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

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

1 hour ago, Whitfield1999 said:

Like X-Naut said, the weapon triangle is surface level. Most of the time all it takes to facilitate the weapon triangle is to switch your weapons around with a button click and that's it. It's so surface level and tacked on in it feels more like a trick into making the player think they are doing something strategic then them actually employing strategy.

By that logic, why feature effective weaponry? The Ridersbane isn't strategy, it's just seeing a horse and switching your equipped weapon. Same with the Hammer, against armored units.

Anyway, you're disregarding multi-threat scenarios. Like, I want to defeat an axe-user, so I send in my sword-user. But, that puts them in range of a lance-user - so, was this the right decision? That depends on my confidence in whether my unit can survive a lance hit, and avoid an Axe hit. It's calculated risk. Alternatively, I kill the axe user, then use trading to switch my sword user to a Lancereaver. Of course, to do so, I have to have good unit positioning, and take up the turn of the unit using the trade command.

Finally, the weapon triangle is one factor among many - total attack, defense, hit, and crit. Sometimes, it's worth it to "bite the bullet" and take WTD, for advantages in other regards. It's just one factor that goes into picking the right weapon for a given scenario.

[ping]

Cutting up a strategy game's (although I still think that "Tactical RPG" is a better description of Fire Emblem) mechanics into 100 pieces in order to only look at them in isolation will always make those individual mechanics look silly or trivial or both. "So if you don't do enough damage with an Iron weapon, you switch to a STEEL weapon instead. Golly Gee! Much strattergems, such SMRTS!"

--

Anyway, I personally like that the classic weapon triangle reinforces some of the basic "X beats Y" pairings, so that it is a little harder for scissors to cut through rocks, even though you usually still get to that point. To clarify - Mercs/Myrms were better suited to go against axe fighters (slow enough to be doubled, low Def, struggle to hit dodgy opponents) than against armour knights (high Def to counteract taking two hits). Fighters with their high Atk (and often still enough Spd to double) already did better against knights, who also didn't have too high avoid.

Controlling who is fighting which enemy is one of the fundamental aspects of Fire Emblem (which is also why I don't like those adamantium scissors such as Seth and Titania who can mostly ignore any such deliberation) and I appreciate the WT for putting a little more emphasis on it, even though its numbers don't dominate the formulas.

[Murozaki]

My issue with the Weapon Triangle is as i said, it most of the games it makes no difference. And that it exists to reinforce class and combat dynamics that would still exist and be pretty well-represented without its reinforcement. Even without the triangle using a lightweight sword that allows you to keep your speed would still be a good weapon to use against an enemy using a big heavy axe that slows them down. The fact is we don't need the Weapon Triangle to create those dynamics, they would already exist naturally. And making the weapon triangle into an even bigger deal mechanically would just remove the strategic factor as the exceptional cases, the ones where you go against the grain in what the mechanics favor to do something else, would become less viable, which would remove the amount of options the player has available for strategy.

Edited December 17, 2020 by Murozaki

[joevar]

8 hours ago, Whitfield1999 said:

I only made that sarcastic reply because you made it so easy.

Like X-Naut said, the weapon triangle is surface level. Most of the time all it takes to facilitate the weapon triangle is to switch your weapons around with a button click and that's it. It's so surface level and tacked on in it feels more like a trick into making the player think they are doing something strategic then them actually employing strategy.

yeah yeah, here i was trying to help the discussion back to the topic with lighthearted joke and you actually made fun of me. thanks

but isnt it easy tho? i mean the mechanic easy to understand like you said 🤔

i agree with weapon triangle being surface level. and by that it really doesnt break or make the game. but also by being surface level, no need to get stuck by the "triangle"  thing. it could be expanded

so whats the harm of including it in the game? what i would suggest before, if you dont like it being so simple, the game can make not triangle.

maybe you misunderstand, i was never defending the triangle system, but rather "A have advantages over B, B have advantage against X, and so on" mechanic. not the "surface level" loop of triangle itself. and you seem want to it take away completely. or you got any better idea? just try to understand that by making a skill like in three houses you still incorporate the same mechanic of "A have advantages over B, B have advantage against X, and so on" . but this time theres no loop thats all.

or you got brighter idea how to replace it?

On 12/15/2020 at 1:53 AM, Whitfield1999 said:

What are y'alls opinion of the weapon triangle?

also this. you ask for opinion. if you then mock other opinion whats the point? might as well change it to "who want to support me in this idea?" in the first post

Edited December 18, 2020 by joevar

[Lightcosmo]

I think it's fine, some games are just too easy for it to matter (I.E, the GBA era, PoR.) 

I notice it helps alot in games like RD, where hitting an enemy with actual stats can prove to be difficult, and it counteracts the biorhythym system nicely.

[Jotari]

Not sure what's been said before, I've been procrastinating weighing in on this topic for a while now, I assume most of it has been pointed out already, but here's my take anyway.

*Fire Emblem is not moving away from the weapon triangle imo. They didn't have it in Shadows of Valentia because that was a remake of a game that didn't have it, that was a good choice if they wanted to keep the same enemy formations as Gaiden. All lot of people are of the opinion that Shadow Dragon and New Mystery shouldnt have had the weapon triangle. So Three Houses is the only original game to lack it since it's inception in 1996. Meanwhile Heroes has ramped up the weapon triangle to be way more important for it's combat, and while heroes isn't a mainline game, it is still very much part of modern Fire Emblem and the design ideas of the series. It's not a coincidence a bunch of Heroes skill appeared in Three Houses. Other spin offs like Warriors and Tokyo Mirage Session also feature the weapon triangle under different gameplay, so it is pretty much one of the most defining features of the series at this point. I do t see one game and a remake as a pattern suggesting it's on the way out compared to everything else.

*Quite simply weapon triangle is an increase in complexity in the game, this is a good thing. Fire Emblem should not be a mindless experience where you don't have to think when attacking. Weapon triangle is simple, easy to remember and it makes a difference. The choice between which weapon to use becomes an actual choice beyond just using your Silver Sword because that's the best.

* Weapon triangle makes weapons more distinct. Without the weapon triangle the difference between axe, lance and swords is just the Mt to hit ratio which is already present in the different levels of weapons. Having a weapon triangle makes it meaningful for a class to get an extra weapon on promotion. Why would I ever grind up sword weapon ranks on my paladin when I can just stick to Silver Lances and Javelins which can do everything as good as swords can do right now, aside from the very rare need for an armour slayer?

Edited December 19, 2020 by Jotari

[Murozaki]

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

*Quite simply weapon triangle is an increase in complexity in the game, this is a good thing. Fire Emblem should not be a mindless experience where you don't have to think when attacking. Weapon triangle is simple, easy to remember and it makes a difference. The choice between which weapon to use becomes an actual choice beyond just using your Silver Sword because that's the best.

I'd argue it doesn't really add anything in most games, because all the Triangle does in practice is, as i stated before, reinforce existing weapon and combat dynamics rather than add any new ones. In most FE games with the Triangle it being removed wouldn't change anything, you would still want users of light, accurate weapons (Swords) to go against the enemies that use heavy, inaccurate weapons (Axes); You would still want to use heavy, hard-hitting weapons (Axes) against the balanced weapons due to them typically being used by classes that are sturdy but not very agile (Lances); And the only thing i can see changing is that most likely players would start attacking Sword users with other Sword users instead of Lances, that's the only matchup i can see being a bit affected. Any "depth" that the Triangle "adds" could easily still be there even if the Triangle wasn't there simply by the normal dynamics of how the weapons and the classes that use them work.

That is of course unless it's a game where the Weapon Triangle changes the dynamic of the combat, and again, i'd say FE6 and DSFE are the only ones that do this, in FE6's case, the general unrealiable hit rates become a bit less unreliable with the Weapon Triangle. And in the DS FE games it allows you to cancel the enemies' Weapon Rank bonuses which is very important. And i really like FE6 and the DS games, but i wouldn't want every FE game to be like them no sir.

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

* Weapon triangle makes weapons more distinct. Without the weapon triangle the difference between axe, lance and swords is just the Mt to hit ratio which is already present in the different levels of weapons. Having a weapon triangle makes it meaningful for a class to get an extra weapon on promotion. Why would I ever grind up sword weapon ranks on my paladin when I can just stick to Silver Lances and Javelins which can do everything as good as swords can do right now, aside from the very rare need for an armour slayer?

I'd argue it does the opposite, it incentivizes the devs everytime to make the weapons all have the same flavor. Look at the GBA games, not to criticize them, but there is only about half a dozen effect weapon among Swords, Lances and Axes that isn't present in all three weapon types, it's all just literally RPS. Instead of actually making the weapons distinct the Triangle incentivizes the game to be designed where all three weapons are the same thing but arbitrarily matched up with one another to make it look like there's a difference when there is really not.

And the thing is is that yes we can have the three weapons all be meaningfully differentiated without the Triangle, because FE has already done so in the past in specific instances, the DS games do have the Triangle but still manage to differentiate the meaning of having access to one weapon but not another by just having something as simple as making it so different effect weapons are unlocked at different weapon ranks for each weapon type. Many of the games make Lances feel distinct by the simple fact that they are mostly meant to be wielded by bulky classes or classes that can handle their weight without any issue (AKA Armor Knights and mounted classes), and PS this is why i think people who think a standard infantry Lance-wielding class in Fire Emblem should be standard are silly.

And just to be clear: I don't think the Weapon Triangle makes most of the games it appears in worse, but the thing is that i don't believe it makes them better either, it's an arbitrary mechanic that could be cut from said games without much changing. Look at Radiant Dawn, where Hard Mode feels very different from Normal Mode at the earlygame due to the lack of the Triangle but as soon as the midgame starts the lack of the Triangle stops making much of a difference, as the earlygame is the only part of most FE games with the Triangle where it actually ends up mattering.

This post is getting a bit too rambly and incoherent so if you want to read some similar points to mine but made in a better and more succint manner i'd recommend this Reddit post from two years ago that talks about it: https://www.reddit.com/r/fireemblem/comments/7wn0g9/reevaluating_the_weapon_triangle/

 

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, Murozaki said:

I'd argue it doesn't really add anything in most games, because all the Triangle does in practice is, as i stated before, reinforce existing weapon and combat dynamics rather than add any new ones. In most FE games with the Triangle it being removed wouldn't change anything, you would still want users of light, accurate weapons (Swords) to go against the enemies that use heavy, inaccurate weapons (Axes); You would still want to use heavy, hard-hitting weapons (Axes) against the balanced weapons due to them typically being used by classes that are sturdy but not very agile (Lances); And the only thing i can see changing is that most likely players would start attacking Sword users with other Sword users instead of Lances, that's the only matchup i can see being a bit affected. Any "depth" that the Triangle "adds" could easily still be there even if the Triangle wasn't there simply by the normal dynamics of how the weapons and the classes that use them work.

That is of course unless it's a game where the Weapon Triangle changes the dynamic of the combat, and again, i'd say FE6 and DSFE are the only ones that do this, in FE6's case, the general unrealiable hit rates become a bit less unreliable with the Weapon Triangle. And in the DS FE games it allows you to cancel the enemies' Weapon Rank bonuses which is very important. And i really like FE6 and the DS games, but i wouldn't want every FE game to be like them no sir.

I don't think that's true. I really don't see any reason why I wouldn't use a lance with my cavalier against a fighter in a game without the weapon triangle if I had a choice between a sword and a lance. The extra hit from a sword is likely not going to make enough of a difference compared to the extra mt from a lance. My chances of hitting with both are going to be pretty comparable, so I might as well go for dealing more damage. I could see what you're saying if the number of classes in the game was purely just myrmidon, soldier and fighter, but it's not, we have far more classes than that (and we barely ever even have soldiers). Agile classes are not the only ones who uses swords (armoured units use swords in half the games and they're the opposite of agile). Especially when a lot of units can use two or more types of weapons. A cavalier does not become more or less agile if it's using a lance or a sword, unless you want to start putting massive avoid and defense bonuses on regular weapons. With out a weapon triangle a cavalier is rarely ever going to have the incentive to not attack with the strongest weapon they have, and attacking a cavalier you're rarely going to have incentive to use the same weapon regardless as to what they're attacking with. And this will become a more pronounced feature the further into the game you get as you wont' have any incentive to raise weapon ranks other than your primariy weapon, unless there's a Three Houses style promotion incentive for raising weapon ranks (and even with that I usually stick to the same weapon on Three Houses units due to how useful the Prowess skills are).

Quote

I'd argue it does the opposite, it incentivizes the devs everytime to make the weapons all have the same flavor. Look at the GBA games, not to criticize them, but there is only about half a dozen effect weapon among Swords, Lances and Axes that isn't present in all three weapon types, it's all just literally RPS. Instead of actually making the weapons distinct the Triangle incentivizes the game to be designed where all three weapons are the same thing but arbitrarily matched up with one another to make it look like there's a difference when there is really not.

And the thing is is that yes we can have the three weapons all be meaningfully differentiated without the Triangle, because FE has already done so in the past in specific instances, the DS games do have the Triangle but still manage to differentiate the meaning of having access to one weapon but not another by just having something as simple as making it so different effect weapons are unlocked at different weapon ranks for each weapon type. Many of the games make Lances feel distinct by the simple fact that they are mostly meant to be wielded by bulky classes or classes that can handle their weight without any issue (AKA Armor Knights and mounted classes), and PS this is why i think people who think a standard infantry Lance-wielding class in Fire Emblem should be standard are silly.

I'm not sure you can point to that as a fact and saying it's the case while simultaneously pointing to a game that has the weapon triangle and doesn't do that.

Quote

And just to be clear: I don't think the Weapon Triangle makes most of the games it appears in worse, but the thing is that i don't believe it makes them better either, it's an arbitrary mechanic that could be cut from said games without much changing. Look at Radiant Dawn, where Hard Mode feels very different from Normal Mode at the earlygame due to the lack of the Triangle but as soon as the midgame starts the lack of the Triangle stops making much of a difference, as the earlygame is the only part of most FE games with the Triangle where it actually ends up mattering.

This post is getting a bit too rambly and incoherent so if you want to read some similar points to mine but made in a better and more succint manner i'd recommend this Reddit post from two years ago that talks about it: https://www.reddit.com/r/fireemblem/comments/7wn0g9/reevaluating_the_weapon_triangle/

 

The lack of weapon triangle in Radiant Dawn's Hard Mode effecting the early game more than the mid or late game mean the weapon triangle is absolutely playing a role in that game. The weapon triangle's usage is always more critical in early game Fire Emblem (which is why more recent games have started to increase the effect of it in proportion to weapon rank). If you cut it from the other games in the series you will find it changing a lot of the early game hard modes (specifically it'll usually make them harder since the player is able to utilize the weapon triangle better than the enemy is). On normal or easy mode for most games it probably wouldn't make a difference though as you can commonly go against the weapon triangle without it hurting you too much in a lot of easier Fire Emblem modes.

Edited December 19, 2020 by Jotari

[Murozaki]

21 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I don't think that's true. I really don't see any reason why I wouldn't use a lance with my cavalier against a fighter in a game without the weapon triangle if I had a choice between a sword and a lance. The extra hit from a sword is likely not going to make enough of a difference compared to the extra mt from a lance. My chances of hitting with both are going to be pretty comparable, so I might as well go for dealing more damage. I could see what you're saying if the number of classes in the game was purely just myrmidon, soldier and fighter, but it's not, we have far more classes than that (and we barely ever even have soldiers). Agile classes are not the only ones who uses swords (armoured units use swords in half the games and they're the opposite of agile). Especially when a lot of units can use two or more types of weapons. A cavalier does not become more or less agile if it's using a lance or a sword, unless you want to start putting massive avoid and defense bonuses on regular weapons. With out a weapon triangle a cavalier is rarely ever going to have the incentive to not attack with the strongest weapon they have, and attacking a cavalier you're rarely going to have incentive to use the same weapon regardless as to what they're attacking with. And this will become a more pronounced feature the further into the game you get as you wont' have any incentive to raise weapon ranks other than your primariy weapon, unless there's a Three Houses style promotion incentive for raising weapon ranks (and even with that I usually stick to the same weapon on Three Houses units due to how useful the Prowess skills are).

 

That's again, not really due to the Triangle to begin with, most Cavaliers and Paladins don't have an incentive to not be using Lances most of the time, and outside FE6 and DSFE they most likely won't have any reason to outside of incredibly specific and extreme examples. Cavaliers not having a reason to use Swords over Lances is an issue even in games with the Triangle already and comes from the fact that the weapon balance tends to be always be skewed towards Lances to begin with. Solving this issue has little to do with whether the Triangle is a good thing or not and more so an issue with weapon and class balance in general.

28 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I'm not sure you can point to that as a fact and saying it's the case while simultaneously pointing to a game that has the weapon triangle and doesn't do that.

 

I can say without any issues that the DS games both make the Triangle meaningful for the whole game AND also manage to differentiate the weapon types in a manner that is completely unrelated to the Triangle, these are not contradictory statements.

30 minutes ago, Jotari said:

The lack of weapon triangle in Radiant Dawn's Hard Mode effecting the early game more than the mid or late game mean the weapon triangle is absolutely playing a role in that game. The weapon triangle's usage is always more critical in early game Fire Emblem (which is why more recent games have started to increase the effect of it in proportion to weapon rank). If you cut it from the other games in the series you will find it changing a lot of the early game hard modes (specifically it'll usually make them harder since the player is able to utilize the weapon triangle better than the enemy is). On normal or easy mode for most games it probably wouldn't make a difference though as you can commonly go against the weapon triangle without it hurting you too much in a lot of easier Fire Emblem modes.

Yes the Triangle usually matters in the earlygame but not much afterwards, that was already one of my points, if it literally only matters in the early section of the game why design it that way? You might as well not include a mechanic in your game that stops mattering decently quickly and allow the endgame to be balanced without it in mind. I said cutting out the Triangle in most games it's included in wouldn't change much, not that it wouldn't change anything at all.

[ping]

I stand by the notion that it's not a bad thing if the WT reinforces some basic "X beats Y" dynamics.

12 minutes ago, Murozaki said:

That's again, not really due to the Triangle to begin with, most Cavaliers and Paladins don't have an incentive to not be using Lances most of the time, and outside FE6 and DSFE they most likely won't have any reason to outside of incredibly specific and extreme examples. Cavaliers not having a reason to use Swords over Lances is an issue even in games with the Triangle already and comes from the fact that the weapon balance tends to be always be skewed towards Lances to begin with. Solving this issue has little to do with whether the Triangle is a good thing or not and more so an issue with weapon and class balance in general.

I don't think I agree. The fact that the WT is a fairly big factor in FE6 despite having a lower impact on hitrates than in FE7/8 indicates that the WT is being outgrown by other factors, most notably the huge stat difference between player units and enemies. But in a game where your units aren't (and don't grow into) literal gods? You said it yourself, the WT does have an impact in those.

Now, it would probably be possible to get a similar effect without the WT, just by emulating its effects by making the statlines of the unit archetypes more extreme. Swordfighters get even more hit and avoid, Armour Knights even more defense, Axe Fighters even more Atk. But that would at the same time change the dynamics between units that aren't part of that "class triangle" - you'd have to reevaluate how Archers measure up against swordies and AKs in particular etc. pp. The WT is a way to specifically target the classic melee infantry units and I do think that makes it a good mechanic.

[Jotari]

6 hours ago, Murozaki said:

 

That's again, not really due to the Triangle to begin with, most Cavaliers and Paladins don't have an incentive to not be using Lances most of the time, and outside FE6 and DSFE they most likely won't have any reason to outside of incredibly specific and extreme examples. Cavaliers not having a reason to use Swords over Lances is an issue even in games with the Triangle already and comes from the fact that the weapon balance tends to be always be skewed towards Lances to begin with. Solving this issue has little to do with whether the Triangle is a good thing or not and more so an issue with weapon and class balance in general.

Having an axe opponent is a pretty good reason to use a sword with a cavalier imo. You're basically saying here that lances being the best weapon type are an issue anyway (which it is and isn't depending on the game), so we shouldn't bother with the mechanics that actually address that. Does the weapon triangle completely solve lances being better than swords and axes, no, not really, does it help? Oh yeah, absolutely. Situations and reasons to use different weapons are good, and that's what the weapon triangle is at its core.

Quote

 

I can say without any issues that the DS games both make the Triangle meaningful for the whole game AND also manage to differentiate the weapon types in a manner that is completely unrelated to the Triangle, these are not contradictory statements.

Yes the Triangle usually matters in the earlygame but not much afterwards, that was already one of my points, if it literally only matters in the early section of the game why design it that way? You might as well not include a mechanic in your game that stops mattering decently quickly and allow the endgame to be balanced without it in mind. I said cutting out the Triangle in most games it's included in wouldn't change much, not that it wouldn't change anything at all.

That's kind of ignoring that the early game is a rather large chunk of the game overall (and commonly the most difficult part too). And like I also said, modern games have worked towards making the weapon triangle more relevant to late game by having its bonuses be based on weapon rank instead of a flat rate. Other ways they could make it more relevant in later sections of the game would be to implement Triangle Adept as a skill (as well as Cancel Adept, as a skill that cancels the weapon triangle entirely instead of just cancelling weapon triangle skills like in Heroes) from Heroes and the Gem weapons as ways to let the player control how powerful the boosts (and detriments) are.

Edited December 19, 2020 by Jotari

[Lightcosmo]

The WT is a small thing in FE and i think it's fine that way. It doesnt need to be +5 +50 or anything crazy to make it feel like it matters. Just a small boost for choosing the "better" choice is alright with me.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

8 hours ago, Murozaki said:

I'd argue it doesn't really add anything in most games, because all the Triangle does in practice is, as i stated before, reinforce existing weapon and combat dynamics rather than add any new ones. In most FE games with the Triangle it being removed wouldn't change anything, you would still want users of light, accurate weapons (Swords) to go against the enemies that use heavy, inaccurate weapons (Axes); You would still want to use heavy, hard-hitting weapons (Axes) against the balanced weapons due to them typically being used by classes that are sturdy but not very agile (Lances); And the only thing i can see changing is that most likely players would start attacking Sword users with other Sword users instead of Lances, that's the only matchup i can see being a bit affected. Any "depth" that the Triangle "adds" could easily still be there even if the Triangle wasn't there simply by the normal dynamics of how the weapons and the classes that use them work.

IMO the problem is, this "typecasts" certain classes and characters into specified roles. Like, say we were designing an Axe-user with fairly low strength and defense, but high skill and speed. Without the weapon triangle, they're very close to being a Myrmidon. With the triangle, though, we have something new - a Myrmidon-like unit, who nonetheless beats Lance-users and struggles against Swordies. Say they gain Swords on promotion - without a triangle, why should they train in them? With it, however, they might appreciate the boost over Axe and Sword enemies (especially in games with prowess boosts).

Obviously, there are other ways to differentiate weapon types - Radiant Dawn made only one "effective" weapon of each type, while most other games have... limited 1~2 range sword options. But the triangle is an extra layer, to encourage diversifying one's weapon kit, where possible.

6 hours ago, Murozaki said:

That's again, not really due to the Triangle to begin with, most Cavaliers and Paladins don't have an incentive to not be using Lances most of the time, and outside FE6 and DSFE they most likely won't have any reason to outside of incredibly specific and extreme examples. Cavaliers not having a reason to use Swords over Lances is an issue even in games with the Triangle already and comes from the fact that the weapon balance tends to be always be skewed towards Lances to begin with. Solving this issue has little to do with whether the Triangle is a good thing or not and more so an issue with weapon and class balance in general.

Worth noting that, in FE4, Cavaliers also appreciate using Swords. In the first couple chapters, it's due to WTA - but later, it's mainly because Swords are busted. Noish and Alec both appreciate getting their hands on the Brave Sword, and they can even do good work with a simple Steel Sword. While in Gen II, the Mystletainn that Ares brings with him is one of the strongest weapons in the game.

[Alastor15243]

The issue I feel is that without the weapon triangle, there isn't really enough to make the different weapon types feel functionally distinct from each other. Mostly because there are only two real dimensions to weapon stats most of the time: power and accuracy, with weight occasionally thrown in. And often the more advanced versions of a weapon type just... make it more like the ones further towards the power side, trading accuracy for power like the difference between swords and lances or lances and axes.

Three Houses ditching the weapon triangle made swords, axes and lances just feel like a big blob, where 90% of the time, there's no reason to use any other basic weapon type than the one your class has a faire in. The others, bows, gauntlets, white magic, black magic, dark magic... they were all distinct enough from each other that there could be a reason to use them even when you have a class bonus in something else. But why would you ever want to use lances as a swordmaster when swords are not only more accurate, but also more powerful thanks to the faire?

One idea I had was to de-couple accuracy and weight and make this more of a three-dimensional system: swords are light but weak, lances are accurate but heavy, and axes are powerful but inaccurate. And then the higher-tier weapons would be objectively better than the lower-tier ones, except for price and durability. I'd still want the weapon triangle to be a thing even then, but if it were taken out of that system, having a wider weapon access would still be useful.

[Shadow Mir]

7 hours ago, Murozaki said:

I can say without any issues that the DS games both make the Triangle meaningful for the whole game AND also manage to differentiate the weapon types in a manner that is completely unrelated to the Triangle, these are not contradictory statements.

I don't quite agree with that since it felt blatantly tacked on in Shadow Dragon, which arguably would have been better off without it if they couldn't be bothered to change enemy formations.

Edited December 19, 2020 by Shadow Mir

[Shrimpica]

Main reason i want Weapon triangle to stay: it gives the play a degree of control over hitrates.

If you are gonna remove the weapon triangle you better buff every hit rate by 20. And Axes by 30.

[Axie]

this page has too much text when it can be condensed as "basic strategy beats no strategy". yeah, weapon triangle is basic and simple to understand and employ. it being there is still a layer of strategy. what do we gain from removing it? four pages in, not one satisfying answer to that.

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

39 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

Three Houses ditching the weapon triangle made swords, axes and lances just feel like a big blob, where 90% of the time, there's no reason to use any other basic weapon type than the one your class has a faire in. The others, bows, gauntlets, white magic, black magic, dark magic... they were all distinct enough from each other that there could be a reason to use them even when you have a class bonus in something else. But why would you ever want to use lances as a swordmaster when swords are not only more accurate, but also more powerful thanks to the faire?

Well there are the few enemies that have Breaker Skills and even the enemy only variant of said skill - on Maddening at the very least.

16 minutes ago, Father Shrimpas said:

If you are gonna remove the weapon triangle you better buff every hit rate by 20. And Axes by 30.

TH tried with its system of [Weapon Prowess X] and to top it off some CA´s too. And in case these fail the player he can still use the power of Rewind.

[Shrimpica]

7 minutes ago, Imuabicus said:

TH tried with its system of [Weapon Prowess X] and to top it off some CA´s too.

TBF the Prowess skills could just be compared to Weapon Rank bonuses for DS and 3DS FE.

3H still has Weapon Triangle and Weapon Rank bonuses, just turned them into skills. Espeically on maddening enemies tend to carry weapon triangle skills, so i used them there as well, kinda.

I am fine with it personally, but i'd rather these bonuses be built into the weapon ranks themselves instead of taking a skill slot, just like in 3/DSFE

Edited December 19, 2020 by Father Shrimpas

[Emperor Hardin]

15 hours ago, Jotari said:

*Fire Emblem is not moving away from the weapon triangle imo. They didn't have it in Shadows of Valentia because that was a remake of a game that didn't have it, that was a good choice if they wanted to keep the same enemy formations as Gaiden. All lot of people are of the opinion that Shadow Dragon and New Mystery shouldnt have had the weapon triangle. So Three Houses is the only original game to lack it since it's inception in 1996. Meanwhile Heroes has ramped up the weapon triangle to be way more important for it's combat, and while heroes isn't a mainline game, it is still very much part of modern Fire Emblem and the design ideas of the series. It's not a coincidence a bunch of Heroes skill appeared in Three Houses. Other spin offs like Warriors and Tokyo Mirage Session also feature the weapon triangle under different gameplay, so it is pretty much one of the most defining features of the series at this point. I do t see one game and a remake as a pattern suggesting it's on the way out compared to everything else.

*Quite simply weapon triangle is an increase in complexity in the game, this is a good thing. Fire Emblem should not be a mindless experience where you don't have to think when attacking. Weapon triangle is simple, easy to remember and it makes a difference. The choice between which weapon to use becomes an actual choice beyond just using your Silver Sword because that's the best.

* Weapon triangle makes weapons more distinct. Without the weapon triangle the difference between axe, lance and swords is just the Mt to hit ratio which is already present in the different levels of weapons. Having a weapon triangle makes it meaningful for a class to get an extra weapon on promotion. Why would I ever grind up sword weapon ranks on my paladin when I can just stick to Silver Lances and Javelins which can do everything as good as swords can do right now, aside from the very rare need for an armour slayer?

The thing with the weapon triangle is the game has to support it, Fire Emblem: Warriors showed how a shoehorned in Weapon triangle only hurts a game in the long run and its clear it would've been better without it.

Basically the weapon triangle is nice to have, but doesn't need to be added all the time.

[Shadow Mir]

11 minutes ago, Emperor Hardin said:

The thing with the weapon triangle is the game has to support it, Fire Emblem: Warriors showed how a shoehorned in Weapon triangle only hurts a game in the long run and its clear it would've been better without it.

Basically the weapon triangle is nice to have, but doesn't need to be added all the time.

Shadow Dragon was much more egregious, considering the original didn't even have it. That ain't to say FEW didn't have its issues, but I don't think the weapon triangle was even remotely egregious as far as issues go.

Edited December 19, 2020 by Shadow Mir

[Samz707]

4 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

 

Three Houses ditching the weapon triangle made swords, axes and lances just feel like a big blob, where 90% of the time, there's no reason to use any other basic weapon type than the one your class has a faire in. The others, bows, gauntlets, white magic, black magic, dark magic... they were all distinct enough from each other that there could be a reason to use them even when you have a class bonus in something else. But why would you ever want to use lances as a swordmaster when swords are not only more accurate, but also more powerful thanks to the faire?

 

As probably controversial as this may be, I think if the weapon triangle is going to be ditched again, we should have LESS weapons overall.

So say, There's only Killing Edges for the "Constantly gets crits" weapon, so Swords have a niche for critical hits. (So No killer lances/axes.)

So by making it so that certain niche weapons are only available in one weapon type would make the actual weapon types stick out more.

[Emperor Hardin]

1 hour ago, Shadow Mir said:

Shadow Dragon was much more egregious, considering the original didn't even have it. That ain't to say FEW didn't have its issues, but I don't think the weapon triangle was even remotely egregious as far as issues go.

FE:W had a roster almost composed of sword users with literally only ONE lance moveset in the base game and even very enemy character with a complete moveset using that exact same Lance moveset.

Shadow Dragon added Axe Heroes and DracoKnights throughout the game and the weapon triangle also had a significantly smaller affect on combat then it did in FE:W, where it was practically everything.

Anyhow I'm not going letting you hijack this topic into another Anti Shadow Dragon/Fighter thread.

46 minutes ago, Samz707 said:

As probably controversial as this may be, I think if the weapon triangle is going to be ditched again, we should have LESS weapons overall.

So say, There's only Killing Edges for the "Constantly gets crits" weapon, so Swords have a niche for critical hits. (So No killer lances/axes.)

So by making it so that certain niche weapons are only available in one weapon type would make the actual weapon types stick out more.

They could always give the weapons different properties like Berwick Saga did; Lances doing more damaged based on how much you moved prior to initiating an attack, Axes having a chance to disarm the enemy, ETC.

Edited December 19, 2020 by Emperor Hardin

[Shadow Mir]

9 minutes ago, Emperor Hardin said:

FE:W had a roster almost composed of sword users with literally only ONE lance moveset in the base game and even very enemy character with a complete moveset using that exact same Lance moveset.

Shadow Dragon added Axe Heroes and DracoKnights throughout the game and the weapon triangle also had a significantly smaller affect on combat then it did in FE:W, where it was practically everything.

Anyhow I'm not going letting you hijack this topic into another Anti Shadow Dragon/Fighter thread.

Even so, it still felt tacked on because a huge chunk of enemies in SD use lances, which devalues swords, especially since they can't take advantage of their weapon rank bonuses. What can I get out of swords in SD that I couldn't get out of any other weapon type??? If you ask me, the fact that there is a hard bow-only stage in FEW when the base game only has three bow users in FEW, one of whom requires you to bust your ass to get because you have to unlock and beat an obscenely hard stage (the enemies in said stage are level 80+) to get her is even worse.

Edited December 19, 2020 by Shadow Mir

[Jotari]

4 hours ago, Emperor Hardin said:

The thing with the weapon triangle is the game has to support it, Fire Emblem: Warriors showed how a shoehorned in Weapon triangle only hurts a game in the long run and its clear it would've been better without it.

Basically the weapon triangle is nice to have, but doesn't need to be added all the time.

Oh naturally. Like I said it's good Shadows of Valentia didn't have it due to having enemy formations that never envisioned it. They could have implemented it in Shadows of Valentia, but it would have meanr changing all the enemies on all the maos to habe a better balance as well as changing what weapons are available to the player (I make axes a thing). So it of course depends on what game you're making. Though going intolerance constructing a Fire Emblem game, there's not much reason not to construct a balance of weapon availability, in my own fan game I removed the weapon triangle because most of the enemies I the game are dragons that lie outside the triangle, but most games have little difficulty in justifying having enemies that use swords, lances and axes (Radiant Dawn chose to outright ignore this though in regards to Dark Magic, for all the good the magic triangle does). For warriors I'd say the system is less the problem and more that the playable cast is out of whack. They definitely should have given one of the twins a lance at least (or just made them Eirika and Ephraim, or Alphonse and Shareena).

 

Edited December 20, 2020 by Jotari