I think there should be a boss for deph 30 because of the first Squad to go in the clockworks just think about it, once you go down there you see this unknown creature, the likes no Stranger has seen, and it would just feel epic if the boss would be a solo. And the Squad that went in.there actually help you fight it, now give it a name, a special element, no wait.. How about the boss had no special resistance or weakness,. You cn call me crazy but I think it's an epic idea. Feel free to call this a spam but if Three Rings actually does this I will be so happy! I know how knights been wantimg to see a final boss that you can fight over and over. Feel free to just ignore this so I won't be waisting peoples time, for those of you who really read this I thank you. Ah who am I kidding nobody ever listens to me to be honest.. So, yeah Three rings use this thread as an Idea if you want.
Final Boss
Why does everyone want this game to end?
Finish final boss. Character requires deletion in order to continue. TrOOOll successful.
Well, I'm not saying "Final" Boss like I did the last post it'll be like fighting Darkfire Vanaduke except you fight the new boss with the elite Squad that entered the clockworks first. If you got to depth 29 with 3 other people, then the 4 of you have to fight the boss on your own with the Elite Squad. Generally people need to do more solo's, I did solo snarby, soloed Jk, and did roarmulus twins with my guild leader, but I still need do finish Vanaduke. It seems unlikely for Jelly King solo's because of it's deadly spins. but snarby is simple, just block and when it comes close hit the bell and hit it as fast as you can. Anyways I was going off topic there .__.'' Sometimes, people need a good enough boss to solo. Don't you think? (I like to write in long paragraphs sorry about that)
Cause games with open ends can leave people feeling aimless, particularly if they haven't accomplished anything 'final'.
And games that allow you to continue playing after the end don't really make sense, like Minecraft :P
@Kitty:
-Generally people need to do more solo's,
Why? It's an MMO; solo play should be possible, but not encouraged. I don't find soloing to be that enjoyable, personally. I play MMOs and SK to run the dungeons as a team and work together as a unit. I'll play a console game when I want to "solo more", thanks.
-It seems unlikely for Jelly King solo's because of it's deadly spins
Tbh, JK isn't that hard to solo at all, especially since there are weapons that ravage JK. Pepperbox, Dark Ret, FoV, SSB...
Not that I'm encouraging it, ofc, just saying that it's no harder than any other boss. I feel Seerus or Vana to be the hardest bosses to solo~
-Sometimes, people need a good enough boss to solo. Don't you think?
I do not think. In fact, I feel quite the opposite. I'd much rather they introduce a boss that soloing is incredibly challenging (to both satiate "solo lovers" such as yourself by making the solo more rewarding, as opposed to soloing JK which is the exact same as a team JK, but faster) and to encourage an element of "right lads, we need to work together to get this done!". Vana was on the right path, but then Blitz happened.
-I like to write in long paragraphs
Stop that.
@Marl:
-Cause games with open ends can leave people feeling aimless, particularly if they haven't accomplished anything 'final'.
I understand in principle, but MMOs get a free pass on that one. Allowing players a sense of completion tends to put you off the game. You feel like you've completed the game and inherently begin to think there's nothing else to do, sending you to seek other games to play. This is an incredibly destructive attitude players to adopt, for MMOs. I don't think players should be left feeling aimless and feeling like they've accomplished nothing, but there should always be a "what's next?" vibe.
Some may not agree, but personally I think SK has a good balance for endgame content. There's a constant urge to play and achieve more, to do more, to repeat other runs. "Traditional" MMOs oftentimes feel dead at the level cap, even with PvP.
Having scaled weapons helps this out, as you can repeat earlier levels without automatically onehitting everything and godmoding the entire world, and with the introduction of DMs, there's at least some dailies to think about.
@Hex:
-And games that allow you to continue playing after the end don't really make sense, like Minecraft :P
I disagree. It may just be my MMO player nature calling out, but games like Minecraft and Pokemon are always of interest to me. I quite enjoy defeating the story and being able to continue running around, collecting final things, finishing side-quests, achieving personal goals and such. If the game just ended with the story's completion, it would hold far less interest to me and I find myself putting off the story-completion indefinitely while I do everything else. Anything that inherently encourages me to not play the games main story is a bad thing, imho.
Well, Minecraft's a bad example, since there really isn't a definitive end boss. You really have no story and open ended gameplay from the beginning, since it's well, a sandbox game. A good example'd be Dark Souls, where you can, after finishing the game, do a second playthrough on MUCH harder difficulty. Games CAN continue well after you've beaten the boss, but it's an art form to pull off correctly.
And to Forum-Brady, yes, I agree with you , MMOs should continue to foster the mindset of players to keep moving onto their next task, but without a final goal that players are working to? they end up feeling like all their work isn't really directed at anything. For example, if SK had a boss, a player would tell themselves, "I'm collecting this latest set of gear to finish this quest, one of many quests on my way to defeating the goblin king.", whereas elsewhere, "I'm collecting all this gear, not to finish off some great evil, but because it looks pretty." Both get the job done, but one's a great deal more gratifying to the player. You have the 4 sub bosses, Snarbolax, Vanaduke, etc, but they're not really structured as to give closure to your playing. It's like. Playing Pokemon, and stopping after you beat the 8 gym leaders. There's no real great final challenge to your efforts, and the last boss doesn't really cut it. One could argue the SLs could work in place of that, but it's really more of an endurance challenge.
I think DMs did a lot to that end, though; they encouraged four very different loadouts for players to aim towards and a good variety of challenges that are different from the current ones. You can survive on your ideal current loadout, but it does encourage getting some new sets. C42, for example, encourages building up that Dragonscale Set that you never bothered to build before.
Ofc no MMO (that I'm aware of) has it perfect, but personally I'm pretty happy with the job SK has done; it's got a good balance. I've played many-a-MMO where reaching end-game just...feels like the end of the game. With SK, I couldn't honestly even tell where when exactly you hit end-game, and that's what sells it to me. "Once you've done everything" doesn't apply quite so easily in a dungeon crawler.
That didn't ring a bell for anyone who played Halo 2?
._.;
~Sev
'Well, Minecraft's a bad example, since there really isn't a definitive end boss. You really have no story and open ended gameplay from the beginning, since it's well, a sandbox game."
You have a bigslag Dragon at the region of the game they call 'The End' and roll credit-like thingies after.
Although the point remains that there'll almost always be stuff to do in Minecraft, regardless or not of whether or not you beat the boss.
Which as a result, Hex's point still stands too.
But really, a definitive boss for this game would suck. For all the noobs, they'd quit quick because they've technically beaten the game. Like finishing Megaman Zero but not having collected all the Cyber Elves. For Vet's there'd be almost no difference. New boss; they'd pwnz it. They'd find cool ways to Pwnz it, then harder ways to pwnz it, then pwnz it just for lols.
Main point: Non-minded noobs would leave. OOO prefers to keep players so they can get more money off them, so these spenders leaving=not good idea.
Which as a result, Hex's point still stands too.
Nah, Minecraft really was a bad example. If your minecraft world got closed after you beat the Dragon, would you ever actually do it? How long do you spend building up a palace with all your cool stuff before managing to find all the bits and bobs required to get into the End and fight it. Then you kill and, credits roll and the game ends?
Naw, fury would ensue. Minecraft is a game that specifically has to continue after the credits lest it annoy players. Pokemon could end, but it's nice that it doesn't. Minecraft cannot end.
Minecraft will never end.
O_O
Ok, let me rephrase, Minecraft was a terrible example. I'm talking about games that allow you to defeat the end boss, save the world, and then come back to the main game to find everything still in chaos.
Which only applies to MMOs, of course.
I absolutely LOVE games that allow you to finish the end boss, then allow you to unlock more stuff afterwards, like Dragon Quest IX (BEST [FRAGGING] DS RPG GAME EVER), Pokemon (Mystery dungeon comes in for a close 3rd) and Lunar Knights, but not Like Zelda:OOC and Starfox: Dinasaur Planet or such that just set you back to the last save before the game ended.
(P.S 2nd best RPG game was the Rune Factory trilogy)
back to the main game to find everything still in chaos.
Which is why I like SKs "endgame". Since there's no overwhelming evil ruining the world, you never really "defeat the evil" and find the world still in peril. You just kinda chill.
MMOs and their players generally don't fit well with "final" stuff. "Final Bosses" are for console games.