Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
STATS ARE FOR SISSIES: ALTERNATIVES TO TRADITIONAL GROWTH MECHANICS
Posts
Lucidstillness
View playlists
CloseIf I were to theoretically try to implement my own skill-based leveling system into a turn-based RPG, I think I would have non-combat methods of increasing said skill levels. Perhaps the hero could take on jobs to raise certain skills for when they are needed in battle, such as hacking apart broken fences and tree stumps to raise a sword skill, or casting magic light to help a group of trapped miners out of a cave to raise a magic skill.
Of course, this also might make the turn-based combat seem unnecessary, since having these skills be usable on the 'map' screen means there is no reason at all why one couldn't just have enemies attack on the map screen in real time.
Of course, this also might make the turn-based combat seem unnecessary, since having these skills be usable on the 'map' screen means there is no reason at all why one couldn't just have enemies attack on the map screen in real time.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
If you're just improving your "sword skill" and it affects all your damage when equipped with a sword, that's just a plain old ordinary stat. It's slightly different than a strength stat, but not by much. I guess it's sort of like an elemental affinity, if you think of "slash" as an element...?
When people are talking about skill levels they are talking about improvements to a single ability. Casting a magic light spell would improve the skill level of your magic light spell. Hacking apart broken fences would not involve using any of my hero's starting physical skills - which are Silhouette (dark damage + delay), Preemptive Strike (damage to all enemies that have full HP), and Stunstrike (low damage + stun) - so I'm not sure why it would increase the skill level of any of them.
Not to say your idea isn't usable or interesting, but it doesn't work well with the type of system I think people are talking about.
When people are talking about skill levels they are talking about improvements to a single ability. Casting a magic light spell would improve the skill level of your magic light spell. Hacking apart broken fences would not involve using any of my hero's starting physical skills - which are Silhouette (dark damage + delay), Preemptive Strike (damage to all enemies that have full HP), and Stunstrike (low damage + stun) - so I'm not sure why it would increase the skill level of any of them.
Not to say your idea isn't usable or interesting, but it doesn't work well with the type of system I think people are talking about.
Avee
5794
author=LockeZ
An interesting option, sort of how Chrono Cross works, would be to give skill levels very quick growth, but a cap that increases by a few points after defeating each boss.
I was actually thinking about a similar system, but with the skill rank increasing rapidly and capping at a high value, like, it can rise from rank 1 to rank 255 (or 999, why not) and rises only by 1 or 2 ranks every fight (taking limited challenging and meaningful fights into consideration, as Craze suggested).
The bonus could be low, like +1% or 2% in damage every rank for an offensive skill, or something like that. There are several possibilities.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Skill levels and traits are kind of two different systems. I hear "skill levels" and think of something like... spells in Final Fantasy 2 or Phantom Brave, where after using the same spell X times it become more powerful. Level 4 Ultima is 4x as powerful as level 1 Ultima. Or 1.4x as powerful. Or whatever.
I like traits too, and the two systems aren't mutually exclusive, but don't sound like they'd work particularly great together because traits kind of have the ability to do everything skill levels do plus much more. Skill levels are less work for the designer but less interesting. However, skill levels probably work better than traits in games where there are lots of skills and any character can learn any skill.
I like traits too, and the two systems aren't mutually exclusive, but don't sound like they'd work particularly great together because traits kind of have the ability to do everything skill levels do plus much more. Skill levels are less work for the designer but less interesting. However, skill levels probably work better than traits in games where there are lots of skills and any character can learn any skill.
If you're going to add character customization to your game, make it meaningful. It can add a lot of fun, or it can be boring and useless.
Player Stats or My Numbers are Bigger than Yours:
If you have six stats, make them six meaningful stats. Make the player choose between most, if not all, of them. It's always struck me as kind of dumb that some games allow a Warrior class to put points into Intelligence when he can't gain any benefit from it. Both Dungeons and Dragons and Diablo II do a pretty good job of stat selection. There's usually a main stat you know you gotta invest in, but there's always other options that look pretty tempting as well.
Talent Trees and Skill Choices: You Are Not A Unique Snowflake
If you're adding talent trees, perks, or whatever you want to call them, you need to create choice. If you have a talent system, but there's a build that is vastly superior to any other, it will brutally screw your balance, and upsets players who want to choose "inferior" builds.
One of the best, more "powerful" ways to create a talent-tree is to allow Playstyle choices. For example, give the player a choice between a defensive or offensive ability, or the choice between a direct heal and a support ability. If your numbers are well-balanced, the abilities will both be very useful, but give the player a chance to experiment and play the way he wants.
Honestly, talents that inspire you to actually change playstyle are way more fun than talents that are simply +2% damage. It gives the player a huge sense of growth and makes them feel like their choice makes a difference. A +2% damage boost most likely won't even be noticed, especially if your game has random damage rolls.
Final thoughts
I was gonna make a crack at Craze for his huge opening post, but then I started ranting about game design theory. Oops.
Player Stats or My Numbers are Bigger than Yours:
If you have six stats, make them six meaningful stats. Make the player choose between most, if not all, of them. It's always struck me as kind of dumb that some games allow a Warrior class to put points into Intelligence when he can't gain any benefit from it. Both Dungeons and Dragons and Diablo II do a pretty good job of stat selection. There's usually a main stat you know you gotta invest in, but there's always other options that look pretty tempting as well.
Talent Trees and Skill Choices: You Are Not A Unique Snowflake
If you're adding talent trees, perks, or whatever you want to call them, you need to create choice. If you have a talent system, but there's a build that is vastly superior to any other, it will brutally screw your balance, and upsets players who want to choose "inferior" builds.
One of the best, more "powerful" ways to create a talent-tree is to allow Playstyle choices. For example, give the player a choice between a defensive or offensive ability, or the choice between a direct heal and a support ability. If your numbers are well-balanced, the abilities will both be very useful, but give the player a chance to experiment and play the way he wants.
Honestly, talents that inspire you to actually change playstyle are way more fun than talents that are simply +2% damage. It gives the player a huge sense of growth and makes them feel like their choice makes a difference. A +2% damage boost most likely won't even be noticed, especially if your game has random damage rolls.
Final thoughts
I was gonna make a crack at Craze for his huge opening post, but then I started ranting about game design theory. Oops.
I like the idea of replacing stats with 'affinities', but i'd prefer are more give-and-take system then as posted in the OP. Perhaps a wheel of elemental effects, where increasing one stat decreases another.
perhaps a wheel like this; Water(DEF)>Fire(ATK)>Earth(MDEF)>Thunder(MATK)>Water, where increasing one affinity will greatly reduce your affinity for the stat to the right, and slightly reduce it for the stat to the left. (perhaps one 'level up' of a stat will increase that affinity by +6%, reduce the subordinate affinity by -3%, the neutral affinity by -2%, and reduce the superior affinity by -1%.) Affinities are multiplied against a character's base stats to determine their actual stats, and range from 1% to 199%.
If you started with 100% affinity in all stats, and spent 16 level ups increasing the same stat (let's say Fire), you'd end up with affinities like so;
Water Affinity 84% (below average physical defense +16% damage from water element)
Fire Affinity 196% (very high physical attack, -96% damage from fire element)
Earth Affinity 52% (very low magical defense, +48% damage from earth element)
Thunder Affinity 68% (low magical attack, +32% damage from thunder element)
Sun Affinity (HP) 68% (derived from the average of Water and Earth affinity)
Moon Affinity (MP) 132% (derived from the average of Fire and Thunder affinity)
perhaps a wheel like this; Water(DEF)>Fire(ATK)>Earth(MDEF)>Thunder(MATK)>Water, where increasing one affinity will greatly reduce your affinity for the stat to the right, and slightly reduce it for the stat to the left. (perhaps one 'level up' of a stat will increase that affinity by +6%, reduce the subordinate affinity by -3%, the neutral affinity by -2%, and reduce the superior affinity by -1%.) Affinities are multiplied against a character's base stats to determine their actual stats, and range from 1% to 199%.
If you started with 100% affinity in all stats, and spent 16 level ups increasing the same stat (let's say Fire), you'd end up with affinities like so;
Water Affinity 84% (below average physical defense +16% damage from water element)
Fire Affinity 196% (very high physical attack, -96% damage from fire element)
Earth Affinity 52% (very low magical defense, +48% damage from earth element)
Thunder Affinity 68% (low magical attack, +32% damage from thunder element)
Sun Affinity (HP) 68% (derived from the average of Water and Earth affinity)
Moon Affinity (MP) 132% (derived from the average of Fire and Thunder affinity)
author=Skip_Sandwich
I like the idea of replacing stats with 'affinities', but i'd prefer are more give-and-take system then as posted in the OP. Perhaps a wheel of elemental effects, where increasing one stat decreases another.
perhaps a wheel like this; Water(DEF)>Fire(ATK)>Earth(MDEF)>Thunder(MATK)>Water, where increasing one affinity will greatly reduce your affinity for the stat to the right, and slightly reduce it for the stat to the left. (perhaps one 'level up' of a stat will increase that affinity by +6%, reduce the subordinate affinity by -3%, the neutral affinity by -2%, and reduce the superior affinity by -1%.) Affinities are multiplied against a character's base stats to determine their actual stats, and range from 1% to 199%.
If you started with 100% affinity in all stats, and spent 16 level ups increasing the same stat (let's say Fire), you'd end up with affinities like so;
Water Affinity 84% (below average physical defense +16% damage from water element)
Fire Affinity 196% (very high physical attack, -96% damage from fire element)
Earth Affinity 52% (very low magical defense, +48% damage from earth element)
Thunder Affinity 68% (low magical attack, +32% damage from thunder element)
Sun Affinity (HP) 68% (derived from the average of Water and Earth affinity)
Moon Affinity (MP) 132% (derived from the average of Fire and Thunder affinity)
I saved this in a word document titled "This is the coolest idea ever"
Traits, affinities, talents, etc. are still stats. Just because you've turned a grind based game into more of a trading card game doesn't make it so that it's no longer a stats based game.
Yes, many of the examples are more comparable to PnP and Western RPGs but believe me it's only because not many are that well made because that's the end result none the less.
Anything that's hierarchy based is utilizing stats. At some point, Magic Wand of Fire has no chance against Magic Wand of Fire + 1 mixed with other combinations.
It has nothing to do with characters being snowflakes and all to do with the unfair fact that a certain combination is going to make one character absurdly more powerful than the other.
IMO to freeze stats, everything has to work as checks. Instead of a +16% damage, a victim that can be burned should be burned. That establishes a threat factor that makes the counter-threat more truthful to real growth.
Example: The counter to a sword is not always a sword but a gun and the counter to a gun is not always warfare but espionage. Because of this, stats in real life keep evolving.
It is why classes have been some of the most critical balancing factors in bypassing stats even though they have stats on their own. It's why frozen levels also often reap some benefit. The little stuff that introduces change rather than simply dmg vs. dmg = less stats more growth.
For a RM game, something as simple as Stealth Strikes revolutionizes movement speed. Something as simple as scar tissue checks for HP introduces age growth without needing to implement an age system. Something as simple as being more powerful during a certain day of the year revolutionizes quest paths.
Yes, many of the examples are more comparable to PnP and Western RPGs but believe me it's only because not many are that well made because that's the end result none the less.
Anything that's hierarchy based is utilizing stats. At some point, Magic Wand of Fire has no chance against Magic Wand of Fire + 1 mixed with other combinations.
It has nothing to do with characters being snowflakes and all to do with the unfair fact that a certain combination is going to make one character absurdly more powerful than the other.
IMO to freeze stats, everything has to work as checks. Instead of a +16% damage, a victim that can be burned should be burned. That establishes a threat factor that makes the counter-threat more truthful to real growth.
Example: The counter to a sword is not always a sword but a gun and the counter to a gun is not always warfare but espionage. Because of this, stats in real life keep evolving.
It is why classes have been some of the most critical balancing factors in bypassing stats even though they have stats on their own. It's why frozen levels also often reap some benefit. The little stuff that introduces change rather than simply dmg vs. dmg = less stats more growth.
For a RM game, something as simple as Stealth Strikes revolutionizes movement speed. Something as simple as scar tissue checks for HP introduces age growth without needing to implement an age system. Something as simple as being more powerful during a certain day of the year revolutionizes quest paths.
If making a short game, 3 hours or less, there really is no point in having traditional leveling. I'm with you that stats don't matter, but they're nice to have for stat junkies.
Some ways I've handled adding difficulty or non-traditional levelling;
-gaining a group lvl up when you accomplish something. (Everyone gains artificial growth when a boss is beat, or mini-game complete.)
-adding more powerful abilities to your arsenal and maintaining stats all game.
-or the infamous Quest of Dude/Dude's Adventure style of adding a bajillion skills so stats and leveling become a non-issue/irrelevant. (I also tend to give out xp in those games like it's going out of style).
Some ways I've handled adding difficulty or non-traditional levelling;
-gaining a group lvl up when you accomplish something. (Everyone gains artificial growth when a boss is beat, or mini-game complete.)
-adding more powerful abilities to your arsenal and maintaining stats all game.
-or the infamous Quest of Dude/Dude's Adventure style of adding a bajillion skills so stats and leveling become a non-issue/irrelevant. (I also tend to give out xp in those games like it's going out of style).
How about leveling via achievements? The gist of it is that you level up after making a benchmark or accomplishing an achievement. For example, if you had a move called "Moonsault" that ignored evasion and you used it on a certain number of enemies with high evasion, you would get a achievement and thus level up. It is very similar to how Team Fortress 2 unlocks weapons.
This method of leveling awards players that understand and know how to apply the mechanics behind their attacks and just know what they are doing in general. It makes leveling much more involving and exciting for the player as opposed to the traditional and monotonous method of just gaining exp until you level up. It will make having max level from merely a representation of how long you've killed the same group of enemies over and over again into something approaching a proof of skill and knowledge.
I also feel that this system is very similar to how skills in real life are tested, the best example being the driver's test. You aren't passed by just driving for an hour straight; you have to show them that you can actually drive by taking turns, parking, signaling, etc. So doing it this way will make leveling indicative of your skill level.
The major disadvantage of making such a system is that it would be much more involving and time consuming to develop and test than a traditional leveling system. It would also demand techniques to have multiple facets and applications to fit multiple achievements around them as well as enemies and bosses. It would just require much more thought and effort on the part of the the designer.
Leveling via achievements will allow for a more dynamic and involving leveling system that rewards smart and experimental gameplay. If a designer wanted to incorporate this into his game, he would have to devote a great deal of time to making it work effectively. The results will make for a much more rewarding game for both player and developer.
This method of leveling awards players that understand and know how to apply the mechanics behind their attacks and just know what they are doing in general. It makes leveling much more involving and exciting for the player as opposed to the traditional and monotonous method of just gaining exp until you level up. It will make having max level from merely a representation of how long you've killed the same group of enemies over and over again into something approaching a proof of skill and knowledge.
I also feel that this system is very similar to how skills in real life are tested, the best example being the driver's test. You aren't passed by just driving for an hour straight; you have to show them that you can actually drive by taking turns, parking, signaling, etc. So doing it this way will make leveling indicative of your skill level.
The major disadvantage of making such a system is that it would be much more involving and time consuming to develop and test than a traditional leveling system. It would also demand techniques to have multiple facets and applications to fit multiple achievements around them as well as enemies and bosses. It would just require much more thought and effort on the part of the the designer.
Leveling via achievements will allow for a more dynamic and involving leveling system that rewards smart and experimental gameplay. If a designer wanted to incorporate this into his game, he would have to devote a great deal of time to making it work effectively. The results will make for a much more rewarding game for both player and developer.
hima
4237
author=Serpentarius
How about leveling via achievements? The gist of it is that you level up after making a benchmark or accomplishing an achievement. For example, if you had a move called "Moonsault" that ignored evasion and you used it on a certain number of enemies with high evasion, you would get a achievement and thus level up. It is very similar to how Team Fortress 2 unlocks weapons.
This method of leveling awards players that understand and know how to apply the mechanics behind their attacks and just know what they are doing in general. It makes leveling much more involving and exciting for the player as opposed to the traditional and monotonous method of just gaining exp until you level up. It will make having max level from merely a representation of how long you've killed the same group of enemies over and over again into something approaching a proof of skill and knowledge.
I also feel that this system is very similar to how skills in real life are tested, the best example being the driver's test. You aren't passed by just driving for an hour straight; you have to show them that you can actually drive by taking turns, parking, signaling, etc. So doing it this way will make leveling indicative of your skill level.
The major disadvantage of making such a system is that it would be much more involving and time consuming to develop and test than a traditional leveling system. It would also demand techniques to have multiple facets and applications to fit multiple achievements around them as well as enemies and bosses. It would just require much more thought and effort on the part of the the designer.
Leveling via achievements will allow for a more dynamic and involving leveling system that rewards smart and experimental gameplay. If a designer wanted to incorporate this into his game, he would have to devote a great deal of time to making it work effectively. The results will make for a much more rewarding game for both player and developer.
I like this idea. It's actually similar to the online trading card game I'm playing. They have achievements that you can unlock when certain conditions are met, and reward you when you can complete it. This force you to use different cards, setup totally different style of decks in order to achieve that goal. While that is more about keeping the game interesting for players, I can see how this would be an exciting alternative way of just grinding for exp.
I'll definitely keep this in mind :)
What about a relationship-based system? The tabletop RPG Bliss Stage comes to mind. For those not familiar, you can read a synopsis here; https://sites.google.com/a/loveismyweapon.com/love-is-my-wiki/what-is-bliss-stage
The flaw with achievement based level-up systems is that game designers are afraid that it would take away the feel of level-up system all while they have to do all the additional hard work for creating each level-up point.
It's actually the simplest to implement because you basically shut off one aspect of rpg maker at the price of adding more events/switches which you have to do anyway but that's the only thing I can come up as to why many rpgs avoid that kind of thing like the plague.
It's actually the simplest to implement because you basically shut off one aspect of rpg maker at the price of adding more events/switches which you have to do anyway but that's the only thing I can come up as to why many rpgs avoid that kind of thing like the plague.
That is a broad and incorrect statement. Hundreds of games do away with the traditional leveling up mechanic (which was common in during the height of the NES), and plenty of RM games have, too.
And if "fear" is the only reason you can imagine as to why you think an RM game designer would adopt a traditional leveling system...you aren't very imaginative nor do you ascribe much faith in the designing abilities of other RM developers.
And if "fear" is the only reason you can imagine as to why you think an RM game designer would adopt a traditional leveling system...you aren't very imaginative nor do you ascribe much faith in the designing abilities of other RM developers.
It's not that I don't ascribe faith. It's that this concept is so prevalent not just in RM developers that you can't say there's not a part of it that's based on fear or if you want something less "emotionally insulting" herd behavior.
As you said it's a broad statement. Now the key then falls on whether which one of us is having a broader statement.
Not that you have take the question specifically but it's not just about doing away with leveling systems. It's what it's replacing it with that I was replying to.
In this case how many legit level up system alternatives especially ones that are achievement based or relationship-based are actually alternatives and not just tweaks on a common game and how many of the alternatives are actually good game design vs. bad game design?
With game design, it's not just about being correct or incorrect. It's also about the growth and adoption that led to the current traditional form of leveling as the preferred one especially as game engines evolve. Of course the problem here is that once we introduce this disagreement, we're branching to too wide of another topic and it risks hijacking this thread.
I was just trying to be concise. Even today there are many level-up alternatives. You can even use the birth of SRPGs as a major branching off example. I wasn't really aiming to argue about it's validity. I just perceive it as a flaw that kept it from being adopted more. Especially in context of what is or isn't an rpg game in modern times. The things that used to do away with level up systems are now often part of non-rpg games with rpg elements like sandbox games such as Prototype. What they often don't merge though is achievement based level-up combinations because it's too risky especially when you are talking about a system that's totally separate from game cutscenes and is actually an achievement not just an achievement badge based design. I also mention Prototype because it has a borderline system like that in Web of Intrigues but still it stuck to a tweaked action adventure based level up system that involves buying moves as opposed to weapons because as a pure concept it's just so risky. You don't know if you need a fallback.
As you said it's a broad statement. Now the key then falls on whether which one of us is having a broader statement.
Not that you have take the question specifically but it's not just about doing away with leveling systems. It's what it's replacing it with that I was replying to.
In this case how many legit level up system alternatives especially ones that are achievement based or relationship-based are actually alternatives and not just tweaks on a common game and how many of the alternatives are actually good game design vs. bad game design?
With game design, it's not just about being correct or incorrect. It's also about the growth and adoption that led to the current traditional form of leveling as the preferred one especially as game engines evolve. Of course the problem here is that once we introduce this disagreement, we're branching to too wide of another topic and it risks hijacking this thread.
I was just trying to be concise. Even today there are many level-up alternatives. You can even use the birth of SRPGs as a major branching off example. I wasn't really aiming to argue about it's validity. I just perceive it as a flaw that kept it from being adopted more. Especially in context of what is or isn't an rpg game in modern times. The things that used to do away with level up systems are now often part of non-rpg games with rpg elements like sandbox games such as Prototype. What they often don't merge though is achievement based level-up combinations because it's too risky especially when you are talking about a system that's totally separate from game cutscenes and is actually an achievement not just an achievement badge based design. I also mention Prototype because it has a borderline system like that in Web of Intrigues but still it stuck to a tweaked action adventure based level up system that involves buying moves as opposed to weapons because as a pure concept it's just so risky. You don't know if you need a fallback.
Snodgrass
Of course the problem here is that once we introduce this disagreement, we're branching to too wide of another topic and it risks hijacking this thread.
This is a forum, where people discuss things. It's totally fine to discuss things.
It's one thing to discuss things, it's another to hijack threads. That's why many forums frown upon off-topic post but many mods allow for a certain level of that attitude.
The branch is the issue and not the allowance to talk. I also highlighted this because (and this is totally from my own guesswork and experience in other forums) the thing that ticked off kentona wasn't just my opinion but this borderline flaming accusation that developers must be in "fear" to not do something especially for the RM scene where developers take more risks than the company line.
Unfortunately going against my post is like opening a can of worms. I don't claim to be correct but if you are willing to just say I was broad and incorrect due to my simplification of fear, I'm not one to take that without coming back with my own more detailed perspective but to use an analogy of basic game design, you don't design a game where you enter a door to a castle and it turns out it was a potemkin mousetrap for a dragon and you have to debate the impossibility of why the dragon couldn't have feasibly set that trap by answering questions and puzzles that take up more than the entire game if your game is based around something else. In this case, the topic is still Alternatives to Traditional Growth Mechanics and not "Defend why your statements are wrong or correct".
The branch is the issue and not the allowance to talk. I also highlighted this because (and this is totally from my own guesswork and experience in other forums) the thing that ticked off kentona wasn't just my opinion but this borderline flaming accusation that developers must be in "fear" to not do something especially for the RM scene where developers take more risks than the company line.
Unfortunately going against my post is like opening a can of worms. I don't claim to be correct but if you are willing to just say I was broad and incorrect due to my simplification of fear, I'm not one to take that without coming back with my own more detailed perspective but to use an analogy of basic game design, you don't design a game where you enter a door to a castle and it turns out it was a potemkin mousetrap for a dragon and you have to debate the impossibility of why the dragon couldn't have feasibly set that trap by answering questions and puzzles that take up more than the entire game if your game is based around something else. In this case, the topic is still Alternatives to Traditional Growth Mechanics and not "Defend why your statements are wrong or correct".
I started this topic; you're allowed to discuss whatever comes up in it in response to the original topic.
Stop derailing with your personal philosophies on conversation and topic branching and nitpicking my use of a plural noun over a singular.
Stop derailing with your personal philosophies on conversation and topic branching and nitpicking my use of a plural noun over a singular.
Yea, I've found it's better to address maybe one sentence from him at most and skip the rest.
BACK TO THE TOPIC
Craze! I like the idea of "choosing" your growth instead of just randomly getting level-ups. I know I personally never noticed level-ups in FF7, 'cuz they didn't mean much besides a little more damage and health. Materia level-ups, however, meant cool new spells and abilities.
As a corollary, when I played WoW, the level-ups are nice and shiny, and while you get some stats automatically, I never noticed those. I did notice the talent points, which I got to assign wherever I wanted and often got cooler, more interesting bonuses, not just "+1% damage".
So in general I agree, give choices to the player, although it's cooler to give them bigger bonuses less often, because the player suddenly feels like he's getting stronger. If it's a gradual change, he may not even notice.
On a side-note - Craze, do you still use like 8 attack stats with crazy names?
BACK TO THE TOPIC
Craze! I like the idea of "choosing" your growth instead of just randomly getting level-ups. I know I personally never noticed level-ups in FF7, 'cuz they didn't mean much besides a little more damage and health. Materia level-ups, however, meant cool new spells and abilities.
As a corollary, when I played WoW, the level-ups are nice and shiny, and while you get some stats automatically, I never noticed those. I did notice the talent points, which I got to assign wherever I wanted and often got cooler, more interesting bonuses, not just "+1% damage".
So in general I agree, give choices to the player, although it's cooler to give them bigger bonuses less often, because the player suddenly feels like he's getting stronger. If it's a gradual change, he may not even notice.
On a side-note - Craze, do you still use like 8 attack stats with crazy names?
