Jump to content
BlackSymphony

What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

Recommended Posts

Same more or less applies to SwordMasters, in most games. Locked to 1 range but they crit a lot so they can kill often. There's a reason why Rutger is widely considered as one of the best units in FE6, a player phase game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Koops said:

Same more or less applies to SwordMasters, in most games. Locked to 1 range but they crit a lot so they can kill often. There's a reason why Rutger is widely considered as one of the best units in FE6, a player phase game.

It's also because doubling is actually hard in that game, as is hitting accurately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's another big reason, but yeah, you're not wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, 30% crit Swordmasters are better for the game than 15% crit swordmasters:

In the GBA games, there is little reason to use swordlocked units who aren't the lord since they are infantry units and have no 1-2 range option; however, the 30% crit bonus gives you a good reason to train these myrmidons up to swordmasters. It makes units such as Fir, who would be even more useless in fe7 or 8, worth training up. (Especially if you have a lot of cash and buy 19 energy rings) I personally think that berserkers are fine at 15% crit seeing as they have more movement capabilities and do have reliable 1-2 range options.

I feel like I'm alone in the 30% crit club, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Harvey said:

That still doesn't matter in the end when you have the excuse that they can't hit within one range unless you get the mini bow I think? And on top of that, its exclusive to birthright so unless you rely on waifu, you're stuck with one sniper in the whole of conquest. Why would I waste time with that crap when Conquest gives you units that have more advantages than snipers.

Its only from Echoes onwards that make snipers far better due to them being able to hit more than just two range and that they can hit one range as well.

Why do you want to hit from one range? For player phase it's always preferable to hit from two range unless the enemy is another bow wielder with no one range counter attack.

Just now, Benice said:

In my opinion, 30% crit Swordmasters are better for the game than 15% crit swordmasters:

In the GBA games, there is little reason to use swordlocked units who aren't the lord since they are infantry units and have no 1-2 range option; however, the 30% crit bonus gives you a good reason to train these myrmidons up to swordmasters. It makes units such as Fir, who would be even more useless in fe7 or 8, worth training up. (Especially if you have a lot of cash and buy 19 energy rings) I personally think that berserkers are fine at 15% crit seeing as they have more movement capabilities and do have reliable 1-2 range options.

I feel like I'm alone in the 30% crit club, though.

You're not. We had a thread for it. One that's still eligible for new posts

 

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Glaceon Mage said:

The class isn't exclusive to Birthright, the post you were responding to already went over that.    

Being unable to hit at one range doesn't actually matter all that much in Conquest, because 90% of the action in Conquest happens during the player phase (where Snipers shine).  The reason it's important in other games (like say, Path of Radiance or Blazing Blade) is those are enemy phase games, most of the action is about tanking things and killing on the counterattack and having 1-2 range is important to do that.  In Conquest, trying to run an enemy phase team on any difficulty higher than normal (maybe Normal too, but I've never played CQ Normal, just Hard) you will get murdered easily because enemies in Conquest run skills/have weapons that punish that kind of play hard.  Like debuffing Ninjas.

Meanwhile Snipers (as they are in Fates) have things that benefit greatly from the player phase oriented playstyle that Conquest encourages, high hit rate, high might weapons, 2 range, and a boost to crit rate.  It's the exact sort of game where traditional Snipers thrive, because their usual disadvantage of not being able to counterattack murder half the map in a turn isn't really a thing.

This isn't complicated or hard to understand.

 

Uh..yes the class itself is exclusive in birthright. It exists as a Hoshido class exclusive and the fact that Mozu herself can be a sniper because of that alone proves it. The only way to obtain the sniper class is if you use waifu for other members to get the class. That part including the fragility make it less of a reason for others to use snipers. And what do you mean by player phrase anyways? More turns for the player? 

It doesn't matter anyways since you can't get enough snipers, you're forced to literally rely on other classes. And the point here is that again, if snipers weren't improved in Echoes, they'd be either something of their niche or practically worthless.

27 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Why do you want to hit from one range? For player phase it's always preferable to hit from two range unless the enemy is another bow wielder with no one range counter attack.

 

 

Right..and I suppose that excuse can be used for the snipers during the GBA era?

 

Edited by Harvey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Harvey said:

 

Uh..yes the class itself is exclusive in birthright. It exists as a Hoshido class exclusive and the fact that Mozu herself can be a sniper because of that alone proves it. The only way to obtain the sniper class is if you use waifu for other members to get the class. That part including the fragility make it less of a reason for others to use snipers. And what do you mean by player phrase anyways? More turns for the player? 

It doesn't matter anyways since you can't get enough snipers, you're forced to literally rely on other classes. And the point here is that again, if snipers weren't improved in Echoes, they'd be either something of their niche or practically worthless.

 

 

Right..and I suppose that excuse can be used for the snipers during the GBA era?

 

Yes, it is better to attack from 2 range over 1 range in the GBA era too. Have you ever used Shin? He's a pretty damn powerful player phase unit, especially with Hard Mode bonuses. That being a positive doesn't mean snipers aren't held back by a whole host of negatives though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Harvey said:

 

Uh..yes the class itself is exclusive in birthright. It exists as a Hoshido class exclusive and the fact that Mozu herself can be a sniper because of that alone proves it. The only way to obtain the sniper class is if you use waifu for other members to get the class. That part including the fragility make it less of a reason for others to use snipers. And what do you mean by player phrase anyways? More turns for the player? 

It doesn't matter anyways since you can't get enough snipers, you're forced to literally rely on other classes. And the point here is that again, if snipers weren't improved in Echoes, they'd be either something of their niche or practically worthless.

 

 

Right..and I suppose that excuse can be used for the snipers during the GBA era?

 

You can get some (Mozu) without making your Corrin's alt class Archer = it's not exclusive.  Sure you don't get a lot of them, particularly if you're not planning ahead to max out how many snipers you get, but that's different from not being available at all, which is what calling it exclusive implies.

What's meant by Player phase is that most of the combat will happen during the player's turns, because relying on counterattacks to slaughter large amounts of enemies in a single enemy phase will probably just get someone killed in Conquest because enemies come with skills and weapons to discourage that.  

Just because you don't get a lot of Snipers in Conquest does not make it a bad class within Conquest's context.  

Snipers in the GBA games are a different, because they (except to some degree FE6) are largely enemy phase focused games.  You win FE7 and FE8 by having a juggernaut with 1-2 range slaughter a bunch in an enemy phase, Snipers are indeed not so good in those two games because they can't do that.  In FE6 Snipers are better off since the stronger enemies make it more player phase focused than the other two GBA games, and also because it likes to spam Wyvern Riders at you.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Martin said:

I miss the 2D battle animations. There should totally be a spin off or something that brings that back. 

Yes, absolutely. Specifically the GBA animations. Nothing beats those. The closest we ever got to that in 3D was FE9 but yeah, bring back GBA animations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember this being said in another thread, that the flaws of 3H should be less harshly judged than the flaws of Fates due to them being a supposed result of the devs running out of time rather than cynical marketing tactics. While I can't say that I like Fates more than 3H, I don't know why people think 3H's flaws are only a result of insufficient time. For instance, of the 4 different paths presented to us, 3 of them essentially have the same story and almost the exact same maps (even when it doesn't make sense), with certain points left out as a way to get you to play the other routes. Do people honestly think Intelligent Systems, if given more time, would actually make the paths more unique? Or do people think Sothis appearing in literally every trailer, despite completely disappearing halfway through the story, wasn't a way for Intsys to promote a cute mascot character to advertise the game? Even in Heroes, Sothis is basically the face of 3H. She actually reminds me very much of how the Royals in Fates were shoved down our throats despite only half of them having some significant role in the story. If you like 3H more than Fates, that's fine but saying something like that is not fair, in my opinion. Every game should be judged equally for their flaws and 3H shouldn't automatically get the benefit of the doubt here.

Edited by UNLEASH IT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Jotari said:

Yes, it is better to attack from 2 range over 1 range in the GBA era too. Have you ever used Shin? He's a pretty damn powerful player phase unit, especially with Hard Mode bonuses. That being a positive doesn't mean snipers aren't held back by a whole host of negatives though.

The only reason Shin is good is because he has a horse which Wolt and others would wish they had. And Shin and Sue are far more usable due to them being able to 1-2 range attack so what are you getting at here? If shin were to be 2-range only just like other units even with a horse, I somehow doubt anyone would want to use him over better units.

19 hours ago, Glaceon Mage said:

You can get some (Mozu) without making your Corrin's alt class Archer = it's not exclusive.  Sure you don't get a lot of them, particularly if you're not planning ahead to max out how many snipers you get, but that's different from not being available at all, which is what calling it exclusive implies.

What's meant by Player phase is that most of the combat will happen during the player's turns, because relying on counterattacks to slaughter large amounts of enemies in a single enemy phase will probably just get someone killed in Conquest because enemies come with skills and weapons to discourage that.  

Just because you don't get a lot of Snipers in Conquest does not make it a bad class within Conquest's context.  

Snipers in the GBA games are a different, because they (except to some degree FE6) are largely enemy phase focused games.  You win FE7 and FE8 by having a juggernaut with 1-2 range slaughter a bunch in an enemy phase, Snipers are indeed not so good in those two games because they can't do that.  In FE6 Snipers are better off since the stronger enemies make it more player phase focused than the other two GBA games, and also because it likes to spam Wyvern Riders at you.  

By exclusive, I meant exclusive in one game alone. If Mozu weren't in Conquest for whatever reason, you most probably would not be able to get the class. Just because you can get them in the other game doesn't mean that the class isn't exclusive to the specific region its from. 

Not getting enough snipers actually is kinda bad because then it serves as a niche rather than something you would like to try. But even then, they are still nowhere near threatening as Ninjas, Heroes and Swordmasters who have too many advantages over them. 

And no. The reason Snipers are worse in the GBA games is because of low weapon effectiveness and the general weak enemies. And while FE6 has tons of wyvern riders and tempts you to like get a bunch of snipers, do you honestly need them when you consider that you get better units at that point? Not to mention that there are ways to bypass those chapters that have fliers.

At the end though, its only from echoes onwards that snipers are actually more appreciated than before simply because they can hit beyond their usual range which none of the other classes can do.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, UNLEASH IT said:

I remember this being said in another thread, that the flaws of 3H should be less harshly judged than the flaws of Fates due to them being a supposed result of the devs running out of time rather than cynical marketing tactics. While I can't say that I like Fates more than 3H, I don't know why people think 3H's flaws are only a result of insufficient time. For instance, of the 4 different paths presented to us, 3 of them essentially have the same story and almost the exact same maps (even when it doesn't make sense), with certain points left out as a way to get you to play the other routes. Do people honestly think Intelligent Systems, if given more time, would actually make the paths more unique? Or do people think Sothis appearing in literally every trailer, despite completely disappearing halfway through the story, wasn't a way for Intsys to promote a cute mascot character to advertise the game? Even in Heroes, Sothis is basically the face of 3H. She actually reminds me very much of how the Royals in Fates were shoved down our throats despite only half of them having some significant role in the story. If you like 3H more than Fates, that's fine but saying something like that is not fair, in my opinion. Every game should be judged equally for their flaws and 3H shouldn't automatically get the benefit of the doubt here.

That definitely resembles something I once said though aside from time I especially think budget constraints was a factor. 

I think my main point on why I'd judge the flaws of Fates harder than the ones in Three Houses was like this. What doesn't work in Three Houses tends to be flaws, things that don't work like intended or when time and budget ran out. The things that don't work in Fates on the other hand aren't as much flaws but deliberate decisions based on bad priorities. The flaws in Fates are there intentionally while those in Three Houses likely are not. 

The Death Knight is an example I quite like. IS obviously had all sorts of plans for the Death Knight but time and budget apparently ran out and they just couldn't do any of it, causing him to fall completely flat. In contrast there never seemed to have been any grand ambition with Iago. Iago didn't fail to live up to the team's ambition but failed due to the team not having any ambition in that department to begin with. One failed villain is more respectable then the other. 

And a lot of things people dislike in Fates are like that. The pseudo incest and the deeprealm nonsense seem thoroughly cynical which makes their presence harder to swallow. I certainly don't like certain things in the story of Three Houses but I never got any vibes that those flaws exist due to questionable motives or fetishes of the dev team. Three Houses was a pretty huge game, and with its delays as well as Koei being dragged into the studio to help there are signs the production was a little bit problematic. With that in mind it makes a certain amount of sense that at some point they deemed they had enough maps or that they didn't have the time and budget to properly include the Death Knight. Though I wouldn't leave the Three Houses devs completely off the hook. Some things in Three Houses do seem lazy and it would have been far better they had just gone the extra mile in those. Things like (relatively) important rulers having generic class portraits or the re-used maps typically having the same objective and troop placements too. Cutting corners isn't ideal and the team should get some slack for it, but its not exactly the same as the Fates team almost deliberately screwing up in many department for more cynical reasons.  

Edited by Etrurian emperor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of all the Fire Emblems that I've played (6-12), Path of Radiance is the absolute worst in terms of character balance.

Spoiler

Because too much balance is not a good thing. *%$? Thanos.
Because almost every unit can do well in combat, distinction between units in PoR largely boils down to three aspects: Jointime, Mobility (a.k.a. horse y/n) and access to 1-2 range. Being underleveled is a minor obstacle because BEXP is plentiful - nobody cares that Marcia joins like 10 levels behind Ike and Oscar. If you want to use Tormod, the "challenge" is to save up some BEXP and then get him to like lv.15 immediately.

Yes, this is to no small parts because enemy quality is awful on hard difficulty, but the game gives the player so many potential equalizers that there isn't a single unit that is difficult to use. Benching the best units (i.e. early-joiners with a mount) will make the game slower, but never more difficult, because even the most underleveled characters (which are a rarity, anyway) will be at the very least decent at combat the level after they join. If you would transplant Wendy into this game, base level 1 and all, and have her join alongside, like, Devdan, she could be a decent combat unit in chapter 17 without any difficulty. Still an awful unit because she doesn't check the "horse" box, but completely trivial to use.

Now, you might see a little disconnect between this little rant and what I've put below my profile picture :lol: That's because I still greatly enjoy Tellius' story and PoR is still a fun game to relax. But it's absolutely awful if you want to use your brain a little bit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have much to add on the sniper conversation, but I thought FE10 Shinon was a pretty good example of a useful sniper. I mean, a 20 defence base is pretty amazing for his class, it's almost as high as Gatrie's! Sure, his offence might not be amazing since X bows aren't amazing, but his defence is stellar, and if playing casually, he wont let you down tanking the front either. That's just me, though. And of course, the provoke baiting is nice for people who aren't the greatest at strategy, too.

Edited by lightcosmo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, before coming to these forums, I never even knew archers and/or snipers were considered bad. And I never thought of them to be that as well. 

And I still don't consider them to be bad, so I guess that's an unpopular opinion. I always love to have an archer or two on my team when I play a Fire Emblem game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harvey said:

The only reason Shin is good is because he has a horse which Wolt and others would wish they had. And Shin and Sue are far more usable due to them being able to 1-2 range attack so what are you getting at here? If shin were to be 2-range only just like other units even with a horse, I somehow doubt anyone would want to use him over better units.

By exclusive, I meant exclusive in one game alone. If Mozu weren't in Conquest for whatever reason, you most probably would not be able to get the class. Just because you can get them in the other game doesn't mean that the class isn't exclusive to the specific region its from. 

Not getting enough snipers actually is kinda bad because then it serves as a niche rather than something you would like to try. But even then, they are still nowhere near threatening as Ninjas, Heroes and Swordmasters who have too many advantages over them. 

And no. The reason Snipers are worse in the GBA games is because of low weapon effectiveness and the general weak enemies. And while FE6 has tons of wyvern riders and tempts you to like get a bunch of snipers, do you honestly need them when you consider that you get better units at that point? Not to mention that there are ways to bypass those chapters that have fliers.

At the end though, its only from echoes onwards that snipers are actually more appreciated than before simply because they can hit beyond their usual range which none of the other classes can do.

Wolt and Dorothy are bad because their bases are trash, the prepromoted Snipers in FE6 are both good units.  Bows in and of themselves are not a terrible weapon type to use in FE6, because again, the enemies are strong enough to make the game player phase oriented and it spams flyers at you.  Even if Shin was bowlocked the whole game he'd still be a decent enough unit, not as good as he is currently sure, but not awful or even mediocre either.  

You must have a really weird definition of exclusive.  Because the fact you can get it through natural means, even in Conquest, would mean it's not exclusive.  The fact it's technically a Hoshidan class is completely irrelevant for gameplay purposes, so I don't see how that would make it somehow worse for Conquest.  

Let me ask you something: Have you ever actually used a Sniper in Conquest?  Because a Sniper in Conquest is a delete button.  Basically the best thing you could possibly be in Conquest.  Also I find it amusing that you bring up Swordmasters, another Hoshidan class, despite complaining that Snipers are somehow less good due to that.  And, just because other classes are good too doesn't make Sniper a bad class.

"General weak enemies" are precisely what makes FE7 and FE8 enemy phase oriented games, so we are probably on the same page on that front even if you somehow still don't get what's meant by player/enemy phase oriented game.   I really don't know how else I can explain it other than "this is the part of the turn where most action happens in this specific game."  The more Player Phase oriented a game is (Conquest being the best example) the better Snipers are.  The more enemy phase oriented (Like FE7 or FE9) the worse they are.

Even if you have better units, Snipers are still able to contribute pretty easily in FE6.  It's a player phase game mostly (at least on Hard, on Normal it can slip into being an enemy phase game).  

1 hour ago, UNLEASH IT said:

But I think you guys are conflating archers with Bow using units in general. 

At least in my case, I'm distinguishing Snipers for Conquest specifically since Certain Blow is a really useful skill for bosskilling there.  In the other games yeah I'm lumping bows together a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Harvey said:

The only reason Shin is good is because he has a horse which Wolt and others would wish they had. And Shin and Sue are far more usable due to them being able to 1-2 range attack so what are you getting at here? If shin were to be 2-range only just like other units even with a horse, I somehow doubt anyone would want to use him over better units.

By exclusive, I meant exclusive in one game alone. If Mozu weren't in Conquest for whatever reason, you most probably would not be able to get the class. Just because you can get them in the other game doesn't mean that the class isn't exclusive to the specific region its from. 

Not getting enough snipers actually is kinda bad because then it serves as a niche rather than something you would like to try. But even then, they are still nowhere near threatening as Ninjas, Heroes and Swordmasters who have too many advantages over them. 

And no. The reason Snipers are worse in the GBA games is because of low weapon effectiveness and the general weak enemies. And while FE6 has tons of wyvern riders and tempts you to like get a bunch of snipers, do you honestly need them when you consider that you get better units at that point? Not to mention that there are ways to bypass those chapters that have fliers.

At the end though, its only from echoes onwards that snipers are actually more appreciated than before simply because they can hit beyond their usual range which none of the other classes can do.

 

He is two range only for like fifteen levels. What makes him good is that he has really great stats, that's what Wolt is missing. Give Wolt a horse wouldn't solve his issues. Nor would giving him a sword. It'd certainly help, but the reality is that Shin can reliably kill most enemies on player phase while Wolt can't. A horse that gets there and the potential to use a sword on enemy phase are both definitely most welcome, but the hard hitting fast, strong and accurate attacks are what you want on a player phase unit. And yes, even when he gets a sword you're going to wan to attack with a bow on player phase (and then perhaps trade equip a sword onto him) unless there just happens to be an axe enemy that only he can deal with. The reality is that Wolt has to proc every stat on every single level up to match base Shin in everything but Luck and Resistance (which they both equally suck at). And that's not including hard mode bonuses (which make a massive difference).

 

Now my point might be getting a little muddled in the stats and comparisons here so I'll state it clearly. The fact that bows can attack from two range is a net positive for them as a player phase weapon. The sukyness of Snipers is not down to bows being a two range weapon but down to games being more heavily focused on enemy phase and archer units just having relatively crappy stats. Shin, even if he didn't have a horse (which also helps massively of course), is a fantastic player phase unit with bows. Attacking from two range is preferable over one range on player phase because it both gives you more room to maneuver and most enemies can't counter attack it.

3 hours ago, UNLEASH IT said:

But I think you guys are conflating archers with Bow using units in general. 

That would be because Harvey brought up that bows can't attack at one range on a player phase as negative which shifted my focus to bows in general.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ashe02 said:

Well, before coming to these forums, I never even knew archers and/or snipers were considered bad. And I never thought of them to be that as well. 

And I still don't consider them to be bad, so I guess that's an unpopular opinion. I always love to have an archer or two on my team when I play a Fire Emblem game. 

*Gasp* I'm not alone?! I came to the forums thinking that Rebecca was considered good because she can ORKO most things given a few levels...I couldn't have been more wrong.

4 hours ago, Harvey said:

And Shin and Sue are far more usable due to them being able to 1-2 range attack so what are you getting at here?

I personally wouldn't consider the Light Brand a reliable nor good 1-2 range option due to the fixed 10 damage at range and how rare it is. I'm definitely not a pro, though, so maybe I'm mistaken?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Glaceon Mage said:

Wolt and Dorothy are bad because their bases are trash, the prepromoted Snipers in FE6 are both good units.  Bows in and of themselves are not a terrible weapon type to use in FE6, because again, the enemies are strong enough to make the game player phase oriented and it spams flyers at you.  Even if Shin was bowlocked the whole game he'd still be a decent enough unit, not as good as he is currently sure, but not awful or even mediocre either.  

You must have a really weird definition of exclusive.  Because the fact you can get it through natural means, even in Conquest, would mean it's not exclusive.  The fact it's technically a Hoshidan class is completely irrelevant for gameplay purposes, so I don't see how that would make it somehow worse for Conquest.  

Let me ask you something: Have you ever actually used a Sniper in Conquest?  Because a Sniper in Conquest is a delete button.  Basically the best thing you could possibly be in Conquest.  Also I find it amusing that you bring up Swordmasters, another Hoshidan class, despite complaining that Snipers are somehow less good due to that.  And, just because other classes are good too doesn't make Sniper a bad class.

"General weak enemies" are precisely what makes FE7 and FE8 enemy phase oriented games, so we are probably on the same page on that front even if you somehow still don't get what's meant by player/enemy phase oriented game.   I really don't know how else I can explain it other than "this is the part of the turn where most action happens in this specific game."  The more Player Phase oriented a game is (Conquest being the best example) the better Snipers are.  The more enemy phase oriented (Like FE7 or FE9) the worse they are.

Even if you have better units, Snipers are still able to contribute pretty easily in FE6.  It's a player phase game mostly (at least on Hard, on Normal it can slip into being an enemy phase game).  

If you're going to excuse the class due to hard mode advantages, that's not really justifying the use of class at all. If they weren't fun to use on normal, then they won't be fun to use in hard mode either since you're prone to making use of units with hard mode bonuses anyways in which case, only Shin and Klein would be worth using. Argue how worthy Shin would still end up being bowlocked because in the end, players want units whom they can rely on and since managing snipers is infuriating for most people, why stick with them when there are so many variables that you get? 

And no, I've never used a Sniper but like I said, upon looking at the class and managing to beat them thanks to Ninjas and others, its all eh to me. And honestly, when other classes have too many advantages over the sniper class, i'd wonder why pick the sniper even if they can ignore debuffs?

I don't care about your enemy or player phase argument when the enemies are pathetically weak in the GBA games that you really don't have to use your basic units and can straight off use prepromotes or just buff any unit whether in FE7 or 8. My point is that why should I ever bother to train Rebecca who will take a long time to get any better and is locked to 2 range when I can use better units like Raven who not only has great bases but can literally do more damage than her due to using better weapon types? Even Louise can't be on par with Harken at that matter.

And really, that's also the problem that FE6 has as well. They generally suck and Shin's an exception eventhough he's not a sniper because he has a horse and anything with a horse is good on my book. 

Its really from Echoes onwards that Snipers are actually worthwhile classes to consider usiing because they are balanced better. Not this stupid 2 range lock crap.

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

He is two range only for like fifteen levels. What makes him good is that he has really great stats, that's what Wolt is missing. Give Wolt a horse wouldn't solve his issues. Nor would giving him a sword. It'd certainly help, but the reality is that Shin can reliably kill most enemies on player phase while Wolt can't. A horse that gets there and the potential to use a sword on enemy phase are both definitely most welcome, but the hard hitting fast, strong and accurate attacks are what you want on a player phase unit. And yes, even when he gets a sword you're going to wan to attack with a bow on player phase (and then perhaps trade equip a sword onto him) unless there just happens to be an axe enemy that only he can deal with. The reality is that Wolt has to proc every stat on every single level up to match base Shin in everything but Luck and Resistance (which they both equally suck at). And that's not including hard mode bonuses (which make a massive difference).

 

Now my point might be getting a little muddled in the stats and comparisons here so I'll state it clearly. The fact that bows can attack from two range is a net positive for them as a player phase weapon. The sukyness of Snipers is not down to bows being a two range weapon but down to games being more heavily focused on enemy phase and archer units just having relatively crappy stats. Shin, even if he didn't have a horse (which also helps massively of course), is a fantastic player phase unit with bows. Attacking from two range is preferable over one range on player phase because it both gives you more room to maneuver and most enemies can't counter attack it.

 

You're arguement doesn't matter here because Shin is a nomad and not a sniper. And the only reason he can kill reliably isn't because of him being just bowlocked but rather because of all the things you claim he doesn't need truly needs as maps in FE6 are long? But I'm done here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

That definitely resembles something I once said though aside from time I especially think budget constraints was a factor. 

I think my main point on why I'd judge the flaws of Fates harder than the ones in Three Houses was like this. What doesn't work in Three Houses tends to be flaws, things that don't work like intended or when time and budget ran out. The things that don't work in Fates on the other hand aren't as much flaws but deliberate decisions based on bad priorities. The flaws in Fates are there intentionally while those in Three Houses likely are not. 

The Death Knight is an example I quite like. IS obviously had all sorts of plans for the Death Knight but time and budget apparently ran out and they just couldn't do any of it, causing him to fall completely flat. In contrast there never seemed to have been any grand ambition with Iago. Iago didn't fail to live up to the team's ambition but failed due to the team not having any ambition in that department to begin with. One failed villain is more respectable then the other. 

And a lot of things people dislike in Fates are like that. The pseudo incest and the deeprealm nonsense seem thoroughly cynical which makes their presence harder to swallow. I certainly don't like certain things in the story of Three Houses but I never got any vibes that those flaws exist due to questionable motives or fetishes of the dev team. Three Houses was a pretty huge game, and with its delays as well as Koei being dragged into the studio to help there are signs the production was a little bit problematic. With that in mind it makes a certain amount of sense that at some point they deemed they had enough maps or that they didn't have the time and budget to properly include the Death Knight. Though I wouldn't leave the Three Houses devs completely off the hook. Some things in Three Houses do seem lazy and it would have been far better they had just gone the extra mile in those. Things like (relatively) important rulers having generic class portraits or the re-used maps typically having the same objective and troop placements too. Cutting corners isn't ideal and the team should get some slack for it, but its not exactly the same as the Fates team almost deliberately screwing up in many department for more cynical reasons.  

So why can't someone say that Fates flaws in their characters be summed up as the result of them spreading themselves to thin as a result of making each path feel unique in terms of both story and gameplay, something that 3H was not even remotely capable of doing? Even discounting Revelation, there are more unique chapters in BR and CQ combined than there is in all four routes of 3H put together (and this is with CQ and BR also sharing maps). And to make things worse, 3H costs $60, which is the same amount of money you'd pay for BR and CQ combined, so it should have a similar amount of content, instead of artificially bloating itself with reused maps. 

I also can't see how 3H's flaws are as a result of budgetary constraints when IntSys had much money when developing it than they did with either Fates or Awakening due to 1)Both Fates and Awakening selling well and 2) Heroes being extremely profitable, making more money than all the pre-Awakening games combined. 

I completely agree that Fates went way too far with the sexual content in this game, but in my opinion, that is far less of a negative than reusing so much content. And marrying your students is not exactly what I'd call proper, even if they're adults after the timeskip, especially when you consider the pre-timeskip Goddess Tower conversations where the majority of them heavily flirt with you. 

Edited by UNLEASH IT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harvey said:

And no, I've never used a Sniper but like I said, upon looking at the class and managing to beat them thanks to Ninjas and others, its all eh to me. And honestly, when other classes have too many advantages over the sniper class, i'd wonder why pick the sniper even if they can ignore debuffs?

So, you decided that Snipers are worthless - you seem to imply in Fates in this particular section - because you could defeat them with Ninjas and other unnamed classes? Which is ignoring that Ninjas is one of the best, if not the best offensive class. Which is ignoring that, yeah, a Sniper can´t stand on the frontline like Effie or heal like Elise or what have you.

Honestly, I´d really like to know about all your secret classes that hold ALL THE ADVANTAGES over Sniper. Then again, I was also not aware that Snipers ignore debuffs – the only way to not be debuffed by Throwing Weapons is killing the enemy before they can hit you (which means Player-Phase) and Seal Skills don´t apply when the one equipped with them dies as a result of combat, I think?

As for what a Sniper can do for you… have you seen the people complaining about wonky hitrates against Ninjas, wonky hitrates against Kitsune and wonky hitrates against Bosses? Granted these are only examples that come from Conquest. One of the best solutions to these problems, on any difficulty is a reclassed Mozu, because she becomes a strong, fast and real accurate Sniper, EVEN in Attack Stance.

1 hour ago, Harvey said:

Its really from Echoes onwards that Snipers are actually worthwhile classes to consider usiing because they are balanced better. Not this stupid 2 range lock crap.

What you are referring to isn´t Snipers being good, it´s called a Killer Bow, a Combat Art called Hunters Volley and that´s it.

As for TH, it´s Hunters Volley/Point-Blank Volley all over again and the rest of it is called Chip Damage. Feel free to correct me on these two though – I don´t actually know enough about Echoes/TH to have any more than an educated guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time/budget constraints is not a good excuse for Three Houses' shortcomings. It's never a good excuse for any game.

I think Three Houses is better than Fates, but it definitely has a lot of kinks. I think most of that will be ironed out if there's a second Switch game.

Edited by anikom15

Share this post


Link to post
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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...