MY ANGER AT NINTENDO FOR NOT INCLUDING WIFI BATTLES

[Siegmund]

Seriously, I am incredibly annoyed at Nintendo for not including a way to do wifi battles with friends, like you can in Shadow Dragon. The closest things to a wifi battle is the stupid duals, where you team up with three of your friends units and fight against teams, or how you can parley with other people's teams and battle them, but, the enemy is cpu controlled. This sincerely annoys because Nintendo added so many great features but they managed to leave out one that could have enhanced the experience.

[euklyd]

Join the club.

I never even got the opportunity to do a WiFi battle in 11 and I'm still mad.

And it would probably also make optimizing kids really interesting, too.

[Siegmund]

Join the club.

I never even got the opportunity to do a WiFi battle in 11 and I'm still mad

And it would probably also make optimizing kids really interesting, too.

Its just frustrating since it wouldve been the best feature to add.

[Tables]

The more I thought about things, the more I realised that with just a few rule changes (no pair ups/dual strikes, no braves, no/limited rescue) the game actually could have a lot of depth in competitive multiplayer. There's lots of interesting character builds that become interesting when paired up against each other compared to just against Apothelolsis. Like suddenly avoid stacking becomes a much more useful option, Snipers/Double Bow become interesting, in fact, various different regalia become interesting, as do certain effective weapons. Character mods actually mean a damn and so do skill sets - probably any good character build could likely be countered by another still useful build, which would probably give the game something of the feeling of CCG/LCGs where you can build a deck to bring along, and some will be better than others, but no deck will be superior to all possible options and further, even the best decks sometimes lose due to bad luck.

But all of this hinges on the above stated points. Don't ban pair ups and the related mechanics, and DS/DG luck will likely be too big of a factor. Don't ban Braves and you'll only really see the 2-3 range regalia bows plus braves plus Celica's 95% of the time (perhaps the occasional +5 spd weapon thrown in). Don't ban rescue and you'll see ridiculous mobility across the map, with rescue based teams destroying all else through unbeatable hit+run moves. Even worse combined with Pair up, since then player 1, unless fairly FTA penalised, has a good shot at wiping out most of P2's team on turn 1 (pair up, move rescuebot, rescue paired team (or 2nd rescue user if distance is too far - but they won't start that far apart because then it'd be boring normally), kill 3 unpaired enemies easily with double Galeforce).

[NoNameAtAll]

Wifi battles were lame. Maybe they had potential, but the way they were executed in SD were pretty bad.

I can only imagine how terrible it would've been with Awakening. GALEFORCE. LIMIT BREAKER. etc.

[shadowofchaos]

Wifi battles were lame. Maybe they had potential, but the way they were executed in SD were pretty bad.

I can only imagine how terrible it would've been with Awakening. GALEFORCE. LIMIT BREAKER. etc.

That's EXACTLY the reason they probably omitted it.

Optimization for children would be even more of an e-peen contest.

The more I thought about things, the more I realised that with just a few rule changes (no pair ups/dual strikes, no braves, no/limited rescue) the game actually could have a lot of depth in competitive multiplayer. There's lots of interesting character builds that become interesting when paired up against each other compared to just against Apothelolsis. Like suddenly avoid stacking becomes a much more useful option, Snipers/Double Bow become interesting, in fact, various different regalia become interesting, as do certain effective weapons. Character mods actually mean a damn and so do skill sets - probably any good character build could likely be countered by another still useful build, which would probably give the game something of the feeling of CCG/LCGs where you can build a deck to bring along, and some will be better than others, but no deck will be superior to all possible options and further, even the best decks sometimes lose due to bad luck.

But all of this hinges on the above stated points. Don't ban pair ups and the related mechanics, and DS/DG luck will likely be too big of a factor. Don't ban Braves and you'll only really see the 2-3 range regalia bows plus braves plus Celica's 95% of the time (perhaps the occasional +5 spd weapon thrown in). Don't ban rescue and you'll see ridiculous mobility across the map, with rescue based teams destroying all else through unbeatable hit+run moves. Even worse combined with Pair up, since then player 1, unless fairly FTA penalised, has a good shot at wiping out most of P2's team on turn 1 (pair up, move rescuebot, rescue paired team (or 2nd rescue user if distance is too far - but they won't start that far apart because then it'd be boring normally), kill 3 unpaired enemies easily with double Galeforce).

For more of a super analytical perspective, read this post... AGAIN.

Pokemon had easy balancing since items were just simply not used.

Edited September 17, 2013 by shadowofchaos

[Shadow Mir]

I agree with NoName and Rey - Wifi battles would, in all likelihood, have been EVEN WORSE than those in Shadow Dragon, and those were already laughably bad to start with.

[AstraLunaSol]

wifi battles would be too hard to make balanced in this mess of a game

also wifi battles were inherently flawed unless fow was in play

[Guest meibum]

I'm actually surprised Nintendo wouldn't include wifi battles.

With every new game/system they release they are moving closer and closer towards more online use and play.

I would expect it in newer releases though.

[Jedi]

I'm more annoyed that Nintendo didn't do any online for Kirby's Return to Dreamland or ANY of the New Super Mario Bros games.

Missed chances, then again unless its Pokemon they absolutely loathe online for some reason.