NoNameAtAll Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 They should bring back Mage Knights Err...Mage Knights weren't in Book 2. I know they added Myrmidon/Swordmaster and Falcoknight (Dark Mages were already around in Book 2), but I don't see them adding those. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Yeah well a million things in FE DS weren't in book 1 or FE1. Like the Warrior or Berserker class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodykitty Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 A lot of the new classes are just variations on existing ones, and do nothing extraordinarily new. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 (edited) Mage Knight -> Mage... with a mount! And a sword. ... sounds like a similar variation to me. It's kinda like horseman from hunters (once again, compared to FE1. Hunter didn't promote.) Edited February 3, 2009 by Nathan Graves Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodykitty Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Horsemen actually existed in FE1, even though they weren't the promoted form of Hunters. Mage Knight -> Mage... with a mount! And a sword.... sounds like a similar variation to me. A major variation. The new classes in FEDS are very minor variations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Pretty much why I brought them up, because it's an FE1 remake. As the promoted class of Hunter, they can use Swords in addition to Bows and a mount, similar to a Mage Knight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoNameAtAll Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 And Armor Knights didn't promote into Generals in FE1 either. Your point? A Mage Knight is a major difference, especially if you're going by the way FE5's do. Myrmidon/Swordmaster is NOT a major variation, especially when Navarre was pretty damn speedy in FE3 as a Hero, which was before Myrmidons came into existence. Falcoknights aren't a huge deal either. It's a variation of the Dragonknight. Plus, they first existed in Gaiden. Warriors/Berserkers were added to give Barts/Saji/Maji a much needed promotion. And Dark Mages being playable became a staple after FE5. Though these are minor variations as well. Plus, Horsemen originally COULDN'T use swords. They were just mounted archers. In any case, I don't see them adding Mage Knight. It IS a major variation when you take into account the classes that were in place in FE3 Book 2. What they DO need if they remake Book 2 are axemen. Book 2 gave plenty of Silver Axes with no one to use them. I know Class Swap would allow axes to be used, but there were no axe men that were playable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 And Armor Knights didn't promote into Generals in FE1 either. Your point?And they didn't get bows then either. Now the change has been applied. Mage Knights wouldn't be too bad a change either. It's pretty much the same point you made.A Mage Knight is a major difference, especially if you're going by the way FE5's do.I'm not saying it isn't major. I'm saying it's able to be used.Falcoknights aren't a huge deal either. It's a variation of the Dragonknight. Plus, they first existed in Gaiden.Gaiden came after FE1. Otherwise, yeah it's more or less the same.Dragonknights got Axes, though. Warriors/Berserkers were added to give Barts/Saji/Maji a much needed promotion. And Dark Mages being playable became a staple after FE5. Though these are minor variations as well.Technically it was likely included to make an option exist for the fighters after promotion or something.Plus, Horsemen originally COULDN'T use swords. They were just mounted archers.And now they can. It's a pretty major difference to allow Hunters to promote to such a class.In any case, I don't see them adding Mage Knight. It IS a major variation when you take into account the classes that were in place in FE3 Book 2.But I don't care about FE3 Book 2 or FE3 in general. I care about FE1. If FE3 mattered at all then many of these maps would be different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiddo Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 BTW, on a random suggestion, I'd have Elrean be a Dark Mage. And perhaps give him an exclusive "Dark Mage Only" spell rather than just Thoron. Perhaps something that'd make a Dark Mage good in this game, like Luna? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Luna would only make a dark mage good if enemies had jacked up Resistance. Clearly not the case in FE3 Book 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiddo Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 You could make Luna effective against the Shadow and Earth Dragon units that I couldn't seem to get my Sages or Bishops to touch. Also, the stats from FE3 are likely not gonna be copied directly, so it's possible resistance could be jacked up to nerf the Mages/Sages. Do that too much though and Book 2 would be the inverse of Book 1 with Dark Sages preferable to normal ones. Anyway, I'll try throwing some other ideas out there that may or may not be that cool. - Perhaps give Marth a promotion - honestly I'd just think this as more "Cool" and "rewarding" than "Balanced", so this might get some objections. But I'd like to see a Class Swappable Promoted Lord. Imagine if you could have Marth be a Knight Lord, Great Lord, or Blade Lord? - In fact I'd like to hope that to apply to most of the non-class swappable units from before. Perhaps I just like the idea of having a lot of the more recent FE classes available, but the idea of Rikard being able to swap between a Rogue and an Assassin... hmm. The main problems with these is that most of these classes were already buffed by having their level caps and stat growths increase, and... - I'd like to be able to transfer some of my FE Shadow Dragon chars' stats directly over. Going with this, the previous two might be a bit problematic, maybe? Also, Imagine transferring stats into Hardin... durrrr... - throw in a few gaiden maps that are more like rewards for advanced players than safety cushions for the novices. While I like seeing the latter idea happen just for seeing how it changed the direction of the franchise, they should not be the sole kind of gaiden maps there. Mix it up a bit. Have a mission where perhaps you get a different gaiden map depending on whether you killed almost everyone in your party or barely anyone. Bring back the gaiden maps with ridiculous Nintendo hard requirements like "Clear this mission in X turns while keeping Y character/s alive and with Z items while having one some previous actions in other chapters that are also necessary to get this Gaiden." The other ones don't have to go - in fact, they're great for extending the game's replay value. Make the game feel more branching, in spite of it's linear gameplay and plot. - Don't forget about BS Fire Emblem :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dat Nick Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 But I'd like to see a Class Swappable Promoted Lord. Imagine if you could have Marth be a Knight Lord, Great Lord, or Blade Lord? For story, I'd actually side with "Star Lord" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Hardin Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Dragon chars' stats directly over. Going with this, the previous two might be a bit problematic, maybe? Also, Imagine transferring stats into Hardin... durrrr... I imagine Hardin, Sedgar, Wolf, and Vyland's stats would go into Roche. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dat Nick Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 oh yes And if we're bringing mage knight back, no swords I mean really, what's the point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 I found it cool, so personal preference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Mage knights with swords would only be useful if FE stopped being so biased towards melee units. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Spoon Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Mage knights with swords would only be useful if FE stopped being so biased towards melee units. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Last I checked, no enemy wields Holsety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dat Nick Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 (edited) Mage knights with swords would only be useful if FE stopped being so biased towards melee units. hi, i'm Merric I'm better than Zagaro on NM. Who would attack with a 7 str unit [if even that] who has an E/D rank in swords, regardless of if it's cool or not? The only MKs with swords that dont suck are the ones with magic swords, but that's, uh, kind of why they have magic tomes. :/ Edited February 6, 2009 by Sweet Tooth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunderstrife Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 you people are over looking the fact that Mage Knights are COOL. And I know they weren't in FE3, I was thinking if they add characters/enemies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saaji Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 I agree with the mentality of adding mage knights with swords just because it would be cool. hell that gives us more more diversity in potential characters and what not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 (edited) hi, i'm MerricI'm better than Zagaro on NM. Hi, completely irrelevant. Who would attack with a 7 str unit [if even that] who has an E/D rank in swords, regardless of if it's cool or not? The only MKs with swords that dont suck are the ones with magic swords, but that's, uh, kind of why they have magic tomes. :/ Because MKs have a lot more than 7 strength? Miranda obviously doesn't, but how MKs were in past games has no bearing on what the ideal MK should be like. If 50% of the enemies in an FE game wielded magic, mixed melee/magic units would have more utility than dedicated melee or magic units. Common sense. Edited February 6, 2009 by dondon151 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dat Nick Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Hi, completely irrelevant. Um, no. You quite clearly said melee units dominate FE. If a magic user is the best character in the game, that VERY clearly isn't the case. Because MKs have a lot more than 7 strength? No, they don't, and magic still deals a lot more damage even to MAGES, making the entire concept of swords pointless? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Um, no.You quite clearly said melee units dominate FE. If a magic user is the best character in the game, that VERY clearly isn't the case. If a Magic user is the best in the game and there's like 10 units before you get a tier with another magic user, then you get like another 10 units before another magic user (hypothetically) then melee still dominates the game. It just happens that a mage makes it up to top of top.No, they don't, and magic still deals a lot more damage even to MAGES, making the entire concept of swords pointless?I doubt it. Mages probably have about as much less Res than melee units have Def than tomes have might in comparison to swords. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dat Nick Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 If a Magic user is the best in the game and there's like 10 units before you get a tier with another magic user, then you get like another 10 units before another magic user (hypothetically) then melee still dominates the game. It just happens that a mage makes it up to top of top. It also just happens that all mages not named Merric are bollocks. Meaning, FEDS's poor mage stats are to blame for this, not the mage class itself. I doubt it. Mages probably have about as much less Res than melee units have Def than tomes have might in comparison to swords. coughPATHOFRADIANCEcough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.