End of Cottage Rule? Please?

I agree, and if I came across as saying as such I apologize - I never meant to say that was the only reason it should be negated, and I should have expanded on that when I talked about giving the devs more creative options instead of locking them into keeping stinky garbage and throwing a flower on top.

See, it's gems like these that make me giggle.

Condescending, derogatorry and inflammatory while not actually breaking any forum rules. Golden. Good show!

I understand why the cottage guideline exists. It has excellent qualities and helps in preventing horrible things that have happened to other games.

I understand that there is a non-infinite number of players that might yell on the boards if this or that power were removed or drastically altered.

I understand that there might even be lost revenue due to some subscribers leaving.

However, I do not agree with the assessment that the delta of lost revenue from breaking the cottage guideline is any greater than that caused by any other change in the game, if both have been done with an eye to the big picture.

Therefore, breaking the cottage rule, IMO, would have no more of a negative affect on the game than the changes made to Total Focus for example.

See, it is possible to understand a viewpoint and disagree with it, all at the same time.

Thank you. You get it.

To be frank I think this thread is a waste of time, but when you posted your house example it reminded me of why I dislike the idea of such a rule.

I have been doing maintenance tasks since I was 10. I took all kinds of shop classes in Jr High and High school. I spent 10 years as a Aviation Electrician in the US Navy. Another 12+ years as a maintenance tech for a high tech company, and the past few years as a limited energy electrician. My point is that I have been doing maintenance tasks professionally and non professionally longer than some of you have been alive.

The first thing you do when a problem is brought to you is to determine if there is a problem, and whether a solution, that is often brought along with the problem, is viable. The Cottage Rule undermines this process. It gives the Devs something to point at right from the start that says why they do not even need to look at the solution that was brought with the problem. What also happens a lot under these circumstance is the problem is then given little weight.

If such a rule were to exists it needs to be clear, precise, and documented. Memphis_Bill as a proponent of the rule, and continually making a point about our ignorance of the rule, you have yet to post the rule, and let us read it for ourselves.

The changes to total focus, to use your example, were changes within the cottage rule. Timing. Base purpose of a power. They do not invalidate slotting or anything else a player had worked for.

What you're *not* seeing is the difference in the degree of trust the developers maintain by having that guideline in place. Someone else mentioned SWG. That's trampling all OVER what we'd call the cottage rule. Or, for a COH example - PVP, pre and post I13. Or, for that matter, the "respect" Jack is held in for little gems like "We arent' making any more wholesale changes to powers" ... just before ED.

It's not "People would quit over a change." People do, no matter how large or small. But without that assurance in place - and using it, forum-side, as a counterargument to massive, thoughtless changes that are at times proposed by the playerbase because, for instance, "I don't like Dimension Shift and want to see it ripped from the game!" - what's to keep you at *all* trusting the devs DO have a "bigger picture" to follow? Or to swap some dev team members and turn Regen, for instance, into a passive defense set, invalidating a set's entire playstyle, not to mention what could be quite a bit of work and time on the behalf of the player to get it IO'd out "just right?"

Plus, just read what you yourself are saying. First, you're making some claim that it restricts the devs. It does not. IF they feel a power is SO out of whack it needs wholesale replacement, they *will* do it. But it won't be their first, second, third, fourth, or fifth choice.

Second, you've basically said "get rid of the cottage rule... but keep following it." So what's the point in arguing for it to be gone anyway? They ALREADY make changes with "the bigger picture in mind." The cottage rule does not prevent that. Don't paint it as if it does.

Essentially, you have no argument for getting rid of the cottage rule making *anything* different, much less better.

See my Guides and Tutorials

I have, several times, with examples. As have at *least* two others.

You want it pared down to essence, in plain terms? Here:

Any change done to a power will not alter its fundamental purpose.

Examples of times they've broken this - both prior to Issue 1:
- Removing Fold Space, moving Wormhole up and inserting Singularity.
- Changing Telekenesis from an Ally Fly to a ranged repel/hold.
(You could argue about Defiance, perhaps, but that's not so much a "power.")

Examples brought up in the past as it being "broken" when it hasn't been:
- Conserve Power to Energize: The powers original purpose, providing an END discount "buff," didn't change. It did, however, get a heal added to it.
- Burn gaining a fear - or losing it later.
- Instant Healing going from a toggle to a click.
- Or for a more recent one, shields becoming AOE, and/or Null the Gull's effect on the speed modification portion of some buffs.

See my Guides and Tutorials

That's true too. It's like that scene in the movie Contact where he asks 'Did you love your father?'

'Yes!'

'Prove it.'

Haha...

Somehow, I don't think Rangle's comment was directed at you.
He probably just used the quick reply button because he didn't have any specific quote to dissect.

That is, of course, supposition and guess work on my part. I could be wrong.
I do not have any evidence to prove my stance.
Similarly, Jayboh doesn't have any evidence to prove his stance either.
The difference between us is that I can, and freely do, admit it.

Its a waste of time, but not for the reason you think.

Its a waste of time primarily because the devs don't technically follow anything called "the cottage rule." The cottage rule is a term made up by the players, and it persists because its catchy. As used by the devs, it means only one thing: the devs will not replace Build Up with a power that summons a cottage instead of what it does now. Anyone who wants to rescind that rule literally wants build up to summon a cottage instead of what it does not.

The cottage rule example was intended to be an exemplar for a whole list of design rules the devs obey. I actually posted them almost a year before Castle's cottage post but people keep forgetting them because they are less catchy. Within the context of the cottage rule, *some of* the design rules the devs follow that are the basis for the cottage rule pronouncement are:

1. A power will not lose a primary function without a critical balance reason for that change that can only be solved by eliminating that feature.

2. A power will not alter its gameplay mechanics without a significant balance requirement that can only be solved by altering its mechanics. For the most part, this refers to the power being a click, toggle, passive, or location targeted power.

3. A power will not change its availability within a powerset without a significant balance requirement that can only be solved by such a change in powerset structure. In other words, powers won't change tier.

I should point out I posted those rules above, with more or less the same wording, with permission from Castle, the same developer that made the "cottage rule" post itself.


Everyone saying "the cottage rule" should be eliminated is saying essentially that the devs should not need a balance reason to change an already established power: they can do so for essentially any reason at all. Arguing for the abolishment of the cottage rule is essentially asking for chaos. Without it, no one is protected from any changes for any reason. The rule encapsulates one of the fundamental ways in which the powers design rules care about existing players at all.

Moreover, the devs aren't seriously going to entertain the suggestion to eliminate the cottage rule, because that's just a colloquial umbrella for a large set of interconnected design priorities. There's no way to "abolish" it, because there's no it. "It" is a term to represent a set of priorities.


So the reason why the thread is mostly a waste of time is that its debating a rule the devs don't follow, that refers to a set of priorities the devs won't change, that have almost nothing to do with any actual limitation on what the devs can do to address problems in the game.

Not sure what was funny. I'm damned serious.

Heck, I have zero Super Strength characters simply because I *KNOW* Rage is ridiculous and I refuse to use something that broken.

No I don't want it paired down in your terms. I want to read the actual rule, along with the examples given by the Devs. You do know what "Documented" means, right?

My first reaction to this statement was; well then the fact that I don’t like the way something already is, should also be reason enough, but I bet it would not be. Then I really thought about your statement and realized that if your reaction was the ultimate reaction to things, we would still be hanging out in caves, and getting fire from lightning strikes. Hells, maybe not even using tools at all; after all isn't carrion, bugs, and vegetables/fruits you can just pick up and pop into your mouth, good enough?

Am I overreacting a bit, maybe, but someone's liking of something the way it presently is does not automatically negate my not liking the way it presently is.

Well, I was referencing the list as a set of powers that the majority love the most in those sets, as opposed to the reason most of us are discussing, where we protect the few that enjoy poor powers.

*points up to Arcanavilles post*

Unsurprisingly, I think she highlights something I was overlooking as not being obvious - as the above "documented" demand shows.

See my Guides and Tutorials

They're powers people like, but just because you like something doesn't mean it's not harmful to you to, otherwise addicts wouldn't need rehab.

Controllers want Dark Miasma, but Dark Miasma is already too strong for not-control ATs. You're harming controllers that want a dark set by hanging onto the powers you love (not to mention, intra-AT balance is completely out of whack when one considers that set).

Spine players don't want to be crippled in ST damage just because they have AoE. You're harming every Spines player that needs to fight EBs and AVs (heck, even just purple Bosses) by keeping that toggle damage aura. And even the devs have outright admitted they don't look forward to balancing Spines because the backlash from players would be devastating.

Everybody knows Rage is stupid. The only justification they give is 'the rest of the set sux so we keep it'. Well, that's harming *ME* because I can't play a set that hinges on that one power to be great.

Medicine doesn't always taste like candy, you know.

You were the one preaching a rule; it's your responsibility to back it. I already had suspicion that there was no official rule, thus no official documentation. Thanks for pointing out Arcanavilles post though. I missed it trying to keep up with this thread.

Though Arcanavilles words are clean and precise, which is expected of Arcanavilles, they are not official rules (b : prescribed or recognized as authorized <an official language>, a : a prescribed guide for conduct or action), about what can and cannot be done, they are guidelines (b : an indication or outline of policy or conduct), and they are not official. It is now obvious that there are no such rules, and as far as I care there should not be. The problem is if the Devs have decided to move them from guidelines to rules.

My suggestion to move Stalker's AS down automatically violate these "rules". This means that if the Devs have accepted these as rules then they can automatically dismiss my suggestion without giving it real thought, and to be frank it's human nature to do exactly that, if you have something to point at that will take the responsibility for doing the job away from you. This is especially true when the problem is not personally important to you, and you feel that you have more important things to do.

It's not important whether my suggestion is viable or not, it's important that it not be automatically dismissed, because it violates a rule that is not a rule.

The simple fact that you make this statement shows you don't understand my point of view.

I see that the developers have done an excellent job in convincing the forum goers that they, the developers, can be trusted.

I trust them to continue to make a great game and I am excited about each and every change, personally. With or without the forum goers approval.

I can clearly see that from Arcanaville's post that this is a pointless discussion.

I can just as clearly see a forum poster that just can't 'not be right.'

Personally, I have a whole lot more funny posts to show my co-workers over coffee.

Don't forget Black Hole, as another aoe control that should really be removed too.

Just because trollers want Dark Miasma does not mean they will get it. Or at least probably not in its current form. No harm is being inflicted on someone by not giving them what they want. By your logic people that want to be able to 1 shot AVs are being harmed because they are not allowed to do so. Also this imagined harm is not coming from people on the forums that like the current version of Dark Miasma, it is coming from the devs that have not ported the set, probably due to balance reasons.

And yes, spine players do want, or at the least are willing to accept, weak single target damage in exchange for AoE. If you want high single target damage, play another set.

Just because you say everyone knows something does not make it true. Everybody knows this. Believe it or not, you can make the choice to play SS. I play mine all the time and hardley ever bother with Rage and I do just fine. No harm has come to me so far.

As you'll see from the text I highlighted above they won't dismiss it because it breaks the rules. They'll consider whether there is a good compelling reason to do it. If you provide one then that would stregthen your suggestion.

The devs can't take every suggestion posted here and give it serious thought. God, read through the suggestions forum and tell me if you seriously think they should?

Defiance changes didn't violate the cottage rule.

It still gives you a damage bonus, just like it did before. The basic function of the power never changed.

Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison See, it's gems like these that make me check Claws' post history every once in a while to make sure I haven't missed anything good lately.