Permadeath, QoL, and The Future

[Clear World]

3 hours ago, lightcosmo said:

There are some things even toggles cant fix.

For example: FE4's Holy Weapons. Sure you could just say to add a toggle and lower their MT, but then it's not FE4 anymore and I think that's what Eclipse means by "lose someone". I could be wrong on that, though, haha.

It needs to keep that core, otherwise what separates it from any other Fire Emblem game?

But everything you say is what makes it so baffling to me, because I'm NOT advocating for stuff like that. I realize the people have posted their ideas as well, suggesting more extreme customizations, and I will go out and say, I don't agree that those stuff should just be added for the sake of being able to customize the game. Does some people want more customization? Yes. Do some people want less? Yes. What is the perfect level of customization? I don't know.

I don't think the creators should be adding random features that moves it further away from being a SRPG for the sake of appeasing random people who do not care about playing a SRPG. But there are a lot of people who actually do enjoy a SRPG but struggle to stay committed to a SRPG because of the more frustrating aspects that naturally come with a SRPG. Problematic game design should be looked at and considered how to be improved, but I'm NOT ADVOCATING that the creators should simply decide to just make it a toggle [on or off]. That's usually a lazy route. Problematic game design should be looked at, and be improved upon if they have to room to improve upon it. So for something like ambush spawns, its implementation just needs to be more consistent in its fairer & intelligent usage.

But for your example, like... why? I don't get it. I never played FE4, so I don't have the details, but where are these level of change coming from? If they were like completely broken in the game, maybe instead of trying a quick bandage, maybe actually look for a better solution. Maybe they were unusable or something? Maybe look into what's causing that issue and try to fixt that? If the issue isn't directly related to the player and can be resolved without the player, then maybe try to resolve it instead of requiring the player to fix it themselves?

A key aspect of what I'm trying to get across is, "I think the designer should better Assist players to engage in the game they design", not "make the players design the game themselves (assuming that isn't the creator's intentions)". For another analogy, "I want Intelligent Systems to be a teacher with better tools & communication to better assist students go through their planned lessons", not "here's a sandbox, do whatever you want (assuming that isn't the creator's intentions)".

[Lightcosmo]

FE4's holy weapons are kinda infamous for the fact that they are kinda insane... 30mt weapons with all around great stats and amazing stat boosts are gonna be game breaking, haha.

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

17 minutes ago, Clear World said:

A key aspect of what I'm trying to get across is, "I think the designer should better Assist players to engage in the game they design", not "make the players design the game themselves (assuming that isn't the creator's intentions)". For another analogy, "I want Intelligent Systems to be a teacher with better tools & communication to better assist students go through their planned lessons", not "here's a sandbox, do whatever you want (assuming that isn't the creator's intentions)".

So... you want a tutorial? We already get that - at the very least in the most recent recent entries (that I´m aware of. Doesn´t NM feature a bunch of prologue chapters that do just that?). You learn by playing - FE doesn´t strike me the kind of game to require handholding. 

I don´t quite get why you would ever want to turn off enemy ranges, the exclamation marks when effective damage is on the menu, combat calculations etc. Like why? Bragging rights?  I also think these things are quite self-explanatory. 

And quite frankly, getting a set of options to decide stuff like growths, stats, skills and the likes sounds very exciting to me.

[Clear World]

On 1/1/2021 at 1:20 PM, Imuabicus said:

So... you want a tutorial? We already get that - at the very least in the most recent recent entries (that I´m aware of. Doesn´t NM feature a bunch of prologue chapters that do just that?). You learn by playing - FE doesn´t strike me the kind of game to require handholding. 

I don´t quite get why you would ever want to turn off enemy ranges, the exclamation marks when effective damage is on the menu, combat calculations etc. Like why? Bragging rights?  I also think these things are quite self-explanatory. 

And quite frankly, getting a set of options to decide stuff like growths, stats, skills and the likes sounds very exciting to me.

First, no. You clearly don't understand what I'm suggesting and/or making a case for. The intended goal is about making the transition from casual mode (non-permadeath) into classic mode more approachable and learnable for players who aren't at the point yet to see the positive value of permadeath as a gameplay design, but is interested in getting closer to see why it exist. 

Second, I assume when you say "I don't quite get why you would ever...", you are referring to people in general and not to me specifically because I have not brought that up once, though some of those features are already changeable.

Third, I want to make it clear to anyone else who reads this, regarding about complete options to decide growth/stats/skills/etc, I'm not personally advocating for this for future installments to have that in this thread.

Edited January 5, 2021 by Clear World

[scigeek101]

On 12/31/2020 at 12:53 PM, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Here's where the trouble comes in - should the player be able to put themselves in an unwinnable scenario? 

Don't most Fire Emblem games allow you to get into an unwinnable scenario? Like you could throw all your items away and save or other idiot moves. 

 

Like I think that you can screw yourself out of the ending in classic mode in pretty much every game that doesn't have optional battle grinding (awakening) if you aren't careful. 

For example in FE1 if you don't get Falchion and let Tiki die, you might have a really bad time with the final boss. Maybe Gotoh can handle it but it can be rough if you don't have enough strong units left alive. 

FE3 if you aren't prepared for that long mid game drought of shops for several chapters you might be in for a rough experience. 

FE7 if you're one of those players who lost everyone but the lord's the final chapter might be a real challenge. Hell they made it easier on the American version for this reason. 

 

Now how much you can screw yourself unintentionally. I don't know. I suspect it's going to be pretty hard to get into an unwinnable state without intentionally trying on normal difficulties. But the harder difficulties? Pretty sure the unwinnable state is something that's a possibility on most games. 

 

Like Shadow Dragon H5 if you don't know what you are doing and let too many people die there's the whole problem of not being able to kill the bosses on the first few chapters. That's definitely an unwinnable state that would be pretty easy to stumble into inadvertently. 

 

And I think that Three Houses might be a real problem if you let a lot of your units die since replacements are as readily available as some games. 

 

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

12 hours ago, Clear World said:

First, no. You clearly don't understand what I'm suggesting and/or making a case for. The intended goal is about making the transition from casual mode (non-permadeath) into classic mode more approachable and learnable for players who aren't at the point yet to see the positive value of permadeath as a gameplay design, but is interested in getting closer to see why it exist. 

First off, can you tell me what the positive value of permadeath would be. Secondly, why do you ascribe a desire to go into Classic to players that have actively chosen not to play on that gamemode?

Because regardless of game-mode and difficulty it´s a strategy game – unless you are intentionally screwing around there isn´t going to be much of a difference in how one would play. (I assume, what do I know about others playstyle.) Normal Casual doesn´t play any different from Normal Classic and the same goes for any other difficulty Casual-Classic. Only reason for Casual to exist is to not worry and the only reason for Classic to exist is for players who want their ironman-runs.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

9 hours ago, Imuabicus said:

Because regardless of game-mode and difficulty it´s a strategy game – unless you are intentionally screwing around there isn´t going to be much of a difference in how one would play. (I assume, what do I know about others playstyle.) Normal Casual doesn´t play any different from Normal Classic and the same goes for any other difficulty Casual-Classic. Only reason for Casual to exist is to not worry and the only reason for Classic to exist is for players who want their ironman-runs.

In Casual, you can let units die, and they come back next chapter. In Classic, you can't - you need to either reset, or turnwheel, or otherwise accept losing them. Strategies that work in Casual (baiting enemies without caring if the unit in question survives) just aren't viable in Classic.

[Samz707]

10 hours ago, Imuabicus said:

First off, can you tell me what the positive value of permadeath would be. Secondly, why do you ascribe a desire to go into Classic to players that have actively chosen not to play on that gamemode?

Because regardless of game-mode and difficulty it´s a strategy game – unless you are intentionally screwing around there isn´t going to be much of a difference in how one would play. (I assume, what do I know about others playstyle.) Normal Casual doesn´t play any different from Normal Classic and the same goes for any other difficulty Casual-Classic. Only reason for Casual to exist is to not worry and the only reason for Classic to exist is for players who want their ironman-runs.

Heroes is casual and my units even keep their level ups when they die, I am much, much more reckless in that than later games.

Also, as Echoes showed, a great use of Perma-death can be used to have great drama and sadness in character quotes, from the horrified reaction of friends to even the somewhat defeated "been through this before" attitude of some of the older characters, it also helps our characters seem more like they're actually friends and such when they actually react to their friend getting stabbed in the heart.

Edited January 6, 2021 by Samz707

[Clear World]

10 hours ago, Imuabicus said:

First off, can you tell me what the positive value of permadeath would be. Secondly, why do you ascribe a desire to go into Classic to players that have actively chosen not to play on that gamemode?

Because regardless of game-mode and difficulty it´s a strategy game – unless you are intentionally screwing around there isn´t going to be much of a difference in how one would play. (I assume, what do I know about others playstyle.) Normal Casual doesn´t play any different from Normal Classic and the same goes for any other difficulty Casual-Classic. Only reason for Casual to exist is to not worry and the only reason for Classic to exist is for players who want their ironman-runs.

When the consequences of poor play and/or luck has a larger impact, this forces players to really engage with more of the game mechanics & tactics and be more mindful & careful to minimize the chance of failure. In other words, it's help pushes the mindset that you need be a great tactician, attempting to maximize success and minimize failure, and be careful of your limited poor of resources and units.

Shanty Pete's 1st Mate & Samz707 responses are good examples of differences. In a casual setting, you are way more likely to risk tossing your 'star' unit into a hoard of enemies all at once if you know they're coming back the next map or if you can just revert the action if it goes wrong, compared to, do you really want to risk your 'star' unit against a hoard of enemy unit all at once knowing that if you are ill fortuned, your 'star' unit will be gone for the remaining 20ish chapters of the game. The risk/reward dynamic is very different.

And why do I ascribe a desire to have a more accessible bridge of divide? It's simple. I think it's safe to assume IS will follow a pattern of remaking older games in-between new releases, and if they do follow this pattern, then all of the older games were designed with 'permadeath' as a intended feature. It would be a lot of wasted effort, time, and resources for the designers to be making 50+ characters (which would include models, animations, voice-over, dialogue via support, etc) if most of the casual mode players don't have much incentive to play more than 15ish of those characters throughout an entire game.

Would allowing adjustable scale of punishments automatically convert players into enjoying classic mode? No. Is it okay if a player never wants to engage in permadeath? Completely yes. Maybe they are fine with permadeath when due to your poor decision, but play casual mode because they hate it when it feels like a cheap death from unfair game design (unknown ambush spawn for example).

Basically, if they were interested, even slightly, then it would help make it more approachable as players can more freely adjust it to their preferences to come closer to full-on classic mode, instead of having to just having to sink or swim in it. It may not even convert the player completely within that one game, but it will make them far more receptive of classic mode for future games.

29 minutes ago, Samz707 said:

Heroes is casual and my units even keep their level ups when they die, I am much, much more reckless in that than later games.

Haha. I am so like that in FEH. New map challenge? Time to run head first and just try and try again until something looks positive.

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

On 1/6/2021 at 11:55 PM, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

In Casual, you can let units die, and they come back next chapter. In Classic, you can't - you need to either reset, or turnwheel, or otherwise accept losing them. Strategies that work in Casual (baiting enemies without caring if the unit in question survives) just aren't viable in Classic.

On 1/7/2021 at 12:55 AM, Samz707 said:

Heroes is casual and my units even keep their level ups when they die, I am much, much more reckless in that than later games.

Losing characters on a map loses them the chance to gain experience - in turn they will fall further and further behind, until it´s either a Lord Solo or a softlock. Heroes also doesn´t have an Endgame map does it? Of course you can bait enemies in classic and not care if your unit dies. That´s why we have replacement units. But it may softlock you. 

On 1/7/2021 at 1:28 AM, Clear World said:

And why do I ascribe a desire to have a more accessible bridge of divide? It's simple. I think it's safe to assume IS will follow a pattern of remaking older games in-between new releases, and if they do follow this pattern, then all of the older games were designed with 'permadeath' as a intended feature. It would be a lot of wasted effort, time, and resources for the designers to be making 50+ characters (which would include models, animations, voice-over, dialogue via support, etc) if most of the casual mode players don't have much incentive to play more than 15ish of those characters throughout an entire game.

...what? So, it is about IS not wasting resources, because in some not-yet-existing remake there´s more characters than the maps allow and because casual players may use less characters? 

The incentive for players to use characters is wanting to use said characters. That means replays. That means cool character desgin. That means interesting characters. Probably some story elements too. Which means the game better be good, else it´s going to gather dust regardless of toggle. 

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

7 hours ago, Imuabicus said:

Losing characters on a map loses them the chance to gain experience - in turn they will fall further and further behind, until it´s either a Lord Solo or a softlock. Heroes also doesn´t have an Endgame map does it? Of course you can bait enemies in classic and not care if your unit dies. That´s why we have replacement units. But it may softlock you. 

If a unit "falls behind" from retreating in Casual, you can just baby them in the next map to make up for it. And a lot of units don't even need levels to perform. Also a "Casual softlock" seems unlikely - you're still getting experience, it's just going to different people. Finally, some "retreats" have no effect on EXP gained - i.e., going up against a boss and getting crit (Casual), versus not going against that boss at all (Classic), since if you did, you might have to reset the whole chapter.

[Samz707]

On 1/8/2021 at 7:08 PM, Imuabicus said:

Losing characters on a map loses them the chance to gain experience - in turn they will fall further and further behind, until it´s either a Lord Solo or a softlock. Heroes also doesn´t have an Endgame map does it? Of course you can bait enemies in classic and not care if your unit dies. That´s why we have replacement units. But it may softlock you. 

 

Someone's still getting EXP though, and I'm pretty sure most FE games don't have sudden bursts in enemy levels/stats, so you'd need to very consistently have that Unit get KO'd for them to become useless, and practically be trying for a softlock.

It's worth noting that any game with resource management generally by it's nature allows the player to soft-lock themselves via wasting resources, I actually wish FE leaned into this a bit more, just be like the Resident Evil games where the actual resources change on difficulty, (so say, a Killing Edge Sword in a Village on Easy and Normal is actually just a Steel Sword on Hard.) have a harder difficulty where resources are much more scarcer but since it's unlocked after beating the game first you're expecting to use your future knowledge to account around this. (like the Resident Evil series does, where a room filled with 2 boxes of shotgun ammo and Grenade Launcher rounds might only have a single pickup for Shotgun/Grenade Launcher ammo on Hard.)

Even the more forgiving games, like the classic Tomb Raider games where you have an infinite ammo weapon, can still in theory have you get soft-locked if you save after taking a ton of damage/have no healing but can't avoid damage. (such as a tough enemy but you're out of powerful weapons to kill it quickly enough to avoid damage and out of ways to heal.)

It's kinda just simply inevitable unless you make the game so generous with resources that it's pointless that in theory a player doing poorly enough can soft-lock themselves.

Even if Heroes had an end-game map....so? I can infinitely replay levels and there's even event time-limited maps that are entirely for grinding.

 

Edited January 9, 2021 by Samz707

[Clear World]

As an add on to the two above post, i think its a large reason why skirmishes exist in many of the newer FE games. It's a method to catch up experience for weaker units without progressing the story forward... but this leads to the divisive issue about skirmishes as it opens the door to no EXP management if not impediment with concern of this balance.

On 1/8/2021 at 1:08 PM, Imuabicus said:

...what? So, it is about IS not wasting resources, because in some not-yet-existing remake there´s more characters than the maps allow and because casual players may use less characters? 

The incentive for players to use characters is wanting to use said characters. That means replays. That means cool character desgin. That means interesting characters. Probably some story elements too. Which means the game better be good, else it´s going to gather dust regardless of toggle. 

Or they just don't spend the time and effort in making all those additional units (because they do consume time & resources which are not limitless) to then better focus on all the other things you just said. Just saying. 

Edited January 9, 2021 by Clear World

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

18 hours ago, Clear World said:

Or they just don't spend the time and effort in making all those additional units (because they do consume time & resources which are not limitless) to then better focus on all the other things you just said. Just saying. 

Are you still talking about theoretical remakes, or are we in new game territory now? Cuz I don´t see the point of a remake if it doesn´t include the playable characters. But hey, maybe that´s just me. Didn´t the remakes we got add some characters?

18 hours ago, Samz707 said:

Even if Heroes had an end-game map....so?

That was aimed at Heroes not having a map that brings closure (afaik). A point where the game says "you beat me! no more progress to be had"

18 hours ago, Clear World said:

As an add on to the two above post, i think its a large reason why skirmishes exist in many of the newer FE games. It's a method to catch up experience for weaker units without progressing the story forward... but this leads to the divisive issue about skirmishes as it opens the door to no EXP management if not impediment with concern of this balance.

What´s the issue with skirmishes? 

Edited January 10, 2021 by Imuabicus

[joevar]

  

12 hours ago, Imuabicus said:

What´s the issue with skirmishes? 

im sure its whether to abuse it, to use it moderately, or just do it once for the sake of completion (if it has a side story attached to it). that leads difference in terms of total overall experience a party who abuse skirmishes versus other people who doesnt, related to how difficult the next story chapter will be

or if you want to toss oil to the flame: its birthright versus conquest, with the latter praised by elitist who want challenge because theres little to no room for grinding while former by people who wants to take it slow by grinding *gameplay, not story ofc*

Edited January 11, 2021 by joevar

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

On 1/11/2021 at 6:14 AM, joevar said:

im sure its whether to abuse it, to use it moderately, or just do it once for the sake of completion (if it has a side story attached to it). that leads difference in terms of total overall experience a party who abuse skirmishes versus other people who doesnt, related to how difficult the next story chapter will be

Considering this is left up to the players choice, I´m not really seeing any issue. Some may want to try and use their low level units on a chapter and others may want to roflstomp it into oblivion. Or both on different playthroughs. Skirmishes only enable the latter and have (next to) no influence on the former.

@Shanty Pete's 1st Mate read this in regard to your post below, since your post is essentially the same as joevars.

Edited January 13, 2021 by Imuabicus

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

On 1/10/2021 at 12:47 PM, Imuabicus said:

What´s the issue with skirmishes? 

Skirmishes provide the player with an infinite pool of experience, support points, and weapon ranks. Rather than having to build these up against a limited set of enemies, the player is able to raise them ad infinitum against weak, predictable enemies. This compromises the game's difficulty curve, and permits an "out" to the problem of resource management. 

For the record, I'm not strictly againat skirmishes, but I would say that them being an option significantly changes the experience, compared to "classic FE".

[Axie]

clearly the solution is, as i proposed in another thread, to give the choice to the player before a new game if there will be skirmishes/DLC experience or not. like birthright vs conquest, except it's the same game. just always leave it up to the player even if they have to make like a dozen different choices every new game lol.

[Samz707]

On 1/11/2021 at 8:58 AM, Imuabicus said:

Considering this is left up to the players choice, I´m not really seeing any issue. Some may want to try and use their low level units on a chapter and others may want to roflstomp it into oblivion. Or both on different playthroughs. Skirmishes only enable the latter and have (next to) no influence on the former.

@Shanty Pete's 1st Mate read this in regard to your post below, since your post is essentially the same as joevars.

A big problem though is that if you don't want to curbstomp the game...how much grinding do you actually do? 

I've seen at least one person who struggled in Echoes because they barely touched the dungeons not wanting to break the game online.

Not to mention the devs won't know how much grinding the average player can end up doing.

I guess for an example, Brigade E5/7.62mm are strategy games with grinding in random battles, while this is initially fine, you'll eventually reach a point in the main story where they're near impossible without kinda absurd stats...except the random battles scale with them to the point where they're kinda absurd, so if you didn't grind early on, well then you better get used to save/load spam because you're going to die, alot in both the main story and random battles, granted the random battles were extremely poorly designed but even then main missions would have you dealing with borderline super-human enemies in how high their stats were.

The devs however made another game after, Marauder:Man of Prey, it had the same mechanics and engine but removed the random battles, with the game instead being balanced better since the devs could have an idea of the stats of your characters, since there was only a fixed number of battles in the main story line with a few side-quests for extra battles/exp, the game was balanced better since the devs knew better what stats/equipment the player would have.

 

Edited January 13, 2021 by Samz707

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

2 hours ago, Samz707 said:

A big problem though is that if you don't want to curbstomp the game...how much grinding do you actually do? 

I've seen at least one person who struggled in Echoes because they barely touched the dungeons not wanting to break the game online.

Not to mention the devs won't know how much grinding the average player can end up doing.

If you struggle and don´t have the patience to find a way around it go grind a map once or twice, come back and try again? FE is a numbers game and it doesn´t hide it´s numbers from you, so you should very much be able to tell when you are too weak, too strong or just good enough.

The devs don´t need to know how much the player will grind. It is the players choice to grind and if they make the game accidentally too easy for themselves that´s their very own fault.

[Samz707]

1 minute ago, Imuabicus said:

If you struggle and don´t have the patience to find a way around it go grind a map once or twice, come back and try again? FE is a numbers game and it doesn´t hide it´s numbers from you, so you should very much be able to tell when you are too weak, too strong or just good enough.

The devs don´t need to know how much the player will grind. It is the players choice to grind and if they make the game accidentally too easy for themselves that´s their very own fault.

Except you know, what if the game suddenly difficulty spikes you.

Especially if say, the game were to suddenly lock you out from grinding. (I know a friend of mine is worried he can't beat echoes since he last saved inside the final dungeon before the Berkut fight and he's not sure if everyone's got high enough stats.)

And well, quite frankly, I'd rather not have to grind, I'd rather have a well-balanced game that doesn't pad itself out with needed grinding, to me, I'd rather have a linear game where there's no massive numbers inflation than one with grinding where it's required. (It's part of why I like Fe7 alot more than Awakening.)

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

8 minutes ago, Samz707 said:

Except you know, what if the game suddenly difficulty spikes you.

...eh? Leave map, go grind, come back, kick butt. The only exception to this I can think of is TH chapter 13 on Maddening - but TH also has like 25 save slots for at max 22(?) maps and I think using them to create a fail safe every now and then won´t hurt.

8 minutes ago, Samz707 said:

Especially if say, the game were to suddenly lock you out from grinding. (I know a friend of mine is worried he can't beat echoes since he last saved inside the final dungeon before the Berkut fight and he's not sure if everyone's got high enough stats.)

That sounds like unwarranted worry, but I haven´t played Echoes in a long time so i don´t know if Berkut´s final battle is actually a difficulty spike. The greatest difficulty in SoV comes from trying not to ragequit at Infinite Swamp&Cantor Works and the shitty accuracy. 

10 minutes ago, Samz707 said:

And well, quite frankly, I'd rather not have to grind, I'd rather have a well-balanced game that doesn't pad itself out with needed grinding, to me, I'd rather have a linear game where there's no massive numbers inflation than one with grinding where it's required.

I mean yeah, I agree it´s probably bad design. But tell that the Devs and not me, since you know, they already accomplished that once with F:CQ and then we got Echoes (which is a remake tbf) and after that we got TH which follows in Awakenings footsteps of difficulty design.

[joevar]

16 hours ago, Axie said:

clearly the solution is, as i proposed in another thread, to give the choice to the player before a new game if there will be skirmishes/DLC experience or not. like birthright vs conquest, except it's the same game. just always leave it up to the player even if they have to make like a dozen different choices every new game lol.

12 hours ago, Imuabicus said:

...eh? Leave map, go grind, come back, kick butt. The only exception to this I can think of is TH chapter 13 on Maddening - but TH also has like 25 save slots for at max 22(?) maps and I think using them to create a fail safe every now and then won´t hurt.

That sounds like unwarranted worry, but I haven´t played Echoes in a long time so i don´t know if Berkut´s final battle is actually a difficulty spike. The greatest difficulty in SoV comes from trying not to ragequit at Infinite Swamp&Cantor Works and the shitty accuracy. 

I mean yeah, I agree it´s probably bad design. But tell that the Devs and not me, since you know, they already accomplished that once with F:CQ and then we got Echoes (which is a remake tbf) and after that we got TH which follows in Awakenings footsteps of difficulty design.

maybe, just maayybeee. what if FE take example in traditional RPG (western), where theres optional side quest (paralogue chapter) and it can only be completed once, we can give extra but limited exp ?

FE seems a unique experience that you can even complaint about "to grind, or not to grind" LOL

the more we talk about this, the more permadeath become the root of problem. but i dont want to take it away too.. oh man

Edited January 14, 2021 by joevar

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

4 hours ago, joevar said:

maybe, just maayybeee. what if FE take example in traditional RPG (western), where theres optional side quest (paralogue chapter) and it can only be completed once, we can give extra but limited exp ?

FE seems a unique experience that you can even complaint about "to grind, or not to grind" LOL

the more we talk about this, the more permadeath become the root of problem. but i dont want to take it away too.. oh man

We already had that - see CQ children paralogues and MyCastle Invasions in general - and then we got Echoes and TH (though exp may be limited in TH too). Make of that what you will.

That´s just looking for something to nit-pick at by players with different playstyles - if you don´t like something and it´s in the game, but you can ignore it and it´s not necessary, then it´s not an issue. If you like your challenge, then don´t grind - if you want to curbstomp the game, go and grind and curbstomp. I don´t understand the sentiment that game devs need to hold the players hand and bend to the playerbase every whim because that´s impossible. You can play FE in every way you can come up with (within some limitations obviously).

Permadeath is a problem because people make it one - in itself it´s a choice left to the player as of the most recent entries.

Edited January 14, 2021 by Imuabicus

[joevar]

1 hour ago, Imuabicus said:

That´s just looking for something to nit-pick at by players with different playstyles - if you don´t like something and it´s in the game, but you can ignore it and it´s not necessary, then it´s not an issue. If you like your challenge, then don´t grind - if you want to curbstomp the game, go and grind and curbstomp. I don´t understand the sentiment that game devs need to hold the players hand and bend to the playerbase every whim because that´s impossible. You can play FE in every way you can come up with (within some limitations obviously).

did i personally complaint about it? nah. im saying what im seeing here in sf, and relaying it in this thread.

before you get the wrong idea,  im okay either way they make it.

not convinced? see my previous suggestion, i want extra mission/chapter (meaning more exp than just story chapter to story chapter like older games) but i still want it to be limited (cant abuse grind/skirmish). in other words, im in middle of these 2 type :

On 1/11/2021 at 12:14 PM, joevar said:

that leads difference in terms of total overall experience a party who abuse skirmishes versus other people who doesnt, related to how difficult the next story chapter will be

 

1 hour ago, Imuabicus said:

We already had that - see CQ children paralogues and MyCastle Invasions in general - and then we got Echoes and TH (though exp may be limited in TH too). Make of that what you will.

yes, you're right they already had that, but echoes have dungeon and repeat-able mission&dungeon in dlc. TH had paralogue and skirmishes if iirc. dunno about fates. so its still possible to grind endlessly in those games afaik

1 hour ago, Imuabicus said:

Permadeath is a problem because people make it one - in itself it´s a choice left to the player as of the most recent entries.

agreed to this. more choices seem to be the good choice for FE

Edited January 14, 2021 by joevar