Free to Play - No Download
Idea for Revising Skill System
Dungeoneers
Sep 12, 2020 19:07

Seeking feedback …

We are considering a system for higher hero level limits, with a simplified skill system. Here’s the idea:

Riposte, Flame Shot, and Bellow skills will be removed as skills and turned into unlocks that any hero can use. (Maybe Bellow would take the form of a horn that you find in the dungeon.)

The elf’s Long Shot would be changed to Multi Shot (you also shoot any monster adjacent to, and the same range as, your target).

Rather than each hero having 4 skill types with 2 levels each, each hero would have 3 skill types with 4 levels each. So the resulting skills would be:

Swordsman: Full Swing (I - IV), Parry (I - IV), Press (I - IV) Huntress: Leap Attack (I - IV), Evade (I- IV), Multi Shot (I - IV) Brawler: Uppercut (I - IV), Hunker (I - IV), Frenzy (I - IV)

The level cap would go from 16 to 24, and we would probably increase XP awards so that progression would be faster. We might need to change the feat equation slightly - maybe cap the bonus at +10.

For more details, or to comment, please go to the forum.

Sep 12, 2020 19:16

The skills could work something like this:

SWORDSMAN:

Full Swing I: +1 sword; cleave 20%
Full Swing II: +2 sword: cleave 30%
Full Swing III: +3 sword; cleave 40%
Full Swing IV: +4 sword; cleave 50%

Parry I: Melee: guard with higher of sword/shield.
Parry II: Melee: guard with higher of sword/shield; counter at +1
Parry III: Melee: guard with higher of sword/shield; counter at +2
Parry IV: Melee: guard with higher of sword/shield; counter at +3

Press I: +1 to sword if target can’t move
Press II: +2 to sword if target can’t move
Press III: +3 to sword if target can’t move
Press IV: +4 to sword if target can’t move

HUNTRESS:

Leap Attack I: 10% chance of disorientation
Leap Attack II: 30% chance of disorientation
Leap Attack III: 50% chance of disorientation
Leap Attack IV: 70% chance of disorientation

Evade I: Roll 5+ to dodge
Evade II: Roll 5+ to dodge; counter at +2
Evade III: Roll 5+ to dodge; counter at +3
Evade IV: Roll 4+ to dodge: counter at +3

Multi-Shot I: 20% chance each monster with adjacency and range equal to target also be attacked
Multi-Shot II: 40% chance each monster with adjacency and range equal to target also be attacked
Multi-Shot III: 60% chance each monster with adjacency and range equal to target also be attacked
Multi-Shot IV: 80% chance each monster with adjacency and range equal to target also be attacked

BRAWLER:

Uppercut I: If you miss with your sword, 20% of hitting with uppercut
Uppercut II: If you miss with your sword, 30% of hitting with uppercut
Uppercut III: If you miss with your sword, 40% of hitting with uppercut
Uppercut IV: If you miss with your sword, 50% of hitting with uppercut

Hunker I: +1 to defense & 30% resilience
Hunker II: +1 to defense & 30% resilience; +1 to counter-attacks
Hunker III: +1 to defense & 30% resilience; +2 to counter-attacks
Hunker IV: +1 to defense & 30% doubled; +3 to counter-attacks

Frenzy I: If 3 or more adjacent monsters, +2 sword
Frenzy II: If 3 or more adjacent monsters, +3 sword
Frenzy III: If 3 or more adjacent monsters, +4 sword
Frenzy IV: If 3 or more adjacent monsters, +5 sword

Sep 13, 2020 3:39

Level cap going up is a great idea, but taking away skills we already have is annoying, and turning character-specific skills in favor of findable items is a very bad idea indeed.

Sep 13, 2020 9:02

I use Bellow a lot in rooms with stronger monsters. So if that became an in-dungeon unlock, it would make early game more difficult. Would the fact that any hero can use the Horn of Bellowing make worms friendly to the heroes from that point on? If so, the tradeoff may be worth it. I absolutely HATE random worm appearances. It’s the reason I will take the Dwarf into some rooms even when the Elf/Human are better suited for it.

Riposte and Flame Shot seem to have the most strategic value in the Dragon Lair, so as long as the unlock was in-dungeon (and not in the Lair), it would have little effect on my game play. The fact that any hero can use them would be an overall plus.

Regarding the four levels, since all level IV skills offer more than the current system, there is the potential for stronger heroes, which I’ll gladly accept. :)

The only adjustment I would suggest is to Multi-Shot. Love the idea! But it seems out of place in the realm of chance. It seems like a skill that a hero would either have or not have, like Parry or Frenzy. Plus, it makes all three Huntress skills chance-based, (unlike the Swordsman’s single chance-based skill and the Brawler’s two). In gaming, I do prefer strategy to luck, so I am biased there, but it does seem to make sense here. Find some way to remove the chance element from this skill and I think you have a winner.

Sep 13, 2020 13:00

It would be easier for us to make Bellow an ability rather than an item, so maybe we’d just do that.

Regarding the Multi Shot “realm of chance” - we could do it differently, where monsters that are adjacent to target and at the same range would always be attacked. But to keep that from being OP, we would need to add a penalty to those attacks, at least at the lower levels.

If we do it that way, it would slow the game down because there’d be more attacks that miss. Also, it might be more exciting to be hoping for an extra full-strength attack rather than knowing you’ll get a weak attack.

But it’s a good issue. So which of the following systems would you prefer?

Approach A:

Multi-Shot I: Each extra target has a 25% chance of being attacked, with no penalty
Multi-Shot II: Each extra target has a 50% chance of being attacked, with no penalty
Multi-Shot III: Each extra target has a 75% chance of being attacked, with no penalty
Multi-Shot IV: Each extra target has a 100% chance of being attacked, with no penalty

Approach B:

Multi-Shot I: all extra targets are attacked, but at -6
Multi-Shot II: all extra targets are attacked, but at -4
Multi-Shot III: all extra targets are attacked, but at -2
Multi-Shot IV: all extra targets are attacked, with no penalty

The above percentages and bonuses are just placeholders. Pretend that each approach is equally good for the player. We just want to know which approach seems more fun/satisfying.

Sep 13, 2020 15:07

Each player is different, of course, in terms of their preferred balance of luck-strategy. Some people love slot machines. Others adore chess. I’m in between, leaning toward strat. As such, I like the dependability of Approach B, although I have to agree that “hoping for an extra, full-strength attack” can be fun, especially at lower levels. But it can also be disappointing. There are already enough outcomes to be disappointed about in this game, so it might be better not to add another.

But honestly, since both approaches offer the same ability at Level IV—meaning a player could eventually level up to pure skill (no luck, no penalty)—both are appealing. (If Approach A’s Multi-Shot IV was anything less than 100%, I would prefer Approach B, even if its highest level had an attack penalty.)

Another way to graduate the levels could be in the amount of targets affected. A minus 6 penalty (even as a placeholder) sounds almost unusable. Perhaps Level I could be stronger, but only affect one other target, Level II up to two other targets, etc. Or Level I/II affects only one adjacent target with graduated penalties/chance, Level III/IV affects more (or all) adjacents with varying penalties/chance. It adds complication, but it could help the skill be more fun/usable (i.e. more likely/effective) at lower levels.

Sep 13, 2020 15:57

Once again, the elf and dwarf become even more useless until the human has found +9 everythings.

Sep 13, 2020 19:00

PeteMonster - I don’t think one approach involves any more luck than the other. In both cases, there is an X% chance that each extra target gets hit. It’s just that X, which is the chance of attacking times the chance of hitting, is calculated differently. But I agree that Approach A seems to be more luck oriented because there are two luck elements instead of one.

Arcxjo - You are probably right that the skill changes as described above would help the human more than the others. We’ll try to balance it better – these numbers are just a starting point.

Sep 16, 2020 19:23

On a related note, please see the topic Idea: Skill Quests for a new idea: Trinket Quests

Sep 17, 2020 1:19

I am not sure if you plan for new king-size-dragons, but the skills are extreme strong. With adrenaline, press, fullswing and +9 sword having an attack of 19. So you have a good chance to enter an insane feat-bonus killing streak even against dragons. The same for the elf. Imagine a multi-shot in 4+ defense mode against a pack of dragons! And when the pack is down you leap the last 2 with a 70% disorientation chance…

Only the brawler does not seem to improve much. A frenzy counter attack with uppercut from hunker is already fine. With a +9 sword on adrenaline you ALLREADY do not really need uppercut. It will improve a few percent to an almost sure hit (hunker+frenzy=+8) - so you will hardly need any uppercut to slay dragons.

Some ideas: Uppercut could be performed BEFORE hit evaluation (bad defense leads automatically to uppercut) and then improves like this:

Uppercut I: If defense roll <=3 hit with uppercut Uppercut II: If defense roll <=3 hit with uppercut + 25% stun chance Uppercut III: If defense roll <=4 hit with uppercut + 25% stun chance Uppercut IV: If defense roll <=4 hit with uppercut + 50% stun chance

Maybe frenzy could also (like multo shot) go into direction of splash damage. So a counter could attack the neighbouring monsters, too. This sounds like REAL frenzy! Or frenzy improves the defense like this:

Frenzy I: If 3 or more adjacent monsters, +2 sword Frenzy II: If 3 or more adjacent monsters, +2 sword +1 defense Frenzy III: If 3 or more adjacent monsters, +3 sword + 1 defense Frenzy IV: If 3 or more adjacent monsters, +3 sword + 1 defense per additional monster

Which would more fit into “defense-driven-dwarf” schema.

Otherwise I see a very an unbalanced improvement. Brawler will not benefit from “generalisation” of below, flame shot and riposte (because you will always hit back if you defend with 10+!).

But I LIKE the idea that there is an item in the upper rearmost mine-cave that you can get to make worms friendly. You have then to decide to go there or improve weapons first (and risk attacks). It makes (somehow) a lot of sense.

Sep 20, 2020 6:26

I think that would this new system allow the players to progress even faster, and this current system of moving up the ladder is to fast, considering what it was in 2016. Skills should be earned. If you mess up the skill rules, it’s like changing the rules in the ongoing game of chess.

Sep 20, 2020 15:42

Any chance that the elf could have the option of trying EITHER a single long shot (with no penalty) or a multi-shot (with penalties associated with both long shots and secondary targets)?

On another topic, any chance of adding a “video replay” button to review what just happened? Both my last move, and the game’s response. Most of the time that I found myself in need of one, the problem was an internet glitch. Sometimes, I think that I hit a button, but nothing happens (so I do not know whether I missed the button, or the system is delayed). When that occurs, the only safe thing to do is to reload the page, to avoid accidentally putting in an unintended second move. And if I did succeed in hitting the button the first time, then the display abruptly changes to its final state. Other times, the problem was a muscle twitch–and since the click was inadvertent, I cannot always tell what I clicked on. Any help here for people with human nervous systems?

Sep 21, 2020 19:12

Multi-shot does sound really useful, but I would also miss the elf’s long-shot, particularly against e.g. in hunt, titanic mage 3 spaces away about to fireball you to oblivion. That -3 can make an enormous difference. Some way to perform a single-target longshot would be really useful.

Sep 22, 2020 3:28

Nice idea beetletoe. If there is only a single target, who in hell would perform a multi-shot? The question is how to make that choice automatically. I do not want to change it each attack. And what happens if the elf shoots back?

But besided lord of the ring this makes not much sense: https://www.quora.com/How-can-you-fire-two-arrows-at-once-and-why If you do it, I would call the multi-shot a “rapid shot”

The most logical and suitable solution would be a “leap shot”:

Leap Shot I: A random shot in leap direction with penalty -3 when leaping and not striking. Disorient all adjected monsters if it hits (because otherwise elf should never jump like that).
Leap Shot II: Shoot two times in leap direction with penalty -3 when leaping and not striking. Disorient all adjected monsters if it hits.
<- This attacks 2 of 4 possible fields adjected to the LANDING zone.

Leap Shot III: Shoot the last ATTACKER with penalty -3 when leaping and not attacking otherwise.
Leap Shot IV: Shoot the last ATTACKER with penalty -1 when leaping and not attacking otherwise.
(the elf should turn in the air and look to the attacker at the end).

By the way: You should think about not making evade stronger in numbers, but giving a move chance. e.g. a successful close-combat dodge could give you an instant automove in backward direction (if you do not step adjected to another close combat foe). I think this is weaker than 4+, but feels like a natural skill.

Sep 24, 2020 16:11

Thanks, everyone, for your comments. It sounds like we should not make these changes. It would be a lot of work to do something that is risky and that people are lukewarm about.

So we’re leaning towards keeping current skills, but adding a Level III to each skill (i.e. Full Swing III).

But with one possible change: we’re considering replacing Riposte with Shove Attack. See the new forum post about it.

Adding a comment requires a registered account with fame level 5+.

Privacy Policy | © 2020 Rogue Sword: Strategy & Adventure Games, LLC