Alternatives to bad growth level-ups

[omglmaowtf]

FE4 had stat rings, the GBA games had stat boosters & even growth boosters, PoR had a "Fixed Growth" mode, & the DS games had class swapping & weapon forging.

Suggest how you want bad growth level-ups can be combated in 3DS FE.

[grandjackal]

They could opt to do what Shining Force did in that they scripted stat-ups, but made it so you could be 2-4 points off of what's scripted. That way there's still a sense of randomness, but the traits of the characters are patternistically the same as you play through.

This would also be a possible solution to growth units and their problem of them sucking forever.

[uguu]

How about using a unit that isn't getting screwed/is RNG-proof? edit: Instead of the unit getting bad growths, of course

Edited November 30, 2011 by Hikarussr

[Othin]

Anything but growth bracketing.

Occasional stat boosters are enough, really. They're what the rest of the series has done, adjusted to static equipment in FE2 and FE4 due to the nature of the two games, although I wouldn't say they're necessarily to address this "issue" in particular. I personally prefer an element of uncertainty, in particular to add uniqueness to each playthrough, although I wouldn't complain about separate unlockable modes for fixed growths or growth bracketing or whatever else.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Othin

[Stark]

Return of scrolls would be really cool. Perhaps prevent a character from holding more then 1 to avoid insane growth stacking (though that also has an appeal) but add a small stat boost to them as well, ala star orb shards. This way players could be somewhat informed as to what growths they boost without a guide.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Overlord Zetta

[CrashGordon94]

Anything but growth bracketing.

But that was one of Berwick Saga's things and it always seems to make you go . What's with the turnaround?

Also, growth-boosters would be cool and might work.

[grandjackal]

How about using a unit that isn't getting screwed/is RNG-proof? edit: Instead of the unit getting bad growths, of course

Like what it is now? I'm aware there's no reason to actually use growth units. Growth units don' even live up to their name, they're just bad units. That's a problem, why not fix it?

Furthermore, the idea I had presented would reduce how bad being screwed would hurt, and also prevent blessage from being wildly out of control.

[Psych]

You could try and make each unit have a set of pre-determined level ups.

Basically every time you play, something like the first lord's level up would be speed, strength, HP.

That could be interesting.

[Othin]

But that was one of Berwick Saga's things and it always seems to make you go . What's with the turnaround?

Also, growth-boosters would be cool and might work.

I don't like features because of what game they're used in. I like games because of what features they're comprised of.

I've found that Berwick Saga's has a great many features that I regard as brilliant additions to its gameplay, and it quickly became my favorite FE game over this past summer largely as a result of those features. But that does nothing to cloud my judgment from seeing the features that are instead detriments, most notably growth bracketing. If anything, any such flaws I find in Berwick Saga are magnified by the contrast with the quality of the gameplay around them, a contrast far greater than it would be in any other FE game.

As for growth boosters, it could be interesting to see ones that are more specific than ones like Afa's Drops, perhaps more like the Star Orb Shards or Crusader scrolls.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Othin

[Celice]

I want bad levels to be counteracted with nothing.

[Lord Raven]

What is growth bracketing?

[Phoenix Wright]

I want bad levels to be counteracted with nothing.

I agree.

Not needed. What's needed, to me, is slightly better growths across the board for sub-par under-leveled characters. This will help balancing issues.

[Lord Raven]

What they need is an FE10 system of balancing (mounts have significantly lower caps and enemies are generally stronger endgame) with more FE9-type maps. Growths units won't be much more balanced with better growths.

[Anouleth]

What is growth bracketing?

Basically the game sets an arbitrary minimum and maximum on the stats of the character. So the game might make it impossible to fall out of a 95% confidence interval. To illustrate this with an example, a level 19 Edward would only be permitted to have 18, 19, and 20SPD. If he had 18SPD, then upon his next level, the game would force a stat gain because he can only have 19 and 20 speed at level 20.

Shining Force did this and apparently, Berwick Saga, but I don't know what interval they used.

Solutions to this "problem" are:

-In FE4, growths were often kept low in Gen 1 which reduced the effect of RNG screwage

-In FE9, Fixed Mode was introduced

-In FE10, it was impossible to get a 0 stat level up, and BEXP always gave +3 stats (such that Ike could always be raised to a sufficient level of competence to beat the game with BEXP)

-In FE11, Dynamic Growths would make it impossible to fall below a certain level for each stat, and generally reduces the chance of being below your average, since while below your average the game will increase your growth rates.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Anouleth

[Othin]

What is growth bracketing?

It's a system in Berwick Saga that calculates the expected number of stat increases a character would have at a given level (growth rate x levels gained) and constrains their stats to within a certain number of points (1-3, depending on the character and the stat) of that value, rounded down. Promotion gains, stat boosters, and any other bonuses all function outside the bracketing; it only calculates based on stat increases from leveling up and only constrains those same increases. Two characters are exempt from the system.

Edit: Rather, that's how Berwick Saga's system fits into the system Anouleth described.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Othin

[Refa]

Like what it is now? I'm aware there's no reason to actually use growth units. Growth units don' even live up to their name, they're just bad units. That's a problem, why not fix it?

Every unit besides prepromotes and the occasionally overleveled dude are growth units. Kain & Abel, two top tier characters in FE1, are growth units.

I've found that Berwick Saga's has a great many features that I regard as brilliant additions to its gameplay, and it quickly became my favorite FE game over this past summer largely as a result of those features.

Berwick Saga is no more Fire Emblem than Shining Force or Final Fantasy Tactics.

[bottlegnomes]

Othin, out of curiosity, why do you not like bracketed growths so much?

Personally, I'm fine with stat boosters.

[Othin]

Berwick Saga is no more Fire Emblem than Shining Force or Final Fantasy Tactics.

In my experience with Berwick Saga, I have found that it is an FE game in all but name, and which series a game belongs to is not determined by matters so superficial as name - so it is an FE game in all notable ways and should be recognized as such.

I have much less experience with the other two games you mention, but I have played enough of both to know that that is not the case for them. Their features, and perhaps more importantly, their atmosphere, do not line up with IS's branch of the FE series, while Berwick Saga does. Indeed, features such as the Mt/Def/Hit/Crit battle window and a graphical style based on an updated version of the one used in FE4/5, highlighted by carried-over (but updated) sprite designs such as High Priests and by certain retained character archetypes, those are the things that designate a game as being in the same series as another even when other aspects indicate otherwise.

Othin, out of curiosity, why do you not like bracketed growths so much?

I don't like the unnecessary limit on variability across multiple playthroughs. (Despite it being made up for in other ways.)

[Paperblade]

Like what it is now? I'm aware there's no reason to actually use growth units. Growth units don' even live up to their name, they're just bad units. That's a problem, why not fix it?

That's not an issue with RNG level ups, that's an issue with growth units sucking. Recall that most growth units don't end up superior to their counterparts by much if at all

[Refa]

In my experience with Berwick Saga, I have found that it is an FE game in all but name, and which series a game belongs to is not determined by matters so superficial as name - so it is an FE game in all notable ways and should be recognized as such.

Yes it is. There's a reason we don't consider 3D Dot Game Heroes "Zelda 1.5" or Shadow Complex "Super Metroid 2", while black sheep games like "Zelda 2" and "Super Mario Land" are considered part of the series.

Let's hypothetically say Berwick Saga WAS a FE game, but it got dropped by Nintendo and Shouzou Kaga published it with his own company for the PS2. It wouldn't be an FE game at that point, no matter how close to FE it is (I believe the term for such games is "spiritual sequel").

Edited December 1, 2011 by Refa

[Othin]

Yes it is. There's a reason we don't consider 3D Dot Game Heroes "Zelda 1.5" or Shadow Complex "Super Metroid 2". Just because Shozou Kaga created an FE clone right after he left IS, and was obviously influenced by his past work, there's no reason that it's anything more than an FE clone*. I'd assume the same applies to Berwick Saga, except that game is much more different from FE than Tear Ring Saga.

*FE clone not meaning that it's subpar to FE games in any way. Also, I'm talking about Tear Ring Saga here.

I don't know much about either of the games you referenced for comparison, but looking up a video of 3D Dot Game Heroes, it highlights an important contrast. 3D Dot parodies aspects of Zelda, but can you see it being marketed as a Zelda game with no changes except for the system, title, and names on the credits? I think not.

Let's look at the first few FE games. There's FE1, which started the series. Then there's FE2, which heavily changed the class, equipment, and magic systems, while adding aspects such as monsters. Then there's FE3, which brought back most aspects of FE1 (for obvious reasons) while mixing in plenty of new features, such as dismounting and supports. FE4 mixed features around again, setting aside double attacking and trading in the forms they had been known before, while adding a generation system, weapon triangle, individual weapon levels, and skills for the first time, as well as many more things. Some additions paralleled aspects of FE2, but all heavily changed. FE5 again reverted to a more typical system with aspects like double attacking and trading, but kept most of the same skills while expanding into different aspects like rescuing, capturing, sidequests, and widely available personal weapons.

In other words, the path of the first five FE games was a wild and erratic one, featuring considerable mixing around of features, always dropping some in exchange for several more. When placed next to these games, TRS fits into the pattern perfectly, perhaps being only strange in that it had the least entirely new aspects to offer of the six. TRS revisited aspects of FE2 while expanding on storytelling by looking at scenes outside the current battlefield, it expanded on character-based events, and it expanded on skills and diverse weapon effects, giving most characters several personal skills to learn over the course of the game and a new set of personal equipment. Meanwhile, it dropped other new features, like weapon ranks, the weapon triangle, and rescuing/capturing, just as the previous games dropped other features. Kaga originally planned TRS to go right alongside the rest of the FE series, and indeed, if it had been released for the N64 as Fire Emblem: Tear Ring Saga, with IS listed in the credits and no other changes, it would have been accepted as the 6th FE game, with nothing appearing strange in the slightest.

Berwick Saga is much the same way. It offered many dramatic changes, changing around classes and weapon types, adding a new weapon skill system and offering some changes to core systems like the grid and turn system, while bringing back capturing in an entirely new form and bringing skills into entirely new roles in battle. And yet if we look at FE as a series of seven games, with TRS being FE6 and Berwick Saga being FE7, the wild changes are just about what we would expect. If, instead of the GBA branch of the FE series, TRS and Berwick Saga were released for the N64 and GCN, titled as FE games but with absolutely no changes to the content, it would all seem perfectly natural. We would look at the FE series and see a series where each new game brought with it an entirely new experience while still building on the progress of the games before it, and where each of the seven games would seem like a natural iteration in the widely varying FE series, precisely like they were at the time of the first five.

[omglmaowtf]

I want bad levels to be counteracted with nothing.

Not everyone play 0% growth mods.

[I.M. Gei]

Not everyone play 0% growth mods.

How'd you get "0% growths" out of what Serisu Celice said?

[bottlegnomes]

I don't know much about either of the games you referenced for comparison, but looking up a video of 3D Dot Game Heroes, it highlights an important contrast. 3D Dot parodies aspects of Zelda, but can you see it being marketed as a Zelda game with no changes except for the system, title, and names on the credits? I think not.

Let's look at the first few FE games. There's FE1, which started the series. Then there's FE2, which heavily changed the class, equipment, and magic systems, while adding aspects such as monsters. Then there's FE3, which brought back most aspects of FE1 (for obvious reasons) while mixing in plenty of new features, such as dismounting and supports. FE4 mixed features around again, setting aside double attacking and trading in the forms they had been known before, while adding a generation system, weapon triangle, individual weapon levels, and skills for the first time, as well as many more things. Some additions paralleled aspects of FE2, but all heavily changed. FE5 again reverted to a more typical system with aspects like double attacking and trading, but kept most of the same skills while expanding into different aspects like rescuing, capturing, sidequests, and widely available personal weapons.

In other words, the path of the first five FE games was a wild and erratic one, featuring considerable mixing around of features, always dropping some in exchange for several more. When placed next to these games, TRS fits into the pattern perfectly, perhaps being only strange in that it had the least entirely new aspects to offer of the six. TRS revisited aspects of FE2 while expanding on storytelling by looking at scenes outside the current battlefield, it expanded on character-based events, and it expanded on skills and diverse weapon effects, giving most characters several personal skills to learn over the course of the game and a new set of personal equipment. Meanwhile, it dropped other new features, like weapon ranks, the weapon triangle, and rescuing/capturing, just as the previous games dropped other features. Kaga originally planned TRS to go right alongside the rest of the FE series, and indeed, if it had been released for the N64 as Fire Emblem: Tear Ring Saga, with IS listed in the credits and no other changes, it would have been accepted as the 6th FE game, with nothing appearing strange in the slightest.

Berwick Saga is much the same way. It offered many dramatic changes, changing around classes and weapon types, adding a new weapon skill system and offering some changes to core systems like the grid and turn system, while bringing back capturing in an entirely new form and bringing skills into entirely new roles in battle. And yet if we look at FE as a series of seven games, with TRS being FE6 and Berwick Saga being FE7, the wild changes are just about what we would expect. If, instead of the GBA branch of the FE series, TRS and Berwick Saga were released for the N64 and GCN, titled as FE games but with absolutely no changes to the content, it would all seem perfectly natural. We would look at the FE series and see a series where each new game brought with it an entirely new experience while still building on the progress of the games before it, and where each of the seven games would seem like a natural iteration in the widely varying FE series, precisely like they were at the time of the first five.

No one is disputing that, or at least Refa's not. TRS and BS may be FEs in everything but name, but that is a very big part. Because they aren't in name, they aren't FEs. Like Refa said, they're spiritual successors. It even says that on the TRS info page on the main site. A spiritual successor is a game that is very similar to another game. So much so that it could very easily be considered in the same series of games, but because it isn't actually a sequel, it isn't considered related to the earlier game. This is exactly what TRS and BS are. They are incredibly similar and borrow a lot, hence the law suit, but they aren't Fire Emblems in name, so they aren't part of the Fire Emblem series.

[Othin]

No one is disputing that, or at least Refa's not. TRS and BS may be FEs in everything but name, but that is a very big part. Because they aren't in name, they aren't FEs. Like Refa said, they're spiritual successors. It even says that on the TRS info page on the main site. A spiritual successor is a game that is very similar to another game. So much so that it could very easily be considered in the same series of games, but because it isn't actually a sequel, it isn't considered related to the earlier game. This is exactly what TRS and BS are. They are incredibly similar and borrow a lot, hence the law suit, but they aren't Fire Emblems in name, so they aren't part of the Fire Emblem series.

Content defines what a game is. Name is nothing more than an identifier on top of that. And in a discussion like this, the content and substance of a game are what matters, not a handful of words with no impact on the gaming experience.

Any spiritual sequels that could be placed into an existing series (or a significant part of it) and feel as natural a part of that series as any other game in the series, should be all rights be considered a part of that series. I'm not recalling any other examples offhand that fit so perfectly as TRS and BS do, but if there are indeed such games, they are not counterexamples; rather, they are indeed part of the series as TRS and BS are.

Looking up a specific definition of spiritual successor, it seems to indeed fit TRS and BS perfectly, particularly the second paragraph, noting that spiritual successors are usually created by creative teams lacking the copyright to the original work. What the definition lacks is anything that would exclude a spiritual successor from being considered part of the same series as the original work; indeed, while the creative team may lack the legal rights to define the series, it appears that in such cases (which include TRS and BS), the original creator has at least as many creative rights to define the series as the "official" maker does.

And indeed I would say that TRS and BS are more legitimate continuations of the FE series than FE6-12 so far, as while TRS and BS kept the wild rotation and innovation of features that made FE games a fresh, new experience and kept the series healthy, FE6-12 immediately degenerated into a constant rehashing of the same, stripped-down formula, the gasps of a dying series collapsing onto itself. Personally, I was surprised to see that the series was still holding on long enough for FE13 to even be made.