Genius design, lots of fun, people complaining about discovered mate have only themselves to blame for not paying attention to the board and need to GIT GUD. It's based on chess, people. You destroy the piece between you and an enemy rook, you deserve to fail. Maybe NOT destroy that piece? XD
Viewing post in Shotgun King: The Final Checkmate comments
I'm not denying the point of the game, I'm saying that a moment of not following it causing massive punishment is not very fun.
Imagine if Dark Souls was roguelike game. With no practice for the bosses you'd hardly ever progress. "GIT GUD" shouldn't apply to roguelike games, as there is little to no time for you to practice the unexpected one thing that you were expected to know before apparently.
There are going to be a lot of people coming from the game jam either not knowing how chess works, or not having paid enough attention to it to know about discovered mate. The frustration received from being punished for a game mechanic they did not know about is understandable, and should be prevented in some way.
And there already is a way to prevent it - the shields. If you make some stupid move by say, not seeing a piece all from across the board, not realizing you are being attacked, or just misclicking, the game will highlight the attacking pieces and spend a shield, instead of saying "GIT GUD" and ending your run. So a harder to notice possible attack should suddenly do otherwise? Just doesn't make much sense to me.
You're asking the developer to tackle a significant alteration to the game design as a result of a perfectly-fair challenge that might trip some players up ONCE, TOPS, if they're, you know, actually learning the game. And yes, it's an alteration. I mentioned this elsewhere - shields are NOT a way to prevent that "already", and I'll explain why: shields stop you from doing something potentially suicidal on YOUR turn due to enemy attack ranges at that moment, based on your attempt to move or not move. If you've destroyed an interposed piece and opened yourself to attack, it's now THEIR turn. It's too late for a shield. You had your chance to not be careless with a firearm [there's a life lesson in there, but I digress] and you reaped what you sowed. For a shield to stop that, the game would need to have a far more complicated mechanism that looks at what you're shooting at and calculating every possible combination of destroyed piece resulting from it, and then trigger a shield if there's the slightest chance any of those combinations could be lethal. If the dev wants to do that, more power to them - it'd be nice for me to not have to burn through shields before taking a shot 100% guaranteed to result in my survival despite sitting in an attack range (which is how I know the game doesn't currently calculate potential damage dealt when shields trigger). But if I were them, I'd remove shields from the game entirely before I'd even think of doing that! The player is the gamemaker's apprentice, and if they stop learning due to overdependence on the training wheels, then the wheels need to go.
Besides, needing to see the consequences of your moves in advance is part and parcel of chess - why should this game be any different? Frankly, I find it alarming how many people are complaining here about losing a game because of a mistake they made, demanding the game be changed to prevent that mistake (especially those that know losing that way is fair). It's like they don't even know what "game" means. Chess is already super polite in preventing someone moving into check (which I assume is why this game has shields in the first place); try going on a chess forum and suggesting the rules of chess be altered, with moving into ANY mate-in-one being similarly prevented. See where that gets you. But that's literally the non-digital version of what you're asking for. Feel silly yet?
If chess itself isn't up someone's alley, I don't know why they'd be hanging around here at all. It's not like there aren't several thousand other roguelikes out there. Heck, this same dev has another.
As for your comments on "practice", two things: first, "not being oblivious" isn't the sort of thing to which "practice" really applies; second, the entire arcade-game generation would like a word about what you think "practice" entails. Starting another run IS practice. To imply otherwise is so far beyond my comprehension not just of roguelikes but ALL games of all types, digital and otherwise, that I can't respond at all. For that reason, I'll be taking my leave of this conversation now. I hope what I was able to respond to has been educational.
If you move into a space seen by an enemys piece they will be able to attack you on their turn. This is no different for destroying a piece, the enemy can now see you, and will attack on their turn. Why would shields protect you from one easy to see scenario and not the harder to see one? It's hard to blame the player for being oblivious to something they didn't know about, even if it was a "learning experience" for them. All that "game mechanic" causes is needless frustration.
Seeing the consequences of your moves is a part of chess that's true, but this game is already different with shields protecting you from being careless.
I find a valid way to lose is not looking for a synergy in your pre-round upgrade choices, being forced into a situation where you have to take risks and failing to be lucky. But all situations where shields apply are ones where you are careless, and not being careless, again as indicated by the shields , is not part of being skilled.
The mechanic would not be hard to implement either. Just assume the piece you attacked is gone and check for enemy line of sight.