How should the series become harder?

[The Void]

Just make Archers/Snipers do the most damage of all usable units who don't use magic or bows. Or at least buff their strength,

Really. Look at the Archers/Snipers in Genealogy of the Holy War and the DS Fire Emblems.

Edited August 8, 2013 by The Void

[Jotari]

Why, in a conversation about making things harder, are we talking about increasing benefits for the player? Balancing of archers is a nice topic but it really seems to be the opposite of what this thread started out with.

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

Because having a difficulty because of a poorly balanced unit is pretty stupid >_>

[Snowy_One]

Because this game should not be deriving it's difficulty from becoming unbeatable except with a select team of units. One of the best ways to ensure that happens is to make sure everything is balanced.

I don't want it to *just* become harder. It needs to be harder in the right way and for the right reasons.

[Jotari]

Oh I have no problem continuing with the topic of making archers better. Just seems like we've come to a general mechanics point rather than a difficulty in games. Still made some point on the subject of paladins since making them less over powered would make the game harder but now we're talking about making the under powered units better which is kind of the opposite of making things harder. But once again I have no problem with general balancing discussions. Let us continue!

[The Void]

As I said earlier, I suggest making it so Archers/Hunters/Snipers can do effective damage to all mounted classes.

It could not only help Archers/Hunters/Snipers, but also tone down mounts.

[Nicolas]

As I said earlier, I suggest making it so Archers/Hunters/Snipers can do effective damage to all mounted classes.

It could not only help Archers/Hunters/Snipers, but also tone down mounts.

That's sounds not bad. Only problem is level design, because if we do like that in some levels( for example: Last Hope in FE8), they would be almost unbeatable. In FE8 Last Hope almost halve of enemies has sliver bow.

Balancing classes not only makes your team better, but also makes your opponent harder. And if we talking about balancing, FE8 GKs needs +1 movement.

[The Void]

Well, it's not like being vulnerable to arrows has short changed flying mounts that much.

[Snowy_One]

Seems like the best answer to mounts is to both increase the number of anti-mounted weapons, and include bows in the grouping of 'anti-mounted weapons'. This way mounted units can no longer outright dominate while still allowing them to be functional and varied a bit. This will also mean that mounted units will both hover outside of an enemies range before rushing in and then moving away so as to try and avoid any ranged counter-attacks (Which is GOOD) and give archers a definite role beyond shooting down fliers, well.. now they shoot down anything mounted.

If we also nerf 1-2 ranged weapons a bit then using them to deter bows won't be as hot an idea.

Now, let's talk about actual difficulty. Map design has been mentioned, but HOW should they be altered (in general) to make it more difficult? IMO, here are three possibilities.

1) Traps. Could give thieves a use if they are the only ones who can spot/disarm them. Haven't talked about thieves too much as they seem entirely utility-based in any improvement they could offer that won't just make them a SM with a possibly worse weapon and steal instead of a crit boost.

2) More varied terrain: No brainer here, but I also mean 'let's make terrain offer both positive and negative stuff'. Like, for example, a marsh might boost your dodge by 10, but cut your AS by 5 as well.

3) Multiple paths to victory: This is a big one, but if I'm playing out a castle siege, why not give me three possibilities. I can starve them out which starts a 'defend' type mission where I have to kill all the units spawning from a tile before then can reach the map-edge, but most of the map is outright covered by infinite-ammo ballista making it harder. I can do a straight-up siege which offers most of the same stuff except requiring me to sieze a tile beyond a heavily defended gate and push through a barracks, or I can infiltrate which will result in me needing to do a stealth-type mission.

[CT075]

Because this game should not be deriving it's difficulty from becoming unbeatable except with a select team of units.

and why is that

not specifically "only one specific team works" because that's ridiculous but what, on the whole, is bad about the concept of having a team that performs better than other combinations? it's hardly reasonable that anyone will find a way to make every single combination of units perform equally (for the most part) well, especially in games when the cast can hit like 40 characters

i mean, if i'm deliberately using a team that's completely "sub-optimal", why should it be just as easy as using an optimized team? unless you mean to (as i pointed out, slightly unreasonably) make all team combinations equally viable, which would probably kill the replay value entirely for me (and others as well, i'd expect)

I don't want it to *just* become harder. It needs to be harder in the right way and for the right reasons.

who are you to judge what is the right way and right reasons Edited August 10, 2013 by CT075

[shadykid]

who are you to judge what is the right way and right reasons

this is Snowy you're talking to, don't waste your time

[Snowy_One]

and why is that

not specifically "only one specific team works" because that's ridiculous but what, on the whole, is bad about the concept of having a team that performs better than other combinations? it's hardly reasonable that anyone will find a way to make every single combination of units perform equally (for the most part) well, especially in games when the cast can hit like 40 characters

i mean, if i'm deliberately using a team that's completely "sub-optimal", why should it be just as easy as using an optimized team? unless you mean to (as i pointed out, slightly unreasonably) make all team combinations equally viable, which would probably kill the replay value entirely for me (and others as well, i'd expect)

who are you to judge what is the right way and right reasons

It's not 'having a team that preforms better than another'. I'm sure that, no matter how much effort is put into balancing the game, there will eventually be a team that is distinctly superior to all others. What I'm trying to avoid is a situation where a player is basically forced into using certain units or a certain unit/unit type is so distinctly better as to make their lack of use a self-imposed challenge. If you play with a team of all mages you SHOULD have to deal with their low defense which SHOULD make certain maps harder. However, you should NOT be put into a situation where making a team that doesn't have paladins is sub-par no matter the map or units put on it. Not being forced to use a select team =/= having no downsides to making poorly balanced teams.

[47948201]

EDIT: Whoops, this post is not supposed to exist; please ignore it.

Edited August 10, 2013 by 47948201

[Jotari]

EDIT: Whoops, this post is not supposed to exist; please ignore it.

The dancing avatar makes the post quite hilarious in my opinion,

[Snowy_One]

The dancing avatar is all-around awesome, but I'm a Cirno-lover. What do I know?

Edit: I think I should elaborate a bit more on my point. In FE9, the Paladins were universally OP'ed. The only one who wasn't was Geoffry and that was more a lack of availability than anything else. Of the mounted units only Haar and Elincia were considered 'bad' and that was more due to low AS/availability than anything else. Anyone who made a team which didn't have Titania, Oscar, Keiran, Jill, Marcia, Astrid, Tanith, and possibly Makalov was selling themselves HORRIBLY short as all those characters were good from the get-go (except Astrid, who people would love anyways due to Paragon, and Makalov who is the only one who isn't super-strong from the start). While other units could be used, not using the mounted units, paladins in particular, was a major handicap.

Likewise, in FE8, Seth was a unit so OP'ed that there was an entire tier list for when he wasn't used. Even the LORDS, units who are required to be deployed, have usually solid stats, and could very well end up fighting alone for at least a turn or two, don't have a tier list for when they aren't used. That's how strong Seth was. Now, granted, that is an extra-ordinary case, but this should high-light just how strong some units and unit-types are and how badly the player will be handicapped by not using them.

The series should not become 'Use all the paladins + units X, Y, and Z to keep them going' or anything similar, especially if there is an increase in difficulty.

Here's an idea, difficulty doesn't increase the number or actual strength or units (or at least not by much), but instead increases the number of 'flexible' units that got mentioned earlier.

Edited August 10, 2013 by Snowy_One

[Constable Reggie]

I didn't realize that using paladins in Fe9 was absolutely required in order to beat the game.

This is a single player series. You're seriously overblowing these supposed issues. Sub-par by your definition only exists because I'm assuming you believe turns is the only (or most) effective way to measure unit usability. Fe9 is a terrible example to use since the game is easy enough that most every unit is completely usable. Fe9 paladins can simply finish the game faster in this regard. No one's forcing you to use an all paladin team, because no one but the player itself is mandating that you play the fastest way possible.

This isn't to say that balance is to be completely ignored, but it shouldn't be based on turncounts. It should be based on usability. Fe9 is far, far better in this regard than say, Fe12. Gatrie/Shinon are far, far, far more usable than units like Tomas and Dolph.

Edited August 10, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[shadykid]

I didn't realize that using paladins in Fe9 was absolutely required in order to beat the game.

This is a single player series. You're seriously overblowing these supposed issues. Sub-par by your definition only exists because I'm assuming you believe turns is the only (or most) effective way to measure unit usability. Fe9 is a terrible example to use since the game is easy enough that most units are completely usable. Fe9 paladins can simply finish the game faster in this regard. No one's forcing you to use an all paladin team, because no one is mandating that you play the fastest way possible.

This isn't to say that balance is to be completely ignored, but it shouldn't be based on turncounts. It should be based on usability. Fe9 is far, far better in this regard than say, Fe12. Gatrie/Shinon are far, far, far more usable than units like Tomas and Dolph.

the irony, he loves to complain about tier lists and LTC too!

[The Void]

Earlier, somebody suggested for all player mechanics to apply to enemies.

Well, would you support a FE actually doing that? Like say, enemies using Pair Up.

[Refa]

FE5 was a step in the right direction, enemies used capture, danced, and even bought items from shops.

Why newer FE games are less impressive than a 14 year old game, I'll never understand.

[Espinosa]

Maybe because Shouzou Kaga left?

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

I liked Kaga FE, especially 5, but some games like Elibe FE and DSFE has a tons of good shit in their own rights.

I'd argue that DSFE is the biggest step on the right direction as far as FE goes because of the inability to dodge but thats for another time I guess

How's TRS AI?

Edited August 12, 2013 by I have a Dragon Boner

[Espinosa]

You should tell about the "inability to dodge" to all those Swordmasters facing axe users. There's also the fact that your attacks whiff a lot - Fighter MU in Prologue being the first example of this.

How's TRS AI?

Inconsistent and puzzling. It can be quite clever though - imagine holding a chokepoint with Oswin and the enemies choosing to ignore him because he has too much defence, or enemies ignoring Marcus because he ORKOs them.

[Jotari]

FE5 was a step in the right direction, enemies used capture, danced, and even bought items from shops.

Why newer FE games are less impressive than a 14 year old game, I'll never understand.

I stlil can't get over the fact that Fe5 is only 14 years old.

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

You should tell about the "inability to dodge" to all those Swordmasters facing axe users. There's also the fact that your attacks whiff a lot - Fighter MU in Prologue being the first example of this.

They got nothing against Ryan who miss 95% chance to hit with Steel Bow

Twice!

Edited August 12, 2013 by I have a Dragon Boner

[Anouleth]

You should tell about the "inability to dodge" to all those Swordmasters facing axe users. There's also the fact that your attacks whiff a lot - Fighter MU in Prologue being the first example of this.

Inconsistent and puzzling. It can be quite clever though - imagine holding a chokepoint with Oswin and the enemies choosing to ignore him because he has too much defence, or enemies ignoring Marcus because he ORKOs them.

At the same time, enemies that don't attack your units isn't really going to make the series harder (which is the point of this topic). It would only make the game easier, if more tedious and time-consuming.