So I have been playing a lot of slay the spire 2, I just passed 200 games and have gotten to around a 70% A10 winrate on every character except ironclad (where I am in the gutter at 30%, how do you play this character if you don't get the vulnerable cards? How do you play the vulnerable cards against aeonglass with 3 artefact?).
I've been entirely on the beta branch for context.
This game fascinates me, it's one of if not the best strategy games I have played. Feedback for most things is extremely salient, you makes a judgement call and then a turn or 2 later you have lost N or N+M health and can evaluate your tactics. The thing that keeps me coming back though is the less salient stuff, the layers and layers of thinking to pathing.
As I improve (I would consider myself approaching mediocre at the game, I think 90% winrate is when you can probably say you are good) I find myself evaluating turns on a much deeper level, asking questions like "the elite that's coming up has a big attack on turn 3, given that and how many skills I play each turn what number should tuning fork be on so that it goes off that turn?"
I think people think of the game as requiring luck but my experience seems to be outside of rare occurrences (like an awful 1-in-a-large-number shuffle against a boss you struggle at) luck is not usually a major factor. If I don't die in the first few floors of act 1 (or reach a state I cannot recover from because I am bad) I usually die on the act 3 second boss.
One of my favourite aspects is how A10 forces you to build for all 3 act 3 bosses, since there is a 2/3 chance you face them. This really tickles your brain to get you to think of how you're going to make your deck do everything it needs to win.
My one criticism of the game is that almost all the interesting enemies are in act 1, although with the recent (oppressive, halp!) changes to infested prism and aeonglass I think that things are on the right track.
If you're into deck builders, or just marvelous strategy games, I unreservedly recommend it.
there's asterisks on that unwinnable seed like not starting with neow's lament and not doing glitches to get extra floors. we wouldn't call a mario level unbeatable if you had to do a wall clip, everybody would just do the wall clip.
I think it’s fair to call it unbeatable if it requires a glitch to get through. There’s actually a situation like your example in the C64 RoboCop game where you can’t finish a level normally, but it’s possible to glitch through a wall.
Of course, in that case you can’t progress because that version of the game is literally not finished.
Well, you don't assume an average seed requires any glitches etc.
Generally the game was extremely well balanced for challenging but winnable play. Although sometimes finding those lines can be very hard, I don't miss gremlin nob lol that was a very frustrating enemy to have shaping early deck building.