[CeFurkan]

^ so is spam catching legends and zeniths

Well it will be really hard to catch ancients. And ancients will own others. But we can modify top trainers list to make it more proper.

[ItsHowIRoll]

Classes are determined by total stat and does not have any secondary effect.
So removing them does not mean anything. And you still have to catch them because different monster count has effect on top trainers.

Does this mean that this argument is put to an end? No change happens

[Pein]

^that needs too be done but not urgently and if you train your monster's right or have ultimate box, ancients cant own you

[pj1357]

I agree!
this has my support (i like the unused mosters, i feal sorry for them)

[SparrowHawk]

So now this discussion has moved towards top trainers

https://forum.monstermmorpg.com/Thread-H...calculated

[Dead2F]

Hi,
I started this game yesterday so I guess I'm a noob. But I like the class system, it tells me how strong the top evolution of a monster is. Without classes players will just check for the monster's stats and choose the best aka emissary-up.
Without changing the monsters abilities, the best way to encourage "trainers" to get regular stat monsters is to make spetial PVPs in which only regular monsters can battle (I'm not sure about the mechanics of my idea thought)

[Pein]

^ i agree with you 101%

just have competitions for those classes you feel are left out and at the moment superior class is starting to get popular

[AriaSings]

Cefurkan,

If you don't change the way the system works, then 70% of the monsters in this game will be widely unused and unwanted by trainers. Do you want all of that hard work to go to waste?

Aria

---

If you could please read the argument from the beginning you will see what the problem is.

[Pein]

aria either way people only pick monsters that arent zenith/legend by looks cuz only cool looking emissaries and superiors are used by players

[orboknown]

Classes are determined by total stat and does not have any secondary effect.
So removing them does not mean anything. And you still have to catch them because different monster count has effect on top trainers.

@aria-this is his reaosniing for it.take it to pm if you want to try and convince him otherwise.

[AriaSings]

Orbo,

The response didn't answer the argument...

---

@pein, well DUH. This is the point of the entire thread!!!

The whole point is that people pick other monsters besides zeniths/legendaries. Read my first post because i'm not going to rewrite the entire argument...

[orboknown]

This is AriaSings suggestion. They were not able to post a thread so I posted for them.

Someone worked really hard to create every single one of these monsters. Every regular and superior monsters required hours of work. However, these monsters are rarely used because of their class designation. One of the stated goals of the game is to have 10,000+ monsters. That's a lot of hard work. Just think about it--out of these 10,000 monsters, only 3000 of these monsters are going to be regularly used, simply due to their class status.

Whenever I search for a new monster to add to my team, the first thing I look at is what class it is. This is bad, I know, but I'm sure that other players have experienced this phenomenon as well. If it's a regular class, I don't want to catch it at all--even if the monster is the type I want and the artwork is really appealing to me.

Well then,you just contradicted yourself.Why cease class system when you yourself use it as a point of reference?

I propose that there is an abolishment of the class designations except for legendary. This way, a monsters will not be judged by its class designation, but by its attractiveness to the player, its move set, and its types.This will also add more diversity to the game. Whenever I pvp, I tend to see the same monsters over and over again--alaclipse, hydevil, miro, etc. What if regular monsters were valued as well?

The higher stat value is the reason you see them in pvp.Also,why abolish ancient?

I'm not saying that stats, appearance rate, or the amount of exp given for any legendary or zenith monster should change. I'm just suggesting that the class titles should be eliminated to foster the growth of diversity in the game.

Thank you,
Aria

Eliminating class titles wouldn't really change anything.people would just look at the stats themselves and still go with the same monsters.

[SparrowHawk]

This is AriaSings suggestion. They were not able to post a thread so I posted for them.



Hi everyone,



Has anyone else noticed that the only sought-after monsters are those that are emissary, zenith, and legend? It makes sense--these monsters have high class designation. But what about all of the hundreds of regular and superior monsters that are overlooked by users?



Someone worked really hard to create every single one of these monsters. Every regular and superior monsters required hours of work. However, these monsters are rarely used because of their class designation. One of the stated goals of the game is to have 10,000+ monsters. That's a lot of hard work. Just think about it--out of these 10,000 monsters, only 3000 of these monsters are going to be regularly used, simply due to their class status.



Whenever I search for a new monster to add to my team, the first thing I look at is what class it is. This is bad, I know, but I'm sure that other players have experienced this phenomenon as well. If it's a regular class, I don't want to catch it at all--even if the monster is the type I want and the artwork is really appealing to me.



I propose that there is an abolishment of the class designations except for legendary. This way, a monsters will not be judged by its class designation, but by its attractiveness to the player, its move set, and its types. This way, the hard work of these artists will be fully appreciated.



This will also add more diversity to the game. Whenever I pvp, I tend to see the same monsters over and over again--alaclipse, hydevil, miro, etc. What if regular monsters were valued as well?



I'm not saying that stats, appearance rate, or the amount of exp given for any legendary or zenith monster should change. I'm just suggesting that the class titles should be eliminated to foster the growth of diversity in the game.



Thank you,

Aria

I would really like to see this implemented. I get tired of having to train legends/zeniths in order to be competitive in pvp. It would be nice if stats were all about the same except for legends and ancients. Then we could have more variety and more strategies.

ANOTHER alternative is to bring zeniths down to emissary and bring regulars and superiors up to emissary, since it's true that a well trained emissary can certainly beat a legendary. That way, all monsters, if trained correctly, could beat a legendary. That would normalize the game and certainly create diversity.

---

It's also not only redoing their stats, but taking the class designation away completely (except for legendaries).

Starter - Emissary - Legendary - Ancient are the 4 classes.

Anything above starter and anything lower than legendary are emissary ;D

Now, just to get CeFurkan's approval.

Yeah, I think what should be done is to minimize the gap between Regular/Superior and Emissary base stats. Notice I don't say eliminate, because then there's not a legitimate reason in keeping their current encounter rates, should those Mons be given too close of a base stat total. But if the base stats are adjusted and what were competitively useless Mons become viable in competitive play, they will be useful while maintaining a sense of rarity.



I also think this would be a good idea because it would create a new profitable market in the game's economy. Not as profitable as Emissary+ because of the encounter rates, but still worth selling.

Personally, I'm not nearly so concerned about the economy as I am about PvP. The economy is a concern, but the uselessness of Regular/Superior takes the cake by far.

Hmm...maybe you guys could implement something which allows only the use of Monsters in a certain class when you are challenging someone for a PvP match? For example, there could be a question asking, "Which Monster class should be allowed in this match?" or something and then there could be a dropdown menu with all the Monster classes. You could use my tier system to define what Monsters would be allowed in each class. So, if you chose the Regular class in the dropdown menu, then only Monsters from the Regular and Starter classes would be allowed to be used in that battle. I think that would give players an incentive to use some of the Monsters which are not competitively viable in the current PvP system.

That's the thing; your idea would make more sense if first the gap between Regular, Superior, and Emissary was semi-bridged so that even if the player didn't have a team of Emissaries, they could still be able to beat one if he plays intelligently. Hence PvP is a little more thrilling because the underdog is not necessarily wiped out.

I mean rarity of a monster does not have to correspond with stats.

If you collapse regulars, superiors, emissaries, and zeniths, into one class with similar stats, then that will easily solve the problem. Monsters can still have the same catch rates as they do now. Thus, a monster's rarity will be based on it's ability to be caught rather than on stats. This will preserve "a sense of rarity" but also mend the problem with pvp.

If you keep zeniths, then the same stigmatism is going to exist. The only way to fix it is to get rid of all classes except for starters, legendaries, and ancients. Other monsters will just have no class.

---

i totally agree with this because most users tend to use only zenith and above until recently emissaries werent even picked so i say abandon it except for starters zeniths legends and ancients

I agree with what you are saying. But also consider the stigmatism against the very name of the classes. If the first thing that a user looks at is the class, then that's a problem because it's creating an undesirable class of monsters. You can keep the same catch rates and change the stats. The thing that is truly going to make a difference if you remove the classification system. We will know which monsters are rare based on their catch rate.

So really most of the problems with PvP and stuff would be solved by changing the stats of basically every Monster. Nothing will have to be done with the classes if the stats are fixed.

Just trying to make sense of this statement... the problems with pvp are that everyone will be using the same 100 monsters while completely ignoring the other 500+ monsters and that it is clear that changing the stats of most monsters (not basically every monster). Most monsters meaning everything above starters, and below zeniths and the emissary class could stay the same. If all these are changed and new monsters with different abilities and typing are now useable.... I have to disagree that nothing will have been done with the classes. A bunch will become absorbed into just one class if the stats are fixed. Thus this would increase the amount of monsters available to compete on the emissary and legendary tiers.

I think these are some good quotes to look over o.o

[AriaSings]

Orbo,

1) I used myself as an example to show that the system affects me, too. I would LOVE to catch lots of regular monsters but I can't because they can't stand up in pvp.

2) I didn't mean to infer that you abolish ancient. If you read my later posts, you would see that the ideal system would be starter - every other monster - legendary - ancient. That way, there aren't too many monsters with hugely large stats that can't be beat.

3) Exactly. That's why, in discussion in later posts, we came up with the idea of reducing stats of zeniths to emissary and raising the stats of regulars and superiors to emissary. That way, there will be a normalization of the stratification and every monster will be able to beat legendary and ancient. Also, because the zenith class will be gone, every monster will be valued the same as if it was a zenith. That way, ALL of the monsters in the game are used and the hard work of CeFurkan and the artists is not wasted.

[orboknown]

@aria-you said to go over your initial post.thus, i did so.I believe i said above i agreed with raith and snoozns points.
@dei-Thank you for the references.

[AriaSings]

Ok Orbo. But what did you think of what I just said, especially point #3?

[orboknown]

@Point 3-if we change the stats of all monsters to emissary,we need to normalize the catch rates. Also,..i just forgot my addition.*rageslap*

[AriaSings]

But what if we don't change the catch rates...like in pokemon, the rarity of a monster was based on catch rates, not exp.

[SparrowHawk]

@Point 3-if we change the stats of all monsters to emissary,we need to normalize the catch rates. Also,..i just forgot my addition.*rageslap*

Actually, Aria has made a good point before. Leave the catch rates the same, as an indication of showing the monster's rarity.

[orboknown]

then there has to be a reason for the monster to warrant a lower catch rate. Like in pokemon, it was because there was only the possibility of catching one per game.in MMO, we can catch many of the same legends.the artificially low catch rates means the higher stats are the reason for the low catch artes.

[AriaSings]

Well orbo, when I think of hard-to-catch pokemon besides legendaries, i remember that 1) they would run away (like chansey), 2) they would heal all of the time (like snorlax), 3) you could only hatch them (elekid, togepi), 4) you could only get them in the safari zone and you were under a time limit and other restrictions (skyther, rhydon), 5) you could only find them in one specific place in the entire map of the game.

All of these factors were indicative of rarity and influenced the catch rates of these monsters, and none of these monsters were legendaries. These lower catch rates made these monsters more rare, but did not affect their stats. Any monster in the game (except maybe caterpie and magicarp, which would later evolve into good pokemon), could beat any of these hard-to-catch monsters.

[orboknown]

the thing is tho,almost none of that applies in this game. We have no breeding system.We have no monster-running away thing. We have no pre-programmed move usage rate. We have no safari. Thus,the only point that applies is the once-in-the-game appearence. That clearly does not apply here.

[AriaSings]

Well we could make it so that every monster only has one location where you can find it...

anyway, could you please explain why catch rate has to correlate with stats? why couldn't it be independent variable?

[orboknown]

Because the lower catch rates has to give the monster an advantage over higher catch rates ones.even the lower catch rates wouldnt mean anything in this game because you can still get hordes of the same monster. Lower catch rates has to have a reason justifying the Lower rates.

[PcKaveman]

Because the lower catch rates has to give the monster an advantage over higher catch rates ones.even the lower catch rates wouldnt mean anything in this game because you can still get hordes of the same monster. Lower catch rates has to have a reason justifying the Lower rates.

I disagree with this on the basis that I feel it is more of your opinion than a fact. Just because something is harder to catch should not justify a monster being better than monsters that are easier to find. In the end all it means is that it is rarer than other monsters and should in turn be treated as such in the market. There is no rule saying that monsters with lower catch rates have to be better, if there is I certainly would change my opinion.

In terms of pvping though to make everything below legendary and above starters come to the same stats level as emissaries opens a wide variety of doors in terms of potential useable monsters. It will help make the game more interesting by giving people a chance to experiment with monsters that would inevitably have been useless in the past. For the sake of monster diversity and increasing pvping options, I think this idea should be at the very least considered for future updates.

[SparrowHawk]

Because the lower catch rates has to give the monster an advantage over higher catch rates ones.even the lower catch rates wouldnt mean anything in this game because you can still get hordes of the same monster. Lower catch rates has to have a reason justifying the Lower rates.

Just because something is harder to catch should not justify a monster being better than monsters that are easier to find.

Understandable.

In the end all it means is that it is rarer than other monsters and should in turn be treated as such in the market. There is no rule saying that monsters with lower catch rates have to be better, if there is I certainly would change my opinion.

Absolutely O.o Doing this will fix the market and fix my gold addiction to be richer e.e

In terms of pvping though to make everything below legendary and above starters come to the same stats level as emissaries opens a wide variety of doors in terms of potential useable monsters. It will help make the game more interesting by giving people a chance to experiment with monsters that would inevitably have been useless in the past. For the sake of monster diversity and increasing pvping options, I think this idea should be at the very least considered for future updates.

I support this here! ^

[Raith]

I disagree with this on the basis that I feel it is more of your opinion than a fact. Just because something is harder to catch should not justify a monster being better than monsters that are easier to find.

However, you are overlooking the basis of his opinion. His opined policy is one which efficiently keeps Mons (emissaries) with higher-end base stats from being handed out like candy without slight perseverance.


Everything you wrote after this quote is copypasta of what I've already said lol.

[PcKaveman]

I disagree with this on the basis that I feel it is more of your opinion than a fact. Just because something is harder to catch should not justify a monster being better than monsters that are easier to find.

However, you are overlooking the basis of his opinion. His opined policy is one which efficiently keeps Mons (emissaries) with higher-end base stats from being handed out like candy without slight perseverance.


Everything you wrote after this quote is copypasta of what I've already said lol.

I believe he is talking about lower catch rates should = better stats.... that would imply more to do with zeniths than emissaries. In fact emissaries would be the one category that isn't touched.

Also, if you look back to the beginning I believe I am just re-stating what I have been saying from the beginning, thus copypasting what I've been saying all along.

However escaping the cycle of who said what first I'd rather stick to the topic of this thread, which is combining all tiers under legendary and above starter to create one class called "emissaries", bringing all monsters to emissary stat levels, and improving the pvp options immensely.

I am still in full support of this idea

[SkyRock]

Zeniths, if turned Emissaries, Will render Zeniths useless. Just leave them as is. You can merge Superior, Emissaries and Regulars, and having set 6m or 7m exp. Zeniths have high power, and if they become Emissaries their power would be useless..

[SparrowHawk]

@Rain - Why not make zeniths emissary monsters with same exp, same stats, and just a lower catch rate?