(Little) Things that annoy you in Pokémon

[RocketSurgery]

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.

I think ant is just proposing pinning the stats of all mons at level 50 or 100 and otherwise leaving the leveling system more or less the same, such that there is still exp and levels at which new moves are learned, evolution occurs, etc.

Personally, I think the current system is fine. Stat increases with level give a sense of growing with your Pokemon, and recent games have introduced xp candies for players that want to skip the grind if they find themselves underleveled. I think it is just a compulsion of players on a competitive forum to want to remove any mechanic that exists for some sense of worldbuilding if it is irrelevant or a burden to competitive/speedruns/nuzlockes (see also: iv discussions)

 

[ant4456]

pika pal said:

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 if not through levels, that does not introduce busy work that essentially becomes grinding by another name or homogenizes the experience?

I am literally a Paper Mario fan. I am saying there is still progression. It's just not stats.

Yall are actually just misinterpreting and shitting on my non-existent point over and over.

You can have levels without stat levels. You can have progression and exp. without getting stats. Paper Mario literally cuts down on half the relevant stats by not having your Attack or Defense increase with levels, instead you gain power from other choices or you pick HP (which is the boring one).

You do not get more powerful because Mario does 2 damage now. You do more damage over time because you have more mana or more slots to use a badge that gives you more power. Your repitoire of viable builds increases.

I am proposing similar: You get new moves (tools, allowing you to make your own build, their own form of creep: Flamethrower is more powerful than Ember! You do more damage now.) without having your actual stats increase.

There is actual leveling and it's Partners, and ultimately it's fine, since the designers are able to design around what is basically two Partner builds for the entire game with two forms of each partner.

Not Level 2 stats. Versus Level 3 stats. Versus Level 4 stats. Versus Level 5 stats. Versus Level 6 stats. and so on

You picked an awful counter example because Paper Mario is one of the only RPGs that has actually respected that just increasing your damage/defense linearly through levels fucking sucks and makes balancing harder and worse. They flattened the damage numbers to make it simpler and people like it,

 

[ant4456]

Genuinely baffled at how there is an entire page after I said "You can have levels just don't have the stats go up" and still think I'm arguing to not have progression or exp. And an entire recount of the 500 video easays about why Sticker Star sucks. I know Sticker Star is bad. I played it when I was like 12. I know.

It is actually patronizing to be given the millionth rundown on the implications of removing leveling entirely with Sticker Star. I know.

ant4456 said:

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)

There is a certain point of clarifying and people missing the point where it feels like I am not even in a conversation, I am instead being talked at. I would say it feels even malicious but I don't think that, I think y'all are respectable people and maybe I'm just doing a shit job, but at the same time I don't know how much more explicit I can be.

You can just remove increased stats from level ups and it would be fine is what I am saying. You do not need the stats (HP ATK DEF SPA SPD SPE) to go up. You have a reward for leveling up: evolution and moves. That is progression. Stats often lead to problems in balancing difficulty and a well-done stat system is just invisible; not elevating, but instead met with a moderate "Yeah I never had a problem" from players. There are few RPGs that justify it, I named one that does. Paper Mario is not a counter-example because while you do increase a stat when you level up, one only serves to enable you to access another form of progression, another lets you use attacks you get from that more, and the last is HP, which is what experienced players usually increase last in their cycles of the stats.

Pokemon has many sources of progression that does not come from levels: Evolution itself is still progression in stats, I am saying the granularity of Level 15 vs 16 vs 17 vs 18 does not add anything to the game, and instead makes balancing harder and generally worse.

 

[CynicalGiant]

RocketSurgery said:

I think ant is just proposing pinning the stats of all mons at level 50 or 100 and otherwise leaving the leveling system more or less the same, such that there is still exp and levels at which new moves are learned, evolution occurs, etc.

Personally, I think the current system is fine. Stat increases with level give a sense of growing with your Pokemon, and recent games have introduced xp candies for players that want to skip the grind if they find themselves underleveled.

there are rpgs where the level up stats essentially don't matter but are there for superficial psychological reasons, since if the stats never go up and there's no visible progression in the way people expect there to be it's going to feel a lot more grindy than it actually is.

hell even in the generations of pokemon where badge boosts existed it essentially made level disparities largely irrelevant, but people still felt the psychological need to grind, even if they didn't want to grind.

leveling/progressing whatever you want to call it in modern pokemon is easier than it has literally ever been so game freak has "solved" it in their own way. I'm not a huge fan of how it works but it clearly works for their target demos with how popular the games are still.

 

[Karxrida]

ant4456 said:

Yall are actually just misinterpreting and shitting on my non-existent point over and over.

Probably because you are doing an exceptionally bad job at explaining your position to the point that multiple people are confused as to what you're actually trying to say.

 

[pika pal]

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

Just to have this quoted to prove yes I read what you claimed initially.

Splatoon Raiders is also a bizarre comparison because that game is fundamentally a looter shooter where amassing big number weapons and finetuning the small perks against increasingly big number enemies is the core gameplay loop. At that point that just sounds like that game isn't to your tastes if you dislike its primary form of carrot-on-a-stick.

ant4456 said:

You can have levels without stat levels. You can have progression and exp. without getting stats. Paper Mario literally cuts down on half the relevant stats by not having your Attack or Defense increase with levels, instead you gain power from other choices or you pick HP (which is the boring one).

You do not get more powerful because Mario does 2 damage now. You do more damage over time because you have more mana or more slots to use a badge that gives you more power. Your repitoire of viable builds increases.

I am proposing similar: You get new moves (tools, allowing you to make your own build, their own form of creep: Flamethrower is more powerful than Ember! You do more damage now.) without having your actual stats increase.

And this is the other reason I brought up Sticker Star: because getting stronger solely from the binary marker of hitting a new move/sticker/item doesn't feel satisfying to the majority of Pokemon's in-game target audience, the same way it was not a satisfying substitute for SS's level up removal. Old Paper Mario still had that "level up = more number = easier" because 5 extra FP could ease your action economy by needing one more turn before having to restore it, or throwing more big moves more often in the same rotation, or 3 extra BP being necessary to fit another Badge's passive into a build (Badges being found in the world but only effectively useable with leveling up giving room to fit Power Jump + Spike Shield for example). Just because it isn't the literal ATK and DEF stats doesn't mean level gains weren't still progression through a raw number gain: a Mario with the exact same Badge inventory can do more with Level 15 stats than Level 10.

The Pokemon case described retains the grinding aspect if you get stuck and have to get stronger via new moves/an Evoution, but not being level related now means you have a hard goal where it will jump rather than maybe getting over that last edge by going from 20 to 21.

I comprehend your point of Leveling progressing Pokemon in ways besides the 6 stats going up incrementally. I just think it also sounds incredibly unsatisfying for a casual run experience because there is a dopamine hit to seeing things increase.

The best solution I've seen might be the Xenoblade games (and even there it's only fully realized on NG+), where completing side objectives gives you Bonus EXP similar to EXP Candy in newer Pokemon games such that you don't automatically overlevel while playing completionist. NG+ even allows you to level characters down to convert their EXP back to the bonus pool, giving granular control and making it a more general resource. Don't want to faceroll things? Level down while you want to stay on pace, whilst level as a number gives a ballpark for what matches your opposition.

 

[CynicalGiant]

pika pal said:

The best solution I've seen might be the Xenoblade games (and even there it's only fully realized on NG+), where completing side objectives gives you Bonus EXP similar to EXP Candy in newer Pokemon games such that you don't automatically overlevel while playing completionist. NG+ even allows you to level characters down to convert their EXP back to the bonus pool, giving granular control and making it a more general resource. Don't want to faceroll things? Level down while you want to stay on pace, whilst level as a number gives a ballpark for what matches your opposition.

I assume they have played xenoblade since a lot of their other suggestions in the past were essentially slowly morphing pokemon into xenoblade and working backwards from there.

stats playing largely a backseat to gear or skill acquisition is very mmo or mmo-lite coded in general. also thinking about the lateral upgrades in like guildwars 2. I agree with you and others here that this sort of power fantasy and progression track really does not fit the vibe of pokemon or monster rpgs in general. The only like "monster collector" I can think of that even remotely gels with it is SMT which is barely even one since it's very hard puzzle box-y and you actively acquire and discard monsters whenever you hit a new wall.

 

[DrPumpkinz]

Karxrida said:

Probably because you are doing an exceptionally bad job at explaining your position to the point that multiple people are confused as to what you're actually trying to say.

I understood what they were saying just fine. Y'all just can't read.

 

[Karxrida]

DrPumpkinz said:

I understood what they were saying just fine. Y'all just can't read.

I have read over their posts multiple times just to be sure because I have been sleep deprived recently. I understand the base idea. I just don't understand what the proposed replacement mechanism is supposed to be because they haven't offered solutions as how to handle things like evolutions.

 

[ant4456]

pika pal said:

At that point that just sounds like that game isn't to your tastes if you dislike its primary form of carrot-on-a-stick.

its primary carrot on a stick was gadget parts and weapons which are not reliant on the leveling up at all. like i loved making a spiderman splatana build

there are chip power boosts: the hookshot has Damage Surge, temp. massive damage increase after using the gadget. and then fundamental increases to that such as getting a faster recharge so you can use that. These things do end up increasing your DPS, but focusing on the stats side of levels? what they do in that game is make it so you can just trivialize shit or have to deal with HP sponges and neither are particularly satisfying

maybe im just stupid because i did play some level out of order at times, but i found myself in a cycle: if i wanted to go back to do spicy stages because i was at the level, i would overlevel for the next regular mission that is at the same level, for instance. if i did the next regular mission i unlocked, i'd be overleveled for the spicy. this gave me genuinely a bit of anxiety during the playthrough, to be fair maybe irrational: i am a good splatoon player and i was finding the challenge of the game really enjoyable and was worried i'd ruin it in my blind playthrough by just... trying to clear the stages in an order. i told my friends i wish i had a "turn off exp" button for when i wanted to do those or play with friends online.

its to me at least, very odd that in a game with so many progression systems that are genuinely great, i'd consider it one of the best i've seen in a game, it still felt the need to have levels where you just straight up instantly kill salmonids at lower level and you can stand and your bot will just kill them if you overleveled

it feels unnecessary and even imo takes away from the other genuinely great progression systems. in terms of how this ties into the rest of this post: leveling up to get the currency that let me upgrade other stuff, and especially the nier automata ass chip system, is fine, its just the HP and attack increase that is bizarre imo.

pika pal said:

And this is the other reason I brought up Sticker Star: because getting stronger solely from the binary marker of hitting a new move/sticker/item doesn't feel satisfying to the majority of Pokemon's in-game target audience,

unfalsifiable statement this can't really be argued one way or another

pika pal said:

the same way it was not a satisfying substitute for SS's level up removal.

this is not related really though imo

sticker star does not have any real form of progression through battles. at all. none. you get new stickers that are one time use and will be immediately used in a battle which only gives you stickers and money, which money is used to buy stickers, and those stickers are impermanent

flamethrower is a relatively permanent upgrade over ember (you can technically get rid of it but like, why would you)

charizard is a permanent upgrade over charmeleon

pika pal said:

Old Paper Mario still had that "level up = more number = easier" because 5 extra FP could ease your action economy by needing one more turn before having to restore it, or throwing more big moves more often in the same rotation, or 3 extra BP being necessary to fit another Badge's passive into a build (Badges being found in the world but only effectively useable with leveling up giving room to fit Power Jump + Spike Shield for example). Just because it isn't the literal ATK and DEF stats doesn't mean level gains weren't still progression through a raw number gain: a Mario with the exact same Badge inventory can do more with Level 15 stats than Level 10.

i agree that levels in paper mario still ultimately lead to better stats, but as i kind of said with the splatoon stuff:

ant4456 said:

You do not get more powerful because Mario does 2 damage now. You do more damage over time because you have more mana or more slots to use a badge that gives you more power. Your repitoire of viable builds increases.

i said this is good progression compared to

ant4456 said:

Not Level 2 stats. Versus Level 3 stats. Versus Level 4 stats. Versus Level 5 stats. Versus Level 6 stats. and so on

the designers know where the badges are and at what points you will get them, which is a notable restriction as well.

pika pal said:

a Mario with the exact same Badge inventory can do more with Level 15 stats than Level 10.

yeah but not "you invalidated the game because you are slightly overleveled" because you do not simply get to deal more damage for free because mario's attack rose, and take less damage because mario has more defense

imagine if paper mario mario just got more attack and defense every 2 levels for free and there was no restriction at all. you dont even get to choose. there goombas now do basically zero damage and you just instantly kill them on top of badges. that is to me what the average rpg leveling system is like.

you get the paper mario badge effects x2: you get the level up progression and get to stat creep the game, and then you also get build stuff that lets you boost further: those things are more interesting, still lead to an ultimately stronger character, but with usually real downsides such as having to pick between options and make a choice.

say a game where you level up and get stats and then points for a skill tree. paper mario is like you get a pseudo skill tree (but better im actually not a huge fan of skill trees but just an example), and that's it

i feel like this is harder for me to explain and wrote this first, so if you don't fully understand just read the next part

pika pal said:

now means you have a hard goal where it will jump rather than maybe getting over that last edge by going from 20 to 21.

yes but i think that's ultimately a good thing

flamethrower may be a big boost, but ultimately your ember stab fire type will likely still be fairly effective and useful against smth like a tangrowth with slightly better play than normal:

0 SpA Charmeleon Ember vs. 0 HP / 0 SpD Tangrowth: 66-80 (37.7 - 45.7%) -- guaranteed 3HKO

(worst case ex. it gets ancient power from level up)
0 SpA Tangrowth Ancient Power vs. 0 HP / 0 SpD Charmeleon: 70-84 (52.6 - 63.1%) -- guaranteed 2HKO

these are at level 50 v level 50 calcs for clarity. all the player has to do is get some chip on the tangrowth with 1 pokemon. switch charmeleon in. and use ember twice. very basic pokemon strategy, but also rewarding and allowing you to still deal with what is a much better-statted out pokemon.

but with a 5 level difference in charmeleon's favor:

Lvl 35 0 SpA Charmeleon Ember vs. Lvl 30 0 HP / 0 SpD Tangrowth: 54-66 (49.5 - 60.5%) -- 98.4% chance to 2HKO

Lvl 30 0 SpA Tangrowth Ancient Power vs. Lvl 35 0 HP / 0 SpD Charmeleon: 40-48 (41.6 - 50%) -- 0.4% chance to 2HKO

suddenly charmeleon is extremely likely to be able to just swap in and win in most conditions no matter what, head empty no thoughts

and on the other hand:

Lvl 30 0 SpA Charmeleon Ember vs. Lvl 35 0 HP / 0 SpD Tangrowth: 36-44 (28.8 - 35.2%) -- 8.9% chance to 3HKO

Lvl 35 0 SpA Tangrowth Ancient Power vs. Lvl 30 0 HP / 0 SpD Charmeleon: 58-70 (69 - 83.3%) -- guaranteed 2HKO

if tangrowth is 5 level advantage here, tangrowth just absolutely fucking cooks charmeleon. it's just really over without crits

obviously pokemon is a game for babies, but i do think that in say, an open world which is what the series is becoming, removing this is good: it lets you have variable balancing throughout the region without level scaling, and still reward better players and giving them more freedom by just. having a bit more skill to get through early.

i think we can both agree paper mario's level ups are not like. this important, especially just a few. yes you get much stronger, but the developers can give real caps to your power depending on chapter, and you do not have such large swings like this

pika pal said:

I just think it also sounds incredibly unsatisfying for a casual run experience because there is a dopamine hit to seeing things increase.

fair enough, I don't agree but that is a fair disagreement ofc. just saying this bc i am worried i am being too confrontational but like its fine to disagree i just want us to agree on what we are disagreeing on

pika pal said:

The best solution I've seen might be the Xenoblade games (and even there it's only fully realized on NG+), where completing side objectives gives you Bonus EXP similar to EXP Candy in newer Pokemon games such that you don't automatically overlevel while playing completionist. NG+ even allows you to level characters down to convert their EXP back to the bonus pool, giving granular control and making it a more general resource. Don't want to faceroll things? Level down while you want to stay on pace, whilst level as a number gives a ballpark for what matches your opposition.

I don't like this personally but i wont die on this hill. its mostly because I do not think it should be up to the player to make sure the game is balanced correctly. You the player shouldn't have to adjust to the right level to stay on pace or have a balanced experience imo.

compared to a system like paper mario, the differences in levels is more significant in pokemon and the average rpg and often in boring ways while raising the ceiling of how much you can break the game versus being able to make the game essentially impossible at low enough levels. i think that is bad

ive played RPGs where the difference between level 20 vs level 21 is like beating a boss or not simply due to stats, and that was like the most extreme case. that wasn't super interesting! pokemon is not that bad for sure, but as i hope i have shown i think rn levels have way too much importance

CynicalGiant said:

I assume they have played xenoblade since a lot of their other suggestions in the past were essentially slowly morphing pokemon into xenoblade and working backwards from there.

stats playing largely a backseat to gear or skill acquisition is very mmo or mmo-lite coded in general. also thinking about the lateral upgrades in like guildwars 2. I agree with you and others here that this sort of power fantasy and progression track really does not fit the vibe of pokemon or monster rpgs in general. The only like "monster collector" I can think of that even remotely gels with it is SMT which is barely even one since it's very hard puzzle box-y and you actively acquire and discard monsters whenever you hit a new wall.

speaking of xenoblade, xenoblade 3 is a game that if you play blind and simply follow the story and do zero side content you will sliiightly overlevel and its kind of a good example of my case imo. in my blind playthrough i felt most of the other systems didn't matter because i didn't really have a reason to use them, like it has this cool job system and shit but like, you kind of just win by playing with moderate understanding of the systems and clicking buttons? overleveling tends to just overwrite and make usually existant cooler progression systems less relevant. like yeah i could toy around with these bajillion classes and shit you probably spent a long time working on, but doing almost none of it but clicking random shit in a skill tree + following the story along is barely worse off

yes you can say "they should just balance exp better" and i agree, even if we are gonna keep stats in level ups designers still have a responsibility to do as best they can, but we always will ultimately, with good balance, return to: well then it's just normal. there is one normal level of stat curve the game will ultimately be designed around that will be the best way to play for the vast majority of people, and then every game is either putting the onus on the player to implicitly figure that shit out or trying to force the issue and not mattering

so many ways of trying to balance this shit (cough level scaling) always comes down to just neutering the negatives that come from levels because we are so attached to an apparent need for a dopamine hit from seeing the attack stat go up in a menu every 20-30m of gameplay or less (there are entire franchises based on this such as disgaea, it is genuinely true), but like. i think that you lose something much greater which is just better balanced shit that could be way more fun in most games imo

 

[DrPumpkinz]

Karxrida said:

I have read over their posts multiple times just to be sure because I have been sleep deprived recently. I understand the base idea. I just don't understand what the proposed replacement mechanism is supposed to be because they haven't offered solutions as how to handle things like evolutions.

Evolutions are handled exactly the same. Literally the only change is that stats don't scale with level.

 

[CynicalGiant]

DrPumpkinz said:

I understood what they were saying just fine. Y'all just can't read.

honestly they used a lot more words than needed if they had just used an already established concept instead of reinventing the wheel in essay format. horizontal progression or lateral progression is essentially what they have been describing this whole time.

using a non pokemon or even turn based rpg example, wow is mostly vertical and guild wars 2 is mostly horizontal and afaik they have roughly equivalent playerbases. granted Im not sure how popular if at all horizontal progression is in turn based rpgs, I would assume it would not be received well because of the large influence of dragon quest and wizardry that still hangs over the genre.

 

[Karxrida]

DrPumpkinz said:

Evolutions are handled exactly the same. Literally the only change is that stats don't scale with level.

ant4456 said:

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

They start with this statement then make other statements contradictory to this because levels are functionally still there but without the indicator. Like I cannot even tell for sure what the difference is.

I'm sorry for being confused about confusing messaging I guess. Especially when it's in text wall format.

 

[CynicalGiant]

Karxrida said:

They start with this statement then make other statements contradictory to this because levels are functionally still there but without the indicator. Like I cannot even tell for sure what the difference is.

I'm sorry for being confused about confusing messaging I guess. Especially when it's in text wall format.

also just going entirely off themes, which are part of any mechanics in video games and are not separate entities, I don't think most players view their pokemon as move delivery mechanisms. moves are a bonus to seeing their magical pets get stronger. it isn't the thing they are acquiring the monsters for but a side effect of it.

I can make fido stronger vs I need a flamethrower user.

if you change it to being primarily about acquiring new moves then the thematic relationship between the player and their magical pet will be changed. if that's the goal of the designers and artists and writers then that's good.

the demons in SMT are essentially this dynamic. people get attached to the designs but not anywhere close to the level they do in pokemon.

 

[ant4456]

Karxrida said:

They start with this statement then make other statements contradictory to this because levels are functionally still there but without the indicator. Like I cannot even tell for sure what the difference is.

I'm sorry for being confused about confusing messaging I guess. Especially when it's in text wall format.

i changed my wording to stats and stat levels becuase i realized that me only associating "levels" as the stats and not the rest of the shit necessarily was a me thing and wasnt how other people conceived of it

i always thought of it as you still get exp to get things i just thought we all thought of "levels" as the stat increases. idk im stupid im sorry

apologies

 

[Karxrida]

CynicalGiant said:

the demons in SMT are essentially this dynamic. people get attached to the designs but not anywhere close to the level they do in pokemon.

Aren't the demons in SMT supposed to be completely disposable because the games want you to use them for fusions? Or is that just a Persona thing.

Regardless, the intent is different like you said.

 

[CynicalGiant]

Karxrida said:

Aren't the demons in SMT supposed to be completely disposable because the games want you to use them for fusions? Or is that just a Persona thing.

it is also in persona but its more dramatic in SMT. the amount of moves or stat gains SMT demons get are insanely limited. its like if the only way to get rock slide was to raise a graveler and graveler couldnt learn really anything else after it got rock slide and it also stopped leveling after that. granted every SMT after 4 has slowly changed this more and more over time to be more lenient. not unlike pokemon hard shifting their design philosophy and streamlining things after Gen 5.

 

[ant4456]

Karxrida said:

Aren't the demons in SMT supposed to be completely disposable because the games want you to use them for fusions? Or is that just a Persona thing.

Regardless, the intent is different like you said.

SMT is like if Pokemon Reborn was an entire franchise and with fusion. Like they expect you to make a new team constantly, essentially, though you can skirt by if you're better with less commitment. Like oh this boss deals X element damage and is weak to Y, since the press turn system is so heavily favored to that shit you want to either find demons that have those skills or fuse old ones yep. There's not really evolution or anything so if a demon has shit stats it's just gonna be worse.

Beyond that the actual player character progression has way more focus, you don't get to have your own demons you swap between obviously but you get to choose your stat increases which usually leads to hyper speccing into whatever is busted in that game.

SMTV Vengeance adds more systems where it's clear they want to lean into competing with Pokemon more and I don't really care for it tbh. I don't know all the details but they took the abilities from Royal where demon species have their own traits and shit, but then also let you get higher stats on any demon I think? Cynic probably knows more than me.

 

[CynicalGiant]

ant4456 said:

SMTV Vengeance adds more systems where it's clear they want to lean into competing with Pokemon more and I don't really care for it tbh. I don't know all the details but they took the abilities from Royal where demon species have their own traits and shit, but then also let you get higher stats on any demon I think? Cynic probably knows more than me.

you get to talk to the demons in the haunt, a hub zone of sorts, which increases their stats or skills and they also give you a lot more items in both the overworld and this haunt that let you keep them progressing in both stats and skills. they made a lot of hot and cool demons that people wanted to keep around forever and realized that sells the big bucks.

much like a lot of the changes post gen 5, they can be framed cynically but also be framed as them just largely responding to what the general playerbase wants. free skill inheritance without it being random in the smt 3 remaster is not all that different from TMs being made reusable in Black/White or the move re-learner being free at every PC in Sword/Shield conceptually.

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

ant4456 said:

Genuinely baffled at how there is an entire page after I said "You can have levels just don't have the stats go up" and still think I'm arguing to not have progression or exp. And an entire recount of the 500 video easays about why Sticker Star sucks. I know Sticker Star is bad. I played it when I was like 12. I know.

It is actually patronizing to be given the millionth rundown on the implications of removing leveling entirely with Sticker Star. I know.


There is a certain point of clarifying and people missing the point where it feels like I am not even in a conversation, I am instead being talked at. I would say it feels even malicious but I don't think that, I think y'all are respectable people and maybe I'm just doing a shit job, but at the same time I don't know how much more explicit I can be.

You can just remove increased stats from level ups and it would be fine is what I am saying. You do not need the stats (HP ATK DEF SPA SPD SPE) to go up. You have a reward for leveling up: evolution and moves. That is progression. Stats often lead to problems in balancing difficulty and a well-done stat system is just invisible; not elevating, but instead met with a moderate "Yeah I never had a problem" from players. There are few RPGs that justify it, I named one that does. Paper Mario is not a counter-example because while you do increase a stat when you level up, one only serves to enable you to access another form of progression, another lets you use attacks you get from that more, and the last is HP, which is what experienced players usually increase last in their cycles of the stats.

Pokemon has many sources of progression that does not come from levels: Evolution itself is still progression in stats, I am saying the granularity of Level 15 vs 16 vs 17 vs 18 does not add anything to the game, and instead makes balancing harder and generally worse.

Now that I remember it, there was a game that did something like that. It wasn't quite as you wanted, but levels in that game were not really a factor in damage calculation.

Pokémon Legends: Arceus.

You know what was the reaction?

Bro, I got a 20 level advantage on this Buizel and I couldn't OHKO it with a neutral hit, wtf are they feeding these mons?

I have to ask again, what about TMs? How do you balance that mechanic in that scenario?

I'm pretty sure I understand your idea, but I disagree with it. I don't think it would play as well as you think it would.

CynicalGiant said:

there are rpgs where the level up stats essentially don't matter but are there for superficial psychological reasons, since if the stats never go up and there's no visible progression in the way people expect there to be it's going to feel a lot more grindy than it actually is.

hell even in the generations of pokemon where badge boosts existed it essentially made level disparities largely irrelevant, but people still felt the psychological need to grind, even if they didn't want to grind.

Which is why badge boosts sucked if we're being honest. Games having ZERO EVs AND IVs on most trainers is also really bad for the same reason.

Because what happens is that people look at, say, the E4 levels for a game and think "OMG, I gotta grind to Lv. 60~65 to match the Champion and I'm 48? This game is grindy!!!"

In reality, those levels are pretty much like Team Rocket's balloon lol.

Through playtesting, devs should have a reasonable expectation of how many EVs a mon should have by a certain point in the game. They could use that to fine-tune boss design while having a clearer reference of what level a player should be at.

Levels need to be a clear indicator of progress or they are meaningless.

 

[ant4456]

Volt-Ikazuchi said:

I have to ask again, what about TMs? How do you balance that mechanic in that scenario?

I'm pretty sure I understand your idea, but I disagree with it. I don't think it would play as well as you think it would.

the fact that you think TMs would have any issue with balancing makes me feel like you do not understand what I'm saying because they're the same? TMs are level agnostic even in normal pokemon

on arceus: legends arceus' battle system just sucks (which has an interesting dev history tbh, originally they wanted to do ATB) and if they made a major change like this they would need to have a tutorial or NPC that tells you. you need to tell people things when things change

that's why i said maybe you just have an exp. bar but not have "levels" as we know them, Level 5 vs 6 vs 7 vs 8 etc., because that visual language comes with an expectation. If Celeste had a lives counter and it went down to 0 and you died and there wasn't a game over, you'd probably think there was a bug because that is the visual language for game overs, the concept of lives mattering in general, etc.

i feel like i want to give some context on the fangame world which i get a lot of pokemon inspiration from because you said you haven't played many fangames, but i can't stress this enough, the concept of grinding, leveling up, whatever, basically does not matter in the majority of fangames that want to have a gameplay focus:

here is the average pokemon fangame that wants to have good gameplay even for over a decade now: you are given a level cap and you are expected to get to it immediately or get to it through random easy encounters, or even just rare candy. a game like radical red? nuzlockers are expected especially to just use a rare candy cheat to get to the new level cap before they do anything. so every encounter is designed around the level cap. the game actually used to have more generic easy fodder trainer encounters, but in recent versions they kind of just made more trainers real encounters because many were just getting to the cap and it was just dissociating through normal pokemon trudgery and turned the game into a Boss Rush mega man pokemon game.

effectively, the designers are balancing for one level (the max level you can get) and expecting you to just be there, which is reasonable since you have to try not to get there.

in pokemon emerald rogue, one of the most popular pokemon romhacks probably ever, you kill a level 2 weedle in the wild and your pokemon gets like three levels. before the bossfight there is an audino trainer that you are expected to use to get a pokemon to maximum level if it isn't already there

there is an entire subgenre of fangames inspired by pokemon reborn where you will just get +5 to the level cap, immediately hit that shit, and maybe have to go several hours of playtime without getting another level on those pokemon. in fact, reborn has Common Candy which you need to level down a Pokemon because that game for some reason doesn't just stop you from leveling past the cap, and your Pokemon will immediately start disobeying you. future games inspired by reborn just don't let you level up past the cap, but i think that really shows the design philosophy even more blatantly: the game is designed for you to be at a level, do not go past the level.

there are many beloved pokemon games that have levels but have neutered them to not mattering and not getting in the way of balancing; you are just expected to be at the next level the designers are designing around, and then you move along. and people don't complain, they like it, generally. once the expectation was set, a lot of the gameplay heads actually get more annoyed when there aren't clear level caps or they basically copy regular pokemon rules lol

when so many of the (good) games focusing on the gameplay of pokemon basically neuter levels and make them not matter, or want you to disregard them, of course you start to wonder what's the point of even having the stats be highly tied to levels. clearly the best implementation of a Pokemon RPG that is trying to have good turn-based gameplay is one where your levels are basically pre-determined and the designers are working around that, because you still have so many ways to tweak your pokemon and party. in radical red your levels are pre-determined, but you still have many ways to make your pokemon stronger that aren't directly tied to leveling. it also lets the designers pick "oh this pokemon shouldn't evolve here FOR SURE, let's put the cap right before this pokemon evolves", which still leads to satisfying progression! it feels way better to clear a hard boss and essentially unlock evolving your starter, it feels like achieving freedom. you say later essentially "The designers should try to balance according to player's Pokemon's stats", but that's impossible. The granularity of Pokemon's stats in level, EV and IV, makes balancing consistently impossible, the developers just have to pick a general bar and then hope people don't crush it by just out-statting it because a Level 13 pokemon just has a massive advantage over a Level 11 Pokemon.

like I showed in the Charmeleon vs Tangrowth calcs, a 5 level difference either way is a gigantic swing in the current implementation. At minimum I think they should at least tune down how much level itself effects the damage formula, even if they don't touch stats themselves

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

ant4456 said:

the fact that you think TMs would have any issue with balancing makes me feel like you do not understand what I'm saying because they're the same? TMs are level agnostic even in normal pokemon

They are. But levels offset that. If you caught a Lv. 12 Oddish in FRLG, taught it Giga Drain via TM, and walked back to Misty, you would've been put in a blender anyway.

Why? You didn't actually train that mon. It makes sense that it would underperform.

Your system would cause game feel problems, because most mons would become disposable.

Warning: Rant ahead.

ant4456 said:

i feel like i want to give some context on the fangame world which i get a lot of pokemon inspiration from because you said you haven't played many fangames, but i can't stress this enough, the concept of grinding, leveling up, whatever, basically does not matter in the majority of fangames that want to have a gameplay focus:

here is the average pokemon fangame that wants to have good gameplay even for over a decade now: you are given a level cap and you are expected to get to it immediately or get to it through random easy encounters, or even just rare candy. a game like radical red? nuzlockers are expected especially to just use a rare candy cheat to get to the new level cap before they do anything. so every encounter is designed around the level cap. the game actually used to have more generic easy fodder trainer encounters, but in recent versions they kind of just made more trainers real encounters because many were just getting to the cap and it was just dissociating through normal pokemon trudgery and turned the game into a Boss Rush mega man pokemon game.

effectively, the designers are balancing for one level (the max level you can get) and expecting you to just be there, which is reasonable since you have to try not to get there.

in pokemon emerald rogue, one of the most popular pokemon romhacks probably ever, you kill a level 2 weedle in the wild and your pokemon gets like three levels. before the bossfight there is an audino trainer that you are expected to use to get a pokemon to maximum level if it isn't already there

there is an entire subgenre of fangames inspired by pokemon reborn where you will just get +5 to the level cap, immediately hit that shit, and maybe have to go several hours of playtime without getting another level on those pokemon. in fact, reborn has Common Candy which you need to level down a Pokemon because that game for some reason doesn't just stop you from leveling past the cap, and your Pokemon will immediately start disobeying you. future games inspired by reborn just don't let you level up past the cap, but i think that really shows the design philosophy even more blatantly: the game is designed for you to be at a level, do not go past the level.

there are many beloved pokemon games that have levels but have neutered them to not mattering and not getting in the way of balancing; you are just expected to be at the next level the designers are designing around, and then you move along. and people don't complain, they like it, generally. once the expectation was set, a lot of the gameplay heads actually get more annoyed when there aren't clear level caps or they basically copy regular pokemon rules lol

when so many of the (good) games focusing on the gameplay of pokemon basically neuter levels and make them not matter, or want you to disregard them, of course you start to wonder what's the point of even having the stats be highly tied to levels. clearly the best implementation of a Pokemon RPG that is trying to have good turn-based gameplay is one where your levels are basically pre-determined and the designers are working around that, because you still have so many ways to tweak your pokemon and party. in radical red your levels are pre-determined, but you still have many ways to make your pokemon stronger that aren't directly tied to leveling. it also lets the designers pick "oh this pokemon shouldn't evolve here FOR SURE, let's put the cap right before this pokemon evolves", which still leads to satisfying progression! it feels way better to clear a hard boss and essentially unlock evolving your starter, it feels like achieving freedom. you say later essentially "The designers should try to balance according to player's Pokemon's stats", but that's impossible. The granularity of Pokemon's stats in level, EV and IV, makes balancing consistently impossible, the developers just have to pick a general bar and then hope people don't crush it by just out-statting it because a Level 13 pokemon just has a massive advantage over a Level 11 Pokemon.

like I showed in the Charmeleon vs Tangrowth calcs, a 5 level difference either way is a gigantic swing in the current implementation. At minimum I think they should at least tune down how much level itself effects the damage formula, even if they don't touch stats themselves

My joints creaked reading this.

Like I said, I kinda get where you're coming from, but the stuff you're praising in hacks is exactly the kind of stuff that looks ridiculous to me.

I'll single out one thing in particular:

here is the average pokemon fangame that wants to have good gameplay even for over a decade now: you are given a level cap and you are expected to get to it immediately or get to it through random easy encounters, or even just rare candy. a game like radical red? nuzlockers are expected especially to just use a rare candy cheat to get to the new level cap before they do anything.

Do you realize how insane this sounds to someone who didn't play Radical Red?

You're telling me that I should just... skip a chunk of the game with a Rare Candy cheat.
I might as well use another cheat to unlock all Fly points in a map and say goodbye to Kanto's boring route design. Matter of fact, why not go for broke and go straight to the league? Come to think of it, WHY SHOULD I EVEN PLAY THIS GARBAGE?

This bumps into another issue I have with the community, but that can wait for a bit.

The idea of the whole genre is the journey. It's the small town kid that ends up becoming the biggest fish in the sea.

This is a big reason why the Exp. Share being absolutely cracked can be a detriment. Before, exp allocation was something you wanted to keep in mind so you don't have to spend hours grinding like a nitwit, now, you pretty much have to roll with 20 mons to not get overleveled.

That makes the games so easy, you can't really form memories on it. Why do people remember Miltank?

The individuality between mons also becomes a blur. By the time I was at the league in Ultra Sun, the first thing I realized was "Oh, I can't rotate my team now. Which mons should get into the HOF? What's my best 6?"

And then you have Nuzlockers. Man, that community turned to absolute dogshit.

This is an open letter. If you manip encounters to get a Curse Ingrain Ferrothorn, go +6 on every boss, patch the SpD with X-Items, uses revives on crits, and cheats in Rare Candies by the hundreds, YOU'VE MISSED THE WHOLE POINT

Risk, unpredictability, and making the best of what you got even when stuck with shitmons like RSE Lotad are precisely why the Nuzlocke Challenge was created. You don't get to play a challenge run by taking all the risk from it.


Now, most of this post can be chalked up to this:

That's intentional. I disagree with your idea on a fundamental level. At least for the main series games. I think your idea would be good on something like a Battle Frontier hack or a mobile game like Champions.

With that said, I don't mind discussing the logistics of how your ideas could be implemented, and right now, as you presented them, there's a bunch of holes in it.
Which is why hacks like Radical Red need to jerryrig ridiculous workarounds like telling people to use rare candy cheats instead of cracking open the disassembly and altering a bunch of formulas to make levels work like you propose.

But shoddy, sloppy, outlaw mudshow half-measures are the standards nowadays.

Honestly, I wish you rolled up your sleeves and proved us all wrong. Everyone can make their own fangames nowadays. I'm sure you'd learn a lot from the experience, as I have.

 

[R_N]

Volt-Ikazuchi said:

And then you have Nuzlockers. Man, that community turned to absolute dogshit.

This is an open letter. If you manip encounters to get a Curse Ingrain Ferrothorn, go +6 on every boss, patch the SpD with X-Items, uses revives on crits, and cheats in Rare Candies by the hundreds, YOU'VE MISSED THE WHOLE POINT

Risk, unpredictability, and making the best of what you got even when stuck with shitmons like RSE Lotad are precisely why the Nuzlocke Challenge was created. You don't get to play a challenge run by taking all the risk from it.

I've also got some issues with nuzlockers* but I feel like optimization is just...part of the game? Once any amount of experience is acquired, you're going to pick up on things to do. Even back when I played when things (probably like 15 years ago? Geeze) weren't ~hardcore" there was still stuff like dupes clause, much less the power of set up sweepers. Part of the challenge is execution of it and rolling with it if you fail to do it properly; even pchal does that.
And also back in the day, some people did in fact use items. I'm a bit surprised to hear modern nuzlockers actually do bother with X Items or whatever because it feels like everyone tries to be as hardcore as possible at all times especially in the mainline titles* (because it's an easy game for babies and any amount of game knowledge makes things exponentially easier for babies).




*Remembering multiple nuzlockers have long diatribes about ugh how easy they were making the games by making the power items available in the shop and how it was just another thing to add to the list of things to ignore, often over a montage of them. Grinding EVs anyway, but without the items. And doing it within the level "cap" so it wasn't even like they were having problems with managing exp.

And remembering watching chaotic meatball do this nemona battle, right after that complaint mind you, spending like 20 mintues doing a full set up with his Amoonguss or whatever during which he could have just killed the enemy several times over then swapping it out??? Even though it was totally safe and could have gotten the kills it needed even if it got crits??? So why did you do the whole set up!? The whole point of doing the set up was to sit there, tank and sweep! Why!! What was the point!!!!! Even in terms of Max Optimization you were set! Oh my god!!!!!!

 

[ant4456]

yappathon incoming sorry

Volt-Ikazuchi said:

They are. But levels offset that. If you caught a Lv. 12 Oddish in FRLG, taught it Giga Drain via TM, and walked back to Misty, you would've been put in a blender anyway.

Why? You didn't actually train that mon. It makes sense that it would underperform.

Your system would cause game feel problems, because most mons would become disposable.

I don't fully understand this mostly because in this example like, you can't get Giga Drain TM anywhere close to Misty. If you follow my logic of giving the designer and balance team significantly more room to design things to their liking of balance, this is not a negative. Many Pokemon lines like Oddish? You can just catch its evolution by the time you can even get the Giga Drain TM (you get it from defeating Erika).

This works less in an open world, of course, but as is you can just catch a Level 60 Pokemon and steamroll the game in the one open world game we have. I don't think this is something you can't design around, especially if we have stuff like HMs, just like the fact you can do that isn't even the leveling system's fault, it's kind of just whack ass game design.

I agree that there is a fair want for the Pokemon you catch and train long-term to have more meaning and reward, and that would need to be designed around for sure.

Volt-Ikazuchi said:

The idea of the whole genre is the journey. It's the small town kid that ends up becoming the biggest fish in the sea.

I agree that this is lost in a lot of fangames. One thing I said in that post which is that Radical Red especially in older patches felt more like a Boss Rush, something like Pokemon Mega Man, and not so much like an actual adventure.

Your progression is just getting to new areas and then unlocking new encounters, you counter-team or just outskill the very hard gym leader, most of the regular trainer encounters are altered but still easy, and then you just dissociate until the next gym leader prep time. It's fun in its own right, but I don't think it's something the main series should try to emulate. Shit, Radical Red has more restriction on the region's travel than the original so they can specifically sort encounters out.

Games like Rejuvenation do a lot better on this front, I'd say that game still feels like it's Pokemon at its core, but it's definitely a broad problem with the modern day Hard Pokemon Game Hack.

If I could have my own yelling at clouds moment, I feel like most fangames nowadays are too iterative and don't try to do what was often a joy. Take your own ideas of a story, region, some lore, basically your Pokemon fanfic and make it playable. Fanfic is often seen as a dirty word, but I don't think it should be. It's a quality that gives fangames character in my opinion.

Volt-Ikazuchi said:

This is an open letter. If you manip encounters to get a Curse Ingrain Ferrothorn, go +6 on every boss, patch the SpD with X-Items, uses revives on crits, and cheats in Rare Candies by the hundreds, YOU'VE MISSED THE WHOLE POINT

To be fair to the modern Nuzlockers, they mostly ban items. They're even going further and sometimes ban whole starters or moves or other Pokemon (such as Gyarados) if it's a main series game.

I have my own opinions on that (not necessarily positive, not necessarily negative; mainly, I remember reading the original Nuzleaf Nuzlocke comics and it feels like now we are trying to treat this shit like a sport or competitive thing when it really isn't. My 'old man yell at clouds' on this is I heard people do competitive Nuzlocke leaderboard type shit. What. Dude it's a fucking Nuzlocke lmao?)

Volt-Ikazuchi said:

This is a big reason why the Exp. Share being absolutely cracked can be a detriment. Before, exp allocation was something you wanted to keep in mind so you don't have to spend hours grinding like a nitwit, now, you pretty much have to roll with 20 mons to not get overleveled.

I think your post is fair even if I disagree with it, and I sympathize with this part: I don't think grinding as a punishment or just a part of the game is a bad thing, I think there should be friction in training Pokemon, and I agree with your take on Pokemon I think a lot actually. But also like, it gets to a point where the most effort you put into the game is exp allocation and not the actual combat. I'm thinking less about the actual combat and more about micro-managing what Pokemon will get what exp in a game such as Platinum, for instance, or my most recent vanilla game playthrough, XD, was essentially 95% that.

And then you get to as you say the Exp. Share era where there's not even that anymore, and I don't even remember my full team of six from my first Sword and Shield playthrough. To be fair I don't remember a lot of them, but I also know I didn't even have a full party before the final boss mostly because I just didn't feel the need or care.

On the merits of exp. allocation as a central part of the design, there is a satisfaction to it, and I don't think it'd be fully replicatable if grinding mattered less because there were less incremental points of growth. But also, there are always trade-offs to things in game design. Always will be.

Within all of this discussion, nobody has pushed back against the number one reason why I have a bone to pick with how much levels matter in this game and a lot of RPGs: the fact it makes it much harder to balance. Implicitly, that makes me feel we all kind of agree on that at least to an extent, and we just disagree on the trade-off value either way. So I want to give my final opinion on this matter with why I don't agree with the trade-off swinging as it currently does.

You gain a lot in psychology. People love number go up. I love number go up. I love RPGs. I played Cookie Clicker on and off for fun when I had a phone that supported it. I am not above enjoying some numbers going up. But you lose in terms of how it can invalidate other gameplay systems that are deeper and often more interesting. I just find it sad how few of the game mechanics actually matter in Pokemon, and as I expressed it's a feature in many RPGs with similar level up systems, where levels just invalidate often interesting game mechanics. They make the game feel more shallow in my opinion.

There are clear trade-offs and it's fine that we don't agree on what is worth it, and I think I understand your position and your preference now. I am in the minority, and these games are designed For Babies. I've never had any illusion that any of this would probably make it into an official mainline game because of that, really. Being able to delete the balance is not a negative to Game Freak's designers, especially after Black and White, it's a feature.

BDSP is the easiest example because it feels pretty obvious to me that they knew the game had an (in my opinion undeserved) reputation for being one of the harder entries, so the balance team at ILCA gave the bosses some cracked out shit. Even normal trainers, you can fairly easily wipe to the Trainer School trainers in Jubilife because the Abra know Charge Beam!

And then, I believe in response to the game actually wanting you to use game mechanics, they crack out the exp. gain and affection mechanics. I remember seeing that someone played the game blind and without grinding was around Level 70 for Cynthia.

It just kind of shows that I don't think in the current battle system they'll ever really want to test players on game mechanics or make people think. I don't want Pokemon Rejuvenation to be official gameplay, but I want a bit more than what we currently have, and I'm under no illusion that's coming honestly.

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

ant4456 said:

but I want a bit more than what we currently have, and I'm under no illusion that's coming honestly.

And that's why I can't play the mainline games out of the box anymore.

We're all talking about visions of how to improve the games, but the answer is that there isn't a clear answer. This is why I told you to try and put yours to practice.