Mechanics that you want

[eclipse]

WHAT I WANT IN FE3DS IS FOR THERE TO BE A GOOD UNIT BALANCE. BY BALANCE I MEAN THAT I WANT IT SO THAT THERE ARE NO UNITS WHO ARE IN EVERY WAY INFERIOR TO COMPARABLE UNITS.

That is the mechanic I want in this game.

What, between individuals of the same class? Go play Advance Wars; every unit with the same class starts out with the exact same base stats.

I, for one, see it as a challenge. Why NOT use a unit that may turn out worse? If I accomplish whatever goal I have (finish the game, fill supports, etc.), why should it matter?

besides, the Skittles run wouldn't exist otherwise

[dondon151]

I agree with Banzai to an extent (as I'm sure we all do), but I still think it's fine to have like, Allen, Lance, and Noah, even if one of them is clearly worse than the other two. In a game with many units but relatively few classes, it's impossible to balance the characters well enough so that one unit is not clearly better than another.

[zahlman]

What, between individuals of the same class? Go play Advance Wars; every unit with the same class starts out with the exact same base stats.

I, for one, see it as a challenge. Why NOT use a unit that may turn out worse? If I accomplish whatever goal I have (finish the game, fill supports, etc.), why should it matter?

besides, the Skittles run wouldn't exist otherwise

He has no problem with unit A being better than unit B at X and worse at Y.

He has a problem with unit A being worse at both.

There are enough meaningful classes in a given FE game that one character per class wouldn't be too small of a cast IMO. That would get rid of the problem entirely. Although personally I would prefer 2 of each class, with fewer classes. Honestly it seems to me like some of them are just redundant. E.g. in FE7, if it weren't for the lack of FE8's choose-your-promotion-class system, Guy being a Myrmidon and Raven being a Mercenary would become pretty much just flavourtext. Their bases and growths are attributes of the characters, not the classes. The fundamental attributes of the class, really, are "use swords only; Move of 5; foot movement; not a Lord." The same for both. The growth rates for enemy Mercenaries vs. Myrmidons are much closer to each other than Guy and Raven's specific growths are to each other, too.

I'm biased because in more general game design talks, I prefer skill-based systems to class-based ones anyway, at least assuming humanoid characters

Anyway, having read the last few pages, I feel like we need to take a step back here and define what our possible goals even are...

- LTC

- Ranking in a more general sense (for games that offer an explicit ranking, unless we want to make up something of our own)

- Satisfying conditions of a challenge run / drafts / whatever (i.e. with standard drafts we are trying to put together a team that will work well together, even knowing that we won't get all good units, and that we might have to make last-minute substitutions, and whatever other zaniness)

- Building up a pwnsome endgame unit for the sake of watching that unit pwn enemies (or for link arena or something? idk)

- Subjective factors ("This character has an awesome personality / is important to the plot / has amusing support conversations / is sexually attractive / has awesome hair / etc.")

What else am I missing?

Edited November 3, 2011 by zahlman

[eclipse]

With so many goals, you're gonna find it hard to satisfy everyone.

[Othin]

Giving most characters their own class isn't that difficult. It just requires more classes.

[Anouleth]

WHAT I WANT IN FE3DS IS FOR THERE TO BE A GOOD UNIT BALANCE. BY BALANCE I MEAN THAT I WANT IT SO THAT THERE ARE NO UNITS WHO ARE IN EVERY WAY INFERIOR TO COMPARABLE UNITS.

And what we are saying is that most Fire Emblems achieve this. In fact basically every Fire Emblem after FE4. The only exceptions are like... Vyland and Rickard.

But to be honest, what you ask for is kind of useless. For example, Matthis is not in every way inferior to Abel (More HP and DEF). So your demand wouldn't actually make them balanced.

[Colonel M]

Even adding more classes, while it would make characters more unique in appearance, doesn't mean that they suddenly would carry a balance within themselves. Chances are mounted units would still have the upper hand on foot units constantly, for example. If you really want to balance something, you'd want to balance classes out a little more. You want them to have certain perks, but they need to emphasize more disadvantages for the mounted units. Chances are, though, mounted units would still end up the superior class anyhow.

I make a post saying that the point of my post was what I personally considered balance to be and not the specific examples/terminology I used, which is all that people were arguing about. Enter a lot of posts in which people continue to argue about my specific examples. Literally the next post is one saying "Oh no Evayle and Dagda are really good" and missing the point so entirely that I'm under the impression it was a troll post intended to make me facepalm.

Okay, I normally would never say this, but you are a goddamned idiot. All he was doing was countering your statement that Evayle and Dagda are bad characters. They're definitely not the best, but when you're calling Marty good... you're definitely going to be jumped down in your throat for it. After all, this was your exact statement:

I'll concede that in Evayle, Dagda, and Shanam are pretty fucking useless in Thracia.

I don't think anyone in this topic even argued those two to suck, ever. We did cover Shanam, though.

Looking at your original post (and ignoring your shittastic other posts), Matthis can be used in easier modes of play just fine and Lyre actually is okay in Easy Mode of Radiant Dawn. Okay, Lyre isn't rocking down Generals, but she gains EXP a little easier, her growths are okay, and her taking resources to be better doesn't have as significant costs as it does in Hard Mode. But as Dark Sage pointed out:

Maybe you should actually think before you post. You have a habit of occasionally posting something that is a good point while burying it in garbage. Like how you suddenly brought up Shanan and compared him to Matthew (lol) when there was pretty much no reason to. Maybe you should check your posts for implications that say stuff like "Matthis is unusable" and correct them before you make your point.

I'll get back to you in a second. Next person to jump down is the one who doesn't deserve to have one of the best unit's name as their forum name.

So much conclusion jumping.

I saw a couple of statements that didn't line up with the views I've seen on other sites, differences which would fit perfectly with assuming LTC, so I inquired to make sure that was not the case. Dark Sage has said that it is not, and I will take his word for it. I have nothing more to say on this matter.

Look, we don't really give two flying fucks what other sites really think about. If I followed EVERY SINGLE THING that Shining Force Central has done and attempted to argue it here, I'll tell you what would happen:

- We would constantly hack the GBA games.

- We'd assume Movement is the worst stat in the game.

- Endgame would be the only relevant point of the game.

- We'd constantly compare units at 20/20.

- We'd keep saying "the game is too damn easy" and constantly crutch ourselves by abusing the tower / boss abuse.

- We'd kill every single enemy in every map.

- We'd compare units when it's technically impossible (i.e. compare Matthis to Abel if Matthis joined in Chapter 1).

- We'd assume every character is useful and equal (I laugh the most on this one, mostly at the equal portion of it).

Now, I'm not saying that such a website has terrible ideas, just like other sites such as FEFF, FESS, GameFAQs, etc have. I mean, even in my general statements here that I've listed, not everyone even agrees with all of those in that site, since each person has a unique agreement and disagreement on certain facts. Giving a Shining Force II example, I emphasized how 7 Mov Sorcerer Kazin was pretty bad ass, and even Taya, who normally gets pretty bad rep there, is actually pretty nice to have. There were some people (Solby I think?) who would agree with me while others (ehow22) just liked using Tyrin as a Sorcerer instead, then there's others who say Tyrin as a Sorcerer is better than Kazin as a Sorcerer because he learns Atlas two levels earlier than Kazin. Now we have three different situations here.

- We have one person agreeing on the subject.

- We have one person that POSSIBLY agrees on the subject, but simply has a separate preference.

- We have one that flat out disagrees.

I don't think we have to go over the first one. The second person, while their choice is slightly controversial, doesn't mean that it is suddenly the "wrong" choice. After all, he is merely exercising a preference over the bog standard, shall we say. I could be wrong on ehow22 saying that Sorcerer Kazin is likely better than Sorcerer Tyrin, since he's one of those "everyone is equal" type of people, but for now let's simply assume that he understands that Kazin is better than Tyrin. Now, he's more than entitled to use what he wants to use. The game gives you a choice, so he has a right to have it.

It's the third option that gets most casuals, such as yourself and General Banzai, into deep shit. I don't even have to constantly go into LTC to explain this one. In the scenario of Kazin vs Tyrin, they are both assumed to be grinded to 20/30. Kazin learns Atlas 2 I think one level after that (which is a big fucking whoop), but because of such a terrible standard exercised, he's suddenly worse than Tyrin anyway. Furthermore, no availability is taken nor is the fact even really that close to correct. I mean, I get some people use Egress in Shining Force II, but when

, that's when I'm going to nail you. MaxKnight has every right to play a game how he wants to. Once he has an opinion, though, it's free game. I shall state a statement that I say, now, to this day on opinions:

"Everyone is entitled to an opinion. That doesn't mean it's a good one. There can still be shitty opinions."

(I'd summarize it in two sentences but it'd be a double negative).

Here's the best way to summarize it, put nicely by eclipse:

With so many goals, you're gonna find it hard to satisfy everyone.

Any questions, class?

Final Note: I don't like Dolph, I like Roger. Dolph was just funny because of a debate where I somehow won with him vs. Catria. And yes, I'm the goddamned Tyrant.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Colonel M

[General Banzai]

With skills I think it's a lot easier to balance units (as opposed to simply making one unit per class), and also probably more interesting.

[Colonel M]

With skills I think it's a lot easier to balance units (as opposed to simply making one unit per class), and also probably more interesting.

Maybe not completely easier, but it does make characters more unique. The only thing I ask is that they don't make the system completely like FE10 where:

- Promoting gives you a free (broken) Mastery

- Take a personal skill off someone and place it somewhere else

The personal skill shouldn't cost a unit any capacity (like FE10) and you can teach a skill to someone via scroll or item (like FE9 / FE4 / FE5).

[eclipse]

With skills I think it's a lot easier to balance units (as opposed to simply making one unit per class), and also probably more interesting.

"Let's add another layer of complexity to balance things?" By adding another layer, everything else before it needs to be retuned so that the new stuff doesn't skew things in the other direction/completely overshadow the old stuff/etc.

[Anouleth]

"Let's add another layer of complexity to balance things?" By adding another layer, everything else before it needs to be retuned so that the new stuff doesn't skew things in the other direction/completely overshadow the old stuff/etc.

Well then, you just need to add more layers.

we need to go

DEEPER

Edited November 3, 2011 by Anouleth

[Mirron]

Umm... guess I'll just say that I think most everyone would like overall better balance (though, the comment about using bad units for a more difficult game makes me wonder if that's why they exist), even if it's unrealistic, which is the issue.

[General Banzai]

Maybe not completely easier, but it does make characters more unique. The only thing I ask is that they don't make the system completely like FE10 where:

- Promoting gives you a free (broken) Mastery

- Take a personal skill off someone and place it somewhere else

The personal skill shouldn't cost a unit any capacity (like FE10) and you can teach a skill to someone via scroll or item (like FE9 / FE4 / FE5).

Well the problem with skills in FERD was that there weren't really any personal skills other than the Mastery skill (all of which were more of less variations of "do tons of damage"). I mean, what's the point of Astrid joining with Paragon to help balance out her low level and base stats if you can simply swap that Paragon over to someone who's already good to make them better?

PoR did skills much better from a balance standpoint. Many of the later-joining unpromoted units (Astrid, Tormod) had really good skills to compensate for the fact that they're probably 10-15 levels lower than everyone on your team. You could only pick a certain amount of units to get the mastery skill also.

My personal idea for skills (and I'm sure I've seen other people say this idea before) is that personal skills are locked to the person who joins with them (like in PoR) but skills that you get from scrolls in-game can be taken off and traded to other units at leisure (like in FERD).

[Ercdouken]

Ahh...

Edited November 29, 2012 by Dark Legend Vampire

[Mirron]

Probably best way to balance skills. And maybe more SP or something, since it seemed really hard to give some characters skills. Still, I think Mastery Skills on promotion works fine, barring a handful of guys I didn't feel they activated overly often.

[Othin]

Look, we don't really give two flying fucks what other sites really think about. If I followed EVERY SINGLE THING that Shining Force Central has done and attempted to argue it here, I'll tell you what would happen:

- We would constantly hack the GBA games.

- We'd assume Movement is the worst stat in the game.

- Endgame would be the only relevant point of the game.

- We'd constantly compare units at 20/20.

- We'd keep saying "the game is too damn easy" and constantly crutch ourselves by abusing the tower / boss abuse.

- We'd kill every single enemy in every map.

- We'd compare units when it's technically impossible (i.e. compare Matthis to Abel if Matthis joined in Chapter 1).

- We'd assume every character is useful and equal (I laugh the most on this one, mostly at the equal portion of it).

Now, I'm not saying that such a website has terrible ideas, just like other sites such as FEFF, FESS, GameFAQs, etc have. I mean, even in my general statements here that I've listed, not everyone even agrees with all of those in that site, since each person has a unique agreement and disagreement on certain facts. Giving a Shining Force II example, I emphasized how 7 Mov Sorcerer Kazin was pretty bad ass, and even Taya, who normally gets pretty bad rep there, is actually pretty nice to have. There were some people (Solby I think?) who would agree with me while others (ehow22) just liked using Tyrin as a Sorcerer instead, then there's others who say Tyrin as a Sorcerer is better than Kazin as a Sorcerer because he learns Atlas two levels earlier than Kazin. Now we have three different situations here.

- We have one person agreeing on the subject.

- We have one person that POSSIBLY agrees on the subject, but simply has a separate preference.

- We have one that flat out disagrees.

I don't think we have to go over the first one. The second person, while their choice is slightly controversial, doesn't mean that it is suddenly the "wrong" choice. After all, he is merely exercising a preference over the bog standard, shall we say. I could be wrong on ehow22 saying that Sorcerer Kazin is likely better than Sorcerer Tyrin, since he's one of those "everyone is equal" type of people, but for now let's simply assume that he understands that Kazin is better than Tyrin. Now, he's more than entitled to use what he wants to use. The game gives you a choice, so he has a right to have it.

It's the third option that gets most casuals, such as yourself and General Banzai, into deep shit. I don't even have to constantly go into LTC to explain this one. In the scenario of Kazin vs Tyrin, they are both assumed to be grinded to 20/30. Kazin learns Atlas 2 I think one level after that (which is a big fucking whoop), but because of such a terrible standard exercised, he's suddenly worse than Tyrin anyway. Furthermore, no availability is taken nor is the fact even really that close to correct. I mean, I get some people use Egress in Shining Force II, but when

, that's when I'm going to nail you. MaxKnight has every right to play a game how he wants to. Once he has an opinion, though, it's free game. I shall state a statement that I say, now, to this day on opinions:

"Everyone is entitled to an opinion. That doesn't mean it's a good one. There can still be shitty opinions."

(I'd summarize it in two sentences but it'd be a double negative).

Here's the best way to summarize it, put nicely by eclipse:

Any questions, class?

Final Note: I don't like Dolph, I like Roger. Dolph was just funny because of a debate where I somehow won with him vs. Catria. And yes, I'm the goddamned Tyrant.

I don't even know what you think I was saying to come up with something like this.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Othin

[grandjackal]

I'm surprised you're still salty about the Shining Force fanbase, Colonel.

As for skills and adding more things, I am all for this. Under one condition, that they don't do it lazily like they did in FE10. If they do this, I also want a smaller cast so that any skills really could make a character feel more unique, but still not drown out others cause you won't have to concentrate on balancing so many ways. Sure it might make things more imbalanced, but more options adding depth is never a bad thing. In the least, it can only serve to make things more fun, be it in discovery or hilarity.

Just ask Final Fantasy 6.

[Celice]

If you're putting FF6 in a good light, I couldn't agree. It has numerous little things inside it, but ultimately the differences are very superficial, and how a player plays with his characters winds out to the same thing no matter which character is used. Individual uniqueness isn't present once the player advances in the game. It all rubbles into the same generic character, just a different face.

[Mirron]

FFVI has the right idea, but unfortunately, the way magic works out, coupled with some skill sets being... not so good, kind of ruined it. Think Mog's Dance would be better if you could choose one of four moves each turn instead, and you have to use a different move from the last move, or something like that. But, anyways, FFVI wasn't well-balanced, but most all of the skills were unique, at least. But they're probably a bit too individual for something like FE.

[dondon151]

Giving most characters their own class isn't that difficult. It just requires more classes.

That doesn't actually solve the problem, though. If you split every cavalier and nomad in the GBA FEs into sword, lance, axe, and bow knights, some of them would still completely outclass others because there isn't enough variation between weapon types (and to be honest, FE would need a huge mechanics overhaul in order to differentiate them well enough).

[Othin]

Yeah, FFVI is certainly an example of a game where the character distinctions wind up such a minor part of the practical gameplay. The thing is, from what I've seen, FE tends to be like this as well. It's a distinction more easily made with useful tactical skills to differentiate characters beyond their stats and sometimes even classes. However, classes can be more distinct when differences between equipment types are more pronounced, even at the cost of overall balance. *cough* *cough*

[grandjackal]

If you're putting FF6 in a good light, I couldn't agree. It has numerous little things inside it, but ultimately the differences are very superficial, and how a player plays with his characters winds out to the same thing no matter which character is used. Individual uniqueness isn't present once the player advances in the game. It all rubbles into the same generic character, just a different face.

Perhaps just the sort of groove I've gotten used to in playing games, but character uniqueness is actually quite present unless you go out of your way to grind to absurdity. Which case, it's still fun anyways because grinding in FF6 doesn't just make things easier, it makes things hilarious as well. One shotting Kefka with a single basic Attack is worth the laugh.

Now if we wanna talk about a game that gives you a whole bunch of options but is all in the end superficial because of several factors that were too ridiculous to handle grinding or no grinding, the only game I can actually think of is pretty much FF8. If you grind in FF8 (despite that fighting at all is purely counter-productive, thus somehow taking the fun part of RPGs and making them an interruption), everyone basically becomes "Aura Limit Break Killing Things While I Slit My Wrists Because Grinding in FF8 Is Homework That Takes Eons". If you didn't grind, then only boss fights actually matter as they're the only fights you should be fighting, and Squall alone can basically trainwreck every fight well up into disk 3 in 1 Renzokuken, basically turning the game into a movie where Squall episodically destroys everything, and FF8 is a really awful movie.

I guess my point is that grinding or no grinding, FF6 is still fun in some shape or form, thus it succeeds in it's design. Sure if you grind, characters lose their individuality and basically become Ultima batteries, but a team of nuclear bombs is still fun. In a more "efficient" run as it were, FF6 probably has in reality the most flavor-filled cast in the series as I'm finding out. All the options it has along with how smartly the designers put everything in made FF6 have something for absolutely everyone. It can't not be fun in some way, shape or form. Only issue is if you're doing a more relaxed run, you just don't happen to like "Team of Nuclear Bombs" at the end of your grinding session.

Unless I missed the point you were making. Tends to happen with me from time to time.

[Dark Sage]

blah blah blah I sacrifice virgins to commemorate the greatness that is Berwick Saga and Shunzou Kaga.

So anyway my question is Othin, why is it not ok for characters to be distinct if unbalanced but it's ok for weapons to be distinct and unbalanced (like how Shunzou Kaga went out of his way to make axes suck in basically all the FEs he worked on)?

[Othin]

That doesn't actually solve the problem, though. If you split every cavalier and nomad in the GBA FEs into sword, lance, axe, and bow knights, some of them would still completely outclass others because there isn't enough variation between weapon types (and to be honest, FE would need a huge mechanics overhaul in order to differentiate them well enough).

And this is why I keep linking to Berwick Saga pages: it solves all of those things brilliantly. In particular, every core weapon type has substantial advantages and disadvantages over the others.

Knives pierce defenses for low damage with added chance of inflicting injuries

Swords do reliable, accurate damage

Spears have less accuracy and base power but increase power based on movement when attacking

Axes do much more damage in exchange for much less accuracy

Bows have more range than other indirect attacks and can use different arrows for varied effects

Crossbows have shorter range than bows but can be used in melee and have fixed base power, but also use arrows to modify damage

Ballistae have extremely far range and high power in exchange for a lack of short-range use and certain other limitations

Fire magic does powerful, accurate magic damage

Wind magic gives up power in exchange for multiple hits

Thunder magic gives up accuracy in exchange for greater range

Holy magic heals and has defensive combat magic

Dark magic does just about anything, but is mostly enemy-only

Shields increase defenses at the expense of Speed

So anyway my question is Othin, why is it not ok for characters to be distinct if unbalanced but it's ok for weapons to be distinct and unbalanced (like how Shunzou Kaga went out of his way to make axes suck in basically all the FEs he worked on)?

Characters being distinct but unbalanced is great too. But I can't agree with taking a few stat points or a near-identical additional weapon type and calling it enough distinctness to define a character's gameplay role.

Edited November 4, 2011 by Othin

[Celice]

I guess my point is that grinding or no grinding, FF6 is still fun in some shape or form, thus it succeeds in it's design. Sure if you grind, characters lose their individuality and basically become Ultima batteries, but a team of nuclear bombs is still fun. In a more "efficient" run as it were, FF6 probably has in reality the most flavor-filled cast in the series as I'm finding out. All the options it has along with how smartly the designers put everything in made FF6 have something for absolutely everyone. It can't not be fun in some way, shape or form. Only issue is if you're doing a more relaxed run, you just don't happen to like "Team of Nuclear Bombs" at the end of your grinding session.

Unless I missed the point you were making. Tends to happen with me from time to time.

I never grind though, is the problem. I fight every battle I come to, but I never randomly fight things for the sake of fighting. It's usually just a by-product of exploring.

What happens to me in the... four times I've finished FFVI, using all different characters, is that I give certain characters equipement which augments their already-established preference. But what happens is, after playing four times of not reusing characters, I've found a lot of interchangeability. Terra and Celes--pop on some accessories for magic, teach them some spells, and... that's it. Both operate the same exact way. Their skills, Morph and Rune/ aren't really all that useful. Morph was a bit fun in the beginning, but quickly it didn't make a difference, because there was already an absurd amount of damage being done with magic. I was able to get the third-level Fire, Blizzard, and Thunders to do a good 7,000 on average to all enemies at end-game. My level was probably around 40, not very higher.

I don't try very hard and the game quickly ramps into "every-character-is-freakin-powerful." The uniqueness of characters is only really present when the difficulty is present. Which, low-level runs, as well as difficulty patches, can help bring back the uniqueness of certain characters, because their special quirks are brought back into a useful light. In the vanilla game, with little effort, most of the playable cast just does a ton of damage all across the board, no matter what you use them for. Attacking with Cyan, Locke, Gogo, Setzer--all perform the same. Utterly powerful.

The game starts pretty varied, but it veers exponentially into press-button, win-game. But, FFVI is also a clear JRPG, which is a genre rife with these sorts of problems. For Fire Emblem, I've never noticed much a problem because the combination of character growths, class, and class caps usually forces things to always be a slightly unique mix.