Should Growth Rates be Shown?

[Radiant Dragon]

Awakening's 'radar' chart represented base stats as well (look at Grima's in comparison to the normal classes and you'll see what I mean). A similar type of chart for growths would be kind of cool, though, as I can't imagine it would be a problem to add in support for HP and Luck.

[Topazd]

If one wanted to give something indicative of the growths yet maintain the ambiguity they could do so by only giving a verbal description of them. I honestly wouldn't mind if they were visible as exact numerical values in a base menu or such, though.

[Zerosabers]

I've edited in another choice on the poll since I've seen multiple people saying they'd like it as an unlockable.

[Elieson]

People would probably use Fiona until the game Routesplitfucks you and takes her away forever.

[Mark the Tactician]

I personally don't pay that much attention to growth rates, but seeing them in-game would be useful if I wanted to give them stat-boosters.

That said, it would work better if they appeared ONLY after you've beaten the game once.

[NinjaMonkey]

People would probably use Fiona until the game Routesplitfucks you and takes her away forever.

When exactly does that happen in Radiant Dawn?

Edited August 26, 2015 by NinjaMonkey

[Anouleth]

Difficulty should never be created by arbitrarily withholding information. We should all agree that the game would be negatively affected if you couldn't view a unit's bases, or the stats of enemy units, so there is no good reason not to inform the player of growth rates. Even just a rough approximation should be fine.

[feplus]

There is no good reason to keep growth rates hidden. If you're relying on providing players with imperfect information to keep your game challenging, your game needs serious work.

[Lantairu]

There is no good reason to keep growth rates hidden. If you're relying on providing players with imperfect information to keep your game challenging, your game needs serious work.

I probably sound like a broken record at this point since I've said it so many times, but growth rates don't make it challenging. Like people have said, if you want a character to be good, you can pool a bunch of resources into them to make them good. It's more about increasing replay value.

[Elieson]

People would probably use Fiona until the game Routesplitfucks you and takes her away forever.

Sorry I should've specified that you can't use her for the two chapters following her recruitment and get her back a dozen chapters later for 1 fight, then half a dozen chapters later for another 2, before Part 4 treatment slaps you with a 3-chapter max on anybody.

By forever I meant a very long time. Not like Tormod and his crew are any better off

Just handing the player a unit that appears just as trainable as everybody else and then removing them from existence for an undisclosed amount of time pretty much immediately, twice, doesn't seem fair to people unfamiliar with the game/series. Unless you disagree with me, which is fine

Edited August 26, 2015 by Elieson

[sithys]

An interesting question.

I would approach this question by theorizing about two different universes, one where the designers decided initially to show growth rates and then later removed them, and in the second universe like in our own they do not show them but decide later to show them.

So in universe A the player gets a new unit and is able to see exactly what the stats will look on average by the end of the game, and whether it is worth it to invest in a new character or use a stronger character now. Then one day they take away this ability and the player must use their intuition. Malcolm Gladwell talks about several experiments in his book Blink in which human subjects began sweating after 7 cards were revealed from two different 52-card decks when one deck was slightly better on average than the other. Human subconscious probability processing can be quite good (even if conscious probability processing is awful, because it is). So in universe A the behavior of the players basically remains the same except for a slight delay of maybe 3-2 level ups.

Opposite to this, in universe B player behavior basically remains the same except there is a little less delay in the decision making.

I think complexity is added but little depth is added or removed. I predict that play testing would reveal that the information might be a little overwhelming for new players without being meaningful, but veterans would enjoy having quick access to the information.

[dondon151]

I think complexity is added but little depth is added or removed. I predict that play testing would reveal that the information might be a little overwhelming for new players without being meaningful, but veterans would enjoy having quick access to the information.

interesting that you say this considering that you advocate for the inclusion of far more complex, esoteric, and unessential information in the other thread for the purpose of "transparency"

i'll make sure to write this down in my notebook of hypocritical statements

[sithys]

interesting that you say this considering that you advocate for the inclusion of far more complex, esoteric, and unessential information in the other thread for the purpose of "transparency"

i'll make sure to write this down in my notebook of hypocritical statements

Growth rates are not exactly a life or death game feature. Players are not often going to experience frustration and feel the game is cheesy and opaque because of growth rates. I have gone through entire Fire Emblem games loads of times without ever restarting a chapter because of a bad level up. You cannot say that a strategy, approach, or rule of thumb can be applied to all aspects of a design and ignore the actual emotional impact of a design decision.

[Shrouded In Myth]

They should be shown after you've completed one playthrough. so new players aren't overwhelmed by it and veterans can have easy access to the information.

[dondon151]

Growth rates are not exactly a life or death game feature.

neither are a single NPC being killed in chapter 1-8 or a house being set alight in chapter 3-9

I have gone through entire Fire Emblem games loads of times without ever restarting a chapter because of a bad level up. You cannot say that a strategy, approach, or rule of thumb can be applied to all aspects of a design and ignore the actual emotional impact of a design decision.

okay, i get it, you want to be the objective measure of all things fire emblem even though you don't really understand the game. i will one-up you: i've gone through entire fire emblem games loads of times without ever gaining a single stat on level up. that doesn't give me the authority to assert that growths are not an important mechanic to any player. they shouldn't be important (depending on the game), but most players are obsessed with growth rates and unit potential.

have you ever looked at /r/fireemblem and seen how often casuals make threads about how RNG-screwed their unit is or how RNG-blessed their unit is or make posts that fall in the vein of "bad unit is actually good because i got lucky and he/she was good for me"

[Tamanoir]

I think they should use the same approach as in Shining Force : Resurrection of Dark Dragon : Giving you a really rough estimation of what the growth forte and bad point are (yeah I know they were straight up lying in this example, but this is irrelevant here.)

Something like : growth between 40% and 50% would be shown as medium, above at high, and below at bad (For HP, it would use a higher value, like 60-70% as medium.). (I haven't put more thoughts on those numbers. It's just a rough estimate. ).

Or letters, as other said.

I know they generally try to have bases reflect the growths (or the opposite. Depends how you takes it.), but it will at least ket you know what stats you can expect to grows the most.

So, that's how I see it : a rough estimate before you complete the game once (or twice n game with route split : completing both troute split woul gives you the full growths, like Super Trainee in FE8, but actually usefull.), and then the full data.

And not necessary accessible in the stats page, but an unlockable option on the main base would be good.

It kinda remains me of Chaose Frame in Tactics Ogre that is only visible after you completed the last dungeon (twice if memory serves). Of course Chaos Frame was somewhat more relevant than growths are.

Personnally, even if I always looks at it before hand, it doesn't stop me for using the units I like.

[Tamanoir]

EDIT : Accidental double post.
Please Remove.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Tamanoir

[feplus]

I probably sound like a broken record at this point since I've said it so many times, but growth rates don't make it challenging. Like people have said, if you want a character to be good, you can pool a bunch of resources into them to make them good. It's more about increasing replay value.

This thread's very first response argues that showing growth rates undermines the challenge of Fire Emblem. This is the sentiment I am responding to since it's a weak claim.

[Nobody]

to be honestly I just don't care at all about what they do about this. I just look them all up at serenes forest dot net anyway. Maybe put one of those chart things showing "potential" like they do with base stats?

[X-Naut]

Here's a compromise: how about making them visible after clearing the game once? Then you can keep the suspense for first-time players while satisfying others' curiosity later.

[Paperblade]

Their growths were decent, but a bit lackluster compared to many of the other Dawn Brigade members (Fiona's are too balanced across the board, and Meg is missing them where it matters). Still not the best examples, though. The Trainees in FE8 might be a better one, as people often assume that their growths are above average to make up for their terrible bases (where in reality they're actually below average to make up for the extra levels they can gain).

Meg's growths are a bit awkward (poor Str/Def) but her issue more stems from being a 5 move sword locked unit with poor durability and speed.

Fiona's growths are actually really good--I would much rather a unit have Fiona's growths than... pretty much any other RD unit. Her only real flaw is that her growths aren't Gatrie's

On topic I wouldn't mind, it would probably be more convenient than checking SF I guess? But it's not really something I actively think about when playing anyway

Edited August 28, 2015 by Paperblade

[The_Vernster]

IMO that would cause unit segregation.

Say one person who plays Awakening and like Resistance over all stats. Units like Vaike would get the bench for him cause he has the worse resistance growth in the game.

[KMT4ever]

Growth rates should be unlockable, but I don't think the game should tell you exact numbers. That just encourages less min-max minded people, who would have otherwise tried out everyone over a series of runs, to pick the "best" units as soon as they knew who said units were. I did that with Awakening and it took some of the fun out. I'm specifically avoiding any Fates stuff so I can play the game truly blind.

I should add that growths not being known in-game isn't really a bad thing IMO. Except on the hardest difficulties there are rarely any units whose growths, rather than their class or availability, would screw a run over just by being picked or not. Using FE7 as an example, unless you're playing HHM I don't think using Dorcas over Bartre or vice versa is going to really affect the run. For people who actually care about knowing growth rates they can just check on the Internet anyway.

[Dunal]

Immortal Sword solves this issue pretty well: The stat colour indicates how blessed/screwed the unit is in that particular stat. If it's a colour very close to yellow then it means it is near its average. Green = blessed. Red = screwed.

So even though it does not show growths when you immediately receive the unit, it allows the player to figure them out based on average stats.

[Ownagepuffs]

I've been behind making it an unlockable for a while. There is no reason to hide that information.