Jump to content

Hacker's Hangout [Q22] half baked ideas


ghast
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think it adds to the difference between characters, both individual chars and classes. Not only it's cool to have someone with both tomes and swords or axes and staves, it has a huge impact in the use of magic swords/weapons (the GBA system always felt dumb to me)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 209
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What are your thoughts on it?

Positives:

1. Thematically appropriate.

2. Allows transition of unit (e.g. relatively high base STR, but no/little STR growth, but lots of MAG growth), would allow for interesting opprotunities with a Oifay archetype in particular

3. Creates options-- for example, allows you to do things like magic weapons that are best on only specific weapon users (e.g. Trickster from Awakening)

Negatives:

1. Does not add much to gameplay. It makes certain units do certain things better and worse at other certain things, and it allows units to have subniches within their ideal performance area.

2. Not easy to accomodate, because it increases the number of random elements (stat growths). By having more randomness, it is more possible for a player to be screwed out of "intended" plans by a creator; which may or may not (depending on how well it's constructed) feel incredibly aggravating.

???:

1. Adding it for sake of adding it is an easy trap to fall into.

How would you balance units around it if you used it?

The same way you balance everything else.

Blood, sweat, and tears-- and by that I mean playtesting and making sure things feel correctly difficult.

Just interating through it until it feels right, or not caring too much about balance.

Yay, or nay?

I'm all for it...

If it's used well.

Personally, I removed it from my project when I realized that all of the units in my sketch-up that cared were the Lords and Jeigan-likes.

Basically everybody else fit normal classes to a T anyway.

It has potential, and lots of it. I just think that I can't execute it well enough to warrant the hassle, and I do not feel that lacking it is bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I'd love to use the str/mag split. I've never liked giving one of my guys a runesword, which is a magic sword, and their damage being based off of their strength. It makes no sense. Also, I like hybrid classes. And, it'll help out with my prospective FE8 hack titled "Fires of War," which can be found in the Concepts section (totally not a shameless plug or plead for help).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I need the Str/Mag split if my Thracia 776 remake will be truly faithful. Giving Leif a Light Brand just sounds plain wrong, and giving Eyvel a Wind Sword does her no favors, considering there are no flying enemies pre-Manster. (Also not a shameless plug.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like the mechanic is just too execution based for me to really get behind it.

So far the split really hasn't added anything. I end up just using whichever school the unit is better at and don't care about the other one.

Plus, the split is usually reserved for promoted units, with the tier one version being restricted to either physical or magical. So, the tier one units are geared towards their one school, and when they promote the other school flat out doesn't matter to them.

Until I see an implementation that actually makes it worth while, the split just doesn't matter to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like the mechanic is just too execution based for me to really get behind it.

So far the split really hasn't added anything. I end up just using whichever school the unit is better at and don't care about the other one.

Plus, the split is usually reserved for promoted units, with the tier one version being restricted to either physical or magical. So, the tier one units are geared towards their one school, and when they promote the other school flat out doesn't matter to them.

Until I see an implementation that actually makes it worth while, the split just doesn't matter to me.

I think that (and this is just one example) it gives you a better idea of who to give magic-based weapons to (like a Light Brand), and if you take the time, you can have some truly powerful combos (I know that in my hack, I intend to have a boss who uses a Silver Sword and a Bolting, but that ain't until later). It just gives you more options for boss and character design, especially how to make bosses challenging without just giving them bull stats. I also intend to make magic/physical hybrid classes tie into the plot of my hack, especially when dealing with issues like depression, insanity, the consequences of war, and manipulation of the world around you.

Edited by Vaporox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like the mechanic is just too execution based for me to really get behind it.

So far the split really hasn't added anything. I end up just using whichever school the unit is better at and don't care about the other one.

Plus, the split is usually reserved for promoted units, with the tier one version being restricted to either physical or magical. So, the tier one units are geared towards their one school, and when they promote the other school flat out doesn't matter to them.

Until I see an implementation that actually makes it worth while, the split just doesn't matter to me.

I kind of agree with this but I want to add a little more. I never really liked the idea of having two separate attack and defense stats in games. Either attacking or defending, you are just going to focus on which stats has the biggest difference when compared to the enemy's corresponding stat. Got a super muscle person high attack and low other attack against an enemy with similar defense and other defense, going to stick with attack. Got some kind of battle mage with neutral attack and other attack against mega armor bot 2000 with high defense and low other defense. I'm going to use other attack. It does add some diversity to the combat having units that specialize either in a certain stat to wreck everything that doesn't match you on the defense side or a balance to pick off any character with a focused stat. However, sometimes this encourages people to pick mixed because mixed either going to do neutral damage or fairly well and focusing a stat is either amazing success or failure.

Some games do make the differences more noticeable. For example, in Pokémon, physical attack do have a lot of potential damage then special and there are a lot more ways to increase physical but there are a lot of ways to raise defense, a lot of high physical defense Pokémon, and a hand full of on contact effects to punish the use of physical attacks. Special attacks, on the other hand, have less to increase or decrease its power, Pokémon don't have as high stats in the special attack or defense and have little to no punishment for using them. So here, they, at least, have more going on. I can get insane output by focusing physical but do I want to take all the risks that come with it or I could play it safe and go special.

That’s cool and all but, with fire emblem, you know what enemies you are about to fight most of the time. You are going to pick a bunch of units that specifically counter the enemies you are about to fight, a few units that may cover any surprises, and maybe some units you are trying to level grind. I really noticed this in awakening were there was only one main magic weapon. Any high resistance unit always felt like something I just kept around for surprise mages. Half the time, I felt like I could just throw a knight/general anywhere and not worry. Plus, most tome wielding units die fairly easily. Also, the Levin sword and other weapons that used magic instead of strength were very meh. Either you gave them to someone with high magic or neutral magic or you didn’t use it. They only really worked well with the classes could use them and staffs. Occasionally and I mean occasionally, I would use it to fill an item slot because the enemies have low resistance and are mainly using one weapon type my weapon counters but I could just as easily throw a mage or class that is specialized in that weapon type and still get great output.

Conclusion, it could have been great. Maybe, this is better in fates. (I don’t know and I don’t want to know until after I get and beat the game.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that, right now, the split has the capability for minor usage in projects. The "best" uses for it that I can see mainly focus on giving options to mid-and-later game bosses to deal with what the player attacks with, but then, that's solely dependent on classes unless you stuff Barons all over the place as the bosses to ensure solid, equal defensive stats. Alternatively, from a player unit perspective, if you're not using ranged swords (something common like the Wind Edge, not Light Brand), Magic can give a 1-range Sword-locked unit some form of range control like Lance and Axe users, while also making them slightly different by targetting a different statistic. This could possibly also apply for Bow users too as an alternative to giving them Swords/Lances/Axes as a way to have 1-range combat. (And this isn't even factoring in utility with Staves like Trickster...)

I mean, it could also have situational uses, too, depending on enemy deployment (a very big if) - let's say you have a grouping of Knights and Myrmidons on a map, and you only have a few units remaining to move. You don't want to send a Mage to fight the Knights because it'll get cherry picked and torn up by the Myrmidons. You also don't want to send, say, a Lance Knight, because the Knights will inevitably deal more damage to the Lance Knight than it does to them, despite being more effective against the Myrmidons (with WTA and their lower Power). If you've got a horse-mounted unit that can use Lances and Anima magic, though, the "lesser nature" of the "best of both worlds" scenario can end up being a positive.

Of course, as Prime said, if this type of enemy setup isn't widespread across the whole game, then it's still more useful to use pure physical attackers and pure Mages.

Honestly, for Strength and Magic to coexist meaningfully, I think FE would need an overhaul of some of its core mechanics that 1) likely aren't very feasible for hacks to do, and 2) are something that IS would likely never do as it might go against established conventions in the series.

Edited by Lord Glenn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all overlooked thar magic can be used for something more than attacking. In PoR and RD it's used for that renewal-like skill, while in Awakening it's used for the GrandMaster skill.

While this can be difficoult to pull off in hacks, it's a possibility for the main games and non-hack projects, and it's worth considering at least as concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I has another thought of was the items that permanently raise a stat. If the split wasn't there, you would either get less of these items or you could be able to pour them all into one unit. I'm not sure if all the fire emblem games have limits but it is just a thought.

I think that, right now, the split has the capability for minor usage in projects. The "best" uses for it that I can see mainly focus on giving options to mid-and-later game bosses to deal with what the player attacks with, but then, that's solely dependent on classes unless you stuff Barons all over the place as the bosses to ensure solid, equal defensive stats. Alternatively, from a player unit perspective, if you're not using ranged swords (something common like the Wind Edge, not Light Brand), Magic can give a 1-range Sword-locked unit some form of range control like Lance and Axe users, while also making them slightly different by targetting a different statistic. This could possibly also apply for Bow users too as an alternative to giving them Swords/Lances/Axes as a way to have 1-range combat. (And this isn't even factoring in utility with Staves like Trickster...)

I mean, it could also have situational uses, too, depending on enemy deployment (a very big if) - let's say you have a grouping of Knights and Myrmidons on a map, and you only have a few units remaining to move. You don't want to send a Mage to fight the Knights because it'll get cherry picked and torn up by the Myrmidons. You also don't want to send, say, a Lance Knight, because the Knights will inevitably deal more damage to the Lance Knight than it does to them, despite being more effective against the Myrmidons (with WTA and their lower Power). If you've got a horse-mounted unit that can use Lances and Anima magic, though, the "lesser nature" of the "best of both worlds" scenario can end up being a positive.

Of course, as Prime said, if this type of enemy setup isn't widespread across the whole game, then it's still more useful to use pure physical attackers and pure Mages.

Honestly, for Strength and Magic to coexist meaningfully, I think FE would need an overhaul of some of its core mechanics that 1) likely aren't very feasible for hacks to do, and 2) are something that IS would likely never do as it might go against established conventions in the series.

I, surprisingly, forgot the plus one in range for swords. They always for so limited so I never really used them. Yeah it can be used but their is a lot of planning to make it viable. I, probably, could have also said that most other games have a mana/energy/whatever gauge that limits the use of skills or something that mainly rely on other attack. So the main attack is weaker or not very useful in skills but other attack really boosts the damage output.

We all overlooked thar magic can be used for something more than attacking. In PoR and RD it's used for that renewal-like skill, while in Awakening it's used for the GrandMaster skill.
While this can be difficoult to pull off in hacks, it's a possibility for the main games and non-hack projects, and it's worth considering at least as concept.

Before, I comment on this. Both Por and RD are on my list of games I want to play in the future but, in awaken, the only GrandMaster skill that relied on magic was Ignis but that skill was limited not only to your avatar and avatar's kid but is locked to skill chance. It's a nice skill but not enough to make the entire split viable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course not, a single skill isn't enough, but having some skills rely on magic and having strenght affect AS gives the split more reason to be.

The better implementation for the split is still alongside reclassing and generations, but even without them it can work, as long as it has some meaning other than X kind of weapon does more damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course not, a single skill isn't enough, but having some skills rely on magic and having strenght affect AS gives the split more reason to be.

The better implementation for the split is still alongside reclassing and generations, but even without them it can work, as long as it has some meaning other than X kind of weapon does more damage.

I would actually be interested in seeing more skills in future fire emblem games to mix up the combat rather then how it sometimes is just blunt I hit you, you hit me, I hit you, you die. At the same time, I don't see how it would work in without changing the game. Like, I wouldn't want a fire blast spell that lets you damage an area without some limit or draw back or you could just spam that to kill an enemy without them being able to get a counter attack in so you would never use a regular attack again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The split can be helpful if it can be implemented. I personally came up with a Shura/Oni Chieftain boss for my own fangame who had been given skills to make up for his lower Mag stat, making it equally beneficial to use both Axes & Mag. Also, I see it doing no legitimate harm once added. The difficulty is simply adding it. But once it's done, there's no harm in it.

I also like Sword/Stave Valks as well as other classes adept at both magical and physical weapons use. But then, that's just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Are 1 on 1 fights even possible to make good?

From a purely narrative perspective, of course its good. You and your rival duking it out for supremecy, like in TLP. Or for revenge, like Decay of the Fangs. Or for survival, in like Conquest...

But are these even good fights? Is Fire Emblem a good medium to have 1 on 1 fights?

It seems to me that the most strategy you can pull off is having the enemy unit just be way stockier than you and force you to run away and heal then come back. Or in the case of conquest, have Ryoma just scale to whatever level you're at and deal piss damage to each other.

I feel like one on one fights falls in the same category as stealth in FE as in its really difficult to pull off well and the mechanics of FE itself just don't lend well to those kinds of maps.

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked how FE9 did the fight against the Black Knight. Ike faces down (arguably) his greatest foe. But, if Mist is present, she has to avoid/take on some reinforcements who ignore Ike completely. FE10 has Ike and BK separated from the rest of the group, so there's two battles going on: the typical large scale FE battle, and another personal battle.

Elibean Nights does this as well in the first part of Raven's tale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

make 1 on 1 fights not lame by disallowing effective weapons IKE

the FE9 one was pretty good story-wise but gameplay-wise I really hate how it required skill usage AND stats to beat him (aether or resolve/wrath)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked how FE9 did the fight against the Black Knight. Ike faces down (arguably) his greatest foe. But, if Mist is present, she has to avoid/take on some reinforcements who ignore Ike completely. FE10 has Ike and BK separated from the rest of the group, so there's two battles going on: the typical large scale FE battle, and another personal battle.

Elibean Nights does this as well in the first part of Raven's tale.

The FE9 example also showcases issues with the concept, as I found out in my recent first PoR playthrough.

One: it's overly luck based - even if Ike has near perfect stats, there's a good chance the BK will get him twice with Luna and end things there and then. You're also reliant on Astra activating to actually have a chance of winning. And if, like me, you wander into this fight with a less than perfect Ike (as I did with him at 20/20 with about 5 points missing from his strength stat), then you might as well kiss a certain Laguz goodbye. I think I had to repeat this battle fifteen or so times before I finally got a win. Ashnard wasn't that tough!

Two: Mist too can be ignored by the enemy if she's tough enough. The problem lies in two of those reinforcements, who come with Psychic staves. If Ike is doing well enough to shove the BK into low health on their turn, they'll quite happily negate all his progress. This wouldn't be a problem if you weren't on a 6 turn time limit, but seeing as they're only around for turns 4-6, there's no time to undo the setback they cause - and Mist can't get rid of both of them in time!

Three: There's no strategy involved. You only get one weapon, on one character that you can use. There's nothing you can do to change things up, outside of choosing when/if you want to use an Elixir. And using an Elixir is not easy to do, when every attack matters... which leaves you even more at the mercy of the BK's rather high hit rate.

Four: The duel comes at the end of an already quite long chapter. Failure here means a long slog back through the level, and even with animations off it gets tedious. And with the aforementioned issues, you could quite possibly be doing it several times over.

So in order to make 1 on 1 fights acceptable from a gameplay sense, my opinions are thus:

>Either make it fair, or make it relatively easy to restart. FE9s duel was neither of those things. True, you didn't need to get a win to continue the story, but few FE players are going to settle for running away. I don't necessarily think the duel needed to be made especially easier, but there were just too many complications piling up that can (and did in my case) ruin any possible enjoyment the story might be providing. I was so burnt out when I finally won that I couldn't even feel happy that I had!

>Give sufficient warning the thing is coming up, or make it possible to change up your equipment before the battle (this doesn't apply to scenarios where everything is fixed before starting, such as with Elibian Nights Raven vs. that assassin). This is one area I recall Last Promise causing problems. The chapter with Kelik facing down Leon didn't have a battle preparations screen, so if Kelik was without sufficient weaponry/healing items/an iron rune when going into the chapter, he was effectively done for. And while it was clear those two were going to come to blows, there was no indication that you'd need to fiddle with your equipment before beating the emperor in the mission before. No backup saves/save states from the last chapter? Well, sucks to be you!

>Give a nice variety of strategic options; creative use of terrain in the arena, or allowing some choice with character setup. No "this is the only weapon you're allowed to use" garbage!

>If you're going to allow healing staves from outside, don't have the battle on a time limit! Better yet, don't allow assistance full stop! No psychic/fortify staves, no siege tomes, no (effective) ballistae, nothing! Although I can see that last point being interesting from a story point of view: Hero is at a disadvantage because he's being pelted with ballistae fire, until his allies arrive and charge the ballistae positions and he can finally fight back properly. Naturally, his allies can't use the ballistae themselves...

But ultimately, there's only so much you can do. Perhaps someone could adapt that Shameless Reused Assets trick with the amplifier constructs?

Edited by Wayward Winds
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ballistas, siege tomes and fortify staves seem like a very good way to add strategic planning even to a 1 on 1 fight: having some enemies drop a tome and/or a fortify or otherwise making those things aviable in the chapter or in the one before would be really positive IMO.

As for the fight itself: the opponent should change his/her strategy, putting the player in the need of adapting to it. The playable character should either have different options at his/her disposal in equipment (maybe a great knight, or a str/mag class) or he/she has to be the lord, with access to the convoy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're doing some kind of big boss fight, don't make it where you're 1v1ing the boss with your protagonist like in FE9 or 10, while your allies are fighting some shmucks until you do the deed. Design 1v1 fights in such a way where outside influence truly has a huge influence on the fight, make enough room for supports possibly, boltings and ballistas and whatever from enemies, same for your guys. Allow healing to be a factor, if you want a really epic 1v1 boss, it should be a highly adaptable, not one where you can ever get an advantage, give the boss elixirs or a life stealing weapon or a twist like that, that really makes you plan ahead instead of "planning ahead" by giving Ike a hammer. Also, talking about what the guy above me said, idk, maybe make it so that you can't access the convoy mid boss fight, it kinda just ruins the preparation in factor in my opinion, but that's just me. Anyways, I don't truly find an appeal in a 1v1, unless it's really a plot-heavy one that involves like Lord and archenemy or whatever. That's only where I see it fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make it scripted Kappa.

In all seriousness, maybe a good way to make it good is to make it so it takes 1 round for both units to kill each other? And have the map have specific terrain you have to manipulate to get the jump on the enemy? Like you're far apart, and going on a certain tile creates tiles near your enemy to block off their path, or change the tiles around your enemy to damaging tiles, or maybe poison tiles activate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fire Traps in GBA.

They are usually not well implemented and easily avoidable. They proved at best as a minor obstacle.

How should they be used? What are some creative ways to design a map around fire traps, or poison traps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm favorite? Probably the original Trueblade animation that Shadow of Chaos posted on his youtube channel but has now deleted, though mostly out of nostalgia.

Kill me, please.

I'm reading through this thread for the nostalgia of spending time in the GBA hacking community... and then I cringed. Hard.

Edited by shadowofchaos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't think traps are worth to use, they're just annoying in most cases. If it makes sense thematically or if they're used as a sort of timer, like saving the unit who's being poisoned/burnt then I think they work nicely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...