Alondite

So I've been playing around with the Weapon Triangle in FEBuilder, and I've come to notice something that I wasn't aware of before that is kind of throwing a wrench into the plans for a hack I'm working on. Despite being able to modify the specific bonuses for each weapon matchup, in the game it seems to ignore whatever data is entered and simply apply the inverse of whatever bonus is applied to the attack type. Say the damage bonus for a Sword vs Axe is set to +3, regardless of what is entered in the field for Axe vs Sword, the Axe will get -3 damage, or the inverse of the sword bonus. So my question is, is there a way around this? I don't like the hard-counter nature of the weapon triangle and find that it makes strategy more linear than it aught to be, so I wanted to give each weapon a bonus that it receives regardless of the enemy's weapon type, with each bonus serving as a sort of "soft counter" for another weapon type. For example, I want to give a boost to avoid when wielding a sword, lances a boost to defense, and axes a boost to attack all regardless of weapon matchups. In this way, the higher evasiveness provided by swords is a soft counter to the damage boost from axes (damage doesn't matter if you miss), the damage boost from axes overcomes the defense boost provided by lances, and the defense boost from lances reduces damage by a larger percentage against the lower-damaging swords. It adds wrinkles to weapon strategy without being a linear, hard RPS system. I'd considered simply giving each weapon a universal stat bonus inherent to each type, which would work for Str and Def, but I'd prefer not messing with Speed since it's such a volatile stat which makes giving an avoid bonus problematic. I could always use Skill instead, but eh.

I absolutely think it should return. Fire Emblem is a strategy game, and adding something as relatively simple as a magic triangle for players to consider when making moves only makes the game better. In fact, I'd like magic to get the same loving treatment that physical weapons get. Why are there not critical magic spells? Or spells that reverse the weapon triangle? There are so many more physical weapons than there are magic, and it makes mages, and magic as a whole feel like a bit of an afterthought. But forget long range magic. That adds nothing to the game other than cheesing, poor difficulty design, and baiting and sponging which isn't interesting in the slightest. However, I'm not in support of mages having universal magic access, i.e. able to use all types. Give me specific Fire, Wind, Thunder, etc. mages. Ditto for Dark and Light, each with specific strengths and weaknesses. Obviously some classes can have multiple specialties, like with physical units, but this should be the exception, rather than the rule (and placing lower weapon level caps on non-specialized magic is probably a good idea to maintain the design space and reduce redundancy). I'd also like to see Phys/Mag mixed characters who can actually do both well. Magic is a rather special form of attacking relative to just stabbing someone, but the game really treats it like any other attack apart from the stats it uses. Effective damage, status effects, or completely unique effects (applying a magic element to an ally's physical weapon, for example) are all things that should be explored with magic. There's so much untapped potential that could make the game more strategically interesting, and could make magic and mage units more interesting as a whole. In general, I'd like to see more mages, both playable and as enemies. The Resistance stat is in need of some more value. Honestly there are a million things I can think of to make magic more interesting, and a magic triangle is certainly part of that.

Wow, this is awesome! I've been playing around with it a bit and really love how quick and easy it makes doing so many things. I'm not an expert hacker, and the GUI makes things a lot easier, but I've had a few issues that I can't seem to resolve. The Chapter Unit Placer is one of my favorite features, but a few units seem to be missing. I've poked around a bit with FE7 just to learn how to use it, but can't seem to find the enemy army for Eliwood Chapter 12 (it's just empty, though the enemy army for Hector's mode is there), for example. It's also been awhile since I'v played FE7 so I don't really remember exactly how she joins, but should Priscilla's Chapter Unit data be in Chapter 14? Because I can't find that either (I found it in 15, but it's with the Player Army). I can't find Raven or Lucius in Chapter 16, or Fiora in Chapter 18. That's as far as I've gotten, so there may be others, but can anyone explain what is going on here? Is data for certain characters stored elsewhere? EDIT I figured it out. I just found the unit address in the event editor, plugged it into the address in the unit placer, hit reload, and it loaded whatever units I happened to be looking for. Still can't figure out where the Eliwood enemy arrangement for chapter 12 is, though.

So I'm aware that this is a private beta, but I'd be willing to contribute to the project financially for the opportunity to use the software, and to expedite its release. I know that a lot of work is going into this, and I feel like some support should be given for all of the time and effort spent on it.

Ah, thank you very much! I'm glad it was such a simple fix. I was just going to make "attack only" versions of each class (I still might, so that player Thieves can steal), but this is definitely a better solution. So now I just set them to "Lockpick usable" and they'll steal from chests?

In FE7, Is there a way to make Thieves and Assassins loot chests, but not steal from players? I tried removing the "Steal" skill from the class (temporary fix), but now it seems like Thieves set to go for chests won't do so (looting linked to Steal skill?). I only ask because Thieves fill a niche in my enemy design (very very fast, and little else) and I use them frequently as enemies, particularly on dark levels (think a spy/assassin-type unit). The problem is that they just keep stealing stuff and don't bother to attack until there is nothing left to steal. Any ideas?

It's not a misunderstanding. The objective of any tier list is the same. I've entered discussions on FE tier lists in the past, it's only this particular FE that I don't feel breaks down into tiers clealy. Blazing Sword, for example, has a nice ratings system that makes it easy to identify what classifies as "good play," and what characters then facilitate that. As I said, I've already discussed FE tiers before, and at length. It has nothing to do with acclimating to the community. I also understand that Smash tiers are done under an imposition of rules upon the system. However, the rules are fixed, and consistent from match to match. The rules are also clearly defined and established among the community. Smash tiers are not meant to answer "who is the best character," they aim to show who currently performs the best. Smash tiers are made from tournament results, which are entirely objective. An average is the most-likely singular outcome, but the odds of the outcome being any outcome other than the average are still greater than those of it being the average. Growths definitely count for something, but I actually believe the growth percentage itself, rather than the average, is more meaningful in this case because it's a fixed number. Yes, yes, I know "average stats are a function of growths." Yes, and they are also a function of bases and level. I think it's cleaner to look at bases and growths individually. I'm a research scientist, I like clean data because you can do more with it without it dynamically affecting the rest of the data. For example, I like to plug my FE stats into Excel to do various things. On a similar note, growths in FE:A are so high, and so similar among characters (compared to other FEs) that I feel they are trivialized somewhat; the overall balance is far better than in previous games. I think bases and starting items are more useful barometer. Well, in order to define a character's usefulness, you need to first define what it means to be useful. In FE, particularly this one, there are multiple ways to be useful. You then need to decide which uses are more valuable. I think it would be cleaner to break characters down into how they would best be used first, and then rank them accordingly. A global tier list could be pieced together after that. You misunderstand my intentions. I don't want to throw a wrench into the conversation, I want to find ways to improve it. I love talking numbers and debating things, and I love Fire Emblem. It goes without saying that I like to debate and quantify Fire Emblem. However, after looking over this thread I'm seeing a lot of abstract reasoning and unclear terms. I think it would be more effective if we first created a well-defined framework and language within which to operate. What is a character's purpose? How is a character's purpose defined? Is their purpose a useful one? How good are they at serving their purpose? What are our rules? Why are we implementing said rules? That's only the beginning. I know that stuff isn't as interesting, and it might seem overkill, but it could really help keep everyone on the same page with a clear objective.

Yeah...not exactly. I've been a regular contributor to the Super Smash Bros tiers for almost a decade now, I understand how tiers work. However, the more rules you have to impose upon a system for your conclusion to be correct, the weaker your conclusion. Awakening allows limitless grinding with no penalty for doing so. Characters don't have to compete for exp, you're not graded on completion time, and you can spend as much money as you'd like with no penalty. If there's no penalty for making any and all characters combat ready, then why not do it? There are not clearly-defined ways in which to gauge and compare the abilities of characters within the system because there are not clearly-defined ways in which to measure your overall success (no rankings). The only way to make a tier list relevant for this game is to impose arbitrary rules on the system, which weakens the integrity of the tier list because it's only true under those specific conditions. That, and constructing a tier list around a system governed almost entirely by a RNG seems futile and pointless to me. The conditions you assume to be true (like character stats) while constructing the list will invariably be false in practice, making the whole list largely irrelevant.

I finished Lunatic some time ago, though haven't yet started my Lunatic+ run. I wish all of these convenient ways to grind were around when I finished Lunatic (EXPonential growth, Golden Gaffe...I'm looking at you). I had to do it the hard way, and it was a nightmare. I had to resort to using my 4-6 top characters exclusively to make better use of my funds and not have to worry about protecting so many people, and basically playing a defensive "bait and punish" type of game. What really sucks is when all of the enemies decide to bum-rush you. In those cases I had to use the terrain to funnel the enemies in like it was the battle of Thermopylae, and even then had to abuse skills (like [weapon] breaker). It was a frustratingly difficult, but immensely satisfying challenge.

I feel like there are way to many arbitrary limitations in place to make this tier list meaningful. Not only that, but the sheer number of options and possibilities in this game seriously undermine any attempt to create a stable tier list. Now if you're going to turn this into a "Fire Emblem Nuzlocke Challenge," then we absolutely could create some sort of tier list. However, that would require more specific and expansive player-imposed rules.

I get to the last bit about running the created files (FE_0.wpt) in WiiSO, but it tells me that it's not a Wii disk and nothing happens. *EDIT* I think something was wrong with my key.bin. I've made a new one and everything seems to be working now.

I'd love to hack Radiant Dawn, and I've ripped the iso from my disk, except I have no idea where to go from here. Can't open the iso in Nightmare, so I'm guessing that it needs to be decompressed...but I have no idea how to do so. I have WiiED, but it won't open. I get flash of a command prompt whenever I attempt to open it, but it disappears so I can't do anything with it.

It's perfectly feasible. In fact, it's 90% done and it plays very well. I'm not an idiot, I know a fair bit about game design and balance. What I don't know is how to do said splitting of the speed stat. Has anyone made a patch that does such a thing, or is there anyone who would be interested in doing so?

Would it be possible for someone to split the Speed stat? I know that Str has been split into Str and Mag in the GBA games (or at least of one them), but would it be possible to split speed into an attack speed stat, and then something like agility that determines evasiveness? The hack I'm working on is supposed to be more "real" statistically. Like how Athos should not even be faster than a level 1 Lyn (I mean really...), but his mastery of magic should still give him a fast casting/attack speed.

Yeah I understand all of that. For now my numbers only aim to determine pure combat proficiency. I would like at some point to find a way to include CON and MOVE, but I think it would be easier to find some acceptable numbers for the main stats before I start trying to figure out how the others factor in. Right now the numbers are simply meant to reflect killing potential and durability.

The numbers for killing or getting killed heavily favor defense. The gains you get from defense are exponential. There is a chart farther up in the thread that shows that an extra 10 points of defense increase the number of turns you can survive against a given enemy tenfold, while the rest don't even double either the turns you can survive, or halve the number of turns in which you can kill your opponent (aside from speed, which exactly doubles). Defense essentially works opposite to strength. +1 Str = +1 damage, and +1 Def = -1 damage. The difference though, is this: Let's just say it takes exactly 3 hits to both kill the opponent, and 3 to be killed by it. Now let's say we add one to each stat. Let's just say that not our calculated rounds to kill are 2.5 for +1 Str, and we can survive 3.5 turns. Now we can't have half turns in Fire Emblem, so it will still take you 3 turns to kill the opponent, but it will now take 4 turns to kill you. That is essentially the reason defense is so valuable. Those aren't the exact values, but they are just there to demonstrate. Scroll up and take a look at the chart to see for yourself. Now since one set of numbers is for killing/surviving, and the other for raw damage I decided to average them to get the third set of numbers. The first set doesn't work on it's own because all rounds of combat don't result in one person being killed (therefor the 2nd set's value of actual damage matters) and the second set doesn't account for how quickly you can kill an opponent. The Third set is my current set of values, and Def is only about twice as valuable as Speed and Str.

Well, the thread is getting a bit old, but we still haven't come up with anything definitive so I though I'd post what I have been working on. I still don't know how to incorporate movement into the formula, but I think I'm getting closer to finding realistic in-game numbers. This time I was looking into the percent chance of killing the opponent in [x] rounds of combat. I essentially started with what I had with a few changes that aren't really worth noting, because I found that altering the stat spread didn't do much. Damage would yield a 4 round kill with ~80% hit to start with, and then I just started playing with stats, plugging them into Reikken's "Chance to die/kill" calculator and recorded the results. I decided to record the percentage that one character will kill/be killed by the 5th round of combat. I know combat doesn't typically last that long, but fewer rounds didn't change a whole lot so I just left it for now. My results (scaled to my previous results) are as follows: HP: 3.15% Str/Mag: 15.6% Skill: 14.9% Speed: 38.16% Luck: 13.59% Def: 71.44% Res:14.29% Now to test them I plugged in some character averages from Blazing Sword...but I got some strange results. Like Matthew was rated about the same as Sain for one. I don't quite think Matthew is as proficient in combat as Sain is, he's just too weak and frail. There are some reasons for this. One being that Speed's included defensive value, specifically the ability to NOT be doubled, counts for too much. Most of your characters won't be being doubled very often. I still believe that Strength is slightly more important than Speed, because you don't need a ton of speed to be able to double, but more Strength always translates into more damage, and more Strength plus a double translates into double the damage gains. Skill seems a bit too high to me as well. Hit is important, but the higher it is, the less important more of it is. So then I had an idea. What if I averaged the two sets of values? One reflects kill percentages in limited combat, and the other reflects universal damage, which is still a useful factor in combat proficiency. These are the numbers I got: HP: 7.05% Str/Mag: 34.05% Skill: 18.2% Speed: 31.03% Luck: 10.34% Def: 61.97% Res: 12.39% I haven't done much testing with these numbers yet, but they do seem more accurate than either of the previous sets of values. I'm also thinking that I might have to weigh magic according to an approximate ratio of physical/magic users in the game, or maybe of just classes in general. As for calculating movement, the only thing I can think of is to assign a 100% value to the highest movement rating in game, considering terrain penalties. Then, assign a "percent of the highest value" to the rest of them, and then multiply that by the weighted stat total? Or maybe just the offensive values? I'm not really sure. That was the best I could come up with right now.

I get what you're saying. Fortunately, I think it's easy to do. By the sound of it, just rounding each number up to the next whole number will accomplish the same thing haha. That would require a monstrous bit of math methinks, and since speed doesn't determine who goes first in-game it makes things even trickier. I have an idea that involves comparing the #RTK for each unit, and that should net a similar outcome without all the tedious, time consuming calculations. I increased the hit percentage to 70%, and I also noticed that currently the critical bonus is 0, so I'm thinking of adding 5 base crit to take into account the crit bonus from skill, and crit defense from Luck.

I can try, but I don't think it's really going to change a whole lot. Defense is going to go up even more, since higher chance to get hit = more need for defense.

I think 70% hit will keep the relative differences between stats the same. In effect it will probably just raise each one by a proportionally equal amount (like 20% more for each or something), which changes the numbers, but not how they relate to each other. Oh and I used 30-40 HP, since that's probably where the "average" HP falls when considering the entire game. Like minimum 15 or so, maximum 60.

Alright, that's what I did, and here's what I got. Values are in "Number of Rounds to Kill," and a double attack counts as one "round." The values in each column correspond to to the spread of stats (how much I added to each stat). I'm not sure how the chart is going to come out on here, but it may still be readable. Keep in mind, 10 mt weapon, 15 base stat for each character with a 50% hit rate (average of 0-100%, I already explained why) I used a 10-20 spread instead of 15-25 spread to calculate speed defense so it would include defending against the double attack. Number Rounds to Kill Spread |HP| Strength| Skill| Speed(O)| Speed(D)| Luck(O)| Luck(D)| Defense 0 |6.00 |6.00 |6.00 |6.00 |2.50 |6.00 |6.00 |6.00 1 |6.20 |5.45 |5.77 |6.00 |2.59 |5.94 |6.12 |6.67 2 |6.40 |5.00 |5.56 |6.00 |5.36 |5.88 |6.25 |7.50 3 |6.60 |4.62 |5.36 |6.00 |5.56 |5.83 |6.38 |8.57 4 |6.80 |4.29 |5.17 |3.00 |5.77 |5.77 |6.52 |10.00 5 |7.00 |4.00 |5.00 |3.00 |6.00 |5.71 |6.67 |12.00 6 |7.20 |3.75 |4.84 |3.00 |6.25 |5.66 |6.82 |15.00 7 |7.40 |3.53 |4.69 |3.00 |6.52 |5.61 |6.98 |20.00 8 |7.60 |3.33 |4.55 |3.00 |6.82 |5.56 |7.14 |30.00 9 |7.80 |3.16 |4.41 |3.00 |7.14 |5.50 |7.32 |60.00 10 |8.00 |3.00 |4.29 |3.00 |7.50 |5.45 |7.50 |Undefined (0 dmage) As you can see, defense has a massive effect on how many rounds it takes to KO someone. 31.43% more rounds to KO for +1 defense on average. Here are all the average percentages, in the same order if anyone cares. 2.92% 7.19% 3.41% 10.00% 14.49% 0.97% 2.26% 31.43% *edit* as expected the chart is out of alignment, but it shouldn't be too hard to read. Also Magic and Resistance require the other values to be correct first to calculate, so I'm doing those after.

Actually, what I was going to do is start by making Strength and Defense equal, and since Magic and Resistance depend on the ratio of physical:magic units I was going to calculate them separately. Let's just say for example that the value for Strength is 40%, Def is 40% and Res is 10% . For Magic I would do something like calculate the ratio of average Def:Res. Let's say that the average Def is 25% higher, then for Magic users I would increase the value of Strength/Magic by 25%, making it 50%. So Strength/Magic for physical units would be 40%, and 50% for magic users. If we are going from 0-25 I think you're going to see Speed end up with a lower value. Here was my plan: Two default units with 15 in each stat, and like 40 HP (since average of (0-60 isn't that realistic). Use a weapon with 10 Mt, and with a hit that will give an overall hit% of 50%. I know that seems low, but 50% is the average of 0-100%, all of which you're likely to see in-game (either by players or enemies). Plus if I used 100% hit, than it would be impossible to calculate Skill's true value since it wouldn't be effecting hit percentage. I would then use stat spreads of 10, since that seems about the largest spread between players and enemies that you'll see on average. I'm torn though on How I want to calculate. If I want to calculate average #HKO, or something like percentage damage increase.

No. You consistently picked out specific situations where speed is at the advantage, so I adjusted my values to reflect that EXACT situation. My original values were designed to account for the "average" situation, not to be true for every possible situation, because that's not feasible. Right, but since you were using 1 singular situation, I adjusted my values to accommodate that one singular situation. Again, my original values are supposed to represent the "average" situation, which as an absolute amounts to 15 in each stat (30 HP). My values then measure the average value of one point in a stat in that "average" situation. It's a STARTING POINT as I said. I posted it here to get some constructive criticism, not "it's totally wrong and unrealistic and has no value because there's no way to calculate the average value of a stat because it is different in every situation." The numbers I got are correct for what I did, and without knowing what the "average" character actually is, it was the best solution I had: Just include them all, even if you'll never see them. Ok. I'm just going to make statement here. If you consider every possible character/enemy that could ever possibly be in the game, even if you will never see them, but if they are at least possible, even only through hacking, then my values are correct (because that's what I did). Now since I included unrealistic situations, my values won't be true for some in-game situations, but they WILL be true in others. Unless my math is wrong (and since I used excel, I'm sure it's not) this is the case. If you know what the average stat spread of your characters and your opponents are, let me know and I'll use those numbers instead. My goal here is to make something of value. Want to give me values I should use? I'll use game average weapon mt, overall hit%, and stat spreads and recalculate. A few things I can assure you will not change: Strength and Defense are exact polar opposites, so no matter what I do they will come out as equal, and Resistance will not be as valued as Defense because there are fewer magic users. I have the tables and the formulas already made, all I need are the numbers.

Start my Junior year of college September 1st. Summer has been way too long, can't wait to go back.

Prove it. Prove that Sain averages more net damage in any combat situation. Bullshit my setup doesn't acknowledge this. If it didn't then strength would have a 100% weighted value (where +1 strength always means +1 damage). When +1 speed doesn't allow you to double, what is it's value? Nothing offensively. Defensively? +2 avoid, which amounts to a 2% damage reduction. +1 Strength adds 1*hit% damage. The scenarios where +1 strength is more valuable than +1 speed is better than 2:1. You keep picking isolated situations where speed wins out, but that's not the only situation you're going to run into. Logical fallacy used to hide the weaknesses of your argument. Weapons are independent of character stats, and don't change the ratio of of how each stat attributes to damage. I was doing my calculations with weapons until I realized that it wasn't effecting my relative results.On top of that, show me a weapon with 16 mt and I'll show you 30 that don't 16 mt is by no means an average weapon. See how far you have to stretch to prove me wrong? That actually weakens your argument too. Take a logic course. 11 my is far closer to average than 16. Thanks for lending credence to my argument. You win 8 scenarios, I win (or get beat less badly) in the other 22. You're throwing out stuff like "more likely" a lot. How about you throw out a variety of combat scenarios and show me some hard proof. The fundamental flaw in your argument is you are pointing out the very narrow range where speed is more valuable than strength. At the +4 to like +6 or +7 range. Less than a +4 speed spread has virtually no value. 6 avoid at most. Yay. 1 point of defense is more valuable than that, unless your enemy's hit is below 6%. Of you have a +0 speed advantage, than +3 strength is was more valuable overall (again, on average, not against one particular enemy as you keep pointing out). And then if you already have a +4 speed advantage, than what does more speed do? +2 avoid per point is all. Again..yay. More strength is only useless in 2 conditions: when you have 0 hit, or when it doesn't allow you to kill your enemy faster. It does, however, do MORE damage in the second case, and makes it easier for another character to finish off said enemy. Ok, since you insist on using just enough speed gap to give speed an advantage, I'll use the average value of 5 points of speed instead of 30. If I do that The weighted values in the same order as your stats (minus resistance because we aren't using it) become:50.00% 29.00% 100.00% 5.00% 50.00% Which makes each characters weighted power: A: 17.17 B: 20.12 Now of COURSE B is going to win, he has a higher weighted value. The rest of your argument falls apart at that fact. I used the average of all possible gaps from 0-30 for each stat and averaged them to find the absolute value of a stat. Apparently that's not "realistic." My goal here wasn't to give be-all end-all values, it was to hopefully contribute something useful to the community. My numbers are correct for the average gap of 0,1,2,3...all the way to 30, but if I should use a different gap then I will redo it all using that gap. I just don't know what the average stat gap you're likely to encounter is in-game, so I just used the absolute average. So tell me, what then should I do? Note that weapons do not affect the percentage of which one stat increases damage. Whether you do 1 damage or 30, a double attack still adds 100% damage. I will use a universal hit% though. 50% is the average of 0=100%, all of which you're likely to see in game. Just give me the word and I'll do the math so it's right by you guys. Just know that my values are not wrong for an absolute average.