Jump to content

Anyone else glad the weapon triangle is falling out of favor with intelligent systems?


Whitfield1999
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've never found it really noticeable outside of FE4 and maybe FE7, most of the time it doesn't really matter much. Even then, in FE4, all it ends up really doing is just maxing axes worse. Not to mention that the weight, might, and weight of these three weapon types already kinda create this effect. I'd much rather differentiate the weapons types more, instead of just reinstating the weapon triangle. 3H, for example, has no weapon triangle (though Maddening skills emulate it pretty effectively), but the weapons feel utterly indistinct. Imagine if Lances had extra charge damage like in Berwick, or had noticeable hit differences with Swords and Axes for it to, y'know, actually matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As what others have said, I like the WT quite a bit most of the time-It helps distinguish weapon types from one another and makes them not feel like the physical weapon types are Sword/Slightly stronger sword/Heavy sword. It also makes different classes useful-I personally feel that the WT adds a lot to FE6. I feel like some games really needed the weapon triangle, TH sticking out most noticeably to me due to how weapon types were exceedingly similar; it basically didn't matter what weapon I trained someone in, as the results would be basically the same. I don't think every game needs the weapon triangle to make weapon types unique, (Berwick saga didn't, as everything was super distinct from one another, I don't feel that SoV needed it either, as every weapon did something different, etc.) but I don't feel that it's something to stay away from, as it can add quite a lot to an experience, and I haven't yet seen it take away from it.

Edited by Benice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Sooks said:

Never in any of the gba games have I ever given the weapon triangle any thought. It has always been irrelevant to me. Which leads into my opinion, that being that if they implement it I just want it to actually matter.

It does matter in optimal play and consistency. I'm not an expert but consistency is super important in high level play I think.

19 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

You have to grant, though, that one version of them doing "something new" was the expanded triangle, in Fates. Knives and bows were previously exempt (and magic had its own thing, sometimes), but no longer. Not to mention - from Shadow Dragon onward, there's been interplay between the triangle and skill level bonuses, so that WTD hurts even more. Finally, the "breaker" skills can be interpreted as a "soft", or "optional" triangle. Far from a stale mechanic that they keep dragging along, I see it as a series staple that they've shown willingness to experiment with, and adapt. Maybe the next game could feature a character whose personal skill reverses the triangle, or one who just ignores it. Or maybe certain combat arts could incorporate the "reaver" effect. That said, if you'd prefer no triangle, that's fine as well.

Fates did explore new avenues with the weapon triangle, I feel like after that game there is no where else new the mechanic can go.  

I mean, it's fine for people to like the weapon triangle but it's been in 11 games now. Even in fates, the gameplay loop facilitated by the weapons is essentially the same except you do it more. That's why I loved battalions in three houses so much, made you play and think differently.  It's super boring to play the exact same way for 11 games in a row don't you think?

Edited by Whitfield1999
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Whitfield1999 said:

It does matter in optimal play and consistency. I'm not an expert but consistency is super important in high level play I think.

Fates did explore new avenues with the weapon triangle, I feel like after that game there is no where else new the mechanic can go.  

I mean, it's fine for people to like the weapon triangle but it's been in 11 games now. Even in fates, the gameplay loop facilitated by the weapons is essentially the same except you do it more. That's why I loved battalions in three houses so much, made you play and think differently.  It's super boring to play the exact same way for 11 games in a row don't you think?

So, after 16 games, classes and class promotion should be dropped to based on your statement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Whitfield1999 said:

It does matter in optimal play. 

Fates did explore new avenues with the weapon triangle, I feel like after that game there is no where else new the mechanic can go.  

I mean, it's fine for people to like the weapon triangle but it's been in 11 games now. Even in fates, the gameplay loop facilitated by the weapons is essentially the same except you do it more. That's why I loved battalions in three houses so much, made you play and think differently.  It's super boring to play the exact same way for 11 games in a row don't you think?

I agree, in that I loved the batallion system in Three Houses. I'd really be happy to see them (or at least gambits) come back in future titles,  alongside combat arts.

But I don't really see WTA games as "playing the exact same way", just because of one mechanic. Fates, for instance, refined the pair-up system introduced in Awakening, and gave certain units the power to affect the map with Dragon's Veins. Radiant Dawn reworked the laguz system of its predecessor, made knives a full-blown weapon type for the first time, and threw in elevation to make maps even more dynamic. And Genealogy... between giant maps, money management, and the love system, no game plays quite like Genealogy.

Bottom-line, do Fire Emblem games need the weapon triangle to be good, no. Do I generally like the weapon triangle, and would I rather see it adapted than discarded, yes. Do I think these games should continue innovating whether or not they have the triangle, definitely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Whitfield1999 said:

It's super boring to play the exact same way for 11 games in a row don't you think?

Well, we've also been moving around units on a grid against other enemies on a grid in a turn-based SRPG for 16 games. None of the mainline FEs have really deviated from this in any way yet. Like, they've never used Berwick saga's combat system or turn system, it's been the same every game. I don't feel that it's become stale per se, as they do keep finding ways to make it interesting, be it by changing how player units work, how stats work, difficulty, weapon triangle, etc. I don't think that a mechanic being present for a long time inherently makes it better or worse. There are certainly new ways they can implement the weapon triangle and new ways they can make it matter. That said, there are also tons of new ways they can diversify weapon types without it. As with most mechanics, I feel like it's a case-by-case basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Benice said:

Well, we've also been moving around units on a grid against other enemies on a grid in a turn-based SRPG for 16 games. None of the mainline FEs have really deviated from this in any way yet. Like, they've never used Berwick saga's combat system or turn system, it's been the same every game. I don't feel that it's become stale per se, as they do keep finding ways to make it interesting, be it by changing how player units work, how stats work, difficulty, weapon triangle, etc. I don't think that a mechanic being present for a long time inherently makes it better or worse. There are certainly new ways they can implement the weapon triangle and new ways they can make it matter. That said, there are also tons of new ways they can diversify weapon types without it. As with most mechanics, I feel like it's a case-by-case basis.

 

10 minutes ago, ciphertul said:

So, after 16 games, classes and class promotion should be dropped to based on your statement. 

Weapon triangles inherently limit your options by forcing you to play rock paper scissors. Classes have been done in many unique and interesting ways that gives the games unique flavor.  same with grids, these concepts aren't inherently limiting. 

I agree that just how long it's been in the games doesn't make it better or worse, but some gameplay elements can become more stale then others, and I think that weapon triangles have become incredibly stale because of how surface level a mechanic it is. 

Edited by Whitfield1999
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Whitfield1999 said:

 

Weapon triangles inherently limit your options by forcing you to play rock paper scissors. Classes have been done in many unique and interesting ways that gives the games unique flavor.  same with grids, these concepts aren't inherently limiting. 

I agree that just how long it's been in the games doesn't make it better or worse, but some gameplay elements can become more stale then others, and I think that weapon triangles can become incredibly stale because of how surface level a mechanic it is. 

Okay so taking any reason to use any other weapon is less limiting the giving 1 less damage when fighting a bad weapon? Why would a Wyvernlord ever use a lance when they have axefaire, why waste a limited skill slot for lancefaire and Lance Prowess? They never have a reason to use anything but an axe (most characters). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Whitfield1999 said:

these concepts aren't inherently limiting. 

I agree, but the same can be said for the weapon triangle. There are a ton of ways they can go about doing stuff with it, but they haven't yet chosen to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the weapon triangle in most of the games it's in, but I don't think it's a good way to make weapons distinct from each other. I prefer it as another tactical element to think about (for example using a Hero to attack a Warrior with a sword on Player Phase but having someone trade them an Axe for the Paladins on EP). However it doesn't belong in the games that don't have it. Obviously there are no playable axes in Gaiden, Old Mystery or SoV, and when every class can use any weapon, there is no point in having it in 3H. I do like that you can have it after reaching B rank in the weapon because no one will be getting B in all 3 weapon types, but I wish it wasn't a skill but just always active. I also think that Shadow Dragon shouldn't have included it because the only thing it really does is make swords a lot worse. You could argue FE7-9 did this too but if swords had 1-2 that would be better for them than no WT.

I haven't played much of Fates so I'm not too sure about the expanded triangle. At the moment I kind of wish they were separate though. Bows losing hit against swords is a bit annoying when you need reliable chip.

8 minutes ago, ciphertul said:

Okay so taking any reason to use any other weapon is less limiting the giving 1 less damage when fighting a bad weapon? Why would a Wyvernlord ever use a lance when they have axefaire, why waste a limited skill slot for lancefaire and Lance Prowess? They never have a reason to use anything but an axe (most characters). 

Ferdinand, Sylvain and Seteth will all be using lances most of the time because they have Swift Strikes. Also no one is reaching equippable -faire, especially if they want to be in a Master Class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Whitfield1999 said:

Weapon triangles inherently limit your options by forcing you to play rock paper scissors. Classes have been done in many unique and interesting ways that gives the games unique flavor.  same with grids, these concepts aren't inherently limiting. 

The triangle doesn't limit your options, though. It just makes one option a better tactical choice, within a given context. And it makes you treat enemies differently - I may be comfortable sending my lance knight in to deal with swordies, but if there are Axe users around, it's advantageous to keep my unit out of their range. Instead, I can bait the axe users with a sword specialist. Thus, provided sufficient dicersory of enemy weapon types (i.e. not FE11), the triangle encourages raising units in multiple weapon types, and 

Ultimately, I'd rather a game present the player with multiple options where one is better than the other, than present the player with multiple options where they're all equally effective. What's the point of choice without consequences?

1 minute ago, Stones said:

Ferdinand, Sylvain and Seteth will all be using lances most of the time because they have Swift Strikes. Also no one is reaching equippable -faire, especially if they want to be in a Master Class.

Damn, you beat me to the punch. But yeah, agreed - Wyvern good, Swift Strikes good, RIP men on pegasi. Equippable Faire is obviously doable with NG+, but a serious stretch on NG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stones said:

Ferdinand, Sylvain and Seteth will all be using lances most of the time because they have Swift Strikes. Also no one is reaching equippable -faire, especially if they want to be in a Master Class.

That is why I said most characters, but if you don't use SS axes will have better damage. Heck, I'll admit it's me but in my 400 hours of 3H I've only had Ferdie as a WL once and it wasn't as a SS bot and I've never had Sylvain as WL. but then off your own statement why use an axe if you intend to SS spam?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, ciphertul said:

That is why I said most characters, but if you don't use SS axes will have better damage. Heck, I'll admit it's me but in my 400 hours of 3H I've only had Ferdie as a WL once and it wasn't as a SS bot and I've never had Sylvain as WL. but then off your own statement why use an axe if you intend to SS spam?

You don't? I'm not quite sure what your point is. Even if 3H had the traditional WT, it'd still be better to use SS against Lances and Axes because it's more likely to kill them than a single axe blow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stones said:

You don't? I'm not quite sure what your point is. Even if 3H had the traditional WT, it'd still be better to use SS against Lances and Axes because it's more likely to kill them than a single axe blow.

The point is if you spam SS you only use lances, if not you only use Axe... you never have a reason to use both

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ciphertul said:

The point is if you spam SS you only use lances, if not you only use Axe... you never have a reason to use both

Yes, but you still need to train the units in Axes, in order to reach the Wyvern classes in the first place. Which, for the characters in question, is their only option for flying mobility. So it's totally reasonable to train someone like Ferdinand in Axes, to get Wyvern Lord, while favoring Lances in combat, due to Swift Strikes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

I'll just copy & paste what wrote a few hours ago on this topic.:

"I could do with or without the weapon triangle myself. It is a minor tactical element, but it's not essential, there are plenty of other ways to make maps need brains. Considering how Kaga nerfed it to a minuscule +/-5 Hit in Thracia and has never used it in any of his Saga games, I think it's fair to say he didn't think much of it either. The WT doesn't automatically balance out the weapon types- see the dumpster fire of FE4's weapon balance, and how swords often got the shaft in FEs 7, 8, 9 and 13."

Why FE8? Personally, I thought that game was more even in terms of enemy weapon distribution compared to 7 and 9, as well as 11.

48 minutes ago, Stones said:

I also think that Shadow Dragon shouldn't have included it because the only thing it really does is make swords a lot worse.

I hard agree with this. I have a ton of issues with SD, but the weapon triangle feeling like it was just tacked on just because bothers me a lot.

Edited by Shadow Mir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Yes, but you still need to train the units in Axes, in order to reach the Wyvern classes in the first place. Which, for the characters in question, is their only option for flying mobility. So it's totally reasonable to train someone like Ferdinand in Axes, to get Wyvern Lord, while favoring Lances in combat, due to Swift Strikes.

Training and using are very different things, you have to train Lysthea in lance to make her a Dark Knight but that doesn't mean she gonna use lances

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, ciphertul said:

The point is if you spam SS you only use lances, if not you only use Axe... you never have a reason to use both

I don't see a problem with that because other units will be using Axes as a Wyvern Lord (Edelgard, Hilda, etc). Individual units don't need to hold multiple weapon types at the same time for the weapon types to be distinct. How many times have you had a Wyvern Lord use swords in the GBA games? This is also ignoring the fact that they need to use Axes to certify for Wyvern Lord in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stones said:

I don't see a problem with that because other units will be using Axes as a Wyvern Lord (Edelgard, Hilda, etc). Individual units don't need to hold multiple weapon types at the same time for the weapon types to be distinct. How many times have you had a Wyvern Lord use swords in the GBA games? This is also ignoring the fact that they need to use Axes to certify for Wyvern Lord in the first place.

Heath and Cormag used swords fairly often to counter axes. Also like I said to Pete's mate training and using are very different. If you only level weapons by using them this would be different but you don't have to use them to level them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ciphertul said:

Heath and Cormag used swords fairly often to counter axes. Also like I said to Pete's mate training and using are very different. If you only level weapons by using them this would be different but you don't have to use them to level them.

Problem is, axes were rather uncommon on enemies in Blazing Blade. Also, enemies in both those games sucked, but that's an entirely different issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ciphertul said:

Training and using are very different things, you have to train Lysthea in lance to make her a Dark Knight but that doesn't mean she gonna use lances

 

2 minutes ago, Stones said:

I don't see a problem with that because other units will be using Axes as a Wyvern Lord (Edelgard, Hilda, etc). Individual units don't need to hold multiple weapon types at the same time for the weapon types to be distinct. How many times have you had a Wyvern Lord use swords in the GBA games? This is also ignoring the fact that they need to use Axes to certify for Wyvern Lord in the first place.

Imma reconcile this right now.

Lysithea can certify as Dark Knight, without picking up a Lance, because the class requires C Lances. That's super low, and with enough Riding training, she can get in at D+ or even D. And it's a master class, so she won't even worry about it until post-skip.

Wyvern Rider takes B Axes, Wyvern Lord demands A. If you never use them in battle, that's... a lot of background training. Especially for an Advanced Class, you probably want before the skip. And before WR, male units are already background training Flight (no Pegasus). While it's theoretically possible for them to go WR and WL without ever picking up an Axe, it's hardly practical for the Swift Strikers (except Seteth) to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

 

Imma reconcile this right now.

Lysithea can certify as Dark Knight, without picking up a Lance, because the class requires C Lances. That's super low, and with enough Riding training, she can get in at D+ or even D. And it's a master class, so she won't even worry about it until post-skip.

Wyvern Rider takes B Axes, Wyvern Lord demands A. If you never use them in battle, that's... a lot of background training. Especially for an Advanced Class, you probably want before the skip. And before WR, male units are already background training Flight (no Pegasus). While it's theoretically possible for them to go WR and WL without ever picking up an Axe, it's hardly practical for the Swift Strikers (except Seteth) to do so.

No one said anything about practical, I had Marianne be a War Cleric(100% pass rate) with her never touching a brawl weapon, Both Sylvain and Ferdie both are strong in Axes. However that still doesn't change the fact that once you get WL you stop using one of those weapons which is what this is all about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what the weapon triangle is to Intelligent Systems (how they feel about it or whatever), but I'll give my opinion.  I'll give two, based on gameplay and realism.

From a gameplay standpoint, it depends.  Some games are able to use the triangle to encourage you to use a wide variety of units.  For example it's not as easy to beat the DS games using strictly sword users because many enemies will be wielding spears/lances.  Other times it can prove too crippling for some units, such as in Fates how the already severely nerfed mages also have to contend with weapon disadvantage against armor knights and cavaliers.  It really just depends on how they implement it and how balanced the game is overall, because the thing the weapon triangle will do is exaggerate the strengths and weaknesses of the wielders.

On realism, there was a video made two years back by famous HEMA YouTuber Skallagrim on the topic.  But to argue from my perspective, I can definitely see where they were going with it.  Sword beats axe because sword is nimbler, spear beats sword because of reach, and axe beats spear because grappling is difficult to contend with for spears.  The trouble comes when you consider how many different classes of weapon there are for each category, and take into consideration other tactics that can be employed.  I'll also point to hidden weapons and bows being part of the weapon triangle in Fates as a colossally unrealistic situation - bows have no unique advantages or disadvantages against other types of weaponry as they're ranged weapons (no archer would be a total sitting duck when engaged in melee, though, they would brandish a sword and fight if it came to it), and you'd be a fool to use throwing knives and throwing stars as actual weapons meant to kill your foes.  And just try to stab a skilled swordsman with a knife - the swordsman will laugh at you as they cut your knife-hand off.  Magic in this regard is kinda whatever in terms of realism, but I doubt spells would throw off arrows any more than they'd throw off knives.

There's also the magic triangle to talk about, but I'm not really a physicist or meteorologist so I have no goddamn clue if fire would beat wind - with what I know about fire it would depend on if it's a grease fire or not and whether there's any nearby kindle for the fire to catch on.  Gameplay-wise I think it may complicate magic a bit too much.  I like when magic is more a class of its own and has special properties, instead of when it's paralleled to the physical weapons or just kinda bullied into a corner like it is in Fates.

 

All in all... I can see it continuing to have a place in the series, but I wouldn't exactly miss it if it were to disappear.  I generally like it more if the weapons have stats to both balance and reflect their real-life parallels.  For instance, cavalry lances having enough weight to almost guarantee they'll only strike a single time and swords being light enough to nearly always double.  I'd also like it if they made axes better.  Maybe whenever they get around to doing Skyrim Viking Emblem they could make axes strong.  Yeah, I know vikings had swords and spears, but you know that'd be the setting where they'd make axes OP.

Edited by Ertrick36
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Ertrick36 said:

I generally like it more if the weapons have stats to both balance and reflect their real-life parallels.  For instance, cavalry lances having enough weight to almost guarantee they'll only strike a single time and swords being light enough to nearly always double. 

I haven't played it yet, but Berwick Saga has Spears, the usual infantry stabby polearms, and Lances, which are heavy cavalry-only weapon like actual IRL lances. Lances in BS have a high Mt value, and additional Mt is added for every space moved before attacking on that turn, as if you're charging at the enemy that whole time and the momentum is transferred into your strike. Daggers in that game ignore Def but have really poor Mt and an increased chance of inflicting the Wounded and Crippled statuses compared to other weapons. As if you're finding that one opening in the enemy's armor and slicing it.

This little post-FE Kaga black sheep didn't fully differentiate its weapon types it seems, but it looks like it provides a possible starting point for how to do without the Weapon Triangle and try making each weapon category unique.

Edited by Interdimensional Observer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ertrick36 said:

Some games are able to use the triangle to encourage you to use a wide variety of units.  For example it's as easy to beat the DS games using strictly sword users because many enemies will be wielding spears/lances.

Bold: Uhhh... what? Isn't that supposed to read "it's NOT as easy"?

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...