Dunal

I don't think there's an inherent problem with this change and the only arguments against it would be to do with unit balancing in general. Just because IS refuse to make actual good player unit Archers (Pretty much all of the starting archers in the series suck aside from maybe FE12 Ryan) doesn't mean this isn't a nice change. In the end though it's just a +1 MT, +10 HIT bonus to bows. So if stats on bows change relative to other weapons then nothing might change anyway.

At the very least, I'm sure there will be other programmers who will make add-ons / extra mechanics overtime. I doubt the initial release needs to be that in-depth. I plan to add in a few things of my own (custom skills in general I imagine) which I'd provide for others to use.

The difference is that Defend has a failure state that is challenged more through additional difficulty/stats/AI. Siege doesn't. Unless there is a very specific time requirement. Because the only thing difficulty does in a siege map is make you take longer to clear it. That has zero factor on how other objectives are approached unless the aforementioned. In fact, making a siege map 'easier' (whether that's to do with weak enemies or things like staff/rescue chains) arguably makes it so doing other objectives is even less efficient. Since the only factor in sieging is time. If you were to tightly design a siege map that's actually reasonably difficult to beat within a non-self imposed time limit then there's no reason it can't be good. Some maps in FE6 attempt this to an extent. I mean, I understand that the perspective in that they're no different is due to defend maps rarely, if ever actually having their failure state being challenged. But the fact that they exist makes difficulty tuning them naturally better as a whole. Maybe it's just that I feel that failure states on a per turn basis is stronger design than longer-term failure states. In that case, I suppose it's just my opinion. That, and the fact that defend maps tend to encourage more types of units in general, rather than a mobility-heavy focus. But the extent of that could be based off the map design than objective.

Point of my argument is that:. Alternative objectives tend to be completely segregated from seiging. And adding difficulty to the actual siege doesn't affect that. Alternative objectives tend to be entirely conflicting to defending. And adding difficulty to the actual defending does affect that (in regards to balancing how you deal with those objectives). Difficulty in defend maps is a lever that feels far more natural as a means to rewarding those extra objectives. Piling on difficulty in siege maps just makes them take longer to beat. Aside from specific things like bandits attacking villages, it doesn't change the check-list of other objectives to do. There's a big difference to each of those statements. And it's why I feel defend maps have more potential to be stronger in design.

Know that I don't disagree with this statement. I think there's a lot of issues/flaws in regards to certain defense maps. Everything requires a balance. The timed maps in FE6, especially CH14 -- are good maps. I just think defense maps offer a lot more potential. You can create objectives that go against defending that offer balance to the situation, and encourages multiple units. That's the ideal. Siege maps are going A to B. Defend maps have a par required to fulfill it, and anything extra is a bonus. The latter just offers more opportunity IMO.

You don't have to apologize. Let's face it -- not everything can go as planned; we all have lives outside of this. As someone who is often pressured for deadlines regarding my own projects, I can absolutely acknowledge/understand that you would be more frustrated with this then anyone of us should be. Focus on priorities for the time being. .

8x if you don't rescue skip it for example. And there's a whole lot of "Pile up your team on a one way road to the boss unless you rescue skip". A lot of the maps are just linear pathways to a siege objective though with maybe a secondary route to get there. Maybe not 'needlessly long', but certainly linear. CH 3, CH 9, CH 11b, CH 12, CH 13 (optimal bottom path?), CH 14x (Not a huge map, but follows the same pathing), CH 15, CH 16 etc... A huge amount of the maps are just one way roads to a boss. You either rescue skip or suffer a lot of them. There isn't many interesting objectives at play. At least say, CH 5 has the option of skipping the long easy path like all the other maps have. I just really dislike maps where if you have any sizeable team, you just pile them up down a road. Unless you're using only mounted units with sizeable stats who can rush through regardless. FE7 is guilty of doing this occasionally too, and well -- any FE really. There's just far better ways to design a map, and I'll still say that even the most basic defend map is better than a large siege map of any real kind, unless you make it really open ended with timed objectives perhaps including the siege itself. Maybe it's because FE6's maps are so samey. Maps like CH 12 are alright by themselves (at least it kinda has a time limit) it's just when there's no variety to it. While FE7 has maps like CH 13x and CH 18 to break the monotony.

Well yeah, defense maps work best with additional objectives to go for. And you lose out if you play too defensively and cannot achieve them. What I meant by inflation is that naturally, defense maps allow you to actually make use of things like Armor Knights without making them redundant in favor of other units that are tanky enough. Enemies can be strong so holding the line is actually a thing. But I don't think that concept works alone for a map, you need to mix it up with alternative objectives to strive for. Unless the enemy AI / reinforcements add some curve balls for you to deal with. You could even make it so within your own base you need to defend, your allies won't suffer from permadeath and the thing you need to defend is ACTUALLY under threat. By nearing the end, you're down to your last few units and there's a couple turns left... It adds some intensity. Like I said, I thin kthere's a lot you can do with enemy AI / placement on defense maps to make the actual defending interesting. Have breakable walls... flying units on the later turns... Have some kind of build up rather than repetitiveness. FE7's CH13x has its flaws, but it's concept (defend with the balance to go for other objectives) has far more potential than long siege maps.

You're talking about stats... Map design, with the context I'm using, isn't about stats. I've been through this. FE7's maps are generally better designed because it doesn't have map design that needlessly drags on -- with some exceptions. FE6 having sometimes ridiculously long + linear maps so you can't 1-turn it isn't good design. FE7 has more interesting objectives + nuances -- it's just flawed because it can be power-housed which does distract from its good aspects. There are many ways to avoid maps being 1-turned. And that can come down to stats/balance. Point is, FE7 actually made an attempt to have interesting/good design (or at least interesting). Was the execution good enough when taking into account balance/statistics? Probably not, but that's not the point. Maps such as 13x are... modest? They are breakable because lolMarcus, and enemies aren't aggressive/strong enough from every angle, but from a design standpoint (especially from the perspective of a non-experienced player) it's much much better than most of what FE6 offers. The boss is optional, the village has a time limit (not a difficult one at all, but again -- it's the principle that counts) and strategically there are different ways to play it. The map is the epitome of 'less is more' and the reason I say defend maps tend to be stronger design is because you can actually inflate stats and not make it tedious as a result, because the entire point is surviving while having alternative/optional objectives. Enemy AI can also be better orchestrated as well. And ultimately, classes like Knights are better off with them existing. That's a bonus. FE6's CH8 isn't good because you can't "1 turn it". It's absolutely terrible. And adding more enemies and making them harder... doesn't do a thing to help that. And as far as skipping maps go, there are mechanics to add which can penalize that greatly. I can't remember how strict FE7's EXP and fund ranks are but those are possibly one of them. And basing map design over low turn counts doesn't really seem fair on the design principles of the map -- because often times the purpose of doing it in the first place (and being actually beneficial) can come down to a bad difficulty curve where EXP doesn't matter at all (Almost all FE games -- because let's face it, lategame stat inflation is usually pathetic, with units like Percival making anything a joke). Surprisingly I'd say one of the stronger maps in FE6 is CH14 (the desert map). You can tread slowly. You can rush it / LTC it. You can grab the extra loot. There are optional bosses. There are "danger" points with the mamkutes. Fog makes enemies unpredictable and you have to play around it. You are encouraged to spread out your team rather than the opposite to actually get things done. The desert terrain is its downfall but even regarding that it's still one of the better maps IMO. =p Honestly I just don't think FE as a whole rewards loot/EXP enough as it should. That really shouldn't be used a basis to why smaller/more skippable maps are bad. But then, that's siege maps for ya. I understand defense maps can quite easily be turtled (which hey -- makes armor knights really good for that purpose alone) but with optional objectives and smart enemy AI -- have the potential to be the best maps in the series. Whoa, that was long. I'm not against debating this kind of stuff though. I find it more interesting if people disagree.

Meredith is a strong independent woman who needn't be called no 'Lady'. It can be a title for a knight. This is true. Never mind. I'm going to go with jokingly then.

Here are the typos/issues I've found for Tale 6, 5 and Finale. Tale 6 (Karel) Tale 5 (Raven) Finale (Zephiel) Barring in mind that Karel's tale can't be completed due to the game over that happens currently. So didn't play beyond that part, of course.

That falls under the category of 'stats' which is what I mentioned a little further into that post... But in any case, you only expanded upon my point.

Since you requested, I'm going to play each tale one by one and compile all the typos/errors/oddities I can find. I thought it might help to do a late sweep just to make sure everything is good for the final release. I might as well have an eye out for things while enjoying the latest release. It's no biggie. I'll do each tale one by one, but not necessarily in order. Starting with Hector's Tale: Tale 3 Hope that helps. I'll try and get through one or two tales a day.

I loved Zephiel's Tale. Very good. By the way, there's also quite a few typos here and there in the dialogue (for all tales). And some wrong class descriptions. Would you like me to list those out specifically? Or will proof-reading just come later as a lower priority? Preach it, yo.

I don't see your point here when there's literally nothing you can do to stop that regardless of 'map design'. Every enemy has horseslayers? 'Where the enemies are also powerful' refers to if... That's actually the case. Which it can arguably be if you seldom use Marcus (Or assume for a second that Marcus is brought down to Jeigan like levels and enemies are a bit tougher). At least it shows Oswin can be good. Besides, the actual map and enemy placements/AI is far more important than the stats. That's a secondary design point and something easily tweaked, both for allies and enemies alike. Tune that correctly against a good map and there you have it -- good design. I mean take FE6 vs. FE7. FE7 has far better/more interesting map design which shouldn't discredited just because it's more easily powerhoused. And I've seen quite a few people argue FE6 is better in this regard just because it's harder. Which is completely unrelated reasons to the core map design. Some are far better than others though. FE7's CH17 is almost as dull as FE6's CH8. Not quite as needlessly lengthy. But almost. It's pretty darn hard to design an actually interesting siege map (that's big in scope) though. I don't think rout objectives are ever good design either unless the map is quite small.

It's all based around map design TBH. Imagine a game where all maps were like FE7's CH13x -- where the enemies are also powerful. Armor knights would be godly. That's all there is to it. FE just needs more of those kinds of maps. Smaller / More enclosed defense maps tend to be some of the most enjoyable anyway. I don't think giving them decent Speed/Res is out of the question either. Their defining feature should be low movement, not stats - just specialized in defense. It's the same with archers. Give them actually decent stats and they're more or less fine. They just suck in most games (Just look at Leonardo -- if he had better STR and SPD he'd be straight up good). Adding frequent/tougher flying enemies doesn't hurt too.

With how many additional features and planned assets being pumped into this thing then I can imagine it takes a while, and a lot of waiting around for others as well. The game will be worth waiting for in the long run, so I couldn't complain. Although, I only expected CH7 and 7x to be in the next release (at least for NFGC) -- so it's interesting to hear it's more than that. Makes sense.

Hopefully this project gets the attention it deserves in the long run. So good. Speaking of wine, I Liked the map concept; A defense map where you need to protect your drunken Lord. I can see on Hard mode it would be pretty tough. Question: How does Lunatic differ from Hard mode? Hopefully there aren't just stronger enemies, because that would just make the non-trainees even better. You'd probably end up with FE6 Marcus or Frederick solo syndrome. I'm guessing perhaps lower EXP gains, more enemies, better enemy AI? Lenny the Lime is one beast of a thief. Actually seems like a legit combat class now. Also love there being different enemy factions. Imagine a map where you're an army out of three. And the other two are legitimately full-out fighting eachother and you could intervene at will, while there are also bandits about. Would be really cool.

In terms of story/background, Lilina is essentially Shiida, right down to being a 'childhood friend'. Shanna/Thany's only relation is through class. Farina/Hector is just as plausible -- They have endgame art that supports it. Heck, so does Lyn/Hector, but it just makes sense for Lyn to be associated elsewhere. Florina will likely end up being the one. There's really nothing to direct something as 'canon', it's whatever is most convenient to the plot. So either one would work fine. They're unique as far as GBA goes. And honestly, making them a generic class from the get-go wasn't exactly expected. But that doesn't mean they can't be unique. And if there's any player units that deserve to have unique classes + skills, it would be the lords or any of the main cast. Weapon types aren't the only factor here if course. Skills exist too now. Guinivere has a skill that allows Bows/Staves/Magic to scale in power with the same stats. That makes for an interesting class. Because overlap can't really be justified or superior, even if IS has done it. Swords are by far the most used weapon among the lords, so that skews things a lot (They're favored way to heavily by IS as far as I'm concerned, but that doesn't mean it's the correct thing to do). I just feel no overlap > having overlap. It allows weapon availability to be distributed better. Allows the usages of each main lord to be varied regardless of stats. Guinevere could have light magic at tier 1 for instance, but her usage wouldn't really differ from Lilina. Also, in context to Guinevere's availability and skills, her current setup feels more justified. Magic is generally more inherently powerful than other weapon types, so you have to weight it against other factors. Bow lock early on allows her skills/stats etc... to allow a lot more possibilities. She's unique to say the least. A lot of what I want to do to entirely possible in FEXP. In XNA it can only become easier. That isn't really a problem. As far as ambition goes, I've done other projects within the same scope (Not FE related). Programming is not a problem for me at all. For balance, a lot of it is perspective. For me, making sure the entire cast of characters are relatively useful, while still making the game challenging, is what is aimed for. Perhaps the game could be too difficult, and perhaps some units could be made even better, but the goal is simply flexibility for the player. Balance doesn't mean everything should be the same/equal -- but varied enough and being useful. Unique skills/classes can add to this. Doesn't mean the Romhack was perfect at all, but it set the goal I had for it, even just loosely. The player could use anyone they want to a good degree, or any weapon type, while still challenging themselves. Granted, the hack was based around begin a 'maniac/lunatic' styled mode, so difficulty-wise it was skewed from that angle (as was balance, so some prepromotes has to be a tad over-buffed to compensate for it, otherwise you have a FE12 issue where they're all a bit pants).

A) She is the Shiida of FE6. B) Even through canon, her mother is most likely to be either Florina or Farina. C) Mage pegasi seems unique enough to add as a lord-central class. Too much overlap with Lilina. And I'm not sure it's even specifically mentioned why/how she's associated with magic. Is it mentioned in FE7? As far as I'm concerned, she just shows up in a Trial Map as a Sage -- I assume because the model matches the best with her character design, and there's no other pre-promote Sage. Either way, giving her a unique class is the better solution. She learns Light magic after promotion anyway -- so it's still there. There most likely will not be a STR/MAG split, but her stat scaling is a bit different from other units... In any case, a primary staff/bow lord is a concept not really explored. So that's something fun to do. Basically, keeping Lilina and Guinivere as just... foot mages doesn't really seem too appealing. You might as well make them that same class at that point. And creating custom models/animations is the motivation here. As for Fan continuity, (from other fan-hacks) a lot of them respect the canon enough to be based off of. This project itself is still a fangame, so their basis for continuity as just as respectful as my own. Besides, the fangames I mentioned actually seem to have interlocking continuity. So I think it's ideal to follow on from that. It's a nice touch. As for general continuity:

Chances are in Roy Mode, she can't seize (Based on when the first Heaven Seal is received -- it's best to avoid that). While on her own mode, map/enemy tweaks can be made to be based around her movement, if need be. However, I doubt it makes much of a difference compared to say, simply using another flyer to ferry her around. And from a speedrunner's perspective it only saves what, a turn? Yeah, there's a great number of romhacks being made for FE6 -- some great ones too. For this though I'm going the extra mile to create a standalone game. So hopefully it can be separated from the romhacks being made. Chances are that people will have a lot of time to enjoy those long before this is finished.

So... I'm currently undergoing/planning for a massive project and I thought I'd might as well announce it. I'm working on a complete reboot for FE6 for FEXP (although I'm 99% sure I'll move the project onto XNA when that's released -- if only for coding purposes). It's in very early stages still but I'll list everything I'm planning to do with it: - A complete re-balance of well... everything. Mostly taking some cues from this as well as FE7x (since that's where XP and XNA are based off of in terms of primary mechanics). - Lots of new maps/chapters, including a prologue akin to FE11 or 12 (Which includes chapters from Guinevere's perspective). I'll also be building off FE6's branching sections also, so you'll be seeing more of those. - Lilina and Guinevere are now Lords with their own custom classes. Lilina is essentially a fire mage at tier 1, promoting into a magic wielding Peg Knight in tier 2 (Skymage Lord? Falco Lord? Ascended Lord? Eh). Guinevere is a staff and bow user at tier 1, promoting into a mounted Valkyrie-esque class in Tier 2. That's all still in flux though, but you get the idea. - Lilina mode. Complete with extra maps, completely different enemies units/placement etc... So everything you know and love from Hector Mode. - A complete redo of many of the maps in FE6. Some of them are horribly designed (especially the gaiden maps... ugh). Mostly the maps would be toned down in size and have different objectives. Many maps would become defend / survive / rout etc... - New player units, mostly characters from FE7. It could also be interesting to bring back characters from 7x (with context and permission etc etc....). Obvious entries would be Lyn, Pent (As the new Archsage), Isadora, Vaida. Renault would be a nice addition too. Anyone who's likely to be plot relevant (Vaida is clearly committed to Zephiel for instance). And then possibly a few entries for fanservice (Serra to be Yodel's successor for the Elimine church? Bwaha). - A complete rewrite of the story and dialogue. It'll mostly follow the canon, but likely with changes here and there. Things such as Erik joining you. Hector can survive. Lyn exists. Roy has some personality etc... Would love to gather some passionate writers for this. More continuity from FE7 (And Elibian Knights (?)) would obviously be good. - New mechanics from XNA and/or 7x, as well as new additions of my own. I'm assuming many are exclusive to 7x though, including classes and the like. But class skills are an obvious addition. Some mechanics from FE13 can be experimented with too. A more limited version of re-class can be tempting. - Lots of new art assets will need to be made too of course. Going to need willing artists + commissions. Of course, I still have some things on my plate for the time being, but I'd thought I'd create this thread now to gather further ideas or to see if some people are interested in contributing. A huge project like this will obviously take a very long time, so either way -- now's a good time as ever to create some discussion.

That's really what I meant. You'd have to purposely neglect another trainee for him to have a fair shot, or keep resetting. "It's okay because you can do that" is what you're saying. =L Magnus beats X unit (apparently Harken). But then who can X beat? What if you want to use X? Isn't the entire system meant to help units like X get up to par? It's cool that Magnus gets good EXP against them, but if X is that bad then wouldn't you want them to gain good EXP? So do you bench X because of that? So are they now just training fodder? If they're training fodder then are the support/WEXP bonuses wasted too? Should that mean you should use them then so those aren't wasted? hoeghfwpeg loophole This doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing or really a big deal. It's just a small nuance that I can see being a potential flaw. That's all really. =P Ideally your two weakest units will be a 50/50 matchup or something. But well.. probably not. It might end up coming down to using 'fodder/benched' unit for training purposes which... I'm not a fan of. Again, it might a minor flaw in an otherwise a fantastic system. So don't take it too seriously. It might just be me looking into things too much. But it helps pointing out nonetheless. I guess that's an option. Heh.

That's a really interesting mechanic. I really like it.

I'd be up for a FE6/FE7 crossover (FE4 esque) remake, personally. Because chances are, that's going to be a thing (it gets suggested/pondered about so goddamn much). That has the potential to be a large enough project for a big chunk of the community to be involved in. But indeed, remakes for all games is a possibility. Even a GBA-style remake of FE9/10 would be pretty cool if pulled off well. It's actually intriguing how the hacking community will change as a result of XNA. If it turns out good enough I imagine it will become the new standard.