Remove GoN Breed Limits

[Moonlight_Eevee]

Is it a guarantee that someone with enough Trios will summon eventually? I have quite a few and still lack even one GoN after almost three years of trying.

 

I'm on the fence about this. It would be nice to be able to have more than two, but since GoNs are so hard for some to summon as they are, I hope their chances of successful summoning wouldn't decrease just because users could get more.

I know how you feel, I have yet to get a single GoN

[Inutomaru]

I say no to this suggestion for one reason. These dragons are 'legendary', a joke to the Lugia of pokemon in which only one can be captured per game (We at least allow 2 such instead of sticking to one). Not much of a 'joke' if we allow unlimited.

Once per game, but seen multiple times in the Anime.

e.g., the Lugia in the movie, the Lugia and his/her baby in the anime, etc.

[arlymaye]

I say no to this suggestion for one reason. These dragons are 'legendary', a joke to the Lugia of pokemon in which only one can be captured per game (We at least allow 2 such instead of sticking to one). Not much of a 'joke' if we allow unlimited.

And this .. the *joke* is really on us here ... those who waited 3 years, summoning since the BSA became available and just fail every 2 weeks. Therefore, if this is how the *joke* is supposed to work, I wish not to be ridiculed any further than the 2.

 

ETA : (Disclaimer) : My very personal feeling and opinion on the matter.

Edited February 22, 2013 by arlymaye

[StormWizard212]

I'd prefer to see a feature that allows GoNs to be bred (in the same way that holidays are bred out of season). It would guarantee that any egg produced would be of the other breed of course, so I don't see the harm.

 

I'm sure this was also brought up at some stage, but I don't recall the outcome.

[MaggieXawesomeness]

Dunno why, but I just don't really like this idea.

 

I do think GoNs should be able to breed like Holidays, though.

Edited February 22, 2013 by MaggieXawesomeness

[angelicdragonpuppy]

I'd prefer to see a feature that allows GoNs to be bred (in the same way that holidays are bred out of season). It would guarantee that any egg produced would be of the other breed of course, so I don't see the harm.

 

I'm sure this was also brought up at some stage, but I don't recall the outcome.

TJ said he would consider making them breedable; however, if I recall correctly their creator views them as very legendary creatures that wouldn't start breeding with more worldly species, so I'm not sure if TJ's pondering ever went anywhere.

 

Guys, if you don't want more than two, that's cool, but why is it so important to you to make sure no one else can ever get more than two as well? It's not like you would HAVE to keep trying to get more. :T

Edited February 22, 2013 by angelicdragonpuppy

[KageSora]

You can only CATCH one Lugia per game--but I've had like 3 or 4 in one game before as a combination of trading and using multiple games to get event Pokemon before. So, you CAN have multiple legit "one-off" legendaries per game.

 

Not to mention there's nothing wrong with restarting your game and trading the one you catch to another game, over and over. But, on DC, we're not allowed to do that.

 

So we're actually considerably more restricted here than we would be in Pokemon.

 

You could look at the work it would take to Summon more than 2 as the DC equivalent of restarting your game to catch and trade a Lugia to your other version over and over.

 

 

And, as has been mentioned, they're shown as being more than one-off in the anime. There was an episode with a baby Lugia, IIRC, and the mother?

 

So, I don't see why we shouldn't be allowed a few more, at least, even with keeping the theme of Pokemon.

[MagnusMango]

I support this. I don't see how they would lose their value if they were still rewarding everytime they were summoned. I have yet to get one, but I'd love a set of them on my scroll.

 

There's really no harm in this, since they're unbreedable. And if anyone doesn't want more than two, they don't have to get one.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

I really don't think the state of Lugia in Pokemon is particularly relevant, here. DC is DC and Pokemon is Pokemon, just because a dragon is based off Lugia doesn't mean it has to follow the rules of Lugias (although as has been said, there are multiple Lugias anyway).

 

You could argue that it's a super-legendary dragon and thus should be limited in the amount we could get... but that logic falls rather flat. Even if WE can only get two, so can everyone else, showing they're still far from being a super-legend. Not to mention that, again, we can get two, which while I realize is for sprite-collecting purposes still goes to show that there are multiples out there. Allowing people to collect more wouldn't make them any less rare, anyway--my second one took me over a year to get after the first, if I recall correctly (and that was despite having 10+ sets of Trios!), and a third would likely be the same way. One per year is hardly making them into underappreciated scroll stockers--it'd still be very clear that these are rare and powerful creatures.

 

I also don't dig the "I don't want more so no one should be able to get more" gig. Yes, I understand being relieved once you've gotten two and don't need to deal with the headache of summon anymore. However, even if the limit was increased, you could simply choose NOT to summon more if it's too much stress. Think of it like cake. You get two pieces, you eat two pieces, and now you're full and content. And then someone else puts two more slices in front of you. Oooh, you want them, but on the other hand you know eating them would probably make you sick, so you choose to pass. However, just because you don't take the pieces then doesn't mean someone else can't deal with the 'stress' and eat three or four in one shot. And hey, maybe later you'll want another piece, too. Get what I'm saying? Having the chance to get more GoNs should not be stressing anyone out, because they can choose when and if to deal with getting more. For what it's worth, my original thought on getting my second was also "yay, don't need to deal with this crap anymore"--but now it's been a while and I'd rather like to collect some more, annoying though it might be to summon the little buggers.

 

The only thought that I agree is of concern is whether or not GoNs are affected by ratios, which only TJ can confirm or reject for us. If they are, then yes, GoNs should be limited so that people who don't have any have a fair shot at getting them. If it's not ratio-based, however (as I assume it's not), then there's no fear. <3

Edited February 22, 2013 by angelicdragonpuppy

[Ashywolf]

I feel that if this happens they will be auto-frozen. This makes "collect-them-all people" happy but restricts a superfluous adult count per scroll.

[KrazyKarp]

I say no to this suggestion for one reason. These dragons are 'legendary', a joke to the Lugia of pokemon in which only one can be captured per game (We at least allow 2 such instead of sticking to one). Not much of a 'joke' if we allow unlimited.

Moltres, Articuno, and Zapdos also can only be captured once.

 

I like this suggestion, but I feel that a limit still should be there. Maybe a limit of 5?

[TwilitProphet]

I don't like the idea, myself. These dragons are legendary. I don't think we should be allowed to have more than the two we get already.

[purplehaze]

I am really neutral on this. I wouldn't want more than the two I have, but I can see how others might.

 

I wouldn't oppose it, unless it takes away from the chances of those who are still trying for their first two.

[Vhale]

Neutral here as well and wishing I could help those trying for 3 years to get one o.O

[Keileon]

I'd agree to raising the limit to 3 or 4 to get a full set of each gender, but not unlimited. These things are legendary, not commonplace, no matter how hard it'd be to summon them.

[Obscure_Trash]

I'm on the fence about this. It would be nice to be able to have more than two, but since GoNs are so hard for some to summon as they are, I hope their chances of successful summoning wouldn't decrease just because users could get more.

This and this:

 

If I ever get my 2nd, since it is going to take at least 3 years of trying-I NEVER want to use the "summon" BSA ever again. I really can't imagine that anyone who has put 3 years into getting just 1 is going to want to continue after they manage to get the second (if they even try to get a second) trying to go for more. That's just my personal opinion.

 

I'm not going to give an outright no, but I do think two is sufficient.

[Banuk]

I'd love to have something else to do around here than just hang out in the AP all day and breed my dragons for other people.

 

I've got my two GoNs. They were a pain to get, but in the end I'd do it all over again if I had to. It's like my own personal raffle.

 

So...yes from me.

 

(I really don't like how people are using, "I don't have one yet, so no one should be able to have more." as their reason to not support this. I don't see why I should potentially be deprived of future GoNs because you don't have yours yet, I'm sorry. Unless we know for sure that there is some sort of ratio work behind the GoN, saying that just sounds a bit petty and jealous, in my honest opinion.)

Edited February 22, 2013 by Derranged

[stagazer_7]

Support from me as well, it would be great if we could have more of these pretty dragons on our scrolls.

[Fuzzbucket]

This and this:

 

 

 

I'm not going to give an outright no, but I do think two is sufficient.

This. As they can't do ANYTHING - and are a PIA to get, I really couldn't be bothered ! Sure I want my two - but after that - no. Though I suppose if more WERE allowed, I'd freeze one, probably...

 

Equivocal.

[kitsune93]

Maybe raising the limit slightly but definitely not unlimited. They're supposed to be extremely rare and someone having a bunch of them takes away from the meaning of that.

But, if it hurts the chances of people trying to get the first one, then no to any change.

[Banuk]

Maybe raising the limit slightly but definitely not unlimited. They're supposed to be extremely rare and someone having a bunch of them takes away from the meaning of that.

But, if it hurts the chances of people trying to get the first one, then no to any change.

So...anyone who has a lot of zombies, neglecteds, golds, silvers, or low-gen. tinsels and/or shimmer-scales is taking away the rarity of those breeds?

 

Having a lot of GoNs would be no different than having a lot of other rare things.

[Fuzzbucket]

So...anyone who has a lot of zombies, neglecteds, golds, silvers, or low-gen. tinsels and/or shimmer-scales is taking away the rarity of those breeds?

 

Having a lot of GoNs would be no different than having a lot of other rare things.

No - I see what you are saying - but if there is a ratio thing involved, those who have been trying for three years and STILL have none - I know several ! - would be well hacked off to see their chances fall still further, and I can't say I'd blame them. They seem to have been set up with a quite specific rarity value as it is. f the ratio stayed the same and people could get more, it would get even harder for those with none at all to get even one.

[KageSora]

No - I see what you are saying - but if there is a ratio thing involved, those who have been trying for three years and STILL have none - I know several ! - would be well hacked off to see their chances fall still further, and I can't say I'd blame them. They seem to have been set up with a quite specific rarity value as it is. f the ratio stayed the same and people could get more, it would get even harder for those with none at all to get even one.

If they are controlled by a ratio, I agree that we shouldn't be allowed unlimited--MAYBE a slight increase in numbers.

 

But, if it's all down to chance, and there isn't a ratio, then I don't see why allowing more is a terrible thing.

 

Unless there was a ratio but TJ would be willing to alter how it works to just chance without there being a ratio.

[kitsune93]

So...anyone who has a lot of zombies, neglecteds, golds, silvers, or low-gen. tinsels and/or shimmer-scales is taking away the rarity of those breeds?

 

Having a lot of GoNs would be no different than having a lot of other rare things.

I wouldn't really consider golds, silvers and prize dragons to be considered extremely rare.

Last time I checked, zombies did sort of have a limit because they still count to the kill limit after they've been resurrected. (that might have changed though...)

And though they don't really have a limit, I can't think of anyone who has more than a handful of neglecteds.

Like I said, I wouldn't be against raising the limit, just against there being no limit.

[siliconrose]

I wouldn't really consider golds, silvers and prize dragons to be considered extremely rare.

Last time I checked, zombies did sort of have a limit because they still count to the kill limit after they've been resurrected. (that might have changed though...)

And though they don't really have a limit, I can't think of anyone who has more than a handful of neglecteds.

Like I said, I wouldn't be against raising the limit, just against there being no limit.

1) The kill limit didn't apply to hatchling zombies (you can try and bring dead hatchlings back on Halloween even if they died from time expiring).

2) TJ changed the kill limit so zombies don't count forever. Your kill slots come back again.