Heroica RPG General Discussion

[Scubacarrot]

That 1 point of damage a hit idea is a pile of poop.

Sorry, but this just seems to be a case of class and strategy envy.

Players invest their gold into SP for strategic reasons. That is how some people play.

I suppose we'll pull out any chance of a 1-hit KO because that is unfair too.

Me? I am making Tesni as tough as I can, that way I can work her as the meat sheild/ Tank to my hearts content.

Anything to avoid using brains I guess. We need clever QM's not nerfing.

Well thanks for insulting me. That was really helpful. How about being constructive?

I know who I don't want to QM. There is no need to be nasty like that.

[Waterbrick Down]

Alright I'm trying to take a step back and look at this as a whole, I agree that players need not be penalized for having improved their character's stats and that QM's need to be a little more creative, I also think we need to look at the QM's side of things as well. QM's spend hours getting their stories/characters/battles all straightend, often before a Party has even been selected. I personally do not like denying anyone entry to a quest just because they belong to a certain class or have a certain item, (Look at me, I took both Docken and Nur on the same quest ), but I also do not like having to revamp all of the battles just because a player is of a certain class or has a certain item. I won't be implementing the one point minimum damage rule any longer and will strive for some more creative solutions, but I would encourage us to consider the QMs' perspective as well as the hard time they put into making the game enjoyable for all of us.

[Palathadric]

You could have enemies who deal a certain amount of damage that is dependent on the heroes health. Like in Rumble Strikes last quest when Mr. Whatshisname's special cut the enemies health in half.

I don't know if anyone can make sense of this.

[Scubacarrot]

You could have enemies who deal a certain amount of damage that is dependent on the heroes health. Like in Rumble Strikes last quest when Mr. Whatshisname's special cut the enemies health in half.

I don't know if anyone can make sense of this.

That's a cool mechanic and all, but if you use it too much, there is less reason for progression, which is not really what you want as well, I think.

[Sandy]

Question do effects take effect during the same round they are implemented or on the following round?

I've played it so that they take effect immediately (because again, that's the most logical choice). I do agree that the wording for the effects is misleading, since it says "next three rounds", but the round it is implemented is one of those three.

As for the problem with high SP, I'm leaning more and more towards banning SP upgrades altogether (including using Mythril and the Mystic Knight's enhancement on shields). Otherwise the game will lead to a point where a player is slaughtered if he doesn't have SP. It won't solve the issue with Docken, but it would at least prevent it from getting worse. Any objections?

From a quest host's perspective, I still can't accept a rule that lower level enemies could automatically pierce SP, because that's the whole point of Shield Points in the first place - you get protection from low-level monsters.

[CMP]

That's a cool mechanic and all, but if you use it too much, there is less reason for progression, which is not really what you want as well, I think.

Right. You don't want to totally cripple the class with a bunch of specials like this, but use them sparingly enough to remind Knights they're not invincible.

[CorneliusMurdock]

Well thanks for insulting me. That was really helpful. How about being constructive?

I know who I don't want to QM. There is no need to be nasty like that.

No one insulted you specifically. Please calm down. Pep said the rule was poop. Just because she said it after your post does not mean that she was insulting you in any way. She was just voicing her opinion of the rule.

[Scubacarrot]

As for the problem with high SP, I'm leaning more and more towards banning SP upgrades altogether (including using Mythril and the Mystic Knight's enhancement on shields). Otherwise the game will lead to a point where a player is slaughtered if he doesn't have SP. It won't solve the issue with Docken, but it would at least prevent it from getting worse. Any objections?

From a quest host's perspective, I still can't accept a rule that lower level enemies could automatically pierce SP, because that's the whole point of Shield Points in the first place - you get protection from low-level monsters.

I don't think that's a good idea, that would make Knight's incredibly weak at a later stage in the game, unless they find sufficient and regular drops of SP equipment. .

[CMP]

As for the problem with high SP, I'm leaning more and more towards banning SP upgrades altogether (including using Mythril and the Mystic Knight's enhancement on shields). Otherwise the game will lead to a point where a player is slaughtered if he doesn't have SP. It won't solve the issue with Docken, but it would at least prevent it from getting worse. Any objections?

I think that's a very extreme measure, to be honest. Maybe just make it more expensive to upgrade a shield traditionally? Like, to upgrade a shield from SP 2 to SP 3 would cost 40 gold. Just multiply the SP it currently is by twenty. And even that might be going too far.

Edited August 17, 2012 by CallMePie

[Brickdoctor]

As for the problem with high SP, I'm leaning more and more towards banning SP upgrades altogether (including using Mythril and the Mystic Knight's enhancement on shields). Otherwise the game will lead to a point where a player is slaughtered if he doesn't have SP. It won't solve the issue with Docken, but it would at least prevent it from getting worse. Any objections?

If you make SP non-upgradable, Knights become much weaker. One of the major factors that makes Knights strong is that they can upgrade their SP. When I first started dropping artifacts to give SP to other classes, the ability to upgrade the SP is what kept Knights more powerful defensively than the heroes who carried artifacts. As they increase in Level and face harder enemies, Knights will become the weakest class for around ten Levels until they can multi-class.

[Palathadric]

That's a cool mechanic and all, but if you use it too much, there is less reason for progression, which is not really what you want as well, I think.

Well, it still would take a little longer to KO a hero with more health.

Sandy, I believe you didn't add Dak's hit in Quest #43 on Mr. Bear's final health. I think he should be at 287 health, unless I'm missing something.

By the way, go easy on Mr. Bear heroes, I have evidence that he is, indeed, not scum.

[TheBoyWonder]

I've played it so that they take effect immediately (because again, that's the most logical choice). I do agree that the wording for the effects is misleading, since it says "next three rounds", but the round it is implemented is one of those three.

As for the problem with high SP, I'm leaning more and more towards banning SP upgrades altogether (including using Mythril and the Mystic Knight's enhancement on shields). Otherwise the game will lead to a point where a player is slaughtered if he doesn't have SP. It won't solve the issue with Docken, but it would at least prevent it from getting worse. Any objections?

From a quest host's perspective, I still can't accept a rule that lower level enemies could automatically pierce SP, because that's the whole point of Shield Points in the first place - you get protection from low-level monsters.

I have to object. A knights shield is their key point. The upgrade of shields is vital for the class, as barely any quests give shields.

[CorneliusMurdock]

Any objections?

Objection. I'd much rather be dinged for one damage by low level enemies than not upgrade my shield at all.

What's the point in the knight classes without a good shield? You're already making SP more widely available in the marketplace. It's easily attainable for all classes now.

[Peppermint_M]

Why do we need minimum damage? Or a shield cap? Just make enemies stronger in a game. We chose to upgrade and we chose our classes to play the game how we wanted to within the ruleset. There will still be players who pick up armour or shields that are powerful, will we nerf them? There is no game imbalance right now and no problems really.

[Scubacarrot]

Why do we need minimum damage? Or a shield cap? Just make enemies stronger in a game. We chose to upgrade and we chose our classes to play the game how we wanted to within the ruleset. There will still be players who pick up armour or shields that are powerful, will we nerf them? There is no game imbalance right now and no problems really.

So first you insult me and then you admit to not reading anything said beforehand. Cute.

[Palathadric]

Why do we need minimum damage? Or a shield cap? Just make enemies stronger in a game. We chose to upgrade and we chose our classes to play the game how we wanted to within the ruleset. There will still be players who pick up armour or shields that are powerful, will we nerf them? There is no game imbalance right now and no problems really.

Well, there are only six advanced classes that can use any form of SP that is not in an artifact, so it likely would cause difficulties, but maybe heroes need to learn to not always fight from the front row or to carry a hell of a lot more Phoenix Essences on them.

[Sandy]

Well, where's the balance? Now I hear complains that knights are too powerful, but without SP upgrades they would be too weak. Help me out here!

I think I can agree to the "minimum of 1 damage" if it's universal - all classes would always get at least 1 damage from enemy attacks (unless the enemy is blinded or Sentinel is in effect... see, I'm already making exceptions to this rule as well! ). Would this be a fair solution?

Sandy, I believe you didn't add Dak's hit in Quest #43 on Mr. Bear's final health. I think he should be at 287 health, unless I'm missing something.

Thanks! This is exactly why I started making the result tallies visible. I just can't trust myself to take everything needed into account anymore, so I need the players to point out any possible mistakes or omissions.

[Scubacarrot]

Well, where's the balance? Now I hear complains that knights are too powerful, but without SP upgrades they would be too weak. Help me out here!

I think I can agree to the "minimum of 1 damage" if it's universal - all classes would always get at least 1 damage from enemy attacks (unless the enemy is blinded or Sentinel is in effect... see, I'm already making exceptions to this rule as well! ). Would this be a fair solution?

Yes! Victory!

[Sandy]

So first you insult me and then you admit to not reading anything said beforehand. Cute.

Stop picking up a fight, please. If you're irritated, go punch a wall or something.

[JimBee]

As for the problem with high SP, I'm leaning more and more towards banning SP upgrades altogether (including using Mythril and the Mystic Knight's enhancement on shields). Otherwise the game will lead to a point where a player is slaughtered if he doesn't have SP. It won't solve the issue with Docken, but it would at least prevent it from getting worse. Any objections?

Yes, I object, too. In addition to what others have said (especially BD), this really eliminates any desire for someone new to join as a knight. If a defense of 2 is as high as they can get (not including artifacts), then the class is pretty undesirable.

I'm all for creative QMs, like Peppermint M said, but this a game mechanic that has obviously become too powerful. Yes, there are creative ways around it, but I think they limit what a QM can do with enemies. Designing an enemy specifically to take down someone like Docken could be considered unfair, and maybe it even takes away from the quest because everyone is so focused on this little thing.

Here's a proposition: to limit how much a shield-bearing class can upgrade. This would not affect anyone with a shield currently, but for the future. For example, Knights levels 1-5 can have a max SP of 4, 6-10 can have a max of 6, 11-15 max of 8, 16-20 max of 10, 21-25 max of 15, and so on, limiting the SP of a shield as necessary when players actually get that strong. This would only be for actual shield upgrades, and not include any artifacts (or maybe it should who knows).

I think this is a good solution because as is, the problem is that shield classes are only powerful in comparison to other classes. Docken can outlast anyone, and win a battle even if it means his whole team is knocked out. This calls for stronger enemies, which can more easily defeat his teammates while still leaving him with a relatively good defense. However, as time goes on heroes will be more powerful and the difference in strengths will be less. Besides, it would cost 1600 gold to upgrade the Mythril Shield just once.

Thoughts?

[Tanma]

Well, where's the balance? Now I hear complains that knights are too powerful, but without SP upgrades they would be too weak. Help me out here!

I think I can agree to the "minimum of 1 damage" if it's universal - all classes would always get at least 1 damage from enemy attacks (unless the enemy is blinded or Sentinel is in effect... see, I'm already making exceptions to this rule as well! ). Would this be a fair solution?

At the risk of sparking further debate, how does this ruling affect NPC's with SP?

[Palathadric]

Thanks! This is exactly why I started making the result tallies visible. I just can't trust myself to take everything needed into account anymore, so I need the players to point out any possible mistakes or omissions.

You're welcome. Personally, I think it's fine to just say the amount of damage done, if someone wants to get into the math they can go ahead. If you have so many numbers it can make it almost more confusing.

I suppose the idea of dealing one damage no matter what does make sense, but knights are the only ones whom it really effects as they are the only ones who have a serious chance of not taking damage a "damage" number is rolled.

[Scubacarrot]

Stop picking up a fight, please. If you're irritated, go punch a wall or something.

Not my intention. I'll forget about it. Whatever was meant, let's call it a misinterpretation on my part.

[Palathadric]

-Snip-

This idea makes sense as far as I'm concerned, but, as you said, upgrading SP will get so insanely expensive by the time it reaches 15-20 SP that probably few heroes if any, will even bother to do it. I don't really think a limit is necessary because I believe the cost can serve as a cap. Docken was able to upgrade quickly because of the Mythril he got, but not many heroes will be able to buy mythril and certainly not at so cheap a price as he bought his for. :shrug:

[Endgame]

I look at colleges for a day and this happens.

I have to agree that enemies' could use a bit more zest. To quote a special I'll be using in 46:

Butterfinger Bash: Rams into a hero, making them drop everything equipped. The hero has to spend a turn picking up each piece of dropped equipment to use it again.

Thus, if someone wielding a shield gets Butterfinger Bashed, they either:

A) pick up their shield the next availible turn, forcing them to pick up their weapon the next

or

B) Scramble for their weapon and go without the shield until the situation si more under control.