I would like to suggest a new game mode I call Hardcore Campaign The ruleset: 4 random skills assigned right at level 1. Random class Random race Random perks and flaws Uses Hardest mode In addition to your normal score for each game, you have an overall score that is an average of all scores played in HC mode. This average score has a multiplier of .1 for each game played in the mode. So one score of 10k is 10k score. If your second game is only 3000, your overall score is now 7150. (((10,000+3000)/2)*1.1) You can reset your score at any time in the options menu (this is why the multiplier is important). This mode accomplishes two interesting things for the game. It provides a game mode where instead of trying to just get that ultimate setup, you are incentivized to make the best of what you have been given and secondly it rewards consistency of play. Personally I think it would be a lot of fun and a very different type of leader board.
Neat idea! As it stands there are several skills that I never bother with since I know I'd be intentionally putting my self at a disadvantage...but if I had no choice in the matter. I also love how this can trick you into trying class/race/perk/skill combos you may have never thought of previously. I also really like the concept of the score being based on an average as if it were just based on the single best scores it really would simply be a matter of restarting the game until you get a useful combination but with this you're incentivised to actually play out some of the seemingly lamer combos.
Yeah, I like this idea as well. I'd probably prefer the set difficulty be Hard rather than Harder, but that might defeat the purpose.
I like Kennfusion's idea as well, but there would have to be some sort of penalty added to the game for starting a new game by overwriting the current one. Otherwise people would just wind up starting over repeatedly until they got a good skill set since starting a new game just erases the one in progress. I am also unsure about the multiplier part for the average score, though maybe I just don't get it
I really like the idea of encouraging players to try all of the different skills and abilities, rather than just the best ones. But, as stated, this primarily rewards endurance. The difference between someone who plays 100 games and someone who plays only 30 games is going to swamp the difference in the actual scores they can achieve. You need to limit the multiplier. Either cap the multiplier at 2 or 3, so there a limit to how high it can go, or change the formula to something like (average score)*(2-1/(number of games)) so it can't go higher than 2 regardless of number of games. Another possibility (which could be combined with the above) is don't make the sequence of games random, but have the same random assignment of skills and abilities for everyone, in a fixed sequence. This makes it a little more even for everyone, and also creates more space for discussion (players can compare notes on how they did on scenario #6....).
The whole point of the multiplier is to minimize the influence of restarting. If you've already played 10 games in a series, then are you going to restart the whole series just because you get an unfavorable set of skills in game 11? If you keep doing that then you never get much of a multiplier.
But as I said, when you start a new game without finishing the one in progress, then a score is not recorded (so no game could really be counted for averaging since you can't average an unknown ).
The proposal is that if you start a new game without finishing the previous one then you would have to restart the whole series. A fair criticism of this is what it does to people whose device crashes for some reason. But there's really no way around that.
I see that nowhere in the proposal (or anywhere until my post suggesting a change there would be needed), but one way or another, it seems we agree.
I would say that the score could be dynamic. So that it is actually changing as you are playing. Thus, if you quit mid-game, that score is actually still affecting your average game.
The multiplier cap would work. If were at 30 games, you have sufficient time spent to not lightly restart...and yet since it caps, it would not discourage new people to try to climb that ladder. I also like the additional idea of "game of the week". I think that could be in addition to the game I am suggesting, but using the same rule set. This would create a new challenge each week, which would be a lot of fun i bet.
I like the ideas being discussed. One smaller change that might help encourage differetn builds would be to a separate high score table for turns survived. Admittedly, without additional changes, I am somewhat concerned that with blunt & life leach one could perhaps play largely forever by abandoning any real desire to collect or kill anything, and just trying to have a "farm" of boss skulls doing 1 damage each that you can "pet" each turn doing only your base damage (and getting enough life leech and regen to stay 100% healed). Sure your farm wouldnt last forever, but with boss health growing so fast, you could certainly potentially keep a farm going for a longgg time.
Oh right, lol, guess I just need to pay attention to it! Although I'm not sure turns > 1000 are really doable anymore on harder, at least not without playing in lame fashion by setting up a petting zoo. I got to 835 turns in my last game and normal skulls were pushing 250 in combined health and armor.
With regards to this completely theoretical "hardcore" mode, it seems like it would just be easiest to have it be a running average of your last 10 games with quitting/restarting counting towards the score average. Still debating fine details of a nonexistent game mode seems rather meaningless.
How can you possibly design anything if discussing it before it exists is "meaningless"? Games don't just spring from the head of Zeus, fully formed, they have to be designed in an iterative process.
The game works and plays fine on the iPad. I generally prefer universal games, but, given the simple graphics here, I don't think a universal game would be any better on the iPad than just running the current version in 2x mode. Maybe the text could be a bit clearer, that's about it.
