Definition of Power Creep

[Johann]

57 minutes ago, XRay said:

That is like saying because a lot of people do not believe in vaccines, vaccines are therefore useless even though professional doctors say the exact opposite. A large number of people using the term wrong means that we need to educate people more.

Those are not just some guys. James, the writer from Extra Credits, has 10 years of experience in the gaming industry and Daniel, the narrator, has 7 years. The amount of their experience in the industry alone means their definition holds more weight than the belief of a bunch of people who have no experience in game design.

You misunderstand, so allow me to elaborate. Math and science (net profits, vaccines) are empirical and results cannot be changed whether people understand them or not, while language (a definition of power creep) is practical and can be explained and interpreted in any number of ways. In the context of Heroes (or games in general), tier lists are another example of something that is practical, since they are based on what people value in skills/stats/etc.

I do agree that using a term wrong can complicate things and there may be a need to teach others the proper terminology, but the stakes are lower here when compared to something like vaccinations, and anyone has a right to challenge the definition. Those guys you mention may have years of experience working in the gaming industry, but the context and their message is more than clear and comprehensible for anyone to get. It's subjective because you can view the concept(s) through greater or smaller lenses (ie: the entirety of Heroes or a specific category of units), deconstruct it, add to it, etc.

Also, I am in agreement with you regarding the impact of unchecked power creep in Heroes.

Edited November 10, 2017 by Johann

[Ice Dragon]

34 minutes ago, Johann said:

while language (a definition of power creep) is practical and can be explained and interpreted in any number of ways.

I can argue that a doghouse is a house made of dogs or a bear trap is a bear on the ceiling waiting to pounce on an unsuspecting hunter, but that doesn't make me correct, even if I can get a bunch of people to use my definitions. I can point at a crow and call it a raven, but that also doesn't make me correct, even if everyone around me agrees with me.

Definitions of words are just as objective as scientific knowledge. That's how communication and language works. That's why dictionaries are a thing.

[Johann]

1 minute ago, Ice Dragon said:

I can argue that a doghouse is a house made of dogs or a bear trap is a bear on the ceiling waiting to pounce on an unsuspecting hunter, but that doesn't make me correct, even if I can get a bunch of people to use my definitions. I can point at a crow and call it a raven, but that also doesn't make me correct, even if everyone around me agrees with me.

Definitions of words are just as objective as scientific knowledge. That's how communication and language works. That's why dictionaries are a thing.

Actually, if you did get other people to accept your definitions, then your definitions would be correct. Language changes based on the needs and trends of those who use it. That's why we develop new words in the first place. Here's some info on semanticss of some English words changing over time.

[Ice Dragon]

2 minutes ago, Johann said:

Actually, if you did get other people to accept your definitions, then your definitions would be correct.

Correction: If I get enough other people to accept my definitions.

 

And currently, I don't think most people actually have a definition of "power creep" that is internally consistent with their own opinions. For them, it's mostly a banner to affix to their whining so as to legitimize their complaints, and that a definition doesn't make. A bunch of unhappy laymen calling a politician a "communist" doesn't change the definition of "communist" even if they all agree in calling the politician a communist. Heck, even if the press does that, it still doesn't change the definition of "communist".

[Johann]

2 minutes ago, Ice Dragon said:

Correction: If I get enough other people to accept my definitions.

And currently, I don't think most people actually have a definition of "power creep" that is internally consistent with their own opinions. For them, it's mostly a banner to affix to their whining so as to legitimize their complaints, and that a definition doesn't make. A bunch of unhappy laymen calling a politician a "communist" doesn't change the definition of "communist" even if they all agree in calling the politician a communist. Heck, even if the press does that, it still doesn't change the definition of "communist".

Getting people to accept your definition of dog house or bear trap is giving meaning to a term, no matter how ridiculous it seems. Calling someone a communist can have a variety of interpretations and it depends on the intent of usage. There's a big difference between misconstruing meaning, using figurative language, using a term as a meaningless insult, etc.

[Ice Dragon]

3 minutes ago, Johann said:

Calling someone a communist can have a variety of interpretations and it depends on the intent of usage.

"I don't like this change to the game and I heard some other person call it 'power creep' and sound more credible than me so I'll call it power creep to validate my complaint" is no different from "I don't like this politician's changes and I heard some other person call him a 'communist' and sound more credible than me so I'll call him a communist to validate my complaint".

There is no misconstruing meaning, using figurative language, or using a term as a meaningless insult. This is simply using a word as a banner to rally under in order to make your complaint seem more valid because it "kind of fits the bill".

 

And you still haven't addressed the fact that I can, in my lack of knowledge of birds, point to a crow and call it a raven. And even if everyone around me agrees with me, that crow is most certainly not a raven. I am objectively wrong both in labeling that crow as a raven and in either believing that "crow" is interchangeable with "raven" or that all birds that look similar enough to a raven can be called a raven.

 

My belief is that most players screaming "power creep" fall under one of those two buckets. Either they are unhappy with a change, know a little bit about what power creep is, and want a banner to rally under or they know a little bit about what power creep is, but have a melty definition of it that spans more than what it actually is.

Finally, there is the matter of whether or not having a melty definition is okay, and I will argue that it isn't. While it is okay for lay words to have their meanings change over time (because that's just what happens naturally), it is of significant disservice for technical terminology to do the same. What would happen if the definition of "carburetor" slowly changed over time or differed between speakers? How about "equilibrium"?

[Johann]

1 minute ago, Ice Dragon said:

"I don't like this change to the game and I heard some other person call it 'power creep' and sound more credible than me so I'll call it power creep to validate my complaint" is no different from "I don't like this politician's changes and I heard some other person call him a 'communist' and sound more credible than me so I'll call him a communist to validate my complaint".

There is no misconstruing meaning, using figurative language, or using a term as a meaningless insult. This is simply using a word as a banner to rally under in order to make your complaint seem more valid because it "kind of fits the bill".

"I don't like this politician's changes and I heard some other person call him a 'communist' and sound more credible than me so I'll call him a communist to validate my complaint" would be a case of a meaningless insult. The person they heard it from could have said "zamboni" instead of "communist" and it'd be equally meaningless. It's poor communication because they don't even know what the word is supposed to mean other than something negative, and few others would understand why it was said.

3 minutes ago, Ice Dragon said:

And you still haven't addressed the fact that I can, in my lack of knowledge of birds, point to a crow and call it a raven. And even if everyone around me agrees with me, that crow is most certainly not a raven. I am objectively wrong both in labeling that crow as a raven and in either believing that "crow" is interchangeable with "raven" or that all birds that look similar enough to a raven can be called a raven.

Within the context of taxonomy, which as a field of terminology is separate from most people's everyday use and has clearly defined the rules in an objective way, yes, you'd be wrong (unless you're referring to the entire genus as "crow", which would be acceptable but potentially confusing). Talking to a bunch of random people who don't know any better, you'd be "correct" because you and your listeners are sharing the same context of a little black bird. Both you and your listeners lump both birds into the same group because you wouldn't need a word to distinguish them.

3 minutes ago, Ice Dragon said:

My belief is that most players screaming "power creep" fall under one of those two buckets. Either they are unhappy with a change, know a little bit about what power creep is, and want a banner to rally under or they know a little bit about what power creep is, but have a melty definition of it that spans more than what it actually is.

Well, that's one way to look at it. People are certainly emotional over the impacts, which isn't helping. I think the issue is that the term "power creep" is too broad sounding. and we have a need for more terms to describe what different people are saying.

23 minutes ago, Ice Dragon said:

Finally, there is the matter of whether or not having a melty definition is okay, and I will argue that it isn't. While it is okay for lay words to have their meanings change over time (because that's just what happens naturally), it is of significant disservice for technical terminology to do the same. What would happen if the definition of "carburetor" slowly changed over time or differed between speakers? How about "equilibrium"?

It's definitely a problem if we are using the same terms but different meanings, that's a straight up communication failure. Words that most people rarely (if ever) use aren't really at risk of having their meaning change. People in a given field, particularly with technology, tend to have a strong grip on their terms since they use them the most. There's nothing inherently bad about a change in meaning unless it causes a communication failure.

[Sire]

Seems like the definition of Power Creep (according to Extra Credits) only applies to things "above the power curve" and "affecting the meta." Applying this to Heroes, since Reinhardt and Brave!Lyn are currently the top units, if new released units match or are at a higher level than those two, then that will be considered Power Creep. Another way of saying this is that if a new unit is released that performs Reinhardt's or Brave!Lyn's job better, then that is Power Creep. (Bride!Cordelia can be considered "Power Creeped" by Brave!Lyn.)

A Heroes example that is not Power Creep is Gray. Gray is superior to Laslow in almost every way, only suffering -1 to HP but gaining 6 SPD. Laslow does not see much use and can be considered to be below the "Power Curve" while Gray is a little closer to baseline. While Gray is better than Laslow, he is not a top pick like Reinhardt or Brave!Lyn. Gray does not affect the meta or is above the power curve, so him being stronger than Laslow is irrelevant in terms of the "Power Creep" definition. (In relation to Extra Credits videos, this is the Magma Rager vs Ice Rager argument.)
* * * * *
I believe that the "layman's" definition of Power Creep is more out of a concern of the "Increasing Power" trend. Since any increase in power is considered "power creep," this is why arguments like the "Magma Rager vs the Ice Rager" or "Killer Weapons vs Slaying Weapons" happen. The Power Curve and the Meta is thrown out of the window when this variant of the definition is used as the only thing that matters is the increase in power. There can be a better replacement to the worst item in a game and that can be considered "power creep," even if it doesn't affect the high end of play at all.

Either way, I am not a fan of the direction Heroes is going. I perceive Heroes to be setting trends for increasing power since the Performing Arts banner, with some disturbances as far back as the Summer banners. This is just me being in disagreement on how balancing should be handled, but I am no game developer and I have no relation to Heroes.
* * * * *
As for my overall opinion, I am basically in agreement with XRay's post statement below. I differ in that I am personally not okay with the stat boosts because they break the "theoretical formula" that has been the norm for a while, even if they are put on underwhelming units. I am a bit of a traditionalist and old-fashioned and I tend to dislike experimental changes.

21 hours ago, XRay said:

To summarize, we all agree that unchecked power creep is bad. I think having limited, occasional power creep to celebrate something special is fine, like the Choose Your Legend event. Most or all of the veteran players here have no problem with Sigurd, Ayra, TODD!Jakob, and TOD!Henry themselves getting a stat boost since melee and armor units are pretty underwhelming to begin with. However, some of us, myself included, do not like the fact that they got a stat boost because it sets a precedent for unchecked power creep.

I personally prefer they address the meta through new skills and character stat distribution alone. Giving a straight up stat boost seems inelegant and lazy. I think from Ayra onward, they might change up the formula and give all melee and armor units a stat boost since they are so under powered, but I need to see a few more banners to confirm whether the new pattern is the new norm.

[Ice Dragon]

12 hours ago, Sire said:

I differ in that I am personally not okay with the stat boosts because they break the "theoretical formula" that has been the norm for a while, even if they are put on underwhelming units.

I'm not sure why adding a new class modifier to the game is "breaking the 'theoretical formula'". It's no different than if trainees and veterans (or armors or ranged, etc., really any class modifier, though trainee and veteran are the most arbitrary) didn't exist at launch and were added later. The CYL winners' and the new "special" characters' stat boosts are simply new class modifiers.

Virtually no one had any objection back at launch to trainees having the stat boosts that they did and simply shrugged it off as "they're trainees" once it was explained.

[XRay]

13 minutes ago, Ice Dragon said:

I'm not sure why adding a new class modifier to the game is "breaking the 'theoretical formula'". It's no different than if trainees and veterans (or armors or ranged, etc., really any class modifier, though trainee and veteran are the most arbitrary) didn't exist at launch and were added later. The CYL winners' and the new "special" characters' stat boosts are simply new class modifiers.

Virtually no one had any objection back at launch to trainees having the stat boosts that they did and simply shrugged it off as "they're trainees" once it was explained.

Trainee status is limited to a few characters and they usually make sense, like Amelia from Sacred Stones, Donnel from Awakening, and the villagers from Echoes. Ayra, TOD!Henry, and TOD!Jakob are not that special to deserve a stat boost lore wise in my opinion.

 

[DehNutCase]

13 hours ago, Sire said:

Seems like the definition of Power Creep (according to Extra Credits) only applies to things "above the power curve" and "affecting the meta." Applying this to Heroes, since Reinhardt and Brave!Lyn are currently the top units, if new released units match or are at a higher level than those two, then that will be considered Power Creep. Another way of saying this is that if a new unit is released that performs Reinhardt's or Brave!Lyn's job better, then that is Power Creep. (Bride!Cordelia can be considered "Power Creeped" by Brave!Lyn.)

A Heroes example that is not Power Creep is Gray. Gray is superior to Laslow in almost every way, only suffering -1 to HP but gaining 6 SPD. Laslow does not see much use and can be considered to be below the "Power Curve" while Gray is a little closer to baseline. While Gray is better than Laslow, he is not a top pick like Reinhardt or Brave!Lyn. Gray does not affect the meta or is above the power curve, so him being stronger than Laslow is irrelevant in terms of the "Power Creep" definition. (In relation to Extra Credits videos, this is the Magma Rager vs Ice Rager argument.)
* * * * *
I believe that the "layman's" definition of Power Creep is more out of a concern of the "Increasing Power" trend. Since any increase in power is considered "power creep," this is why arguments like the "Magma Rager vs the Ice Rager" or "Killer Weapons vs Slaying Weapons" happen. The Power Curve and the Meta is thrown out of the window when this variant of the definition is used as the only thing that matters is the increase in power. There can be a better replacement to the worst item in a game and that can be considered "power creep," even if it doesn't affect the high end of play at all.

Either way, I am not a fan of the direction Heroes is going. I perceive Heroes to be setting trends for increasing power since the Performing Arts banner, with some disturbances as far back as the Summer banners. This is just me being in disagreement on how balancing should be handled, but I am no game developer and I have no relation to Heroes.
* * * * *
As for my overall opinion, I am basically in agreement with XRay's post statement below. I differ in that I am personally not okay with the stat boosts because they break the "theoretical formula" that has been the norm for a while, even if they are put on underwhelming units. I am a bit of a traditionalist and old-fashioned and I tend to dislike experimental changes.

Mind, the main reason Gray isn't powercreep is because Chrom exists. Yeah, Gray's better than Laslow, but no one cares about Laslow because Chrom's been laughing at him since the game started. Gray isn't even strong within his own unit category, infantry sword where slow, bulky, powerful sets are better done by Chrom, and fast, powerful glass cannon sets are better done by Hana, Ryoma, Lucina etc. and fast, powerful, bulky sets are better done by Lucina, Ike, Ryoma, etc.

Now, if Gray had 37 Atk, 32 speed, and around the same level of bulk he had now, I'd call that power creep, because he has bulk advantage on the faster swords, and an Atk tie and speed advantage on Chrom, but 35/32 offenses and 43/30 bulk simply isn't good enough when Chrom's casually walking around at 37/25 and 47/31. Atk is so damn good of a stat that a 7 speed difference actually doesn't matter, thanks to the myriad of ways we can bypass speed (Brave, -breakers, QR, etc.), especially considering the fact that Gray can't afford to run a brave weapon without dumpstering his only advantage vs. Chrom, his speed. 32 speed is a very good speed tier, but 27 is 'doubled by everyone tier', which is the exact same tier 20 or 25 speed is in.

 

That aside, I personally use the definition of power creep that includes Ayra as power creep, because she's a unit that pushes a boundary, red sword infantry, even if she doesn't push the boundary of overall power. A trainee unit with Lucina tier BST distribution flat out didn't exist before she came along, much less one with a relevant Prf and unique skill. (It's kind of a pity that B!Roy does the Galeforce niche better, thanks to being on a horse, because Galeforce is more or less the only reason melee offensive units aren't outclassed in literally everything---unit turns are hard to come by.)

That is, rather than 'anything that doesn't affect the meta isn't power creep,' or, 'literally anything new introduced is powercreep, even if it's an exact duplicate of another unit' (renames are still a power increase because it lets you ignore uniqueness clauses, kind of like being able to run 8 copies of Ponder or Brainstorm in MTG rather than 4), I use 'anything that's better in its niche than current options.'

 

Honestly it doesn't matter what we define as power creep, though, because I'm sure we can all agree that Ayra is: A, stronger in absolute terms than any current infantry sword, and B, barely above average in absolute terms in terms of all units.

Whether that's a problem or not is the real issue, I think, rather than whatever meanings any of us happens to attach to the term 'power creep.'*

 

Words are only useful when they communicate the meaning you meant to convey, and, honestly, 'power creep' is a really low tier phrase in terms of words---you don't need to point people towards a video to convince them of your definition of 'blue,' for example, nor do you need to say that 'I got like 50 degrees at Harvard, so my definition of blue is better than yours.'

 

*Edit: Personally I'm ambivalent. It's nice that infantry is getting a boost, but I'd much rather Infantry get bosted via Type Wide things like Wrath (Infantry and Armored), class buffs, or whatever, rather than some particular Infantry being better than the rest.

Edited November 12, 2017 by DehNutCase

[Ice Dragon]

1 minute ago, XRay said:

Trainee status is limited to a few characters and they usually make sense, like Amelia from Sacred Stones, Donnel from Awakening, and the villagers from Echoes. Ayra, TOD!Henry, and TOD!Jakob are not that special to deserve a stat boost lore wise in my opinion.

That doesn't make it any less arbitrary that trainees got a stat boost at all to begin with. You could just as well argue that main characters should get stat boosts or that characters that should be powerful in the original lore should get stat boosts.

Unlike the stat modifiers for ranged, cavalry, armor, and dancer, there is nothing in gameplay that would have necessitated those changes.

 

3 minutes ago, DehNutCase said:

you don't need to point people towards a video to convince them of your definition of 'blue,' for example, nor do you need to say that 'I got like 50 degrees at Harvard, so my definition of blue is better than yours.'

You can certainly point someone to a dictionary, though, and I'd argue that that's no different than pointing someone to a video authored by an expert in the field. Dictionary-writers are, after all, experts in their field, and dictionaries and videos are just different mediums for communicating information.

[DehNutCase]

4 minutes ago, Ice Dragon said:

You can certainly point someone to a dictionary, though, and I'd argue that that's no different than pointing someone to a video authored by an expert in the field. Dictionary-writers are, after all, experts in their field, and dictionaries and videos are just different mediums for communicating information.

Power creep is a new enough term that it's definition is more or less on the level of 'accepted use.' It's not like dictionary writers get their definitions from Mount Sinai or something.

Hell, 'power creep' is sufficiently new that I don't think Oxford dictionary even carries a definition for it.

 

Edit: I kind of like how words are like Nasu-verse spells, they get better, stronger, as they age, because more people accept one particular definition of a word or phrase, making them more useful.

Edited November 12, 2017 by DehNutCase

[Ice Dragon]

1 minute ago, DehNutCase said:

Power creep is a new enough term that it's definition is more or less on the level of 'accepted use.' It's not like dictionary writers get their definitions from Mount Sinai or something.

Hell, 'power creep' is sufficiently new that I don't think Oxford dictionary even carries a definition for it.

I think you misunderstood my point.

You can point someone to a dictionary to get a definition of "blue" because dictionary-writers are experts in the field of words in standard use.

You can point someone to an expert in game design to get a definition of "power creep" because esoteric jargon tends to be slow to be added to dictionaries.

[DehNutCase]

14 minutes ago, Ice Dragon said:

I think you misunderstood my point.

You can point someone to a dictionary to get a definition of "blue" because dictionary-writers are experts in the field of words in standard use.

You can point someone to an expert in game design to get a definition of "power creep" because esoteric jargon tends to be slow to be added to dictionaries.

Power creep feels more like a phrase that players used before developers did, though. Like, if I had to guess, it's much more likely D&D player A said 'holy hell the 2nd edition paladin is power creeped like crazy' than the writer for D&D went 'I'm going to power creep the hell out of druids for the next edition.'

 

That is, power creep should be slang rather than a technical term. It's still esoteric jargon, yeah, but it's esoteric jargon of villager #4875 rather than esoteric jargon of priest # 47 or whatever.

 

Edit: By which I mean, it's kind of like whether one prefers the PhD from Harvard's definition of ganger slang over a living, breathing, gang member's. We're gang members in this unfortunate analogy, because we're the weirdos who care enough about the word to argue over it.

Sure, the educated person would prefer the PhD's definition, because the educated person isn't about to go ask gangers about their slang, but the gangers themselves?

Edited November 12, 2017 by DehNutCase

[Ice Dragon]

6 minutes ago, DehNutCase said:

Power creep feels more like a phrase that players used before developers did, though. Like, if I had to guess, it's much more likely D&D player A said 'holy hell the 2nd edition paladin is power creeped like crazy' than the writer for D&D went 'I'm going to power creep the hell out of druids for the next edition.'

That is, power creep should be slang rather than a technical term. It's still esoteric jargon, yeah, but it's esoteric jargon of villager #4875 rather than esoteric jargon of priest # 47 or whatever.

Who ever mentioned developers? "Experts in game design" are not restricted to a game's developers.

Regardless of the origin of the word, the word has now become a technical term. Such is the development of language.

[DehNutCase]

5 minutes ago, Ice Dragon said:

Who ever mentioned developers? "Experts in game design" are not restricted to a game's developers.

Regardless of the origin of the word, the word has now become a technical term. Such is the development of language.

Technical term for whom?

A technical term is only useful is the person you're talking to, and you yourself, share the exact same definition.

 

Between you and the devs of that video, there's no issue, 'power creep' for you and them carries the same meaning, so the word is a nice, compact way to get the meaning across.

 

Between you and everyone else on this forum? Not so much.

 

A good, high tier slang term would be something like -blade, B!Lyn, B!Ike, even if it's the first time someone sees those, they have a reasonable shot at guessing their meaning, and, even if they didn't, their meaning is sufficiently unambiguous that, once someone tells them, they'll go, 'oh, that's actually kind of obvious,' and from that time forward know exactly the meaning -blade, B!Lyn, or B!Ike is meant to convey.

Note that nowhere in that process is pointing towards a video necessary, nor brandishing credentials.

 

'Power creep' is not a high tier slang term because it's one of those phrases which has a very obvious common core meaning, 'Stuff gets stronger over time in a game,' which no-one disagrees about, but it also has a load of extra, more technical meaning. It's when you try to load the extra meaning inside, the precise, technical definition, that things get sticky. It's nice to be able to pack large meanings into small words, but power creep can't currently do that because there's many ways one can look at 'power creep.' The problem, in short, is that, even if you're 'right' in your use use of 'power creep' by some arbitrary standard, it's still not a useful term to convey your meaning, because my meaning of 'power creep' is sufficiently different from yours that you'll have to spend a significant amount of time just to inform me of your definition.

It wouldn't make me a convert, which would cause me to inform others of your definition, it'll only allow communication between me and you, because I'll know, and adjust for, your definition of the term when we're talking.

This is hilariously inefficient---the whole point of packing large meanings into small words is to save time---imagine writing out Brave Heroes Ike or Gronnblade, Blárblade, and Rauðrblade, rather than B!Ike or -blade every single time. It's much more efficient, for example, to simply state: I define power creep as so and so at the first post, so everyone knows what you mean, or, better yet, simply say 'so and so is a state of affairs that I can't stand, and it's power creep to me.'

 

We care about 'so and so,' that is, what Ayra is doing to the game, more than the definition of power creep, which, honestly, I don't have strong feelings for. (Because it's a god damn low tier phrase. Even if I accepted your definition of the term, I still have to go inform literally every single person I ever talk to of the definition before I can use it on them, that's bloody pointless, it saves literally zero time.)

[Sire]

8 hours ago, Ice Dragon said:

I'm not sure why adding a new class modifier to the game is "breaking the 'theoretical formula'". It's no different than if trainees and veterans (or armors or ranged, etc., really any class modifier, though trainee and veteran are the most arbitrary) didn't exist at launch and were added later. The CYL winners' and the new "special" characters' stat boosts are simply new class modifiers.

Virtually no one had any objection back at launch to trainees having the stat boosts that they did and simply shrugged it off as "they're trainees" once it was explained.

Trainees make sense as they are typically put on villager characters, as X-Ray stated.
Veterans make sense because they are put on the Jagen archetype characters. (A shame since the journey does not matter as much as the destination in Heroes, but I digress.)

The class modifiers also make sense:
- Infantry units serve as the foundation.
- Flier units share the same stats as Infantry. They gain the ability to fly, but become weak to arrows.
- Cavalry units suffer a penalty to stats, are weak to Horseslayers, and cannot travel through Forests. However, they gain +1 Move, which is very powerful.
- Armored units gain bonuses to stats, but suffer against Armorslayers and suffer -1 Move.

Even Ranged and Dancer/Singer modifiers make sense, due to the power of ranged attacks and the power of granting a unit another action.

CYL modifiers, at least for me, was expected to be a one-time thing. I am okay with these units getting a boost because it was a special event. However, now that other characters are getting "Special" boosts that is basically on par with CYL boosts, I wonder what is the point of CYL in the first place. These boosts not only apply to stats, but to skills as well. Why does there have to be a "Special" modifier in the first place?
* * * * * * * * * *
I guess the point I am trying to make is that I expected CYL "power level" to be above the power curve and was okay with it since it was a "one-time thing." (I count the Black Knight being unofficially part of the CYL event.) However, new units are now matching CYL units in terms of "power level," and that concerns me. If there were just new trainees, I would not care because trainees typically only have better stats and not exclusive skills. We are now getting new units with better unique weapons and "Personal Skills" are becoming a thing.

Maybe I am just being petty about the numbers, but the picture I am seeing is a an overall increase in power with the new units. New weapons are better than the old ones. Personal skills, while adding flavor to units so they are no longer stat sticks with different personalities, can get out of hand.* While there may not be power creep now, the trend that I personally perceive is that Heroes is leaning towards that direction with the increases in power. That is what worries me and what sapped my enthusiasm for the game.

*I say Ayra is the biggest offender. If her Astra was simply a stronger variant on the vanilla skill, like the Black Knight, there may not be as much complaints. However, Ayra's Astra using SPD as a basis. That could have been a new inheritable skill line! // Arden and the Pursuit Ring can also be considered this. Yes, he is restricted by his movement and low RES, but when it works it is super effective.

[Ice Dragon]

52 minutes ago, Sire said:

Trainees make sense as they are typically put on villager characters, as X-Ray stated.
Veterans make sense because they are put on the Jagen archetype characters. (A shame since the journey does not matter as much as the destination in Heroes, but I digress.)

Since I have a flight to catch, I'll keep this post short.

The difference between trainees and veterans and the other class modifiers is that there is no gameplay reason for these modifiers to need to exist, meaning someone arbitrarily decided that for flavor purposes, "trainee" and "veteran" were "good enough" categories to create modifiers for whereas other categories were not. No one would have complained if those two categories were never introduced. The other class modifiers all make sense from a gameplay perspective as you somehow needed to point out to me despite me already saying so.

Also, "veteran" is pretty arbitrary since if it's Jeigan characters that get the modifier, Seth and Titania should also have it, but it's arbitrarily only used for Jeigan characters that are old.

Edited November 12, 2017 by Ice Dragon

[Sire]

23 minutes ago, Ice Dragon said:

Since I have a flight to catch, I'll keep this post short.

The difference between trainees and veterans and the other class modifiers is that there is no gameplay reason for these modifiers to need to exist, meaning someone arbitrarily decided that for flavor purposes, "trainee" and "veteran" were "good enough" categories to create modifiers for whereas other categories were not. No one would have complained if those two categories were never introduced. The other class modifiers all make sense from a gameplay perspective as you somehow needed to point out to me despite me already saying so.

Also, "veteran" is pretty arbitrary since if it's Jeigan characters that get the modifier, Seth and Titania should also have it, but it's arbitrarily only used for Jeigan characters that are old.

Fair enough. I tend to group everything together even if it has already been stated, so my apologies for repeating the class modifiers.

Have a safe trip!

[Rezzy]

To paraphrase Extra Credit, making a better version of something that was so weak it was never played doesn't count as powercreep if it doesn't raise above the powercurve and there are no foreseeable changes that would lead it to become higher than the power curve.  I'd argue that infantry melee is still viable.  It takes more investment, but it's not so weak that you'd never run it, especially if you are trying to minmax for Arena score.

The highlighted part, I think there's a few very foreseeable buff to Infantry that would set Ayra above the power curve.  If they add Infantry March or Hones Infantry, that would be a huge buff to infantry units, and Ayra, having outclassed any Sword without Distant Counter, will be the new standard that all future sword infantry have to be compared against.

 

Definitions can be a matter of debate, even without members of a professional field.  Everyone thinks they know what an organ is, like the liver or heart.  Well, some people in medicine consider any old vein an organ.  Technically, they are right per the definition of an organ, but at that point, the definition is so broad, it loses all meaning.

Contrast that with what you think an arm is.  You're thinking the thing that goes from your shoulder to your hand?  Wrong, the arm is actually just the part between the shoulder and the elbow.  Distal to that is the forearm.  The whole thing is the upper extremity.  I know what the proper definition is, but I'd get blue in the face and waste a ton of time, if I stopped to correct anyone after they slightly misused a medical term, when I and everyone else perfectly understood what they meant.  We also get into the debate of who actually owns the use of the word, the professionals or the lay people?

[Landjager]

I think the problem arises in that we are trying to use one term to describe two different things, which causes confusion.

One group thinks the word "creep" would suggest a slow, constant increase in power. This slow increase would be healthy for a game such as Heroes as it creates a steady flow of vested interest in the game for the consumer and profit for the developer. People who use "power creep" in this sense use it with a positive connotation to describe a natural change that is fair and balanced. Units or skills that fall into this definition of power creep can certainly invalidate similar skills or units and even change the meta, but they are only a small increase in power relative to ease of use and cost. Players without those units or skills still have a fair chance at doing well, and players with those units or skills are not left in a position where they feel there is never any reason to use anything else. I personally would use power creep in this sense if I used it at all. I would consider a character like Ayra to be a part of this definition.

The next group use it to describe a huge increase in power that is unfair or not balanced. These increases are generally considered unhealthy as they create unfair advantages for those who have access to the unit/skill. Players without the unit no longer have a reasonable chance at success for either PvE or PvP environments, and players who do have the unit feel there is never any reason to use anything else. A more apt term for this definition would be "power spike" and would carry a negative connotation. I don't feel Heroes has ever released a character that falls into this category, but I can come up with an example of one that easily could have existed. If H!Nowi's unique tome had 2 effects, the one it has now and an effect that ignored the weapon triangle, and instead of her A slot skill giving her Atk/Res +5 when next to an ally, it had an effect that nullified effective damage to Nowi from other units and gave Nowi effective damage against all weapon types whenever she was next to an ally, and she had a special skill that was Galeforce but with a 3 turn cooldown, that would fall into this definition. Players with H!Nowi would almost never need to use anything else, and players without her would be at a huge disadvantage.

2 hours ago, Rezzy said:

Contrast that with what you think an arm is.  You're thinking the thing that goes from your shoulder to your hand?  Wrong, the arm is actually just the part between the shoulder and the elbow.  Distal to that is the forearm.  The whole thing is the upper extremity.  I know what the proper definition is, but I'd get blue in the face and waste a ton of time, if I stopped to correct anyone after they slightly misused a medical term, when I and everyone else perfectly understood what they meant.  We also get into the debate of who actually owns the use of the word, the professionals or the lay people?

I like this point you bring up. Knowing your audience is key to any form of communication. At the end of the day, as long as the vast majority of people will be able to understand what you mean when you use a term, then you should use it. If not, just explain what it is you are trying to say (ex. Instead of "Ayra is power creep..." say "Ayra is unfair and not balanced because..."), or define the term yourself at the beginning so everyone can see what it is you mean going forward.

[DehNutCase]

52 minutes ago, Ressueah said:

The next group use it to describe a huge increase in power that is unfair or not balanced. These increases are generally considered unhealthy as they create unfair advantages for those who have access to the unit/skill. Players without the unit no longer have a reasonable chance at success for either PvE or PvP environments, and players who do have the unit feel there is never any reason to use anything else. A more apt term for this definition would be "power spike" and would carry a negative connotation. I don't feel Heroes has ever released a character that falls into this category, but I can come up with an example of one that easily could have existed. If H!Nowi's unique tome had 2 effects, the one it has now and an effect that ignored the weapon triangle, and instead of her A slot skill giving her Atk/Res +5 when next to an ally, it had an effect that nullified effective damage to Nowi from other units and gave Nowi effective damage against all weapon types whenever she was next to an ally, and she had a special skill that was Galeforce but with a 3 turn cooldown, that would fall into this definition. Players with H!Nowi would almost never need to use anything else, and players without her would be at a huge disadvantage.

Actually, we already have a unit that's obscenely overpowered yet hard to build---CC Vantage -blade Reinhardt.

The problem with that set isn't just the fact it's obscenely overpowered (35 Atk from +Atk nature, 13 from -blade, and 30 from buffs is 78 Atk---even Sheena, the bulkiest magic tank in the game, would get exactly OHKOd if she had been any color but green, and Rein has 38/27/25 natural bulk, good luck OHKOing that, because if you don't he drops down to Vantage range and starts Vantage sweeping), it's also that it takes one of the rarest skills in the game in to build.

Ironically, the very factor that should've made it cancerous, that only whales can afford to build it is what kept it under the radar. Even if someone uses the set they're such a minority---particularly because optimal deployment is something like 3 copies of Reinhardt and one copy of Leo all with CC, -blade, Vantage, and Fort and Hone equally distributed---that not enough of the player base would run into that kind of team composition for them to actually feel how obscene the best unit in the best unit type actually is.

 

B!Lyn is a far better target for 'power spike' complaints. It's not that she's stronger than Rein (she's not, Firesweep, Brave Bow, and Mulagir has nothing on -blade and Dire Thunder, and actual bulk---Reinhardt is equally tanky as Lyn on the magical side, Rein's bulk is absurd), it's the fact that everyone who wanted one got one, meaning her spike is actually noticeable.

In a way, it's very good design on FEH's part, overpowered units won't be noticed if they're hard to build, because too few people run them, and units that are strong, but everyone can get, are units that everyone has, meaning players don't feel too bad that their opponents have overpowered units---so do they.

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

On 11/12/2017 at 11:45 PM, Sire said:

*I say Ayra is the biggest offender. If her Astra was simply a stronger variant on the vanilla skill, like the Black Knight, there may not be as much complaints. However, Ayra's Astra using SPD as a basis. That could have been a new inheritable skill line! // Arden and the Pursuit Ring can also be considered this. Yes, he is restricted by his movement and low RES, but when it works it is super effective.

 

Regnal Astra is literally 2 CD Bonfire the same way Black Luna is 3 CD Ignis. When compared with Draconic Aura, it is a 17 damage special to Aura 14 damage. when compared to Bonfire its 17 vs 17.

 

I'm the very first person who would complain the hell out of Regnal Astra, because Cooldown reduction is fucking bullshit but nothing is really wrong with Regnal Astra being based on SPD because they actually scales it properly and it being a tier 2 skill actually makes it fairly tame..... unlike Black Luna but thats for another day

Edited November 14, 2017 by JSND Alter Dragon Boner