Do later chains require a lot of RNG?

[Its not a phase, mom]

I just managed to get past chain V, and I noticed that chain VI makes you start on 2 full hearts.
Prior to this, my strategy mainly revolved around sacrificing a few hearts early game to clear the floors faster and get more gold for upgrades (which makes the clearing of the floor more consistent), but the 2 heart start kills this strategy. This results in the early game being more RNG reliant, because even with perfect decision making you might not get the first floor done in 3 rounds while also saving your hearts.

So this, and a few of my bad runs made me wonder: do you have to be lucky to complete later chains (like chain IX or chain X)? Are there going to be runs that are doomed from the start because of RNG, and not even a perfect AI could salvage them?

I wouldn't mind if that was the case, because it's a roguelike after all.
I'm just curious if this is a type of game where later chains will require me to keep restarting if the first 2 or 3 stores don't have the upgrades I'm looking for, or is every single run salvageable, or is it in the middleground, where most of chain X runs will be winnable, but some will be literally impossible?

I really love the chain system and the entire game in general though, keep up the great work!

[j4]

Hey, I think it's fair to say that not all runs on later chains are winnable, but most of them should.

Top chains are balanced more around win ratio being indicative of your performance, rather than being able to clear every single run. The idea is that the bar is so high that you can always keep finding ways to improve your play, even on a lucky run, rather than having the game tell you "good enough" at some point. I thought this shouldn't feel too frustrating with the short runs.

That being said, I'm definitely open to tweaking the difficulty. Top chains were made with incredibly good players in mind and necessarily hard to test - I'm certain that a few days after release, I'm already not the best player in the world at my own game.

Thanks

[FroBodine]

Hmm. Not all runs are winnable at the higher difficulties? That is kind of concerning. What is the point of playing a game if there is NO way to beat the level? I'm not a pro player by any stretch, but I am not interested in playing a game where you might get into a level that simply cannot be beat. That is completely unfair.

I may have to reconsider my purchase if this is the case. I love the theme, but a game that has unbeatable levels is a bad thing.

[Its not a phase, mom]

Originally posted by j4:

Hey, I think it's fair to say that not all runs on later chains are winnable, but most of them should.

Top chains are balanced more around win ratio being indicative of your performance, rather than being able to clear every single run. The idea is that the bar is so high that you can always keep finding ways to improve your play, even on a lucky run, rather than having the game tell you "good enough" at some point. I thought this shouldn't feel too frustrating with the short runs.

That being said, I'm definitely open to tweaking the difficulty. Top chains were made with incredibly good players in mind and necessarily hard to test - I'm certain that a few days after release, I'm already not the best player in the world at my own game.

Thanks

That makes sense. I can see the idea with the whole "top chains were made with incredibly good players in mind", and I actually really like it, as I enjoy challenges.

And I don't actually mind that some runs may be unwinnable. As a speedrunner and as someone who likes roguelikes in general, I enjoy the RNG elements of games, even if they make me restart a lot. This way when you eventually beat a level you've been trying to beat for so long, it feels really amazing.

About the last part: does that mean that if you see a higher percentage of players beating chain X than you anticipated, you may consider adding new chains, let's say up to XV, and you'll see how players are doing?

[C-Vale]

Originally posted by FroBodine:

Hmm. Not all runs are winnable at the higher difficulties? That is kind of concerning. What is the point of playing a game if there is NO way to beat the level? I'm not a pro player by any stretch, but I am not interested in playing a game where you might get into a level that simply cannot be beat. That is completely unfair.

I may have to reconsider my purchase if this is the case. I love the theme, but a game that has unbeatable levels is a bad thing.

To be fair, that is something that many other card games also do. Although, this game seems to have alot less luck based components compared to other card games. (examples not present here include things like deck building and random paths/fights) Most of the time the hardest difficulty for these kind of games are made as a bragging right, and the intended difficulty for replay-ability is something lower, that still provides a tough, but winnable challenge.

[lufia22]

There are so many variables to a run that I doubt any human could determine whether they lost because of their own mistakes or because of bad luck. You'd have to have a computer analyze that.

With runs being so short, I don't see unwinnable games being that much of an issue so long as the dev's statement that most runs are winnable is true.

[ekolis]

Yeah, playing solitaire with a deck of cards will sometimes give you an unwinnable game, but people still play. (Though I hear that Microsoft actually analyzed all the games and took out the unwinnable ones when making the Windows solitaire game!)

[j4]

Originally posted by Sariiger:

About the last part: does that mean that if you see a higher percentage of players beating chain X than you anticipated, you may consider adding new chains, let's say up to XV, and you'll see how players are doing?

So far I tend more towards current Chains being overtuned and dialing back the difficulty a tiny bit, but the game barely just released so I'll give it more time.

My ideal balance is something like Chain 10 being consistently winnable/streakable for amazing players, and in a later update add 5-10 extra as a more clearly delineated hardcore thing with bad odds for those of us who are into that kinda thing.

[Its not a phase, mom]

Originally posted by j4:

Originally posted by Sariiger:

About the last part: does that mean that if you see a higher percentage of players beating chain X than you anticipated, you may consider adding new chains, let's say up to XV, and you'll see how players are doing?

So far I tend more towards current Chains being overtuned and dialing back the difficulty a tiny bit, but the game barely just released so I'll give it more time.

My ideal balance is something like Chain 10 being consistently winnable/streakable for amazing players, and in a later update add 5-10 extra as a more clearly delineated hardcore thing with bad odds for those of us who are into that kinda thing.

That's a good idea! From my experience, so far Chain VIII seems to be the biggest jump in difficulty. I haven't gotten through it yet, so I don't know what Chain IX and X have to offer though. I got close to finishing Chain VIII on the Golem Fortress yesterday though (which I feel is the hardest map), so it's certainly doable.

Can't wait to see what Chain X has to offer!

Edit: Just finished Chain VIII.