Heroica RPG Rules & FAQ

[JimBee]

While I would love to see Docken crawl into a corner and die because his insane build becomes completely useless, I like the suggestion of changing Counterstrike Gloves to 'returns damage dealt' better.

Agreed. Although this still does not solve the loophole because poison and deadly poison still exist. Granted, those are slightly harder to inflict since you'd actually have to hit the enemy to poison it.

[Brickdoctor]

But anyway, I agree with you on your point, but it still does not make the loophole go away.

Yes, it does, because if the enemies Levels are high enough, then the tanks can't use the wait-out strategy. And as for smaller battles with lesser enemies, why is it such a bad thing that tanks can wait-out lesser enemies? Not everybody a hero encounters will be stronger than his defenses, especially if the hero is constantly spending Gold to strengthen his defense.

Preventing heroes from being able to wait-out a boss makes sense. Trying to completely eliminate the wait-out strategy is penalizing tank classes for trying to fulfill their roles and spending Gold to augment their abilities.

If important enemies have higher Levels and lower HP, then the tanks remain valuable because they can absorb a hit. The Damage-dealing classes become more valuable because you have to kill the enemy more quickly. The healers become more valuable because heroes are taking more Damage. It makes everyone's role more important.

[CMP]

Agreed. Although this still does not solve the loophole because poison and deadly poison still exist. Granted, those are slightly harder to inflict since you'd actually have to hit the enemy to poison it.

If it's a boss or some other enemy one would want to wait out,, they're generally immune to negative effects nowadays anyway.

Trying to completely eliminate the wait-out strategy is penalizing tank classes for trying to fulfill their roles and spending Gold to augment their abilities.

No, it just ties up this loophole. Tanks can still take hits just like they're supposed to, but with editing the Gloves they won't nullify the need for damage-dealers either.

[Flipz]

But it's illogical! Counterstriking should be related on the hero's power, not on the enemy's power.

Actually, if you study counterstrike-like martial arts (i.e. Jujitsu), you'll find that it's more about turning the enemy's power against them than about waiting for an opening and using your own strength to throw a blow. In effect, it's more "the enemy runs into your fist" than "the enemy punches you and you retaliate".

[Brickdoctor]

No, it just ties up this loophole. Tanks can still take hits just like they're supposed to, but with editing the Gloves they won't nullify the need for damage-dealers either.

No, they'd be even more reliant on the Damage-dealers to kill the enemy more quickly because the enemies would have higher Levels and wouldn't allow tanks to wait them out. And with weaker enemies, like I said, why are we penalizing players for investing Gold so that they're stronger than weak enemies? Not every enemy a hero encounters will be stronger than him.

[CMP]

No, they'd be even more reliant on the Damage-dealers to kill the enemy more quickly because the enemies would have higher Levels and wouldn't allow tanks to wait them out.

Exactly.

Everyone keeps the same roles while preventing wait-out and forcing heroes to be less conservative in taking down harder enemies.

Edited October 5, 2013 by CallMePie

[Flipz]

Also, didn't we already have this discussion when "At Least One Damage" was vetoe'd?

[CMP]

Also, didn't we already have this discussion when "At Least One Damage" was vetoe'd?

That was when SP got too high. I don't believe that should be changed again. Now we're just trying to figure out how to prevent wait-out strategies and such. I don't think disallowing damage to be nullified is a good answer.

[Brickdoctor]

Exactly.

Everyone keeps the same roles while preventing wait-out and forcing heroes to be less conservative in taking down harder enemies.

I was referring to my proposal, not the Counterstrike change proposal. Higher Level means that tanks can't wait it out forever.

[Flipz]

That was when SP got too high. I don't believe that should be changed again. Now we're just trying to figure out how to prevent wait-out strategies and such. I don't think disallowing damage to be nullified is a good answer.

But that's exactly what Sandy's solution is: bypassing the efforts of Heroes who have put a lot of Gold into their SP, by disallowing their damage to be nullified.

The problem is not the SP. The problem is Heroes dealing passive damage. Thus, we don't need to change how we treat SP, we need to change how we treat Counterstriking and related abilities (i.e. my Zap-Tap Badge), so that Heroes need to take damage in order to passively deal it.

Edited October 5, 2013 by Flipz

[CMP]

I was referring to my proposal, not the Counterstrike change proposal. Higher Level means that tanks can't wait it out forever.

Generally that's a good idea, but it would mean Quests with super tanks like Docken and Hoke have enemies consistently over levels 50 and 56 to deal a single damage to them, which spells out certain death for the rest of the party. And if you try to balance it by offering lower level enemies, well, those are the ones tanks will try and wait out.

The problem is not the SP. The problem is Heroes dealing passive damage. Thus, we don't need to change how we treat SP, we need to change how we treat Counterstriking and related abilities (i.e. my Zap-Tap Badge), so that Heroes need to take damage in order to passively deal it.

Bingo, which is why I think the items are the problem here.

Edited October 5, 2013 by CallMePie

[Brickdoctor]

Generally that's a good idea, but it would mean Quests with super tanks like Docken and Hoke have enemies consistently over levels 50 and 56 to deal a single damage to them, which spells out certain death for the rest of the party. And if you try to balance it by offering lower level enemies, well, those are the ones tanks will try and wait out.

Then it'll result in smart party strategy and more dependence on healers, and it'll also make Rogues more valuable and check them at the same time since they'll need to buy more Phoenix Essences.

[CMP]

Then it'll result in smart party strategy and more dependence on healers, and it'll also make Rogues more valuable and check them at the same time since they'll need to buy more Phoenix Essences.

Seems like it'd just be less trouble to change the Gloves than going through all this trouble to balance out one tank in a Quest.

[Sandy]

Then it'll result in smart party strategy and more dependence on healers, and it'll also make Rogues more valuable and check them at the same time since they'll need to buy more Phoenix Essences.

Your suggestion would turn every battle into a "kill or be killed" situation, which is not desirable. Even though there are different builds such as tanks, damage-dealers and healers, it doesn't mean every person should only be able to do one single thing throughout the game.

That's exactly why I hate playing MMORPGs - they rarely let you fulfill more than one function in a party battle.

[CMP]

And it doesn't solve the wait-out strategy problem, especially because what you're suggesting is literally just asking the QMs to make tougher enemies, something that can't be regulated.

Edited October 5, 2013 by CallMePie

[Capt.JohnPaul]

How will they become useless?! Like I said, this only applies to situations where someone has overly high SP - and it's unlikely that a party has more than one of those. The squishy mages can be put last in the battle order, so the sturdier heroes absorb the damage then.

Low enough? Are you kidding me?! SP is meant to absorb some damage, not nullify it completely!

But the whole point of the knight is to absorb as much damage as possible. It punishes the party for having a tank with great SP. I think Passive Specials and harder enemies are what is necessary. As said above me, it could mean more reliance on healers and Rogues.

Because if a knight spends a ton of gold upgrading his shield, he deserves to nullify the damage.

[Brickdoctor]

Your suggestion would turn every battle into a "kill or be killed" situation, which is not desirable. Even though there are different builds such as tanks, damage-dealers and healers, it doesn't mean every person should only be able to do one single thing throughout the game.

That's exactly why I hate playing MMORPGs - they rarely let you fulfill more than one function in a party battle.

No, I'm suggesting to turn important battles into kill or be killed situations, which they should be anyways. The other battles are the ones that you expect the party to win, that you want them to win to progress, and which involve enemies who might realistically not be as strong as the strongest hero. (That doesn't mean they should be easy or automatic wins, just that it shouldn't be a big deal in that situation if one hero is able to kill one or two enemies without doing anything.) This doesn't force everyone to fulfill only one role, it only makes the basic roles more important. We'd still have consumables and multi-classing.

[Sandy]

It is decided then:

From now on, Counterstrike Gloves will deal damage equal to damage taken from a Free Hit back to the enemy.

Loophole fixed (I hope)! Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this discussion.

[CMP]

No, I'm suggesting to turn important battles into kill or be killed situations, which they should be anyways.

They usually already are, that's not the problem. The problem is making sure the wait-out strategy never gets abused, isn't it? Just because they're not important shouldn't mean lesser battles should be won without trying.

[Scubacarrot]

Just because they're not important shouldn't mean lesser battles should be won without trying.

QM Pro-tip #76: Make each battle as good as the next!

[Brickdoctor]

They usually already are, that's not the problem. The problem is making sure the wait-out strategy never gets abused, isn't it? Just because they're not important shouldn't mean lesser battles should be won without trying.

It's only being abused if it can be used on important enemies in important battles.

Lesser battles are rarely won entirely by Counterstriking. A high-SP hero might kill one or two enemies that way while the heroes kill the rest the old-fashioned way, and then at the end the heroes might sit back while the Counterstriking finishes off the last one or two.

[CMP]

It's only being abused if it can be used on important enemies in important battles.

If it's used at all it's being abused. It's a cheap strategy.

Edited October 5, 2013 by CallMePie

[Sandy]

and then at the end the heroes might sit back while the Counterstriking finishes off the last one or two.

Which means that the battle was impossible to lose to begin with. Which also means the battle was pointless.

This changes that. I'm happy now.

[CMP]

Lesser battles are rarely won entirely by Counterstriking. A high-SP hero might kill one or two enemies that way while the heroes kill the rest the old-fashioned way, and then at the end the heroes might sit back while the Counterstriking finishes off the last one or two.

That's where the problem is. Battles should be fought, not waited out.

[Brickdoctor]

Which means that the battle was impossible to lose to begin with. Which also means the battle was pointless.

No, it doesn't, because stacking Free Hits typically make it impossible to tank all the enemies at the beginning of the battle, and use of the Counterstrike strategy to finish the battle at the end is the result of decisions of whom to target at the beginning.