Cottage Rule

[Snarky]

6 minutes ago, Heliphyn34u said:

 

Coming soon: Cottage Rule armor set!  Each armor power in the set builds a little cottage around you -- log cabin, gingerbread house, stone cottage, though the most skippable power is the thatched roof cottage (vulnerable to fire damage).  Just imagine fighting enemies while looking like a literal brick s-house!

 

HAS PSI PROTECTION!!!

Edited June 10 by Snarky

[kelika2]

this is the second time i had the cottage rule explained to me and i still dont get it

[Snarky]

34 minutes ago, kelika2 said:

this is the second time i had the cottage rule explained to me and i still dont get it

it was made up as a term by a guy with his head up his butt as a mcguffin.  in reality he did not want anything to change, or not very much.  and he wanted no input on anything from the community.  so he just promoted cottage rule propaganda.

 

he was much loved

[BasiliskXVIII]

1 hour ago, kelika2 said:

this is the second time i had the cottage rule explained to me and i still dont get it

The rule is, in essence, that powers shouldn't have their core functionality changed, and instead their strength or additional effects should be changed. The name comes from the example given:

How would you like it if tomorrow you logged in and, say, Build Up now built a small cottage at your chosen location, instead of adding to your damage? It's a silly example, admittedly, but it's to prevent such wholesale changes from happening. I *could* overturn it, in specific cases, if it were truly needed, but in the case being discussed here, it is not truly needed.

Personally, I think it's a decent rule of thumb, but it was adhered to too strictly, and frankly this was probably in no small part due to the fact that there was no money for Cryptic in fixing old powers when new ones could be sold. The result being that powers which were created with a different model of the game in mind were retained as irrelevant fossils when they probably should have been revamped into something less bad. 

[TheMoneyMaker]

Is this build a cottage power coming in the next update, or will we have to wait til page 3?

[Troo]

Issue 28, Page 2 - New potential Cottage Rule impacts

 

Powers & Gameplay Adjustments

• New Control Mechanic: Deep Sleep
• Controller & Tanker Inherent Changes
• Armor Powerset Balancing Pass
• Balance Tweaks & Fixes

Being able to control T9 pets or having T9 crashes removed obviously do not have Cottage Rule concerns.

 

Other changes might bump into Cottage Rule territory while a few might fly in the face of this guideline and without good reason impact Dev-Player trust.

[arcane]

38 minutes ago, Troo said:

Issue 28, Page 2 - New potential Cottage Rule impacts

 

Powers & Gameplay Adjustments

• New Control Mechanic: Deep Sleep
• Controller & Tanker Inherent Changes
• Armor Powerset Balancing Pass
• Balance Tweaks & Fixes

Being able to control T9 pets or having T9 crashes removed obviously do not have Cottage Rule concerns.

 

Other changes might bump into Cottage Rule territory while a few might fly in the face of this guideline and without good reason impact Dev-Player trust.

Is there a particular change you have in mind that you perceive as breaking the rule?

[ZemX]

2 hours ago, arcane said:

Is there a particular change you have in mind that you perceive as breaking the rule?

 

I'm curious as well since it seems like that whole "we added this new power to be mutually exclusive with (insert old power name here)" thing was specifically done to avoid violating the cottage rule.

[Player-1]

Hi all, standing by the quote in the OP:

 

The Cottage Rule is more of a guideline to prevent a power from being changed in function / application. For example, if we changed a Single Target Blast into an AoE sleep that doesn't deal damage, it no longer has the same function or application. This is different than if we say, added an AoE sleep around the target of the ST Blast to keep its function as a ranged ST damage tool.

[PeregrineFalcon]

27 minutes ago, Player-1 said:

Hi all, standing by the quote in the OP:

 

The Cottage Rule is more of a guideline to prevent a power from being changed in function / application. For example, if we changed a Single Target Blast into an AoE sleep that doesn't deal damage, it no longer has the same function or application. This is different than if we say, added an AoE sleep around the target of the ST Blast to keep its function as a ranged ST damage tool.

Personally I don't understand why anyone is opposed to the Cottage Rule.

 

I know that if I logged into one of my favorite characters after a year or so long break only to find that a particular power that I really liked suddenly did something completely different I'd be very unhappy about that.

 

A commitment by the devs that they're not going to radically change powers into something completely different on a regular basis, is a good thing for any game.

[Troo]

 

6 hours ago, ZemX said:

"we added this new power to be mutually exclusive with (insert old power name here)" thing was specifically done to avoid violating the cottage rule.

 

And this works well in general if the changes are 1:1.

If that mutually exclusivity isn't actually exclusive it is problematic and potentially a false choice. (play our way and benefit, or don't and self gimp)

 

I do think the team has also done a pretty good job where a power is removed but the functionality remains somewhere. Revive formerly in Regeneration (this patch) and Stun formerly in Energy Melee (previous patch) were incorporated somewhere into the remaining set.

 

 

@arcane@ZemX "Is there a particular change you have in mind that you perceive as breaking the rule?" The Cottage Rule is a general guideline not Law. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list, but examples. Some listed should be okay others may have over reached.

Spoiler

Dark Mastery > Black Hole 

 

Plant Control > Seeds of Confusion (Ranged (Cone), Foe Confuse)

 

Plant Control > Carrion Creepers (Summon Creepers, Ranged (Location AoE), Target -Speed, -Fly, -Jump,)

 

Electric Armor > Power Sink (PBAoE, Self +End, Foe -End)

New changes include: +End per target lowered from 25 to 15 & No longer has a chance at lowering enemy recovery.

"we are giving Power Sink some scaling regenerative buffs in trade of some of its endurance drain capabilities"

 

Electric Armor > Power Surge (Self, +Res(Special))

New changes include: All effect durations lowered from 180s to 30s & Resistances lowered.

 

Ice Armor > Icy Bastion (Self +Res(All DMG, but Psionics), +Res(Knockback, Repel, Disorient, Hold, Immobilize, Sleep), +Regen, +Recovery)

New changes include: a period of invulnerability and inability to attack

 

In General: Adaptive Recharge

 

In General: Deep Sleep

 

Radiation Armor got straight up nerfs

 

Regeneration > Dull Pain (Self +Max HP, Heal)

 

Regeneration > Revive (Self Rez)

 

Electric Control > Paralyzing Blast (Ranged AoE, Foe Hold, -End)

 

Gravity Control > Gravity Distortion Field (Ranged (Targeted AoE), Foe Hold)

 

One good tell, in my opinion, on whether something is bumping into the Cottage Rule guideline is if a player is going have to respec.

[BasiliskXVIII]

21 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

Personally I don't understand why anyone is opposed to the Cottage Rule.

 

I know that if I logged into one of my favorite characters after a year or so long break only to find that a particular power that I really liked suddenly did something completely different I'd be very unhappy about that.

 

A commitment by the devs that they're not going to radically change powers into something completely different on a regular basis, is a good thing for any game.

I don't dislike the Cottage Rule as a general principle. It's a good idea to avoid radically changing powers, especially when players have built characters and playstyles around them. But in practice, the way it's applied often ends up protecting mechanics that no longer make sense or that actively hold powers back from becoming better.
 

The real issue is that "core functionality" is such a vague concept that a power can be completely changed in feel and value without technically breaking the rule. For example, if Build Up were changed tomorrow so that instead of granting +100% damage and +20% ToHit, it gave +1% damage and +0.2% ToHit, it would still "function" the same way. But it would also be a useless power, and I would be just as upset as if it built a small cottage at my location. It would be just as disruptive as a rework, and arguably worse, because it pretends to preserve the original power while stripping it of all utility.
 

In other cases, powers have been renamed and redesigned outright, like what happened with /Regen. I don't have an option to hold on to Resurrect as it was, I get Second Wind instead. Likewise, Dull Pain is now Ailment Resistance. Even if the reworked regen is generally improved, the practical result is the same. I still have to rebuild my character from the ground up to accomodate the changes. So what's actually being preserved?
 

A good example of the problem is Black Hole. Originally, it made a group of enemies intangible, removing them from combat. This was often more harmful than helpful. It has since been changed so that it now pulls enemies into a central area, giving it a much more useful function. However, for enemies that resist the pull effect (mostly AVs and EBs) it still applies the old intangibility effect. So you now have a power that mostly works as a mob gatherer, but still retains a piece of its old design just often enough to cause serious problems. You can accidentally, or deliberately, phase out a major target and force your team to wait around doing nothing until it reappears. And because you cannot cancel the effect, it can easily stall a fight and give bosses time to regenerate or use healing powers.
 

This is a case where the Cottage Rule is preventing a usable power from being a good one. The power has already changed in function, but because a piece of the old behavior is still technically present, it can't be properly cleaned up without violating the letter of the rule. That is not preserving the spirit of the game. It is preserving a design legacy for its own sake.

I understand the desire to avoid disrupting players who return after long breaks, only to find their favorite powers completely unrecognizable. But there has to be room for thoughtful, targeted reworks when powers are broadly disliked, rarely used, or designed for a game that only ever existed in the launch devs' theorycrafting. Used wisely, the Cottage Rule is a helpful guideline. Applied rigidly, it becomes an excuse not to fix things that clearly need fixing.

[PeregrineFalcon]

16 minutes ago, BasiliskXVIII said:

I understand the desire to avoid disrupting players who return after long breaks, only to find their favorite powers completely unrecognizable. But there has to be room for thoughtful, targeted reworks when powers are broadly disliked, rarely used, or designed for a game that only ever existed in the launch devs' theorycrafting. Used wisely, the Cottage Rule is a helpful guideline. Applied rigidly, it becomes an excuse not to fix things that clearly need fixing.

Agreed. And I'll say the same thing that I said the last time we had this discussion.

 

The Cottage Rule is like the Prime Directive. Neither of those rules are unbreakable, but it needs to happen only rarely and when it does you'd better be right.

[Troo]

I know you are quoting Peregrine but indulge me a couple comments:

 

23 minutes ago, BasiliskXVIII said:

But there has to be room for thoughtful, targeted reworks when powers are broadly disliked, rarely used, or designed for a game that only ever existed in the launch devs' theorycrafting.

 

Make a new power set = zero limitations

 

I am not disagreeing with what you are saying merely pointing out the obvious least impactful path for radical changes.

 

 

27 minutes ago, BasiliskXVIII said:

I understand the desire to avoid disrupting players who return after long breaks, only to find their favorite powers completely unrecognizable.

 

What about the players that play a character now and regularly? Is it okay to "find their favorite powers completely unrecognizable"?

 

At what point should the wishes of people who don't play existing sets trump the wishes of those that do play the existing sets?

 

Just food for thought.

[arcane]

17 hours ago, Troo said:

 

 

And this works well in general if the changes are 1:1.

If that mutually exclusivity isn't actually exclusive it is problematic and potentially a false choice. (play our way and benefit, or don't and self gimp)

 

I do think the team has also done a pretty good job where a power is removed but the functionality remains somewhere. Revive formerly in Regeneration (this patch) and Stun formerly in Energy Melee (previous patch) were incorporated somewhere into the remaining set.

 

 

@arcane@ZemX "Is there a particular change you have in mind that you perceive as breaking the rule?" The Cottage Rule is a general guideline not Law. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list, but examples. Some listed should be okay others may have over reached.

  Hide contents

Dark Mastery > Black Hole 

 

Plant Control > Seeds of Confusion (Ranged (Cone), Foe Confuse)

 

Plant Control > Carrion Creepers (Summon Creepers, Ranged (Location AoE), Target -Speed, -Fly, -Jump,)

 

Electric Armor > Power Sink (PBAoE, Self +End, Foe -End)

New changes include: +End per target lowered from 25 to 15 & No longer has a chance at lowering enemy recovery.

"we are giving Power Sink some scaling regenerative buffs in trade of some of its endurance drain capabilities"

 

Electric Armor > Power Surge (Self, +Res(Special))

New changes include: All effect durations lowered from 180s to 30s & Resistances lowered.

 

Ice Armor > Icy Bastion (Self +Res(All DMG, but Psionics), +Res(Knockback, Repel, Disorient, Hold, Immobilize, Sleep), +Regen, +Recovery)

New changes include: a period of invulnerability and inability to attack

 

In General: Adaptive Recharge

 

In General: Deep Sleep

 

Radiation Armor got straight up nerfs

 

Regeneration > Dull Pain (Self +Max HP, Heal)

 

Regeneration > Revive (Self Rez)

 

Electric Control > Paralyzing Blast (Ranged AoE, Foe Hold, -End)

 

Gravity Control > Gravity Distortion Field (Ranged (Targeted AoE), Foe Hold)

 

One good tell, in my opinion, on whether something is bumping into the Cottage Rule guideline is if a player is going have to respec.

Not a single one of those examples breaks the cottage rule.

[BasiliskXVIII]

17 minutes ago, Troo said:

What about the players that play a character now and regularly? Is it okay to "find their favorite powers completely unrecognizable"?

 

At what point should the wishes of people who don't play existing sets trump the wishes of those that do play the existing sets?

 

Just food for thought.

This is a false dichotomy.
 

In a game like City of Heroes, where players are encouraged to make alts and experiment with different builds, the number of players who avoid an entire powerset because of one underperforming or frustrating power is likely to be much higher than the number of players who love that one specific power and use it regularly. Every power in the game is someone’s favourite, but that alone can’t justify never improving or replacing powers that most players skip or actively dislike.
 

Take Black Hole as an example. Some players might genuinely enjoy the intangibility effect, and for them, the shift toward a trawl-style behavior may be disappointing. But that same change also introduces a useful, broadly applicable function that improves the power for a wider player base. At the same time, keeping the old intangibility effect around in a limited way doesn’t satisfy those who think it’s one of the worst effects in the game. So now we have a power that frustrates both groups, just in different ways. That’s not a win for anyone.
 

The truth is that no change will ever make everyone happy. And making no changes at all will certainly make some people unhappy too. The only responsible way forward is to make changes that are, as much as possible, positive-sum; improvements that increase utility, enjoyment, or clarity for the largest number of players, even if they affect a few legacy use cases along the way.
 

In cases where there’s strong division over a power's function, the Homecoming team has shown they can introduce mutually exclusive versions of powers. That’s probably the ideal path when it's feasible. But when it’s not, thoughtful reworks that improve the power’s utility and consistency should take priority over preserving mechanics that are broadly considered harmful or obsolete.

[Troo]

16 minutes ago, BasiliskXVIII said:

But when it’s not, thoughtful reworks that improve the power’s utility and consistency should take priority over preserving mechanics that are broadly considered harmful or obsolete.

 

and you get to judge?

 

See that's the rub. You can articulate but that alone shouldn't impact another player. You get to do what you want just as they do. 

 

Someone doesn't like a power set, don't play it. I don't like perma-dom so I don't play a whole archetype. Let those who enjoy it play how they want.

 

Edited Saturday at 08:00 PM by Troo
spellzing

[BasiliskXVIII]

2 minutes ago, Troo said:

 

and you get to judge?

 

See that's the rub. You can articulate but that alone shouldn't impact another player. You get to do what you want just as they do. 

 

Someone doesn't like a power set, don't play it. I don't like perma-dom so I don't play a whole archetype. Let those who enjoy it play how they want.

 

You'll be happy to know I haven't been personally responsible for any changes to any power in the game. The devs haven't sent me a PM asking for my opinion, and I don't expect one. So no, I don't get to decide. The final call rests with the devs, who we as a community trust to make those decisions on our behalf. It is, functionally, a benevolent dictatorship.
 

Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they don't. But the goal is that changes should be made with an eye toward consensus, so that the voices of a small number of players, whether for or against, do not block improvements that are broadly requested.

[Troo]

1 hour ago, arcane said:

Not a single one of those examples breaks the cottage rule.

 

oh geez.. Really?! "Not a single one"

 

Sounds so confident.

If I show one, you take both June and July off from City of Villains/Heroes and all associated boards/forums/etc.. Deal?

You don't even play much anymore so it shouldn't be a big deal. It's basically just a break from posting.

 

I was going to try and explain here but decided before doing so you should have some skin in the game.

I played along with your tell-me-which-one-so-I-can-argue-against-it.

 

Edited Saturday at 08:54 PM by Troo

[Troo]

34 minutes ago, BasiliskXVIII said:

The final call rests with the devs,

 

I agree.

 

34 minutes ago, BasiliskXVIII said:

who we as a community trust to make those decisions on our behalf.

 

I disagree. Not all the 'we' trust.

 

I can fix your statement though: "who we as a community have to trust to make those decisions on our behalf." and this is a reason for the Cottage Rule concept being discussed.

 

"Homecoming is not perfect but it is still better than the alternative.. at least so far"

 

Edited Saturday at 08:52 PM by Troo

[BasiliskXVIII]

2 minutes ago, Troo said:

 

I agree.

 

 

I disagree. Not all the 'we' trust.

 

I can fix your statement though: "who we as a community have to trust make those decisions on our behalf."

 

"Homecoming is not perfect but it is still better than the alternative.. at least so far"

That is not entirely accurate. You are not required to trust the developers' decisions. Several alternative servers exist, and you also have the option of running a private server with rules and balance changes that reflect your own preferences. By choosing to play on Homecoming, however, you have implicitly accepted the authority of its development team to make design decisions, including those related to power balance.
 

This is not a coercive arrangement. It is a voluntary association. If the terms become unacceptable, alternatives remain available. That is the nature of participating in any shared platform: we are all subject to its framework, whether or not we agree with every decision it produces.

[skoryy]

15 minutes ago, Troo said:

If I show one, you take both June and July off from City of Villains / Heroes and all associated boards/forums/etc.. Deal?

 

Boy howdy. I think you might've had enough forums for today.

[Troo]

5 minutes ago, BasiliskXVIII said:

That is not entirely accurate. You are not required to trust the developers' decisions. Several alternative servers exist, and you also have the option of running a private server with rules and balance changes that reflect your own preferences. By choosing to play on Homecoming, however, you have implicitly accepted the authority of its development team to make design decisions, including those related to power balance.
 

This is not a coercive arrangement. It is a voluntary association. If the terms become unacceptable, alternatives remain available. That is the nature of participating in any shared platform: we are all subject to its framework, whether or not we agree with every decision it produces.

 

Lame

[arcane]

35 minutes ago, Troo said:

You don't even play much anymore

Who are you talking to lol. I think you may have accidentally quoted the wrong poster.

[Troo]

1 minute ago, arcane said:

Who are you talking to lol. I think you may have accidentally quoted the wrong poster.

 

Classic