Online multiplayer pls.

[euklyd]

it's entirely possible that there will be balance changes from fe13
like say, not having rescue be buyable

it wouldn't fix the pair-up / dual strike issue, tho, and even then if we assume it's basically fe13 then it's still got plenty of potential to be completely degenerate

(can you imagine? Fire Emblem: For Glory mode)

that being said tbh I'd still rather have an unbalanced multiplayer than nothing, because at the very least my friends and I could play with a set of gentleman's rules that would make things less stupid
it's more feasible than getting them all to play like, FETO or something

/wishful thinking

Edited January 24, 2015 by Euklyd

[Sentacotus]

I can just see it now:

First thing that everyone does: Use Pair Up on own units.

*Go to attack opponent* - Dual Guard

*Opponent goes to attack* - Dual Guard

Fire Emblem multiplayer is something I'm not sure could be implemented very well at least not without cost to the main game. Especially now with pair-up, galeforce, and DLC skills which are now integral parts to the gameplay (at least its looking that way in IF). I don't think many people have ever really thought of FE as a multiplayer game, the mechanics and design don't really support it. Think about it the whole core mechanic of just about every FE game is to carefully plan your strategy, level units up (sometimes deciding which to ration EXP to), and permadeath. So unless you want to wait long amounts of time for your player opponet to figure out what he's going to do on the map and use broken OP units that he/she has groomed then its probably not something you'd want to play.

Now if they had some sort of limited multiplayer like the arena in FE7 (the thing where you had five units go up against five other units no map just head to head) than it might give something. But even then you're probably taking out pair up and other mecahincs like support bonuses. I'll be honest I wish there was a way to play FE online because I'd love to play it with you all but maybe I'm not smart enough to figure out a way to do this (and apparently IS is still figuring it out).

I think the streetpass is pretty awesome though I love using it and seeing other people's avatars, unit choices, and shops. Quite honestly its the best streetpass title in the 3DS library IMO. What if they could somehow extend this online? Maybe not the battles part but things like the option to buy a friend's avatar and use their shops. That I could see working.

Edited January 25, 2015 by TacoMan42

[TheMoniker]

As ShadowofChaos said, I wouldn't be TOO hopeful for awesome multiplayer, but there's always a chance...

If it is added in pvp form, I can see it being HORRIFICALLY imbalanced, for an entirely different set of reasons than FE11 multiplayer. Pair-up, crazy skills, and the general style of FE gameplay(luck-based) would make strategy nigh-impossible. If they do do a good multiplayer mode, I hope it's co-op, because I can actually see that working.

Of course, I really don't want it to be double duel again, since that was basically a stat/luck check with rewards.

[saifors]

It would have to be limited (galeforce banned), the pair-up inclusion could work if they've balanced it more in this game instead of in awakening where that would have been a problem.

[powerserg]

This WILL NOT be fun.

This is why they chose streetpass. And Dual Tag/Double Duel for direct multiplayer. It was a CONSCIOUS design choice.

that's a little strong. NOT in all caps, I would have had tons of fun doing it with friends, I didn't expect it to be a competitive game. I don't mind if they duel guarded me. Street Pass was designed pretty poorly with perma death still being on and all. Also I don't really find duel guard that bad, I mean whatever if I don't get damage in it's still fun. They could have always turned off duel guard or whatever for online.

[Kirie]

I think I'll go hang out in the boat that says "no, thank you."

FE multiplayer hasn't been particularly good, and I believe that if they were going to make it good, it would take too much time and effort from the main game. So, either we'll end up with a shitty, tacked-on multiplayer, or a better multiplayer with a worse main game because of it.

[The Geek]

Yeah, I dunno. While I never got the opportunity to play Shadow Dragon's multiplayer (since I never knew anyone else who owned the game) I heard plenty of stories of how people were always encountering hacked teams with perfect stat units and Sages using Umhullu (unobtainable in the game). And since 3DS encryption has finally been cracked...

[euklyd]

I had pretty good experiences with the Java-based FE Multiplayer that was around like a year ago...

ofc that didn't have broken-ass shit, and as far as I played, suffered from the all-too-common problem of "I like my position; you make the first move "

Edited January 27, 2015 by Euklyd

[Roflolxp54]

I dunno. To be honest, Fire Emblem games don't really seem to be sort of games that would do well when it comes to multiplayer.

Also of note is that if this game were to be like Awakening (pairings, inheritances, etc.) and has multiplayer, a Smogon-esque metagame would form that can stifle creativity simply because many players would go ahead and just optimize the **** out of their units not unlike how some people set up their Streetpass teams in Awakening. It would not be a big surprise to see players with near-identical teams all go "PICK A GOD AND PRAY!" and hope that the RNG helps them out.

[shadowofchaos]

that's a little strong. NOT in all caps, I would have had tons of fun doing it with friends.

I think I have a little weight behind my words when it comes to streetpass or multiplayer with Awakening... since I create content when being creative and spending HOURS just for one little specific stat distribution streetpassing myself in Awakening. While "fun" is subjective, I can safely say people like you or me having fun with multiplayer in this system will be the exception rather than the rule.

When it comes to just saying "I want multiplayer. It'll be fun!" with a broken structure being the backbone of the entire thing, it's rather... well... I can't even find the words.

So, can you explain what exactly will be fun about it? I can pinpoint exactly why it won't be fun.

From my perspective, when you actually put in a player vs. player, you have to think about leveling the playing field or having options to.

With this system in place, if you want to destroy any semblance of fun for your opponent no matter how prepared they are, they can do nothing about it. That's the important part. How would you feel if your opponent just wants to be an ass and you don't even get to move?

Because that's exactly how the system is. It's inherently broken. And it CAN be fixed, but not without screwing with the main game.

Edited February 1, 2015 by shadowofchaos

[powerserg]

Multiplayer doesn't need to be competitive. If it's just against friends then it becomes house rules, if dual guard messes up a fight then house rule don't pair up. We recently got to know Codename's steam multiplayer and that sounds awesome, we have a lot of potential to make FE's multiplayer fun. It could be locking things off if you wanted it to be competitive, it's not like Pokemon doesn't lock Pokemon away for competitive battles. People are willing to have something be over powered in the main game and nerfed for multiplayer.

[shadowofchaos]

Any extra would be fine. I'm not saying it shouldn't have multiplayer. However, you have to admit that the design decisions were there for a reason in Awakening with them going for Dual Tag/Double Duel or Streetpass.

People just want multiplayer so badly sometimes that they complain/hope for a feature that is in no way a priority. And saying just remove pair up isn't a fully thought out solution for an alternative to the dual system.

Transition from main game to that will be klunky, considering that (just as an example) even I at one point tried to pair up in older FE games. Eliminating a few activation skills such Lethality for double duel for balance like removing items in pokemon is one thing... Killing a lot of skills and forcing the player to adapt to a completely different style of play is another.

What I'm saying is don't expect PvP. Be glad if it's there, but don't expect it.

People didn't believe me last time when I said Awakening didn't have PvP on the Japanese release. They were theorizing a multiplayer patch or something. Frankly the thirst for mediocre multiplayer is starting to be ridiculous.

Edited February 4, 2015 by shadowofchaos

[The Geek]

I just can't wrap my head around how multiplayer FE would even work, unless they made it like LoL where you start with a base level team and then use random bandits and/or monsters to level up before going after each other.

[Sentacotus]

They could try to make a true Co-op type thing with harder more numerous enemies. It could even be done in waves with each wave progressively getting harder. Add in goals like defend, survive, route and you have multiple modes. Kinda like a zombie mode but for Fire Emblem. You could still pair up use dlc skills etc.

[Radiant head]

Yeah PvP would be such a hilarious disaster. FE has kind of embraced the whole broken game mechanics thing in a way that it only makes sense as single player. Co-op could work; you could have two different playable lords with their own recruits. Or you draft recruits, not sure.

[Knight]

I would love some multiplayer, yes please.

[Sentacotus]

Yeah and they could even make it so that you can gain random rewards for each level you clear and the hard it gets the more rewards you get but risk losing them all kinda like in master/crazy orders of Smash 4. Of course turn permadeath off since it would be a seperate mode of the game entirely and you could just use your streetpass team.

[lonelyVoxel]

I feel like this is too good to be true. However, if FE14 is developed with about the same time used as Awakening, there could be a lot more features, as they already have a game engine for the same system to build off of. Shadow Dragon MP was underwhelming to me just because of the lack of units allowed. However, if you can have your entire army with some generics clashing against an opponent's, that would be super awesome. However, a lot of FE's balance is based off of the fact that you have a smaller army against one 2-3 times the size of yours. Not sure how this would be balanced when you have one for one going on. Plus, the first team to attack, in an even fight, would most certainly have the advantage. Each unit lost is an action lost from the other team. Ergo, both mathematically and sensibly, it works out to the first to team to gang up another team's squad is the team that will have a decisive advantage. Gimmicks and handicaps based on how many units you have losed are likely the solution, but those too have the ability to spiral into OP things that break the balance as well.

TL;DR, would be a cool feature, but tough to balance and make fun.

[The Geek]

I think if they wanted to try to make multiplayer for FE, they would have to have the whole game built entirely around it.

[powerserg]

I'm just hoping their is some kind of way to play with other players. The way things were handled in awakening felt like a tease to me oh features that would have been cool but they didn't have the time or chose not to implement. Their is a ton of fun ways they could do co-op or vs without having to redesign the game. If the game comes out and has no multiplayer not an issue but almost every western released Fire Emblem game had some form of multiplayer regardless of how small. I'm just hoping since they don't need to develop an engine they can spend time fleshing out another mode for players to enjoy together. A co-op story mode, a generic vs mode using unit types instead of characters, full on broken PVP, I want to be able to share Fire Emblem with another player when I'm done with the story .

[lonelyVoxel]

I think if they wanted to try to make multiplayer for FE, they would have to have the whole game built entirely around it.

To an extent, I think. PvP armies of similar or exact same sizes are harder to make balance with than a player army half to a third the enemy army's size, without taking reinforcements into account.

[The Magus]

I'd like to see either an asymmetric PvP multiplayer (say, one player is allowed to spend points to build a large army of generics, maybe with a few of their in-game units as commanders, and the other player uses a streetpass team or something like that to battle them (preferably with different objectives avaliable, and maybe even a map maker) or an outright co-op campaign. Yes, I know that either is pretty infeasible; this is just wishful thinking.

Edited February 8, 2015 by The Magus

[lonelyVoxel]

I'd like to see either an asymmetric PvP multiplayer (say, one player is allowed to spend points to build a large army of generics, maybe with a few of their in-game units as commanders, and the other player uses a streetpass team or something like that to battle them (preferably with different objectives avaliable, and maybe even a map maker) or an outright co-op campaign. Yes, I know that either is pretty infeasible; this is just wishful thinking.

Asymmetric PvP could work like that. As long as the mooks aren't incapable and the smaller army can't get too Op, that would be fun.

[shadowofchaos]

/Their is a ton of fun ways they could do co-op or vs without having to redesign the game. If the game comes out and has no multiplayer not an issue but almost every western released Fire Emblem game had some form of multiplayer regardless of how small.

Awakening DID have live multiplayer.

It's called Dual Tag/Double Duel.

I want to be able to share Fire Emblem with another player when I'm done with the story .

You know, there's nothing wrong with wanting multiplayer. But with the way you're voicing it, you have your own set of standards that you won't be happy with.

Look at 3:00.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjaBsuXWJJ8

Double Duel is multiplayer. It fulfills the need of "multiplayer".

Edited February 8, 2015 by shadowofchaos

[weso12]

Awakening DID have live multiplayer.

It's called Dual Tag/Double Duel.

You know, there's nothing wrong with wanting multiplayer. But with the way you're voicing it, you have your own set of standards that you won't be happy with.

Look at 3:00.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjaBsuXWJJ8

Double Duel is multiplayer. It fulfills the need of "multiplayer".

Think the reason people wanted awakening to have a competitive multiplayer mode is because a lot of the game systems (infite level grinding, limit selection reclassing, character spefic caps, skills attached to class, and espically inheritance) seem tailor made for build optimization, but considering that overall you never to have optimal units, (even Apothesis secret route doesn't require to much opitmizaton), it makes all that build optimization seem pointless, a competitive multiplayer mode with a metagame would have been the only real way to let all that optimization actually matter.

Side Note: I want someone to make a Java/Flash multiplier mode of Awakening (kind of like pokemon showdown) (I know it would be unbalanced but considering the mechanics I doubt it would be TOO centralized, and first turn advantage isn't a huge issue assuming the players start far enough away from each so that the first player can't reach the other player on the first turn, (which to be fair pretty freaking big consider the rescue staff)