electricwolf

Aren't most RPGs balanced so that, if the game is played under normal conditions (i.e. no grinding), progression throughout the game and the corresponding increase in player stats is at least roughly matched by the enemies? I mean, by the time you get a unit from 1/1 to 20/20 it's unlikely that you're facing units of the same quality as when the unit was 1/1. It's not deceptive and it's a concept that a large number of RPGs (and other genres) share. If you let the feedback loop (of XP -> increasing stats) run without any countermeasures (such as increasing enemy stats, giving the enemy better weapons, more enemies) then the game would surely stop being fun and interesting for anyone who enjoys at least a mild challenge. Your suggestion of removing the XP -> growths -> higher stats feedback loop makes me think you'd enjoy Advance Wars, which is fun in a different way to Fire Emblem. There's no 'better system' as that is almost entirely subjective. RPGs rely on feedback loops and dampening the effects of those loops to create a sense of progression throughout the game and create an enjoyable experience. Removing these systems seems like you'd no longer be playing the kind of thing that could be recognised as an RPG.

It's entirely possible to have an FE game without support conversations. Whether all fans would enjoy that (to the same level as games with support convos) is a different question and I'm not going to get into old vs. new fans as it seems every thread has a time limit before someone insults either of those groups. Character development is definitely a feature that (if done adequately) adds to the game experience for a large number of players. With the number of variables regarding the games and their related sale numbers and scores it's impossible to make a valid claim as to whether the presence of support conversations affects sales. Support conversations can be kind of a mixed bag. In the C - B - A support structure there's not always a large amount exploration done into the characters beyond a few events or relations that shape who they are. Even supporting most of the rest of the cast in games like Awakening you can go through multiple supports of one character and learn scant different information between them. If one pairing reveals a lot about one character then the other is probably not getting much development. S supports can seem a bit forced especially considering that the player only really sees (at a minimum) three prior interactions between the characters before suddenly they're hitched. Base conversations were something that I enjoyed, especially the rewards for some of them, and do seem more appropriate than talking on the battlefield, but in FE10 I couldn't help but feel that there wasn't a huge amount of them. Of course there's always a quality vs. quantity debate but with the limited restrictions to get the conversations there's not a huge amount of variability between replays of the game. There's definitely room to improve the way that characters develop over time but in their current implementation are by no means 'bad'.

You put skill activation on SPI and suddenly Skill seems like a complete dump stat. Sure, you can rebalance parts of games to make sure this isn't the case but all that's happened is that you've 'moved' any balance issues elsewhere. I entirely understand that this project and the contributors to it can do pretty much whatever it wants because, well, they can, but if the plan is to distribute and support it at some point in the future, what is the reasoning behind leaving out a feature that has been in previous FE games? Saying it can't be balanced is just wrong and it'll likely be much easier to implement by the creator now instead of somebody else at a later date. Surely if you're considering features and whether to include them in these projects, FEXNA will (once released) produce very similar games to 7x? (at least until other people get other features working)

Okay, for almost everyone posting this: I had no issue with the chapters because I have played FE before. Even then I probably restarted at least once on the swamp chapter. I'm not trying to make sure FE is playable by people with little brain function, just be intuitive enough for people to be able to form optimal strategies without prior knowledge or knowledge gained through multiple plays/resets of the level. If someone says that I'm trying to make up for my own tactical shortcomings, I'm going to assume you can't read or comphrehend writing. I am making points on behalf of intuitive game design which I believe is not present in it's optimal form in the specified FE levels. @zerosabers If the player (wrongly) assumes that all enemy units have their AI set to go after NPC units, then the sheer number of them means they will be unable to develop a good strategy without trial and error. As has been stated before, resetting after knowing more information doesn't make a better strategist, just an informed one. That was really constructive. You made your point really well and now the debate is over. Meanwhile in the real world, that comment accomplished nothing. @dondon The player does not know this. All the player knows is that all prisoners dying is a lose condition. Much like a unit with a droppable stat booster, the player will always be striving for perfection, i.e. getting the stat booster. Not knowing the reward for saving an NPC doesn't change the fact that players will try and save all the NPCs and may be willing to restart to achieve that goal. And restarting means that the optimal reaction to this gameplay mechanic is to try again with knowledge the player shouldn't have if they were playing through blind. No matter how small or how rotten the carrot, put it on a stick and people will try and get it.

Any other enemy unit on the map.

1. With the amount of enemies on this chapter, who plays it for the first time and thinks to use a fairly niche mechanic to go out of their way to kill one unit? 2. The player does not know the consequences of an NPC dying until they die. In previous games there are items for saving villagers, in this game it's BEXP. The fact that there is some difference between letting them die and not die is enough of a carrot on a stick to suggest that players have the potential to be frustrated if they do not save all of them. 3. Once again, resetting to know more about a level isn't a freaking mechanic. It's like a guide you didn't have to find online and the fact that players would need that shows that the level design and/or UI is fundamentally flawed. How is it obvious that bandits and the dracoknights are the only units to go for NPCs? The implication from the game script is that the entire army will have some involvement in attacking the NPCs yet only a select group do. That select group is not mentioned in any way. Obvious to an experienced FE player and obvious to an inexperienced FE player are entirely different things. What you are getting at is that those skills are taught with a safety net on and if you take that away you can make mistakes. Take the training wheels off, take the floaties off and the mistakes you make are yours. When the player has been completely taught the mechanics with a safety net (i.e. in a controlled environment), then what they do is up to them. Our point is that the safety net should be there for the swamp and fire chapters and yours is that it should not. It seems we are unable to agree on this matter and frankly it seems I'm changing your mind about as well as you are mine. All the other units in that corner don't move until in range of other units. Why assume the dracoknight is different? Because there's a whole lot of units much closer to kill and you don't know whether it will move or not. a. Never blamed the game, blamed leveld design and UI. b. Not blaming anyone's tactical shortcomings c. This isn't about me, it's about intuitive level design d. If you want to make demeaning comments to try and win a debate, maybe get some better insults than accusing someone of being bad at a video game? "They" is in no way defined clearly, either by exposition or level design.

The dracoknight AI is unknown to us until it moves and unless you've put someone in range of it, it's probably going to get the NPCs on turn 2. You have no idea going into the situation what the AI is (NPC is higher priority than PC) and the only way to prevent the dracoknight from killing at least one NPC is to get in its turn 1 range with Tormod. That comic does nothing to boost your argument or your prospects in the art industry. I posted that as an example of giving information, not giving it in a good way. No exposition is better than exposition only when the situation is otherwise made clear to the player. If you find "I'm too stupid" in one of my posts in this thread, I will find you and lick the sole of your shoe. We are saying that while players have the capacity to learn, you don't get them to learn (in a fun and intuitive manner) by first giving them a test with consequences. Just like most people learn swimming with floats, cycling with training wheels, and running by walking first. Who buys a video game thinking "Man, I sure do need to brush up on my intuition and problem solving skills" ? People buy video games to have fun and if the game is not transparent (while also ideally showing not telling) then it can create frustration. Man, screw training wheels. Children are smart enough to learn how to ride a bike while doing it with minimal guidance. If they get hurt then they should try again. Training wheels serve no purpose at all. For anyone talking about XCOM (Enemy Unknown/Within), there's a detailed tutorial where the rules of engagements (i.e. the fog of war/unit vision) and consequences of your actions are made perfectly clear (people die). Just like showing the player what happens when bandits get to villages, it shows you that your units can get killed if you are careless. If you wanted to pick a game to back your side of the argument up, you literally picked the worst game out there.

Now I'm sure some would come in here and tell me I'm clutching at straws, but: If you like something, how likely are you to go online and tell people about it? I really enjoy certain brands of chocolates but I have not sought out a forum to tell everyone about it. If you don't like something, you're going to want people to know. That kettle you bought on amazon that didn't work after a week? Screw those people, I'm writing them an awful review and giving them 1/5. Anger or various milder forms of dissatisfaction are much more prevalent on the internet because anger is much more powerful at getting you to air your feelings than "Oh, this product I bough was as described, how nice." What you're doing is pointing out a vocal, dissatisfied group with the assumption that there is a significant number who are dissatisfied but don't air their views. I'd wager that the situation is likely different, with a group of casual players either with no interest in going back to older games or who can make the transition. Sampling based on what is on the internet is almost definitely unrepresentative of the entire group.

The fact those players exist does not mean that everyone that plays Casual doesn't eventually try out other game modes, only that those specific players don't. It might be evidence, but it's incomplete. I did not say it does trivialize everything, merely that it can. The point I was making in that post was that a player resetting would not necessarily need to fix their strategy and therefore resetting does not necessarily lead to better gameplay. I didn't say that the existence of RNs makes playing the game pointless and I would appreciate it if you could argue against points I make rather than inventing points for to argue against.

Fixating on it because we are determined to prove that the situation and game mechanic could be done better. I played the chapter recently and I couldn't get an easy ORKO on that soldier, what's to say that every player will have your experience of getting that first turn kill? It's certainly possible if you either give Marcia some levels or weapons better than what she comes with. And on the first playthrough you don't know to try and kill this soldier before the first enemy turn, so you're only preventing the burning with prescience or luck. I attacked the soldier on most of my playthroughs, but as I wasn't getting the kill, it set the house on fire. Without any knowledge, do I kill the soldier or put out the fire? If I put the fire out then the soldier (now that I know this unit will start fires) will start the fire again. If I kill the soldier, how do I know the village will not burn? If I remember correctly, you can't block the soldiers path either, as that puts you in range of an enemy sniper that can OHKO. Before the level, you don't know what the consequence is to losing villages. While it doesn't game over if you lose all of them, you only learn the reward for saving them at the end if you have the BEXP screen turned on. During the level you have no idea how long you can leave houses burning until they are burnt. At that point it is too late. While most players will probably manage to save all the houses if they make it their priority, there should be more to point towards which units initiate burning, how long houses take to burn, and what the consequences of burning are. It is a situation of non-optimal design that we believe could be improved. I am honestly not understanding how anyone is against improving level design.

Apart from it being made clear in other posts that it is not only the brigands that attacks the NPCs, are we to assume from that text that all enemy units have the AI to kill NPC units? In the examples I showed there were groups of bandits or pirates (aka specific classes) basically pre-announcing their intentions. I am not saying that there should be blatant exposition saying "Bandits raid villages in this chapter", I think all of us can acknowledge that doing that would be stupid. Example of what is not needed: https://youtu.be/97WzDfl2zXY?t=369 In this example the game tells you, through a tutorial screen, that bandits raid villages. It takes away from immersion but it does inform the player. What I am saying is that there should at least be clear information available to the player in-game or the kind of introduction to that mechanic that was posted by sithys earlier. Example of what is needed: https://youtu.be/g1SEYD3q6no?t=142 In this example the game shows you the mechanic through a scripted event. Unless you hack the game, you cannot save the village. From here on in, you understand that bandits raid villages. So: FE8: Bandits raid villages -> bandits raiding villages = bad -> don't let bandits raid villages FE10: NPCs killed = bad -> Protect NPCs Fires = bad -> Don't let them start fires or extinguish them quickly Except you don't know which units will attack NPCs or start fires. All you need in this respect is a pre-deployment event that showcases that bandits (and the dracoknight) attack NPCs and only unpromoted soldiers start fires. Even if the level design exists to slow your efforts to help NPCs/houses, knowing what you are up against is fair and allows a strategy to try to help them most effectively. If someone is resetting and it isn't due to a fault of their own making (i.e. putting a player unit in range of an enemy unit with the potential to kill it), there is probably an issue with the level design or UI.

The player doesn't know that brigands attack the NPCs until it starts happening, which is frustrating just like the burning villages. Again, in this game there is no obvious tutorial that explains those enemy behaviours. Although this game was designed as a sequel, there was no explicit hints and that can lead to frustration. FE7 was my first FE game and I enjoyed the game, and the tutorial levels, very much. Don't assume that your opinion is the only one or that citing a few posts from people on the internet (or /r/fireemblem) are going to make me believe that the forced tutorial was actually quite useful to new players.

Since when are subreddits accurate sources of evidence? You can reset and do pretty much exactly the same thing and get different results based on RNs though. And since pretty much everything is based on RNs, you can get lucky players with bad strategies do better than good strategists with bad luck. I posted it exactly because it is irrelevant. Why are a bunch of people (who likely do not play on casual) trying to change it? It's like asking deaf people their opinion on the latest rock'n'roll anthology and what they want to change about it. So are you saying that increasing the number of players is decreasing the quality? If so, evidence would be nice. >accuses someone of clutching at straws >does not actually prove said straws to be wrong @feplus Based on what has already been said about the effort going in to making FE13 one of the most successful recent FE installments, you could probably have inserted a graphic drawing of a dog urinating on a lamppost somewhere in FE13 and still have it sell enough to merit further FE installments. The idea that standing behind these null hypotheses is absurd, as dondon will likely tell me. If people go back and play past FE titles and don't like the fact there is no casual mode, well, there's only two to choose from unless you're in Japan and FE7 and FE8 aren't the hardest of games by any means, FE8 in particular.

Usually by spending the first few chapters of the game by making some fairly story inconsequential bandits say something along the lines of "Hey, we're bandits and we're going to pillage and stuff". If only I had some evidence, ohwait the game script: FE7 Prologue Lyn: “Oh no! Bandits! They must have come down from the Bern mountains! They must be planning on raiding the local villages. I… I have to stop them! If that’s all of them, I think I can handle them on my own. You’ll be safe in here, Mark.” FE7 Ch3 Lyn: “Taliver Mountain is home to a gang of vicious, ruthless bandits. No marquess holds power here. My village was near here, on the other side of the mountain. My people were… The Taliver bandits came at night. It took only one night. The survivors numbered less than ten, including me.” Lyb: “We need you to go and warn the villagers.” (Yes, it says Lyb, this is directly from the SF FE7 script and it has a typo in it) Tutorial: By visiting a village, we gained a new companion. Wil is an archer. He uses a bow to fight. (so there's a clear incentive for visiting villages) FE7 Ch14 Bandit: “Eh? What’s all this? Looks like a war’s broken out. Aha ha ha! Perfect! Time for a raid! Up and at ’em, mates! That village is ripe for plunder!” (these are actually pirates, not bandits) FE8, Ch5 (At the beginning of turn 2, two Brigands appear under the west wall) Brigand: “Look at this. Now’s our chance! C’mon, lads! Let’s join the fights and steal our way through this pathetic town!” (no explicit intention of raiding villages but c'mon, stealing your way though a town is implication enough) Can't currently find anything regarding thieves (especially since the SF script for Matthew's recruitment is missing and would likely explain what thieves do) but the fact that they have lockpicks and you are shown what lockpicks can do is more of a hint than you ever get regarding the burning of villages in FE10.

What is the null hypothesis here, who decided it and are we doing this for everything now? We should assume that there is no relationship between casual mode and bad playstyle habits. It might seem obvious that the former may lead to the latter, but perceived obviousness isn't evidence. We should assume that there is no relationship between increasing penalties for unit loss in casual mode and a need to improve. There has been no solid evidence that the outcome of penalties for unit loss is a need to improve over frustration or vice versa. We should assume that there is no relationship between the presence of casual mode and the gameplay experience of 'better' players. I'll accept a representative poll of the average buyers of the game (on whether their experience was significantly diminished enough because of the inclusion of casual mode to reduce their chances of buying future titles) as sufficient evidence to prove this null hypothesis wrong. We should assume that there is no relationship between the use of casual mode and future usage of other gameplay options. There has been no solid evidence presented thus far to suggest that using casual mode increases or decreases the proportion of players on classic mode. As with most of the rest of these, I'll be expecting numbers as evidence, not what you expect or think as evidence. We should assume that there is no relationship between the quantity of players and the overall quality of players. There is no current evidence that new accessibility measures and overall 'quality' of players (however that my be defined) are related. We should assume that there is no relationship between any single aspect of FE13 and the fact that it sold enough to keep the series running. If you can somehow find a way to separate the effects of various marketing campaigns, the effect of video game review scores, pricing structures and the like, I'll be honest, you don't need to be replying to a randomer on the internet, you could probably get a job in marketing where they literally throw money at you. I'll be expecting either evidence or the admission that the null hypothesis argument is pretty much BS.