Why the game over after three failed boss attempts ?

[Mishmoul]

Hi, and thanks for this great game !

I was wondering why does the game end afters 3 failed boss fights. To me it creates some bitterness among the players because the 3 of them who aren't fighting the final struggle have lost anyways. Of course one of them will win by points, but this game is about killing monsters,not shenaniganing your way into first place.

What do you think ?
Maybe an option could be added to define the number of boss fights attempts before game over ?
Thanks

[Huffulufugus]

Eh who wants a game to go for 74 fights anyways, it needs to end

[Mishmoul]

Well a some point a well stuffed player is basically assured to win, so i'd rather go for a 5 attempts limit, or at least 2 attempts per player.

[Lute Camoot]

The idea is too make it more of a "If I win Im the best, but if I loose...." If you had more than three the humans could just keep trying and not take it seriously. Its desienged so you have too think it over and wiegh out the risks.

[Intra]

The idea is to penalize you for attempting because the boss battles take a while. Also, if people didn't have a penalty for just bum rushing the boss at 10, then the game would lack even more depth.

Usually all three get used up and the games are already on average like 40-50 minutes with players.

[Mishmoul]

The problem is that everyone gets the penalty is someone rushes the boss because no one will really win in the end. I understand that something must be put a stake, i just wish there was a way to keep everyone equally involved in the final struggle.

[zR0]

The only thing I think I should add in this regard is the last battle, the ghosts earn points and increase your xp and may have chance to win all .
Is part of only 3 tries is great , the 3rd attempt , since they are all strong (or not) enough to defeat the boss , and if not, is the merit of the other players or he did not play well .

[Intra]

I don't see a problem with people being down to the last try on the boss. If I tackle the boss because I think I can win, I should win. If I don't, then I need to adjust my expectations and either learn to play better or prepare more. I never get my soul stolen; sometimes I take risks, because my health is low and it's worth getting rid of a strike, or sometimes I think my equipment is teetering on the edge of whether I can pull it off. I don't actively try to beat Ghidraak with Training Knife any more, because it's too difficult, for example.

I'm confident I could beat Kourok with starting gear against three expert opponents, because I've got the telegraphed cues and limitations of that boss down to where I can easily not take a single hit.

I'm also confident I could beat Ghidraak with just a bow, of any kind, and nothing else.

I would suggest building up familiarity with the weapon and skill roster, the potions, and sub-items so people can be equipped with the knowledge necessary to arm themselves against their opponents. Since Ghidraak is just as likely as Kourok to show up, I always assume the worst case scenario that I will fight Ghidraak and prepare the minimum setup required to defeat him.

Also, I find it hard to believe that you only win as the human on floors without previously explored rooms with blood fountains in them. Backtracking is an important part of survival in this game.

Secondly, if you turn into a human where the shop has been bought out by most of the good stuff, don't turn your blood into gold and sacrifice your next shop teleport by doing so.

Finally, if you have the above problem where the shop is already cleaned out, the safest route to the exit is from the starting room of the floor towards the boss room, because the exit is commonly past the boss room.

If you have particular monster matchups you have difficulty with in starting gear, I would be more than willing to help you break them down and explain how to beat them.

Some are harder than others, like Minotaur Archers and Eyebat, but the rest mostly require some knowledge of their attack mechanics to counter with good timing.

[Mishmoul]

It's not really a matter of balance or difficulty i think. The question is how do you feel when you play the boss during the final struggle, and you know that even if you defeat the hero you still can't win because of your lower level. To me it's a loose-loose scenario the game should avoid, especially after a long game, but it looks like i'm the only one thinking that way :)

Cheers!

[Jakkauli]

What if the player who didn't win the boss would be leveled down? You wouldn't go for the boss too early because you would actually be risking something.

[Mishmoul]

Yeah, maybe an auto level down to 9-8 could be worth trying.

[Shadowspaz]

I saw this thread before getting together with friends to play it for the first time tonight, and I was a little worried about the limited tries.

But after playing it, I actually kinda like the limit. Sure, it ends the game, but I see it from the spirits' perspectives as "If I can't get out, no one will." They may win by points, but it really isn't nearly as satisfying, and it almost feels like a consolation prize, if anything. Whereas, when you're a spirit going against the hero in a final fight, it feels like such a great shutdown. Last chance, last fight, and NOPE. The human is stuck here forever, to rot away. Hahahahaha. Sucker.

[Anon]

Honestly, the dev should make an option so you can set the rules of your game. Like how you could set a limited amount of lives in Serious Sam or infinite. It will always baffle me why people doesn't want MORE rather than LESS... the more features/options the better. Then you can choice and pick what you like. Why I haven't been hired as a game dev yet I dunno... probably because I've no friends and that I don't like people (because they're so dumb).

[Shadowspaz]

This game has plenty of options. The gameplay itself is all about how you manage your options. The wrong choice, or the wrong item, can completely ruin you.

I'm pretty used to coming across people that have your kind of viewpoint, claiming that everything disagreeable should be an option you can toggle. It tends to come with "If you don't like it, you don't need to use it." But the point is, NOT having that option FORCES the player to be more strategic. With only three tries, you can't just keep smashing yourself against the boss until you beat it some time. You need to prepare, you need to be ready, and you need to be focused.

But you would see all of these points if you've played the game, which you won't, because it doesn't have online multiplayer. So I'm a bit confused.

Also, people don't get hired as game devs because they want more options.

[eisiger]

As it is right now, I think it's balanced gameplay and time wise. You cannot become super overpowered without allowing your opponents to become incredibly strong at the same time, you will eventually come to a point where you want to challenge the boss rather than surrender your human form, and everyone is eager to either finally finish the boss or destroy the player's last chance at beating them.

I've had games that ran anywhere from eight minutes to thirty minutes, but at all times we felt like every action was taking us closer to the end. I'll agree that there should be options or mods to change values, but more than three chances to defeat the boss would drag out a session pretty badly. Even if everyone ends up losing, you still feel like you've "won" when you coordinate with your boss limbs, so it's not as if a hard limit to how many times you can fight the final boss is a disappointment. It feels like more of an achievement if you can overcome a well equipped player.

[sere]

Originally posted by Religion is for ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥:

Honestly, the dev should make an option so you can set the rules of your game. Like how you could set a limited amount of lives in Serious Sam or infinite. It will always baffle me why people doesn't want MORE rather than LESS... the more features/options the better. Then you can choice and pick what you like. Why I haven't been hired as a game dev yet I dunno... probably because I've no friends and that I don't like people (because they're so dumb).

Part of the appeal of gaming is overcoming a set criteria all must face. Having options to change much of that criteria diminishes parity and the shared experience of players. This is true of both multiplayer and single player. You may think otherwise and there are indeed developers who agree with how you think but... it should be easy to understand that confining players within limitations is an important ingredient to almost any gameplay challenge and will remain a prevalent idea in game design. All in all, I disagree with you entirely but was never once baffled why any given person would prefer things either way. Since it's a "school of thought" matter for both developer and player, it won't be a case to be argued to any semblence of better or worse, especially when not in the presence of absolutes.