Hello everyone. This is my first post on devmaster so I appreciate any
criticism you have to hep me be a better contributor and poster on here.
I am currently working on a game in a similar style of Pokemon and
Dragon Warrior Monsters where you assemble a group of monsters and fight
1v1 (potentially more later) against monsters generated from a barcode
scan. I recently remembered the aspect of DWM that allowed you to breed
your monsters and create new ones and thought that was an appealling
concept ( I know Pokemon has it too but I haven’t played any of the new
ones to know how it works). My question centers around whether I should
include a level system for my monsters or a tier system based upon
breeding or fusion.
Here’s what I’m currently thinking for the monster section of my game:
Monsters belong to standard groups or families (Humans, Dragons,
Elementals), have damage types (Fire, Water, Undead), stats (attack,
defense, speed), and move sets (4-8 moves to choose from). In addition,
I am currently thinking of setting them up in tiers that are based upon
fusion. There would be three tiers with each tier having 30-100% better
stats/moves than the previous tier. You can fuse monsters of the same
tier with 2 varying outcomes.
1. Two monsters fuse together to form a new monster of the next tier.
Example, a swordsman and fire elemental (both T1) form a Flame
Swordsman (Tier 2) that will have higher stats, an added damage type
(fire) and possibly new moves.
That flame swordsman could then be fused with a Drake (both tier 2) to
form a Drake Rider (tier 3).
So you can make a new monster or buff your current monster. Also, I am
currently thinking of using a rank (level) system that allows monsters
to reach a rank of 5. As you gain a rank, you can upgrade some stats
(although not enough to make a t1 stronger than a t2). Also, as you gain
ranks, the monster can learn more moves (start with 3 and gain 1 at
How do you think this approach compares to using a leveling system
(1-100 levels) which differentiates monsters based on their level and
the stats that rely upon levels such as Pokemon? Would this be
interesting and engaging to play or too tedious?
I appreciate any feedback or suggestions. Thanks
Please log in or register to post a reply.
I have thought a couple of times about a similar idea.
The problems I see here are:
- You will get a huge amount of possible Monsters in the upper tears.
If you start out with 8 T1 monsters, they can combine into 8² T2
Monsters. For T3 it’s 8³ an so on. The problem I see is, with the assets
you need. If you want to visualize them at all. Even if you restrict the
monsters, that can be combined or went with an aproch like only the
color of the weapon switches, it will getting out of hands I think.
- If breeding/fusion of monsters is the only way to upgrade them, how
can you “control” the advance of the Player? If he just stays at the
start zone and get 8 Monsters, he’s alredy t3 in theory. Therefore you
need some mechanics.
(Maybe fusion costs some resources and you can control them like
- What is the max tier you planning to have? I ask because I like the
aspect of training many different monsters to their “max” tier. If it’s
very low, what is the long time motivation about your game?
Hi (my first post here :-)).
What are your plans for this game? In fact as an “trainer” in a world
like pokemon i’m fighting against my opponents ingame which are all
npcs. The real interessting part would be the pvp. When you’re new to
your game and everyone is just on top except yourself, you would have a
real disadvantage and would probably quit the game. I think everything
you wrote makes sense and it will be (real) hard work to visualize every
possible kombination of specific monsters. Especially when your player
will ask for an type independent fusion system and i know this question
will come ;-).
I cant really remember but i was playing back in the days a game called
“dragon quest monsters” which had the similar featurw of combining my
monsters with another one. Play it and try it out so you’ll see how it
could or couldn’t be. :-)