Mechanics that you want

[Othin]

So giving the player helpful statistical information = spoiling the story? How?

Giving the player information on growths rather than letting them find out for themselves based on their experiences with the characters spoils the gameplay.

It's a spoiler many of us happen to like to have ahead of time, but it's a spoiler nonetheless.

Edited November 29, 2011 by Othin

[CrashGordon94]

No, it doesn't, not in the slighest.

[Anouleth]

No, it doesn't, not in the slighest.

If you think that discovery, or exploration, or finding secrets have no place in video games, then you are wrong.

[BwdYeti]

I mean, I haven't used the support page in a GBA game for years. I don't care it's there. It does not hinder the way I play the game at all. This page would be the same way.

Why I disagree with those: Obviously I doubt it would be very obtrusive. As I have done before, I'll compare it with the support page. To me, it's useless, but not obtrusive.

The support page exists because IS wants you to pay attention to supports. They give you this big blank section that you can only wonder at the purpose of, with only the page title giving a clue. Then houses make allusions to the mechanics, and some of your units have low enough C rank requirements that you unlock a few just playing normally, and once you get the basics the stat bonuses are encouragement to try and get more yourself. And of course they would want you to pay attention to supports, what with hundreds of blocks of dialogue written out for characters they want you to care about.

And even with the support page, they still don't tell you exactly what the bonuses you get are. Even in 10 they only give you the totals, not what each level is worth or what a new support will give until you've already created it.

IS does not want you to pay attention to growth rates, or they would have included them by now

Except it's not purely random. 60%, 30%, whatever. It gives me an idea. Sorta like the combat screen's hit and crit values.

The difference is hit/crt/etc change between each different attacker and target, so you can use a different weapon or unit to turn combat odds in your favor, making that not simply a dice roll; while growth is largely static, and often completely

Nobody's making you look at the screen, SCROLL PAST IT! Seriously, what's so hard to understand about that? Why are you trying to make pressing right on the D-pad sound like some kind of gargantuan effort?

hey 40 frames each time adds up Edited November 29, 2011 by BwdYeti

[Rewjeo]

Well firstly then, it still applies. Secondly, you have just eaten your own argument. Because you don't need to actually know the formula itself to get through, or to enjoy it. Otherwise you'd never play any of these games of which you speak of.

Erm, no. Some people enjoy using all of the information available in game and then collect more online. Some people (like myself in Civ) don't even use all of the info that's in the game. That doesn't mean that information is doing any harm. It doesn't make the game any worse for me, and it makes the game better for some.

So then why are you so curious that such data be available to you at all times.

Because it wouldn't hurt anyone and would help some people.

Gambling doesn't help you though. The game gives you bases, that should be enough numbers.

The bases are enough, but that doesn't mean the game can't be made better.

Dice rolls are still dice rolls.

Just like almost every action in FE?

Here's a negative, removing the sense of reward. Lets say you had a growth unit who started bad, but you could calculate the approximate average. The mystery of how that character would end up is gone, and you realize it's just a worse version of things you already have. You have basically asked to gamble, but to take away the fun part of gambling.

I dare say that anyone who would bother to calculate the averages WANTS to not be surprised. I doubt your average casual player will do those calculations. They'd probably just notice that those are big numbers and either use them because of the big numbers or ignore them because of the effort. Besides, there's still the random aspect of leveling.

Considering you're pointing it out as a flaw, I would imagine it would have to by your logic. I'm simply in the area of thinking you're just flat not realizing this is a useless idea.

Well, I guess I am not realizing it's useless because I don't think it would be. Some people would use it. Other people wouldn't be affected. By virtue of anyone using it, it wouldn't be useless.

People don't bash Crash just because he's Crash. People bash Crash because he's usually filled with bad or wrong ideas. He's "Badong" as The Chosen One would put it.

I'm just saying that because I don't want you to think you have to continue this argument going nowhere just to defend Crash's honor.

Crash also sorta sucks at not sounding like a child when defending them. He's done a pretty good job of making you guys disagree with him more, it seems. I'm continuing this because I like the idea.

Exactly, why make it worse by having them say "the game lied to me!" on top of it?

How about the game telling them it's still random, but higher growths make it more likely?

No one's stopping you, but if the game flat told you a sucky unit has the odds stacked against their future as well, would you even bother?

Quite possibly. I know Knoll is a sucky unit with the odds stacked against him, and I use him. What about people who like using Tomas? Or Nino? But still know that they suck? If people still use units they know suck now, they would still use them in this hypothetical game with that screen.

I'm confused as to what the issue here even is... I mean, displayed growths is... completely useless.

By virtue of me disagreeing I think it's quite obvious it's not completely useless.

Seriously. The people who are sitting down to play the game for the first time are either likely aware that lower level = higher growth rates, don't know squat about them, or are the type that would be on SF anyways plotting out every little detail to get high scores/ratings. So it's a worthless endeavor. Heck, I think it could actually be harmful as the RNG goddess could strike and screw a character making a person think that they're worthless or something.

That's great that you think that. I'm pretty sure that some of these people who know the general patterns for what growths look like would still like to be able to know more precisely what the growths are.

Displayed growth rates only help a player looking for the statistical best team who isn't willing to go online. Given the choice between that and... ohhh... I don't know... a scene where the main lord eats some food with his A support, I would much rather prefer the latter be given coding time as it is actually worth something to a larger audience.

No, it is useful for more than that. Say we have another game like SD where like 20 characters join in the first four chapters and a bunch are in the same class but you want to know who to use. Look at the growths to help you decide!

The support page exists because IS wants you to pay attention to supports. They give you this big blank section that you can only wonder at the purpose of, with only the page title giving a clue. Then houses make allusions to the mechanics, and some of your units have low enough C rank requirements that you unlock a few just playing normally, and once you get the basics the stat bonuses are encouragement to try and get more yourself. And of course they would want you to pay attention to supports, what with hundreds of blocks of dialogue written out for characters they want you to care about.

And even with the support page, they still don't tell you exactly what the bonuses you get are. Even in 10 they only give you the totals, not what each level is worth or what a new support will give until you've already created it.

IS does not want you to pay attention to growth rates, or they would have included them by now

Why do I care what IS wants me to pay attention to, though, and why should what they want you to pay attention to not change? That explains why other games have been the way they are, but not why another one should be a certain way.

The difference is hit/crt/etc change between each different attacker and target, so you can use a different weapon or unit to turn combat odds in your favor, making that not simply a dice roll; while growth is largely static, and often completely

Growths change between units and, if it returns, reclass. So it's not simply a dice roll. You are still choosing your odds.

[Thor Odinson]

Unless you have god-tier finger control, if you just wanna scroll quickly through the statscreens, it's gonna happen.

[Cysx]

Ooookay... So what I've seen there is someone giving a fairly bad idea, and people disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing for about one full page of comments, leading to an endless debate.

To be fair, seeing growth wouldn't bother most of us in games we've already completed, but I still agree that you shouldn't force this information on people who don't care about it.

Moreover, I am part of those who know what growth rates are, and definitely wouldn't want/be able to ignore them if they were shown to me from the very beginning. This would completely change my way of playing, with the game basically telling me "use this unit, don't use that one".

While this might happen in some cases(on a normal playtrough, lords are units you'll mostly be using, while jeigans are not, ie. there also are classes plain better than others), you'd end up knowing from the moment you get them if units are worth it or not, and basically we would all react the same way; bad unit we ditch, good unit we use.

The very first playthrough of a Fire Emblem game shouldn't look like that. Everyone using the very same units and not even bothering training the others because they already know how they will turn out is completely uninteresting. It's information given to the player that he MUST not have. The very fact that you'd ask for it makes me think turncounts/tier lists/whatever slowly made you guys forget that numbers aren't everything in this series.

And no need to tell me that the game already gives you hints on who's gonna be good or bad, because making something bad worst just because, after all,"it's already bad" is no argument whatsoever.

However, there are definitely people who would want to see them in game, and telling them "go browse the internet", don't take it personnaly, is completely stupid. This is the kind of thing that you should be able to see in game if you want to. Plus, some people don't have the internet at all. A game shouldn't be incomplete if you don't hack it.

So, very simply, add an option to display them, or not. BUT only after clearing the game at least once. Because the first time through a game should be about discovering it, being surprised, being disappointed. No offense, but if you no longer think that's any fun, you might have lost something.

So, yes, an option on second playthrough onward. Seems about the best way to please everyone, to me. Or to displease everyone, probably. Meh.

[/opinions]

Edited November 29, 2011 by Cysx

[BwdYeti]

^good post

Why do I care what IS wants me to pay attention to, though, and why should what they want you to pay attention to not change? That explains why other games have been the way they are, but not why another one should be a certain way.

Because you're playing a game they made and tacitly trusting their judgement? The designer does have the right to focus the player's attention on certain parts of the game they deem important. And if you don't like that, if they aren't doing things that make for an enjoyable experience to you, I'm sure you can find something more enjoyable to play instead.

And they do change things over time. Supports are less important in FE10, so they only take up a part of a screen in the status window. In 11 they're removed completely. Or removing the bars from weapon levels in 9, and then adding them back in 10 because they changed their mind. But what haven't they done in 12 games...?

Growths change between units and, if it returns, reclass. So it's not simply a dice roll. You are still choosing your odds.

With growths, when you can even change the odds at all, the degree is incredibly small, and can't be changed on the fly during a chapter without using up units' turns (trading bands/scrolls). That's effectively static for entire turns or chapters, where a unit can gain multiple levels. That's pretty much incomparable to the control the player has on combat stats. And that's given games where you can even change growths. Edited November 29, 2011 by BwdYeti

[Thor Odinson]

I would be okay if it's in the extras section where we don't have to risk scrolling past it in the main screens. I especially don't wanna see growths on my first time through of any FE. But putting it in the statscreen is just a hell no.

So, yes, an option on second playthrough onward. Seems about the best way to please everyone, to me. Or to displease everyone, probably. Meh.

[/opinions]

This I am okay with.

Edited November 29, 2011 by Luminescent Blade

[Snowy_One]

I agree. Sides, I wouldn't want the enjoyment run to devolve into 'well I like this character but their SPD growth sucks. I'll ditch them for the ass who at least is fast'.

[Life]

I think showing the growths is absolutely pointless. I don't care to see them at any point and that goes for most casual players. If you're indifferent about it, I won't push to say "No, they should never be shown" but if you're like Crash, then I will.

[Othin]

Yeah, I wouldn't raise any objection to growths being shown in some form in the Extras menu only and only after completing the game at least once. Just keep them the hell out of the character profiles and out of first playthroughs.

One more thing worth noting about showing the growths ingame as a normal feature is that it breaks immersion. When you have a character on your team, it makes sense that you would know their physical capabilities, their skills with weapons, any special techniques they know, and strong bonds they've formed with other characters. Being able to predict the precise future ways their capabilities will increase, however, is not something it makes sense for any tactician to be able to tell just from looking at a character.

[Momo]

One more thing worth noting about showing the growths ingame as a normal feature is that it breaks immersion. When you have a character on your team, it makes sense that you would know their physical capabilities, their skills with weapons, any special techniques they know, and strong bonds they've formed with other characters. Being able to predict the precise future ways their capabilities will increase, however, is not something it makes sense for any tactician to be able to tell just from looking at a character.

This is just you making an arbitrary line in the sand. Knowing exactly how strong and fast they are, and how much damage they can take is ok, but knowing how good they can be breaks immersion?

[Othin]

This is just you making an arbitrary line in the sand. Knowing exactly how strong and fast they are, and how much damage they can take is ok, but knowing how good they can be breaks immersion?

Base stats mean looking at the characters through a microscope. Growth rates mean looking at the characters through a time portal.

[Rewjeo]

I would be happy with it being something that's unlocked. Honestly, I wouldn't care all that much if it wasn't in at all, but I would like it to be in in some way.

Because you're playing a game they made and tacitly trusting their judgement? The designer does have the right to focus the player's attention on certain parts of the game they deem important. And if you don't like that, if they aren't doing things that make for an enjoyable experience to you, I'm sure you can find something more enjoyable to play instead.

I'm trusting their judgement in making a good game, but how I play is up to me. They aren't writing a school curriculum, they're making a game for me to enjoy. Why should I have to do it the way IS wants me to? I never said what they're making isn't fun, but that maybe I don't think the way they want me to play is all that fun.

And they do change things over time. Supports are less important in FE10, so they only take up a part of a screen in the status window. In 11 they're removed completely. Or removing the bars from weapon levels in 9, and then adding them back in 10 because they changed their mind. But what haven't they done in 12 games...?

How long did it take for reclass to show up? Biorhythm? How about this two-on-one combat function? If a game decides to not change after 12 iterations, then it will get stale, and many little changes can do just as much as a few big ones.

With growths, when you can even change the odds at all, the degree is incredibly small, and can't be changed on the fly during a chapter without using up units' turns (trading bands/scrolls). That's effectively static for entire turns or chapters, where a unit can gain multiple levels. That's pretty much incomparable to the control the player has on combat stats. And that's given games where you can even change growths.

I actually meant that you can change what your chances are by choosing which unit/class you use, not via Afa's/Maturity/whatever drops. Yes, the dice rolls don't happen as often and can't be changed as often, but that doesn't mean you have no control over what your chances on level ups are.

[Momo]

Base stats mean looking at the characters through a microscope. Growth rates mean looking at the characters through a time portal.

Wouldn't that mean we use time portals all the time in real life, then?

[Othin]

Wouldn't that mean we use time portals all the time in real life, then?

We can predict how things will change based on what we observe and predict based on that, not based on some numbers we magically learn. In the same way, we can predict approximate growth rates based on what we see based on using the characters, and for a casual player, that's all they need.

[dondon151]

I'm trusting their judgement in making a good game, but how I play is up to me. They aren't writing a school curriculum, they're making a game for me to enjoy. Why should I have to do it the way IS wants me to?

HRMMM what is the point of a game if you have to adapt to the constraints

Oh wait - that is the point of a game. A game is not a game if you're free to do however you want.

[Othin]

HRMMM what is the point of a game if you have to adapt to the constraints

Oh wait - that is the point of a game. A game is not a game if you're free to do however you want.

There's a reason baseball has more players than Calvinball.

[Rewjeo]

HRMMM what is the point of a game if you have to adapt to the constraints

Oh wait - that is the point of a game. A game is not a game if you're free to do however you want.

Oh hi Mr. 0% growths. I guess you made FE pointless because you didn't play exactly how IS wants you to and therefor were not adapting to constraints.

Now to not be sarcastic, I didn't mean I should able to do whatever I want in game, but if we have to play exactly how IS wants, then, well, I wouldn't enjoy it. I doubt IS wants us to play for really low turn counts or to understand the internal workings of the game nearly as well as we do. Have we made FE pointless in doing so? And how is playing that way less true to how IS wants you to play then when you edit the game and then play for absurdly low turn counts?

[Refa]

Oh hi Mr. 0% growths. I guess you made FE pointless because you didn't play exactly how IS wants you to and therefor were not adapting to constraints.

Now to not be sarcastic, I didn't mean I should able to do whatever I want in game, but if we have to play exactly how IS wants, then, well, I wouldn't enjoy it. I doubt IS wants us to play for really low turn counts or to understand the internal workings of the game nearly as well as we do. Have we made FE pointless in doing so? And how is playing that way less true to how IS wants you to play then when you edit the game and then play for absurdly low turn counts?

I don't think you understand what the constraints are.

[BwdYeti]

I'm trusting their judgement in making a good game, but how I play is up to me. They aren't writing a school curriculum, they're making a game for me to enjoy. Why should I have to do it the way IS wants me to? I never said what they're making isn't fun, but that maybe I don't think the way they want me to play is all that fun.

I doubt IS wants us to play for really low turn counts or to understand the internal workings of the game nearly as well as we do.

And you are allowed to play it how you want, they're not going to force a specific playstyle. They only set up initial guidelines. That's pretty evident from how people already do play FE. But they can hold parts of the game higher than others, and don't have to give the information all people would like to have if it's something they don't consider a focus or important enough. If they don't think the players need exact growth rates then that's fine; and if, as we've done, the players really care that much to learn what they are, they'll figure it out

How long did it take for reclass to show up? Biorhythm? How about this two-on-one combat function?

You mean biorhythm, which was in for two games? Or reclassing, which we can't be certain will return? Or monsters, which show up sporadically? Or branched promotions, or capturing, or scrolls or bands or rings for dancers or...

Although all of those directly impact stats in gameplay, while having more information doesn't... hrm...

And yeah I'm also okay with it being an unlockable, preferably in the Extras screen but whatever

[Rewjeo]

And you are allowed to play it how you want, they're not going to force a specific playstyle. They only set up initial guidelines. That's pretty evident from how people already do play FE. But they can hold parts of the game higher than others, and don't have to give the information all people would like to have if it's something they don't consider a focus or important enough. If they don't think the players need exact growth rates then that's fine; and if, as we've done, the players really care that much to learn what they are, they'll figure it out

The problem I had was more that I got the feeling of "BUT THIS IS HOW IS WANTS YOU TO DO IT ARE YOU QUESTIONING THEM?" Besides, it's not like they can't change their minds about what's important.

You mean biorhythm, which was in for two games? Or reclassing, which we can't be certain will return? Or monsters, which show up sporadically? Or branched promotions, or capturing, or scrolls or bands or rings for dancers or...

Although all of those directly impact stats in gameplay, while having more information doesn't... hrm...

So big changes can be made but not small ones?

[Momo]

We can predict how things will change based on what we observe and predict based on that, not based on some numbers we magically learn. In the same way, we can predict approximate growth rates based on what we see based on using the characters, and for a casual player, that's all they need.

We magically know their stats already though. There's no eral difference between that and knowing how strong they might be every level.

[Othin]

We magically know their stats already though. There's no eral difference between that and knowing how strong they might be every level.

See: Microscope vs. time portal analogy