Hard Mode Weapon Triangle

[Fayt Zelpher]

Eclipse: enemy Def = 1 for attack (skill%)

Why do you need to change Eclipse, exactly? Only the Black Knight has it and he's only playable for two and a half chapters.

So that Ike isn't dead if he gets in combat with BK in 3-7 for purposes of recruiting Lehran

[Catnip]

I actually like those a lot! They're very balanced and no more of that "Your dead, and if your not dead, your paralyzed/asleep/your health is now mine, etc.". Plus, now you really have to look at the enemy stats, figure out what could be the rate of that skill happening, and really ask yourself "What could happen if I move there and attack him".

I'm moving this discussion to a new thread, since it has nothing to do with the original topic.

It was just the natural flow of discussion, but it's your topic. So be it. I'll see you in that thread, I suppose.

[Narga_Rocks]

Eclipse: enemy Def = 1 for attack (skill%)

Why do you need to change Eclipse, exactly? Only the Black Knight has it and he's only playable for two and a half chapters.

So that Ike isn't dead if he gets in combat with BK in 3-7 for purposes of recruiting Lehran

And facing him at 2 range or drawing him with Ranulf and letting Ike card the BK the following turn doesn't get around the Eclipse problem why? (Cards don't allow counters but apparently will still initiate the necessary conversation)

[Fayt Zelpher]

Eclipse: enemy Def = 1 for attack (skill%)

Why do you need to change Eclipse, exactly? Only the Black Knight has it and he's only playable for two and a half chapters.

So that Ike isn't dead if he gets in combat with BK in 3-7 for purposes of recruiting Lehran

And facing him at 2 range or drawing him with Ranulf and letting Ike card the BK the following turn doesn't get around the Eclipse problem why? (Cards don't allow counters but apparently will still initiate the necessary conversation)

Fair enough, but I also don't want to have the BK insta-kill another unit if I decide that I want to send Haar or one of the hawks to kill the rest of the DB. Not necessary, but always satisfying.

[Narga_Rocks]

Eclipse: enemy Def = 1 for attack (skill%)

Why do you need to change Eclipse, exactly? Only the Black Knight has it and he's only playable for two and a half chapters.

So that Ike isn't dead if he gets in combat with BK in 3-7 for purposes of recruiting Lehran

And facing him at 2 range or drawing him with Ranulf and letting Ike card the BK the following turn doesn't get around the Eclipse problem why? (Cards don't allow counters but apparently will still initiate the necessary conversation)

Fair enough, but I also don't want to have the BK insta-kill another unit if I decide that I want to send Haar or one of the hawks to kill the rest of the DB. Not necessary, but always satisfying.

I did that on EM, good times. Everything dead or "dead" but the BK. I don't remember how much I got rid of on NM, but I know a lot of them lived on HM. Still attacked the BK, and since it was transfer Ike he didn't worry about getting doubled and just had to use 2 range to avoid Eclipse rather than use a card. Also got rid of Jill, Zihark, Edward, Leo, and I think Nolan. I think the rest are too deep, though I don't remember for sure. Sothe and Volug I think don't move, though I may be remembering wrong about Sothe.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Narga_Rocks

[Nephinel]

I don't know about you all, but disabling the ability to check movement/attack range in Hard mode would be considered fake difficulty.

[Narga_Rocks]

I don't know about you all, but disabling the ability to check movement/attack range in Hard mode would be considered fake difficulty.

I disagree on the basis that it is rather easy to determine what they all can do. It's more tedious than fake difficulty. Also a truly stupid and pointless idea, but far from fake difficulty. It's only a problem if you miscount, but that's no different than if you miscount the amount of damage a unit will take if everything hits and it dies on enemy phase unexpectedly. I don't think obvious mistakes on the part of the player should count as fake difficulty, however annoyed at the game I may get when I do screw up in that manner.

[Nephinel]

I disagree on the basis that it is rather easy to determine what they all can do. It's more tedious than fake difficulty. Also a truly stupid and pointless idea, but far from fake difficulty. It's only a problem if you miscount, but that's no different than if you miscount the amount of damage a unit will take if everything hits and it dies on enemy phase unexpectedly. I don't think obvious mistakes on the part of the player should count as fake difficulty, however annoyed at the game I may get when I do screw up in that manner.

The points I highlighted in bold italics are the exact reasons that I consider disabling enemy movement range fake difficulty. It doesn't add any more challenge to the game other than having to count enemy movement yourself. That's not really challenging. It's just incredibly tedious and promotes trial-and-error gameplay even more than necessary.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Nephinel

[Fayt Zelpher]

I disagree on the basis that it is rather easy to determine what they all can do. It's more tedious than fake difficulty. Also a truly stupid and pointless idea, but far from fake difficulty. It's only a problem if you miscount, but that's no different than if you miscount the amount of damage a unit will take if everything hits and it dies on enemy phase unexpectedly. I don't think obvious mistakes on the part of the player should count as fake difficulty, however annoyed at the game I may get when I do screw up in that manner.

The points I highlighted in bold italics are the exact reasons that I consider disabling enemy movement range fake difficulty. It doesn't add any more challenge to the game other than having to count enemy movement yourself. That's not really challenging, just incredibly tedious, not to mention promoting trial-and-error gameplay even more than it already does.

If memory serves, it is called hard mode, not frustrating, tedious, and time consuming mode. If I wanted it to be frustrating and artificially difficult, I can always impose different conditions on my playthrough. I want a game where I'm rewarded for a good strategy, not just frustrated because I can't see where the enemy is or anything artificial like that. Go ahead, boost the stats of the enemies, give them better weapons, have more enemies, and heck, improve the AI a bit. That's fine. That's the correct way to boost difficulty. HM is not so much hard as it is cheap. Bolded and underlined the key part of Neph's post.

[Nephinel]

Then that leaves the issue of whether removing the WT in Hard mode constitutes fake difficulty, but I'm willing to side with the notion that it isn't.

[Fayt Zelpher]

Then that leaves the issue of whether removing the WT in Hard mode constitutes fake difficulty, but I'm willing to side with the notion that it isn't.

I'm of the opinion that while it's not fake difficulty per se, it does increase the percentage of difficulty attributable to luck (as opposed to player skill and strategy). For this reason, I think that we should double it to further reduce this luck factor. As far as I am concerned, I think that ultimately, we're wanting to make the game such that whatever difficulty is in the game can be corrected with a proper strategy, with luck playing as little role as possible (within the context of FE). If nothing else, that's the concept behind true hit and 2 RNG hit%, and I don't see anyone arguing that we should go back to 1 RNG hit%

[Narga_Rocks]

Then that leaves the issue of whether removing the WT in Hard mode constitutes fake difficulty, but I'm willing to side with the notion that it isn't.

I'm of the opinion that while it's not fake difficulty per se, it does increase the percentage of difficulty attributable to luck (as opposed to player skill and strategy). For this reason, I think that we should double it to further reduce this luck factor. As far as I am concerned, I think that ultimately, we're wanting to make the game such that whatever difficulty is in the game can be corrected with a proper strategy, with luck playing as little role as possible (within the context of FE). If nothing else, that's the concept behind true hit and 2 RNG hit%, and I don't see anyone arguing that we should go back to 1 RNG hit%

Don't forget, WT goes both ways. Mia can get even lance users down to laughable hit rates, and Zihark with an A support and away from Micaiah's team in part 4 can get them down to 0 (Mia gets some down to 0 in HM, but not as much as Z will). Bring back the weapon triangle, especially if you double it, and you are looking at relying on luck more if you want to have them be offensive. It all depends on what characters you use and the layout of the enemies, but the weapon triangle relies more on luck unless you keep all axe using enemies in one section of the map, lance users elsewhere, swords elsewhere. Basically, though, with the way this game spreads out weapon types pretty much evenly to each part of the map it means you would force the player to only use units with high concrete durability rather than high avo since the lance users would simply be too likely to hit the trueblades and they are everywhere. Getting Axe users to 0 more easily isn't really a good tradeoff if a lance user pulls 40+% hit. And it makes units like Ulki and Janaff shine out more than units like Zihark and Mia since Ulki doesn't really care about weapon triangles and has the avo to get stuff to 0 already.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with making some characters less good and other characters more good, but it wouldn't do anything to decrease any luck factor. If you actually use good characters properly in the current game there isn't much of a luck factor, and if you reinstate the weapon triangle then a different set of characters become good but they don't make the game any less reliant on luck.

[Fayt Zelpher]

Of course, there is nothing wrong with making some characters less good and other characters more good, but it wouldn't do anything to decrease any luck factor. If you actually use good characters properly in the current game there isn't much of a luck factor, and if you reinstate the weapon triangle then a different set of characters become good but they don't make the game any less reliant on luck.

Well, I'd argue that the WT is going to do two things on average with regards to character classes in general. First, SM's, who are already better than average, are going to lose points, and it will reward marshalls (who, ex Gatrie are pretty mediocre) due to complete WTA. Seraph knights and Gold Knights also have partial control, and neither of these classes is good on average. I'd say, if anything, it's making it a bit more difficult, but on a strategy level as opposed to a luck level, since now we have to realize that some units just won't be able to ram through the game with avoid tanking. If we make it a hair more difficult here, we can get rid of the fake difficulty that is not being able to see movement range (say what you will, but tedium =/= difficulty).

[Narga_Rocks]

(say what you will, but tedium =/= difficulty).

Which is precisely why it is neither "real" difficulty nor "fake" difficulty. Having to count your own squares is no form of difficulty at all.

[Fayt Zelpher]

(say what you will, but tedium =/= difficulty).

Which is precisely why it is neither "real" difficulty nor "fake" difficulty. Having to count your own squares is no form of difficulty at all.

My point exactly. If it's not adding to the difficulty at all, why did they remove it from the first place? (Other than to be a major pain in the rear.)

[Kinata]

The game rewards characters who only use one weapon with critical boosts. That gives 1-weapon classes an advantage since being able to use several kinds of weapons isn't that helpful as most characters only use their primary weapon anyway (since it's a pain to raise a character in a second kind of weapon). Doubling the weapon triangle would probably help since it would make the ability to use other weapons useful.