Mechanics that you want

[grandjackal]

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

If we're talking about a typical SRPG, this basically makes Spears the god weapon, and generally everything else sounds a lot like FE anyways with the exception of Thunder and Wind magic(unless you count wind mages being faster than other mages anyways), and the fact Shields exist. That doesn't sound like it solves any of the mentioned problems. At all.

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.

1. Poor game design and laziness do not necessarily come hand in hand.

2. Small differences can go a long way with Class Swap.

[dondon151]

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.

I think this is mostly a result of your preference for Berwick Saga, because from glancing over the information pages, I can't discern differences between weapon types that are significantly more unique than what already exists in current Fire Emblem games. The difference between axes and swords, for example, already exists in Fire Emblem, but that doesn't stop one from generally being superior to the other.

Indeed, Kaga has diversified since FE5, but a majority of the weapons in Berwick Saga already existed in some form in previous Fire Emblem games. I'd wager that a lot of the novel effects are merely cute instead of exceedingly useful (but what do I know, I haven't played the game).

I feel like the DS Fire Emblem games achieved weapon differentiation fairly well to an extent, despite probably having the lowest number of usable weapons. In particular, the limited distribution of effective weapons (e.g. no dragon killing axes, no horseslaying swords, no armorslaying lances) played a huge role in establishing differences between the 3 main weapon types. Javelins and Hand Axes getting nerfed in FE12 gives bows a larger niche, and Aura + Excalibur provides a niche for magic.

[Othin]

If we're talking about a typical SRPG, this basically makes Spears the god weapon, and generally everything else sounds a lot like FE anyways with the exception of Thunder and Wind magic(unless you count wind mages being faster than other mages anyways), and the fact Shields exist. That doesn't sound like it solves any of the mentioned problems. At all.

1. Poor game design and laziness do not necessarily come hand in hand.

2. Small differences can go a long way with Class Swap.

I'm talking about Berwick Saga, which is of course a lot like FE. I see that you are drawn to certain assumptions about it, but having played and researched it extensively, I assure you that they are not the case, and that these and other mechanics all fit together to emphasize each weapon type's strengths extremely well, such that, say, a sword specialist and a spear specialist will have inherently different situations in which they will be effective while a character with access to both spears and swords will value that access. Also, swords, spears, axes, and bows really all are quite balanced with regard to each other; the real god weapon types are Ballistae and Dark magic. Shields are mostly relevant as another way of differentiating classes, both in whether or not they have access to the equipment and in the type(s) of shields they can equip.

As for your other concerns, I haven't been talking about laziness. I don't have enough experience with Reclass to say whether or not it makes those small differences become more significant at times, but I know it nearly removes base class as a method of differentiating between characters, which leaves most characters with little more than those small differences to differentiate themselves.

I think this is mostly a result of your preference for Berwick Saga, because from glancing over the information pages, I can't discern differences between weapon types that are significantly more unique than what already exists in current Fire Emblem games. The difference between axes and swords, for example, already exists in Fire Emblem, but that doesn't stop one from generally being superior to the other.

Indeed, Kaga has diversified since FE5, but a majority of the weapons in Berwick Saga already existed in some form in previous Fire Emblem games. I'd wager that a lot of the novel effects are merely cute instead of exceedingly useful (but what do I know, I haven't played the game).

I feel like the DS Fire Emblem games achieved weapon differentiation fairly well to an extent, despite probably having the lowest number of usable weapons. In particular, the limited distribution of effective weapons (e.g. no dragon killing axes, no horseslaying swords, no armorslaying lances) played a huge role in establishing differences between the 3 main weapon types. Javelins and Hand Axes getting nerfed in FE12 gives bows a larger niche, and Aura + Excalibur provides a niche for magic.

In fact, it's the other way around: the equipment and skill systems, alongside a couple of changes to the core mechanics, are precisely why I prefer Berwick Saga so much.

As I noted above, there is a lot to consider. FE12 was certainly a step in the right direction in nerfing throwing weapons and giving different weapon effects to different weapon types, but based on my (admittedly brief) experiences with the game, the changes are much more substantial in Berwick Saga.

A particularly important aspect to highlight is the pair of weapon types that could appear to have stayed the same: swords and axes. Rather than the usual slight differences of power and accuracy, axes have much more power, while the 10-20 accuracy in favor of swords becomes much more valuable with the typically lower accuracy in Berwick Saga compared to other games, as well as the two big mechanics changes (counter canceling and integrated turns) making reliable attacks that much more important.

Edited November 4, 2011 by Othin

[BwdYeti]

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.

Does anyone have any ideas on how to deal with this? Mounted units being superior all the time I mean.

I've been trying out some ideas in 7x, like low level class skills for all classes with the cavalry skill being Canto so they don't really gain anything there (also differentiates classes more, the difference between a Merc and a Myrm isn't just stat spread and promotion), and removing terrain avoid bonuses from mounted units/making flying units lose 2 mov and Canto when rescuing, but I'm wondering what other people would do

[Mirron]

Hmm... like skills for each class. But definitely like Canto, so want to keep that. Also run into the issue of flying having the same as mounted then... but yeah, skills for each class probably works the best. Kind of not sure what would work well though, not sure class skills works well with personal skills, unless the skills are the same, just which ones people get access to on default.

[BwdYeti]

The way I see it, like how all the mounted classes have Canto, it would work best with groups of units having the same basic skills. Light, fast units get their small crit boost (Myrms, Archers), heavier infantry can get something to make them tougher or hit harder, magi could get defensive or evasive bonus from their magic abilities, etc.

The main goal of it is making units with the same weapons actually different, like how Pirates can move through water, Brigands can move through mountains, and Fighters could have some other ability. But when you look at Mercs and Myrms... pretty much the same class until t2.

And then mastery skills for t2s to further differentiate classes o:

Edited November 4, 2011 by BwdYeti

[Aethereal]

Does anyone have any ideas on how to deal with this? Mounted units being superior all the time I mean.

I've been trying out some ideas in 7x, like low level class skills for all classes with the cavalry skill being Canto so they don't really gain anything there (also differentiates classes more, the difference between a Merc and a Myrm isn't just stat spread and promotion), and removing terrain avoid bonuses from mounted units/making flying units lose 2 mov and Canto when rescuing, but I'm wondering what other people would do

You're definitely on the right track. Having a mount is just a clear plus all the time in current FEs that non-mounted units miss out on. To offset that, they need some kind of penalty that comes with a mount, or they need something they're missing from foot units. Flying units losing two move and canto when rescuing is good, but it just gives them the same mobility of a foot unit. They're still absolutely better, because they're still better whenever they're not rescuing, and they rescue just as well as a foot soldier. I don't know all the FE7x skills, but I would think the best way to deal with it is to give other classes more utility to offset canto/more mobility. I remember the ability cover( I think?), which I thought was an absolutely awesome mechanic for knights, and I think that's an awesome design move right there, and more skills like that are the way to go. Terrain bonuses, and a little extra crit are definitely nice, but I don't think they'll make me move away from cavs>mercs/soldiers/fighters for just about every map. Basically, each class, to be perfectly balanced (Which may not be possible with the FE system) would need its own niche. Berserkers probably aren't as good as Paladins, but because of peakwalk they have certain maps where they are almost certainly more useful than paladins. That's good design. Some terrain penalty might be enough to make me think twice about bringing a mounted unit over a foot unit if FE7x has some strategically important terrain. That could be the niche of the mounted unit: Great on open terrain, bad with certain other maps. I'd think you would have to do a bit more, since there generally aren't many maps covered in forests/forts/pillars, but that's definitely the right idea. Make mounted units particularly bad at something.

Sorry if that was long winded and filled with obvious information, or seemed overly critical. I haven't slept in a while. But I've always kinda wondered the same thing. I've also wondered why mounts need 2 extra move over every one else instead of just one, but that's probably just me.

Edited November 4, 2011 by Aethereal

[dondon151]

Or you can just make mounted units like, a lot worse in terms of raw parameters.

[BwdYeti]

Well there is the no terrain bonuses for fliers and bow weakness, but yeah it still seems they could be better.

Honestly I'd rather see the mounted movement even further ahead of infantry movement, something like 5/6 for t1/2 infantry, 8/9 for cavalry (infantry moving 75%+ the speed of cavalry strikes me as odd), but high movement is so powerful that you have to throw some huge penalties on cavalry just to make it close to fair /:

At least I'm not too worried about everything being perfectly balanced. Just doing anything to make it closer is better than nothing.

Edited November 4, 2011 by BwdYeti

[General Horace]

Dismounting was a good way to nerf cavalry a bit, with the stat reduction and swordlock. Like dondon said, if you make stuff like weapon ranks and raw stats worse, they run into bigger issues.

And make the earlygame prepremote something without a mount so they don't break earlygame and midgame wide open.

[General Banzai]

Sacrificing virgins to Berwick Saga... what a delightful concept. :3

I really liked in Thracia how mounted units had to dismount indoors... I felt that that really worked as far as balancing them.

[eclipse]

That dismounting tactic may or may not break certain Endgame strategies. If dismounting was necessary in SD, then so much for having any of the Altean Trio ride up to Medeus and Gradivus his face in!

[Rewjeo]

How about more horseslayers/pikes? I mean, that's how cavalry wtfpwning everyone in real life was stopped. There could even be a pikeman class of some sort that has a bonus against cavalry so you have to be careful with them. A horse, logically, should be an advantage, but currently there is practically no negative to having one.

[CrashGordon94]

That's certainly different, but not a bad idea! It'd be kinda like using Archers to nerf fliers.

Though, while the Pikeman class sounds cool, it'd probably have to be enemy-only because you wouldn't get much use from having such an overspecialised unit on your team unless you had access to reclass or something.

[Aethereal]

How about more horseslayers/pikes? I mean, that's how cavalry wtfpwning everyone in real life was stopped. There could even be a pikeman class of some sort that has a bonus against cavalry so you have to be careful with them. A horse, logically, should be an advantage, but currently there is practically no negative to having one.

That's not a bad idea at all, but I wonder if it wouldn't make cavs almost completely obsolete. IIRC, most horseslayers one shot cavs in the FE7x demo. Of course, this could be different in a game by game scenario, but I was thinking of FE7x. In any case, cavs would probably sit behind your other units, which takes away what they were doing well. You could give foot units, or some foot units like a pikeman (Or, Halberdiers?) some different sort of advantage over cavalry, like an additional weapon triangle advantage? It could make them much weaker against foot units, and makes your foot units a good counter to an enemy section of cavalry/nomads. I'm sure mounted units would always still have a niche, in that they could still rush ahead, but they'd have a harder time rushing forward and clearing things out on their own if they're facing WTD at all times. 'Course, I'm just thinking out loud, this might be a terrible idea, and I could be overlooking something.

[Othin]

That's not a bad idea at all, but I wonder if it wouldn't make cavs almost completely obsolete. IIRC, most horseslayers one shot cavs in the FE7x demo. Of course, this could be different in a game by game scenario, but I was thinking of FE7x. In any case, cavs would probably sit behind your other units, which takes away what they were doing well. You could give foot units, or some foot units like a pikeman (Or, Halberdiers?) some different sort of advantage over cavalry, like an additional weapon triangle advantage? It could make them much weaker against foot units, and makes your foot units a good counter to an enemy section of cavalry/nomads. I'm sure mounted units would always still have a niche, in that they could still rush ahead, but they'd have a harder time rushing forward and clearing things out on their own if they're facing WTD at all times. 'Course, I'm just thinking out loud, this might be a terrible idea, and I could be overlooking something.

I can't imagine mounted units ever being obsolete just from one terrible matchup, as long as the enemies aren't everywhere. And such a terrible matchup as being OHKOed tends to impact strategies far more than a matchup that just determines a few points of damage or accuracy.

What would probably work best to implement this could be to have a skill that gives characters an effective bonus against mounted foes with any weapon (much like FE10's trio of Laguz Foe skills), and just have the skill be used primarily or entirely by generic enemies. FE games need more tactical skills for generic enemies in general; it adds much more to think about.

[Aethereal]

I can't imagine mounted units ever being obsolete just from one terrible matchup, as long as the enemies aren't everywhere. And such a terrible matchup as being OHKOed tends to impact strategies far more than a matchup that just determines a few points of damage or accuracy.

What would probably work best to implement this could be to have a skill that gives characters an effective bonus against mounted foes with any weapon (much like FE10's trio of Laguz Foe skills), and just have the skill be used primarily or entirely by generic enemies. FE games need more tactical skills for generic enemies in general; it adds much more to think about.

If every generic enemy had a halberd/horseslayer like effect on mounted units, with every weapon, mounted units would pretty much lose their niche, which is what I was getting at. Having a lot of movement is great for rushing ahead of the your army, or at the least leading your army. That niche is pretty nonexistant if the mounted unit gets 1-2 shot by everything, and therefore needs to avoid every enemy. The problem with their usual implementation is that they can rush forward and usually clear out large amounts of the map on their own, or with a heal every turn or two, and leave the rest of your army behind. The idea of giving them less accuracy, damage, defense, and avoid against foot units was to attempt to change it so that they could still in some cases move ahead of the group, but would have a much more difficult time taking out huge chunks of enemies with the rest of the army behind. I don't know if my idea would do that, and I thought of it on the spot so it probably wouldn't. Meh. But, I don't think getting 1-2 shot by everything makes for interesting gameplay, it makes for hiding your units behind units who can take more hits. I do agree wholeheartedly that generic enemies need more skills, but I'd find myself just avoiding combat with cavs at all times, or not bringing them at all, if every one had an equivalent to Halberd/Horseslayer all the time.

[Thor Odinson]

I don't think people want /everyone/ to have horseslaying weapons, just increase the amount of enemies with it. As it stands in vanilla, one horseslayer shows up about every three-five chapters which is...kinda not enough to even matter.

[Othin]

I don't think people want /everyone/ to have horseslaying weapons, just increase the amount of enemies with it. As it stands in vanilla, one horseslayer shows up about every three-five chapters which is...kinda not enough to even matter.

Indeed. I'm thinking a good way to manage it would be to give some sort of horseslaying capability to, say, 2-5 enemies in a typical chapter, whatever that capability is.

[eclipse]

Chapters 16 and 18 in SD attempt to do this. I use my horses anyway, because my units can take the hit. In those cases, I think making the horseslaying enemies a bit stronger might help, so I'd actually rethink my strategy.

[Snowy_One]

I may have already mentioned this, but branching classes would be pretty sweet if done right. For example, take your basic pegasus knight. Upon promotion, it can become either a Serph or Falco knight. Both have similar/only slightly different caps, but Serph knights gain the ability to use staves while falco knights gain a ability that gives them a small boost against other fliers. That may or may not be overpowered one way or the other, but the idea is that it presents a choice where one side doesn't outright trounce the other. In FE8, how many of you leveled up a archer then DIDN'T leap at the chance to give them a 1-range counter upon promotion? Or chose one class over the other simply because the stats were better and the 'utility' reward for the other class wasn't worthwhile? That's the problem FE8 had (there was always one class that was outright superior outside of a tiny niche), but it can be worked out.

A good example: Halibradiers vs. Pikemen. Hali's gain the ability 'pierce' which allows them to negate up to 5 points of armor on a heavily armored enemy (armor knights, great generals, dragons, w/e) but costs them 2 MT while it is active. Pikemen, however, gain a ability that reduces their movement by X stat, but grants them an effective bonus against mounted units in combat regardless of weapons. Both classes have their advantages (great against high-DEF targets/mounted units), both have their disadvantages (lower MT and armor doesn't count against lightly armored foes/lower movement while active) which should make it at least a question as to which is better.

[General Banzai]

The opinions on which class to promote to in FESS have changed drastically over the years as the community's opinions on how to play the game have changed. There was a time where the preferred choices were Great Knight everyone, Falcoknight Vanessa, and Sage Lute and to say otherwise was to be a noob. One class only seems better than another in most instances based on the way the community plays the game. In a community obsessed with "efficiency", movement thus becomes the most important factor and classes with more movement immediately appear better. But efficiency has not always and doubtless will not always be the way these games are played and thus depending on the playstyle, the preferred class even in the supposedly "unbalanced" FESS class system will fluctuate to and fro.

Even your given example about the Seraph Knights vs. Falcoknights would be considered unbalanced at various epochs in the community's history. There was a time, I remember, where the ability to use a staff was a large boost in a unit's favor as staves don't take away from the experience pool. We may look back and say "well back then we were stupid and here's x and y reasons why" and maybe we're right, but that isn't to say that in the future we won't look back at what we argue now and say the exact same thing. No class in FESS is undoubtedly superior to the other in stats, abilities, etc. All classes, as you say, "have their advantages". How we value those advantages over other advantages is what actually decides how we consider one class to be better than the other.

Edited November 5, 2011 by General Banzai

[Dark Sage]

The opinions on which class to promote to in FESS have changed drastically over the years as the community's opinions on how to play the game have changed. There was a time where the preferred choices were Great Knight everyone, Falcoknight Vanessa, and Sage Lute and to say otherwise was to be a noob. One class only seems better than another in most instances based on the way the community plays the game. In a community obsessed with "efficiency", movement thus becomes the most important factor and classes with more movement immediately appear better. But efficiency has not always and doubtless will not always be the way these games are played and thus depending on the playstyle, the preferred class even in the supposedly "unbalanced" FESS class system will fluctuate to and fro.

What the hell is your problem with efficiency and why must you insult the way other people play? Every time I see you post about efficiency, there's always an air of scorn about it.

[Mirron]

Personally, class-wise, I just hope we see more unique combinations. Though I definitely think if we did split promotion and three tiers, you could get a bunch of classes even if you don't have too many first tier classes. Coupled with skills, you'd get a lot of individual unit diversity. Hope we get more this time around, but better balanced.

[Snowy_One]

First off... let me address efficiency. I, personally, struggle with the issue myself. I hate the concept of 'efficiency' thoroughly and entirely for multiple reasons. It feels demeaning and insulting, exclusive, petty, and limiting. To walk into a tier-topic and see characters you loved and played the game through with outright adoring, either because of character or because you used a strategy that played to their strengths, hurts. Especially when you start to look through posts and find out that the reason why they ended up so high or low was because of something you may not only disagree with, but seems irrelevant. Saying X is worse than Y because X can't fly and, as a result, can't bypass a certain piece of terrain on one map which costs a turn or two as a result both feels demeaning (So I used inferior characters?) and insulting (I thought a character was good because used a inferior strategy?). Not to mention it often relies on specific strategies, goals, and whatnot that tend to exclude many ways to play and enjoy the game. It's the difference between the newbie CoD player who uses the grenade launcher and, generally, just plays to have fun and the hardcore player who uses a more specialized weaponset, then berates the newbie for using a 'n00bie' team or what have you. It's one thing to admit that someone may be playing better than you, it is another to have to admit you did 'horribly', especially when it doesn't feel that way at all.

Now, onto the balance issue. I know that, to tier players, there will never be such a thing as 'truly balanced'. The difference may be small, but eventually, either Falco or Serph knights will be proven superior for example. The idea, however, is to present a choice where, if you picked wrong, you aren't screwed and still get some form of advantage that can be played too. Do you value the extra flexability of additional heals, even though they won't ever be as good as your priests/mages? Or do you like the idea of making your unit capable of dominating almost anything that flies more? It is more than a statistical difference. It is something to think about and makes you think about your strategy. The Hali is great for breaking through chokepoints since it's heavy-armor bypass allows you to deal 3/6 extra damage to heavily armored units, but doing so means you will struggle against those units who don't have a lot of armor until the start of your next turn. The Pikeman is a great defensive interceptor since it gets bonuses against a high-movement enemy, but faulters on the offensive rush since it can't move as fast with its ability activated.