Curse of the Emblem

[Klokinator]

I absolutely despise the text formatting. The first map, to be blunt, is also quite terrible. And it's also kinda boring having only axe users and one dark magic user, but I'm keeping an open mind. It's actually rather challenging to try not to lose a generic brigand (I lost two and didn't care the first time) but this text is awful. Send me your game script and I'll fix it up for you.

Edit: Also, I got criticalled 12 times on chapter 2. No more, no less. I didn't even think that was possible, since all the enemies have 3-6 crit, but what the others have said about crits is certainly true.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Klokinator

[Felover3]

Hit is calculated before crit in all Fire Emblem games; the exception that FE6 does otherwise is a myth.

Huh, thought so, but didn't ever know if that myth was true or not.

I have not played this hack, but I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that there is only 1 enemy who must be defeated against the chance to take a critical hit in a chapter. Are you implying that you're not expecting the player to engage in any enemy phase combat at all (because all enemy phase combat yields a chance at death)? Or that you're supposed to kill enemies 1 or 2 at a time, using an archer or mage unit to chip in every single instance? That doesn't sound like there's much potential for strategic diversity. And what about in later chapters, that are probably much bigger? Are you supposed to do that there as well? Do you get some tanky armor knight that you're absolutely forced to use if you want to guarantee survival?

I wasn't probably clear there. I'm talking about enemies where the only choice is to go in and attack them head on with no alternative. In all other cases, there are ways to utilize terrain/map/spacing or units to minimize damage taken. I'm not implying that the player shouldn't engage in any enemy phase combat, but instead be weary instead of throwing in their favorite, leveled units into a fray of enemies who have no chance of doing anything. Later chapters give you more units with varied stats. With more units at your disposle, formations that minimize certain enemy groups (as most chapters in FE consist of units that charge you, units that don't charge unless in range, and units that don't move) can be achieved.

On the contrary, whenever killers are available, the player will use them, high str or low str, SM or wyvern lord.

Once again, I probably wasn't clear. I'm talking about enemy troops here. You ever notice how the only reason to ever even notice an archer in most games is to make sure your flier is out of the way? There high skill means nothing if they constantly do only 1 or 2 damage. Myrmidons are the same way, never a threat unless you give them a killing edge so the player actually notices that they exist. It's why mercenaries are the more common enemy.

What happens if all of the units that you have available are 3HKO'd? Then you're just rolling dice, and the worst part is that you have no other option. Unless you make more than just a handful of units capable of sustaining more than 3 normal attacks, but at that point the game is too easy if enemies only have single digit crit and most of your units are 4+HKO'd.

Sorry for being pedantic, but the entire game is about rolling dice. If we're talking about statistical improbabilities. As it stands in some FEs, your units can't really take more than 3 or 4 enemy hits, but the fact that the enemy has such low hit rate makes people forget that. The only thing I'm adding there is the VERY small chance of things going REALLY wrong instead of kinda wrong.

I am not only assuming the opposite. The important consideration right now is that player units have a significant chance to die, and when they die, they never come back. Furthermore, whether or not they die is purely based off luck. The integrity of almost every strategy is now damaged because instead of only having to take into account how much damage a unit can sustain based off calculating atk - def, now you have to make enough leeway for 3x that, which never happens in an appreciably difficult game. There is literally no way to adapt to an enemy's lucky crit if it OHKOs one of your units.

If you assume everything hits, some chapters in games become impossible. It's a part of strategy known as risk. It's not everyone's thing. Some people enjoy it. And to say no game ever does this is frankly wrong. Many games in the SMT series have slight chances of game overs over various things. Take for example the Devil Survivor series where in almost every mission requires a certain person to live. There's a chance, small as it is, that they can get criticalled or any number of things the player can do to the enemy. Also, there are only going to be so many "unkillable" characters in the hack. Those are the only characters, like in every FE, that will be the main contributions to the story. Keeping everyone alive might be a challenge because you no longer can play this game exactly as you would Advance wars if every character you had was a NeoTank or a rocket.

The essence of single-player game design is that the player and enemy are not supposed to have access to the same resources. It's not supposed to be uniformly "fair." It doesn't matter if an enemy dies, but if a player unit dies, he's gone forever, and your strategy may break down. How about giving the player an army of faceless units to even out the numbers, or a whole arsenal of silvers and killers to match enemy weaponry?

If I do either of those, then THE EXACT SAME thing happens. You're playing dice. Army of faceless dudes mean nothing if they do 0 damage and have 17 percent hit rate. If I give them meaningful damage (as you stated above), then you just run the HIGHER risk of having a unit die from being hit too many times. Giving all the enemies killer weapons would create an even more drastic version of what I do here.

I personally never enjoyed the fact that in some Fire Emblem games, enemies had no luk. Not only does it encourage more RNG abusing than usual in some circumstances, but there are also strategies where one would not want to crit enemies on accident, and doing so results in a death or game over.

I'm only applying another layer.

I think you're overall overexaggerating the issue. You frankly ignored the maths I presented. It's not going to happen often even IF everyone always hits. Enemies have to hit you first. If you have a speedy character who might die to a crit but has only a 25% chance of getting hit, you may prefer to use them to slightly beefier unit who has a 60% chance to get hit and dies in 4 hits.

I absolutely despise the text formatting. The first map, to be blunt, is also quite terrible. And it's also kinda boring having only axe users and one dark magic user, but I'm keeping an open mind. It's actually rather challenging to try not to lose a generic brigand (I lost two and didn't care the first time) but this text is awful. Send me your game script and I'll fix it up for you.

Edit: Also, I got criticalled 12 times on chapter 2. No more, no less. I didn't even think that was possible, since all the enemies have 3-6 crit, but what the others have said about crits is certainly true.

I'll certainly take you up on your offer once I get Chapter 4 here completed.

As for you getting crit'd 12 times on Chapter 2, I'd have know more to know why. If it's because you had to restart over and over, it's probably because the way VBA and RNG works so you'll end up getting crit'd at the same places. Also not sure if you're talking about NPC's too or just your own units. Whatever the case, in statistics that is an extremely rare event.

But since I'm sure most people will continue this battle, I have an idea for keeping crit still present, but not have it affect as much when taking into account better weapons like Steel and Silvers. We'll see how that balance works out.

[Klokinator]

I literally mean that in the single time I played chapter 2, I was criticalled 12 times, mainly by mercenaries. I've never seen so many criticals coming off of 3 and 5% chances in my life.

But yeah this text needs an overhaul. And holy fuck chapter 1's map is eyerape

[dondon151]

I wasn't probably clear there. I'm talking about enemies where the only choice is to go in and attack them head on with no alternative. In all other cases, there are ways to utilize terrain/map/spacing or units to minimize damage taken.

"Minimizing" damage taken doesn't work because you only need to be hit once to have a chance at dying. Unless you are implying that it is possible to complete a chapter without having to sustain a single attack, and the strategy involved isn't cookie cutter and completely boring, then this is not a solution to the problem.

Once again, I probably wasn't clear. I'm talking about enemy troops here. You ever notice how the only reason to ever even notice an archer in most games is to make sure your flier is out of the way? There high skill means nothing if they constantly do only 1 or 2 damage. Myrmidons are the same way, never a threat unless you give them a killing edge so the player actually notices that they exist. It's why mercenaries are the more common enemy.

OK, so what's your problem with, I dunno, giving enemies more str, or giving them better weapons so that they consistently and predictably hit for more damage instead of playing roulette?

Sorry for being pedantic, but the entire game is about rolling dice. If we're talking about statistical improbabilities. As it stands in some FEs, your units can't really take more than 3 or 4 enemy hits, but the fact that the enemy has such low hit rate makes people forget that. The only thing I'm adding there is the VERY small chance of things going REALLY wrong instead of kinda wrong.

I'm sorry, but being pedantic does not mean that you can choose to not respond to my argument. Furthermore, the manner in which a casual player plays Fire Emblem is not strictly akin to rolling dice at all. If he makes a bad decision and loses a unit, then that's his fault for putting the unit in a situation that could have been entirely avoided. Here, you get hit, and there's a 3-6% chance that you die instantly. How do you prepare for that? You can't. If some enemies ended up not dying due to a miss, then that's OK; the casual player can clean up afterwards with excellent reliability. If one of his units randomly died instantly, then he has no backup plan.

If you assume everything hits, some chapters in games become impossible. It's a part of strategy known as risk. It's not everyone's thing. Some people enjoy it. And to say no game ever does this is frankly wrong. Many games in the SMT series have slight chances of game overs over various things. Take for example the Devil Survivor series where in almost every mission requires a certain person to live. There's a chance, small as it is, that they can get criticalled or any number of things the player can do to the enemy.

Why don't you try this out: poll the members of this forum and ask how many of them enjoy playing FE7 HHM chapter 28. Ask them if they think that it's a good idea that Jaffar has a chance to die on turn 2 and there's nothing that can be done about it.

Better yet, go to Smashboards and poll the members there about the inclusion of tripping in Brawl. I'm sure you'll get positive responses!

Or, to a lesser extent, ask the FE11 players here how many of them have had Jagen crit OHKO'd by the chapter 1 boss, effectively leaving them with no options to defeat the chapter.

Keeping everyone alive might be a challenge because you no longer can play this game exactly as you would Advance wars if every character you had was a NeoTank or a rocket.

But Advance Wars is a different game that does not feature characters with some sort of personality. Also, not every player character in FE is a juggernaut (very few are, in fact), and if you're afraid of someone grinding units up to unstoppable levels, then there are many other aspects of the game that you can change in order to prevent or mitigate that. Like, I dunno, removing the arena altogether, reducing growth rates, using better enemies with better equipment, etc. But ultimately, you can't stop the grinders from what they like to do, and introducing a constant crit rate is going to negatively impact their enjoyment of the game as well.

If I do either of those, then THE EXACT SAME thing happens. You're playing dice. Army of faceless dudes mean nothing if they do 0 damage and have 17 percent hit rate. If I give them meaningful damage (as you stated above), then you just run the HIGHER risk of having a unit die from being hit too many times. Giving all the enemies killer weapons would create an even more drastic version of what I do here.

Then make them not do 0 damage at a 17 percent hit rate. Most players won't willingly go into a situation in which a unit will die 40+% of the time unless they made a mistake or are playing for low turncounts.

I think you're overall overexaggerating the issue. You frankly ignored the maths I presented. It's not going to happen often even IF everyone always hits. Enemies have to hit you first. If you have a speedy character who might die to a crit but has only a 25% chance of getting hit, you may prefer to use them to slightly beefier unit who has a 60% chance to get hit and dies in 4 hits.

I ignored the maths that you presented because it's irrelevant. Getting crit on average between 3-7 times out of 100 attacks is 3-7 times too many. The important part are the maths that I presented that calculate the chances of getting crit at least once in x attacks, which you mostly ignored.

Edited April 13, 2012 by dondon151

[Zman]

>Objective is to Seize the gate

>Kill the boss

>Game Over

what

[Klokinator]

I actually talked to the boss, I didn't see that. That's funny if that happens though lol

[Celice]

>Objective is to Seize the gate

>Kill the boss

>Game Over

what

It's a consequence of the story. which actually could be interesting, if only that the player seems removed from knowing about it until after the fact.

[Parrhesia]

Think about it this way, FElover. Minimising risk is all well and good, but this way there is ALWAYS going to be a risk and even perfect play can do nothing to stop this. Instead of minimising risk, why not have a way to, you know, NULL the risk? The entire point of the game is so that people enjoy playing it. The way to do this is not to have completely random flights of fortune cause instant death.

By the by, if you aren't writing your characters to the extent where people care a whit about their lives, you're failing.

Or, to a lesser extent, ask the FE11 players here how many of them have had Jagen crit OHKO'd by the chapter 1 boss, effectively leaving them with no options to defeat the chapter.

I've had Jagen crit by a generic pirate. I think it was then that I finally gave up on the H5 draft...

[Felover3]

I ignored the maths that you presented because it's irrelevant. Getting crit on average between 3-7 times out of 100 attacks is 3-7 times too many. The important part are the maths that I presented that calculate the chances of getting crit at least once in x attacks, which you mostly ignored.

Well, either you didn't read the maths I presented or you could of just said that critical aren't a game mechanic worth having. Besides the fact that this entire argument is based on at least 2 fallacies, I'll settle to disagree on theory. If it really bothers you that units with inherently low STR will have a chance at being a threat (which is really all this translates to), I'll make an iron rune edition (just for you!), effectively removing crits entirely from the game. Luck presents other problems for balance simply because how it wiggles into every formula in the game it seems.

Instead of minimising risk, why not have a way to, you know, NULL the risk?

There is a way to null the risk for a good 95% of the enemies, and that's by playing better. Tactician rank effects crit dodge as well. Play well enough and your crits drop off for a majority of the enemies except ones who you should be noting them for anyway (archers/myrms/etc.) Additionally, the risk is being overblown to extreme examples. Crit does not always mean a dead unit. Balance in this particular patch of it is not finalized.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Felover3

[Klokinator]

I don't personally mind the "risk" in the game as of now, but it's a bit annoying having as many crits in one chapter with as low a chance as they had. I had three mercs in a row critical with a 4% chance, and the only reason it bugs me is because they... well they shouldn't statistically be able to critical that many times. I don't mind the added danger of a possible critical, that's why you learn to strategize, I just think it's odd they all hate me.

And Furetchen, I have a feeling you'd hate playing my ragefest submission, since crits are a very real threat. Not to mention the enemies like to do this a lot.

Edited April 14, 2012 by Klokinator

[Agro]

>Objective is to Seize the gate

>Kill the boss

>Game Over

what

This nearly happened to me as well til I realised she was recruitable...

I literally mean that in the single time I played chapter 2, I was criticalled 12 times, mainly by mercenaries. I've never seen so many criticals coming off of 3 and 5% chances in my life.

Don't most of them have daggers, and therefore like 20 crit?

[Zman]

Why does every enemy in chapter 2 have 5 luck? It's kind of unfair having it so that enemies can crit you, but you can't crit them.

[Felover3]

Why does every enemy in chapter 2 have 5 luck? It's kind of unfair having it so that enemies can crit you, but you can't crit them.

That's a temporary measure as final numbers are worked out. Eventually it will be 0, but for now it's a stopgap.

[Crimson Red]

You guys are making cool arguments and all, all of them are valid and it probably is going to be a pain in the ass dealing with no luck and whatnot, but I think Felover made his point and is sticking with it, so why beat a dead horse? That's just being stubborn. :\

[Dark Sage]

You guys are making cool arguments and all, all of them are valid and it probably is going to be a pain in the ass dealing with no luck and whatnot, but I think Felover made his point and is sticking with it, so why beat a dead horse? That's just being stubborn. :\

Because maybe we can get him to change his mind and produce a more enjoyable hack.

[Celice]

Or maybe he can leave it and create a more enjoyable hack.

[Jubby]

If he prefers it the way he made it, why change it

[Dark Sage]

Because the people playing it won't enjoy it.

Christ.

[Parrhesia]

And Furetchen, I have a feeling you'd hate playing my ragefest submission, since crits are a very real threat. Not to mention the enemies like to do this a lot.

Well, yeah, but that's a ragefest.

...That rather well illustrates my point, actually.

[Jubby]

Because the people playing it won't enjoy it.

Christ.

then you go make a hack for the people playing it and we'll do what we do. If he likes his idea and is willing to put enough work in to make a hack out of it, then he's not going to change it 'cause some asshole on the internet thinks people won't enjoy playing it. :/ Also, your inherent hostility is really unappreciated.

[Felover3]

Hey now guys, calm down. While I'm not going to add luck back into the hack at this moment or in the foreseeable future, there will seriously be an Iron Rune Edition that simply negates the effect criticals have, better or worse, from gameplay. It'll be fairly simple to do once the actual full version is made so people who don't necessarily enjoy more rougelike-esque Turn based games can enjoy the characters and story. Please note this version won't be balanced separately to compensate for this unless a chapter becomes entirely impossible, so the other challenges/gameplay won't be as refined.

That's really the most I can offer for the compromise, as I'm stubborn to a fault concerning my hacks. It took me 48 tries before I finally got convinced to switch to FE7 from FE6, so trying to convince me that one of the core features I always personally like is a lost cause.

Will the two groups please stop bickering now please? I'd rather not have the topic devolve into bitter anger and flaming.

Edited April 14, 2012 by Felover3

[Celice]

is made so people who don't necessarily enjoy more rougelike-esque Turn based games can enjoy

Finish this now please.

[Agro]

Because the people playing it won't enjoy it.

Christ.

Speak for yourself; I enjoyed it.

[Tangerine]

then you go make a hack for the people playing it and we'll do what we do. If he likes his idea and is willing to put enough work in to make a hack out of it, then he's not going to change it 'cause some asshole on the internet thinks people won't enjoy playing it. :/

Just saying, this is a pretty silly argument. If he were creating his hack for only him to play, then fine. But he needs to take into account the criticism of the people he is publicly releasing it for. And he has done that somewhat with his 2nd version compromise (although I still don't think this makes up for the avo lost on dodge tanks). Unless you mean to include dondon and I as "some assholes" despite going into pretty significant detail about why the idea is not a good one for balance & enjoyability reasons, you're pretty off base by acting like it's only DS that has an issue with it .

Of course, he is contributing basically nothing to the points that we laid out, so if it's just the way he's complaining that you have an issue with I can't blame you, they are pretty out of line .

Hey now guys, calm down. While I'm not going to add luck back into the hack at this moment or in the foreseeable future, there will seriously be an Iron Rune Edition that simply negates the effect criticals have, better or worse, from gameplay. It'll be fairly simple to do once the actual full version is made so people who don't necessarily enjoy more rougelike-esque Turn based games can enjoy the characters and story. Please note this version won't be balanced separately to compensate for this unless a chapter becomes entirely impossible, so the other challenges/gameplay won't be as refined.

That's really the most I can offer for the compromise, as I'm stubborn to a fault concerning my hacks. It took me 48 tries before I finally got convinced to switch to FE7 from FE6, so trying to convince me that one of the core features I always personally like is a lost cause.

Will the two groups please stop bickering now please? I'd rather not have the topic devolve into bitter anger and flaming.

It's better than nothing, but it's probably better if you just focus on progressing the hack for now. Perhaps when more people play it and comment you will have a better idea of how to handle the crit issue .

Regardless, discussion is fine, but the users getting too aggressive really should chill out! Come on guys, it's not that big of a deal :P.

Edited April 14, 2012 by Tangerine

[Dark Sage]

Just saying, this is a pretty silly argument. If he were creating his hack for only him to play, then fine. But he needs to take into account the criticism of the people he is publicly releasing it for. And he has done that somewhat with his 2nd version compromise (although I still don't think this makes up for the avo lost on dodge tanks). Unless you mean to include dondon and I as "some assholes" despite going into pretty significant detail about why the idea is not a good one for balance & enjoyability reasons, you're pretty off base by acting like it's only DS that has an issue with it .

Of course, he is contributing basically nothing to the points that we laid out, so if it's just the way he's complaining that you have an issue with I can't blame you, they are pretty out of line .

Just as an fyi, I didn't write a long post saying why that was a stupid idea because I would've been regurgitating what you guys would've said anyway :/.

And you just ninja'd me in saying what I was about to say to Jubby anyway.