TheRadiantKnight

1) roster sizes vary by games true that why i suggested an non equal roster with 5! games giving fates more reps then the other games. 2) I have focus games as well just two more. 3) Of course you would have to change the plot of this warriors game obviously. And i also suggested a roste including the characters you mentioned please take everything i said in consideration. 4) Uniqueness is something Folt demanded to be in and be exclusive to fates. And I balanced uniqueness with importance. I want at some point sooner rather than later to represent the series you make it sound i like i want all games in FEW 1 no matter what despite me making compromise after compromise in reducing the games. I never once said dlc would add new games. The dlc would cover focus games in my variant as well. Again you are ok giving a character like celica or alm barebones representation or missing eachother as counterpart. Characters can share certain moves or some attacks without being outright clones but having similar areas of effect in there attacks reducing work. Ok Troubadour lose Valkyrie get or sword valkyrie get magic valkyrie lose. It's delusional for me to think they could put more effort in one part of the game. Like i said and you didn't read or ignored again one could make the compromise by removing one character. Black Knight for the most part is a villain. He's predestined for something like being a lu bu(dynasty warriors) of this game. You could add him later down the line, but him as enemy in his first appearence would make much more sence considering he wasn't playable ( in story mode ) untel the second game. The laguz argument is another instance of compromise you want me to cut down work but you deny me to cut down work at places you care for. Changing 8 characters giving the overall size of the game, the fact that half can be straight up clones and the other half can have shared moves, hitboxes thereof and such and the fact im willing to remove one character if it isn't possible in the time given makes it possible. And before you again only read half my post and use what you need to make your argument work yes i now have less (24) but i have some more uniqueness that you need to add later, because at some point you have to cover the games, characters, classes i covered likewise do i. That said im not gonna comment anymore, because it isn't fun discussing things with someone unwilling take other opinions into consideration and maybe help thinking of something better together.

Im only using dlc because you won't compromise on fates reps. And when the game itself uses dlc to patch things up ( terrible shadow dragon representation (only 3)) why can't i do it. Im not gunning for a full roster with one game. I already said that. Why is one of celica or alm important and one could debate lucina coming in for someone else if can't compromise again. Clone potential =/= clones i said potential. Mist can be as unique as Elise. It's just your favoritism in the way. I want a fair roster with a reasonable timeframe for all games to be represented. Like i said many times in the end by the time your games have full representation our rosters are the same my fates will be as 100% as yours. I just want the possibility for all games in a reasonable time. You don't. Your just using popularity and only this. Take one for the team. Just because some are more popular doesn't make them or there fans better. Give them more but not that much. Now your using dlc to make your point but i can't. Are you putting a villain in the tellius roster this game didn't put villains in the roster. I hope you mean just as a villain because thats how this game handled it. I would also add laguz, but you denied that demanding fates gets all the uniqueness. Look i made a template for a roster with little difference 8 characters. I could remove a character and the workload would about equal that of the game. I put the missing few fates characters in from game 4 onward provided we would get this far which isn't certain. But this way guarentees 5+ characters for every game by game 3. Yours at the earliest by game 5. With game 4 and 5 i add the ones missing were the same on the roster. But i gave sacred stones lovers 3 games, Thracia lovers 3 games while you give them one while taking 5 for fates and awakening it isn't fair.

Again the fates characters missing are coming just at a latter time and the only ones i left out are elise and sakura not everyone. The Lucina comes from the unwillingness to offer up fates slots from folts part i had to make adjustsments because your both nether willing to or able to. Hector could share some stuff with Lissa with an adjusted moveset for it's possible. Ike uses sword and as such can take stuff from the others around and so on surely not every part but parts and it really isn't that much more resources that im using. And if im removing lets say Mist i reduce the sources to the level of the game even further now i have one character less but some uniqueness. Something you have fix next game when have these resources more to fall back on. I changed Mist Identity for uniqueness and getting another horse in, but if it's fates it's unwanted so remove her or make her a marth clone that should reduce work enough. I used Jeorge as place holder because he's a bow user and i said in the roster post you mentioned that the Jeorge slot is a wildcard and can be changed if need be. Read everything. What should I go for tell me uniqueness or clones because if i use one you want the other and vice verca. I tried gunning for more balance i got that. More classes i got that. Remove them add clones and we get less workload. Find a balance that works. It was just a suggestion with room for improvement. And by the way this is a roster i expected IS to suggest to Koei to a certain extend. Because if anything IS should want more games to be represented. And since i came this to a roster even you would despite making little to no compromise. Your only nitpicking single characters and uniqueness clones which could be adjusted, it's safe to say 4 focus games should satisfy you and your kind to at least 90% and thats certainly more important to satisfy 80% of yor demands, but raising other peoples satisfaction level by decent amounts. Of course you can't change the game now. Im arguing about the roster something that could have unified the fandom to a certain extend didn't. Something like Ike is in and Titania sweet, Chrom and Frederick too good for you and Takumi and Camilla good for there fans as well. They centralised happiness instead of spreading it. And this is a forum to discuss things so i want to voice my opinion on the matter.

Importance applies really only to the male siblings. At the point that (your/the devs) way reached a full series roster my roster yours would probably be identical. It's just a matter of how long certain games have to wait. Uniqueness comes from movesets some may be easier to think of but in warrior games it's possible. Look at my roster with 5 games as i made compromises. What am i dumbing down im adding if anything. I changed only 8 characters and gained classes in the process. Mine are not lesser choices because there different than yours. But there more fair. To make it clear at the time when all games are represented in your variant your rosters would be the same because i have just as much character as you per game. But while i would be all series by entry 3 you would leave games on one characters until at least game 4 having full series representation at 5 at the earliest. But by then our rosters are the same. Yes i expect them to put more effort they missing armor knights which should have been in. So a more work is justified to a certain extend. Lucina is the first dlc problem solved. I didn't for the most part your reaching. Oswin is new the rest has clone potential. You like elise more ok, but man favoritism much. You just won't stop attacking me. I made a roster comparable in effort to what we got.

Why is it beneficial to restrict to this game to 3 games. Lets say 5 Games with 7/4/4/4/4/2 pre dlc. Corrin,Ryouma, Xander, Takumi, Leo, Hinoka, Camilla Chrom, Lissa, Frederick, Robin Marth, Shiida, Tiki, (Jeorge) Eliwood, Hector, Lyn, (Oswin) Ike, Soren, Titania,(Mist) OCs Those with brackets are wildcards easily changeable, if need be. Which gives us robin and corrin ( unique ) because could be whats in the game or could be altered. 2 OC could stay the way they are or be altered so those 4 plus 8 swords, 5 axes, 3 lances, 2 bows, 2 magic, 1 dragonstone so weapon triangle works arguably even better For the record i only changed 8 characters so not that much was changed Sakura, Elise, Lucina, Cordelia, Celica, Anna, Robin(f), Corrin(m) out Jeorge, Eliwood, Hector, Oswin, Ike, Soren, Titania, Mist in Armor Knight and Valkyrie GET!

If thats the case remove azura add Leo. Now there would be an imbalance that cannot stand this fates unfair representation of kingdoms impossible, so add Hinoka and remove one of ocs or put one of the other games one down. And as compensatation bring only one dlc character for fates azura problem. One suggestion from one actually looking for one. 1. Again with my suggestion every game would be better of than shadow dragon is now. Why shouldn't it work? 2. and 3. Im literally suggestion a game with just as much characters with about ten characters being different. Some will take more some will take less. It wouldn't increase the workload by much. If there don't using combinations why did you even bring this up a point. If it's just specials thats not close to enough to use this as an uniqueness argument, because with specials you can do crazy stuff regardless of weapons or characters. Ephraim was just an example. But for you it seems impossible to sacrifice only one of eight siblings, yet ephraim alone go for it. If you put your argument on importance those single characters aren't good for your argument. If you can't add takumi without leo you sure can't add ephraim without eirika. But as long as the non focus game isn't your favorite game or popular it's ok. But why would a game with ten different characters( same amount in the end ) be less diverse. Just because they are fates characters doesn't mean there moveset is better or weapons, classes and movesets are more diverse thats a task for the developers.

Just because someone is important doesn't mean he should be in the game same with popularity. These are things to consider but not something that should automatically give them a spot. While you have issuses with missing characters i have issuses with missing games, but the thing is fates fans already would have gotten enough with 6+2 dlc. And leo would be dlc as mentioned. Why would you not want to represent all games of a franchise. 12 is not that many that it is impossible. FEW 1: 5 games, FEW 2: 4 games + FE switch, FEW 3: 3 games + possible FE switch 2 and then FEW 4 expand + possible new FE. This is feasible you just don't want to admit it and want specific characters. You just said unique so i wasn't sure. So you meant gameplay. So because someone has a unique weapon or unique combination of weapons it justifies not adding more games which could bring uniqueness in movesets regardless course its a warriors game. Never said they couldn't but if my favorite game would be sacred stones and i heard of a crossover i would be pumped. Yeah taking castles with Ephraim in this game is reasonable. Playing as characters from this game is what i would hope for. I probably would also like other games but that doesn't justify having no chance of decend representation until FEW 5+. I always said fates and awakening would be focused games. I even said they would get more representation than the others just not this much. Why are unable to offer a few spots for whole game representation. And again leo dlc.

Yes i excluded Leo, my favorite royal of fates, because im able to make a compromise. I suggested dlc giving fates 2 more reps. Leo could be a part of that. And adding characters of an overrepresented game as clones when adding other games gives cloning oppurtunites as well is selfish. Saying there unique is a bold and arrogant statement. Why are they more unique then others? There just more explored then other characters. And something more general. I can expect people to wait for one of there favs for dlc or a second game, to represent more games and be able to get to all games in 3 warrior titles.They way they decided to go won't give us all games till probably 5 which who knows if they get there. You expect fans of 75% of the games to wait without much hope for representation just so you get for example leo in or hinoka in. While you or devs or others aren't able to wait for one or two characters to share a bit.

Not from where we are. We can't change the game now. The beginning was flawed. You seem to like these characters and thats fine but put yourself in the shoes of those who didn't got this lucky in a game where the possibility was there. And again compromise. 6 characters from one of 12 games in a crossover is decent to very good. One choice with 6 would be Corrin, Ryouma, Takumi, Xander, Camilla and Azura balance of importance uniqueness and popularity.

6/5/4/4/4/2 meant fates 6 awakening 5 and 3 more games with 4 each and 2 oc characters. You say it's too thin when this is better than what shadow dragon got this game while only focusing on 3 games. Quality was never in question and overall quantity would be the same.

Enemy classes wouldn't disappear because fates went from 9(12) to something like 5(7) characters. Enemies isn't what i was talking about. And to reiterate what i said in the post you replied to there isn't only 3 or 12 games as options theres for example something like 6/5/4/4/4/2 pre dlc (maybe 8/7/6/6/5/2 after dlc) covering 5 games(5 orbs) giving fates and awakening extra still include 2 oc protagonists and creating a base which built upon could include characters from all continueties by game 2 covering all games by game 3 reasonable. 3 wasn't a compromise it was a given like they could only take 1 game. If having one or to characters of my fav game less in one or more of the warriors games gives a hole game and fans of this game room it is sacrifice im willing to take especially in a crossover game. fates sold this much more than older games because of lucky circumstances like actual marketing have a way for no veterans to enjoy it with casual mode which is a good edition. But marketing and especially nintendo directs letting people know these games exists are what moved sales. And the marriage stuff to certain extend. Give them more ok, but why almost anything. Why centralise love for a series instead of spreading it. Show the new fans that there is more stuff different stuff something they might be interested in, while still giving them stuff they enjoyed already.

The extend of the pandering is the the problem. Fates can get the most representatives for all i care, but this is fire emblem warriors not fates warriors and other fans shouldn't be forgotten. I don't want to be forgotten as a fire emblem fan (less focused on is ok but forgotten) because i like the (wrong) fire emblem. And with 25 (34 after dlc 1) more was possible, feasible and more fair. And with all that fates reprensentation that there is 9+3 which is ridiculous did we get the o so unique classes of fates maids, butlers, ninjas... no, but you make it sound like we did. So they chose this road and didn't even deliver on that. Most classes we got out of fates are in the other games as well. And doesn't for example tellius offer uniqueness through laguz. Your comment shows my main problem with the devs and the fans overdefending this when it comes to what games/characters they focused on. The unwillingness to compromise. I get reprensenting all games is hard but the space between 12 and 3 isn't void.

Yes that is enough reason to put reprensentation of those games in, but why only 3 games given how many characters we got 25 in the base game 34 with dlc. With 6 games for example we could get around 4 characters from every focus game in the base game and 5-6 after one dlc pack which is decent representation for a crossover game and more fair. But Koei developers seem to be fates fans as shown on the first page of this interview. http://nintendoeverything.com/fire-emblem-warriors-devs-on-characters-and-handling-of-reveals-designs-story-systems-modes/ They justified all fates siblings because leaving one out would make the others worry to much to make the story progress. Wouldn't this apply to other charaters as well? Couldn't they even make that an incentive for the siblings that got in to fight harder? But the devs loved fates so they wanted as many of them as possible making little compromise. They were even discussing removing some like hinoka but a developer said i married her don't do this. While this could be meant in a joking matter it shows they have played fates, they loved fates ,they gonna pander to fates fans because they are as well. there wishfullment is what gave us this little reprensentation and imbalance.

Sorry should have clarified that more. I was talking about a hypothetical roster without xander and ryoma. So not adding them is what i meant.

With the second game they have to focus on fe switch and probably give close to fates reprensentation in this game at base without dlc. So how many new characters can we expect probably less than than 25 more would be wishful thinking. Given how much they loved fates which is shown in there interview after the lyn reveal and if fe switch will be close to fates they will probably again add about 8-10 characters from that game which doesn't leave enough room for more then two other focus games. Of course this only applies because they handled 1 the way they did. My list was only a suggestion and an example of weapon balanced list with 25 slots and 9 games i even said one could remove minerva for jeorge or like you suggested tiki. It wasn't final. Lissa could also be healer instead of an axe user if one wanted. Ryoma and Xander wouldn't add variety in terms of classes we already would have mounted and foot sword users. Removing them would also present a unique situation for corrin, wanting to go back stopping them from continuing the war and fear he/she will be to late giving an incentive to end this conflict. For the short stick argument it only works now because we got this game with huge casts for awakening/fates if from the beginning we now 2-4 per game that wouldn't feel like short sticks because we wouldn't have huge differences. And just because i would have liked it when all games were represented i could compromise ,something the developers couldn't as it seems, because they love fates so much. My roster included only 9 games instead of all 12 for example. The thing is a compromise between 12 and 1 or 3 shouldn't be 3. 3 is just that magical hyrule warriors number. With dlc we have 34 characters so thats what were working with if they went with a 6 games approach we could have 5-6 characters per pretty decent and leaves room for weapon and class variety. 4 characters per game in the 25 strong base game plus one protagonist. The good sales argument was maybe a bit harsh, but good sales on selfish (more than need be i know they have to earn money but again compromise) decisions and almost downright offensive PR is a signal i don't want to send out.