TheSS

I'm really loving Edelgard's character design. My big hope is that she's more of a Hector and less of an Eliwood in terms of personality. I'm not a fan of the very genericly heroic lords a lot of games have. She seems very blunt and harsh with her words, so hopefully she'll be dynamic and interesting to watch, and not just a copy and paste heroine.

"I should write nothing because I might not write it well." That's not really a reason to not have something in. It's something that will make a lot of people happy if it's included. And yeah, I imagined it. Not fun. Good thing this isn't real life and it's just a dating sim mini game in a tactical RPG.

So...Promoted units are stronger than unpromoted units? Is that a problem? I do suppose it causes an even greater power spike than usual, though. That is a legitimate concern that would need to be balanced around. Game Design>Realism. Honestly, I don't really see how this should be relevant. Yeah, Seths and Sigurds aren't great game design. Jeigans work because they are something you grow out of. But that's gonna be bad game design regardless of what weapon rank system is in play. Also, someone said something earlier implying that FE4 had the same system as Gaiden, which doesn't seem to be true. It actually seems to be a lot more like mine. So what exactly were the issues with it? Besides the game not being well balanced around it? I said physical to mage, but it also applies in sword to lance or axe to bow. And I personally always felt like I was hampering myself when I opted for the new E rank weapon. It felt like a huge step back. Yeah, I do agree that this is good game design, but I fail to see its relevance to the argument. Making a mountain out of a molehill? I'm expressing my distaste for a series tradition that consistently makes the game less fun for me and suggesting an alternative that fixes the problems inherent in it. And you just assume that an insignificant number of people are affected by these problems? Like, 5 different people have responded to this thread, and one of them agreed with me. Sure, it's not a majority, but clearly some significant number of people are consciously bothered by this mechanic, which makes it worth taking a closer look at.

-I meant it is more satisfying because they can actually use the new weapon. How many people do you think promote chrom and think "Great, now I can use lances" in the current system? I know I don't, because I don't want to use a freaking bronze lance. -You know who else got a silver weapon no one else could use in the prologue? Frederick in FE13. It wasn't a problem because he was the Jeigan, and he was supposed to be stronger than anyone else early. Other lance users couldn't use it yet because they didn't have a B rank in lances yet. My system would function exactly the same because unpromoted sword users early in the game can't use high ranking weapons. My system, in regard to the anecdote you've provided, has much more in common with the current system than it does FE4's, which to my understanding let any sword user use a silver sword. -My point is that under the current system I am heavily disincentivized from reclassing any of my units into classes that do not share a weapon with them. This effectively removes certain options from me if I don't want to hamper my experience with grinding. This means that any physical unit who can reclass into a mage might as well not have that as an option for many players. A limited number of seals doesn't do anything to change that. The arm scrolls, I'll admit, does do something to curb this problem, but it only makes it less bad as opposed to removing the problem altogether. After an arms seal, I no longer need to use a bronze lance as opposed to the brave sword I had worked so hard to let my cavalier use. Instead I get to use an iron lance. Hooray? It doesn't change the fact that using an A rank weapon with a unit that already has an A rank feels wasteful. The ability to use an A rank weapon should be a reward, but instead it makes me feel like I'm not using my time properly because I have an E rank in another weapon that I could be raising. Arm scrolls don't fix that issue, it just makes the blow less painful when you cave and move down to the weaker weapon. -Yes. I do. It's a constant nagging problem for me. And while I get that not everyone consciously takes issue with it, I can't see how no one would have their experience improved if we could find a solution that fixes the issues with it.

My complaint was that it forced you to either waste time doing something you don't want to do, or you get cheated out of every alternative weapon choice that classes are supposed to provide you and everyone becomes a 1-weapon unit. Those are your choices in this system. Me, being someone who likes having fun, goes for the second option. Now, all of my units have only one weapon they can use regardless of class, and I choose new classes only based on their stats and skills, not what weapons they can use. This is making for a more linear experience with fewer strategic choices where my choice of class doesn't matter very much. How in the world does my system encourage any of these problems? As for advantages: Getting a class that can use a new weapon feels satisfying Having units exist on a sliding scale of having many weapons at low ranks to having one weapon at max rank adds strategic depth both when deciding what classes to promote units into and when deciding how to move your units around the map Makes reclassing a more attractive option because you don't need to start from scratch if none of your weapons carry over People who don't enjoy worrying about optimizing their weapon ranks don't need to have that spector looming over them when they choose to ignore the problem and focus on more immediate issues, like beating the map their on. A game has a system similar to mine but different in significant ways A tangentially related part of the game that can be improved without changing aforementioned system was done terribly A second tangentially related part of the game that can be improved without changing aforementioned system was done terribly How is this a point against me

You can't ask someone whose only seen Fight Club whether they like Fight Club more than The Godfather. Yes, I understand that it's not a perfect comparison because these other systems can at least be grasped intellectually, but that's very different from playing them and experiencing them. And my suggested system is VERY different from Gaiden's. In Gaiden there were no weapon ranks whatsoever. In mine there are still weapon ranks. It's just that the weapon rank increases based on your class. There is still a progression system, there are still limiting factors, and there are still interesting choices to make based on those factors.

Here's the actual poll, for reference Your use of this data is flagrantly fallacious for two reasons. First, as your very poll indicates, the two less popular options are almost exclusively from games most of the western fanbase is not familiar with at all, and therefore can't be assumed to understand. And considering how infamous the fire emblem community is for desperately clinging to their comfort zones, I'm not sure how another result could've been expected. To extrapolate on this data and assume it means that the vast majority of people who've played with all 3 systems prefer the currently established version is jumping the gun at best. And to extrapolate that this is the optimal way of designing weapon rank, which your language seems to imply you believe, is absolutely ludicrous. Second, you're trying to prove the current system is better than my proposed system by comparing it to two completely different systems that I'm not even proposing. Yes, I agree, when compared to a system where weapon rank is determined by a randomly upgrading stat, the current system is better. And I can see a strong argument for the current system being better than one with no ranking system whatsoever. However, neither of those are my argument. This poll does literally nothing to even compare my proposed system and the current system. It's completely irrelevant to the debate at hand. To address your first paragraph, yes, everything you said was true. You successfully described the current system. But you did nothing to defend it. I agree that you have choices, but both of those decisions are unsatisfying to make. You choose between feeling cheated out of a weapon type that the game told you you can use, or you can grind. And grinding involves opting to not use the fun weapons you have unlocked the right to use and instead using crappy, obsolete weapons you don't want to use. Both are decisions the player has to make, and both of these decisions feel bad to make. They make the experience less fun when you're forced to make them. While I agree the system isn't outright terrible in every way, it's undeniably flawed, and I consider those flaws to be one of the problems of the series that dampers my fun the most often.

What I fail to see is the advantages of the current system. Why should you have to 'earn' the ability to use horse slaying weapons when you're halfway through the game and promote one of your units? Because it's a horseslaying lance this time? It seems like a pretty arbitrary distinction from a game design perspective, and I don't see how it improves player experience. Sure, it's intuitive, but it's far from the optimal design choice.

Making me do an unfun, pace-breaking thing less than you would've otherwise is still making me do an unfun, pace-breaking thing. And the main issue isn't that it's a time-consuming leveling system, the main issue is that I have to do something suboptimal. Let's say I worked my cav up to an A in swords, but they still have an E in lances. I could make them use bronze lances, but then all the work I did towards their sword rank feels worthless, because I'm not using the swords. It's a system that makes you choose between two options: either you are always having characters use the weapons they are the worst at, or they never get good at more than one weapon. Both options feel like crap. It's a poorly designed, unfun system. I suppose then it would be necessary to make to balance classes accordingly, either giving classes with lower ranks other bonuses or higher stats, or by changing the weapon system so that A rank weapons aren't objectively superior to B rank weapons. This way having an A rank means you can use more swords that are stronger in certain situations, but most characters can still use the bread and butter weapon choices. So the main problem with my system is that it discourages late-game reclassing in very specific circumstances? I mean, sure, what you say could happen, but it's not like this never the case in the current system. Let's say I want to reclass Jessie, a cavalier, into warrior. He loses his all of his weapon ranks in swords and lances because warriors only use bows and axes. The main difference is that in my system, he doesn't start with obsolete, nigh-unusable weapon choices due to having an E in both weapons. I also don't get the feeling that I wasted the time I spent getting Jessie's sword and lance ranks up to A because it wasn't actually a function of time I spent grinding specific weapons. When you take those two points into account, my system probably encourages reclassing your units.

Some sort of Charlotte-type character who pretends to be innocent but hides a darker side. But her darker side is that she's secretly the master of a criminal syndicate that she continues to operate after getting dragged along with your army for god-knows-what-reason. She has at least one support that is all about her and some justice-obsessed member of the army who knows her secret. He constantly foils her plans and she shakes her fist in the air while cursing his name. She never becomes plot relevant. There's just a mafia kingpin in your army and no one ever finds out till their A-support with her, if then.

I'm very utilitarian when it comes to how I look at fiction. When talking about romance, I think "What can a romance accomplish for the story?" It can be used as a vehicle for character development and drama, for one thing. But if you just have two characters who are together and you don't want to go down the rabbit hole of making that into a central part of the narrative (a very understandable choice), then you have to design their relationship to be inherently entertaining. Because simply being there for its own sake is all it can do. They need some sort of relationship that is actively fun to watch. One of the reasons Elise and Odin from Fates is so popular (besides optimizing Ophelia) is that it is really fun to watch Elise play along with Odin. It's entertaining and funny and colorful. While I don't think that dynamic is suited for protagonists of a war game, it's definitely the sort of thing I am hoping for when I hear about 'a couple that stays together the whole game'. My main concern is that the more colorful characters in fire emblem tend to be the side characters, while the protagonists tend to be tame in comparison. Sure, Chrom had some character details. He was kind of tactless which made for some fun gags, and he had a bit of a sarcastic side when he's feeling particularly resigned, but he's a lot less of a character than the people around him (excluding Robin). I mean, one of his most memorable non-dramatic moments was when he got punched in the face by Sumia, and that was entirely due to HER character. So while I love the idea of a canon couple of protagonists that stay together, I worry about IS actually pulling it off in a way that actually satisfies anyone.

1. I meant towards guys, but yeah, I guess. 3. Heh heh. Yeah. I totally forgot Minerva. I've totally played Shadow dragon. I'm a real FE fan. Totally.

No, I HAVE heard the phrase. And if there was nothing wrong, I would agree that the system is perfectly fine how it is. But... it isn't perfectly fine. I pointed out issues with it in my original post. When your ability to use a weapon type is directly proportional to the amount of time you spend using it, you are naturally tunneled down a path of using exclusively a single weapon type per unit. This goes against the purpose of having units that can use multiple weapon types. It hampers the utility they were designed to have and makes it so that the player has fewer interesting choices to make. Similarly, when a unit gets a new weapon type upon promotion, that new weapon type is pretty much worthless. These are problems, and my solution fixes them. As someone pointed out, it's not a perfect system. But I do think it's a better system than the one we have in place right now.

Oh man, I hope I don't forge anything. Magic triangle returns Unbreakable weapons Larger-scale battles (like in RD) with limited battle saves Class promotion trees Avatar who isn't the MC. I want this game to sell well, but I also want the MC to have a personality. Oh, yeah, that reminds me Lord with actual personality Lots of romance Some version of the FE Fates double system that lets units who are paired up also attack so they don't feel like they disappeared from the battlefield. Colorful cast. More like the Conquest cast than the Birthright cast, if you catch my drift. Varied mission requirements (Route enemy, defend, escape, etc..) Varied, interesting map design, like in sacred stones. I loved how he first map of ephraims route told a story, you know? It had acts to it, it was awesome. Little to no stupid map gimmicks. I'm looking at you, Revelations. A story that isn't ass. I'm looking at you, Fates.

Are there any types of characters you'd like to see in the game, in terms of personality or character quirks? Or any fun ideas you'd like to see? Some characters I'd like to see in a future FE would be A female character who's forward and flirty (like Inigo, not like Charlotte). Probably someone roguish, like a pirate or merc. A prince or princess who constantly embarrasses her noble family due to her lax way of talking and immature sense of humor. A lord who rides a wyvern fighting against and evil kingdom that frequently employs pegasus knights.

What made Breath of the Wild a successful reimagining was that it isolated all the stuff that made Zelda good, got rid of all the fat, and then filled the fat in with new ideas. So lets look at what needs to be kept: Basic means of gameplay (grid based tactics game that plays like, well, fire emblem) A cast of colorful characters you get attached to via gamplay A variety of weapons with different attributes that interact in a series of rock paper scissors interaction, and units that each have some set of those weapons they can use What things are really annoying about FE? (Not all of these can necessarily be fixed perfectly) Traditional story telling methods that doesn't mesh with the type of cast The incredibly unforgiving gameplay that forces you to replay large chunks of gameplay you've already completed if you lose a character at a crucial part, lest you abandon the character altogether. Exacerbated by random chance. Certain aggravating mechanics such as weapon durability and weapon rank These aren't complete lists, but it gives some ideas of where to go. The second bullet point on the negatives list could be fixed by shorter levels or frequent, fixed checkpoints in larger levels. It could also be fixed by a new rogue-like game design that embraces permadeath and autosaves frequently and irreversibly. The first negative could be fixed by crafting a story with no defined main character and instead focusing on an ensemble cast. It could also try to avoid a traditional heroic journey and instead go for a more focused, small scale story that gives its characters more room to breath due to the less involved plot. Damn this is hard. What I do know is that I've had an idea in the back of my head of what an FE-type game could be like, and it solves some of these issues. It would have a relatively short story with a lot of branching paths, and a the end of the story it would loop back to the beginning, and everytime you game over it would also loop back to the beginning. It would be a roguelike, but every playthrough is continues after the other, and the protagonist is aware of the timeloop. You can try to make it to the end of the game and see a variety of different endings. But the way to get the true ending is to try to figure out why this time loop is going on and investigate the mystery of it all, and this is done via side stories in the campaign involving side-members of the cast, each of whom tie into the overall story in a different way. I dunno, I think it would be cool. It would probably work better as an indie game than something targeted at a large audience, though. Maybe you can doaway with the roguelike stuff and let the player reset when a character dies, but then it's pretty much just like FE had a child with an ARG and we're back where we started more or less.

The triangle isn't a necessity, but separating magic into different types gives them room to breath, and it allows for a wider variety of magic classes. It's more satisfying that way. Though honestly, I don't see a reason not to add the triangle at that point. It works for melee, and it will still work for magic like it did in the GBA era.

This game series is very much alive due to its accessibility and the appeal of the ability to pair up (and pair with) its characters that was a major part of Fates and Awakening. While I think it's cool we have games like SoV that differ from it and push the series in new directions, the game mechanics introduced in those games helped make it into a wider reaching series. So yes, make it like Awakening. Give it a Sacred Stones map, give it S supports, give it casual mode, and give it a self insert that you can pair with a character of your choice. I want this game to sell well, and none of those come anywhere close to ruining the experience. As a matter of fact, I actually like S supports. I don't mind for it to innovate in some ways, but for a game this pivotal you shouldn't fix what isn't broken. Though, I will admit that children should probably go. It worked in Awakening, but Puberty-realms was cringe inducing. Also, what even defines 'classic' FE? All those games were so different.

I agree with this in spirit, but I think you're environmental interactions are too ambitious. My hopes are: More realistic representations of where characters are on the map. For example, if an archer shoots at an enemy from across a river, have them on opposite sides of the river. Don't have them 12 feet apart on a field of grass next to the river. Wider variety of attack animations. Have other units in the background during animated segments, and have them in the places they are on the map. Maybe have your units clash swords with enemy units next to them (not actually landing hits, but just kind of looking cool and bouncing off each other). What you said about varied victory animations. Hell, maybe just have the character turn to another enemy near them. If it's the enemy phase and another enemy is going to attack you after the battle, have that enemy clash swords with your unit at the end of the battle. Zoom out to the map, sho that enemy attacking, and then zoom in again to show that battle. It would be a better way of doing hat continuous-fight thing you suggested.

I am shipping trash and therefore all for this. I haven't played SoV, so I don't know what that was like, but I do know it's important to me that this not be just an implied romance. Relationships in fiction that don't extend beyond the fact that they have feelings for each other irk me to no end.

While I agree that is a small comfort of the current system, I don't think this is incompatible with reclassing. Let's say: John is a Swordsmaster, with A in swords and no other ranks. He has equipped a brave sword (ranked A). John reclasses to Paladin, which has a B in swords andB in lances. The Brave Sword unequips and is unusable until another reclass. However, he can now use lances B and below, and he can still use any sword ranked B and lower. Sure, it might be a tad annoying, but it's not like it breaks anything. If anything, it helps give the classes more personality and gives the designers another way to balance the game.

Something I've wanted for a while is weapon ranks that are tied to class rather than character progression. That way your character isn't forced down one weapon choice. When you have a cavalier who you have using swords mostly, and you want them to use a lance (which cavs are supposed to be able too), right now you have to start off from bronze again. It's very counterintuitive. It also makes it so that when you get a new weapon upon promoting, you can actually use it without grinding up from E. An example of how it might look with the cav/knight line. Cavalier: D for swords, D for lance Knight: C for lance Paladin: B for Sword, B for Lance Great Knight: C for Sword, C for lance, C for Axe General: A for Lance, C for Axe Or something like that. The specifics aren't my main concern, it's more about the core idea of this. Do you think this would be a good idea?

I'd enjoy a real underdog story. Like, a prince and princess lose their kingdom to an empire and have to create an army from scratch to take down the empire. Also, I'm a huge fan of more complex and flawed protagonists. I prefer Inigos and Elises over Marths and Eliwoods, and I'd like to see our protagonists be colorful.

As someone who's a fan of well-developed characters and doesn't like self inserts, I don't like having an avatar. On the other hand, though, it DID improve sales and is a big part of the appeal, so I guess it's for the best that it does for the sake of the longevity of the series. S supports are a must, though. I am shipping TRASH.

I personally want a larger variety of animations so things don't feel quite as samey whenever a unit attacks. Right now they have two normal animations and two critical animations. One for finishing blows and one for ones that don't kill. A wider variety would spice things up. I like how they zoom into map and have them fight in THAT part of the map. It would be even cooler if the other units were in the background in their parts of the map. Possibly clinking weapons with the enemies near them as opposed to just standing around. Finally, it'd be cool if they managed to make characters attacking from far away be farther away during the combat scenes, and have the combat scenes better reflect what's going on if possible. For example, if your archer is on top of a wall, and they strike a unit below them, show that happening. If that happened, I think it would make the moment to moment gameplay a lot more impressive to watch.