Jump to content

Possible revamp for weapon rank sysem


TheSS
 Share

Recommended Posts

Something I've wanted for a while is weapon ranks that are tied to class rather than character progression. That way your character isn't forced down one weapon choice. When you have a cavalier who you have using swords mostly, and you want them to use a lance (which cavs are supposed to be able too), right now you have to start off from bronze again. It's very counterintuitive. It also makes it so that when you get a new weapon upon promoting, you can actually use it without grinding up from E.

An example of how it might look with the cav/knight line.

  • Cavalier: D for swords, D for lance
  • Knight: C for lance
  • Paladin: B for Sword, B for Lance
  • Great Knight: C for Sword, C for lance, C for Axe
  • General: A for Lance, C for Axe

Or something like that. The specifics aren't my main concern, it's more about the core idea of this. Do you think this would be a good idea?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this depends on how the class system works. One advantage of the current system is your rank in a certain weapon type isn't lost when you reclass. If a unit earns an A in swords as a Cav, they retain that A rank in swords forever.

If class upgrades are linear and permanent, then a system like you suggest would work great as it would add another tangible layer to the "power-up" the upgrade. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Altrosa said:

I think this depends on how the class system works. One advantage of the current system is your rank in a certain weapon type isn't lost when you reclass. If a unit earns an A in swords as a Cav, they retain that A rank in swords forever.

If class upgrades are linear and permanent, then a system like you suggest would work great as it would add another tangible layer to the "power-up" the upgrade. 

While I agree that is a small comfort of the current system, I don't think this is incompatible with reclassing. Let's say:

  • John is a Swordsmaster, with A in swords and no other ranks. He has equipped a brave sword (ranked A).
  • John reclasses to Paladin, which has a B in swords andB in lances.
  • The Brave Sword unequips and is unusable until another reclass. However, he can now use lances B and below, and he can still use any sword ranked B and lower.

Sure, it might be a tad annoying, but it's not like it breaks anything. If anything, it helps give the classes more personality and gives the designers another way to balance the game.

Edited by TheSS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That reminds me of the weapon rank system in Genealogy of the Holy War, where weapon rank increased on promotion rather than through weapon use. Furthermore, it seems like units don't necessarily get stuck with the lowest weapon rank when gaining access to a new weapon type. For example, Seliph gains a B rank in lances upon promotion, bypassing the lowest rank of lances (C is the lowest rank for a weapon in FE4).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TheSS said:

While I agree that is a small comfort of the current system, I don't think this is incompatible with reclassing. Let's say:

  • John is a Swordsmaster, with A in swords and no other ranks. He has equipped a brave sword (ranked A).
  • John reclasses to Paladin, which has a B in swords andB in lances.
  • The Brave Sword unequips and is unusable until another reclass. However, he can now use lances B and below, and he can still use any sword ranked B and lower.

Sure, it might be a tad annoying, but it's not like it breaks anything. If anything, it helps give the classes more personality and gives the designers another way to balance the game.

You clearly haven't heard the phrase "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". The current system is perfectly fine as it is, so I don't see why it needs a revamp.

Edited by NinjaMonkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, NinjaMonkey said:

You clearly haven't heard the phrase "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". The current system is perfectly fine as it is, so I don't see why it needs a revamp.

No, I HAVE heard the phrase. And if there was nothing wrong, I would agree that the system is perfectly fine how it is.

But... it isn't perfectly fine. I pointed out issues with it in my original post. When your ability to use a weapon type is directly proportional to the amount of time you spend using it, you are naturally tunneled down a path of using exclusively a single weapon type per unit. This goes against the purpose of having units that can use multiple weapon types. It hampers the utility they were designed to have and makes it so that the player has fewer interesting choices to make. Similarly, when a unit gets a new weapon type upon promotion, that new weapon type is pretty much worthless. These are problems, and my solution fixes them. As someone pointed out, it's not a perfect system. But I do think it's a better system than the one we have in place right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 26/11/2017 at 9:35 PM, TheSS said:

Something I've wanted for a while is weapon ranks that are tied to class rather than character progression. That way your character isn't forced down one weapon choice. When you have a cavalier who you have using swords mostly, and you want them to use a lance (which cavs are supposed to be able too), right now you have to start off from bronze again. It's very counterintuitive. It also makes it so that when you get a new weapon upon promoting, you can actually use it without grinding up from E.

 

Yeah, I hate boring grinding. It's worthless for me to use secondary E rank weapons outside of the first chapters.

That's why I like the exclusive seal for second generation characters in Fates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If grinding is the actual issue, then simply lowering the amount of times needed to rank up in a weapon would absolve much of that. Or make the item that makes you automatically rank up in all weapon types more numerous.

I think the trade-off with the system you suggest is that it may cause the same kind of tunnel vision, except with players feeling encouraged to go for the classes that have A or S-ranks in certain weapons and nothing else. 

As per your example, if swordmaster John is using the best swords in the game, but I need a spear user, I would instead look at my other units to see if one of them could be reclassed for powerful spears instead of gimping a great unit like John.

Compare to current system, John's A-rank in swords that he's earned would carry over though his reclass, so I could still reliably fall back on the Brave Sword while he's training in spears if he's reclassed to Cav/Paladin/Great Knight.

So, one system has weapon grinding, but the level and gear accessibility earned is never lost. The other cuts weapon grinding altogether by tying weapon accessibility to the class, but can make reclasses to non-promotes feel even more punishing.

Edited by Altrosa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

29 minutes ago, Altrosa said:

If grinding is the actual issue, then simply lowering the amount of times needed to rank up in a weapon would absolve much of that. Or make the item that makes you automatically rank up in all weapon types more numerous.

Making me do an unfun, pace-breaking thing less than you would've otherwise is still making me do an unfun, pace-breaking thing. And the main issue isn't that it's a time-consuming leveling system, the main issue is that I have to do something suboptimal. Let's say I worked my cav up to an A in swords, but they still have an E in lances. I could make them use bronze lances, but then all the work I did towards their sword rank feels worthless, because I'm not using the swords. It's a system that makes you choose between two options: either you are always having characters use the weapons they are the worst at, or they never get good at more than one weapon. Both options feel like crap. It's a poorly designed, unfun system.

33 minutes ago, Altrosa said:

I think the trade-off with the system you suggest is that it may cause the same kind of tunnel vision, except with players feeling encouraged to go for the classes that have A or S-ranks in certain weapons and nothing else. 

I suppose then it would be necessary to make to balance classes accordingly, either giving classes with lower ranks other bonuses or higher stats, or by changing the weapon system so that A rank weapons aren't objectively superior to B rank weapons. This way having an A rank means you can use more swords that are stronger in certain situations, but most characters can still use the bread and butter weapon choices.

36 minutes ago, Altrosa said:

As per your example, if swordmaster John is using the best swords in the game, but I need a spear user, I would instead look at my other units to see if one of them could be reclassed for powerful spears instead of gimping a great unit like John.

Compare to current system, John's A-rank in swords that he's earned would carry over though his reclass, so I could still reliably fall back on the Brave Sword while he's training in spears if he's reclassed to Cav/Paladin/Great Knight.

So, one system has weapon grinding, but the level and gear accessibility earned is never lost. The other cuts weapon grinding altogether by tying weapon accessibility to the class, but can make reclasses to non-promotes feel even more punishing.

So the main problem with my system is that it discourages late-game reclassing in very specific circumstances?  I mean, sure, what you say could happen, but it's not like this never the case in the current system.

Let's say I want to reclass Jessie, a cavalier, into warrior. He loses his all of his weapon ranks in swords and lances because warriors only use bows and axes. The main difference is that in my system, he doesn't start with obsolete, nigh-unusable weapon choices due to having an E in both weapons. I also don't get the feeling that I wasted the time I spent getting Jessie's sword and lance ranks up to A because it wasn't actually a function of time I spent grinding specific weapons.

When you take those two points into account, my system probably encourages reclassing your units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Just no. I just fail to see any good in this system. It reeks a lot like regressing to Genealogy's (awful) weapon rank system.

1 hour ago, Morian said:

Yeah, I hate boring grinding. It's worthless for me to use secondary E rank weapons outside of the first chapters.

That's why I like the exclusive seal for second generation characters in Fates.

I never really saw the Offspring Seal as worth it, in no small part because it doesn't do enough to alleviate weapon rank grinding for how much wait it is (needing to delay recruitment until like 6 chapters before the end of the game before the child gets to D rank? No way Jose. Not when I can do it myself in less time).

Edited by Levant Mir Celestia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the current system. I know weapon ranks become an issue when you promote and earn more weapon types. But I think the best solution is just to have those second weapon types be D ranks instead of E. Good enough to throw javelins and hand axes, but not for the specialty weapons like Horseslayers or weapons that use your magic stat to attack. You have to earn those. Or use an arms scroll. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Glennstavos said:

I like the current system. I know weapon ranks become an issue when you promote and earn more weapon types. But I think the best solution is just to have those second weapon types be D ranks instead of E. Good enough to throw javelins and hand axes, but not for the specialty weapons like Horseslayers or weapons that use your magic stat to attack. You have to earn those. Or use an arms scroll. 

What I fail to see is the advantages of the current system. Why should you have to 'earn' the ability to use horse slaying weapons when you're halfway through the game and promote one of your units? Because it's a horseslaying lance this time? It seems like a pretty arbitrary distinction from a game design perspective, and I don't see how it improves player experience. Sure, it's intuitive, but it's far from the optimal design choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheSS said:

What I fail to see is the advantages of the current system. Why should you have to 'earn' the ability to use horse slaying weapons when you're halfway through the game and promote one of your units? Because it's a horseslaying lance this time? It seems like a pretty arbitrary distinction from a game design perspective, and I don't see how it improves player experience. Sure, it's intuitive, but it's far from the optimal design choice.

Weapon ranks are one of few avenues of unit customization. If you want high level secondary weapons, you gotta grind with dinky iron weapons of that type. And if you don't want to do the grind, there's nothing in the game stopping you from sticking with your primary weapon.

You want to take out weapons ranks because they're sub-optimal, but I ran a discussion thread and poll over what system people think is best back in April. Overwhelmingly, people preferred weapon ranks leveling up through use. That thread also reminds me of how weapon rank doesn't just dictate what weapons you can wield, but also bonuses to combat outside of your stats. Pretty cool depth, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Levant Mir Celestia said:

I never really saw the Offspring Seal as worth it, in no small part because it doesn't do enough to alleviate weapon rank grinding for how much wait it is (needing to delay recruitment until like 6 chapters before the end of the game before the child gets to D rank? No way Jose. Not when I can do it myself in less time).

The seal in itself isn't worth too much. But the EXP it saves me is. The average manually trained 20/10 Kana recruited ASAP should be identical to an Offspring Sealed 20/10 Kana statistically. However, if I don't need Kana early on and instead hold off until later in the game, say the point when they reach 20/10 just for the sake of easy numbers, then I just saved myself 2000 EXP- which is massive. I can invest that EXP into someone else and still use Kana as decent lategame filler, which you might want because later chapters generally add a couple extra unit slots, so having capable characters that can fill them is a nice thing.

If you're insisting I recruit all the kids ASAP, you're almonds. Because now I am without nifty late game prepromotes and have a lot more contenders for the same limited pool of EXP (on CQ at least, and on Rev, grinding bites into your very limited 60k in funds). It isn't like Offspring Seals cost me in gold or anything. Shiro/Ignatius/Forrest? Well I can do them early, I'm willing to make a few exceptions, just not everyone. Or I'll just pass on Shiro and Ignatius completely- since neither has a chapter with any real notable goodies.

 

On weapon ranks, having C minimums on Swordmaster and Snipers was a little too good in SD it has been said. In FE7/8, weapon ranks level so easily with the critical and fatal hit bonuses plus variable WEXP gain, that gaining ranks is too easy. Starting with E ranks in new weapon types on promotion Awakening is okay for Axes, Tomes, and Lances, but ugh for the rest (Disciple can help though), and it's even more ugh (or maybe slightly less with forges admittedly) in Fates. In FE4, paladins, magic users, and your Thief are all impaired by fixed weapon ranks. In FE6, low weapon ranks and slow growth keep most from ever touching a Divine Weapon, and Silver for a long time.

So what is best?

I'd say growable weapon ranks, with fixed caps per class works fine. D and not E should be the minimum though, unless gone is Bronze, because that is the issue here.

I wouldn't mind a few units who have modified weapon rank caps though, or skills that make them better with a particular weapon type. Take RD Tanith for instance. At base from her ranks and starting equipment, she seems to favor the sword, but is forced into SS Lance by her class. Making her naturally have a -1 Lance weapon rank cap and a + Sword weapon rank cap would be nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Glennstavos said:

Weapon ranks are one of few avenues of unit customization. If you want high level secondary weapons, you gotta grind with dinky iron weapons of that type. And if you don't want to do the grind, there's nothing in the game stopping you from sticking with your primary weapon.

You want to take out weapons ranks because they're sub-optimal, but I ran a discussion thread and poll over what system people think is best back in April. Overwhelmingly, people preferred weapon ranks leveling up through use. That thread also reminds me of how weapon rank doesn't just dictate what weapons you can wield, but also bonuses to combat outside of your stats. Pretty cool depth, eh?

Here's the actual poll, for reference

5a1e5c943bcbe_ScreenShot2017-11-29at2_06_49AM.thumb.png.b932b3844ce634fc238efb604f507932.png

Your use of this data is flagrantly fallacious for two reasons. First, as your very poll indicates, the two less popular options are almost exclusively from games most of the western fanbase is not familiar with at all, and therefore can't be assumed to understand. And considering how infamous the fire emblem community is for desperately clinging to their comfort zones, I'm not sure how another result could've been expected. To extrapolate on this data and assume it means that the vast majority of people who've played with all 3 systems prefer the currently established version is jumping the gun at best. And to extrapolate that this is the optimal way of designing weapon rank, which your language seems to imply you believe, is absolutely ludicrous.

Second, you're trying to prove the current system is better than my proposed system by comparing it to two completely different systems that I'm not even proposing. Yes, I agree, when compared to a system where weapon rank is determined by a randomly upgrading stat, the current system is better. And I can see a strong argument for the current system being better than one with no ranking system whatsoever. However, neither of those are my argument. This poll does literally nothing to even compare my proposed system and the current system. It's completely irrelevant to the debate at hand.

To address your first paragraph, yes, everything you said was true. You successfully described the current system. But you did nothing to defend it. I agree that you have choices, but both of those decisions are unsatisfying to make. You choose between feeling cheated out of a weapon type that the game told you you can use, or you can grind. And grinding involves opting to not use the fun weapons you have unlocked the right to use and instead using crappy, obsolete weapons you don't want to use. Both are decisions the player has to make, and both of these decisions feel bad to make. They make the experience less fun when you're forced to make them. While I agree the system isn't outright terrible in every way, it's undeniably flawed, and I consider those flaws to be one of the problems of the series that dampers my fun the most often.

 

 

Edited by TheSS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, TheSS said:

Your use of this data is flagrantly fallacious for two reasons. First, as your very poll indicates, the two less popular options are almost exclusively from games most of the western fanbase is not familiar with at all, and therefore can't be assumed to understand.

 

Can't be expected to...? One system is that your weapon rank levels up like a stat. The other system is that your rank is dependent upon your current class, only upgrading upon promotion. These are one sentence explanations that serve as options to the poll they are answering. I think the average poll taker could be expected to follow along, regardless of having played those games.

And you did propose FE2, 4, and 15's system. It's right there in the first sentence:

On 11/26/2017 at 8:35 PM, TheSS said:

Something I've wanted for a while is weapon ranks that are tied to class rather than character progression.

And the question you posed to us was:

On 11/26/2017 at 8:35 PM, TheSS said:

The specifics aren't my main concern, it's more about the core idea of this. Do you think this would be a good idea?

So I said

8 hours ago, Glennstavos said:

I like the current system.

You then asked me to elaborate, and I said the current system lets you further customize a unit beyond choosing their class. You say "the choice is unsatisfying to make". And all I can say to that is I disagree. I'd rather have something there than nothing at all, even if it means extra grinding to play how I want. It's my choice.

Our opinions are not arguments nor fallacies. They're just opinions. I also pointed out weapon ranks confer additional bonuses that serve as rewards on top of the access to specialty weapons. Asking again: Cool huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess my whole stance is the grinding for weapon rank is so easy and naturally done in tandem to other grindable activities that I've not had a situation where I was halted because of low powered weaponry. 

I mean if the system of weapon rank being tied to class was implemented, we'd all adjust. It's just that some of us don't see the advantages of that system as being clearly superior to the current of separating weapon and class progression. But it's definitely more convenient to just be class based!

I do wonder if the game would need tuning in the late game if it has to expect part of the army to be using weaker weapons. 

 

 

 

Personally, if I were to design a weapon system, I'd build off of Echoes's method. Trash weapon ranks altogether and give everyone an equipment slot and seperate item inventory for foods and salves. Equipment would act in a similar vein as skills, but be tied to the item. These would include magic elemental attributes, more speed, higher potency, mount slaying, and quirky stuff like a chance of dropping gold. 

Equipment items would range from actual weapons to rings or other accessories. If you don't have anything equipped in the slot, the attack is just the default weapon of the class. Some equips are consumables.

Same is applied to healers, who still run off the HP draining system, but can now carry food to self medicate. 

The big trade-off is weapon based equipment would not affect all available attacks for jobs that weild multible types, risking the same shoehorn issue, but accessories would affect everything. It'd likely make a meta of "perfect" builds verses experimentation. (Clearly, giving your Great Knight the ring that's def/res+ is better than giving him that brave axe, verses, my Great Knight is my most reliable axe user so I'm gonna give him the beefiest axe, etc.)

Edited by Altrosa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having set weapon ranks would be a downer for me. It was one of the things i hated about FE4 but at least in that game, it was somewhat justified by having Classes for each weapon. What i mean by that is, instead of having Cavaliers, you had Sword Cavaliers, Lance Cavaliers, and Axe Cavaliers. Tellius did this too but the weapon rank system was the one we use today so Tellius having those types of classes felt really redundant and unnecessary.

So yeah, i'd rather keep using the weapon rank system we have now. It's more satisfying to see a unit grow by using a certain weapon type as opposed to just having it be set. If your issue is that it takes too long (and admittedly it does take a while, but we have certain Skills that help with that), then the simple solution is to just speed up the process.

Having it like Gaiden/SoV where a Class can use whatever weapons it's allowed to use would be cool, except Gaiden/SoV are really different from any other games in the series.

Edited by Armagon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, TheSS said:

What I fail to see is the advantages of the current system. Why should you have to 'earn' the ability to use horse slaying weapons when you're halfway through the game and promote one of your units? Because it's a horseslaying lance this time? It seems like a pretty arbitrary distinction from a game design perspective, and I don't see how it improves player experience. Sure, it's intuitive, but it's far from the optimal design choice.

At the same time, your idea is liable to encourage the same kind of tunnel vision you're whining about - and I see no advantages to this. It doesn't help that the one game that tried something similar had a god-effing-awful inventory system. Nor does it that the balance was god-effing-awful (I shouldn't be able to effortlessly hack through anything just because I happen to get a Silver weapon early on).

11 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

The seal in itself isn't worth too much. But the EXP it saves me is. The average manually trained 20/10 Kana recruited ASAP should be identical to an Offspring Sealed 20/10 Kana statistically. However, if I don't need Kana early on and instead hold off until later in the game, say the point when they reach 20/10 just for the sake of easy numbers, then I just saved myself 2000 EXP- which is massive. I can invest that EXP into someone else and still use Kana as decent lategame filler, which you might want because later chapters generally add a couple extra unit slots, so having capable characters that can fill them is a nice thing.

If you're insisting I recruit all the kids ASAP, you're almonds. Because now I am without nifty late game prepromotes and have a lot more contenders for the same limited pool of EXP (on CQ at least, and on Rev, grinding bites into your very limited 60k in funds). It isn't like Offspring Seals cost me in gold or anything. Shiro/Ignatius/Forrest? Well I can do them early, I'm willing to make a few exceptions, just not everyone. Or I'll just pass on Shiro and Ignatius completely- since neither has a chapter with any real notable goodies.

Well, the thing is, I personally think some of the parent units in Fates are just lackluster and I want to replace them ASAP (I'm looking at YOU, Kaze, Niles, and Silas!!). And frankly, I don't really think what exp the Offspring Seal saves me is worth having to work harder, as well as having to walk on eggshells because everything's running Silver or in a boosted crit class (in other words, hard work hardly works). This hurts because if I have to work harder, the output damn well better be worth the input... and sadly, I deem this to not be the case. It doesn't help that I want to put the kids to use for more than like 6 chapters, especially if I want to reclass them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Glennstavos said:

Can't be expected to...? One system is that your weapon rank levels up like a stat. The other system is that your rank is dependent upon your current class, only upgrading upon promotion. These are one sentence explanations that serve as options to the poll they are answering. I think the average poll taker could be expected to follow along, regardless of having played those games.

And you did propose FE2, 4, and 15's system. It's right there in the first sentence:

 

You can't ask someone whose only seen Fight Club whether they like Fight Club more than The Godfather. Yes, I understand that it's not a perfect comparison because these other systems can at least be grasped intellectually, but that's very different from playing them and experiencing them.

And my suggested system is VERY different from Gaiden's. In Gaiden there were no weapon ranks whatsoever. In mine there are still weapon ranks. It's just that the weapon rank increases based on your class. There is still a progression system, there are still limiting factors, and there are still interesting choices to make based on those factors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Levant Mir Celestia said:

At the same time, your idea is liable to encourage the same kind of tunnel vision you're whining about - and I see no advantages to this. 

My complaint was that it forced you to either waste time doing something you don't want to do, or you get cheated out of every alternative weapon choice that classes are supposed to provide you and everyone becomes a 1-weapon unit. Those are your choices in this system. Me, being someone who likes having fun, goes for the second option. Now, all of my units have only one weapon they can use regardless of class, and I choose new classes only based on their stats and skills, not what weapons they can use. This is making for a more linear experience with fewer strategic choices where my choice of class doesn't matter very much. 

How in the world does my system encourage any of these problems? 

As for advantages:

  • Getting a class that can use a new weapon feels satisfying
  • Having units exist on a sliding scale of having many weapons at low ranks to having one weapon at max rank adds strategic depth both when deciding what classes to promote units into and when deciding how to move your units around the map
  • Makes reclassing a more attractive option because you don't need to start from scratch if none of your weapons carry over
  • People who don't enjoy worrying about optimizing their weapon ranks don't need to have that spector looming over them when they choose to ignore the problem and focus on more immediate issues, like beating the map their on.
2 hours ago, Levant Mir Celestia said:

It doesn't help that the one game that tried something similar had a god-effing-awful inventory system. Nor does it that the balance was god-effing-awful (I shouldn't be able to effortlessly hack through anything just because I happen to get a Silver weapon early on).

  • A game has a system similar to mine but different in significant ways
  • A tangentially related part of the game that can be improved without changing aforementioned system was done terribly
  • A second tangentially related part of the game that can be improved without changing aforementioned system was done terribly

How is this a point against me

Edited by TheSS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheSS said:

My complaint was that it forced you to either waste time doing something you don't want to do, or you get cheated out of every alternative weapon choice that classes are supposed to provide you and everyone becomes a 1-weapon unit. Those are your choices in this system. Me, being someone who likes having fun, goes for the second option. Now, all of my units have only one weapon they can use regardless of class, and I choose new classes only based on their stats and skills, not what weapons they can use. This is making for a more linear experience with fewer strategic choices where my choice of class doesn't matter very much. 

How in the world does my system encourage any of these problems? 

As for advantages:

  • Getting a class that can use a new weapon feels satisfying
  • Having units exist on a sliding scale of having many weapons at low ranks to having one weapon at max rank adds strategic depth both when deciding what classes to promote units into and when deciding how to move your units around the map
  • Makes reclassing a more attractive option because you don't need to start from scratch if none of your weapons carry over
  • People who don't enjoy worrying about optimizing their weapon ranks don't need to have that spector looming over them when they choose to ignore the problem and focus on more immediate issues, like beating the map their on.

Which I largely find to be little more than a minor nitpick outside of a select few titles (those being FE6 and Thracia). Otherwise, I never really found raising weapon rank to be nearly as bad as you are whining about. 

As for these so-called "advantages"...

-Isn't that always true?

-It also gives birth to balance problems when certain units are shafted from using the good weapons, while the ones who get them might not even need them (See: FE4, where the only units that can use the Silver Sword you get in the prologue are either Sigurd, one of the best units in the first generation, or Ayra, who's also one of the better units in the first generation).

-I don't really see the point of this when reclassing is largely limited by the limited amount of seals that you get for most of the game, and Arms Scrolls exist.

-Are there any people like this?

1 hour ago, TheSS said:
  • A game has a system similar to mine but different in significant ways
  • A tangentially related part of the game that can be improved without changing aforementioned system was done terribly
  • A second tangentially related part of the game that can be improved without changing aforementioned system was done terribly

How is this a point against me

Because I don't find that encouraging in the least, that's why.

Edited by Levant Mir Celestia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Levant Mir Celestia said:

Which I largely find to be little more than a minor nitpick outside of a select few titles (those being FE6 and Thracia). Otherwise, I never really found raising weapon rank to be nearly as bad as you are whining about. 

As for these so-called "advantages"...

-Isn't that always true?

-It also gives birth to balance problems when certain units are shafted from using the good weapons, while the ones who get them might not even need them (See: FE4, where the only units that can use the Silver Sword you get in the prologue are either Sigurd, one of the best units in the first generation, or Ayra, who's also one of the better units in the first generation).

-I don't really see the point of this when reclassing is largely limited by the limited amount of seals that you get for most of the game, and Arms Scrolls exist.

-Are there any people like this?

Because I don't find that encouraging in the least, that's why.

-I meant it is more satisfying because they can actually use the new weapon. How many people do you think promote chrom and think "Great, now I can use lances" in the current system? I know I don't, because I don't want to use a freaking bronze lance. 

-You know who else got a silver weapon no one else could use in the prologue? Frederick in FE13. It wasn't a problem because he was the Jeigan, and he was supposed to be stronger than anyone else early. Other lance users couldn't use it yet because they didn't have a B rank in lances yet. My system would function exactly the same because unpromoted sword users early in the game can't use high ranking weapons. My system, in regard to the anecdote you've provided, has much more in common with the current system than it does FE4's, which to my understanding let any sword user use a silver sword. 

-My point is that under the current system I am heavily disincentivized from reclassing any of my units into classes that do not share a weapon with them. This effectively removes certain options from me if I don't want to hamper my experience with grinding. This means that any physical unit who can reclass into a mage might as well not have that as an option for many players. A limited number of seals doesn't do anything to change that. The arm scrolls, I'll admit, does do something to curb this problem, but it only makes it less bad as opposed to removing the problem altogether. After an arms seal, I no longer need to use a bronze lance as opposed to the brave sword I had worked so hard to let my cavalier use. Instead I get to use an iron lance. Hooray? It doesn't change the fact that using an A rank weapon with a unit that already has an A rank feels wasteful. The ability to use an A rank weapon should be a reward, but instead it makes me feel like I'm not using my time properly because I have an E rank in another weapon that I could be raising. Arm scrolls don't fix that issue, it just makes the blow less painful when you cave and move down to the weaker weapon. 

-Yes. I do. It's a constant nagging problem for me. And while I get that not everyone consciously takes issue with it, I can't see how no one would have their experience improved if we could find a solution that fixes the issues with it.

Edited by TheSS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TheSS said:

-I meant it is more satisfying because they can actually use the new weapon. How many people do you think promote chrom and think "Great, now I can use lances" in the current system? I know I don't, because I don't want to use a freaking bronze lance. 

-You know who else got a silver weapon no one else could use in the prologue? Frederick in FE13. It wasn't a problem because he was the Jeigan, and he was supposed to be stronger than anyone else early. Other lance users couldn't use it yet because they didn't have a B rank in lances yet. My system would function exactly the same because unpromoted sword users early in the game can't use high ranking weapons. My system, in regard to the anecdote you've provided, has much more in common with the current system than it does FE4's, which to my understanding let any sword user use a silver sword. 

-My point is that under the current system I am heavily disincentivized from reclassing any of my units into classes that do not share a weapon with them. This effectively removes certain options from me if I don't want to hamper my experience with grinding. This means that any physical unit who can reclass into a mage might as well not have that as an option for many players. A limited number of seals doesn't do anything to change that. The arm scrolls, I'll admit, does do something to curb this problem, but it only makes it less bad as opposed to removing the problem altogether. After an arms seal, I no longer need to use a bronze lance as opposed to the brave sword I had worked so hard to let my cavalier use. Instead I get to use an iron lance. Hooray? It doesn't change the fact that using an A rank weapon with a unit that already has an A rank feels wasteful. The ability to use an A rank weapon should be a reward, but instead it makes me feel like I'm not using my time properly because I have an E rank in another weapon that I could be raising. Arm scrolls don't fix that issue, it just makes the blow less painful when you cave and move down to the weaker weapon. 

-Yes. I do. It's a constant nagging problem for me. And while I get that not everyone consciously takes issue with it, I can't see how no one would have their experience improved if we could find a solution that fixes the issues with it.

-Except it's also bad from a balance perspective - suppose that I promote my Mercenary into a Hero and he gets B Axes. That Fighter I was using for my axe needs is now obsolete. And it also makes no sense, either - look at chapter 9 in PoR, where, when Rolf tries to say he's good with a bow, Boyd calls him out on it immediately, with this quote (emphasis on the bold):

Boyd:
“Stop lying, you booger-eating brat! You can’t just pick up a weapon and start firing away! Someone has to teach you the basics!

The bolded quote, incidentally, shows why it's unrealistic.

-Except we're talking about a Jeigan here - Jeigans eventually get overtaken in terms of combat ability. Sigurd, on the other hand, doesn't really fall off. Also, you're wrong about FE4 letting any sword user use a silver sword.

-Just how many physical units could actually work as mages??? The only ones that come to mind are Saizo from the most recent non-remake FE (and he doesn't have a magic reclass option to start with), as well as Owain (a child unit, who happens to have a healer for a mother) and Noire (another child unit; her mother is a mage). Anyway, about the only time I feel that it would be wasteful to use the other weapon is in the case of hybrid classes (very few units tend to have the stats to attack from both the physical and magical spectrum). What's more, Fates had penalties applied to high-rank weapons, which meant that you couldn't spam them willy-nilly.

-So what I'm supposed to take away from this is that you're trying to appease a minority that you yourself happen to be among, is that it? Because to me (and I'm sure most everyone else who sees this topic would think the same), you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

Edited by Levant Mir Celestia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Levant Mir Celestia said:

-Except it's also bad from a balance perspective - suppose that I promote my Mercenary into a Hero and he gets B Axes. That Fighter I was using for my axe needs is now obsolete.

So...Promoted units are stronger than unpromoted units? Is that a problem? I do suppose it causes an even greater power spike than usual, though. That is a legitimate concern that would need to be balanced around.

49 minutes ago, Levant Mir Celestia said:

The bolded quote, incidentally, shows why it's unrealistic.

Game Design>Realism. Honestly, I don't really see how this should be relevant. 

49 minutes ago, Levant Mir Celestia said:

-Except we're talking about a Jeigan here - Jeigans eventually get overtaken in terms of combat ability. Sigurd, on the other hand, doesn't really fall off.

Yeah, Seths and Sigurds aren't great game design. Jeigans work because they are something you grow out of. But that's gonna be bad game design regardless of what weapon rank system is in play. 

Also, someone said something earlier implying that FE4 had the same system as Gaiden, which doesn't seem to be true. It actually seems to be a lot more like mine. So what exactly were the issues with it? Besides the game not being well balanced around it?

49 minutes ago, Levant Mir Celestia said:

-Just how many physical units could actually work as mages??? The only ones that come to mind are Saizo from the most recent non-remake FE (and he doesn't have a magic reclass option to start with), as well as Owain (a child unit, who happens to have a healer for a mother) and Noire (another child unit; her mother is a mage). Anyway, about the only time I feel that it would be wasteful to use the other weapon is in the case of hybrid classes (very few units tend to have the stats to attack from both the physical and magical spectrum).

I said physical to mage, but it also applies in sword to lance or axe to bow. And I personally always felt like I was hampering myself when I opted for the new E rank weapon. It felt like a huge step back. 

49 minutes ago, Levant Mir Celestia said:

What's more, Fates had penalties applied to high-rank weapons, which meant that you couldn't spam them willy-nilly.

Yeah, I do agree that this is good game design, but I fail to see its relevance to the argument. 

49 minutes ago, Levant Mir Celestia said:

-So what I'm supposed to take away from this is that you're trying to appease a minority that you yourself happen to be among, is that it? Because to me (and I'm sure most everyone else who sees this topic would think the same), you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

Making a mountain out of a molehill? I'm expressing my distaste for a series tradition that consistently makes the game less fun for me and suggesting an alternative that fixes the problems inherent in it. And you just assume that an insignificant number of people are affected by these problems? Like, 5 different people have responded to this thread, and one of them agreed with me. Sure, it's not a majority, but clearly some significant number of people are consciously bothered by this mechanic, which makes it worth taking a closer look at. 

Edited by TheSS
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...