Jump to content
Martin

What is needed to make a good FE pvp mode?

Recommended Posts

Title says it all. I know things like Fates and that Advanced Warfare-like switch game exists, but do you guys think that there were stuff missing from those modes that really took away from the fun and playability. Do y'all think that Fates is honestly the best as it can get and that trying to make a Fire Emblem PvP mode is kind of pointless? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you seen DSFE mltiplayer?

I think there's something there to work off of imo, with you having parties that face each other on maps. I would suggest an improvement of conditions for it, like adding mode options and expanding on settings for the maps so that there's more that players can work with.

Share this post


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

Title says it all. I know things like Fates and that Advanced Warfare-like switch game exists, but do you guys think that there were stuff missing from those modes that really took away from the fun and playability. Do y'all think that Fates is honestly the best as it can get and that trying to make a Fire Emblem PvP mode is kind of pointless? 

Fates is far from being the best in terms of PvP.

it's literally the most broken feature when it comes to overleveling characters for maxed stats, pairing units for stacking stats even further and abusing some mechanics, along with specific skill builds.

the problem that comes from having too much freedom with characters builds, is that in the end most people will just run around using the same meta builds that everyone else is using due to their utility, with very few variations.

that makes the game overall uninteresting in the long run, while forcing people to play only with specific builds just for a chance to win a match, wich is sad considering that a PvP mode should be played not only for competition, but for fun as well.

 

for a PvP mode to be somehow balanced in a FE game, it would require to have units with fixed stats, limited items, limited or no skills available, and either open field or indoors maps with different scenarios selected at random.

that way you could actually have some decent matches between players, where what would matter the most would be the ability of the player to plan effective tactics, rather than just relying on some broken skill build from characters with maxed out stats.

 

out of all games i played so far from IntSys, probably only the Advance Wars titles were the most balanced in terms of PvP.

beside standard pre-set maps, you could even build maps on your own, with game modes going from straight GroupsVSGroup Deathmatches to Conquer&Seize modes.

those were really good and fun, because they were done right.

Edited by Fenreir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fog of war is a good mechanic to keep players on their toes, shadow dragon also had a capture point on the map to keep the teams moving and preventing matches from turning into waiting games, also, broken crap like replicate and warp don't help anyone, I have a friend who used a team of corrin, xander, leo, takumi, and ryoma, all with replicate and warp, this could boost the effective movement of leo and xander by an extra 8 or 9 by just spamming warp.

also asymmetric maps would be helpful.

Edited by thecrimsonflash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Standardized stats by character within PvP. As long as RNG growths have any effect on PvP, it will never be a valid competitive mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2019 at 8:55 AM, Fenreir said:

Fates is far from being the best in terms of PvP.

it's literally the most broken feature when it comes to overleveling characters for maxed stats, pairing units for stacking stats even further and abusing some mechanics, along with specific skill builds.

the problem that comes from having too much freedom with characters builds, is that in the end most people will just run around using the same meta builds that everyone else is using due to their utility, with very few variations.

that makes the game overall uninteresting in the long run, while forcing people to play only with specific builds just for a chance to win a match, wich is sad considering that a PvP mode should be played not only for competition, but for fun as well.

 

for a PvP mode to be somehow balanced in a FE game, it would require to have units with fixed stats, limited items, limited or no skills available, and either open field or indoors maps with different scenarios selected at random.

that way you could actually have some decent matches between players, where what would matter the most would be the ability of the player to plan effective tactics, rather than just relying on some broken skill build from characters with maxed out stats.

 

out of all games i played so far from IntSys, probably only the Advance Wars titles were the most balanced in terms of PvP.

beside standard pre-set maps, you could even build maps on your own, with game modes going from straight GroupsVSGroup Deathmatches to Conquer&Seize modes.

those were really good and fun, because they were done right.

I checked out Wargroove's pvp and aside from having a limitless time limit, I really thought the way they handle the pvp was pretty neat. The thing about the units is that they don't level up or have different stats depending on single player campaign experiences. However, I really would like to see a good FE pvp, not an advanced wars one. I liked @Etheus idea where characters starts off at a low level, but have set level ups  that are not RNG effected. 

However, maybe just having a player vs player might not be enough.

@Dayni Yes. Definitely  more modes or terms of victory in general. Or at least a side objective that could benefit the player's team greatly so that the match won't devolve into a turtling fest. In Mobas for example, there are multiple objectives to pay attention to and killing the guys is often not the top priority. 

@thecrimsonflash I jokingly suggested a FE battle royal type game in the crossover topic one time. No one really responded to me, sadly, but I do think something like an enclosing barrier or a collapsing platform could spice up a match as well. The thing with Fate's multiplayer, is that the stuff found in single player is not limited or restricted in multiplayer. There's stuff in the campaign mode that  obviously assists the player at crucial or even scripted moments at times and they should stay specifically in single player. Fates didn't follow that rule. It's literally just something that IS saw as a quick and easy addition. "Just copy everything in the main game and dump it in multiplayer" Because of the poor execution, a lot of the people who were even curious of an FE pvp got immediately turned off from it. 

What if there were creeps roaming the battle field who are on no one's side and attacks everyone, being the player's main source of EXP that they may have to distribute carefully to get the desired team strength? Or bases of sorts that could also add a bit of utility?

I just feel as though it sucks that IS sort of just neglects the multiplayer side of things and focus purely on the single player experience, but then again, I don't really blame them. Tactical pvp games are not like shooting, fighting, or TCGs. It's often seen as boring to observe and only okay to play. Why is that so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DS had it the best. Though personally I'm of the opinion a multiplayer mode doesn't have to be balanced to be fun. So I wish all fire emblem games came with PvP even if it sucks.

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...