 4:42 PM, Faeriemage said:

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)

 

Disorient is far more powerful than -end. That change would cause too much game imbalance.

 

9 hours ago, Faeriemage said:

or we can't and need to do something like herein suggested.

 

Or we leave it alone.

Force Field isn't the only "shielding" set.

 

9 hours ago, Faeriemage said:

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.

 

I think you understand that this is an old game.

Many of the players are old school players.

 

I - for one - do not want to see the wide-ranging changes that you are suggesting nor do I think that the DEVs will get behind your idea.

 

How the DEVs - who are doing work in the game in their own spare time - decide what to do is up to them.

 

If you have an idea bring it up, but don't be surprised that it isn't implemented and that people will post against your idea.

Don't focus on rebutting or attacking people that disagree.

 

Your post should be explanation and support for what you are proposing.

The information you provide is limited to certain sets and doesn't seem to think about how it will affect the rest of the sets in the game.

 

What you are proposing would be highly time consuming to implement based the number of power sets in the game - and - it would cause major wide-sweeping changes in the game.

Edited October 1 by UltraAlt

[GM_GooglyMoogly]

1 hour ago, Player-1 said:

GM_GooglyMoogly is right

 

Sorry to derail, but I needed to have this framed.  Carry on.

[Player-1]

42 minutes ago, Indystruck said:

Sounds neat and a way to give people who play on theme more options to switch it up.

 

From the other point of view, adding more themes for powersets can acheive the same end goal. An earlier example of a blast powerset that is all about chain attacks with every power is an interesting one for sure.

 

Thematically, that could be easily be electricity. It could also be projectiles ricocheting off targets, a disease/toxin spreading, lasers reflecting, and so on! Given we already have choices that default as electricity, we would likely want to use an unused theme as the core of an also unused playstyle. Adding more themes where applicable over time could allow for more freedom in this regard even if the starting points are a bit different. 

[Faeriemage]

On 9/30/2024 at 7:25 PM, Player-1 said:

 

From the other point of view, adding more themes for powersets can acheive the same end goal. An earlier example of a blast powerset that is all about chain attacks with every power is an interesting one for sure.

 

Thematically, that could be easily be electricity. It could also be projectiles ricocheting off targets, a disease/toxin spreading, lasers reflecting, and so on! Given we already have choices that default as electricity, we would likely want to use an unused theme as the core of an also unused playstyle. Adding more themes where applicable over time could allow for more freedom in this regard even if the starting points are a bit different. 

Gotta love when the actual Developers are more reasonable than the individuals who are championing them. Sorry. Frustrated with the sub-forum. Could I request that this thread be locked?

[GM_GooglyMoogly]

5 hours ago, Faeriemage said:

Could I request that this thread be locked?

 

As you wish.