Martin

I've also been traumatized out of liking certain foods. I used to like sweet patatoes, but one day, I had sweet patato fries and spent the next couple of days throwing up like a faucet. One hell of a child hood memory, that was. I don't even know what caused it, but to this day, I can barely smell sweet patatoes without the need to gag. Also corn. I always hated corn. My mother claims that would throw up after eating corn during the time she was pregnant with me. Can't tell if she was kidding or not. It's something about that flavor and texture combination that I can't stand.

I definitely like the idea of it being a person the best. There's a lot of plot related twists that could come with that. Would the fire emblem be an ally or enemy? Or would it be the only creature capable of taking down the big baddie? I personaly think it would be cool if the Fire Emblem was a dragon or beast stone and not something a major character would get when the game starts like with Corrin, but something he/she gets late game and them being hinted at being a manakete is through foreshadowing. Otherwise, I think it would interesting of the Fire Emblem did not exist, but is a legend started by some jerk to get nations to go to war against each other.

So. How do you guys feel about the reavers?

Like @Acacia Sgt said, IS may not have the time or money to make a crap ton of supports that is also of high quality. While I'm down for having a lot more opportunities to power up my units via supports, I do indeed roll my eyes when some lackluster support conversation happens. If I can tell that a good number of them are just there to fill some type of void or quota, then I become a lot less excited to actually get the support ranks. If IS do pull off a greater support conversation quantity which each one being immensely satisfying in some form or fashion, then hey, I'll be REALLY excited for that. Heck, maybe IS CAN pull it off. They do have the revenue generated from Heroes. Also, I didn't think that a nearly fully voiced FE game would be possible and yet, SoV exists. Speaking of support conversations, I don't know how exactly people feel about this, but another possibly unpopular opinion I have is that the C ranked support conversation between Beruka and Saizo was phenomenal. And no, I am not joking.

2] Map sprites/models should be just fine in reminding the player on who is doing what. Character with certain weapons could display what they use by having a basic model of it equipped during the map phases. Secondary weapons could be a bit more of an issue, I won't argue that. I can just hope that some helpful quality-of-life GUI can help fix that. If I can remember the names of every playable character in the game, I trust I can remember who uses what, and I'm not really that bright compared to most other people, but like you pointed out, everyone might not appreciate having to do that which is why I say, it's something they should at least try. If it works, fantastic! If not, oh well. It's also worthy to note that the player is not just dumping the entirety of his team in every map. There are usually about 20 or so slots of battle-available units. In the battle preparation menu, the player usually goes over the items, equipment and ability each character has anyways, so scanning a character and seeing what he can and cannot do is yet another "flaw" of this idea that already exist in-game. 3] Look. You were the one who brought up how difficult it would be for the developers to add little changes like that during the initial debate. I made that last point because updating the character's out of game look have never been a priority to IS and I founded it strange that you disagree with freedom of weaponry class wise because of something that have been present since the first game. That "Who cares?" statement was a bit of brash assumption. For that, I apologize, but when I said that, I was pointing out that it's a minor annoyance, yes, but one people won't die over. The numbers are surprisingly hard to find, but so far I found out that out of the three last FE games, SoV have sold the least after a year or so and that game actually DID have portraits that updated for the main characters. Either way, it is the weapon that changes with each character, not their clothing or anything and considering that in most games, there is only ONE or TWO lords and few other individuals that are cut scene worthy, I doubt this new direction of how classes are handled would interfere with the cutscenes much. XD Xander/Ryoma would still have their awesome dark sword/Lightning Katana. Keep in mind that you've made this point despite Xander already being capable of using lances as well. It's not like the classes are randomize with each new game. Just like in the previous games, the lords and such will have their preferred weapons, but that would be due to the characters themselves. Not the classes.

@Flere210 One range tomes does indeed sound interesting. Back to in terms of returning items; longbows, because honestly, an archer always needs at least some type of advantage.

I agree with you 110 percent. There should be more than just mages and dark mages. How about mages with an eff ton of power, but a lack of both def and res? Or a malig rider with a base class that also uses magic? We already have a sword user with average stats all around AND one that focuses more on speed and skill. Heck, half the time, I still can't really tell the difference between a Fighter and a Barbarian. I specifically have a lust for an armored mage. No logic or reason behind. The concept and potential game play just seems so cool to me. And how about grounded dragon units? I'd like to have a reptile rider and not have to worry about bows for once. Kind of like with Corrin

1] because I'm saying that it wouldn't be too odd to see knights using magic. I'm not saying that ONLY they should be able to use it. Yes we have the Ninos that can be badasses with magic with little literacy, but seeing a knight with a tome does make more sense than it doesn't. 2] and they would not have to make up thier mind if they remove the weapon limit in classes and instead enforces it to characters. 3] I'm no longer arguing for taking away class names, just the weapons limit. Instead of having a perfered weapon type which gain more exp than when using other weapons like the other guy suggested, they're locked to those weapons only, unable to use the other ones. I don't see what's the crime in having one knight that could use one weapon or another knight who could only use a tome. They both keep the same job of holding out choke points. The coding part is not as complicated as you think. Once you have programmed one unit ability for a character or unit, it's as simple as one or two lines of code to repeat it because methods and functions exists, but even still, I'm not saying have every charcter be able to do everything. I'm saying have every class be able to use every weapon, but have each character be limited in that regard instead. Soren can still be a mage that uses magic only and so on. And honestly, who cares about cutscenes? You could have Robin reclassed into an assassin still have him strike Valider with a lightning bolt at the near end like I did. It was freaking AWESOME when it happened, but that's besides the point. FE don't even update the character portraits when they promote and no one is bothered by it, I'm sure everyone would be okay with characters not reflecting their ingame counter parts during cutscenes.

Yeah. That's the one! Personaly, if they switch the knife and tome around in the effectiveness, it'll make more sense to me.

Indeed you miss understand. The sentence you underlined comes before thr one that states how it should limit a character's weapons. I'm not saying that any knight should be able to use a staff or the such. I'm just saying, doing away with weapon limitations class wise offers a bigger range of freedom for the characters that could encountered. Instead, make certain characters unable/able to use a set limit weapons based on their unique characteristics, not the classn The class would just set how much stats one have or rather or not they fly or is armored or etcetera. If there is bound to be a knight that throws daggers at people, thats due to the devs giving the character the ability to do so, not the class it self the ability to access any weapons. And why DOESN'T a knight using magic make sense? Historically, knights were of a class of people that had nearly the only access to a kind of education that would maybe allow access to magic if it existed. They were trained to use a huge variety of weapons left and right. Gameplay wise, this could create an interesting glass cannon magical wise and a tank physically wise. We can still have our thieves, but one thief may be able to use a sword while another one will only have access to knives. Or perhaps a differant one is skilled with bows. Or some warriors that goes into the front lines with a lance while others uses axes. At the end of the day, there could be a wider range of characters and enemies that serves more purposes all around with out having IS think up of some oddly specific, or in some cases, down right wrong class name for each class that does the same thing, but have different weapons.

Aw come on! NO ONE else is drooling at the thought of an army of beast men rushing the enemy army!? Also, if there is a manakete and she transforms into a REAL dragon (not some little midget, fire breathing lizard) that burns both the enemy and the background soldiers with a gigantic flame breath attack, I will die from the witnessed epicness of this game and thus, die a happy man...

THIS person knows what's up! Anyway, I'm hella down for the reavers making a return. It was one of those weapon types that was really convenient to have for dealing with unexpected turns of events. The superior weapons are also pretty fun to use and fight against. I also would not mind the secondary weapon triangle being back, although I still have absolutely no idea why daggers would have an advantage over swords. Also, I'd be pretty darn happy if light magic comes back. As for weapon durability vs weapon debuff, I'd be okay with having both of them if: 1) The debuffs are not as severe 2) Weapons are repairable and the staves/shops for such action are not as rare as shiny pokemon. I personaly think the stat changes were a really good and potentially fun idea. It was just executed horribly.

Yeah. Fire emblem messes so many things up, there really is no point of pointing out little misconceptions. I used to be one of those irritating people that point that kind of stuff, but just learned to accept that generally, FE is it's own world with it's own rules. Although, gender locked classes does indeed peeve me quite a bit. My unpopular opinion is that Fire Emblem should experiment with having a game without classes or at least allow any class to use any weapon and have the class instead mainly decide the stats, abilities, and general gameplay of the unit. Proficiency of a weapon type should be decided soley on the character instead. I made a forum about this a while ago, but no one was able go fully change my mind. FE haves a lot of dough now. I think it's safe to try out some severe changes and see how the general fan base react to it. Basically, have classes be a bit like heroes, but add hit chances, crit chances, and more for the more dynamic action of FE games.

Indeed. In many games, I try to use all of my characters equally because I just despise benching units for some reason. And then usually, my team in average is a bit underleveled and playing through the game generally becomes more frustrating. If there are going to be a crap ton of characters, there should be a way that benched units could still get exp or contribute to the army strength in some way. That or there should be a boost that comes from using all of the characters frequently (and not a penalty for using the same characters through out the battles like they did in Thracia 766). Although, a smaller cast definitely sounds like a better and more simple option. It allows the charcaters to have their unique identity game play wise. I won't need to say, "why use him if this other dude can do what the first one does better?" Also, if we can change the avatar's skin tone, I will cry tears of joy.

Unique animations for weapons depending on how heavy they are. That and oversized weapons. I really just love gigantic greatsword in fantasy games ? @Yexin I hope for differant accents for each faction. A little something-something to differentiate them more.

The question is, though, what type of supporting goons will back him up in the background during a battle?? Or out of all characters is it the DANCER that goes Dynasty Warriors on everyone and takes out armies on his own? That or he could just lack the ability to attack. On a side note, what will the supporting background soldiers be if a beast stone user or manakete enters battle? What class do yall think they will be. It would be hella cool to encounter a race of manaketes/dragons that's not extinct for once.

Over powered. Seriously, imagine a pokemon with an ability to attack twice after killing someone in a team fight and also possess double team.

I'm shocked that IS didn't implement a type of mark and tab system where you could organize certain units into specific tabs or the such when looking at the unit screen. Sorta like a pokemon PC storage box. People for specific purposes for one tab Benched forever units in another. Organized by class. Organized weapon type. Anything of the player's choice. It would really help out people who don't feel like looking at useless units.

Have commited the grave crime of double posting. It is alright, bud. I won't tell anybody. ;)

Yes! I always have a boner for a raw, unarmored, unmounted thruster! (Part of the reason why Ephraim is my favorite lord and mop head's army will be my first choice) About the Griffin, I always founded the deliver skill to be pretty neat.

@Shadow Mir About the other points from what I've seen, I can't say I disagree with most of the points made. I would say just actually design the game while keeping them in mind. Make defensive maps, have more creative reinforcements areas, or design maps where knights can show a good deal of utility. If IS don't really go with the team buff or even the normal movement range boost, the I think a fun way of balancing them out is to just give a sh*t ton of attack power to them along with their defense. Make them an actual threat that the player would HAVE to take out quickly with mages, a type of terrifying juggernaut that may make it to the battle slowly, but cause massive havoc upon reaching it. Also, give them more hp to boost their survivability against mage by a small amount. I think that would warrant a movement nerf that they currently have, not an "okay" def boost that other classes will reach similar levels of.

A General that uses items such as the second seal and is accompanied by an enemy dancer. Allows for AWESOME trolly tactics for unsuspecting players. Name: Logi Class: Trickster/Bow Knight Play style: He approaches enemies that is within a certain range. Hint of the danger of him using a bow can be seen by the fact that he even has a bow and second seal. He'd be placed in an area filled with ground traps that'd dangerous to all except fliers. He starts off as a trickster, but turns into a bow knight if a flyer is in range. Otherwise, he chills and heals allies with staves. Inventory: Silver Sword, Silver Bow, Second Seal, Physic, Long Bow Personally, I think a boss like this would be freaking hilarious. The guy's main role as a character would be a jester for a king or something.

I said, "The likes of Brigands", referencing any class that hits hard and hits with an axe. There's usually no shortages of berserkers, warriors and heroes in the late game of most FE games. They're not at all invincible, especially early game. They can get damaged by bosses, numerous attacks, and in from suprise reinforcements. If used as a meat sheild, a good amount of damage can steadily add up to a noticeable exp gain. I'll concede to that point.

What is your opinion on knights and how they're played throughout the series? Personally, I think they're a little lackluster unless the player is going with a bait and turtle approach, which does not fill me with that sort of omph that I generally play FE for. By omph, I mean the satisfaction of moving your army swiftly, responding to threads efficiently, and having badass back up plans for when something goes wrong (such as a missed attack or an unexpected enemy crit). Having a butt load of DEF and HP is alright on paper, but the problem is, the knights are a part of an army of other characters. Their defensive stats generally don't serve well for the other characters and the good of the team. Enemy knights are a pain to deal with since the enemy CPU won't care about losing characters like the player usually does. With wide maps, 2 ranged weapons, and areas exploitable by said weapons, the knight's defensive stats won't come into big play until after the people all around them are downed. In some games, they only have access to one weapon, usually the lance, which does them no favors against the likes of brigands with their already high attack power. In your opinion, what changes to the class would you make in terms of skills, stats, and growths? For one, I'd give them a sword as a secondary from the un-promoted start. Their high defensive stats already makes them tanky against other lance users, but a sword will help them fulfill their role in absolute; to survive a brawl. The attack bonus gained by an axe user helps to counter act that role that they're supposed to fill. If knights had an axe instead of a sword for a secondary, that would help them against other axe users, yes, but with a sword, knights can be more defensive against the class with some of the highest attack stats over all. Them being effective against lance users don't really serve much purpose in my eyes. Second, I'd give them a skill so their HP and DEF also helps other characters. There was a mobile tactical game I played once, that had the tank-like unit with a skill which would have him take most of the damage that his nearby allies took, calculated with his def. It really made an interesting turn of options to consider when approaching an enemy team and it felt awesome to wreck face with my glass cannon while my tank took the majority of the counter-attack damage, which would be deadly for the cannon, but for the tank, it was just a minor issue. Or how about abilities that could temporarily prohibit 2 ranged weapons from hitting any allies except for the person that activates it? Third: EXP for tanking. By giving all the exp to characters that lands the finishing blow, it really just accelerates the rate in which supporting characters, whose main function may not be to simply kill everything, gets left in the dust in terms of leveling and growth. The more damage a unit suffers during battle, the more exp he obtains. Many times, a knight might be out ranged or be used as the only obstacle keeping a deadly enemy away from an important character. I think that role should be a tad more appreciated so the knight could keep up with the glass cannons. Finally, I'd implement an item in the game that grants a knight immunity to hammers and also make pure water a bit more of a common find. This item would not be abundant, not at all. It will be for that special knight that the player specifically enjoys and allow the class to have just a bit more usability against maps that may feature hammers, armorslayers, and the such. Pure Water would make it so they possess just a bit more utility in special situation where a tanky character that also have high resistance would save the day. As for the movement flaw that they have, I'd say just make sure to keep the boots in any fire emblem game, not enough for the player to use on ALL of his knights, but just enough so he could have a few knights that could get to the battles if they desperately need to do so here and there. With those additions, I'd say we'd have a fairly useful class, not the OHKO meme-lords that would probably be the only people not to get benched, but a class that provides assistance to the general army in a more stable way. These changes would also effect how much of a danger they could be seen as when they're enemies. I sure as heck wouldn't just charge with my mages like I usually do.

I'd be shocked if we don't see wyverns in the game, not so much so in the case of the Griffons.(Although, I'd be hyped to see them return as well.) I specifically hope they introduce some new concepts in terms of balancing for classes: like a mage that has low resistance, but high defense. Sorta like a Boey type class, but with actual MAG stat so they actually do some damage. A dark-mage, but with EXTRA def and movement penalty. That's be pretty interesting to see to me. Their natural 1-2 range tome weapons will sorta-kinda make up for the availability flaw that most knights have. This leads me to another thought, anyone know what's up with the class promotion system?? I personally think they should mix things up more and just do away with the generally current class tree in favor of some more changes here and there.