How should the series become harder?

[thetiger39]

Optional Iron Man mode. No reloading saves. No option to restart an Iron Man mode chapter from main menu. Mistakes and deaths and purchases are saved and permanent etc. Quitting the game or shutting off the system saves states the game. If the lord dies/mission fails, the save file is deleted. Makes Classic mode look like casual mode.

Edited August 2, 2013 by thetiger39

[Jotari]

Optional Iron Man mode. No reloading saves. Mistakes and Deaths and Purchases are saved and permanent. If the lord dies/mission fails, the save file is deleted. Makes Classic mode look like casual mode.

Wow. I would go bald from the frustration and still try it again.

[Snowy_One]

That's why I was objecting to battle saves, something suggested by someone at the very start of the topic. It just becomes trial and error so long as you save at the start of your turn when everyone is alive. However playing the game for an hour straight only to get killed by a 6% Crit can be extremely annoying and having somewhere to fall back on can be a real ease to the frustration. And in games where the turncount per level is much higher than saving at some point is pretty much vital. Genealogy of Holy War would be a nightmare if there was no save system at all since each map takes at the very least two hours to get through (for me anyway, I've only played it once). If the player has little control over when they save then it stops being memorization and starts being working from a certain point, provided the turncount between saves is large enough. DS Map Saves were a good idea too but the fact that they're actually on the map and take up a turn to use just seem really weird to me.

Maybe the answer is a bit more in-between? Ex: You only get one save per map?

The main thing I don't want happening is it becoming a slogfest where people constantly rerun maps because of 1% criticals killing their characters off and having to spend multiple turns just getting back to that point again.

[Nicolas]

Alternative option to make this series harder: make FE gameplay more like Advance Wars gameplay.

[Vorena]

I think Thracia already fulfilled most of everyone's criteria here..

Well, I'd like to know how much harder we were trying to make the series. To me, I think FE5 is appropriate, but some of the things in the game just made it straight up as stupid as FE13 luna+ or plain annoying. Not having the ability move units around as you felt? Enemies having like a 2% chance to move again on the same turn lol There are a number of stupid things in it still.

Why this games is easy?

1. AI send enemy on guys, who ORKO or even OHKO they.
2. Jagen exist and they broke early game. OK, OK Jagen isn't bad overall, but Jagen!Palladin is just too good. Even most broken unit in series( Seth) is not broking game as for example Sniper( or SM).
3. Many versatile character without weak points. Every character just must has one or more weakness like low res, low bases, low move, etc...
4. Paladins are too overpower.
5. Enemy General with with only Lance. WTF?
6. Enemy stats is joke. Especially magicans.
7. Enemy don't have support and other things like that.
8. Enemy don't have healers and elixirs.

You had me until the last few.

1) can be changed I believe for the AI in advance to target units it can actually harm over going after whatever is in the area.

2) I would agree it would be interesting to have a sniper for jaigen.

3) I don't follow you here. Lots of characters clearly have weak points in the game either by class or low stats somewhere else.

4,5,6,7,8 what?

4) Paladins are fine in the series. Especially when you look at how they have changed. Originally, they could not be used indoors like FE5. They have lower stat caps for games like FE12/13 which makes other units more appealing. Only with FE7 would I say they were anything super powerful.

5) What game are you talking about?

6) Enemy stats are just fine as well for your units. I just think there should be a check on how far ahead you can get ahead of the enemy stats if they allowed grinding.

7) They have existed in rare cases in the past. Lloyd and Linus for example. Or you have leadership stars of FE4/FE5 to support other units. Cyus in FE5 is notorious for providing +30 avd/hit to ALL enemies on the map by just his mere presence on the map.

8) I'm done.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Vorena

[Jotari]

7) They have existed in rare cases in the past. Lloyd and Linus for example. Or you have leadership stars of FE4/FE5 to support other units. Cyus in FE5 is notorious for providing +30 avd/hit to ALL enemies on the map by just his mere presence on the map.

Do the morph clones of Lloyd and Linus retain that support? Otherwise it's just a little indicator of how close they are. Even in the rare case where enemies have supports they barely ever have a chance to use them since it's usually 1 poss per level. Radiant Dawn had a few too. Zelgius had a bond support with Sephirain and Levali I think but they stand to far away to use it. The only enemy supports that make a difference are the bosses that support your own units like Sephiran-Sanaki and Dheginsea-Kurthnaga (at least I think the support takes effect. it might not). For enemies to have supports either random units are going to have to have names for random mooks or a lot more dual bosses. Those bandits who keep on appearing with different names probably support each other.

[Nicolas]

@Vorena

Actually, I write this list while thinking about GBA games (especially FE8). I just didn't played older/newer FE yet.

3) I don't follow you here. Lots of characters clearly have weak points in the game either by class or low stats somewhere else.

4,5,6,7,8 what?

This point it's completely about FE8. Both lords are great. You got God of Battlefield Seth, three very good and versatile Cavalier, both lords, Tana, Gerik and all overpower prepromotes like Duessel, Saleh. Also in all three GBA games cavaliers (maybe without Lowen) are goods at everything but res. If we compare cavaliers to the other units, they are just better.

4) Paladins are fine in the series. Especially when you look at how they have changed. Originally, they could not be used indoors like FE5. They have lower stat caps for games like FE12/13 which makes other units more appealing. Only with FE7 would I say they were anything super powerful.

I believe I could beat both FE7 and FE8 without any other unit, but cavaliers/paladins (FE8 without Seth, who could beat this game alone).

5) What game are you talking about?

Awwwww, I want to write: "Enemy General equip with only Lance? WTF?". AI in GBA FE when using General, or Paladin just most time don't have choice which weapon it want to use, and it must send paladin with only sliver lance to attack axe users.

8) I'm done.

Ok, they have healers and elixirs, but it just work fine only in FE6( which I don't end yet).

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

"3) I don't follow you here. Lots of characters clearly have weak points in the game either by class or low stats somewhere else."

Unless you are a Cavalier.

Archer is slow, does joke damage, and is fragile. Myrmiddon has little STR and loldurability, but high speed. Mercenary is Sword Locked and is fairly balanced in every area.

Meanwhile, Cavalier is fairly powerful, durable, have superior movement, have Canto(and broken version of Canto in console games), can wield 2 weapon types with little to no weight issue. In some games, they have relatively superior Res for a Physical unit. Their supposed to be weakness, is desert map, where everyone outside of Mages, and fliers are at disadvantage, Horseslayer, which does not exist, inaccurate, and the Cavalier can eventually WTA its accuracy, and thats it.

Wait, where's the ballance here?

"4) Paladins are fine in the series. Especially when you look at how they have changed. Originally, they could not be used indoors like FE5. They have lower stat caps for games like FE12/13 which makes other units more appealing. Only with FE7 would I say they were anything super powerful."

Even in FE5, the only reason Paladin does not dominates everything is because of Sword Rank, and your Paladin is underlevelled, or oh so very average and bland.

And when we look how they have changed

- Marth, Hardin, Cain, and Abel is by far the best combat character in FE1. Amongst them, Marth is the only one that is not a mounted unit, and he have Provoke and Rapier, and he eventually get gibs on 11 Mov.

- FE3 Rody is amazing, Cain is unpromoted Sirius, and Sirius is one of the Top 5 Combat unit in FE3. And this game have dismounting.

- FE4 is well known for being a game where having horse and not having horse is a a massive difference

- FE5, the only reason Paladin does not uber dominates everything is because of Movement and Sword Rank, and your Paladin is underlevelled, or oh so very average and bland. On the other hand having Horse is STILL a major advantage, and units such as Finn is still amazing because of said Horse

- GBA FE is self explanatory.

Shadow Dragon, im pretty sure the best class to massacre all those Cavalier in FE11 is none other than your own Cavalier and Sheeda. So, derp

That leaves FE12, where caps matters, and FE13, where they have tons of flier bias, and Paladin is STILL one of the best class

So tell me, how exactly is Cavalier/Paladin NOT super powerful throughout the majority of the series?

Edited August 6, 2013 by I have a Dragon Boner

[BrightBow]

Well, there is also Tear Ring Saga. The tier list thread puts all the Cavaliers Rook Knights (Except for Narron. But that is because he has Elite and even promotes into Gold Knight.) into mid tier or lower. Just barely above the archer who literally cannot kill anyone.

Not sure about the lists reasoning but it matches my experience that they aren't that great. Eventually I dropped both of Christmas Knights.

So ignoring the abilities of individual units, they seem actually fairly balanced there. It probably helps that doubling requires an agility advantage of 5 points, making it harder for an all-rounder to trivialize speedier characters.

Edited August 6, 2013 by BrightBow

[Snowy_One]

I find it sad that, it seems, the best path to inter-unit balance is the flat-out removal of paladins.

[BrightBow]

They would just need to be not so speedy that they can double attack just as easily as the speed specialists.

And they simply shouldn't be so durable that the difference to Armored Knights doesn't matter.

And they shouldn't be so strong, that they can obliterate a target in the same number of hits as a Fighter.

[X-Naut]

This talk of Paladins is starting to derail the topic...

However, since we're discussing classes I'd like to bring up something I only half agree with:

3) It MUST allow for flexibility. A team with all mounted units should be just as capable of completing a map as a team without any. Maybe one team will have some edges that the other doesn't, but it should NOT become 'use this unit or you will fail/die'.

I agree you shouldn't be shoehorned into using the developers' pet characters specific units aside from the main Lord, but I don't think you should have full freedom. If a player stacks units with a common weakness (mounted, flying, all magic), they should be punished one way or another. But that doesn't mean the map becomes impossible; it just means it becomes more trouble than it's worth.

In fact, I think the difficulty could be improved by giving the enemy a couple of wildcard units. Units that are not decided from the start, but show up when you begin depending on what your team uses. The player fields a lot of Paladins? Have a few more Horseslayers and Halberds. Too many fliers? Call in a couple more archers. No units with high resistance? Throw in a few more mages. A well-balanced team? ...uh, we'll wing it. This isn't something that would occur the whole game, but in later maps when you're facing the enemy's best generals. And before you say adding another element of uncertainty is bad, this could be addressed by letting the player make a permanent battle save at the start of the chapter, before any units are moved.

[dondon151]

Well, there is also Tear Ring Saga. The tier list thread puts all the Cavaliers Rook Knights (Except for Narron. But that is because he has Elite and even promotes into Gold Knight.) into mid tier or lower. Just barely above the archer who literally cannot kill anyone.

the tier list needs to be updated. sun definitely cracks the upper echelon of units in TRS.

the reason why arkis, kreiss, and estelle are so low is because their bases blow and they don't grow nearly fast enough to compete with narron, raffin, and zeek, who come super early and can pretty much handle everything on their own. there's mahter and sasha to compete with, and the player can also choose to recruit roger and/or mintz. forced dismounting also hurts a lot.

but TRS is just as mount-dominated as any other FE game. it's just a little bit more like FE6 where your starting cavaliers aren't as good.

[shadykid]

aren't Paladins relatively worse off in FE10 (compared to other games)

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

Its not as 2good as RRacia 776 Paladin of course!

[Snowy_One]

This talk of Paladins is starting to derail the topic...

However, since we're discussing classes I'd like to bring up something I only half agree with:

I agree you shouldn't be shoehorned into using the developers' pet characters specific units aside from the main Lord, but I don't think you should have full freedom. If a player stacks units with a common weakness (mounted, flying, all magic), they should be punished one way or another. But that doesn't mean the map becomes impossible; it just means it becomes more trouble than it's worth.

In fact, I think the difficulty could be improved by giving the enemy a couple of wildcard units. Units that are not decided from the start, but show up when you begin depending on what your team uses. The player fields a lot of Paladins? Have a few more Horseslayers and Halberds. Too many fliers? Call in a couple more archers. No units with high resistance? Throw in a few more mages. A well-balanced team? ...uh, we'll wing it. This isn't something that would occur the whole game, but in later maps when you're facing the enemy's best generals. And before you say adding another element of uncertainty is bad, this could be addressed by letting the player make a permanent battle save at the start of the chapter, before any units are moved.

DING!DING!DING! We have a winner! Adaptive play to counter over-stocking on one or two types of units. I fully agree with this notion as it encourages developing a rounded team without forcing it. The only problem is that it would need to be a sizable amount of units as I don't think one or two horse-slayers is going to stop someone from stacking paladins.

aren't Paladins relatively worse off in FE10 (compared to other games)

Yes. But the reason why is due to the worse terrain-typing including ledges and the fact that units are capable of fully capping. Unless 'hitting your caps' is to become the new FE standard this simply won't work in other games. I won't dispute that they were closer to real balance though than before.

[The Void]

Mounts really have been good through the series.

For all mounts, I would suggest giving Archers/Snipers/Hunters a skill that has them do effective damage to all mounts. As well as bringing back mounting and dismounting along with stat changes.

[Snowy_One]

Here is a thought for balance. Reintroduce weapon-weight, but have it so that foot-soldiers will, more-or-less, naturally be strong enough to use the weapons without an AS loss, but mounted units will struggle with it. May not be 'realistic' but it gives them a defined flaw that they'll constantly have to struggle against as opposed to outright dominating unless they outright suck.

[dondon151]

or just make them slower

[X-Naut]

Or make the AS lead required to double vary by class and give mounted units a higher benchmark.

[The Void]

I say how mounted units should be handled is tied to how many mounted units you get, and how many mounted units aren't healers or bow users.

If mounts are more common then yeah, I could support all of their stats being tweaked to deal with their movement.

On the other hand, couldn't mounts be set up to be more rare for the player to get?

[dondon151]

Or make the AS lead required to double vary by class and give mounted units a higher benchmark.

here's my impression of ideas in this thread to nerf mounted units:

person A: how about we implement this convoluted mechanic that specifically targets units with certain traits and introduces unnecessary complexity for the player?

dondon: or we could just do something simpler

Edited August 7, 2013 by dondon151

[Anouleth]

I find it sad that, it seems, the best path to inter-unit balance is the flat-out removal of paladins.

It's not like Fire Emblem has never ever seen bad, or mediocre Paladins before. Between Kein, Alva, Noah, Treck, Forde, Geoffrey, Kieran, Makalov, Astrid, Fiona, Renning, Matthis, Roshea, Vyland, Midia, and Arran, it should be pretty clear that the "solution" to Paladins is just to give them underwhelming combat stats.

[shadykid]

It's not like Fire Emblem has never ever seen bad, or mediocre Paladins before. Between Kein, Alva, Noah, Treck, Forde, Geoffrey, Kieran, Makalov, Astrid, Fiona, Renning, Matthis, Roshea, Vyland, Midia, and Arran, it should be pretty clear that the "solution" to Paladins is just to give them underwhelming combat stats.

surely you mean the FE10 versions only right

(also I thought Renning was a decent enough character to plug in for endgame if you didn't use royals for whatever reason/your whole team got screwed)

[Snowy_One]

It's not like Fire Emblem has never ever seen bad, or mediocre Paladins before. Between Kein, Alva, Noah, Treck, Forde, Geoffrey, Kieran, Makalov, Astrid, Fiona, Renning, Matthis, Roshea, Vyland, Midia, and Arran, it should be pretty clear that the "solution" to Paladins is just to give them underwhelming combat stats.

If that held consistency I'd agree. But paladins seem to come in either 'OMGWTFOP'ed' or 'so horrible not even a casual would use them' flavors.