Need Your Opinion, Please Answer


#1

We are not going to allow duplicate monsters in your lineup/party for  multiplayer due to balancing reasons. Not fun going against 12 Skullwraiths.

Should we put a limit for single play too? What should the limit be? 1 or 2?

Allowing duplicates basically limits giving monsters powerful abilities. For example, if you have all Skullwraiths in your party, game will be a breeze (we could also edit some of the skills as an alternative solution).  


#2

I absolutely think you should limit it in single player as well. The game is much more enjoyable that way. (I already follow that rule in single player even though I’m not required to.)


#3

Well, if I happened to captures and trained two Leviathans, I would want to use them and feel powerful.  If I wanted more of a challenge I would take one out.  However for singleplayer don’t limit the amount of ways you could progress or play the game.  For multiplayer I do agree that you should have limit, but I would not agree with singleplayer.


#4

We don’t want the game to be too easy. And we don’t want to have to limit a monster’s abilities because you’re able to use more than one. That ruins it for many people. I disagree with the above post.

PS: If it means anything, my real life friend (Travis on this forum) also agrees with me on this.


#5

I am also following that rule myself. I play to evolve and catch every new monster I see and this makes me never play with multiple monsters of the same kind. But I do agree it needs some sort of restriction just in case. If there are any monster like the Thunder God in DI, you can just put 3 of those in the front of your lineup and stun/kill everything without getting hurt. That kinda ruins the game if you ask me. You need a challenge to feel any kind of accomplishment and to actually feel you are making progress. That feeling is the most important feeling in a game and it needs to be there. I actually feel a limit of 1 would be the most unique and best way to go, but ALOT will dissagree. It will also make you try more line-ups to find the best strategy.


#6

I respect your opinion, but what if that was my play style?  I understand where you are coming from and I agree with some parts.  However don’t take away a place style that someone might latch onto.  For the record, I do not have any duplicate monsters in my line up, nor do I plan on adding any.  I just know there are people who did that in DIB.


#7

I get that we all have different play styles. But a play style shouldn’t be “be super powerful and destroy everything with no effort”. A good variety of monsters in the party has many benefits:

  1. The game doesn’t become too easy and too boring.

  2. Those of us who prefer that style don’t feel like we’re making a bad choice using multiple monsters when we could be using one type and be much more powerful in the game.

  3. Requires players to explore more of the game.

  4. Requires players to be more strategic (as the game is about).

Maybe a compromise would be okay. For example, allow up to two of the same type but no more. But I still prefer only one of each type.


#8

As an additional note to add, I think we beta testers need to look at the game as though we’re developers, rather than simply the players. For example: it’s great when monsters are easy and you breeze past them so you can get more powerful in the game without any effort. However, we know that the game shouldn’t be too easy and so we should say: let’s make those monsters harder. Or I would love if there’s an experience bug that makes all my monsters level faster, how great, right? But we know that shouldn’t be in the game and that players shouldn’t be able to level monsters that fast, even if we do like it. So we should suggest that the bug gets fixed.

We need to look at it as: how will this change affect all the players, and the game as a whole? Not just how this change affect how strong we are ourselves on the game.


#9

I was thinking about two, I agree once you start adding more the games gets boring and repetitive.


#10

lets take a vote on facebook! edit: i will hold off on this until we get everyones opinion.  


#11

Just because people want it doesn’t mean it’s best for the game… I guess it is about making the customers happy, isn’t it? But how happy are they when they made the game too easy and became bored? Then they quit the game. People don’t always think about the long term.

But I will respect your final decision.


#12

I agree with Ashley on this one.


#13

Maybe I’m alone here but I’m for nerfing the super powerful types.  If they are in such demand that you would WANT 3 or more in your lineup, then maybe they are unbalanced.  If Skullwraiths are better than anything else out there, isn’t there a problem?  I think a better balance might encourage someone to say: “Yes Skullwraiths are great but you also want an XXX in your team”.  Maybe weaken their defense to make them glass cannons, or slow their speed.  I’m not at liberty to give specific advise because I haven’t event seen one.  And also, I’m in the camp of using maybe 2 of a type if they synergize with each other.  I loved in DIB how 2 Morfeus could team up.  The first one puts the opponent to sleep, and the second one does the bonus damage to sleeping targets.  Can’t do that with a single Morfeus, although you could use a different species that also puts targets to sleep.  But still.  don’t cramp playing style without considering why the play style needs changing.

I apologize for always comparing to Geomon.  I played that game solidly for over a year and studied the different types intently.  But that game had one specific species that was far and away the most sought after species.  A Lix.  They were super rare because they could only be caught at noon when the temperatures were around 110 deg. F.   They were so rare that people hacked the game to clone them.  They started trading the clones for pretty much anything they wanted, usually 3 or more other very good monsters (Espers).  

Anyway, (getting to my point, so hang in there) not only were they rare, they were powerful.  And a team of three could wipe out anyone.  People voluntarily started dueling with rules about no duplicates.  The devs eventually rebalanced things and made Lix a little more on par with other types and BAM, the game was so much more enjoyable after that.  the game went from People demanding only 3 or 4 species to nearly 20 or more species that were desirable for trades.  Dueling teams became greatly varied as well as the strategies.  So, that’s my 2 cents.

Along with that, I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE that you utilized the grading system for species.  Geomon had something similar so it wasn’t enough to just catch a Harpy, or a Longzu.  You wanted to find the best of that species, and possibly trade for it, to have a dueling advantage.  That adds so much to the game and I applaud you.  I was so mad at myself when I accidentally killed an S Orcan.  Won’t be the last time I’m sure.  That gets people using those gold cards to catch things like that. And that’s just good for business, right?  Right.


#14

There should be an element of strategy to the game. One shouldn’t want only a large group of super powerful monsters that do a million damage every hit and wipe everything out, but also some strategic monsters with strategic moves. That’s also more easily taken care of when you only allow one of a monster in a team. Then no one can fill up the team with a super powerful monster that can wipe everything out, and may be required to pick some strategic ones as well.

(Of course, there may be enough super powerful ones to where they all would get picked. The player would need to think strategically!)


#15

Exactly why nothing should be super-powerful.  maybe super-powerful under the right conditions.  Like a Blademaster that can build up his strength for each kill.  Or the Asura who builds up as it survives rounds.  I loved those types.  But neither one is a supreme OP type.  You have to figure out how to get them to survive a few rounds before they come into their own.  Dementor is another one.  Placing it at the end of your stack.  I remember back when I got my first Orochi.  WHOA! the game just got a whole lot easier after that.  But the more I played, actually the less valuable he became and other types came into their own.  

but I can see where MAYBE a certain type has a VERY strong attack.  But for balance, it costs a huge amount of TU.  You use it once, well, you are then subject to attacks for a few turns.  But if you have THREE or more, then you are really abusing that type’s strength without getting hit much for it’s weakness.  so, yeah, I can side with the no duplicates camp.  But I’m still hoping nothing is a supremely OP type that kills the game.  


#16

I think you should allow two monsters of the same type in a team, but no more. Just as someone said it above, the morfeus were great in DIB because you could have more than one in your team : alone they were useless, when you had two, it was strategic, when you had three it was boring. My point is, two of the same monsters, if they can “synergize” are a good thing and is a fun strategy to play with, but above that number, it just becomes über powerful and the game gets boring.

On a second hand, if there are overpowered monsters as the Skullwraith, they should be nerfed so they won’t become indispensable, but they would still be a very nice add to your team. As an example, in Pokemon there was a dragon type one which has absolutely no elemental weaknesses, and as every dragon in Pokemon had high stats and some of the most powerful moves : if you didn’t have one in multiplayer, you would just be crushed to pieces. They even forbid its use in official tournament.

I don’t know if everything I said was understandable but let’s hope it is : D


#17

I agree with limits on multiplayer, as it’s only fair that way.

I don’t like the idea of limits when I’m playing for the enjoyment of me, myself, and I. I enjoy playing a challenging game, so I’m capturing as many monsters as I can and deciding from there which ones are going to be in my party for the long haul. However, if I wanted three Skullwraiths, or three Remus’, I wouldn’t be too happy if that were limited just for the sake of keeping the game challenging. The game can be challenging for anyone with any play style, though with the multitude of beautiful and powerful monsters in the game, people would really be cheating themselves if they stuck to a party of all Skullwraiths. 

But if I wanted a super-boss-party of mega powerful monsters, that’s my prerogative. I downloaded the game, I should be able to pick how I want to play it without limitations. If I picked up a Pokemon game and I got a message saying, “They’re easy to catch, but you can’t have more than one Gible -> Gabite -> Garchomp on your game. Sorry, we want to make it challenging!”, I would be very peeved. I didn’t spend 40USD on a game to have it tell me that I can’t use more than one of my favourite. (That’s not my favourite, just for the record.) The game should be challenging, but a lot of the challenge should be raising those monsters to their maximum. Like training them in Pokemon, training them in Dragon Island, training them in this game. I don’t think it’s fair to take away the choices of each individual player when they’re just playing for themselves. 

Multiplayer, however, should certainly have limitations, however you want to implement them; either by number of monsters brought in or level caps, etc. There should be limitations, to make it fair. But when I’m playing by myself, not competing with anyone? I don’t want my game to tell me that I can’t have more than one of my favourite monster. 

There’s also bragging rights. When you have a party of one type (sticking with Skullwraiths, for argument’s sake), you might be able to sweep the game, sure. And then you can boast and puff out your chest and tell us all how quickly you beat the game. But the people with more balanced parties will discover more of the game’s out-of-the-way secrets, will explore every corner of the map. They’ll get to know the monsters, pick favourites, and learn that just because a monster isn’t pretty, doesn’t mean it’s not very good to have on your team. They’ll be the people that give out advice to new players and, if they’re active at the forums, will be respected and well liked, and will be known for their knowledge of the game. Then those that swept the game in a week, with a single type of monster, will quietly seethe behind their computers because suddenly no one wants to hear about what they did. Everyone will want tips from the people who beat the game with a myriad of different monsters. I think the single-type-sweep would be very unpopular, and would gain that negative reputation quickly. No one would want to play like that.

And then there are the people who will play like that, but won’t be an active member of forums. They’ll join, ask a question, receive the answer, and then not show back up until they get stuck again. When people like that (with a party of 12 Skullwraiths) go here to find answers to their problems in the game, they won’t find any. No one that frequents these forums will really play like that, because of the previous paragraph. I’ve seen it happen before - fad grinding, I called it. It was popular for a brief moment and then a quick bit of wind blew that candle out very quickly. When asked about it, people will never give a definitive answer, because they eventually saw that they weren’t getting the most out of their game. Anyhow, the people that came here seeking answers will find none, and one of two things will happen. They’ll rework their team/start a new game, or will walk away from the game. Remember, no matter how large the fanbase is, no matter how much they love the game, there will always be people who won’t like it. Can’t please everyone.

I just don’t see the Skullwraith example being a large enough problem that limits would need to be implemented and enforced. If it doesn’t effect the way you play your single-player game, doesn’t effect the new updates that developers have in the works, it shouldn’t be an issue. Multiplayer limitations, however, should certainly be implemented. It should be a challenge, but not impossible to defeat other players.


#18

You have said it best MadameRed.  let people play single player ANY way they want.  

I guess me and Mr. Kat are in the rare NERF camp.  


#19

Yay ! High five dude !

More seriously, I kind off agree with MadameRed but I think there still should be a limit. Maybe two is a bit two restrictive, but still.


#20

Despite MadameRed’s post, I still think two at max is the best idea.

Usually in games, developers take out ways for the player to be too overpowered and beat the game very easily. In racing games, they don’t let you have a car that easily beats all the other cars without a challenge. In First person shooter games, they don’t give you a gun that 1 hit kills every enemy and does extremely high (to an overpowered level) damage to bosses. In this game, they shouldn’t give you an entire team of monsters that lets you also beat the game without any problem.

As a game developer, I would hate if players were beating my game too easily. What’s the fun in that? I made the game to be challenging, and that’s how I want it to be played.

But if I wanted a super-boss-party of mega powerful monsters, that’s my prerogative. I downloaded the game, I should be able to pick how I want to play it without limitations.

You downloaded a game with a given set of rules. Games have rules. You downloaded it with the realization that you would have to adhere to the game’s rules (unless you can break in and re-write the game’s code). In no game can you do anything you want in it unless you’re the creator and have the ability to code everything you want to do.

I would like to be super overpowered in all the games I play and beat them without a problem, too. But it shouldn’t be allowed.