So ends my ironman run, perfect until "Foreign Land And Sky".

[Eltosian Kadath]

25 minutes ago, dawnbomb said:

. Players are also usually tasked with balancing character exp, as there arn't usually ways to get infinite experience,

There have always been ways to gain infinte xp. The most basic one is refereed to as boss abuse, where you find an enemy on a heal tile that doesn't move, an intentionally don't kill it so it can heal up, and you can continue gaining chip xp from. A lot of the games (FE1, FE3, FE5, FE6, FE7, FE8, FE11, and FE12) had arena that give you a means of gaining infinite xp. Multiple games have bonus overworld encounters that can grinded for infinite xp (FE2, FE8, FE13, FE14, although you need to buy that privilege with DLC in conquest, and FE15). 3 Houses only allows for this infinite grinding sessions on the lowest difficulty, which is better than most of the series with reguards to limiting your means to grind out infinite xp.

 

25 minutes ago, dawnbomb said:

the base gameplay traditionally involves baiting out enemy units with tankier characters, and attempting to kill the enemy team, without the player characters dieing as a result.

That tactic shows a clear bias towards player phase focused games (as opposed to enemy phase focused games), which is not universal in the franchise.

 

1 hour ago, dawnbomb said:

There is minimal difficulty if the player uses everything they have available, already cutting off skillfull players,

This is almost always the case in Fire Emblem games, its how you restrict your gameplay (even if that restriction is simply I wont spend 500 turns boss abusing) that lets skillful players shine.

40 minutes ago, dawnbomb said:

people playing for permenant death also arn't cared about, as characters will never really die unless a player personally opts for their death.

Permanent death has always been optional, players always have the means to reset or reload a chapter if a units dies, so in all Fire Emblem games characters will never really die unless a player personally opts for their death.

49 minutes ago, dawnbomb said:

the very importance / reason for players to do gaiden or paralouges from a gameplay standpoint.

There is no singular universal reason to do gaiden/paralogue chapters. They can be a source of xp, characters, loot, or lore/story, in various degrees, even in 3 houses. Some even explicitly discourage using them to grind, like Thracia 776 chater 12x, where going out of your way to avoid killing earns you a far more important warp staff.

[grin_fish]

I can see where your frustration comes from considering the way that you like to play the game. The enemy reinforcements appear without warning and it very much feels like a set up to use the divine pulse. 

However, my feelings on it were very different as is the way I like to play. I'm playing on Blue Lion hard, and until playing this paralouge, I felt that the battles were really straight forward and in some cases easy. I had pretty much moved every single unit except two when I moved Petra and set off the biggest "I got you surrounded" moment. All the green allied units that I had just unlocked got obliterated. After I got over my initial shock,  I really enjoyed the chapter. What happened was unexpected and I appreciated the challenge. It took me back a bit to when I first discovered Fire Emblem on the GBA and was learning the ropes. At that time, it was challenging, but the more I played the better my strategies became. In short, I was excited by the surprise reinforcements in this paralouge because it brought something new for me to work with. Currently, I like the change because it helps Fire Emblem gameplay from being stagnate for me.

[dawnbomb]

@Shadow Mir a game can be unfair, and still be easy at the same time. why am i shooting myself in the foot exactly? unless your suggesting for some inane that a game can't be easy and badly designed, or be easy and also have rare surprise bullshit, then i don't get why your saying that.

If you did cap all your stats in 3 houses, it would matter, because literally nothing could damage you. why do you say pretending? there is literally no enemy with more damage then you can negate infinitively if you cap all your stats

next, "unless you grind like a madman", i was explaining from each level of abuse. i don't expect absolute max tier abuse to be normal, please don't straw man my argument like that (seems like a popular and recurring theme in this topic). Altho, you can still beat SS stat caps without max tier grinding in 3H, to a point to get lower damage recieved then in SS, so i don't see what your arguing against. i examples each tier of abuse, and none of them are wrong.  i never said max was COMMON or even reasonable, i just did it for complete analysis sake. so that noone goes "oh but what if X"

and yes, Miklan tower boss does indeed put most later SS bosses to shame, but one specific boss does not make a game. i can agree thats a good point in 3H, while also think thats not the norm for 3H.

@eltosian While i agree on a technical leve, i feel like pulling abusive exploits into a argument by saying you could always get infinite EXP, is dishonest at best. if im aloud to pull up exploits in 3 houses the player can do, well... lets not open that entirely different can of worms, but i'm sure i could fill mountains with 3H exploits. i'm just choosing not to, becuase it's not really what the topic creator brought to the table, and unfair to the point of the topic at large.  also, funny you talk about boss abuse, when like the CH2 3h boss is boss abuse city. anyway, lets glaze over blatent exploits (because if we start evaluating every game calling even its most egregious exploits fair game, then this topic is really in for a shit storm)

i don't feel FE is ever very player phase focused. never, untill 3H, did you have stuff like super robot wars bosses where you need to combine everyone to kill massive HP pools.  that only started with divine beasts, other then final boss, literally no enemies ever have over say, 150 HP, or a number that requires more then say,  3 allies to kill.

next, you say perma death is always optional is a absurdly dishonest argument.  people resetting for character deaths IS THEIR GAME OVER in those contexts, please don't pretend like thats not how people view that. everyone knows resets are optional, and we also know its a "mistake" and "bad", or for a normal human being a "failure". iron manning FE on max is absolutely not the normal standard they expect of people. (if we go whats arguably the next step in that line of logic, then if your going to say reloading a save file isn't a loss, then in what warped perception of reality do you even lose? a game that implodes and you can't even load a save file when you die?.) 

and your final point on gaidens... what? what about what your saying? are you agreeing with me, disagreeing? i don't understand.  Gaidens make you stronger, thats what they exist for yes. as far as i can tell your just agreeing...?

@grin_fish noone saying suprises are bad, were just arguing against suprises that SOME are blatently unfair, (and also that the game is easy). in your case, you have a fun suprise, but nothing bad happened, so that doesn't sound unfair, they killed green units, who don't matter, and you were able to complete it.  This sounds like a appeal on the suprise front rather then difficulty front but, thats a example of a good surprise, they killed allys instead of player units, and then you got a whole phase to react to the new situation. I assume this surrounding also occured in a area that are still being explored by your units, not behind you or something either. it was surprising, but it's not like you walked over the wrong line and got punished as a player for it, or the game over screen appear onscreen or something, nothing bad even happened besides needing a new strategy.   Thats a good surprise. and something i'd say is fair game. 

Edited August 6, 2019 by dawnbomb

[Shadow Mir]

28 minutes ago, dawnbomb said:

a game can be unfair, and still be easy at the same time. why am i shooting myself in the foot exactly? unless your suggesting for some inane that a game can't be easy and badly designed, or be easy and also have rare surprise bullshit, then i don't get why your saying that.

Because you're contradicting yourself.

28 minutes ago, dawnbomb said:

If you did cap all your stats in 3 houses, it would matter, because literally nothing could damage you. why do you say pretending? there is literally no enemy with more damage then you can negate infinitively if you cap all your stats

How the hell would you accomplish that??? Because caps in this game are absurdly high to the point I'd need insane amounts of luck or infinite grinding, which is not doable on any difficulty besides normal, to get close to capping anything.

28 minutes ago, dawnbomb said:

next, "unless you grind like a madman", i was explaining from each level of abuse. i don't expect absolute max tier abuse to be normal, please don't straw man my argument like that (seems like a popular and recurring theme in this topic). Altho, you can still beat SS stat caps without max tier grinding in 3H, to a point to get lower damage recieved then in SS, so i don't see what your arguing against. i examples each tier of abuse, and none of them are wrong.  i never said max was COMMON or even reasonable, i just did it for complete analysis sake. so that noone goes "oh but what if X"

The problem is that we're talking about a pre-Awakening game, where generally, caps could only reach 30 at most, and comparing to one where the caps are too high to reach without insane amounts of luck or disproportionate grinding.

32 minutes ago, dawnbomb said:

and yes, Miklan tower boss does indeed put most later SS bosses to shame, but one specific boss does not make a game. i can agree thats a good point in 3H, while also think thats not the norm for 3H.

Logic would dictate that if an earlygame boss manages to pose that much of a threat, you better expect later bosses to top that...

[Armagon]

1 hour ago, dawnbomb said:

see, you can't just say thats unfair to compare them. on what basis?

Because you said that stat capped Sacred Stones characters are weaker than Three Houses characters and it's like, no shit, of course they are.

1 hour ago, dawnbomb said:

you also arn't even explicitly saying you think 3H is harder then SS,

Because i don't feel like arguing that? I mean, i definitely do think it's harder than Sacred Stones but it's not that hard. It's about as hard as Blazing Blade tbh, though NG+ does break a lot of things and no, that isn't a bad thing. NG+ has always been a "you get to fuck around now" thing since it's inception.

1 hour ago, dawnbomb said:

nor did you say you've personally seen, or know someone (orther then a for profit streamer/tuber) who has personally seen the game over screen. 

Why the fuck are you so obsessed with the Game Over screen? I'm still baffled that the Game Over screen is even a subject of this debate. Why the fuck do you care so much over something that literally does not matter?

I don't know about others but in other games in the series, if my Lord were to die, the death quote wouldn't even finish because i was already reseting or reloading the save state if i was playing on an emulator.

1 hour ago, dawnbomb said:

from design without undo, infinite reinforcements with a turn limit and being proximinity based, is infact, not as unfair as having them be ontop of your characters, and attack same turn they appear.

Disagree. See, the thing with ambush spawns is that each set of them only happens one time. I'd much rather have an ambush spawn than infinite reinforcements coming from everywhere. Unless it's a defend map, in which case that makes sense.

1 hour ago, dawnbomb said:

Ninja Death / Fugo's wild ride you can't undo, but if your using everything you can, then you would undo if you could, making this not as bad.

I honestly can't understand your grammar sometimes. What are you trying to say here? If i could rewind during those chapters, it wouldn't be as bad? Hell yeah it wouldn't be as bad and i'd gladly take it over having two repeat the 2 agonizing hours i spent on the ninja death cave. 

Or are you saying that if i used everything, those maps wouldn't be as bad? Cause like, the maps are still bullshit, what with Poison Strike Ninjas (that on harder difficulties have that skill that lets their debuffs stack) everywhere, traps, fast swordmaster and the boss with a Flame Shuriken. Or in Fugo's Wild Ride, how your units are being shuffled around constantly and Dragon Vein only provides a temporary solution.

1 hour ago, dawnbomb said:

(im mildly suprised you didn't talk about the map with the snow shovel minigame, sense thats comparable to something already talked about).

Ehhhhh, that map is more just slow and tedious. It's not really bullshit since you can literally choose to not fight most of the enemies. It's basically just Not Fog of War.

On that note, every Fog of War map is bad in this series. Especially in Thracia where you can't actually see the map. Fog of War is objectively unfair in this series.

 

Edited August 6, 2019 by Armagon

[SRPG Tryhard]

6 hours ago, Etheus said:

 for Fates, let's not pretend that its approach to difficulty was in any way well designed. Hello entire groups of ninjas swapping your tank halfway across the map and slowly taking their health down via unavoidable poison strikes, resulting in cheap deaths at no fault of the player.

Sounds like you just suck. There was nothing wrong with the Ninjas in fates. Only a fool would let them initiate on enemy phase.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Nickdos

[Alastor15243]

7 minutes ago, Armagon said:

On that note, every Fog of War map is bad in this series. Especially in Thracia where you can't actually see the map. Fog of War is objectively unfair in this series.

 

I've been trying to think of a way Fog of War could be made acceptable, and it's tricky. Bare minimum, the enemy would have to suffer from it too, so that you have some means to spot the enemy before they know you're there and can attack you. Archers should also lose effective damage in fog, which makes sense since it's so hard to shoot airborne things when you can barely see a few meters ahead of you. But I'm not sure if even that would be enough, I'd have to see it in action.

[Armagon]

3 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

 I've been trying to think of a way Fog of War could be made acceptable, and it's tricky. Bare minimum, the enemy would have to suffer from it too, so that you have some means to spot the enemy before they know you're there and can attack you. Archers should also lose effective damage in fog, which makes sense since it's so hard to shoot airborne things when you can barely see a few meters ahead of you. But I'm not sure if even that would be enough, I'd have to see it in action.

Valkyria Chronicles does this. The game is always technically Fog of War and that's why you and the enemy have Scouts. The purpose of Scouts in Valkyria Chronicles is to spot the enemy positions and doing so will have them show up on your map.

The game also has actual fog, caused by a special "explosive" launched from your main tank, that greatly hinders the visibility and accuracy of everyone in it.

Of course, Valkyria Chronicles plays a lot differently from FE so it's not exactly the best comparison but you get the point.

[MiaMain]

I might be an outlier, but I used the rewind all the time. If there was a death I rewinded to the beginning, but for all the times where I was mindlessly clicking and attacking the wrong enemy, or discarding items accidentally, it was super useful. Maybe other people play more under control than me. There's always been a degree of self control with fire emblem games. BEXP abuse in the gamecube games, and arena abuse in the handhelds being the major examples. 

[Eltosian Kadath]

23 minutes ago, dawnbomb said:

While i agree on a technical leve, i feel like pulling abusive exploits into a argument by saying you could always get infinite EXP, is dishonest at best. if im aloud to pull up exploits in 3 houses the player can do, well... lets not open that entirely different can of worms, but i'm sure i could fill mountains with 3H exploits. i'm just choosing not to, becuase it's not really what the topic creator brought to the table, and unfair to the point of the topic at large.  also, funny you talk about boss abuse, when like the CH2 3h boss is boss abuse city. anyway, lets glaze over blatent exploits (because if we start evaluating every game calling even its most egregious exploits fair game, then this topic is really in for a shit storm)

Even if I exclude boss abuse, a majority of series has a means of gaining infinite experience (Only FE4, FE9, FE10, and arguably Conquest lack infinitely grindable Arena or random battles). Three Houses seems to have a variation on the random battle system (it even is restricted on the higher difficulty) that is fairly common to the series at this point, and you do not have to abuse it for xp if you do not want to.

29 minutes ago, dawnbomb said:

next, you say perma death is always optional is a absurdly dishonest argument.  people resetting for character deaths IS THEIR GAME OVER in those contexts, please don't pretend like thats not how people view that. everyone knows resets are optional, and we also know its a "mistake" and "bad", or for a normal human being a "failure". iron manning FE on max is absolutely not the normal standard they expect of people. (if we go whats arguably the next step in that line of logic, then if your going to say reloading a save file isn't a loss, then in what warped perception of reality do you even lose? a game that implodes and you can't even load a save file when you die?.) 

Having a failure that requires you to turn back time or reset is a GAME OVER. Both require you to admit the defeat and load an earlier save point, the divine pulse/time wheel simply gives you more control over your save files, and the states you are allowed to load from. The number and positions of states you can load from has been inconsistent throughout the series, with half the games (FE1, FE2, FE3, FE5, FE6, FE7, FE8, and FE9) only allowing you to return to the start of a chapter. FE4 gave you the ability to save at any time before a unit ended its turn, and these save could be spread over 4 slots. FE10 gave you the option to battle save at any time during your turn (although it was removed from the highest difficulty). FE11 & FE12 had locations that allowed you to use a units turn to lay down a save, although how many were available depended on the map (I think there were less on higher difficulties as well, although I do not specifically remember). FE 13 & FE 14 had the same style battle save system as FE10, although it was only accessible in casual mode. Additionally anyone that emulates a game almost always has the save state system of their emulator to use.

Also Iron Manning is explicitly what Kaga expected of people when he created the series, even if it isn't considered the norm now.

29 minutes ago, dawnbomb said:

and your final point on gaidens... what? what about what your saying? are you agreeing with me, disagreeing? i don't understand.  Gaidens make you stronger, thats what they exist for yes. as far as i can tell your just agreeing...?

More my point was that how 3 Houses uses its gaidens isn't out of line with the rest of the series, as the series itself doesn't have a consistent enough pattern for it break any.

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

Bare minimum, the enemy would have to suffer from it too, so that you have some means to spot the enemy before they know you're there and can attack you.

That is what Advanced Wars did with Dual Strike, and it made feel fair at least.

 

[Fabulously Olivier]

35 minutes ago, Nickdos said:

Sounds like you just suck. There was nothing wrong with the Ninjas in fates. Only a fool would let them initiate on enemy phase.

From this, and posts in other threads, I have determined that you are unintelligent and not at all fun or constructive to talk to. Only a fool would keep you off their block list.

[Alastor15243]

7 hours ago, Etheus said:

As for Fates, let's not pretend that its approach to difficulty was in any way well designed. Hello entire groups of ninjas swapping your tank halfway across the map and slowly taking their health down via unavoidable poison strikes, resulting in cheap deaths at no fault of the player.

I take issue, greatly, with the bolded point. If that happens, it's entirely the player's fault. Literally every single part of that strategy was clearly telegraphed to the player. The skills are clearly visible, you don't even need to press a button to open up the screen that displays them, you see their weapons, you see their formation, you see absolutely every single element of that strategy, and the only reason it happened to you was because you brute forced your way in anyway, or you weren't paying attention. And every single gimmick in Conquest is like that. The game explains, in detail, how all of them work, giving you plenty of time to respond to them and come up with a strategy.

[Eltosian Kadath]

59 minutes ago, dawnbomb said:

i feel like you probably don't understand the very concept of why people would enjoy a challenge, or maybe even what one is. bringing up save states are totally fair in a challenge thread is just like, do you even understand what the thread is about?

The only challenge in these games is from a challenge run. You have build a challenge run out of the assumption you have brought with you about the way the game should be played that has artificially increased their difficulty, and are acting like that is a "normal" run, but you haven't given that same courtesy to Three Houses, and are judging it for that. If you think divine pulse sucks the difficulty out of this game, than make explicitly not using it a part of your "normal" run. Every gameplay aspect you have talked about is fairly normal core Fire Emblem game stuff (even the reused save system called the divine pulse). Even if you haven't determined the rules you like to play this game with to reach the difficulty you want, that doesn't make the game inherently easier than games that you have tailored your assumptions and style of play to that desired difficulty, nor does it make it some dramatic departure from the series core.

[Armagon]

2 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

The game explains, in detail, how all of them work, giving you plenty of time to respond to them and come up with a strategy.

I mean, yes, but some parts of Conquest is still bullshit (and yes, i do think it has the best gameplay in the series). I know how to deal with shit like Poison Strike, Inevitable End, Swap, etc, but it doesn't mean that those aspects aren't bullshit. And you can apply that to any game really. Just because you know how to deal with something doesn't mean it's fun or isn't bullshit.

1 hour ago, dawnbomb said:

but i don't see why everyone feels the need to act like the only way to play a FE game is to cap all stats on everyone and infinity grind.

....what? No, literally, what? No one is saying that the only way to play FE is cap all stats. Literally no one says this. You're literally the guy who brought up stat caps in the first place.

1 hour ago, dawnbomb said:

next, well, i do think its easier then SS, in normal gameplay, you can die in SS, unlike 3H.

next, the game over screen topic again. losing matters because theres no point in playing a TACTICAL, STRATEGIC, game, if you can't actually lose. if theres no strategy, then its not really a strategy game, and then kind of goes against what it's supposed to be.

Ok see, i'm gonna tell you something that might shock you. When your Lord dies in Three Houses, you're given one of two options: rewind back to an earlier point in the battle (if you have any Divine Pulse charges left) or accept defeat and restart the battle from the beginning. You cannot continue the game until you do one of those two things. So if your Lord dies in Three Houses, for all intents and purposes, you have lost. I don't need to see "Game Over" on my screen to know that. Actually, if your Lord (or anyone important) dies, the game flat out tell you "you have been defeated" before letting you use Divine Pulse. If the game itself tells you you have lost, then there's no arguing at that point.

If whether or not you can get a game over screen is such a big deal to you, then i recommend that you don't play many games. Because a lot of games don't even have a game over screen anymore.

1 hour ago, dawnbomb said:

using savestates to cheat is hardly normal or intended gameplay.

And i'm supposed to give a shit? Fire Emblem is a single player game. I can play it however the fuck i want, and i'll say that in other single player games. If i wanna use infinite Gear HP cheats when i play Xenogears, that's my business, because it's a single player game. Do not go "if you use cheats, you cheated not only the game but yourself" on me.

And no, i don't use cheats and savestates in every game. I mainly do that on games i play on emulators.

On that note, if @Alastor15243 wants to ironman this game as his first playthrough, he's totally within his right to do that. I saw some people in this thread saying he shouldn't and it's like, let him play how he wants. He bought the game, it's a single player game, let him play how he wants.

1 hour ago, dawnbomb said:

next, you'd rather for example, get a instant game over, because a enemy spawned ontop of you, and attacked and killed you, then infinite reinforcements? why do you think no chance to win is more fair then a chance to win?

Because one stops and the other doesn't. Also, in the case of Three Houses, Petra's paralouge aside, ambush spawns in this game aren't that bad. Ambush spawns usually appear a bit away from where your units are. It's unlikely that they'll dogpile on you.

1 hour ago, dawnbomb said:

next, on the ninja/fugo maps, let me rephrase it a different way, its not a direct send to the game over screen, you can make choices to avoid enemies, or proceed cautiously.  being able to proceed cautiously means you could avoid a death,

See:

Quote

Just because you know how to deal with something doesn't mean it's fun or isn't bullshit.

 

 

Edited August 6, 2019 by Armagon

[dawnbomb]

i had a nice reply all ready, but a mod axed it and game me a penalty, i guess logic, facts, evidence, numbers, ect arn't allowed in this topic right now. suppose i'll just leave, but thats a pretty unfair way to end a topic, oh well.  maybe next time people will be able to talk to each other  and talk about things in game without being penalized and told their not allowed to use so many facts. 

[Alastor15243]

...Alright then, moving on. Here's a question I'd really like to ask this thread before proceeding.

If people like using divine pulse, that hardly affects me. I have no problem with that. Like I said, the reason this game frustrates me is that it adds in roadblocks to people who want to play this game like the older fire emblem games, roadblocks that don't actually test the player's skill in any way and just require trial and error gameplay to get through. They added in a new mechanic, and I would have been happy if it were either balanced or optional. It is neither, and if you're used to the difficulty of older Fire Emblem games, whether you play on ironman or reset when someone dies or some mix thereof, you can either be punished for doing nothing wrong, or be borderline invincible.

So I suppose my question for all the people who like this feature is: Is your experience really enriched in any way by this game design? If the game didn't have ambush spawns and other features that don't test your skill but heavily incentivize the turnwheel, and if the game turned rewinds into an optional, customizable setting, would you really be having less fun with the game than you are now?

[Flere210]

The point is the game is not supposed to play like older fire emblem games, wich really are not supposed to be played in the same way in the first place.

This is the pairup discussion all over again. A mechainc that is not critizised for what it does, but simply because it generate a playstyle that is different. It's like criticizing FF4 for introducing ATB or FF12 for being real time whitout any consideration on how good those games are at employing the mechanics they employed. It's perfectly fair to not like a mechaincal change because it moved the meta in a direction you don't like(i do indeed hate several fanchises for decisions like that), as long as you don't think is an objective flaw of the game. 

If there is a rewind mechanics, i prefer the game to design maps that encourage using it in specific moments rather than just have it as a failsafe. For this reason, i think 3H use it better than Echoes even if they went with the low hanging fruit of bullshit ambushes and it could have been much better. I think the rewind highlight existing problem in the map design rather than being the problem by itself.

And i feel my experience is better because on the eagle and lion battle Claude 2% critted my Dimitri lol.

 

Edited August 6, 2019 by Flere210

[De Geso]

14 hours ago, dawnbomb said:

Sacred stones has a game over screen. Boom.

it's not even unreasonable to get a game over atleast once, for example emphrams fog ship map where you also have to recruit 3 allys ontop of flying enemies coming in from fog of war. 

and before anyone quotes this to strawman me,  im not saying sacred stones is difficult, im just saying its harder then three houses. if you use everything, or most of whats disposable to you, and make only some mistakes here and there, your far more likely to game over, or have units die in SS then in three houses.  

Dude, you've gotten a game over in Sacred Stones? How can you even have seen that screen? The game is so easy. Even the hard map from "Emphram's" route is an absolute joke if you use all the tools the game gives you (grinding notwithstanding). Or did you play without Seth? That would be a self-imposed challenge...

@Alastor15243 I can't speak to whether I would be enjoying the game more or less as a result of changing the map design and game design philosophy so dramatically (if indeed it would be a dramatic change at all) because it's pure conjecture. There is no way to know.

Edited August 6, 2019 by De Geso

[Alastor15243]

30 minutes ago, De Geso said:

 

@Alastor15243 I can't speak to whether I would be enjoying the game more or less as a result of changing the map design and game design philosophy so dramatically (if indeed it would be a dramatic change at all) because it's pure conjecture. There is no way to know.

If Conquest had the turnwheel, would you like it better if it had ambush spawns?

[De Geso]

Just now, Alastor15243 said:

If Conquest had the turnwheel, would you like it better if it had ambush spawns?

If Conquest had the turnwheel I would be ambivalent to ambush spawns because there would be a way around them - but even then, adding either or both of those things totally changes Conquest's design and speaking about it is just conjecture. From a purely speculative standpoint, no, I would probably not like it better than it is in its current state, but that doesn't mean I would dislike the decision to add ambush spawns outright if that decision were mitigated by the turnwheel.

Asking this is like asking, "If FE11 didn't have map saves and the enemies were weaker would you like it more or less?" It's hard to answer unless you have this theoretical game in your hands.

[Tribute]

I don't mind AS much because the only "Ambush" ones you can't react to are triggered by conditions, and not just randomly showing up and immediately attacking.

On my first hard/classic/Edelgard run, I never felt like I was forced to boss rush and couldn't route. Just had to be careful with certain "mini-boss" kills and triggers. Awakening's problem was that as you cleared the map you were forced to bleed units to AFK on top of reinforcement spawn, and on Lunatic+ you straight up had to galeforce cheese and boss rush most of the time.

That being said, the Hubert Paralogue where you have to save 6 mages from Beasts can eat a dick. I literally had it perfected, and then on the last ally phase one of them suicided into the last Beast.

Maps with neutral units are terrible because the ones that can fight will actively kill themselves.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Tribute

[Maryvnn]

I didn't ever I'd make an account after browsing this forum for years because I only ever really lurk for information on the games here.

I agree! The stupid ambushes where the enemy could move the turn they appeared in Awakening was stupid, and I have lost many units to that because there was no reasonable way to know where and (and sometimes when) they'd come on a first play through.

That aside, the paralogue with Petra and Bernadetta is just STUPID! I literally sat there calculating to make sure I had enough movement between stride, rally magic, and warp to get Petra to the end in one turn because my Bernadetta was severely underleveled and I didn't feel like baby sitting her in that awful map with too many units. My Petra had exactly enough movement to get to the end in one turn, and even if you get there in one turn, THEY STILL COME! I was incredibly offended. 

 

 

[MasterSlayerX]

Who knows what lunatic mode will bring to the game . Considering it’s going to be added in as free content later makes me wonder if there will be changes to dragon pulse system or anything really or if it will just be stronger enemies and such . Until we see the release of lunatic it’s hard to judge the games difficulty as most other fire emblems have had their full difficulty from day 1 which is a main contributor as to what made fire emblem harder . 

 

I personally didn’t use the dragon pulse system for the most part unless it gave me a *defeated * message with the exseption of one really high % miss vs a Pegasus knight that would of caused mayhem if I had not killed it.