Waterbrick Down

Heroica RPG 2.0

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Also I disagree with your point on the battle grid.  You would still be able to hit a target for any of the positions.  In reality you would just have to adjust where you are facing.  Would you not do that?  There are no obstacles obscuring your line of sight.  I would find it absurd to only be able to attack from two different angles with ranged weapons.  It just makes no sense to me.

I must be misunderstanding something - It seemed to me that the second grid allows a player to attack any square on the grid, regardless of position. Perhaps @Endgame can clarify? 
 

Edited by Classic_Spaceman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Endgame said:

Let's talk about attacking diagonally, actually, because I think there are two different possible interpretations. In the following graphics, blue is the max range of melee, green is the max range of short range, and red is the max range of long range. White is a space you can't hit.

The two possible interpretations are 45 degree angles only:

kGBS2Wf.png

And any diagonal works:

MM743uU.png

I've personally been using the latter interpretation - does anyone have any sort of opinion on this? I will have to sit down and consider the pros and cons of both...

Well the second one seems more realistic,  just turn x amount of degrees and fire. The first one would be considered simpler to run with. Of course I haven't brought up obstacles, the first might have to be used for that. 

1 hour ago, Classic_Spaceman said:


For example: Electrical weapons deal a stun effect, Sonic weapons ,knock enemies backwards, etc. 

You bring up "Sonic Weapons", well if you look up Doctor Who and Big Bad Beetle Borgs (talk about an old show) that type of weapon have a wide range of effects. Big Bad Beetle Borgs have a weapon call Sonic Lazer (a toy "gun" I have) and on the side it has a number pad witch you could adjust the beam type to set stuff on fire or freeze it (and so on). So I am thinking the range of effects can be quite vast. 

18 minutes ago, Goliath said:

 

@Endgame

Just a thought but I have no idea how to work in Energy Weapons because arguably they could do the same thing.  Suppose you have a Energy Weapon that shoots extremely hot plasma, you would think that would Incinerate the target, yes? 

Well my thinking is energy or plasma is like fire and lightning. So you would probably get burn or stunned, and maybe cold fusion I guess you would be frozen. :def_shrug: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Classic_Spaceman said:

I must be misunderstanding something - It seemed to me that the second grid allows a player to attack any square on the grid, regardless of position. Perhaps @Endgame can clarify? 
 

Every single square pictured in the second example can be targeted using the "any angle" rule, yes. The first example features blind spots, so to speak, because of the fact that you could only fire in 8 directions.

And yes, it is a smidge unrealistic, being a square attack radius - alas, we are living in a square world. :tongue: From a player perspective, I feel like the second option just feels better, because an enemy 2 spaces directly above you being able to walk out of range by walking a square to the left would feel bad. They're out of range all of a sudden, despite being no further away from you. This is especially bad, because moving and attacking are different actions, and all of a sudden you spend turns chasing an enemy just to get it back in your line of fire

That being said, I like how the 8-directional rule works, because it makes heroes think about their positioning more and gives them safe spots.

But I think what this debate, and those example pictures, also reveals is - and something I've been gnawing on for a long time - why would you ever want to use a melee weapon?

One last edit in regard to Elemental weapons having status effects attached: mulled it over, but I think that would just make them straight up better than the other damage types... Plus, simplicity is nice. There's enough mechanics in place right now before we even layer on an Elemental system.

Edited by Endgame

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer the second method, but I would measure distance using orthogonal movement.  So the range for spaces that are not in the same row or column is the distance to reach that space going up/down and left/right.  To move 1 square diagonally is a distance of 2.  It would result in a grid closer to this.

kLmStNX.png&c0x=3&c0y=3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, joeshmoe554 said:

I prefer the second method, but I would measure distance using orthogonal movement.  So the range for spaces that are not in the same row or column is the distance to reach that space going up/down and left/right.  To move 1 square diagonally is a distance of 2.  It would result in a grid closer to this.

*snip*

I really like that - my only fear is that it makes running battles hard for a MM to manage... plus, now melee weapons are even worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Endgame said:

I really like that - my only fear is that it makes running battles hard for a MM to manage... plus, now melee weapons are even worse.

How is that harder?  The range to any cell is the number up/down + the number left/right.  If the target is 2 cells left and 1 cell down, then the range is 3.  That seems about the same as checking the number up/down and left/right and using the larger of the two numbers.

It would limit melee weapons a little bit more, but you shouldn't bring a knife to a gun fight. :classic:

In all seriousness, guns shouldn't work in melee range so if your opponent gets into melee range you should either need to use a melee weapon or hand to hand combat.  A fast opponent could incapacitate someone who only has ranged weapons by getting into melee range.  Melee weapons could also be a more limited weapon allowing more powerful versions of those weapons to exist.  Melee weapons will always have a smaller range than the other weapons so people should try to consider other advantages to melee in order to make that a valid choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Classic_Spaceman said:

What about incorporating these effects into Elemental weapons, so that they do more than just inflict "Elemental Damage"? 
For example: Electrical weapons deal a stun effect, Sonic weapons knock enemies backwards, etc. 

 

1 hour ago, Goliath said:

One of the key talking points was to have multiple bits of gear rather than relying on the same.  So, what if the certain weapon categories can have certain effects?  For example, Kinetic weapons can Lacerate / cause Bleeding and Poison whereas Elemental weapons can Incinerate, Shock, and Freeze enemies?  Just a thought but I have no idea how to work in Energy Weapons because arguably they could do the same thing.  Suppose you have a Energy Weapon that shoots extremely hot plasma, you would think that would Incinerate the target, yes?

I have to disagree with this. Wasn't the point of having only three types of damage to reduce the massive dependency on items characters in the previous system had? Wouldn't subdividing damage types into effect based subsets just bring back that problem all over again and add unnecessary complexity to the system? As I understand it the emphasis in this system is supposed to be on the character's skills and abilities and not their equipment.

2 minutes ago, Endgame said:

I really like that - my only fear is that it makes running battles hard for a MM to manage... plus, now melee weapons are even worse.

A suggestion:

Have the eight squares immediately adjacent to the player be melee range, the twelve squares adjacent to those in straight lines be short range, and the sixteen squares bordering the entire agglomeration be long range. This would result in an approximation of a series of concentric circles around the character. However, if I'm being honest that idea seems a bit finicky. I feel one of the original suggestions is not only more intuitive but more in line with the intent of the original rules.

As for melee weapons I honestly don't see any reason for using them other than as a backup for an artillery weapon, the way the movement rules work at the moment really hobble them.

12 minutes ago, joeshmoe554 said:

In all seriousness, guns shouldn't work in melee range so if your opponent gets into melee range you should either need to use a melee weapon or hand to hand combat.  A fast opponent could incapacitate someone who only has ranged weapons by getting into melee range.  Melee weapons could also be a more limited weapon allowing more powerful versions of those weapons to exist.  Melee weapons will always have a smaller range than the other weapons so people should try to consider other advantages to melee in order to make that a valid choice.

But wouldn't making melee weapons rarer make it harder for people who want to primarily use melee to find upgraded replacements for their starting weapons? And wouldn't hobbling ranged weapons in that manner cause problems for people who want to primarily specialize in those? Remember, you have to spend points on proficiencies for weapons of specific ranges to make using them viable. And there's an attribute tax for using weapons of specific damage types, so people are going to want to specialize rather heavily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lord Duvors said:

But wouldn't making melee weapons rarer make it harder for people who want to primarily use melee to find upgraded replacements for their starting weapons? And wouldn't hobbling ranged weapons in that manner cause problems for people who want to primarily specialize in those? Remember, you have to spend points on proficiencies for weapons of specific ranges to make using them viable. And there's an attribute tax for using weapons of specific damage types, so people are going to want to specialize rather heavily.

Limited as in range, not in availability.  Since melee weapons have the smallest range, they can be more powerful while still remaining balanced.

You can definitely specialize, but how is a ranged character being unable to use their weapon at range 1 any different than a melee character that can't use their weapon at range 3?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Endgame said:

Every single square pictured in the second example can be targeted using the "any angle" rule, yes. The first example features blind spots, so to speak, because of the fact that you could only fire in 8 directions.

And yes, it is a smidge unrealistic, being a square attack radius - alas, we are living in a square world. :tongue: From a player perspective, I feel like the second option just feels better, because an enemy 2 spaces directly above you being able to walk out of range by walking a square to the left would feel bad. They're out of range all of a sudden, despite being no further away from you. This is especially bad, because moving and attacking are different actions, and all of a sudden you spend turns chasing an enemy just to get it back in your line of fire

That being said, I like how the 8-directional rule works, because it makes heroes think about their positioning more and gives them safe spots.

But I think what this debate, and those example pictures, also reveals is - and something I've been gnawing on for a long time - why would you ever want to use a melee weapon?

One last edit in regard to Elemental weapons having status effects attached: mulled it over, but I think that would just make them straight up better than the other damage types... Plus, simplicity is nice. There's enough mechanics in place right now before we even layer on an Elemental system.

I think for the sake for simplicity we should use your second battle grid.  It makes sense overall too.  Otherwise position management will bog down combat way too much and make it last much longer than it needs too.  If combat takes up a majority of the mission I think that is problematic.

That is actually a really good question.  I think the advantage Melee users should get is that they cannot be attacked by Artillery and Long Range Weapons if they are right in front of an enemy yielding said weapon.  Otherwise they would take damage I assume.  As for Ranged combatants who are immune to Melee attacks until the gap is closed.

12 hours ago, joeshmoe554 said:

It would limit melee weapons a little bit more, but you shouldn't bring a knife to a gun fight. :classic:

In all seriousness, guns shouldn't work in melee range so if your opponent gets into melee range you should either need to use a melee weapon or hand to hand combat.  A fast opponent could incapacitate someone who only has ranged weapons by getting into melee range.  Melee weapons could also be a more limited weapon allowing more powerful versions of those weapons to exist.  Melee weapons will always have a smaller range than the other weapons so people should try to consider other advantages to melee in order to make that a valid choice.

Every playstyle should be viable otherwise Melee will just be there but never used..

I think only Short Ranged Weapons should be able to counter Melee enemies.  I am thinking along the lines of Pistols and Shotguns here.  Artillery and Long Range Weapons should not just because of the overall size of these weapons.  Having a long barrel is not convenient at shooting close range because you would smack the enemy with the barrel. :laugh: 

12 hours ago, Lord Duvors said:

I have to disagree with this. Wasn't the point of having only three types of damage to reduce the massive dependency on items characters in the previous system had? Wouldn't subdividing damage types into effect based subsets just bring back that problem all over again and add unnecessary complexity to the system? As I understand it the emphasis in this system is supposed to be on the character's skills and abilities and not their equipment.

I think you are misunderstanding.

There are the three weapon categories: Kinetic, Energy, and Elemental.  Later on in the game, these weapons can be found or obtained with bonus properties depending on the type or what the same says.  For example, Solar Cannon (+1 Energy Artillery, +1 Incinerate).  A basic variant of that weapon could be something like this, Shoulder-Mounted Cannon (+1 Kinetic Artillery).

The whole point of the system is so players do not rely on the same weapon and armor every mission.  I mean, you still could in theory but it would be ill advised.  Suppose you go against enemies immune to Energy-based weapons, you would want something to counter that otherwise you are doing the least amount of damage possible.  If enemies can be resistant to weapon types, I would imagine they would be resistant to certain status effects too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Endgame said:

Every single square pictured in the second example can be targeted using the "any angle" rule, yes. The first example features blind spots, so to speak, because of the fact that you could only fire in 8 directions.

And yes, it is a smidge unrealistic, being a square attack radius - alas, we are living in a square world. :tongue: From a player perspective, I feel like the second option just feels better, because an enemy 2 spaces directly above you being able to walk out of range by walking a square to the left would feel bad. They're out of range all of a sudden, despite being no further away from you. This is especially bad, because moving and attacking are different actions, and all of a sudden you spend turns chasing an enemy just to get it back in your line of fire

That being said, I like how the 8-directional rule works, because it makes heroes think about their positioning more and gives them safe spots.

But I think what this debate, and those example pictures, also reveals is - and something I've been gnawing on for a long time - why would you ever want to use a melee weapon?

I think that the first grid (45-degree angles only) should be used for diagonal attacks and movement. Pros include that it forces collaboration and strategy among players (as no single player can hit every target on the board), it allows injured players to evade attacks by moving to un-targeted squares, and it does not effectively make long-range weapons into artillery weapons. Additionally, it is more intuitive, and simpler to calculate, with regard to the game’s structure - That is to say, if ranges are dictated by a given number of adjacent squares, determining attacks and movement would simply be a matter of counting squares in a direct line. 
The only Con that I can think of for this grid is that enemies can simply sidestep attacks, forcing players to expend a turn to move back in-range. That said, by allowing movement and switching of weapons to be combined with other actions in a single turn (which I want to see happen anyway, as this would considerably increase battles’ speed and available strategies), this problem would be resolved. 

As for the issue of weapon ranges, I suggest combining long-range and short-range weapons into a single category (“Ranged Weapons”), and changing the range to a maximum of four squares and a minimum of two. Melee Weapons would still have a range of one square, but would now be required for attacks from that distance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will round up all these thoughts and post a more detailed post when I get back home at my main set-up, but if I want to comment on one thing, I would be reluctant to make melee weapons required to hit enemies a space away... Because then short range and long range weapons just become crappier versions of artillery weapons.

One thought I had was to make it easier for melee weapons to hit. Normally, when you roll the "proficiency" part of the damage calculation, a 1-3 is a fail and a 4-6 is a success. What if:

  • Melee weapons had a 2/3 chance of Success per roll (e.g. a 3-6 becomes a success)
  • Short range weapons had the normal 1/2 chance (4-6 is a success)
  • And long range/artillery got a 1.3 chance (5-6 is a success)

It's a touch unintuitive, but it is a way to make melee weapons intrinsically hit harder without having to go to the nasty realm that is multipliers. :tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Goliath said:

I think you are misunderstanding.

There are the three weapon categories: Kinetic, Energy, and Elemental.  Later on in the game, these weapons can be found or obtained with bonus properties depending on the type or what the same says.  For example, Solar Cannon (+1 Energy Artillery, +1 Incinerate).  A basic variant of that weapon could be something like this, Shoulder-Mounted Cannon (+1 Kinetic Artillery).

The whole point of the system is so players do not rely on the same weapon and armor every mission.  I mean, you still could in theory but it would be ill advised.  Suppose you go against enemies immune to Energy-based weapons, you would want something to counter that otherwise you are doing the least amount of damage possible.  If enemies can be resistant to weapon types, I would imagine they would be resistant to certain status effects too.

I wouldn't object to that, it's just that the original proposal seemed to suggest making different status effects inherent to different forms of elemental damage.

7 hours ago, Classic_Spaceman said:

I think that the first grid (45-degree angles only) should be used for diagonal attacks and movement. Pros include that it forces collaboration and strategy among players (as no single player can hit every target on the board), it allows injured players to evade attacks by moving to un-targeted squares, and it does not effectively make long-range weapons into artillery weapons. Additionally, it is more intuitive, and simpler to calculate, with regard to the game’s structure - That is to say, if ranges are dictated by a given number of adjacent squares, determining attacks and movement would simply be a matter of counting squares in a direct line. 
The only Con that I can think of for this grid is that enemies can simply sidestep attacks, forcing players to expend a turn to move back in-range. That said, by allowing movement and switching of weapons to be combined with other actions in a single turn (which I want to see happen anyway, as this would considerably increase battles’ speed and available strategies), this problem would be resolved. 

Several things:

  1. Neither system 'forces' more collaboration or strategy between the players, they simply alter the tactics available. And though I think collaboration is a good thing I object to being 'forced' to do anything.
  2. Players can still avoid attacks by moving to untargeted squares, the difference is between moving to one side and moving away from the enemy. The former is easier then the latter but it's still possible either way.
  3. The second system does not 'effectively make long range weapons into artillery weapons', an artillery weapon can attack any non adjacent square regardless of the wielder's position. A long range weapon can only attack every square in a grid within a specific range of grid sizes and positions within that grid. Positioning oneself so centrally would probably put the player in range of a multitude of enemies whereas using artillery would allow one to accomplish the same from a position of greater safety. And this is not considering the fact that the necessary squares might be occupied or inaccessible, that the grids in future may be far larger then the one's we're using now, or even things that haven't come up yet, like cover, terrain, or line-of-sight.
  4. Edit: Sorry, forgot this one. I just wanted to say that in either system determining attacks is still a matter of counting squares in a straight line, it's just that the number of allowable angles is different.

That said I do agree with most of your other points and think they're good ones, I just don't think they're enough to convince me.

5 hours ago, Endgame said:

One thought I had was to make it easier for melee weapons to hit. Normally, when you roll the "proficiency" part of the damage calculation, a 1-3 is a fail and a 4-6 is a success. What if:

  • Melee weapons had a 2/3 chance of Success per roll (e.g. a 3-6 becomes a success)
  • Short range weapons had the normal 1/2 chance (4-6 is a success)
  • And long range/artillery got a 1.3 chance (5-6 is a success)

It's a touch unintuitive, but it is a way to make melee weapons intrinsically hit harder without having to go to the nasty realm that is multipliers. :tongue:

While that might make up for the difference in ranges I'm slightly worried about creating specific exemptions to an otherwise universal rule. And I don't know if we can add a lot of that stuff while still being simple enough to be accessible. Still, I can't really see any other objections to the idea.

Edited by Lord Duvors
point 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lord Duvors said:

Several things:

  1. Neither system 'forces' more collaboration or strategy between the players, they simply alter the tactics available. And though I think collaboration is a good thing I object to being 'forced' to do anything.
  2. Players can still avoid attacks by moving to untargeted squares, the difference is between moving to one side and moving away from the enemy. The former is easier then the latter but it's still possible either way.
  3. The second system does not 'effectively make long range weapons into artillery weapons', an artillery weapon can attack any non adjacent square regardless of the wielder's position. A long range weapon can only attack every square in a grid within a specific range of grid sizes and positions within that grid. Positioning oneself so centrally would probably put the player in range of a multitude of enemies whereas using artillery would allow one to accomplish the same from a position of greater safety. And this is not considering the fact that the necessary squares might be occupied or inaccessible, that the grids in future may be far larger then the one's we're using now, or even things that haven't come up yet, like cover, terrain, or line-of-sight.
  4. Edit: Sorry, forgot this one. I just wanted to say that in either system determining attacks is still a matter of counting squares in a straight line, it's just that the number of allowable angles is different.

That said I do agree with most of your other points and think they're good ones, I just don't think they're enough to convince me.

1.) By "force", I meant that the first grid does not allow a player to stand nearly anywhere the board and be able to hit almost every target. By having fewer squares that can be targeted, the first grid requires players to think more about their starting positions, and to collaborate with each other to ensure that all enemies are covered, rather than simply standing at the centre (or near the centre) and attacking in virtually any direction. Moreover, due to the nature and structure of the game (namely, the presence of other party-members), collaboration is already "forced", so I fail to see how this would be an objection to the Grid 1 system. 
As an example of my issues with the second grid, consider a player with a long-range weapon on the current Battle Grid layout: 
 - Under the Grid 1 system: D3 hits both Drones and Trips; C2 hits Drone A, Samba, and Jek; C3 hits Trips; C4 hits Drone B, Samba, and Jek; B2 hits both Drones, Samba, and Trips; B3 hits all enemies; B4 hits both Drones, Trips, and Jek. Only one square (B3) can target all enemies, and it is in-range of even melee weapons. 
 - Under the Grid 2 system (As I understand it): D2, D3, and D4 hit all enemies (with the possible exceptions of Drone B from D2 and Drone A from D4), and these squares are only in-range of long-range weapons (and are thus safe from Samba, Trips, and Jek). 

On 2/6/2020 at 5:43 PM, Endgame said:

PjSip3r.png


2.) True, but I prefer the more straightforward way, as (probably due to my being new to the game) I find it easier to conceptualise. Additionally, moving to the side, rather than back, could put a player out of the range of one enemy, but allow another enemy to be targeted safely during the next round (See moving from C3 to either C4 or C2, if the only enemies were Samba, Trips, and Jek). 
3.) I was referring to the stand-at-the-centre-and-attack-all-directions strategy. I know that long-range weapons would not actually become artillery weapons under the Grid 2 system, but the effect would be the same from certain squares (namely D3, C3, and B3). 

As a side-note, I actually oppose the inclusion of artillery weapons in the game, specifically because I feel that they are over-powered as compared to the other weapon ranges, and that they would encourage players just to stand as far back as possible and safely attack the entire board (E2, E3, E4). 
 

Edited by Classic_Spaceman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Endgame said:

I would be reluctant to make melee weapons required to hit enemies a space away... Because then short range and long range weapons just become crappier versions of artillery weapons.

What is the purpose of the different weapon types? Currently, I see melee weapons as useless, short-range weapons as inferior to long-range (particularly since weapons' ranges are selected by the player), and artillery as over-powered. Some kind of requirement is needed, IMO, in order to justify not using only long-range (or artillery, if available) weapons. 🤔
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Lord Duvors said:

I wouldn't object to that, it's just that the original proposal seemed to suggest making different status effects inherent to different forms of elemental damage.

I feel like some of it would be questionable though.  I just have no idea how an Elemental Weapon would cause Bleeding. 

9 hours ago, Classic_Spaceman said:

What is the purpose of the different weapon types? Currently, I see melee weapons as useless, short-range weapons as inferior to long-range (particularly since weapons' ranges are selected by the player), and artillery as over-powered. Some kind of requirement is needed, IMO, in order to justify not using only long-range (or artillery, if available) weapons. 🤔
 

How is melee useless? :shrug_confused:

If anything ranged weapons would become less useful with the battle format you favor.  Melee users have no "blind spots" so to speak whereas ranged users do. 

Just as an example, based on the battle grid we are using for our battle, suppose I was using a Short Ranged Weapon and am at D1.  An enemy moved to C3.  I would not be able to attack the enemy because the combat rules dictate that I cannot though technically it is within two spaces, my attack range.  Sure I could move but if there are other players using Short Ranged Weapons it seems like we almost have to compete for positioning.  And if we fight on larger battle grids, the "blind spot" situation will just get much worse.

And I have no idea where you are getting this notion that artillery weapons are overpowered.  They have not been put on display yet...

Edited by Goliath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Goliath said:

I feel like some of it would be questionable though.  I just have no idea how an Elemental Weapon would cause Bleeding. 

 And I have no idea where you are getting this notion that artillery weapons are overpowered.  They have not been put on display yet...

If I had to guess a good wind attack could cause bleeding. :def_shrug: 

I am surprised no one has tried to use an artillery yet. :wink: 

As for range verse melee weapons, I wouldn't mind if their needs to be a (probably just one) space with range weapon. I was playing another game (Shining Force) and the archers needed to have a distance between the enemy. Plus Shining Force basically uses a square grid for combat. If anyone wants to play it, it is on the Sega Genesis Mini (I guess you could download load it from some wear too). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, samurai-turtle said:

If I had to guess a good wind attack could cause bleeding. :def_shrug: 

I am surprised no one has tried to use an artillery yet. :wink: 

As for range verse melee weapons, I wouldn't mind if their needs to be a (probably just one) space with range weapon. I was playing another game (Shining Force) and the archers needed to have a distance between the enemy. Plus Shining Force basically uses a square grid for combat. If anyone wants to play it, it is on the Sega Genesis Mini (I guess you could download load it from some wear too). 

Actually, you might be on to something.  I just had the thought of some sort of emitter gun.  Think along the lines of the Mesmetron from Fallout 3 or Lucio from Overwatch.  Something like those could cause bleeding but they might be better suited for Energy Weapons.  However, if something were to shoot hail or small sandstorms those could cause bleeding! :devil:

Something like that could work but I think Artillery weapons should follow that principle.  If you attack someone within melee range with an Artillery weapon it would probably hurt you too.  Unless you choose to go for a build that involves doing that? :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Classic_Spaceman said:

Moreover, due to the nature and structure of the game (namely, the presence of other party-members), collaboration is already "forced", so I fail to see how this would be an objection to the Grid 1 system. 

It's not that I object to cooperation being required between players due to the nature of the system. What I object to is the use of the word 'forced' as it has connotations of aggressive coercion and being made to do things under duress.

17 hours ago, Classic_Spaceman said:

2.) True, but I prefer the more straightforward way, as (probably due to my being new to the game) I find it easier to conceptualise.

Everyone here is new to the game, especially the grid system (something the previous iteration didn't have).

17 hours ago, Classic_Spaceman said:

3.) I was referring to the stand-at-the-centre-and-attack-all-directions strategy. I know that long-range weapons would not actually become artillery weapons under the Grid 2 system, but the effect would be the same from certain squares (namely D3, C3, and B3). 

Yes, I understood what you we're referring to the first time, that's why I specifically went over the differences between doing that and using an artillery weapon. And you do realize that this is exactly what I said in the point that this is supposed to be a response to, right? The only difference I can detect is that you didn't go over the relative cons of doing this over using an artillery weapon as I did.

17 hours ago, Classic_Spaceman said:

1.) By "force", I meant that the first grid does not allow a player to stand nearly anywhere the board and be able to hit almost every target.
As an example of my issues with the second grid, consider a player with a long-range weapon on the current Battle Grid layout: 
 - Under the Grid 1 system: D3 hits both Drones and Trips; C2 hits Drone A, Samba, and Jek; C3 hits Trips; C4 hits Drone B, Samba, and Jek; B2 hits both Drones, Samba, and Trips; B3 hits all enemies; B4 hits both Drones, Trips, and Jek. Only one square (B3) can target all enemies, and it is in-range of even melee weapons. 
 - Under the Grid 2 system (As I understand it): D2, D3, and D4 hit all enemies (with the possible exceptions of Drone B from D2 and Drone A from D4), and these squares are only in-range of long-range weapons (and are thus safe from Samba, Trips, and Jek). 


Additionally, moving to the side, rather than back, could put a player out of the range of one enemy, but allow another enemy to be targeted safely during the next round (See moving from C3 to either C4 or C2, if the only enemies were Samba, Trips, and Jek). 

You don't seem to understand, I have never objected to any of this. In fact I alluded to some of these things perviously as being strengths of the system and being arguments in it's favor. You have to understand that ultimately I'm fine with using either system, It's just that I prefer the second one because I feel it's a better representation of reality.

7 hours ago, Goliath said:

If anything ranged weapons would become less useful with the battle format you favor.  Melee users have no "blind spots" so to speak whereas ranged users do. 

Just as an example, based on the battle grid we are using for our battle, suppose I was using a Short Ranged Weapon and am at D1.  An enemy moved to C3.  I would not be able to attack the enemy because the combat rules dictate that I cannot though technically it is within two spaces, my attack range.  Sure I could move but if there are other players using Short Ranged Weapons it seems like we almost have to compete for positioning.  And if we fight on larger battle grids, the "blind spot" situation will just get much worse.

49523489246_5916ea666e_o.jpg

Here, have a visual aid.

For reference, purple indicates locations that can only be targeted by artillery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent visualization, @Lord Duvors.  Honestly I think that helps the argument on using the first set of combat rules @Endgame has shown.  Based on that grid, the player could attack two more spots with Short Ranged Weapon and four more spots with Long Ranged Weapons if those rules were applied.  But because the range is far superior to all other weapons there should be a penalty for attacking too close.  Such as sustaining splash damage like I suggested.  Or, as unpopular as this may sound, you have to take a turn to reload your weapon.

Unless we can all agree to give Long Range Weapons one more attack range and add Medium Range Weapons and set that range to the current Long Range Weapons range.  It would at least close the gap a bit.  I am personally for this solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Goliath said:

Excellent visualization, @Lord Duvors.  Honestly I think that helps the argument on using the first set of combat rules @Endgame has shown.  Based on that grid, the player could attack two more spots with Short Ranged Weapon and four more spots with Long Ranged Weapons if those rules were applied.  But because the range is far superior to all other weapons there should be a penalty for attacking too close.  Such as sustaining splash damage like I suggested.  Or, as unpopular as this may sound, you have to take a turn to reload your weapon.

Unless we can all agree to give Long Range Weapons one more attack range and add Medium Range Weapons and set that range to the current Long Range Weapons range.  It would at least close the gap a bit.  I am personally for this solution.

I fail to see how that would help, the inability to target anything in melee range with an artillery weapon already accomplishes everything that a splash damage effect would without raising questions like 'do artillery weapons do splash damage to enemies as well' or 'do artillery weapons do splash damage to other players?' And considering how restrictive the action system already is making people reload their weapons would just make using ranged weapons tedious in the long run.

And I don't think increasing the granularity of the system would help either. You can add as many new range increments as you like, but it doesn't make artillery worse or melee better.

On 2/11/2020 at 1:07 PM, Goliath said:

And I have no idea where you are getting this notion that artillery weapons are overpowered.  They have not been put on display yet...

Actually they have, the Oozeling Stoic from the first battle had one. It never did any damage with it because of Endgame's rules blunder, but even if it did it wouldn't've been able to do more than two damage with it anyway. Which brings up something important; an artillery weapon may have a larger range, but it doesn't inherently do more damage or target more characters then any other weapon.

22 hours ago, samurai-turtle said:

As for range verse melee weapons, I wouldn't mind if their needs to be a (probably just one) space with range weapon.

As Endgame has already said, this really just turns ranged weapons into worse artillery weapons.

On 2/10/2020 at 5:38 PM, Classic_Spaceman said:

As for the issue of weapon ranges, I suggest combining long-range and short-range weapons into a single category (“Ranged Weapons”), and changing the range to a maximum of four squares and a minimum of two. Melee Weapons would still have a range of one square, but would now be required for attacks from that distance. 

To be blunt, I feel this would just decrease the tactical complexity of battles. And it would effectively require every character to carry the same loadout of one ranged and one melee weapon. A greater degree of granularity in design allows for greater differentiation in player's equipment without sacrificing overall effectiveness. One thing I will say is that I do think that artillery should have an upper limit to it's range, especially in light of a concept for larger battlegrids I've been working on.

19 hours ago, Lord Duvors said:

49523489246_5916ea666e_o.jpg

Here, have a visual aid.

For reference, purple indicates locations that can only be targeted by artillery.

To come back to this thing, there's two things I want to point out:

  1. This image represents a system where the first interpretation of what squares are targetable is applied. As you can see there is a clear discrepancy, namely that artillery weapons are clearly operating on the second interpretation of the rule instead. This frankly makes them better then everything else in use.
  2. There are squares immediately adjacent to melee range that can only be targeted by artillery. I don't know about you lot, but to me the idea of having to use the longest range weapon in the game to target a square that close without moving just feels bad.

The point is that in this example the is no parity between different weapon types. If balance is to be maintained then every weapon's targeting should work the same way, regardless of the system used.

On 2/10/2020 at 7:40 PM, Endgame said:

One thought I had was to make it easier for melee weapons to hit. Normally, when you roll the "proficiency" part of the damage calculation, a 1-3 is a fail and a 4-6 is a success. What if:

  • Melee weapons had a 2/3 chance of Success per roll (e.g. a 3-6 becomes a success)
  • Short range weapons had the normal 1/2 chance (4-6 is a success)
  • And long range/artillery got a 1.3 chance (5-6 is a success)

It's a touch unintuitive, but it is a way to make melee weapons intrinsically hit harder without having to go to the nasty realm that is multipliers. :tongue:

Upon further thought I've come more and more to agree with this proposal. It creates a greater incentive to use melee without removing the advantages of having range, and if compensates for the otherwise overwhelming superiority of artillery. And there's also the fact that it just feels better to me than all the weapon range adjustments everyone else has been proposing (including the ones I came up with that I haven't posted here).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Lord Duvors said:

...

@Endgame, I'm expecting what I'm trying to work like a normal attack other then explicitly trying not to kill Jek. Is that correct?

I wasn't planning on having Jek die immediately after battle, anyway, so you're good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Lord Duvors said:

...

@Endgame, I'm expecting what I'm trying to work like a normal attack other then explicitly trying not to kill Jek. Is that correct?

@Endgame: How is this different from a stun/non-lethal setting on weapons? 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Classic_Spaceman said:

@Endgame: How is this different from a stun/non-lethal setting on weapons? 
 

It's usually convention (at least when I ran things) that, in combat, if you reduce a major NPC to zero health, they don't immediately die. Note the part where you have to actually fight them and reduce their HP to zero, though. It's also more akin to shooting/blasting/aiming/swinging a hammer with intent to injure rather than kill, than changing the setting on a weapon. I'm fine with taking down an enemy in non-lethal fashion, but you have to do it by fighting them, not just before battle.

Of course, Mission Masters reserve the right to say that if they hit zero in battle, they're just straight up dead. Everyone does thing differently. :classic:

Edited by Endgame

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Lord Duvors said:

I fail to see how that would help, the inability to target anything in melee range with an artillery weapon already accomplishes everything that a splash damage effect would without raising questions like 'do artillery weapons do splash damage to enemies as well' or 'do artillery weapons do splash damage to other players?' And considering how restrictive the action system already is making people reload their weapons would just make using ranged weapons tedious in the long run.

And I don't think increasing the granularity of the system would help either. You can add as many new range increments as you like, but it doesn't make artillery worse or melee better.

The reload mechanic suggestion is specific to Artillery Weapons only... as I stated, as a way to balance out the superior range it has currently.  And I do think that splash damage needs to be addressed at some point.  They are explosive weapons and should act accordingly to a degree.  If they can be found later on with that effect than that is perfectly fine.  It certainly is not something needed immediately.

What about Bombs?  If Heroica 1.0 had Bombs that literally anyone could access, how would they work here?

Maybe it is just me but Long Range Weapons do not feel very long range.  When I think Long Range Weapons, I think of high powered rifles and rail guns.  Weapons that require pinpoint accuracy.  When I think Short Ranged Weapons I think of shotguns and even pistols.  What about basic rifles and the likes?  Weapons that are not as accurate as Long Ranged Weapons but more accurate than Short Ranged Weapons.  They do not fit either category.

At least I am coming up with ideas and possible solutions.  The quicker we address these things the faster we hammer in the rules.

On 2/10/2020 at 7:40 PM, Endgame said:

Will round up all these thoughts and post a more detailed post when I get back home at my main set-up, but if I want to comment on one thing, I would be reluctant to make melee weapons required to hit enemies a space away... Because then short range and long range weapons just become crappier versions of artillery weapons.

One thought I had was to make it easier for melee weapons to hit. Normally, when you roll the "proficiency" part of the damage calculation, a 1-3 is a fail and a 4-6 is a success. What if:

  • Melee weapons had a 2/3 chance of Success per roll (e.g. a 3-6 becomes a success)
  • Short range weapons had the normal 1/2 chance (4-6 is a success)
  • And long range/artillery got a 1.3 chance (5-6 is a success)

It's a touch unintuitive, but it is a way to make melee weapons intrinsically hit harder without having to go to the nasty realm that is multipliers. :tongue:

I could get behind this.  I actually like it a lot the more I think about it.

My only gripe is the hit chance success for Long Ranged Weapons.  I feel they should at least follow the same chances as Short Ranged Weapons.  What is the point of a marksman who misses more often than not? :grin:

Unless... unique loot can be found to make your chances better? :look:

And if Medium Ranged Weapons become a thing I would just group that with the other ranged weapons.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.