Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
2 
Report this post
At the almost bare minimum.
I'd like it if people could choose their own specialisations and catch their own monsters.
But two players are led around the map by the host, always fight the same battles contributing three of their monsters each to a 6v6. Shared XP.
If having two specialisations in one party creates too many balance problems: Local co-op only, player two manages half of the party and is an extension of the hosts speciality. It just enables the accessibility of two people playing through the game together on the couch rather than passing the controller. Plus it's another tag the developer can add to the Steam store page.
Again, what about minimal local? No networking required, people can use parsec then if they're desperate to play online. Further, it's turn-based.
Well I hope they consider it. It would be fun to experience this in a couch setting.
I want each individual on the couch with a controller, managing half the party.
I noticed one of the announcements says this
"– Game Mechanics: Content must adhere to existing game mechanics; no new game-changing elements."
This would be changing game mechanics which is something they want to avoid because it's more effort than it is worth.
Could it be done without changing a lot ? Yeah probably but it wouldn't be worth the dev time , this genre (creature capture RPG) is almost entirely single player with the little multiplayer being PVP matches and trading.
Co-op is not going to appeal to the majority , the idea of the stretch goals is to make some money now while also creating new content for the game that will draw in new players , creating more profit than just the stretch goal itself, adding a feature that most people will not use or have any interest in would be a waste of dev time when something else could take it's place and appeal to and bring in more players , generating more profit.
Other than just the business side I just don't see it working on a fundamental level , either you would each have half a team or the enemies would need to be rebalanced for a 12 vs 12 , that is a massive amount of work considering how skills synergize.
If it was just 3+3 vs 6 enemies with each player controlling 3 then you have to ask yourself how do they each catch the monsters ? if they are always together then what is the difference from just passing the controller and listening to each other ?
If the only difference comes down to you just don't want to pass the controller but it is functionally the same then it is even worse of an idea.
You would have better luck asking for something like twitch integration where chat decides what monster to catch and what command to give rather than a co-op , because the twitch integration make increase sales but that's ignoring the stipulation of no new game mechanics.
Yeah, so having co-op means you can have a new Steam tag, show up in a wider variety of searches and draw in the sorts of players you don't already have. Case in point I only discovered this game once it showed up on humble and I've trawled Steam store searches extensively for games in this genre. You could add co-op as a mode without changing the existing mechanics, it's effectively a more elaborate way of controlling a single party, no rebalancing or re-coding of the AI required. The game also has way more accommodation for this than most titles in this genre given the dev tackled the tedious task of controller support, which is vital.
My proposal for this as stated above is a single party, single player controls the overworld, still 6v6 battles but locally, one player manages half the party. In battles the control is effectively passed when it's a creatures turn that belongs to the other player, and that control alternates as appropriate. It's just adding accessibility and accommodations for more than one player to effectively play the game that already exists. To answer your later question you can just use the brazier as you do now and choose to summon to player one or player two's vacant slot in the party. This doesn't have to be difficult.
If you want twitch integration that's a different thing and you're welcome to go ask for that. Myself I have no interest in that and want to see basic couch co-op.
EDIT: That comment about not altering mechanics is regarding the things you can buy from the shop. So you can't buy a false god with a new status effect exclusive to it. The goals feature things like entirely new modes, which are by definition new mechanics.