TheClassic

Thanks for the thoughtful responses everyone. It's reassuring to hear that the biggest concerns are things I've been designing around. Here are a few examples (feel free to dissect these remedies!) Problem: too many points of attack for enemies. → Solutions: not only is there no perma-death (in fact the units are non-unique such that you can upgrade a "class" of unit and obtain multiples of that class), but the combat is very player turn focused. Basically the player is expected to lose units, and can replenish them when they do. It's also not exactly heartbreaking to lose a unit (the game takes places in the form of a wooden board game, so it's more like losing a pawn in chess versus watching Mia eat a crit for breakfast.) Problem: too little predictability due to more movement options. → Solution: the player has nearly perfect information (no hit chance, no wacky AI; it's closer to chess in this regard as well). I like that people touched on the puzzle-like quality to FE maps, because that's one of my favourite things about them. Integrity mentioned a FE strength in "relative predictability in addition to relatively lower mobility", in that light I could describe this hex-based combat as even higher relative predictability to even lower mobility, since all the numbers are single digit and the typical base move is 3 instead of FE's usual 5-6 (I want players to not have to do too much algebra). Another thing that I hope addresses the increased danger for any unit is that there are attack range patterns that limit total targetable tiles. Specifically, many high-range units can only hit on the "lines" of the grid (imagine an FE bow with 4 range, but it can't hit diagonals). The goal is so that the scarier enemies become manageable if the player uses the environment effectively. All that might count as too mechanically different to be called FE-style combat, so maybe FE-inspired (FE-distilled?) is more apt at this point.

Now that you mention it, Donkey Kong platformers always did seem to have a little more soul in them. But that might just be because David Wise's music is pure, unadulterated vibes.

I think 2D Mario games are boring. I don't think they're bad or anything, but I haven't been able to have any fun while playing any of them, let alone a shred of interest.

So this has surely been talked about before, but I'm wondering how ya'll feel about Fire Emblem style combat on a hex grid. What do you think would work better or worse? What units or items become more or less viable? What map concepts stop working or start working better? I ask because I'm actually making a game that's effectively this, and would love to know what the FE crowd thinks about hex tiles.

The effort to level the unit is definitely a factor too. Even with enough EXP and time to go around, I benched Meg in my last RD playthrough because I was tired of babying a General. Leo on the other hand didn't need to tank anything so he ended up staying. I wouldn't be surprised if you could beat any entry in the series on normal with a team of the worst units that are also the biggest experience sinks, so long as you're patient enough to keep them all alive. So "high investment" for me these days is how much effort it is to get the unit to end game. I.e. training Meg versus throwing a forge at Renning and saying "get in loser, we're going to the tower".

I finally decided to check out the forum side of the site after I don't know how many years of staring at the growth charts. Just wanted to say hi, and that I'd forgotten what it's like to be online without feeling like your attention is being squeezed out of you by careful design coughredditcough.