Help: Bosses with Generic Spells and...?

I am planning to use the majority of the options of this poll in a map that I am making. It's hard to decide things on my own and since I'm planning to have this be a map open to battle.net, I suppose it's good idea to ask the community.

Quite a long time ago, I posted a poll simliar to this, except it asked for your opinion on whether an item-based spell should be weaker or equal in power to it's real form. What I want to know is whether a Boss- a stronger form your typical enemy, should:

1. Have spells equal in power to what the playable heroes recieve.
2. Have spells stronger in power compared what playable heroes recieve.
3. Have spells with a shorter casting time then what is required compared to the time playable heroes need to cast spells.
4. Have a little of both options 2 and 3.

I would also appreciate if contributors tell me why they voted for their choice. This gives me a better understanding of what to do in the future.

Thank you to those who have participated in this poll.

I've vote less casting time, but i also believe they should be close in power to those of the hero.

I say less casting time and less cooldown because hopefully, Bosses lifespan should be much smaller than the heroes so if he want to have a real presence he needs to do more in less time.

It also need to be somewhat realist, I dislike bosses that are so powerfull they should'nt be beat by two-three simple heroes, yet they are defeated without much work.

Nothin' quite like taking that almighty nuke to the face from the fat boss bastard. I went with number two, since bosses need to be capable, and aren't player controlled.

A feel bosses should have the same casting time and mana cost and what not, except they are better at their spells (more damage, stronger effects). This gives the players a chance to defend themselves since there is nothing worse than a boss that continually spams a spell which players cannot defend in time.

Be warned though, that the spells should be stronger, not fatal. A spell should not take out 3/4s of a unit's health, but make the boss have more health or something of that nature. Still make their spells stronger than normal, but not completely strong (no nukes).

A boss' spell should have balancing. First balance them out, then once perfectly balanced boost the overall damage/effect. Bosses are not your typical enemy on the road, they're the big daddies of the game. If the game is ending why shouldn't the boss be hard to beat? It just shows that you can't beat a game without such skill needed.

Exaggerate their abilities, but don't make them so uber that their ultimate instantly kills everything.

Also, try using an AI for a boss. Coding it to have spell patterns, for example, <1st nuke>, <3rd nuke>, <1st nuke>, <Ultimate>. So that the players will be aware of what will happen next, and you can exaggerate the boss' abilities.

Personally, i think they should have stronger attacks but different spells. You wouldnt see a lesser mage and Grand Magister Grommath both using a simple firebolt. I would expect Grand Magister Grommath to use something more like Fireblast or Incineration... its just an example of what i mean...

You have hit an area of game balance that is difficult to assess. I would say, there are at least 6 ways to balance an ability. Let's take a simple firebolt spell that has 1.0 second stun, 100 dmg, 10 second cooldown for 100 mana. You can balance it the following ways.

Stun Duration
Damage
Cooldown
Mana cost

Now, if you give it a high CD and low mana cost, this will balance it for a normal hero. But if you keep everything else the same, increase stun time, and decrease CD, it becomes very imbalanced b/c it's a permastun.

If I were to give this to a boss unit, I would only give the spell more dmg, b/c well, he is a boss. I'm also assuming that you give him more HP and mana than normal, such that PC's would run out of resources before him if they just lollygagged or weren't trying.

As a rule, don't give bosses one hit kills, excessive stuns or too much crowd control. After all, players don't like "wtf pwn" or getting their keyboard yanked. I'd say a good boss fight lasts 30-120 seconds and require tactics besides "hit, run, hit, run."

example: the hero casts an "x" fire formation centered at himself, then casts lightning shield while PC's are clumped. This gives risk, but not lack of control, and is something different.

Big bad spells that will bring you down.

Wtf!? A "good" boss fight lasts 1 and a half hours.. Well on FF XII that is, I managed to kill a boss in one fight that lasted more than an hour :P

I can relate to you guys on the "one-hit KO" thing. It's not particulary fun and challenging when a boss has an insta-kill ability. I do believe the fact that you should lose large portions of your hero's health, but nothing overpowered so that your always stuck healing/getting healed and staying back while the boss massacres the weaker allies and thus getting you killed in the process.

Speaking of stuns, I'm not particularly fond of them when it comes to Bosses. Stuns and the other passives like Evasion and Critical Strike should never be an excuse to make a Boss challenging. That bases your victory or defeat on pure luck and no real cooperation. Then, the only way to counter those passives is to have them yourself. And that's no fun either, because they become necessary. I'm pretty sure that that is a big no-no.

I was planning on making Boss AI's. However, that must come after all of the abilities are done.

And about what secretarts said about bosses having higher tiered spells then those of their subjects, I've done so already, so there's no need to worry about it. I haven't given a boss yet a super crummy spell like that of Fire Bolt.

In summary, I suppose that stronger spells win, but nothing in particular that will overwhelm player heroes. I will keep that in mind. Of course, this thread is always open to anyone's opinion on this topic. If you have something to say, let's hear you out.

EDIT: Oh yeah, but that's just FFXII, Toink. I believe that for something like Warcraft, the best fights againest a challenging boss will be at least between 5-20 minutes.

Should be stronger in every way, especially if meant to be multiplayer.
Like, there would be many players' spells added together equals very strong mix. That's why bosses are hard.
And bosses should be hard, else they don't deserve to be called bosses. Just a strong soldier.

@Toink

And what does final fantasy fights consist of....Long ass boss fights that are half based on luck. Also, part of the time spent in those fights is scrolling down a menu or watching a cinematic for a spell be cast 148th time. I, of course, have a bias against FF combat system and find it relatively boring.

A boss fight does not have to be long to be fun. And I said that as a guideline to build on, not a cookie cutter.

Yes, Hydrolisk. I know that I'll have to find another way to make sure Bosses can somewhat manage againest five heroes. I am planning of doing something to "even out the odds" more so. That is also when intense testing goes into play.

*sigh* Boy, I have a lot of work ahead of me... but as long as I keep at it, it will be finished.

a little bit of 2 and 3 for me because bosses are bosses, that is hard deadly and annoying. If your making an orpg that is. But if your making a campaign then you should only make the spells stronge because theres nothijng more annoying then being owned time and time again because of the rapid cooldown/cast rate of a spell that you can't counter(assuming that you cant)