First, let me say that the sovereign dying is a non-negotiable thing to us. It's an important core concept.
Well, I don't mind the Death = Game Over way this game seems to be going to work. Having played rogue-likes a lot (Mostly Angband) I'm a bit used to this and I think it really makes you think about the way you play. Should I attack one more monster, or run away for a bit to heal up... Off course dieing from a stupid decision or a bad roll isn't fun, but if you can learn something from it, it can make the game last that much longer.
I'm not sure I'd want my game to continue or end depending on a dice roll though...
A dice roll to determine the outcome of the game? Not good.
In the end, a game like this is one dice roll after another so the end of a game always depends on a dice roll one way or the other. Getting a great starting location on a random map can make a big difference in the end. Finding a nice artifact at the right time might make a difference in a fight a few turns later and could mean that you win instead of loose. Both of these examples depend on a dice roll, but I don't see anyone complaining about this.
'Game over' goes both ways -- players who successfully kill an opposing sovereign shouldn't have to put up with the hassle of completely eliminating the royal family.
As I said before in another thread, I've seen people asking for a way that won't make the end game get boring. Hunting down every last family member, destroying every last city to finally wipe out an enemy would get pretty boring pretty fast I'm afraid.
Well said....very true. Not to mention the MP games, like I've said. Players won't even use their Sovereigns in battles, because it would be a big mistake...as it is now.
Why would it be? I mean, having your sovereign in a battle will / should give you an enormous advantage when fighting an army without a sovereign. A battle you probably would have lost suddenly becomes an almost certain victory. I imagine it will be easier to get a higher level sovereign when you use him/her in battle a lot. Off course you'll have to be carefull which battles you choose, but that's part of the strategy to play this game.
I think the sovereign should be an important unit, but not gamebreakingly so. If he dies he should be replaced with a successor with level 1 or something similar.
So, you have a high level sovereign that get's killed by some other player/ the AI. The most powerfull unit you had (Well probably) is lost because you couldn't / did't keep him / her safe and you want to replace that unit with a new lvl 1 unit? What chance do you have to keep this oh so weak unit safe where you couldn't keep the high level one safe? Losing your sovereign will probably mean you're losing the game anyway, so why prolong the agony?
I haven't been able to get my sovereign killed in the beta yet, and have been using him to completly discover the map, killing spiders / trolls / other sovereigns whereever I found them. I've defeated a lvl 10 troll with a lvl 4 sovereign. What some people might forget is that the sovereign is a powerful unit and might not be as easily killed as some think / fear. In the end, I wouldn't mind an option ot have an heir / spell / building to keep on playing after sovereign dead, but maybe we should all take a breather and wait and see what the future betas will have in store for us and see how easy / hard it will be to kill a sovereign.