Famitsu info (8/3), branched promotions return

[Othin]

Remember that even in the PoR instruction manual we were getting screenshots of characters with horribly inflated stats. Those may not be an accurate depiction of his averages.

This is a good point. I forgot about that specific example, but that does seem to be the most likely possibility.

[CrashGordon94]

And if it goes both ways, maybe Liz's Strength could be passable!

[Othin]

And if it goes both ways, maybe Liz's Strength could be passable!

Her stats do seem low. Might just be a demonstration of a promotion from LV10, which opens up more room for increases later.

What seems more significant with regard to her Strength is any growth bonus she might get after promotion. I think it's quite likely promotion choices will impact growths, so she'll get some bonus in that area.

[Espinosa]

I think it's a good point to remember that the two games in the series who changed growths when characters promoted also offered the reclass feature. There isn't such a feature in this game (otherwise branched promotions wouldn't have been announced).

[dondon151]

What seems more significant with regard to her Strength is any growth bonus she might get after promotion. I think it's quite likely promotion choices will impact growths, so she'll get some bonus in that area.

I don't think it really matters. Units level up very slowly after promotion and even a 10% growth difference will take about 10 levels on average for a 1 point stat difference to show up. Even something as high as 20% still takes 5 levels on average.

It makes sense, but the effect is almost certainly going to be negligible unless the growth rate differences are as high as like 30-50%.

[Othin]

I think it's a good point to remember that the two games in the series who changed growths when characters promoted also offered the reclass feature. There isn't such a feature in this game (otherwise branched promotions wouldn't have been announced).

Ah, but FE11/12 didn't just change growths when characters promoted; they changed stats as well, in accordance with the difference between the promoted and unpromoted classes' base stats. FE13 does the same.

Now, there have been other games where promotion gains were determined in this way. But for the others, characters had a fixed class progression; there would be no point to having their growths change as well, since it wouldn't offer any control over growths. However, in FE13, it would. FE13 is the second FE game to have a full branched class system, and of the two, it's the first to have promotion gains determined based on class stats. So it all makes sense that it would have the growth changes as well.

There's also the simple fact that it's a good and logical idea. It wasn't applied in FE8, but there had never been a system for adjusting character growths based on class in such a way, and promotion gains were being treated in a different, less connected manner. Now that the series has such a system, and promotion gains are back to applying the difference between the two classes, there's no reason why they wouldn't do it.

I don't think it really matters. Units level up very slowly after promotion and even a 10% growth difference will take about 10 levels on average for a 1 point stat difference to show up. Even something as high as 20% still takes 5 levels on average.

It makes sense, but the effect is almost certainly going to be negligible unless the growth rate differences are as high as like 30-50%.

Looking at base stats, the Str stat changes from being shit to being about as good at the other stats. For that, a difference of 20% or even more seems reasonable; to look at changes that have already happened, it's the same as the Cleric --> Myrmidon Str growth change in FE12. (Looking at enemy growths, since separate player class growths seem less likely, but the difference is even bigger there to make up for the negative numbers.) Other class changes in this game don't seem like they'll involve the same leaping around in focus as to have the huge growth changes that Reclassing can entail, but this is a big enough shift in focus that Cleric --> Battle Cleric's Str is likely to have one of the largest changes the system will offer.

Edited March 12, 2012 by Othin

[Anouleth]

Uh, remind me what evidence there is that growths will change upon promotion? Since you seem to be talking about it like it's a given.

I think it's a good point to remember that the two games in the series who changed growths when characters promoted also offered the reclass feature.

And even in the DS games it was only for some magic using classes.

[Thor Odinson]

If Battle Cleric is ever gonna even be a viable competition to Sage as a promotion option outside of it being something relatively "unique" for a lack of better word, IS /should/. I don't think there's evidence that it happens or not, though. I hope IS isn't dense enough to give axes and still keep the user at a very small str growth so much it doesn't even matter.

I mean, yeah, the prospect of some little staffchick suddenly gaining axes is hilarious as fuck, but it's gonna be a pretty useless class if the user's stuck at ~7 str forever and as much as I love axechicks if they don't change the growths to something existent even I'm not using the class.

Edited March 13, 2012 by Luminescent Blade

[Othin]

FE11/12 didn't just change growths on promotions. They changed growths in response to any class change. In FE11/12, promoted classes generally had stats along the same lines as their unpromoted counterparts, so promotions had little to no growth changes. In FE13, this is not the case. Classes change their stats radically on certain promotions, having huge increases in some stats and sometimes losses in others, therefore the absence of reclassing is no reason why the growth-adjustment system would be removed. Certainly, with both Mage and Cleric promoting to Sage, then unless Mage and Cleric have the same base growths (very unlikely), then Sage would have to have different growths compared to one of the two and therefore justify a growth adjustment.

tl;dr: Growth adjustments don't need to be added. They just need to be retained, just like how stat adjustments are retained.

Edited March 13, 2012 by Othin

[dondon151]

Looking at base stats, the Str stat changes from being shit to being about as good at the other stats. For that, a difference of 20% or even more seems reasonable; to look at changes that have already happened, it's the same as the Cleric --> Myrmidon Str growth change in FE12. (Looking at enemy growths, since separate player class growths seem less likely, but the difference is even bigger there to make up for the negative numbers.) Other class changes in this game don't seem like they'll involve the same leaping around in focus as to have the huge growth changes that Reclassing can entail, but this is a big enough shift in focus that Cleric --> Battle Cleric's Str is likely to have one of the largest changes the system will offer.

You missed the point. Even if Liz gets +20% str growth on promotion, the fact is that promoted units level up so slowly (unless this is like FE12 where there's a midgame section during which promoted units gain like 9 levels in 4 chapters) that it won't make a significant difference. Liz's str looks like crap either way.

[Othin]

You missed the point. Even if Liz gets +20% str growth on promotion, the fact is that promoted units level up so slowly (unless this is like FE12 where there's a midgame section during which promoted units gain like 9 levels in 4 chapters) that it won't make a significant difference. Liz's str looks like crap either way.

Wrong. I didn't address that point, because I didn't have anything to say about it. We don't have the information to determine anything about that: we don't know how fast she'll level up after promotion, and we don't know her total promoted Str growth.

Edited March 13, 2012 by Othin

[dondon151]

Wrong. I didn't address that point, because I didn't have anything to say about it.

OK. Then why did you quote my post, if that was the only point that I made? Please excuse me if I cannot read your mind across the medium of the internet.

Edited March 13, 2012 by dondon151

[Othin]

Now that you mention it, I'm not quite sure.

Regardless, as I said in my edit, we don't have enough information to say anything about your conclusions.

[dondon151]

There are plenty of reasonable assumptions that we could make to justify my conclusions. In general that has been true with most Fire Emblem games; unless this game really ramps it up with promoted enemies in the mid- to endgame, changes in growth rates upon promotions aren't going to make a significant difference unless they're huge changes.

Heck, there's a reason why those "6 cavalier, 4 myrmidon, 6 dracoknight" schemes didn't work in FEDS.

Edited March 13, 2012 by dondon151

[Thor Odinson]

150% Str growth Battle Cleric go

[Othin]

For a healing class in particular, it's dependent on Exp from healing, which has been varying a lot in recent games, but it's tended to be rather high. And of course it also depends on how one plays the game.

[Anouleth]

FE11/12 didn't just change growths on promotions.

Usually, they didn't change growths on promotions at all.

They changed growths in response to any class change. In FE11/12, promoted classes generally had stats along the same lines as their unpromoted counterparts, so promotions had little to no growth changes.

Except when they didn't. Snipers, for instance, were far faster than their unpromoted brethren. In the case of a branched promotion, between Pegasus Knight and either Falco or Draco, the growths were also unchanged even though Dracoknights were weighted statistically in favour of higher strength and defense but lower speed.

In FE13, this is not the case. Classes change their stats radically on certain promotions, having huge increases in some stats and sometimes losses in others, therefore the absence of reclassing is no reason why the growth-adjustment system would be removed.

Perhaps because it's not so important to adjust growths when characters change their class when they will only ever change their class once?

Moreover, we saw classes in FE8 who had significant differences between them such as Wyvern Knight and Wyvern Lord or General and Paladin, yet there was no similar growth adjustment.

Certainly, with both Mage and Cleric promoting to Sage, then unless Mage and Cleric have the same base growths (very unlikely), then Sage would have to have different growths compared to one of the two and therefore justify a growth adjustment.

Lute and Artur and Moulder are all of different classes, with different growths, and yet their classes do not change their growths. So I do not think that Sages "have to have different growths". You seem to be proceeding from the assumption that growths will be calculated in the same way as the DS FEs by adding class growths to absolute growths, but we have no indication that this will be the case.

tl;dr: Growth adjustments don't need to be added. They just need to be retained, just like how stat adjustments are retained.

And we have no idea if they will or won't be retained.

[Othin]

FE8 doesn't work as an example because there was no growth-adjustment system to retain. In fact, FE7 discarded the stat-adjustment system in favor of arbitrary promotion gains, which carried over into FE8.

Snipers had a much higher base Spd stat than Archers. This changed correspondingly with promotion. However, just like playable Snipers, enemy Snipers did not receive any bonus to their Spd growth rate. Some enemy classes had slight adjustments, particularly Res, which almost always increased with promotion. But for the most part, the player classes followed the change that enemy classes had: it's just that for promotion, that typically didn't involve growths much.

It's hard to compare to FE8 enemy growths because they were a bit wonkier, but let's give it a shot: http://serenesforest.net/fe8/class_growth.html

Looking at the list, some patterns emerge:

Cavalier --> Paladin: -5% HP, -10% Str, -10% Skl, -10% Spd, -5% Luck, -3% Def, +5% Res

Knight --> General: -5% HP, -10% Str, -10% Skl, -5% Spd, -5% Luck, -5% Def, +5% Res

Myrmidon --> Swordmaster: -5% HP, -10% Str, -10% Skl, -10% Spd, -5% Luck, -0% Def, +2% Res

It's not a perfect pattern, but it seems like these are the sorts of results you get when a class really doesn't change its focus.

Cavalier --> Great Knight: -5% HP, -5% Str, -20% Skl, -13% Spd, -10% Luck, +9% Def, +5% Res

Now that's just weird. If we account for the quirks of the system, this looks like a class that loses focus in Skl and maybe Spd in exchange for Def and maybe Str. And those quirks don't exist in more recent games - FE10 class growths are just weird, but FE9/11/12 all have more constant systems. So with a more constant system that removed those standard quirk adjustments, Cavalier --> Great Knight might have growth adjustments something along the lines of -10% Skl, -5% Spd, +10% Def, +5% Str.

FE13 likes adjustments. The negative promotion gains are evidence of that. So it makes sense that it would retain other appropriate adjustments.

Edited March 13, 2012 by Othin

[Anouleth]

FE8 doesn't work as an example because there was no growth-adjustment system to retain. In fact, FE7 discarded the stat-adjustment system in favor of arbitrary promotion gains, which carried over into FE8.

Snipers had a much higher base Spd stat than Archers. This changed correspondingly with promotion. However, just like playable Snipers, enemy Snipers did not receive any bonus to their Spd growth rate. Some enemy classes had slight adjustments, particularly Res, which almost always increased with promotion. But for the most part, the player classes followed the change that enemy classes had: it's just that for promotion, that typically didn't involve growths much.

It's hard to compare to FE8 enemy growths because they were a bit wonkier, but let's give it a shot: http://serenesforest.net/fe8/class_growth.html

Looking at the list, some patterns emerge:

Cavalier --> Paladin: -5% HP, -10% Str, -10% Skl, -10% Spd, -5% Luck, -3% Def, +5% Res

Knight --> General: -5% HP, -10% Str, -10% Skl, -5% Spd, -5% Luck, -5% Def, +5% Res

Myrmidon --> Swordmaster: -5% HP, -10% Str, -10% Skl, -10% Spd, -5% Luck, -0% Def, +2% Res

It's not a perfect pattern, but it seems like these are the sorts of results you get when a class really doesn't change its focus.

Cavalier --> Great Knight: -5% HP, -5% Str, -20% Skl, -13% Spd, -10% Luck, +9% Def, +5% Res

Now that's just weird. If we account for the quirks of the system, this looks like a class that loses focus in Skl and maybe Spd in exchange for Def and maybe Str. And those quirks don't exist in more recent games - FE10 class growths are just weird, but FE9/11/12 all have more constant systems. So with a more constant system that removed those standard quirk adjustments, Cavalier --> Great Knight might have growth adjustments something along the lines of -10% Skl, -5% Spd, +10% Def, +5% Str.

That doesn't mean anything, though. Obviously enemy Great Knights are going to have more defense than enemy Paladins, but that didn't involve a change in player growths then and it doesn't have to now.

FE13 likes adjustments. The negative promotion gains are evidence of that. So it makes sense that it would retain other appropriate adjustments.

It would also make sense that it would discard growth adjustments along with reclass. Both are sensible options for IS to pursue, and as we have seen in the past IS does not restrict themselves to sensible options anyway.

[Othin]

Under a system where player growths could change, however, it would involve such a change. That's my point.

With or without reclass, as long as characters have some choice in the class changes they make, growth adjustments always help to differentiate those choices. Even with branched promotions as the only choice, there is no sensibility in discarding growth adjustments, especially with the branched promotions constituting changes so large they may as well be reclassing. The only sensible choice is still to keep the adjustments.

You're right that IS doesn't always act in the most logical ways, but I think by now they have enough of an idea of what they're doing to not act completely randomly. We can't say for certain, but I'd say the odds are heavily in favor of keeping the adjustments. One way or another, we'll find out within the next month.

---

Unless I'm forgetting something, we've seen two previous instances of classes losing stats on a promotion: Pegasus Knight --> Dragon Knight in FE3/11/12, because Pegasus Knight was a specifically magically resistant class and Dragon Knight was not, and Cavalier --> Great Knight in FE8, to put Great Knight close to Knight in mobility. The negative promotion gains we're seeing in FE13 don't seem to have nearly as solid of a purpose, indicating that the system mostly allowed for them as part of a continued focus on adjustments, now applying to regular stats through the branched promotion system.

These negative promotion gains are weird. Too weird to not be important. We cannot ignore them.

Edited March 13, 2012 by Othin

[Anouleth]

Under a system where player growths could change, however, it would involve such a change. That's my point.

And you have no idea that we have a system where player growths could change.

With or without reclass, as long as characters have some choice in the class changes they make, growth adjustments always help to differentiate those choices. Even with branched promotions as the only choice, there is no sensibility in discarding growth adjustments, especially with the branched promotions constituting changes so large they may as well be reclassing. The only sensible choice is still to keep the adjustments.

According to you. What makes and does not make sense is subjective, after all. Indeed, subjectivity is almost built into the word.

These negative promotion gains are weird. Too weird to not be important. We cannot ignore them.

I do not think that IS does Everything For A Reason.

[Othin]

The existence of a situation that could make use of keeping the adjustments to further differentiate classes is a reason why they would keep the adjustments. Now, is there any reason why they would not keep the adjustments, with that in mind?

Everything happens for a reason. Some reasons are just stranger than others.

[Griffen78]

girls girls please! You are both pretty!

Anyway, From what I have seen thus far, I think the variety of characters and classes will make for an interesting replay value.....even if some of the branches suck. Sucky branch promotions= more difficulty .-.

[Espinosa]

It's hard to compare to FE8 enemy growths because they were a bit wonkier, but let's give it a shot: http://serenesforest...ass_growth.html

I sure hope this game introduces an ass growth function!

[Balcerzak]

Unless I'm forgetting something, we've seen two previous instances of classes losing stats on a promotion: Pegasus Knight --> Dragon Knight in FE3/11/12, because Pegasus Knight was a specifically magically resistant class and Dragon Knight was not, and Cavalier --> Great Knight in FE8, to put Great Knight close to Knight in mobility. The negative promotion gains we're seeing in FE13 don't seem to have nearly as solid of a purpose, indicating that the system mostly allowed for them as part of a continued focus on adjustments, now applying to regular stats through the branched promotion system.

These negative promotion gains are weird. Too weird to not be important. We cannot ignore them.

I think Thief->Dancer also lost stats.