I would most humbly like to suggest to you the devs @Dev_VKC please appoint experienced players to test monsters before they are realsed and for leaking purposes I suggest the mods which is @Killerdog and @ItsSherlock and others these guys have played the game for a long time.It is really annoying and absolutely not fair for a monsters to be realsed then nerfed later on where as ppl used their hard earned gems so please consider this. 
12 Likes
They also could provide more significant compensation to players that had a monster they own get nerfed.
1 Like
Mr.x suggested this a year back and he got ridiculed by other forum users. I had no clue why
1 Like
Where was the thread?
Was in the middle of some other thread . Sometimes people here do harsh things without using their head.
1 Like
He was asking for something ridiculous like a full refund of all gems spent on the egg to get the monster if the monster got nerfed even a little bit, even if it was after more than a year since the monster was released. Another suggestion of his I think was that if a monster got nerfed you could have the option to trade it in for another monster of your choice.
The concept itself was not the issue, just the greedy suggestions.
2 Likes
I can see why people didn’t like that idea lol. That being said, I’m not sure how the devs would be able to compensate people that dropped hundreds of dollars on bastia when they hopefully nerf it.
Nerf bastia ? Why !
No !
1 Like
While I would be honoured with this and obviously would relish the opportunity to try out unreleased monsters, they do their own testing and balancing with tools that probably wouldn’t be easy for me or anyone else to use or have access to.
What I’ve noticed is the Devs seem to undervalue:
- Enemy team disruption (e.g. Bronzeshells etc. have had to be nerfed multiple times)
- Entrance control
- Monsters with high defence or very powerful movesets + no weaknesses
I think the Devs do a really good job of balancing most of the time and the best way we can help them is pointing out the mistakes they seem to repeat. Another thing is occasionally bringing out a high speed monster with crazy sweeping potential (Scorpiogeist for example). If a monster is great at low speed then it’s probably fine to leave at low speed. If they want the monster to be high speed for a design reason (e.g. high speed X killer) then they should be very careful about what else they add.
P.S. A great example of bad balancing is Bastia + Lunartic. Both are “balanced” by their low speed. However, together you can completely wreck the enemy team. Neither have any weakness and are incredibly tanky. Lunartic itself is fine but when combined with things that support it then it can get pushed over the edge.
2 Likes
-I completely get your point it would be hard but they should just get a single trusted top playwr who could evaluate it from a player’s perspective(I mean devs don’t play pvp everyday).Like for example you could have warned the devs about bastiaand explain to them why it’s a bit over powered before it was released.
- Another example is deathgazer if a player like hidan was shown the monster before its release he could have realized its potential to be op and warned the devs before people spent money to get the monster only for it to be nerfed after some time.
Sabateur!
To be perfectly honest with you, it would be my dream to have a test account where I could grant myself all the monsters. I’d use it for testing and video purposes, never PvP of course (except dueling). I have one for the other game I am involved in and it’s been incredibly useful for the community. I can imagine here I’d have a huge amount of envy from people though haha.
There have been a few examples like Deathgazer where the Devs missed an interaction but to be honest even if you had one or a few players looking at a monster design before release they could miss one just as easily. It’s really easy to say in hindsight that something was “obvious” or “the players would have spotted it” once it’s already been spotted. There are many things not discovered by players until quite a while after a monster’s release. Bloomeluga was a monster I saw leaked a long time before its release and I rated it B+ with the note that it was a perfect buff to mortar teams. We were in a high speed sweeping meta at the time so a monster that needed 200s to pass from its entry before it can sweep properly didn’t look good. Turns out it was a top notch package for stun protection and sweeping that was a huge meta changer after people got playing with it for a while (it was at least 2 weeks after release before everyone started realising how crazy it was, 1 month before it was popular - we were all kind of distracted by Sakuralisk to be fair though).
Hehe well it was the first thing my brain jumped to when I saw the moveset and literally the first thing I said in our clan chat about Bastia when she was released. I’m a saboteur of my own ideas 
1 Like
Fair enough, I guess nothing is perfect but atleast some compasiation or an apology at least. 
No one happy to see his candy stolen or bein eaten, especially the free one.
Look chronozeros now.
I doubt someone will bother use him to get into top 10 now.
I never said refund money or gems all i said maybe a trade option if a monster is nerfed within a year time period and the trade option will be limited for a certain time which seems fair to me get your facts straight and all i was doing is building ideas for the community but they seem to hate it and cry later as usual.
1 Like
Thanks for the corrections. No offence intended with anything I said and sorry for any mis-remembering. I think it’s a topic that’s been discussed a few times with different ideas so I’ve probably got a few mixed up in my head.
1 Like
What I wouldn’t give to have a test account as well. Who knows, maybe we could work together on testing out any interactions you wish to learn more about.
If it’s testing and experimentations , who could be better than professor oak himself ! You can be my assistant I guess