End of Cottage Rule? Please?
By
Aett_Thorn,
Posted on: 2011-07-03 15:14 in Archetypes and Powers General Discussion
Quote:
... I take it you didn't see this post that Arcanaville made two days ago in this very thread?|
Originally Posted by Not_Rhino
There is no such ANY rule, though. The "cottage rule" was just some fan name given to a joke Castle made about how they wouldn't change build-up to form a cottage in front of you.
|
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showp...&postcount=113
Main Hero: Chad Gulzow-Man (Victory) 50, 1396 Badges
Main Villain: Evil Gulzow-Man (Victory) 50, 1193 Badges
Mission Architect arcs: Doctor Brainstorm's An Experiment Gone Awry, Arc ID 2093
-----
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nethergoat
it's NEVER too late to pad your /ignore list!
|
Quote:
The functionality of a power, or even an AT, is important to me and to many others, and I'm not really surprised that you cant see that.|
Originally Posted by _Ail_
I think that the concept or idea of a character tends to be very important to many people. It certainly is to me.
This is really very important. I am surprised that so many people can't see this. |
The Stalker AT is cool in concept, not so much in operation. I believe that the Devs are going to have to go beyond the normal guidelines to fix an AT that has been broken for 6+ years. I dont think this means that they need to or even should, remove the attack from hidden that is the defining concept of the Stalker.
Quote:
*Shrug* I have several stalkers. (I have several of everything.) I think that you could definitely fix them and stay within the cottage rule.|
Originally Posted by Jeuraud
The functionality of a power, or even an AT, is important to me and to many others, and I'm not really surprised that you cant see that.
The Stalker AT is cool in concept, not so much in operation. I believe that the Devs are going to have to go beyond the normal guidelines to fix an AT that has been broken for 6+ years. I don’t think this means that they need to or even should, remove the attack from hidden that is the defining concept of the Stalker. |
Edit: The main problem in fixing them will be not stepping on the toes of scrappers too much. Yeah, stalkers have less defense. But they also have hide and placate, which are definitely damage mitigation in their own way. I think that you have to be really careful about buffing them, and that is probably needs to be done in small steps. Following the cottage rule is perfect for this.
"Hi, my name is Ail. I make people sick."
A partial selection from my 50's on Freedom: Ail = Ice/Traps, Luck = Street Justice/Super Reflexes Stalker, Mist = Bane, Pixy = Trick Arrow/Archery, Pure = Gravity/Energy, Smoke = Fire/Fire Dominator
Quote:
The Devs stomped all over the toes of Scrappers with the changes to Stalker criticals. Also your statement makes it sound like the Devs have not been dinking with Stalkers for 6+ years. It also seam's like you dont have a clue what the primary issue is with them. Not surprising even though you have a couple. After all functionality is less important to you then concept.|
Originally Posted by _Ail_
*Shrug* I have several stalkers. (I have several of everything.) I think that you could definitely fix them and stay within the cottage rule.
Edit: The main problem in fixing them will be not stepping on the toes of scrappers too much. Yeah, stalkers have less defense. But they also have hide and placate, which are definitely damage mitigation in their own way. I think that you have to be really careful about buffing them, and that is probably needs to be done in small steps. Following the cottage rule is perfect for this. |
It's ludicrous to believe that the Devs can remain within the cottage rules guidelines after this amount of time. There is no justifiable reason for Stalkers to be in the shape they are in if this was true.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chad Gulzow-Man
... I take it you didn't see this post that Arcanaville made two days ago in this very thread?
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showp...&postcount=113 |
Quoted for emphasis.
Throwing darts at the board to see if something sticks.....
Come show your resolve and fight my brute!
Tanks: Gauntlet, the streak breaker and you!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PapaSlade
Rangle's right....this is fun.
|
Quote:
Quoted again for those with short memories, those with the tendency to not bother reading more than the last page, and the hard of thinking.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
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. |
The "cottage rule" is not something that needs to be rescinded. It's simply a set of guidelines stipulating that powers and powersets should only be significantly changed in how they function as a last resort. The "cottage rule" is not why you're not getting that 10k damage blast with a 5 second recharge as your tier 1 power. It's not why that power you loathe so much hasn't been replaced with fondue. It's also not why your favorite power hasn't been replaced with a power that gives you a 10% regen boost and a random dance emote. It's a simplification of a set of guidelines that should seem pretty sensible to anyone who isn't standing there with their eyes squeezed shut and stamping their feet demanding to know why the Devs haven't already implemented their favorite vision of How Things Should Be. (An approach that, thankfully, doesn't work better here than in real life.)
Dr. Todt's theme.
i make stuff...
Quote:
*Shrug* You seem in your last 2 posts to be very willing to insult me and call me clueless but very light on details.|
Originally Posted by Jeuraud
The Devs stomped all over the toes of Scrappers with the changes to Stalker criticals. Also your statement makes it sound like the Devs have not been dinking with Stalkers for 6+ years. It also seam's like you don’t have a clue what the primary issue is with them. Not surprising even though you have a couple. After all functionality is less important to you then concept.
It's ludicrous to believe that the Devs can remain within the cottage rules guidelines after this amount of time. There is no justifiable reason for Stalkers to be in the shape they are in if this was true. |
Most of the suggestion threads that come up in the stalker forum for improvements to stalkers have suggestions that don't violate the cottage rule. What particular buff did you want that is impossible under the current guidelines?
Edit: I think the problem is just that it is difficult to balance a hide-and-frontloaded-burst-damage type of AT against others and that the devs have been overly cautious because they don't want to make it overpowered. This has resulted in more hesitant dev action on them than most ATs. I don't see any cottage rule reason why they couldn't be improved. I do think my bane does everything my stalkers do, only better and with team buffs for everyone, which is too bad.
"Hi, my name is Ail. I make people sick."
A partial selection from my 50's on Freedom: Ail = Ice/Traps, Luck = Street Justice/Super Reflexes Stalker, Mist = Bane, Pixy = Trick Arrow/Archery, Pure = Gravity/Energy, Smoke = Fire/Fire Dominator
Quote:
Yeah, reading that on these forums back when the changes went in was worth a good laugh. I can't believe anyone complained about that. I mean, I can believe people will complain about anything, I suppose, but seriously? A Stalker has to huddle up within 30 feet of about four teammates AT ALL TIMES just to equal the single-target damage output of a Scrapper even after the changes. THAT is the problem. Teams just aren't that compact most of the time unless they are all standing around an AV and even THEN it's typical for the ranged/squishy types to be farther away than 30 feet. The *shortest* of their ranged attacks tend to start at around 40 feet after all.|
Originally Posted by Jeuraud
The Devs stomped all over the toes of Scrappers with the changes to Stalker criticals.
|
The thing that WOULD step on Scrapper toes, not because it's justified but because they'll complain about it anyway, is putting Stalkers where they belong: Solidly ahead of Scrappers on damage output. It is the SAME argument they used against Brutes. If Brutes are more survivable why should they have the same or better offense?
I want to see that logic applied to Stalkers in relation to Scrappers.
Villains: Annie Alias, Dr. Amperical, Shade Golem, Knight Marksman
Heroes: The Clockwork Mime, Soccerpunch, The Fissioneer, Samurai Houston, Oversteer
Join The X-Patriots on Virtue!
Quote:
Indeed.
|
Originally Posted by Zem
The thing that WOULD step on Scrapper toes, not because it's justified but because they'll complain about it anyway, is putting Stalkers where they belong: Solidly ahead of Scrappers on damage output. It is the SAME argument they used against Brutes. If Brutes are more survivable why should they have the same or better offense?
I want to see that logic applied to Stalkers in relation to Scrappers. |
Where to now?
Check out all my guides and fiction pieces on my blog.
The MFing Warshade | The Last Rule of Tanking | The Got Dam Mastermind
Everything Dark Armor | The Softcap
don'T attempt to read tHis mEssaGe, And believe Me, it is not a codE.
Quote:
I think the big problem is that hide and placate are being counted as a form of mitigation, so the devs do not view stalkers as glass-like as they really are.
|
Originally Posted by Zem
The thing that WOULD step on Scrapper toes, not because it's justified but because they'll complain about it anyway, is putting Stalkers where they belong: Solidly ahead of Scrappers on damage output. It is the SAME argument they used against Brutes. If Brutes are more survivable why should they have the same or better offense?
I want to see that logic applied to Stalkers in relation to Scrappers. |
Quote:
In which case, it'd sure be nice if placate worked as a form of mitigation.
|
Originally Posted by rsclark
I think the big problem is that hide and placate are being counted as a form of mitigation, so the devs do not view stalkers as glass-like as they really are.
|
Where to now?
Check out all my guides and fiction pieces on my blog.
The MFing Warshade | The Last Rule of Tanking | The Got Dam Mastermind
Everything Dark Armor | The Softcap
don'T attempt to read tHis mEssaGe, And believe Me, it is not a codE.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zem
Yeah, reading that on these forums back when the changes went in was worth a good laugh. I can't believe anyone complained about that. I mean, I can believe people will complain about anything, I suppose, but seriously? A Stalker has to huddle up within 30 feet of about four teammates AT ALL TIMES just to equal the single-target damage output of a Scrapper even after the changes. THAT is the problem. Teams just aren't that compact most of the time unless they are all standing around an AV and even THEN it's typical for the ranged/squishy types to be farther away than 30 feet. The *shortest* of their ranged attacks tend to start at around 40 feet after all.
The thing that WOULD step on Scrapper toes, not because it's justified but because they'll complain about it anyway, is putting Stalkers where they belong: Solidly ahead of Scrappers on damage output. It is the SAME argument they used against Brutes. If Brutes are more survivable why should they have the same or better offense? I want to see that logic applied to Stalkers in relation to Scrappers. |
Gee I wonder what other AT could use that kind of logic.
Quote:
We know you're thinking blasters, and yes, they already do more damage than other, more survivable ATs.
|
Originally Posted by Another_Fan
Gee I wonder what other AT could use that kind of logic.
|
Where to now?
Check out all my guides and fiction pieces on my blog.
The MFing Warshade | The Last Rule of Tanking | The Got Dam Mastermind
Everything Dark Armor | The Softcap
don'T attempt to read tHis mEssaGe, And believe Me, it is not a codE.
Quote:
Stalkers aren't glass like. Any At that has decent hit points, permanent mez protection, can have fully capped defenses and a self heal isn't glass.|
Originally Posted by rsclark
I think the big problem is that hide and placate are being counted as a form of mitigation, so the devs do not view stalkers as glass-like as they really are.
|
At worst its cast iron as opposed to steel.
Quote:
They do? Apples to apples?|
Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison
We know you're thinking blasters, and yes, they already do more damage than other, more survivable ATs.
|
Fire/Elec blaster compared to SS/FA Brute?
Elec/Nrg blaster compared to WM/WP Brute?
I feel like blasters do tons of damage, but I am not sure it is a lot more than other, more survivable ATs.
Why Blasters? Empathy Sucks.
So, you want to be Mental?
What the hell? Let's buff defenders.
Tactics are for those who do not have a big enough hammer. Wisdom is knowing how big your hammer is.
Quote:
Not so much. Certainly not enough to balance out their survivability deficit.
|
Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison
We know you're thinking blasters, and yes, they already do more damage than other, more survivable ATs.
|
Quote:
Well, I have corrected my post to combat your pedantry. Look, I didn't say I agree with them, but the idea that getting attacked less increases survivability isn't totally insane. The lower taunt multiplier is also a form of mitigation. All else being equal, one character throwing out attacks that count for damage X2 in determining taunt will be attacked less and live longer than one throwing out damage X4 taunt worth attacks. Having an AT that trades the ability to take an attack for the ability to not get attacked as much is a fine idea that just doesn't pan out in the game when you actually try to implement it.
|
Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison
In which case, it'd sure be nice if placate worked as a form of defense.
|
Quote:
One of the problems is that you can't compare apples to apples, but yes, as close as we can compare, they do more damage.|
Originally Posted by StratoNexus
They do? Apples to apples?
|
Every time I see this brought up, everyone seems to ignore the real survivability that blasters have. They have a lot of control powers in their tool box, defensive powers in their epics, and let's not forget range itself is a means of survival.
Blasters do more damage to more targets than scrappers and brutes. Yes, it's harder for them to stay alive. No, it's not impossible.
Where to now?
Check out all my guides and fiction pieces on my blog.
The MFing Warshade | The Last Rule of Tanking | The Got Dam Mastermind
Everything Dark Armor | The Softcap
don'T attempt to read tHis mEssaGe, And believe Me, it is not a codE.
Quote:
The intend was not pedantry. The intent was to show the glaring bugs surrounding Placate that render it very not useful as a means of mitigation.
|
Originally Posted by rsclark
Well, I have corrected my post to combat your pedantry.
|
Where to now?
Check out all my guides and fiction pieces on my blog.
The MFing Warshade | The Last Rule of Tanking | The Got Dam Mastermind
Everything Dark Armor | The Softcap
don'T attempt to read tHis mEssaGe, And believe Me, it is not a codE.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison
One of the problems is that you can't compare apples to apples, but yes, as close as we can compare, they do more damage.
Every time I see this brought up, everyone seems to ignore the real survivability that blasters have. They have a lot of control powers in their tool box, defensive powers in their epics, and let's not forget range itself is a means of survival. Blasters do more damage to more targets than scrappers and brutes. Yes, it's harder for them to stay alive. No, it's not impossible. |
The damage is to within 10% most of the comparisons ignore that you only need enough AoE damage to deal with the weaker foes and afterwards its wasted.
Quote:
Forgive me, but I'm not going to believe a statistic like that without seeing the research behind it.
|
Originally Posted by Another_Fan
The damage is to within 10% most of the comparisons ignore that you only need enough AoE damage to deal with the weaker foes and afterwards its wasted.
|
Where to now?
Check out all my guides and fiction pieces on my blog.
The MFing Warshade | The Last Rule of Tanking | The Got Dam Mastermind
Everything Dark Armor | The Softcap
don'T attempt to read tHis mEssaGe, And believe Me, it is not a codE.
Quote:
Ironically, using those controls and range itself will significantly lower a blasters damage output. People always use the best chain possible when showing blaster damage output and then fall back on them not using their melee attacks and using their low damage control powers for survivability.|
Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison
Every time I see this brought up, everyone seems to ignore the real survivability that blasters have. They have a lot of control powers in their tool box, defensive powers in their epics, and let's not forget range itself is a means of survival.
|
Meanwhile, Clobber gets buffed to be one of the best Mace attacks and Screech and Stunning Shot remain low damage. Ice Melee Frozen Aura becomes a fantasitc damage power (on the most survivable AT in the game) while Ice Manipulation Frozen Aura deals ZERO damage on the damage specialist AT.
Why Blasters? Empathy Sucks.
So, you want to be Mental?
What the hell? Let's buff defenders.
Tactics are for those who do not have a big enough hammer. Wisdom is knowing how big your hammer is.
Quote:
I'm not saying there aren't a few inconsistencies.|
Originally Posted by StratoNexus
Meanwhile, Clobber gets buffed to be one of the best Mace attacks and Screech and Stunning Shot remain low damage. Ice Melee Frozen Aura becomes a fantasitc damage power (on the most survivable AT in the game) while Ice Manipulation Frozen Aura deals ZERO damage on the damage specialist AT.
|
What I will claim is that blasters do enough damage and can survive well enough on their own. They are not meant to be a solo AT, but they can be built that way just as much as a defender or controller can. With dual build functionality these days, every blaster would do well to have a solo build that maximizes their survivability and an all out damage build that relies on melee teammates to take the brunt of the attacks.
Where to now?
Check out all my guides and fiction pieces on my blog.
The MFing Warshade | The Last Rule of Tanking | The Got Dam Mastermind
Everything Dark Armor | The Softcap
don'T attempt to read tHis mEssaGe, And believe Me, it is not a codE.
Quote:
And every scrapper/brute should have a dual build too, one where they focus on damage and the other where they focus on survivability... Oh wait. They can have one build and get both those traits. Hmmm. Well at least dominators are still like blasters... oh wait, they have high damage and survivability at the same time too.
|
Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison
With dual build functionality these days, every blaster would do well to have a solo build that maximizes their survivability and an all out damage build that relies on melee teammates to take the brunt of the attacks.
|
Why Blasters? Empathy Sucks.
So, you want to be Mental?
What the hell? Let's buff defenders.
Tactics are for those who do not have a big enough hammer. Wisdom is knowing how big your hammer is.
I remember a survey of a few years ago that showed that people tended to play powers within conceptual frameworks. So being a TA might be unlikely, but if you were a TA you were probably a TA/A.
I think that the concept or idea of a character tends to be very important to many people. It certainly is to me. If I don't like a character's concept, I can barely bring myself to play that character. On the other hand, if I like a character's concept, I will happily play that character again and again even if it is gimp-city mechanics wise.
The cottage rule is nice because it respects concept. It says if you had a character with a certain concept and had a power which fit in somehow with that concept, then you will probably still be able to continue to use that power in the same conceptual manner.
This is really very important. I am surprised that so many people can't see this. The picture people have in their heads of a character is what keeps many playing. If you suddenly change a power so that it can't do what it was doing before for that picture, you are really going to piss them off.
I myself am horribly picky, perhaps too much so. First, I refuse to play a character unless I can think up a good name. Since superhero names tend to be simple things like Thor or Wolverine or Storm, I require a simple name. Also (and I agree I am different from most people here) if I have to take -Storm or .Storm or OoStormoO instead of Storm, you had better bet that character's days are numbered. I also want a concept that fits with the character, and I will be plenty annoyed if the powers change so that the concept is no longer possible.
Even having to have my forum handle be _Ail_ rather than Ail (because--at least at the time I created the handle--you couldn't have a handle that was only 3 letters; I am not sure if this has changed) annoys me immensely.
Anyway, in summary I think concept is important for a superhero game. And the cottage rule helps to preserve concepts.
"Hi, my name is Ail. I make people sick."
A partial selection from my 50's on Freedom: Ail = Ice/Traps, Luck = Street Justice/Super Reflexes Stalker, Mist = Bane, Pixy = Trick Arrow/Archery, Pure = Gravity/Energy, Smoke = Fire/Fire Dominator