New Mechanics you want

[Snowy_One]

While I respect the intention the fact is that those units who are on such extremes are the ones who end up needing the MT/hit the most. It's difficult at best to work around it and, worse, it means that the enemies HAVE to be balanced. In a game where axes rule suddenly SM become very valuable due to their higher AVO and ability to drain large amounts of health from high HP foes. In games where lances rule axes suddenly lose their hit issues and outright dominate while swords struggle to deal damage.

I know balance is not a easy thing to achieve in any game, but with weak characters getting the weaker weapons and inaccurate ones getting the inaccurate weapons it's the difference between a well-aimed pistol and drunkenly firing off into the air and hoping to hit the target.

One idea I just had now is to make all the iron/steel/silver weapons identical, but add in secondary types that subscribe to each weapons 'philosophy' with the swords getting higher hit, but lower MT, while axes get more MT but lower hit. So a iron weapon might have 70 hit and 7 MT, the 'iron edge' might have 85 hit and 5 MT and the 'iron maul' might have 60 hit and 8 MT or something (numbers being a asspull more to get the point across than be concrete numbers in of themselves).

[dondon151]

Also, make the ranged swords (wind edges, sonic swords) easier to acquire!

Bad idea. Swords have a niche and should stay there.

[Anouleth]

While I respect the intention the fact is that those units who are on such extremes are the ones who end up needing the MT/hit the most. It's difficult at best to work around it and, worse, it means that the enemies HAVE to be balanced. In a game where axes rule suddenly SM become very valuable due to their higher AVO and ability to drain large amounts of health from high HP foes. In games where lances rule axes suddenly lose their hit issues and outright dominate while swords struggle to deal damage.

And yet you have games like FE6 where there are plenty of enemy lance users, yet swords are still a good weapon type. So clearly, you are wrong.

I know balance is not a easy thing to achieve in any game, but with weak characters getting the weaker weapons and inaccurate ones getting the inaccurate weapons it's the difference between a well-aimed pistol and drunkenly firing off into the air and hoping to hit the target.

That is true for any situation where characters were different. If low-strength characters got access to axes and low-skill characters got access to swords, they would end up being functionally identical. Obviously, whenever characters are different and have different abilities, and the more varied those abilities are, then the risk that one will be better than the other will always increase. But obviously we still want characters to be varied and different.

And maybe I am just much, much more imaginative than you, but I can easily envisage a situation where a high-attack low-hit unit and a low-attack high-hit unit are balanced.

http://serenesforest.net/ts/swords.htm

It's worth noting that the Luna Sword and Mainstar are kinda ridiculous.

Othin, can you go five seconds without bringing up TRS and BS? Because there are plenty of good examples of this in actual FE games like FE4 and FE5.

Edited March 19, 2012 by Anouleth

[Othin]

Othin, can you go five seconds without bringing up TRS and BS? Because there are plenty of good examples of this in actual FE games like FE4 and FE5.

The Runesword, even when it does physical damage in melee, is still notable for its ranged attacks. I guess you could say the same thing about the Mainstar and its bonus damage against monsters, but that seems less defining. I mainly thought to bring it up because I keep forgetting the Sol Sword's actual effect and thinking it's the one that restores HP, and in combination with the Luna Sword matching Swordsalmon's description and name, it's just too perfect to ignore, even with Sol Sword being different. And as far as I know, there's no Luna Sword counterpart in any relevant game.

As long as people keep appreciating the references and getting more interested in the games as a result of them, I see no reason to stop.

[Snowy_One]

And yet you have games like FE6 where there are plenty of enemy lance users, yet swords are still a good weapon type. So clearly, you are wrong.

Because all of us have played the non-english FE games and there was never a game where one weapon type outright dominated because of an overabundance of the weapon type it dominates over so the idea has NO credit at all, right?

That is true for any situation where characters were different. If low-strength characters got access to axes and low-skill characters got access to swords, they would end up being functionally identical. Obviously, whenever characters are different and have different abilities, and the more varied those abilities are, then the risk that one will be better than the other will always increase. But obviously we still want characters to be varied and different.

And maybe I am just much, much more imaginative than you, but I can easily envisage a situation where a high-attack low-hit unit and a low-attack high-hit unit are balanced.

Obviously. If you ever played a MMO and learned a bit about it's history, this is a known fact. WoW originally started off with the classes being very different in how they played, strengths, weaknesses, and discovered just how hard it was to balance them all out. Come WotLK they changed models and have tried to make all the classes similar. People haven taken to the latter model so far, but that's not to say the former lacked merit. I bet you can't tell me the reasons for the preference of the latter model though. Come on, give it a shot.

[Othin]

Whether or not you're familiar with it, FE6 demonstrates the existence of easier ways to address the problem.

[Onmi]

also I don't think you compare a PVP MMO to a PVE TBS RPG like FE

[Anouleth]

Because all of us have played the non-english FE games and there was never a game where one weapon type outright dominated because of an overabundance of the weapon type it dominates over so the idea has NO credit at all, right?

I suppose that's true, but it's not like it's particularly difficult to put similar numbers of sword/lance/axe users. Obviously, swords are going to be a weak weapon type if every enemy is a lance user. The only way to prevent that would be to remove the weapon triangle altogether.

Obviously. If you ever played a MMO and learned a bit about it's history, this is a known fact. WoW originally started off with the classes being very different in how they played, strengths, weaknesses, and discovered just how hard it was to balance them all out. Come WotLK they changed models and have tried to make all the classes similar. People haven taken to the latter model so far, but that's not to say the former lacked merit.

So basically, you're admitting that you don't give two shits about variety or making the units distinct and interesting, you just want them to be balanced. Well, that's easy: just give every single unit the same supports, skills, class, and stats.

I bet you can't tell me the reasons for the preference of the latter model though. Come on, give it a shot.

Don't patronise me.

[Aethereal]

Obviously. If you ever played a MMO and learned a bit about it's history, this is a known fact. WoW originally started off with the classes being very different in how they played, strengths, weaknesses, and discovered just how hard it was to balance them all out. Come WotLK they changed models and have tried to make all the classes similar. People haven taken to the latter model so far, but that's not to say the former lacked merit. I bet you can't tell me the reasons for the preference of the latter model though. Come on, give it a shot.

This is an outright lie. People haven't taken to the new model, there was tons of complaints about homogenization. And that's all perception, but what isn't is that WoW has lost literally over a million subscribers in about a year, with the new expansion of, "super dynamic gameplay, where all classes play and feel the same". I'm not familiar enough with the game to continue any kind of debate over it, but this is clearly you pulling evidence out of your ass.

You can attempt to include balance and niches for all roles even in a scenario where you want to, gasp, have dynamic and interesting gameplay. Go ahead and make a hack of a game where all your units have equal hit and attack after weapons, and be amazed at how interesting it is! Your decisions on which units to take will literally all be based off the weapon triangle. We can call it "Fire Emblem: Roshambo".

There have been games where all 3 weapon types and their users had niches and were, if not equally good, balanced enough that you wouldn't feel stupid using one over another-except in situations that demand one. Balance isn't that hard.

[deranger]

And yet you have games like FE6 where there are plenty of enemy lance users, yet swords are still a good weapon type. So clearly, you are wrong.

Wait, they do? I thought it was sword users who rule. Also Wyrm Slayers in the final chapter I guess.

A Steel Sword is basically an iron axe that requires a D-weapon rank to use, costs nearly 400% times what an iron axe costs per pop, and has WTD to the largest number of enemies of any weapon.

[Onmi]

Wait, they do? I thought it was sword users who rule. Also Wyrm Slayers in the final chapter I guess.

A Steel Sword is basically an iron axe that requires a D-weapon rank to use, costs nearly 400% times what an iron axe costs per pop, and has WTD to the largest number of enemies of any weapon.

They still have the highest hit of all weapons, the largest variety of weapons (especially since the Tomahawk/Spear never makes its way into player hands) and along side Axes they pack a class with 30% crit, except Swordmasters can actually hit things. they are also, outside of mages, the only class that have a reliable weapon for handling Manaketes.

Granted They're not OP as all get out or anything, but for a game dominated by Lance users they held their own fairly well.

[deranger]

except Swordmasters can actually hit things

Isn't that as much due to swordmasters being swordmasters as it is to swordmasters using swords. Like, a sword master with an iron axe will have a higher hit percentage than Gonzales with an iron sword any day of the week.

Although, hmm, I'm used to FE7, where Steel Swords are actually statistically identical to Iron Axes.

Edited March 19, 2012 by deranger

[Thor Odinson]

They're also more reliable bosskillers as the bosses are actually dickish enough that your paladin(s) of choice likely wouldn't be able to handle them as well.

Due to throne bonuses and whatnot.

Axes are still pretty shitty bosskilling weapons except /maybe/ Killer Axe on a Knight/General boss or something

But last time I tried to kill that guy in C20 with Echidna

the hitrate was still ~50s and Echidna's one of the more accurate axe users.

They still have their issues like lack of 2 range and mount, but they're on much more even playing grounds with the Pallies rather than in 7/8 where having a bajillion Paladins (or just one really good Paladin) is pretty much all you need to wtfrape the game on turbo.

Edited March 19, 2012 by Luminescent Blade

[Othin]

Isn't that as much due to swordmasters being swordmasters as it is to swordmasters using swords. Like, a sword master with an iron axe will have a higher hit percentage than Gonzales with an iron sword any day of the week.

Hey, if it works...

[Anouleth]

FE6 Killing Edges have 15 more hit than Killer Axes and only 2 less mt. That's a very worthwhile tradeoff.

[Onmi]

FE6 Killing Edges have 15 more hit than Killer Axes and only 2 less mt. That's a very worthwhile tradeoff.

Especially since If I'm remembering right, They are completely buyable in Chapter 13 (you get Killer Axes during the Western Isles though) so it's perfectly viable to stock up on Killing Edge's and cheesing every enemy except Manaketes, whereupon the Wyrmslayer comes in.

[Thor Odinson]

And hell you get Durandal as early as 8x and it doesn't hurt to burn some uses on the really annoying guys as long as you don't use up all 20 which you won't unless you play badly

Plus Durandal doesn't have that shitty 16 weight

12 weight is only 4 AS off Rutger (a pretty good tradeoff for such a nice weapon) and he can handle it

Edited March 19, 2012 by Luminescent Blade

[Snowy_One]

So basically, you're admitting that you don't give two shits about variety or making the units distinct and interesting, you just want them to be balanced. Well, that's easy: just give every single unit the same supports, skills, class, and stats.

I did not say that. I used WoW as an analogy because it has several very easily trackable factors, a long history for a single game, has gone through tons of various forms of balances, and has feedback that is trackable/acquirable about how people enjoyed it. Not to mention a huge playerbase. It's like a lab rat for testing game mechanics. All MMO's are. People didn't like all the classes being essentually the same in WotLK and, as a result, they tried for making dungeons more dynamic and requiring certain mechanics that various classes did better or worse at. People didn't like it as much because the margin for error was much smaller which prompted the newer dungeons to return to the 'every class can do as well' type balance except it seems to be 'every class can do well, but someone skilled at a particular aspect of a class can make the ride much easier for everyone' right now.

I don't want to see the particular niches each class has to fade away. I actually want to see sort of the opposite and have the game become much easier for people who use every type of unit instead of just one or two overpowered types. The problem is that it's a very slippery slope. One suggestion that comes to mind is making three 'classes' of enemies. Cannon fodder, bastions, and ambushers. Cannon fodder are weak and easily cleared and not generally threatening, but deal relatively large amounts of damage an are in huge numbers. This makes units like paladins great for sweeping them up (high movement and balanced stats) and more focused units less useful. Bastions are much tougher units, but usually have a specific weakness (low hit, defense, RES, AVO) that, if exploited, makes them a lot easier to kill. Ambushers usually spawn from behind after a series of conditions are met (not turncounts) and are VERY strong on all regards, but can't be allowed to roam free or else they will maul every unit in charge. This way units with balanced stats have their uses (killing fodder which they dominate at), units with high offensive abilities have their uses (taking out bastions), and supportive/defensive units have their uses (holding off ambushers). It isn't the best idea, granted, but I think it's a step in the right direction for sure.

Edit: New class idea: Spy.

The Spy is a very unique unit in that it's probably one of the few classes you do NOT want openly fighting but, at the same time, also want as deep into enemy lines as possible. Spies possess two unique skills, disguise and poison, that are invaluable to how they function. Basically, when a spy is out of visible range of the enemy units, they can take on a disguise that allows them to move undetected through enemy lines as if they were a friendly unit. Having VERY high movement (mounted-level) they can move about with ease and try to target key units in the backlines of a enemy line. When near a enemy they have two options. They can either poison or attempt to kill a enemy. Poisoning a enemy requires a check similar to a hit and places a poison status on the enemy that will weaken them over time and, if said enemy is killed by either poison or an ally, they spy receives points (full if poison-killed, 1/2 or 3/4ths if ally... I am really not sure which is better). Conversely they can attempt to assassinate a non-boss type unit which boosts their STR by 50% for one strike and guarantees a auto-critical for the first strike.

However, for both these actions there is the potential of being detected. Whenever a spy ends a EP near a enemy they have to roll under a number equal to their SKL + LCK multiplied by the distance. So a Spy with 10 SKL and 10 LCK would need a 20 or less to remain undetected by a unit who ends right next to them, but under a 40 for two squares away, and a 60 for three (maybe double-LCK? I REALLY wanna give luck some bigger focus). If they attempt a poisoning they need to make a similar roll on the spot (failure still results in poisoning, just being unmasked), and assassination requires a similar roll minus the higher of the two stats.

The idea for this class is that they can rush into a enemies lines without (hopefully) drawing attention to soften them up before your main units even arrive, but at the same time isn't some combat god (the Spy has relatively low combat stats) and will be stuck behind enemy lines if revealed.

Enemy spies disguise themselves as allied units deployed at the start of the battle and are randomly assigned (though their number is fixed) and follow identical detection rules. In order for them to not be given away a 'fake' stat sheet is generated for them to use.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Snowy_One