Heroica RPG General Discussion

[UsernameMDM]

I'd suggest some sort of chart/sliding scale where enemy level & PC's SP affect the outcome. Something like a PC w/SP 10 has a 50% chance to take damage from enemies at level 11-15, 75%, level 16-20, etc.  Or something like that.

[Flipz]

7 hours ago, Waterbrick Down said:

I'm not claiming the Free Hits system is the best, I'm claiming it's needed for the given roll system we utilize today.  Your logic holds true, but it requires an overhaul to our current mechanics.

I don't really see how it would be *that* much of a change; Free Hits would still be negated same as currently by targeting the enemy (thus giving them a chance to roll Damage or Special Damage), only in the new system an enemy that gets a Free Hit would get a roll of the dice to see if it's a regular hit for regular damage, some form of Critical (the exact rate of which could even be customized per enemy so barbarian-like enemies (for example) could get 3x instead of 2x), or their Special.

7 hours ago, Waterbrick Down said:

Do people want to spend time going after little goildfish? In a live session, destroying a bunch of mooks can be done quickly and easily, in a play-by-post format.however, days/weeks spent on fodder battles can take time away from higher stake battles. 

That's just it--a battle against fodder doesn't have to take days/weeks, because it's not supposed to be balanced to take that long.  One of the biggest problems in the game is how long and drawn-out battles have become, and they don't have to be that long because it's perfectly fine to have battles where enemies can get one-shot.  QMs seem to be fine with one-shotting Heroes, but we all balk at letting the Heroes do the same to our enemies; I'm saying we should maybe fight that impulse a bit and lean into the Heroes being powerful from time to time.  (Yes, that also means that AoE can end up trivializing a fight even more than intended, but so what?  Why is a battle that's only 2-3 Rounds so much worse than one that takes 5-7 or 8-9?  There's no inherent point to making a battle last longer than it needs to, and that's even more relevant as characters reach higher levels and the experience requirements to actually advance start to get more and more absurd and boring to have to wait for.)

And I mean, for that matter, what makes a "higher stakes battle" inherently better than a lower-stakes one?  If you just constantly keep raising the stakes with no relaxation or stress relief in between, burnout becomes almost impossible to avoid; for as bad a reputation as "filler" content gets, it exists for a reason, and when used wisely can majorly improve the overall pacing of an experience, whether that experience is a show or an RPG or something else entirely.

7 hours ago, Waterbrick Down said:

This moves us toward a THACO or AC system (not saying that's a bad idea), right now aside from class features, all heroes have the same probability to be hit. The only thing that differentiates the tanks from the squishies is damage reduction. The down side to that is that overcoming damage reduction has the downside of doing massive damage to those without it and there in lies the problem. 

I'd suggest capping SP at somepoint then and reinforcing artifacts such that only certain "tank" classes can be capable of hitting that cap.

Definitely agree that, as nice and simple as the current SP system is, letting players just increase damage reduction at will is not ultimately viable; there's a reason D&D makes that so hard.  At the same time, setting up a system that then requires a fixed cap seems off to me; suddenly, instead of players increasing their SP as much as *they* want to for the sake of suiting their build, SP becomes a matter of simple upkeep, wherein all players end up capping their SP eventually and those that don't being mavericks/challenge-hunters neglecting a basic and universal strategy of baseline competence. (i.e. not going for Botanist in Stardew Valley, or not taking Eldritch Blast as a Warlock in D&D 5e).  Whatever system we use for SP, I do feel like keeping it something that isn't capped is important, even as we try to make it a system where that infinite scaling doesn't end up creating infinite scaling on the enemy side in response.

[UsernameMDM]

How about a system with just Hits and not Hit Points for both PCs and enemies?  

 

[Waterbrick Down]

5 hours ago, Flipz said:

I don't really see how it would be *that* much of a change; Free Hits would still be negated same as currently by targeting the enemy (thus giving them a chance to roll Damage or Special Damage), only in the new system an enemy that gets a Free Hit would get a roll of the dice to see if it's a regular hit for regular damage, some form of Critical (the exact rate of which could even be customized per enemy so barbarian-like enemies (for example) could get 3x instead of 2x), or their Special.

That only makes the heroes more powerful. Instead of having to worry about guaranteed hits if they don't prioritize their actions, there's now only a 1/2 chance of something bad happening.

6 hours ago, Flipz said:

That's just it--a battle against fodder doesn't have to take days/weeks, because it's not supposed to be balanced to take that long.  One of the biggest problems in the game is how long and drawn-out battles have become, and they don't have to be that long because it's perfectly fine to have battles where enemies can get one-shot.  QMs seem to be fine with one-shotting Heroes, but we all balk at letting the Heroes do the same to our enemies; I'm saying we should maybe fight that impulse a bit and lean into the Heroes being powerful from time to time.  (Yes, that also means that AoE can end up trivializing a fight even more than intended, but so what?  Why is a battle that's only 2-3 Rounds so much worse than one that takes 5-7 or 8-9?  There's no inherent point to making a battle last longer than it needs to, and that's even more relevant as characters reach higher levels and the experience requirements to actually advance start to get more and more absurd and boring to have to wait for.)

Because 2 rounds or 10, it still takes the same amount of energy from the QM to generate the original battle. We don't balk at enemies that can one-shot a hero because they only have a 1/6 chance to do it. We balk at heroes one-shotting enemies because they have a 1/2 chance to do it. I'm not necessarily arguing against easy battles, but we're currently arguing about a sample size of 1 QM currently. 

6 hours ago, Flipz said:

And I mean, for that matter, what makes a "higher stakes battle" inherently better than a lower-stakes one?  If you just constantly keep raising the stakes with no relaxation or stress relief in between, burnout becomes almost impossible to avoid; for as bad a reputation as "filler" content gets, it exists for a reason, and when used wisely can majorly improve the overall pacing of an experience, whether that experience is a show or an RPG or something else entirely.

I think balance is the key here, there's been a couple of quests where there were complaints about battles being too easy. Perhaps the fix is the XP system, right now a challenging battle yields as much XP as an easy battle. As a QM I always fear that other players not on my quests will feel that my party is getting too much XP based upon the difficulty of the battles.

7 hours ago, Flipz said:

Definitely agree that, as nice and simple as the current SP system is, letting players just increase damage reduction at will is not ultimately viable; there's a reason D&D makes that so hard.  At the same time, setting up a system that then requires a fixed cap seems off to me; suddenly, instead of players increasing their SP as much as *they* want to for the sake of suiting their build, SP becomes a matter of simple upkeep, wherein all players end up capping their SP eventually and those that don't being mavericks/challenge-hunters neglecting a basic and universal strategy of baseline competence. (i.e. not going for Botanist in Stardew Valley, or not taking Eldritch Blast as a Warlock in D&D 5e).  Whatever system we use for SP, I do feel like keeping it something that isn't capped is important, even as we try to make it a system where that infinite scaling doesn't end up creating infinite scaling on the enemy side in response.

That's just it though, we'd need a logarithmic function to stats (ala Dark Souls) where you can certainly invest more in SP, but it ends up having less and less of a benefit after a certain point. Same could go for offensive power or HP, the issue isn't so much that people can increase SP infinitely, it's that anyone can increase it infinitely. Because level increases lead to the same increases in power and health for all classes, there's not a huge difference between them at higher levels. And when SP can be increased through consumables, a mage can end up having as much SP as a knight. If you stick to capping SP for certain classes or having it logarythmically decay at different points, the differentiation between classes becomes much more apparent.

2 hours ago, UsernameMDM said:

How about a system with just Hits and not Hit Points for both PCs and enemies?  

How would higher level heroes do more damage than lower heroes?

[UsernameMDM]

39 minutes ago, Waterbrick Down said:

How would higher level heroes do more damage than lower heroes?

Got to think about that one.

[Flipz]

39 minutes ago, Waterbrick Down said:

That only makes the heroes more powerful. Instead of having to worry about guaranteed hits if they don't prioritize their actions, there's now only a 1/2 chance of something bad happening.

What?  No, no...Free Hits need to be inherently negative, they're a counter to Heroes all piling on to the same target to take it down quickly, representing enemies having a chance to sneak in a hit while the Heroes are distracted doing other things.  I'm just saying it could be something along the lines of a 1/3 chance to be either regular Damage, Critical Damage, or Special Damage.

42 minutes ago, Waterbrick Down said:

Because 2 rounds or 10, it still takes the same amount of energy from the QM to generate the original battle. We don't balk at enemies that can one-shot a hero because they only have a 1/6 chance to do it. We balk at heroes one-shotting enemies because they have a 1/2 chance to do it. I'm not necessarily arguing against easy battles, but we're currently arguing about a sample size of 1 QM currently. 

Not...really?  I mean, it's not zero effort, but it's exactly what stealing borrowing enemies from other QMs and the Fields is for.   I mean, heck, it's a perfect use for known monsters with known stats that suddenly makes upgrading a Hero's stats worthwhile again; if odds are good that random encounters will be mostly premade enemies with premade stats, suddenly those are fixed numbers that upgrades are meaningful for dealing with.  Again, it's still work, but certainly a lot less than making up new stuff wholecloth for a fight, especially if you don't really worry about making it harder so the Heroes don't plough through it.

47 minutes ago, Waterbrick Down said:

I think balance is the key here, there's been a couple of quests where there were complaints about battles being too easy. Perhaps the fix is the XP system, right now a challenging battle yields as much XP as an easy battle. As a QM I always fear that other players not on my quests will feel that my party is getting too much XP based upon the difficulty of the battles.

Complaints from the players actually playing, or complaints from other people not on the quest who aren't getting that experience?  If it's the latter, that complaint is about as valid as people outside a quest complaining that they're not getting the specific cool loot from a particular Quest, which is to say not valid at all.  (Yes, I'm aware I've complained about missing out on Expert Classes before; I fully acknowledge my complaints back then were baseless, and we've rather fully established that past-me could always be a bit of an idiot. )  Not all battles are equal, not all Quests are equal, and games don't always need to be Dark Souls/AD&D in terms of difficulty of progression.  Some of us play for fun, after all.

54 minutes ago, Waterbrick Down said:

That's just it though, we'd need a logarithmic function to stats (ala Dark Souls) where you can certainly invest more in SP, but it ends up having less and less of a benefit after a certain point. Same could go for offensive power or HP, the issue isn't so much that people can increase SP infinitely, it's that anyone can increase it infinitely. Because level increases lead to the same increases in power and health for all classes, there's not a huge difference between them at higher levels. And when SP can be increased through consumables, a mage can end up having as much SP as a knight. If you stick to capping SP for certain classes or having it logarythmically decay at different points, the differentiation between classes becomes much more apparent.

Oh, certainly, I'm just much more in favor of a logarithmic increase than a hard cap.   I think the increasing Gold cost of upgrades was supposed to serve that function here, but in practice that fell apart pretty quickly due to economic factors; baking it into the stats themselves is far safer to overall balance.

5 hours ago, UsernameMDM said:

How about a system with just Hits and not Hit Points for both PCs and enemies? 

55 minutes ago, Waterbrick Down said:

How would higher level heroes do more damage than lower heroes?

15 minutes ago, UsernameMDM said:

Got to think about that one.

Honestly, my only real issue with this is my fear that QMs would just resort to enemies having 20/20 hits all the time instead of like 20000/20000 HP like we currently have; at least with the HP numbers if QMs start making things too insanely tanky, there's always ways to whittle that down faster if needs be.  (Why yes, I did think the Hatchling mobs ended up with Levels too low and hit counts too high, how ever did you guess? )  But that's again a discussion about difficulty and balancing in general, as opposed to a problem specifically with a pure number-of-hits system.  (That said, your complaint here perfectly illustrates my frustration with the continually moving goalposts of our current style of "balancing"; in parties without mixed level ranges, we effectively already have this number-of-hits system, and it runs into the exact problem you just pointed out.)

I'm not sure I like the idea I'm about to propose, but theoretically a number-of-hits system could be balanced for mixed-level parties by having the weakest member of the party count for "1 hit", and then the number of hits dealt by the other party members are mathematically determined based on how much higher their Level and WP are compared to the baseline?  IDK, I can already tell there's flaws to that, but it's at least a direction to start looking in if we wanted to go down this route.

 

[UsernameMDM]

44 minutes ago, Flipz said:

I'm not sure I like the idea I'm about to propose, but theoretically a number-of-hits system could be balanced for mixed-level parties by having the weakest member of the party count for "1 hit", and then the number of hits dealt by the other party members are mathematically determined based on how much higher their Level and WP are compared to the baseline?  IDK, I can already tell there's flaws to that, but it's at least a direction to start looking in if we wanted to go down this route.

Like the sliding scale I proposed with SP?  Certain level heroes do X hits on this range of level enemies?

[Palathadric]

3 hours ago, Flipz said:

Some of us play for fun, after all. 

 

3 hours ago, Flipz said:

we've rather fully established that past-me could always be a bit of an idiot.

You are not alone. Looking back at some of the things I advocated or resisted.

I think at the end of the day, we will always ruin every game, because we do want to break things and we do want to be the supreme hero (Gaston, is that you? ) who can kill any beast. I mean, really, very few people would willingly allow their hero to die/be KOed, and so long as that is the case, a PC will always play it safe, especially if the good of the party is at stake.

I mean, there could be some sort of bonus/treasure you get for the amount of damage you do, thus encouraging PCs to take risks and be daring...I don't know.

Edit: Of course, this could lead to people competing too much with one another and sometimes putting the party at risk for their own sake...

You could also have some sort of reward for HP healed, damage blocked by armour, etc.

Edited August 28, 2018 by Palathadric

[Flipz]

1 hour ago, Palathadric said:

You could also have some sort of reward for HP healed, damage blocked by armour, etc.

Gods, yes please!  Healers never got enough love in Heroica, and the dice roll on their healing made them less valuable than consumables in a pinch.  Some love for the lovable support is definitely in order for those brave, tormented souls.

1 hour ago, Palathadric said:

I think at the end of the day, we will always ruin every game, because we do want to break things and we do want to be the supreme hero (Gaston, is that you? ) who can kill any beast. I mean, really, very few people would willingly allow their hero to die/be KOed, and so long as that is the case, a PC will always play it safe, especially if the good of the party is at stake.

True, and I suppose one disadvantage of a simple system is that it makes the system that much easier to optimize/powergame.  However, and we've touched on it before, I think that the harshness of failure (i.e. fear) is a much bigger motivator for our overcautious behavior than any need for power and self-aggrandizement; it's still there, of course, I just think it's the lesser motivation.  I can set aside my pride for the sake of playing along with a Quest fairly easily, but the fear that the QM could kill off a dearly beloved NPC I've come to cherish for literal years awakens a hollow dread in me that is far more difficult to ignore, particularly if that death comes because I failed to have the most optimal strategy possible.  Non-optimal outcomes are far easier to stomach when the difference between "overwhelming success" and just plain normal "success" doesn't mean lives.

...or I guess in other words, y'all can blame my paranoid powergaming on Zepher (and, more recently, WBD).

Edited August 28, 2018 by Flipz

[KotZ]

On 8/26/2018 at 9:29 PM, samurai-turtle said:

I usually do, if I look in the thread.

One of spam threads have a picture of Asian lady in a pinkish swimsuit, standing in front of the ocean. Which I find unusual itself, but I haven't looked in that many spam threads. (I kinda don't want them thinking their tactics work.) 

They've returned. Sans pictures though.

6 hours ago, Flipz said:

I can set aside my pride for the sake of playing along with a Quest fairly easily, but the fear that the QM could kill off a dearly beloved NPC I've come to cherish for literal years awakens a hollow dread in me that is far more difficult to ignore, particularly if that death comes because I failed to have the most optimal strategy possible... Non-optimal outcomes are far easier to stomach when the difference between "overwhelming success" and just plain normal "success" doesn't mean lives.

I agree to an extent (I'll physically, well no not actually) kill for Diana for Kiray's story. I think that at times, Heroica has high stakers regarding characters, but we play too safe to get the best possible outcome. Maybe that's metagaming it (I know I have), rather than playing how our respective characters would play. But there is a truth to GMs (myself included) making outcomes be between "overwhelming success" and "success".

[Palathadric]

2 hours ago, KotZ said:

I agree to an extent (I'll physically, well no not actually) kill for Diana for Kiray's story. I think that at times, Heroica has high stakers regarding characters, but we play too safe to get the best possible outcome. Maybe that's metagaming it (I know I have), rather than playing how our respective characters would play. But there is a truth to GMs (myself included) making outcomes be between "overwhelming success" and "success".

*Peeks head in*

"Diana sucks!"

Boy, I hope Kiray (or KotZ for that matter) didn't hear me...

[samurai-turtle]

21 hours ago, KotZ said:

They've returned. Sans pictures though.

Another one shows up, and the picture this time is an Asian lady in a red bathing suit crawling around in a bathtub.

I kinda wish I am capable of reading the spam. I wonder what they are selling, I am guessing some sort of dateing site. 

[Palathadric]

  Why are you discussing spam posts here?  

Maybe we should have a spam discussion thread.

"What will these spammers do next?" 

[Palathadric]

I'm kind of confused by the Deep Pockets passive special. Does that mean that each one of them gets a chance to copy our item use? So, then if we use a potion, mead, etc., each one of them gets can possibly use one too? What happens with bombs?

Will they do to themselves as we do to ourselves and do to us as we do to them?

[Lind Whisperer]

39 minutes ago, Palathadric said:

I'm kind of confused by the Deep Pockets passive special. Does that mean that each one of them gets a chance to copy our item use? So, then if we use a potion, mead, etc., each one of them gets can possibly use one too? What happens with bombs?

Will they do to themselves as we do to ourselves and do to us as we do to them?

On 8/26/2018 at 10:59 PM, Waterbrick Down said:

Passive Special I: Deep Pockets - 1/2 chance copy the usage of any item by the Party right after usage

I think, if you use a Nostrum(for example), they then have a 1/2 chance at becoming Lucky.

As to your second question, it specifies any item, so I should think it would be the same thing(at least how it's currently written, WBD may want to change this). A 1/2 chance to counter-attack the player.

Third question - I assume so. I don't really see them using Nostrums on the enemy, or attacking themselves. 

Edited August 30, 2018 by Lind Whisperer

[Sir Orion]

Coming from a fan of this game but has never played, I was thinking Monsters had their own rolls. 1 is the enemy's special, 2 is a critical hit.....But i haven't figured this one out yet, 3 is a regular hit just the monster's level. 4 is damage hit by hero for WP only, 5 is critical damage, struck by hero's WP x2 6 is special damage, hero's shield is triggered. Does this sound good? Obviously  it needs balancing but otherwise pretty good right? will be interested in what others think!

[samurai-turtle]

2 hours ago, Palathadric said:

  Why are you discussing spam posts here?  

Maybe we should have a spam discussion thread.

Because, they showed their ulgy heads here, that is why. Plus, I thought it will give people something else to talk about besides how to fix the future "version two of Heroica". Besides that stuff can get a little dry and technical. Also some of it gets a little long witch could be a little hard to follow. 

 

Like here...

https://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/123319-a-quick-comment-on-spam/

Edited August 30, 2018 by samurai-turtle
Add comment

[samurai-turtle]

1 hour ago, Sir Orion said:

Coming from a fan of this game but has never played, I was thinking Monsters had their own rolls. 1 is the enemy's special, 2 is a critical hit.....But i haven't figured this one out yet, 3 is a regular hit just the monster's level. 4 is damage hit by hero for WP only, 5 is critical damage, struck by hero's WP x2 6 is special damage, hero's shield is triggered. Does this sound good? Obviously  it needs balancing but otherwise pretty good right? will be interested in what others think!

How about this...

1- the enemy's special 

2- double enemy's level 

3- the regular hit 

4- miss (no one gets hurt)

5- hero's level for counter attack 

6- hero's level plus equipped weapon for counter attack 

This seems a little more balanced and similar to a hero's roll. And I don't think it is a good idea to give extra "shields" out or getting deployed. (If I am reading your response right, but I could be getting a little confused here.) 

[Sir Orion]

2 hours ago, samurai-turtle said:

How about this...

1- the enemy's special 

2- double enemy's level 

3- the regular hit 

4- miss (no one gets hurt)

5- hero's level for counter attack 

6- hero's level plus equipped weapon for counter attack 

This seems a little more balanced and similar to a hero's roll. And I don't think it is a good idea to give extra "shields" out or getting deployed. (If I am reading your response right, but I could be getting a little confused here.) 

This was what I had in mind. Thanks for helping!

P.S I really liked how your character looked in Heroica!

[Waterbrick Down]

9 hours ago, Palathadric said:

I'm kind of confused by the Deep Pockets passive special. Does that mean that each one of them gets a chance to copy our item use? So, then if we use a potion, mead, etc., each one of them gets can possibly use one too? What happens with bombs?

Will they do to themselves as we do to ourselves and do to us as we do to them?

Exactly. You throw a bomb at them, they'll possibly throw one back.

[Palathadric]

So, what if I use a Nostrum on one of them, will they all try to use a Nostrum on me? I must be a friend, right?

[Waterbrick Down]

6 hours ago, Palathadric said:

So, what if I use a Nostrum on one of them, will they all try to use a Nostrum on me? I must be a friend, right?

 I feel like you're trying to validate a certain strategy without giving it away. If you were to use a Nostrum on them they'd have a 1/2 chance to use a Nostrum on you. The idea is that they mimic consumable use of the party to their advantage. If you're going down the route of "Pretzel drinks poison in order to force the enemy to drink poison", that's against the intent of the effect and if you need me to add a bunch of caveats to the special I can do so.

[Palathadric]

No. I actually wanted to self-destruct.

I didn't think I was particularly being subtle.

But in that line of thinking. I storm off hissing "Coises! Foiled again!" 

[Palathadric]

  Should've remembered to put conditional actions about us going to the Harbour...ah well!

[Waterbrick Down]

Just as a heads up folks, I'll be on vacation camping with no real internet access starting tomorrow till Saturday, so no update till then.