• Follow our Instagram!
  • Curious about what we're currently doing about bots? Check out the latest updates from staff in this thread.

(Little) Things that annoy you in Pokémon

Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind did something with both grinding and open world that would not be possible today, which is "allow the player to run into and away from challenges they cannot beat." There's something of a heatmap, with areas close to cities and the southwest of the map lower leveled, and areas far from cities and in the northeast higher leveled. And then the player naturally wanders around, bouncing off areas with high-leveled Ogrims wandering around and NPCs regularly telling you to run from fights and to carry teleport scrolls in case you get into trouble. So you naturally focused on areas where you could win, steadily spending more and more time in difficult areas as higher-level quests pushed you in those directions, until naturally you were comfortable there.

Part of the problem is that much of the modern gaming sphere makes enemies always beatable. Look at the memes from the Ice Troll on the 7000 steps in Skyrim, or Slay the Spire 2 devs having to put in a note like "Not everyone can or should attempt Asc 10, be happy wherever the game is fun for you". Players don't know how to react if something isn't possible(or is extremely hard) and I don't think a single game can fix it.
 
Hugin said:
Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind did something with both grinding and open world that would not be possible today, which is "allow the player to run into and away from challenges they cannot beat." There's something of a heatmap, with areas close to cities and the southwest of the map lower leveled, and areas far from cities and in the northeast higher leveled. And then the player naturally wanders around, bouncing off areas with high-leveled Ogrims wandering around and NPCs regularly telling you to run from fights and to carry teleport scrolls in case you get into trouble. So you naturally focused on areas where you could win, steadily spending more and more time in difficult areas as higher-level quests pushed you in those directions, until naturally you were comfortable there.

Part of the problem is that much of the modern gaming sphere makes enemies always beatable. Look at the memes from the Ice Troll on the 7000 steps in Skyrim, or Slay the Spire 2 devs having to put in a note like "Not everyone can or should attempt Asc 10, be happy wherever the game is fun for you". Players don't know how to react if something isn't possible(or is extremely hard) and I don't think a single game can fix it.

That's basically what the fan game Sardonyx: Raised to Win did. It's a bit on the edgy side with the protagonist confronting an evil team of ruthless Pokemon murderers very early, but I can see some inexperienced kids letting their curiosity get the better of them to get caught unaware. Even then, the evil team members warn you that your mons can die if you lose, and allow you to run away from unwinnable battles or at least avoid the worst outcome. All you have to do it is pretend it's real, and pay attention to the clues given by NPCs.

There are several members scattered across the accessible cities. They have Pokemon at certain levels, and you're reasonably likely to win the 1v1 battles they challenge you to if you bring the right mon and use the right moves as well as items. On Normal, you can even walk away from the optional battles when they warn you.

The first mandatory battle is against a Sneasel you have a decent chance to beat. After that, you're given the option to fight a much stronger Haxorus, but the guy makes it clear that you'd be pushing your luck. If you don't take his warning seriously, you're suddenly in a battle you can't possibly win unless you get extremely lucky with evasion, and you lose the mon you've sent out. This establishes that the evil team has some twisted sense of honor, but still doesn't mess around.

The next one is against a Feraligatr. The police investigate the crimes committed by the evil team, and take you to the police station as a witness. You end up going with a few adults, but they don't set out to let you do everything. The group ends up going to an island protected by Lugia to investigate further, but the evil team's Articuno defeats the Lugia. The adults use their Pokemon to hold off the bad guys for a while, but the Feraligatr guy ends up targeting you. There's technically a way to defeat the Feraligatr, but the game treats it as null and void. You can't walk away either, but you CAN avoid losing Pokemon by exploiting a weird evolution method mentioned by an NPC. Then they let you escape out of respect for you outwitting them instead of throwing a tantrum. Then the adults regret bringing you there, but it's somewhat an understandable decision as you're a very valuable witness.

The last mandatory deathmatch is against a Gen 3 Soul Dew Latios. Despite his power, he's very young and inexperienced, which is reflected by its random AI. It's level 30, and your level cap is 35 in addition to you being allowed to switch Pokemon. His trainer is the same guy with the Sneasel and Haxorus, but these mons were much less random. He has a lot of confidence in his prized Latios, and wants him to fight and learn by himself to become the perfect weapon.

I really liked how our decisions actually mattered there.


ant4456 said:
the best rpg take is that leveling is a outdated system and progression should come from actually cool and material things rather than what number

like ive been playing splatoon raiders, good game, but the level up system is dumb compared to the much better progression of upgrading your gadgets/chips that let you do new things and experiment. that is fun progression while levels only have three modes: 1. you're underleveled and you might just lose because you don't have the stats 2. the game plays normally 3. you are overleveled and you might just win because you have the stats (boring)

i keep going back to "pokemon would totally work without level ups" bc its just true imo, new moves, EVs and evolution are enough progression that make training the same pokemon rewarding without needing levels

The thing with Pokemon is that levels increase all the stats, and both the relevant defense and HP stats govern bulk. So, if you want to be n^2 times as bulky, you need to be at n times your previous level. If your level is n times the "ideal" level, your bulk is n^2 times the ideal bulk, so when n<1, it's very punishing, and when n>1, it's pretty boring.

Even "better", the "total threat output" would roughly be based on bulk * relevant offensive stat, because you can't deal damage if you're dead. So, if your level is n times the "ideal" level, your TTO is n^3 (!) times the ideal one. Do the math.

If the stats increased by the cube root (or at most the square root) of the percentage of the level improvement rather than arithmetically (maybe with the exception of speed because it acts by itself and you're either faster or slower than your opponent), it would have been a lot more reasonable.
 
Last edited:
Electiwireless said:
The thing with Pokemon is that levels increase all the stats, and both the relevant defense and HP stats govern bulk. So, if you want to be n^2 times as bulky, you need to be at n times your previous level. If your level is n times the "ideal" level, your bulk is n^2 times the ideal bulk, so when n<1, it's very punishing, and when n>1, it's pretty boring.

Even "better", the "total threat output" would roughly be based on bulk * relevant offensive stat, because you can't deal damage if you're dead. So, if your level is n times the "ideal" level, your TTO is n^3 (!) times the ideal one. Do the math.

If the stats increased by the cube root (or at most the square root) of the percentage of the level improvement rather than arithmetically (maybe with the exception of speed because it acts by itself and you're either faster or slower than your opponent), it would have been a lot more reasonable.

this actually misses something (I think sorry if I'm wrong) I only learned this year, level ITSELF impacts damage calculation

Level 49 and Level 50 Pokemon with the exact same stats, the 50 Pokemon takes less damage and deals more damage fractionally

so we're not just dealing with the stats but the fact that levels itself even discounting stats are given more weight than actual stats

but more than this I still don't think levels are necessary, just have every Pokemon stuck at Level 50 and then remove the level indicator.
 
LPBvgc said:
Well I beat Emerald for the first time... But y'all wanna know what my team was before the Elite 4?

View attachment 853350

Only 4 mons around the mid 40s-early 50s with an HM Mule for Waterfall. Note that I made sure to beat most trainers in each area and have really only caught these mons at all.

Yeah... grinding was DEFINITELY not an issue in these games... zoomers just have TikTok brain and a bad attention span... This totally isn't just terrible game design.


image.png
Welp, we gotta address the elephant in the room.

Before I start, I'd like to ask a question. Besides the E4, did you feel underleveled at any point?
There are four spots that I'm pretty sure you're supposed to grind in Emerald. It doesn't have a good level curve. One of them is excusable, but I won't talk too much about it.

Anyway, yes, we're back to talking about that dead horse. The Exp. All.

Moderation is key. I swear the concept is not complicated, but if Emerald's level curve feels like a 9-5, brother, ORAS with the Exp. Share on feels like an episode of Dora the Explorer.

Obviously, the middle ground is a game where you are around a decent level compared to the rest of the game. Somewhere you have friction so you actually have to play the game, but not enough to have to grind.
 
ant4456 said:
this actually misses something (I think sorry if I'm wrong) I only learned this year, level ITSELF impacts damage calculation

Level 49 and Level 50 Pokemon with the exact same stats, the 50 Pokemon takes less damage and deals more damage fractionally

so we're not just dealing with the stats but the fact that levels itself even discounting stats are given more weight than actual stats

but more than this I still don't think levels are necessary, just have every Pokemon stuck at Level 50 and then remove the level indicator.
I don't think this specifically is a problem. As mentioned, bulk scales with both HP and Defense, resulting in a total quadratic scaling with level. But offensive potential only scales with one stat, so it needs to have another source of scaling to keep up. You might be able to assign that to move power instead of directly scaling damage by level, but the current implementation of moves isn't built for that. Nearly every attack would require multiple versions that come online at different levels, probably with more granularity than e.g., ember/flamethrower/fire blast has currently.
 
Ironmage said:
I don't think this specifically is a problem. As mentioned, bulk scales with both HP and Defense, resulting in a total quadratic scaling with level. But offensive potential only scales with one stat, so it needs to have another source of scaling to keep up. You might be able to assign that to move power instead of directly scaling damage by level, but the current implementation of moves isn't built for that. Nearly every attack would require multiple versions that come online at different levels, probably with more granularity than e.g., ember/flamethrower/fire blast has currently.
no you wouldn't what? I don't get this argument. You do not need constant progression on an individual Pokemon basis in Pokemon. You just don't.
 
I don't believe bulk scales quadratically with level gives the right idea, versus offense scaling linearly.

In purely the damage formula, higher level increases damage compared to lower level, so two damage-increasing stats increase by level (Attack and level), just like two damage-decreasing stats increase by level (HP and Defense).

Testing some sample calcs seems to largely support this. First, let's just see raw stats (and EVs), pretending base stats, moves, etc. stay the same across the game. (This assumes full IVs, which maximizes the chance for bulk to quadratically leap above attack.)

Lvl 5 0 SpA Charmander Ember vs. Lvl 5 0 HP / 0 SpD Charmander: 15% average
Lvl 55 0 SpA Charmander Ember vs. Lvl 55 0 HP / 0 SpD Charmander: 12.5% average
Lvl 55 50 SpA Charmander Ember vs. Lvl 55 50 HP / 50 SpD Charmander: 11.7% average

Over the course of the entire main game, Level 5 to Level 55, the same attack maintains about 85% of its strength if we don't factor EVs, and about 80% of its strength if we do. Sure, there's technically a quadratic effect in pure stats, but it is very small, over the course of the entire campaign. Picking up your generic type-booster item like Charcoal undoes it.

As the game goes on, basically every progression point supports offense over defense, more than mitigating this quadratic advantage for bulk. You get stronger attacks and wider options of attacks, offensive items, and even more optimized stat distributions upon evolution. Sure, there exist defensive moves, items, stat spreads, etc., but they are much lower impact overall.

Let's see some some more sample calcs.

Lvl 5 0 SpA Charmander Ember vs. Lvl 5 0 HP / 0 SpD Charmander: 15% average
Lvl 25 25 Atk Charmeleon Fire Fang vs. Lvl 25 25 HP / 25 Def Charmeleon: 16.5% average

With no item and a very mediocre move upgrade – a move using Charmeleon's weaker attacking stat – we already increased relative strength. This effect will exaggerate once we get to Charizard and Fire Blast and items, but my point is, offense continually asserts itself well before endgame, beating the small quadratic bulk effect even with suboptimal moves and stats. (For reference, you get Fire Fang in the late teens in modern games, and it will keep this relative strength advantage over Ember until the moment you get Flamethrower, which increases that offense advantage. So at least from ~17 to endgame, offense takes the lead over bulk.)
 
Volt-Ikazuchi said:
Honestly, I don't see how removing levels outright wouldn't make things more complicated.

It's a nice, visual way to measure progress. There are a bunch of mechanics that could and should be nuked or overhauled instead. (IVs, EVs, Experience Groups...)
there is no need for constant numerical progression that's my entire argument

we do not need constant stat increases, i basically do not want stats to increase at all, but i think EVs is still a fair system to keep and does reward training in a good way that already exists

i do not think progression should come from gaining levels and instead from named power increases: new moves, evolution

especially in open world pokemon which is where we are heading to i think this is much better because you still progress and get stronger, you can still get to tougher areas with effort and unevolved mons with strategy, but also you will not have stat creep issues, and level scaling is effectively just a worse solution to this imo
 
Volt-Ikazuchi said:
Honestly, I don't see how removing levels outright wouldn't make things more complicated.

It's a nice, visual way to measure progress. There are a bunch of mechanics that could and should be nuked or overhauled instead. (IVs, EVs, Experience Groups...)
Also people just like Number Go Up.

ant4456 said:
there is no need for constant numerical progression that's my entire argument

we do not need constant stat increases, i basically do not want stats to increase at all, but i think EVs is still a fair system to keep and does reward training in a good way that already exists

i do not think progression should come from gaining levels and instead from named power increases: new moves, evolution

especially in open world pokemon which is where we are heading to i think this is much better because you still progress and get stronger, you can still get to tougher areas with effort and unevolved mons with strategy, but also you will not have stat creep issues, and level scaling is effectively just a worse solution to this imo
You are playing an RPG the existence of levels is like half of the appeal of the genre to a lot of people lmao.

Also, how would you even feed new moves and evolutions to the player without some sort of leveling/experience system. This isn't Kingdom Hearts where you can get away with Level 1 runs because new abilities are handed over to you every time you defeat a boss (of which there are many) or some scripted mob fights. Unless you want to keep levels but nix any sort of stat progression between obtaining moves or evolutions, which is just bad for game feel.
 
Karxrida said:
You are playing an RPG the existence of levels is like half of the appeal of the genre to a lot of people lmao.
thats a very shallow argument that's like saying people do not play platformers for the platforming they play them for the feeling of finishing the stage

ive never actually seen anyone ever feel this way ive seen several say others play rpgs for this except the number 1 complaint with almost every rpg's balance is always the level up system. How strange

Karxrida said:
Also, how would you even feed new moves and evolutions to the player without some sort of leveling/experience system.
i never said there wouldnt be an experience system i just said stat levels would be gone

idk why this is breaking all of your brains because almost every single fangame experience makes levels irrelevant and people love those lol

emerald rogue is one of the most popular fangames ever and the leveling system is basically irrelevant you fight a wild pokemon like three times and hit the level cap for the area

it's a staple in fangames to have NPCs that just bring you to the level cap because fundamentally levels are an obstacle to good balance not a part of good balance

people do like the gameplay and if they dont like the gameplay for the gameplay and just want number go up then you're admitting that mainline pokemon games have fucking dogshit gameplay that is only salvaged by a long-term version of Cookie Clicker (which i like btw), which im not opposed to but "Keep the unbalanced system because otherwise it'd show how shallow the gameplay is" is a pretty bad conclusion
 
ant4456 said:
thats a very shallow argument that's like saying people do not play platformers for the platforming they play them for the feeling of finishing the stage
It was clearly in jest.

ant4456 said:
ive never actually seen anyone ever feel this way ive seen several say others play rpgs for this except the number 1 complaint with almost every rpg's balance is always the level up system. How strange
I have never seen a complaint about the level up system of any RPG unless it's some nonstandard esoteric BS that is sometimes just outright divorced from the concept. Think something like Junctioning in FFVIII and sometimes the Sphere Grid in FFX depending on who you ask. The default complaints are almost always bad level curves/forced grinding or random encounters existing being too common.

ant4456 said:
i never said there wouldnt be an experience system i just said stat levels would be gone

idk why this is breaking all of your brains because almost every single fangame experience makes levels irrelevant and people love those lol
It's breaking our brains because you're not doing a particularly good job explaining how a replacement system would even work very well. You're largely just asserting it would be better without much evidence.

Also I don't play Pokémon fangames for various reasons including that my backlog is a literal bookcase and I don't like doing RPGs back-to-back. So I don't have a frame of reference here. The only fangame I know much of anything about is Celia's Stupid Romhack which last I checked uses the vanilla EXP system anyway.
 
Karxrida said:
It's breaking our brains because you're not doing a particularly good job explaining how a replacement system would even work very well. You're largely just asserting it would be better without much evidence.
there isn't much to explain because it'd
literally just be pokemon without stat levels

i do not think there needs to be much more work than that

the game already would function without stat levels. stat levels are not necessary for the game

its that simple
Karxrida said:
I have never seen a complaint about the level up system of any RPG unless it's some nonstandard esoteric BS that is sometimes just outright divorced from the concept. Think something like Junctioning in FFVIII and sometimes the Sphere Grid in FFX depending on who you ask. The default complaints are almost always bad level curves/forced grinding or random encounters existing being too common.
then idk maybe we're looking at different areas because I cannot think of many RPGs where the level system is viewed positively

the point really is that levels at best are neutral and at worst can make the game worse, there is not really many times where levels make RPGs better

you can have progression that isn't stats and most RPGs already have that, ex. Pokemon has stats, evolution, held items. Xenoblade has like 5 different systems depending on entry for progression that are more interesting than stats. FF7 has Materia, equipment, FF Job system has gaining skills over time that don't need to be tied to stats.

The only RPG I've ever played where the level system actually adds something is Fire Emblem because who you give exp is part of the strategy of the game, and even then the grinding segments in games such as 3H are just tedious and fall into what I've been talking about.

Progression should be from tangible things that enable the player to do new things, or are set stat increases the developer can design around such as equipment, not number go up. The most optimally balanced stat leveling system is one where you never feel the level system because you're staying at curve. So it doesn't matter. The best leveling system is one where you are playing at the developer's intended levels and at that point the only thing it serves to do is make it so you can fall out of balance.
 
ant4456 said:
Progression should be from tangible things that enable the player to do new things, or are set stat increases the developer can design around such as equipment, not number go up. The most optimally balanced stat leveling system is one where you never feel the level system because you're staying at curve. So it doesn't matter. The best leveling system is one where you are playing at the developer's intended levels and at that point the only thing it serves to do is make it so you can fall out of balance.

Again, actually say how you would do this in Pokemon.
 
Coronis said:
Again, actually say how you would do this in Pokemon.
ant4456 said:
there isn't much to explain because it'd
literally just be pokemon without stat levels

i do not think there needs to be much more work than that

the game already would function without stat levels. stat levels are not necessary for the game

its that simple
 
So, like, okay, if we're keeping it exactly like it is but without Levels then that means we're earning everything through battles
Which...alright, seeing some issues.
You can't just treat everything as EVs because that completely alters how stat growth since EVs are no longer "extra" points on top of your standard stat growth that you'd get via level. You're going to need more scaffolding here which just redoes the entire thing.
Moves....I guess are now exclusively taught externally beyond your starting 4 moves? Or you'd, what, need to do actions in battle to keep learning them? You'll definitely need to rework all the move pools otherwise you're just grinding out for all your moves just not through a leveling system. This type of learning system only really works in a game with a small cast and small learnlists (and those often pair it with levels anyway...)
Evolution would have to be reworked for like 80% of Pokemon since the most common trigger, levels, is gone. I guess that's the least egregious but does bring to mind "what are you doing, specifically" on stuff like starters.
 
ant4456 said:
idk why this is breaking all of your brains because almost every single fangame experience makes levels irrelevant and people love those lol
:tymp:

Level is literally a factor in the damage formula. Letting people buy Rare Candies is VERY different from making levels irrelevant.
What you're proposing is quite literally reinventing the wheel. Would TMs just bypass the whole thing? There's a reason why certain mechanics are industry-standard.

I honestly think it wouldn't work out as smoothly as you think it would, but hey, you can pick up one of the disassemblies and prove us wrong.
 
Karxrida said:
I have never seen a complaint about the level up system of any RPG unless it's some nonstandard esoteric BS that is sometimes just outright divorced from the concept. Think something like Junctioning in FFVIII and sometimes the Sphere Grid in FFX depending on who you ask. The default complaints are almost always bad level curves/forced grinding or random encounters existing being too common.
ironically in the rpgs I've tried that removed the standard level up system, they all felt far grindier than some of the notoriously grindy jrpgs. I think the system has been around for so long and in so many things because it just works. any system you design to replace it has to be a lot more complicated or psychologically worse feeling than just heres an exp bar and everything goes up by a set threshold and there's clear breakpoints for skill/move/ability acquisition.
 
Volt-Ikazuchi said:
Level is literally a factor in the damage formula.
we are on a website dedicated to competitive pokemon where everybody (with very few exceptions) plays at the same level what. You just assume everyone is the same level


Volt-Ikazuchi said:
Would TMs just bypass the whole thing?
TMs already are irrelevant to levels?


Volt-Ikazuchi said:
There's a reason why certain mechanics are industry-standard.
It took 30 years to get rid of lives in most platformers even though they genuinely added almost nothing, and it was an indie game that solidified the mass removal of the system lol.


R_N said:
Moves....I guess are now exclusively taught externally beyond your starting 4 moves?
when I say stat levels I do not mean you wouldn't get exp or have nothing to gain through battling, I mean you would not get stats. whether it be an actual level in the current world, or represented in some other way (ie. you have a bar that fills up and scales to how long until you learn your next move)

CynicalGiant said:
heres an exp bar and everything goes up by a set threshold and there's clear breakpoints for skill/move/ability acquisition.
im not talking about skill acquisition im talking about gaining stats this ENTIRE TIME ive been saying that it's better to have progression be skills, moves, and abilities, and not the stat part which sucks and makes the balance worse almost every single time
 
ant4456 said:
im not talking about skill acquisition im talking about gaining stats this ENTIRE TIME ive been saying that it's better to have progression be skills, moves, and abilities, and not the stat part which sucks and makes the balance worse almost every single time
are you Karxrida? I was responding to what they said and not what you said.
 
ant4456 said:
TMs already are irrelevant to levels?
TMs are supposed to be a a supplement to the progression system as extra rewards and in most game have limited uses. Volt wants to know how they would work in your proposed new system because their current space in the game design wouldn't cleanly transfer over.

ant4456 said:
It took 30 years to get rid of lives in most platformers even though they genuinely added almost nothing, and it was an indie game that solidified the mass removal of the system lol.
Lives had a legitimate function originally. Outside of being a holdover from arcade style design, they helped artificially lengthen game time by putting a limitation on the player. This, combined with difficulty, was done to compensate for how short some games could actually be due to memory limitations on the early cartridge-based consoles. For example, I'm pretty sure the original Castlevania on NES is like 30-45 minutes if you manage a deathless run.

As game design moved away from the arcade style and was given access to more space to actually do what the developers wanted we got rid of stuff that no longer had any purpose. Funnily enough, long RPGs that frequently use levels as progression have thrived specifically from this evolution.

ant4456 said:
im not talking about skill acquisition im talking about gaining stats this ENTIRE TIME ive been saying that it's better to have progression be skills, moves, and abilities, and not the stat part which sucks and makes the balance worse almost every single time
It frankly sounds like you want something similar to FFII.

The infamously worst Final Fantasy game that is undisputed for its crown specifically because of how it handles its stat and ability progression.
 
Last edited:
Karxrida said:
It frankly sounds like you want something similar to FFII.

The infamously worst Final Fantasy game that is undisputed for its crown specifically because of how it handles its stat and ability progression.
this is true about ff2 but isn't the popular SaGa series essentially this but further developed? (same director)

I don't think this would work well for pokemon in the slightest honestly but I know SaGa fans are diehards for that series' systems.
 
So let me tell you about a little game called Paper Mario. The first two games are very beloved turn-based RPGs by Nintendo, major points of praise being its highly customizable progression system by way of 3 stats for level up and Badges as equippable abilities or stat tweaks similar to Materia in Final Fantasy VII, another very famous JRPG of the era. Alongside this were story based upgrades to your equipment, meeting new partner characters, and special moves akin to Limit Breaks unlocked every chapter milestone.

Now we fast forward to Paper Mario: Sticker Star on the 3DS. This game did away with a traditional level up system in favor of gaining health from collectables and scaling power by the use of stickers that served as your expendable resources to use their corresponding actions, with later areas increasing strength by giving stronger stickers in greater quantity. Motivations included encouraging resource management and averting issues with grinding being needed to catch up or outleveling the challenges.

The result: Sticker Star is THE worst received entry in that 6 game sub-series, with common criticisms including (as pertains to this level topic at least)
  • Battles feel unsatisfying and bordering on a net negative (since you gain nothing permanent, only stickers/money to replace what you may expend fighting them).
  • No sense of progression or build variety since the power curve is limited to the Stickers given in each area rather than being able to mix and match techniques
  • Bosses becoming puzzles with solutions since without build differences in moves or statline, they either literally or figuratively require one approach to differentiate them from another fight's one approach. In Pokemon terms, imagine fighting something like Lt. Surge with a Mono Electric moveset and 3x your stats: if you use Ground, you can't lose, but anything else is hitting a steel wall with a twig.
And consider this is for an RPG with a single entity the devs can design the game progression around, rather than permutations of hundreds of creatures that could be swapped in and out of rotation on a whim.

And even putting that aside, Levels and stats have a clear point to game design because they make a simple short hand for how strong a character is: a character who joins at level 15 when your crew is level 6-8 conveys this person is much stronger in the story through the gameplay. A higher level indicates someone has played more with a character or build and is expected to understand it to a greater degree.

On the topic of levels not being tied to stats, how then do you meaningfully depict stat gain as a means of progressing a character that is immediately comprehensible to a player, if not through levels going, that does not introduce busy work that essentially becomes grinding by another name or homogenizes the experience?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top