Jump to content

What are the Top 3 Things you want in the next FE Game and why?


DoomRPG
 Share

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, DoomRPG said:

I do not like the time rewind mechanic. Look FE games are really easy. Even the hardest ones are jokes compared to say, XCOM. But making it so the games are impossible to lose, mistakes completely trivial.

I mean... you can do exactly the same thing in XCOM (and many other SRPGs): you can save, and reload, whenever you want, which is essentially a rewind, just with a clunkier interface. Is XCOM "harder" because it has annoyingly long load times when you do this, whereas the last two FEs let you do it in a few seconds?

I'm generally fine with saving/rewinding options. Not everyone has time to re-do an entire Fire Emblem map (which can easily be an hour long) because of a stupid mistake late in a fight (or worse, a misclick). I'm open to the number/availability of them being based on difficulty, though.

 

What I'd like to see:

1. Bring back the weapon triangle (or weapon triangles). I think weapon triangles are a cool and effective way to reward diversity and also gives another axis for what types of units you send against what enemies. No need to make it super-complicated like the more recent games have; make it simple but effective, something like +/-20 hit and evade.

2. Overhaul experience. Either give it out per fight, rather than per action, or make it heavilly curved so that underlevelled folk catch up real fast and there's little impetus to feed exp into a small number of powerhouses. While we're at it, bring back 100 exp = 1 level so we can easily see how much exp we're getting; not sure why 3H changed it to a bunch of arbitrary numbers.

3. Iterate on the heavily customizable class system. I love that there are multiple different interesting and valid ways to build PCs in Three Houses; Raven will be basically the same every time I use him, but Sylvain might be vastly different depending on his build; this is cool! Balancing the classes better, and making it so we don't go through the same 2-3 classes in each tier for specific overcentralizing skills, would help, though.

4. Get rid of ambush spawns. Again.

And while not the highest of priorities for me, definitely second the request for properly adjustable difficulties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

45 minutes ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

I mean... you can do exactly the same thing in XCOM (and many other SRPGs): you can save, and reload, whenever you want, which is essentially a rewind, just with a clunkier interface. Is XCOM "harder" because it has annoyingly long load times when you do this, whereas the last two FEs let you do it in a few seconds?

I'm generally fine with saving/rewinding options. Not everyone has time to re-do an entire Fire Emblem map (which can easily be an hour long) because of a stupid mistake late in a fight (or worse, a misclick). I'm open to the number/availability of them being based on difficulty, though.

Well. I'd argue that in a save scum allowed verse. XCOM on average is a lot harder than even difficult FE's like conquest. (I say on Average since Chimera squad is quite easy and abusable once you get the hang of it.) But that conversation is for another time and I have more important stuff to ponder/agree with.

Quote

 

1. Bring back the weapon triangle (or weapon triangles). I think weapon triangles are a cool and effective way to reward diversity and also gives another axis for what types of units you send against what enemies. No need to make it super-complicated like the more recent games have; make it simple but effective, something like +/-20 hit and evade.

2. Overhaul experience. Either give it out per fight, rather than per action, or make it heavilly curved so that underlevelled folk catch up real fast and there's little impetus to feed exp into a small number of powerhouses. While we're at it, bring back 100 exp = 1 level so we can easily see how much exp we're getting; not sure why 3H changed it to a bunch of arbitrary numbers.


 


Namely I agree with the experience overhaul and return of the weapon triangle. Both of those were among the things I think 3H actually screwed up on and did poorly. Don't think I'd make them as "required" things either but absolutely something I'd love.
I think more specific things I'd like to see for the XP overhaul would be boss kills no longer giving bonus xp to enemies above the boss's level. But also 100 XP no longer being the cap a unit can get.
If your able to buff a lvl 5 unit to the point they can take down a lvl 15 boss... At that point I'd say they deserve 3 level ups from that alone.
If the "100" cap is a must. Then I'd bring in BEXP from the Tellius games with the quirk of making it extremely biased to low level units. Rather than Radiant Dawn which mandated units with caps. And PoR which made BEXP better on your best units in the first place.

Man in hindsight I really should have made this "Top ten things". Though maybe that's just bloating it. Idk. Perhaps I should edit in a few more things in the OP down the line just to talk about em.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll try to refrain from specific "I want this weapon tyoe back" or "this would be a great class to have" requests, and instead opt for more general attributes:

1. Bring back the ranking system. We haven't had a ranking system since FE7. Turncount and Survival ranks are obvious for consideration, but I could see Experience and Funds coming back too. One more I would add is Reliability - basically an inverse measure of how many times you Turnwheel. In my vision, the Turnwheel is essentially unlimited - but the more you use it, the worse your Reliability ranking gets. On top of a "per campaign" ranking, I think it'd be great to be able to see your rank for each chapter as well.

2. Bring back a Fixed Growths variant, and formally introduce 0% Growths. I genuinely don't understand how Path of Radiance is the only game to include a "Fixed Growths" mode. It seems like such a no-brainer to revive, given the consistency it offers, but I rarely seen it brought up. As for 0% growths, obviously the game would have to be designed such that it's beatable this way, but I don't believe that's been a problem in the past (save for Awakening Lunatic and maybe Three Houses Maddening). I just think it'd be great for an extra replay challenge.

3. Design that emphasizes deterministic skills/special attacks over random-activation ones. Basically, compare the Combat Arts we saw in Echoes and Three Houses with earlier iterations of skills like Sol or Vengeance. I prefer the model that lets you choose when they activate, at some personal cost (i.e. HP, Durability), rather than relying on the Skill or Luck stat. There are other ways to do this, too - say, Astra could activate when your weapon durability ends in "5", or Luna could activate only when your Skill is greater than the target's Def/Res. Similarly, Miracle could go back to its Genealogy iteration, or just act like 3H's Blessing gambit (a one-time guaranteed survival). Basically, I'd just like the chance to be more strategic around these skills and attacks, as opposed to "picking a god and praying".

Those three come to mind right now. Thoughts?

2 hours ago, Use the Falchion said:

Amen to this! They could even do this with magic: 

Pegasus: Light Magic 

Wyvern: Dark Magic

Griffon: Anima Magic

I like the notion of more magical fliers. Maybe each base flier class could have two promotion options: one where they gain a new weapon, and another where they instead gain magic?

3 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Axe units which are based and so good that even Mir likes them because axe users are based and they deserve it.

 

1 hour ago, fates is based said:

Bring back Kinshi Knights and purposely make axe infantry good just to spite Shadow Mir

What I'm hearing is "bring back Dagdar, except he has full availability and the Pugi is now his Prf weapon".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, DoomRPG said:

Well. I'd argue that in a save scum allowed verse. XCOM on average is a lot harder than even difficult FE's like conquest. (I say on Average since Chimera squad is quite easy and abusable once you get the hang of it.)

"save scum allowed verse" is the default setting of XCOM. You can choose not to do it, but you can also choose not to use rewinds. *shrug*

Defining challenge/difficulty is tricky, but I will say that I don't know if I agree with you or not. I can get into it a bit more if you'd like but if you feel the conversation is for another time, that's fine!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a lot of the things mentioned I agree with so I guess these are top 3 that haven't been mentioned or not mentioned a lot

 

More Diverse Character Ages

A lot of the previous games (Fe13, Fe14, Fe16) had a cast dominated by youngish characters. This is mostly personal as I just like having those older characters there. I think a cast akin to Path of Radiance would be nice. That game still had younger characters, but a lot of older characters like Titania, Mordecai, and Brom were sprinkled in there so the cast wasn't dominated by exclusively 16-25 year old like Three Houses. 

Remove the Grinding/ Fluff

The lack of grinding in Fire Emblem is what I find very appealing. Even in games like Sacred Stones and Awakening, games that allow grinding, I never felt forced to grind. In the past two games Echoes and Fe16 grinding was a bigger part of the game. Echoes kind of gets a pass because it was a remake of an NES game where grinding was a big thing. And in Three Houses while grinding is optional, there is so much "fluff" in the monastery that it feels like a grind regardless.

Polish The New Mechanics 

Three Houses definitely had a lot of fun ideas, but most of them weren't very balanced. A lot of these ideas are really interesting like gambits and a less restricted class system. But they need some work. As said before the expanded class system leaves some characters feeling Samey. And some gambits are just insane, like stride and the like. So I just want IS to polish these mechanics because a lot of them are really interesting.

(Honorable Mention: Scrolls are cool bring them back. I mean you could have crest scrolls that would be cool as heck) 

 

 

 

Edited by BubbleOdyssey
accidentally pressed enter /:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

1. Bring back the ranking system. We haven't had a ranking system since FE7. Turncount and Survival ranks are obvious for consideration, but I could see Experience and Funds coming back too. One more I would add is Reliability - basically an inverse measure of how many times you Turnwheel. In my vision, the Turnwheel is essentially unlimited - but the more you use it, the worse your Reliability ranking gets. On top of a "per campaign" ranking, I think it'd be great to be able to see your rank for each chapter as well.

I wouldn't be a fan of this, personally. I understand why those who like it do, but rankings bring out the perfectionist in me and in turn make the game about getting the best rank instead of having fun. It's why I can't play Valkyria Chronicles, as a ranking is given at the end of each level, and I HAVE to get the best ranking I can. (Which in turn gets you better weapons, which are used for better rankings.) And that compulsion turns what should be a 15-30 minute mission into a 2-3 hour grind that ruins all enjoyment of the game. At least in FE7 I can turn off my brain for this part, since the ranking comes at the end of the game IIRC. Overall, I'd rather Fire Emblem NOT go down that path again, or if it does, at least make rankings optional. 

 

1 hour ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

I like the notion of more magical fliers. Maybe each base flier class could have two promotion options: one where they gain a new weapon, and another where they instead gain magic?

Sort of like the Fates flyer splits ala Falcon Knight/Kinshi Knight and Wyvern Lord/Malig Knight? I'd be down for that!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

 

1. Bring back the ranking system. We haven't had a ranking system since FE7. Turncount and Survival ranks are obvious for consideration, but I could see Experience and Funds coming back too. One more I would add is Reliability - basically an inverse measure of how many times you Turnwheel. In my vision, the Turnwheel is essentially unlimited - but the more you use it, the worse your Reliability ranking gets. On top of a "per campaign" ranking, I think it'd be great to be able to see your rank for each chapter as well.

 

Ranking system is intriguing. Personally I wouldn't mandate it if I was about to make an official FE game. (its around top 20) But it is an interesting idea. I actually like that FE ranking gave you actual benefits as well, even if they were subtle and all things concerned kinda meaningless.

That said. One thing I really dislike about FE7 ranking is the turn count.
Not because it punishes things like arena/dancer/boss abuse. Yes that's an upside of the turn count.
But rather because it encourages a "skip everything and speedrun" type mindset. FE7 (unless your doing HHM due to every map there being a 'beat on turn 1 or get bled ranking') was pretty generous and even then I felt like it encouraged an excessive LTC mindset.

Instead I would have a ranking system grade
1. "Tactics" Read: How efficiently you beat enemy units. (How often do you 1 round. 2 round. Etc. Taking 50 turns to boss abuse would destroy this rating. But it doesn't punish nor reward slow or fast playing)
2. "Efficiency" Which serves as a mix between a standard gold rating and "Did you actually use stuff." (another issue I had with FE7 is that it encourages you to be an excessive stockpiler.) Efficiency punishes using expensive weapons recklessly, but encourages stat boosters and selling bullion.
3. "Charisma" Which is  a "Did you recruit the whole cast." (You could argue this encourages the recruit everyone challenge. And I agree, so maybe make this one more like 'did you raise battalions and use gambits well?" idk)
Finally a "Survival" which. Well. Asks did you kill all of your units.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Different game engine

i dunno, but Musou game engine doesnt feel that satisfying to me in 3H. it just manage to add that senseless, unruly mob of battalion to the mix in battle with some more polygon compared to handheld FE. While at the same time everything else from cutscene, support, and animation feels like one step forward, two step backward compared to other FE. maybe just me.

but i really feel 3H support is among the worst (the cutscene, animation, etc. except the dialogues/voice acting ) not just limited to Fire Emblem game

2. Overhaul the support system.

keep the romance. i like romance, thats no-brainer for me.

But... don't just treat it as a way to get to know a character better which hardly impact the main story at all. have more of it not about character growth, give it a surprise reverse-progress in one of the support that make sense. (everyone lose a friend or two or have relationship that turned sour in their life afterall). If it want to be more creative, have a support that open up a challenge which gives extra skill or item that affect main story.

oh also, why its always limited between 2 people, despite the big cast. FE really lack conversation thats not between 2 people, thats also not tied to main story at the same time

Spoiler

comic/manga panel style of conversation is what i want FE to try. rather than half-baked pseudo-3D room like 3H with everyone looking stiff with poker face, doing it in panel-style format will make the conversation have more focus on who's talking without other char or background distract it.

they could go VC3 style 2D model panel, or Tales of Arise 3D model panel. it helps give more dramatic sense with clever camerawork/paneling , and saves resource without having to animate whole conversation. or in 3D panel style, it gives same-y animation less tiring to see since you see it in different angle it looks like different pose (compared to other conversation)

but i guess many Big Developer avoid the idea that they "learn" something from other game

3. No split route like 3H class route, make choice dialogs actually matter

Choosing route/Lord is indeed a choice that really matter, but its really feels inorganic in a way you are locked early on into that and nothing matter anymore. Rather than 1 choice that clearly define which ending you get, i wish we could get one (or 2 max) route with different outcome based on choice in middle of campaign/story. something like how choosing to go with Edelgard or not in CF open up different outcome (but it could be better integrated surely) is one example that could be used more. rather than have a screen which basically a character selection screen in earlier part of campaign

4. no need to go back to "everyone is everything" approach again.

8 hours ago, DoomRPG said:

Now. I believe that FE3H's biggest strength IS its "You can do whatever" versatility. So I don't want to completely backpedal to like. GBA levels of restriction. Where classes have 1 promotion (and 1 strictly superior option in SS case.) with only 1-2 weapons in 99% of cases.
Its more like I felt being completely and utterly unrestricted actively hurt some characters. (Lysithea reveals herself as a drama queen the instant she goes knight/warrior/not-mage.)

Even more so if its become cheap way to limit character roster, or the reverse, where the roster is limited so now everyone must become everything. it also make character background rather moot, irrelevant, or disconnected with gameplay if they can become everything despite having established background in specific area of expertise.

having more option is good, but having relevant background with gameplay which make you think "oh, i could use this character for this exact situation/strategy " should not be a bad idea either. (a little bit more realistic imo)

5 Dragons

Can we have dragon that actually saves the world without going against other bad dragon? aka make the dragon the good guy.  Or make dragon an existent that just found recently instead of some kind of  long time enigma. Or have dragon just people that can transform, instead of dragon that can transform into human.
Reverse whatever formula FE been using too many times before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

You're giving in a bit too quickly, I'd say. It's only been around for two games. That's as long as save tiles were a thing, and they ditched that too. Hell, it's followed the same pattern: Add them in one game and make them this overkill thing you can basically ignore, and then spend the second game doing everything in your power to make the feature an essential and necessary part of gameplay. Hopefully the next game will scrap it and complete the cycle.

Three games. Turn rewind was part of the NES Shadow Dragon localisation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, joevar said:

5 Dragons

Can we have dragon that actually saves the world without going against other bad dragon? aka make the dragon the good guy.  Or make dragon an existent that just found recently instead of some kind of  long time enigma. Or have dragon just people that can transform, instead of dragon that can transform into human.
Reverse whatever formula FE been using too many times before.

Yes, please, I would love for dragons to be more than just a single god-like entity. I want them to go back to Archenea/Elibe/Tellius style dragons, you know, a race of creatures of different tribes that just do their own thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, DoomRPG said:

Man in hindsight I really should have made this "Top ten things". Though maybe that's just bloating it. Idk. Perhaps I should edit in a few more things in the OP down the line just to talk about em.

please change it to just "things" thats not limited by numbers. so i dont need to edit my post. Because i just realized you ask for 3, while i already write 5 things in my post. woops. XD

12 hours ago, Use the Falchion said:

2. Impactful but not isolating choices. Maybe it's just because I'm playing Mass Effect Legendary Edition right now, or maybe it's because I have Vestaria Saga on the mind, but I really want to see a game where players can make choices that shape some outcomes of the game outside of who lives or dies. Maybe it's how they defeat the enemies, or side-quests within a mission - things like this that give the battle and playthough a little more variety and texture. Now, these don't have to be character-focused exactly, and I don't want them to take over supports, but I think they'd add some fun and nuance to a battle.

i really want this for a long time in FE games. war setting is something that always have dynamic outcome, even more so if its spanning for entire continent like many FE games. either going into our initial plan, or take side turn to another conflict that just appear. even if the setting only consist of 2 smaller sides, wish we can have option on how to proceed with our battle. something like going from the front or from side which have different difficulties and some secret/mild implication.

and using ME (altho ME3 vanilla is the worst, by throwing all choices in the bin) or some DnD flavor RPG as example, those smaller choice outcome can be reflected in end story if they didnt have direct influence to gameplay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, DoomRPG said:

That said. One thing I really dislike about FE7 ranking is the turn count.
Not because it punishes things like arena/dancer/boss abuse. Yes that's an upside of the turn count.
But rather because it encourages a "skip everything and speedrun" type mindset. FE7 (unless your doing HHM due to every map there being a 'beat on turn 1 or get bled ranking') was pretty generous and even then I felt like it encouraged an excessive LTC mindset.

I like rankings in principle too. FE7's version was imperfect but I'm surprised they didn't just keep refining it.

I think Tactics is an incredibly important ranking because it prevents you from winning in a very slow, turtle-like fashion, which is not a playstyle which deserves a high ranking IMO. I agree with you that "skip everything and speedrun" isn't something that should be rewarded by rankings either, but that's what the other categories are for. And for what it's worth, I think the 5-star Tactics ranking in FE7 is quite reasonable (particularly in Eliwood Mode, where it's unglitched) and very far from LTC.

The other rankings you need to balance this out are:

Experience: An important one which you omitted, it rewards the player not just piling exp into a small number of units, setting up one Vantage/Wrath build that kills everything, etc. It works even better if exp is heavily curved (e.g. Fates). Ideally I'd have 5-star experience achievable by raising a full team (~12 units, or whatever typical deployment is) to endgame levels.

What you called efficiency (and what FE6 calls Funds), which rewards getting all sorts of secondary objectives like treasure, villages, etc. I personally rather like the reward for using fewer stat boosters (because stat boosters feel like a crutch to me, and if you pile them all into one unit it enables juggernauting which, if you can't tell, I'm not a fan of).

With those two rankings, as well as setting 5-star tactics at "brisk but reasonable" there's a strong impetus not to just LTC things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, DoomRPG said:

That said. One thing I really dislike about FE7 ranking is the turn count.
Not because it punishes things like arena/dancer/boss abuse. Yes that's an upside of the turn count.
But rather because it encourages a "skip everything and speedrun" type mindset. FE7 (unless your doing HHM due to every map there being a 'beat on turn 1 or get bled ranking') was pretty generous and even then I felt like it encouraged an excessive LTC mindset.

Well, that can be solved by where the lines are drawn. I'm not suggesting "LTC is the only way to get 5 stars in Turncount" - rather, it would be roughly as generous as FE7, but without the Hector Mode programming error. It would motivate the player to take on more enemies per turn - say, drawing in 3 with different units, rather than 2. On the flip side, spread yourself too thin and you might have a death, which either affects your Survival (if they stay dead) or your Reliability (if you turnwheel to reset it).

12 hours ago, DoomRPG said:

3. "Charisma" Which is  a "Did you recruit the whole cast." (You could argue this encourages the recruit everyone challenge. And I agree, so maybe make this one more like 'did you raise battalions and use gambits well?" idk)

I like the notion of a "Completeness" ranking, specifically if the next game features optional Gaidem chapters. Recognize the player for going to every chapter and recruiting every unit. This could be separate from the other rankings, and define the background - i.e. a "Bronze" playthrough is one where you go to every chapter, a "Silver" playthrough is where you go to every chapter AND recruit every unit, and a "Gold" playthrough is where you combine the aforementioned with maximum rankings in all other areas.

13 hours ago, Use the Falchion said:

I wouldn't be a fan of this, personally. I understand why those who like it do, but rankings bring out the perfectionist in me and in turn make the game about getting the best rank instead of having fun. It's why I can't play Valkyria Chronicles, as a ranking is given at the end of each level, and I HAVE to get the best ranking I can. (Which in turn gets you better weapons, which are used for better rankings.) And that compulsion turns what should be a 15-30 minute mission into a 2-3 hour grind that ruins all enjoyment of the game. At least in FE7 I can turn off my brain for this part, since the ranking comes at the end of the game IIRC. Overall, I'd rather Fire Emblem NOT go down that path again, or if it does, at least make rankings optional. 

Well, Rankings have always been optional. You don't have to care about them, and most people who play the game don't. Even "high-level" players usually prioritize low turncounts over maximizing EXP or Funds. I'd be fine with making the Ranking something you have to go out of your way to look at (which is apready the case in GBAFE). Personally, though, I like Rankings as a metric outside of LTC, or general efficiency, by which you can judge units and compare strategies.

1 hour ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

What you called efficiency (and what FE6 calls Funds), which rewards getting all sorts of secondary objectives like treasure, villages, etc. I personally rather like the reward for using fewer stat boosters (because stat boosters feel like a crutch to me, and if you pile them all into one unit it enables juggernauting which, if you can't tell, I'm not a fan of).

I like the idea of the player being rewarded for getting by while using less - i.e. not needing to use up more expensive weapons, costly stat boosters, or promotion items. The Funds ranking also explicitly rewards the player for opening every chest and visiting every village. If I could make a change, it would be to judge items and weapons at the end by their "sell" value, rather than their "buy" value. This would remove the weird incentive to "spend as much gold as possible while you have a Silver Card".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

I like the idea of the player being rewarded for getting by while using less - i.e. not needing to use up more expensive weapons, costly stat boosters, or promotion items. The Funds ranking also explicitly rewards the player for opening every chest and visiting every village. If I could make a change, it would be to judge items and weapons at the end by their "sell" value, rather than their "buy" value. This would remove the weird incentive to "spend as much gold as possible while you have a Silver Card".

Yeah, I definitely agree with this. The "sell" value makes a much better metric; you shouldn't be rewarded for buying needless things with the silver card, and it also makes no sense to be punished for selling gems. Your funds should represent "how much money I have to re-invest back into rebuilding Lycia at the end of the game", which the sell value of items reflects much more accuately.

(For all that, somewhere further down my list of things I want in future Fire Emblems is this: please don't bring back gems/bullions, which do nothing but make me waste time going to the shop menu to sell them. Just do what Fates did and give me the money directly.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

Yeah, I definitely agree with this. The "sell" value makes a much better metric; you shouldn't be rewarded for buying needless things with the silver card, and it also makes no sense to be punished for selling gems. Your funds should represent "how much money I have to re-invest back into rebuilding Lycia at the end of the game", which the sell value of items reflects much more accuately.

(For all that, somewhere further down my list of things I want in future Fire Emblems is this: please don't bring back gems/bullions, which do nothing but make me waste time going to the shop menu to sell them. Just do what Fates did and give me the money directly.)

But Fates does have bullions, I'm pretty sure. It has a gimmick skill based around using bullions to power up a character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, joevar said:

please change it to just "things" thats not limited by numbers. so i dont need to edit my post. Because i just realized you ask for 3, while i already write 5 things in my post. woops. XD

 

So I was snoozing when this was typed so my apologies for a late response.

Top 3 was never intended to be a hard cap. More of just what seemed to be a good amount to prompt discussion. I'm not going to complain if people post more or less than three.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Well, Rankings have always been optional. You don't have to care about them, and most people who play the game don't. Even "high-level" players usually prioritize low turncounts over maximizing EXP or Funds. I'd be fine with making the Ranking something you have to go out of your way to look at (which is apready the case in GBAFE). Personally, though, I like Rankings as a metric outside of LTC, or general efficiency, by which you can judge units and compare strategies.

The problem is that when it's in your face, it becomes harder to ignore and downright impossible for some people. Putting at the end of a game is one thing, but after every level would just suck the joy out of the game for me. But yeah, if they can be put out of the way to look at, as you mention and site, then I'm fine with them being included. And again, I do understand the use and appeal of rankings to those who like it, but to players like me, it can be distracting or off-putting. And despite my dislike of the system, I'm really enjoying seeing the conversations about how it could and should be implemented!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

Your funds should represent "how much money I have to re-invest back into rebuilding Lycia at the end of the game", which the sell value of items reflects much more accuately.

Hm, yes, that's an alright idea. It would be nice is there was a reward for conducting war in a low-cost manner so funds could be reinvested in butter, perhaps in an such a way as to allow the player to see how the money benefits individual people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Use the Falchion said:

The problem is that when it's in your face, it becomes harder to ignore and downright impossible for some people. Putting at the end of a game is one thing, but after every level would just suck the joy out of the game for me. But yeah, if they can be put out of the way to look at, as you mention and site, then I'm fine with them being included. And again, I do understand the use and appeal of rankings to those who like it, but to players like me, it can be distracting or off-putting. And despite my dislike of the system, I'm really enjoying seeing the conversations about how it could and should be implemented!

 

 

I think I would, similar to FE7, put all the rankings at the end of the game.
And without the augury system that lets you see your rankings at all. You get rated when your work is done, not before, not after. (Not sure how after would work in this case. Post game being when your ranking is done for the story itself would be... Odd.)

I may not have it myself, but I can understand that almost OCD desire to get a perfect ranking. Or even to just get a particular outcome. I've given up runs of games just because I screwed up one thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Hm, yes, that's an alright idea. It would be nice is there was a reward for conducting war in a low-cost manner so funds could be reinvested in butter, perhaps in an such a way as to allow the player to see how the money benefits individual people.

Tying a piece of the ending epilogue into your ranking sounds amazing. Excuse me while I salivinate the prospect...
Admittedly not literally. That would be gross xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

But Fates does have bullions, I'm pretty sure. It has a gimmick skill based around using bullions to power up a character.

Would you believe I forgot about that? There was indeed some specific mechanic about using one skill to scrounge up bullions and another skill to spend them; I've basically never used either. Really the only reason I remember they exist is a few specific enemies (Yukimura in Conquest 22 and Garon's guards in Conquest 27) have it.

What I was referring to was the rewards you get in chests/etc., which in Fates just took the form of "10000 gold" instead of something you needed to sell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

Experience: An important one which you omitted, it rewards the player not just piling exp into a small number of units, setting up one Vantage/Wrath build that kills everything, etc. It works even better if exp is heavily curved (e.g. Fates). Ideally I'd have 5-star experience achievable by raising a full team (~12 units, or whatever typical deployment is) to endgame levels.

What you called efficiency (and what FE6 calls Funds), which rewards getting all sorts of secondary objectives like treasure, villages, etc. I personally rather like the reward for using fewer stat boosters (because stat boosters feel like a crutch to me, and if you pile them all into one unit it enables juggernauting which, if you can't tell, I'm not a fan of).

With those two rankings, as well as setting 5-star tactics at "brisk but reasonable" there's a strong impetus not to just LTC things.

Shouldn't the experience rank prevent the "juggernauting" to begin with?

I don't personally like the standard Funds rank because I think it's dumb to push the player to get a bunch of stuff and then say they can't be used. Even FE7 itself seems conflicted here; the stat booster tutorial makes a big deal about "Use it or it's effectively worthless," but then rankings want you to do just that, to hold onto it.

The idea of a ranking that pushes players to complete secondary objectives and obtain treasure is good, but a ranking that also requires players to hold onto as many of those as possible is not one I support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Florete said:

Shouldn't the experience rank prevent the "juggernauting" to begin with?

I don't personally like the standard Funds rank because I think it's dumb to push the player to get a bunch of stuff and then say they can't be used. Even FE7 itself seems conflicted here; the stat booster tutorial makes a big deal about "Use it or it's effectively worthless," but then rankings want you to do just that, to hold onto it.

The idea of a ranking that pushes players to complete secondary objectives and obtain treasure is good, but a ranking that also requires players to hold onto as many of those as possible is not one I support.

Basically my gripe with the funds ranking as is now.
I even said that "using expensive weapon recklessly should be punished." But its the fact FE7 punishes you for acquiring resources and... Not spending them. Just forgoing them completely stockpiling and hoarding.

(On a side note. I completely goofed with the experience rank. its an absolute must.)

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...