next »

[pluckyporcupine]

Moving the convo at your request.

They are hard, but they exist solely to prevent strategies overly reliant on buffs. They are pretty easy if you don't use buffs at all. Slow and without any real damage. I might tweak their numbers a bit, though.

The reason I found them hard, to be exact, is that my strategy is pretty reliant on the assassin's self-ability. In a group with the assassin, the monk, and the warrior, with the monk being protected by the warrior, I found that the assassin would pretty easily die if it didn't use that ability. With the crystal enemy, the ability gets stolen, the assassin slowly dies, and then on top of that, once the crystal guy has full attack power, he nails my warrior, too, leaving me effectively screwed. And there's not much I could have logically done to prevent that without sacrificing someone.

This is just with that lineup, but I imagine the basic lineup, having the mage, would have a similar issue.

I will try some other configurations, but having limited experience with the wider range of classes, I'm having a hard time imagining a viable lineup that doesn't involve the warrior and healer, at least.

[TeeGee]

You can try to take the Golem down with an all-out attack. Monk, Knight and Assassin can all do pretty high damage with basic attacks, and both Monk's fists and Assassin's poison pierce through armor. There's also a nice trick, where you bait the Golem into sucking your buffs and then use Assassin's Riposte ability. As the Golem's already charged up, it won't use it buff sucking ability again, and there's a high chance its attack will trigger Riposte.

In general, the Golem exists precisely to force players to shift their strategy. If you can't use Monk and Knight's buffs when battling them, then that's exactly the point. I think I went overboard with their stats though. I'll tweak them to make them easier to take down with normal attacks, while still being a nasty counter to buff-based strategies.

Thanks again for feedback .

[pluckyporcupine]

I'll tweak them to make them easier to take down with normal attacks, while still being a nasty counter to buff-based strategies.

That sounds good. They have a really, really high defense rating, which makes them tough to take down in time to not die to the other enemies' hands.

[Trystin]

This game is lookin tasty...

[eigenbom]

Cute characters dude!

[Quarry]

I love how it looks and where it's heading but this is not a roguelike

[TeeGee]

Well, it's a "battle roguelike". Or whatever .

I just think "roguelike" is a good keyword here. It quickly describes how it plays, with randomness, high challenge, no saves/retries, and each "quest" being a separate game with permadeath. It's as much a roguelike as FTL or Desktop Dungeons are. Which means, not much, but shares enough common core elements to make the comparison. A roguelikelike?

In any case. The feedback so far has been pretty positive and rather clear on what needs improvement. I think I should be able to launch the public alpha relatively soon. If anyone else would like to give it a try, let me know .

[Moczan]

The new buzz word is rougelike-like 

[Quarry]

Well, it's a "battle roguelike". Or whatever .

I just think "roguelike" is a good keyword here. It quickly describes how it plays, with randomness, high challenge, no saves/retries, and each "quest" being a separate game with permadeath. It's as much a roguelike as FTL or Desktop Dungeons are. Which means, not much, but shares enough common core elements to make the comparison. A roguelikelike?

In any case. The feedback so far has been pretty positive and rather clear on what needs improvement. I think I should be able to launch the public alpha relatively soon. If anyone else would like to give it a try, let me know .

Desktop Dungeons is a roguelike where FTL is as roguelike as this project is (which is not), I'm not sure why people consider everything new that has permadeath and random generation a roguelike

[TeeGee]

Because it's a handy keyword that conveys all the important elements, really. A randomized battle strategy rpg with permadeath kinda doesn't have the same ring to it, eh?

[Liosan]

Because it's a handy keyword that conveys all the important elements, really. A randomized battle strategy rpg with permadeath kinda doesn't have the same ring to it, eh?

It's an FTL-like

Liosan

[TeeGee]

Then again, with fantasy RPG focus, classes, items, and such stuff, it probably has more to do with Roque than with FTL.

Oh mah gawd! Can't realease mah gam, 'cause I can't put a label to it!  

[gimymblert]

Craft a new label, there was a time when we said doom like, then it became FPS, there was a time where there was dota like, then it became MOBA.

Generated world only are call "progen" or "PGC" or "procedural".

So what's for permadeath in generated world?

[TeeGee]

When DotA was new, it was just a Warcraft 3 mod. Only when more games copied it and it became a genre, you started hearing things like DotA-like and MOBA. So I can't really create a label intentionally. Only hope that you will hear about Bonfire-likes in a few years, and then some smartass will come up with a fancy acronym for it .

Highly unlikely though. While the game feels rather fresh, it's nothing too original -- it just blends existing tropes in a slightly different way. Basically, it's a jRPG battle system modernized and made into a game of its own, designed with roguelike responsibilities in mind.

[gimymblert]

I was thinking about the whole "derivative" genre that takes insight from roguelike by aren't (roguelike like) generally driven by permadeath and PCG. It's a broad genre, but RPG is too. Spelunky, ftl, etc ... was named, vastly different inner genre but still under a same label of roguelike derived games.

I guess the generic label could just be "procedural permadeath <insert genre here>" games. Much better than roguelike like.

[TeeGee]

Instead of "procedural permadeath X", which doesn't sound too good, we may as well just use the term "roguelike something". So Spelunky is a roguelike platformer, FTL is a space roguelike, while Bonfire is a battle roguelike. And we're back to square one. Though, I really think it kinda works. If I didn't play Spelunky and someone would tell me it's a roguelike platformer, I would get it.

[Quarry]

Roguelike isn't a game like Rogue anymore I suppose...

[gimymblert]

It would be a non ascii platformer roguelike ascii is important.
More seriously it's like calling COD a corridor doomlike and mirror edge a clean 3D platformer doomlike ... But whatever it's not important, call it whatever you want



.... permaprogen

[ANtY]

Turn-based Dungeon Exploration - TBDE

[TeeGee]

Roguelike isn't a game like Rogue anymore I suppose...

Roguelike isn't a Rogue-like game since quite some time actually. That's the funny thing about genres. Modern FPSes also don't have much to do with Doom or Wolfenstein aside from the general idea of shooting stuff in first person. It's interesting though that "Doom-likes" became "FPSes" in time, while nobody ever thought of a better name for roguelikes. Perhaps it's a popularity thing. Or maybe it's because roguelikes are just RPGs with a certain set characteristic elements, a sub-genre of sorts. In any case, this is super important!