Mechanics that you want

[Othin]

Building a strategy that will allow you to not get slaughtered on the enemy phase even if you miss a few times on the player phase is also determined by what you do. The difference is, it's not as simple. Doing the right thing is easy if there's a clear right answer rather than luck you need to manage. Deciding when to use limited accurate weapons to ensure or simply increase the probability of a hit? That takes much more strategy.

Edited December 7, 2011 by Othin

[Aethereal]

Building a strategy that will allow you to not get slaughtered on the enemy phase even if you miss a few times on the player phase is also determined by what you do. The difference is, it's not as simple. Doing the right thing is easy if there's a clear right answer rather than luck you need to manage. Deciding when to use limited accurate weapons to ensure or simply increase the probability of a hit? That takes much more strategy.

I don't think you understand what I mean. I think you should try FE6 Hardmode, particularly Chapter 7, and see how fun you find it. It doesn't come down to finding a strategy that is less luck dependent-All strategies require you to get lucky. Assuming you use the absolute best strategy, you will still have a very real chance of failing. I'm not saying there should be a clear right answer, or that luck shouldn't be involved, but if I just wanted to play a game of chance, I'd play a game of chance.

[Anouleth]

Urp, you're right. The point still is that you're forced to bring 5 units whose importance is questionable and it'd be quite nice to fill those five slots with units of your own choosing. FE6's is arguably fine, since the ratio is 2/8 (forced/selectable), though one could say that it'd be nice to fill Fa's spot with another unit. FE7's is a little worse, since the ratio is 5/7; again, you could argue that the four other than the non-main lord don't mean much to the gameplay of the chapter. Aureola isn't locked to Athos and you don't even need to use Armads/Durandal/Sol Katti to defeat the Dragon, so beyond plot importance they don't necessarily need to be there. As with FE6, FE8 isn't bad, since you're only forced to bring the siblings, which isn't terrible. Even FE9 is fine, since it's 2/12.

From my perspective, you have just as much choice as the other games, but you get more "free" characters. 10 characters of my own choice, plus a staff user, Ike, the somewhat useful Ena, and a Heron? That seems far more generous than other FEs, who don't give you a staff user and a Dancer for free.

I suppose it depends on how you look at it. You could see the forced units as the game forcing you to spend slots on certain characters, or you could see them as the game giving you extra characters for free.

So, FE10 isn't guilty of this alone, though it was the first to come to my memory as I finished it more recently. This, coupled with the fact that I was moreso annoyed with getting stuck with Sanaki, Ena, and Sothe, none of whom I wanted to use; at least in FE7, I had no issue in deploying Lyn, Eliwood, and Nils (and Athos is just a staffbot for me.

Well, Ena is okay just as a Tidebot, and Sanaki can clean up kills. Certainly, I'm happy to use them since they're well, free.

I understand why they're mandatory, as they're all relevant to the final resolutions of each individual game; after you've beaten the game 5+ times, you just get kind of sick of being forced to use those units every single time. Why can't we use a team entirely of our own making in subsequent playthroughs, just like in almost every other normal chapter?

Well, I would like a New Game+ where you can use every character from the start of the game (with appropiately adjusted stats) and the game doesn't force you to use anyone.

Building a strategy that will allow you to not get slaughtered on the enemy phase even if you miss a few times on the player phase is also determined by what you do. The difference is, it's not as simple. Doing the right thing is easy if there's a clear right answer rather than luck you need to manage. Deciding when to use limited accurate weapons to ensure or simply increase the probability of a hit? That takes much more strategy.

But the issue is that it's NOT FUN. Let's say there was some spectacularly trollish FE where powerful bosses have a chance of moving twice, or even three times in one turn and thus causing practically an automatic game over. When the game does that, it feels like you've been cheated. The player did everything right, yet the game spat in their face. And when the player is extremely conservative and holds everyone back on the off chance that the RN rolls <5 and the boss moves twice, then 95% of the time, the bad situation that they built their strategy around doesn't happen and they feel like a dumbass.

Sure, balancing the two requires strategy, but that doesn't make it any more fun. Ultimately, the player needs to choose whether they take a risk, and no matter what the player chooses, they can choose wrong. You seem to like the idea that a choice can't be made correctly, well, that's good for you, but I think that players should be allowed to make choices correctly.

Edited December 7, 2011 by Anouleth

[Othin]

I don't think you understand what I mean. I think you should try FE6 Hardmode, particularly Chapter 7, and see how fun you find it. It doesn't come down to finding a strategy that is less luck dependent-All strategies require you to get lucky. Assuming you use the absolute best strategy, you will still have a very real chance of failing. I'm not saying there should be a clear right answer, or that luck shouldn't be involved, but if I just wanted to play a game of chance, I'd play a game of chance.

In that case, I won't play FE6 Hard Mode, as it sounds like a case of low accuracy being implemented poorly. The question is, can low accuracy be implemented well? The answer is yes, as demonstrated in - as I'm sure you've guessed by now - Berwick Saga.

[dondon151]

"Low accuracy implemented well" sounds like an oxymoron. I'm very inclined to believe, now, that Berwick Saga is extraordinarily subpar.

Strategy games aren't about variance. Obviously some variance preserves enjoyment to a degree, but when you only have maybe about a 50% chance to outright ORKO enemies in FE6 with a Javelin, (or 75% chance with a more accurate weapon) that's not really fun.

Edited December 7, 2011 by dondon151

[Aethereal]

In that case, I won't play FE6 Hard Mode, as it sounds like a case of low accuracy being implemented poorly. The question is, can low accuracy be implemented well? The answer is yes, as demonstrated in - as I'm sure you've guessed by now - Berwick Saga.

There's basically three ways that low accuracy can make gameplay. For the first, you can have enemies that are competent in comparison to yours, and you are dependent on luck.

Second, you can have enemies that are competent, but you have certain units strong enough/durable enough to survive those enemies. In this scenario, you turtle. This is generally dull and slow gameplay that is far from dynamic.

Thirdly, you can have enemies that are either incompetent, or are not enough in number to be a hindrance. In this scenario luck doesn't matter, but the gameplay is dull, as the enemies don't cause any real threat. Which does Berwick Saga fall under?

[Othin]

There's basically three ways that low accuracy can make gameplay. For the first, you can have enemies that are competent in comparison to yours, and you are dependent on luck.

Second, you can have enemies that are competent, but you have certain units strong enough/durable enough to survive those enemies. In this scenario, you turtle. This is generally dull and slow gameplay that is far from dynamic.

Thirdly, you can have enemies that are either incompetent, or are not enough in number to be a hindrance. In this scenario luck doesn't matter, but the gameplay is dull, as the enemies don't cause any real threat. Which does Berwick Saga fall under?

Option four: You have enemies that are competent, but you deal with them using limited but effective weapons and skills.

[Aethereal]

Option four: You have enemies that are competent, but you deal with them using limited but effective weapons and skills.

If you can reliably deal with enemies that you consistently have a 40-70% chance of hitting, or some other unreliable number, then you and I have a different idea of competent. Wether that's because they have worse weaponry and skills, or because there aren't enough of them, or they have lower stats doesn't matter much.

[Thor Odinson]

You know, sometimes, the most balanced route isn't the most fun route. <70% average hitrates for me just simply isn't fun, and it applies to a lot of players as well. In this case, if lowering accuracy's your idea of balance, I'd rather sacrifice some balance for fun as that's what games are ultimately supposed to be. Why play a game that isn't fun?

Although, I never had much issues with FE6's hitrates outside of earlygame and chapter 7. Maybe it's because I lean towards swordsmen and let Paladins (Marcus's skill is quite nice, actually) and Heroes, who have naturally good skill -- handle axing rather than axe-maining classes like Warrior and Berserker. But that's just because I find the pallies and heroes more attractive (or in Echidna's case, fucking badass), though. I can see how someone would rage when they wanna use, say, idk, Ward (even though he sucks), and he can't hit a thing aside from loldiers and should he be in a game like FE7 or 8, his hitrates would improve at least a little.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Luminescent Blade

[Cysx]

I had thought of an idea for an item, for now I will call it the "Specialty Card". It would be an piece of equipment that allows the holder to use a Prf weapon that isn't "compatible" with them as long as they have the highest rank possible in that weapon type. For some examples, if Mia had SS Swords and this item she could use Ragnell, Ettard, Caladbolg or Florete, if Hardin had A Lances and this item he could use the Wing Spear and if Rath had S Bows and this item he could use a Longbow.

Of course, I think it's a nifty idea but I'm not sure it's a very good one. If it was implemented wrongly it could really devalue the characters who has personal weapons. If it were to be used it'd have to be in a lategame Gaiden or something.

Well, this doesn't seem like a bad idea, but I hardly see the difference of taking individuality of characters through their personnal weapons rather than through their personnal skills. And you guys were completely against the latter when we discussed skills management some time ago.

Or it can be skl/2 before hit goes over 100 and then additional hitrates over 100 gets turned into additional crit. Hell, that's how I interpreted it the first time.

As a matter of fact, so did I... Ditching the skill/2 crit formula seems too harsh, and would hardly even help skill units; it would rather effectively make crits accessible to some classes only, and to player units only, as well. Which... is kinda boring. And effectively makes critical avoidance completely useless.

[Aethereal]

You know, sometimes, the most balanced route isn't the most fun route. <70% average hitrates for me just simply isn't fun, and it applies to a lot of players as well. In this case, if lowering accuracy's your idea of balance, I'd rather sacrifice some balance for fun as that's what games are ultimately supposed to be. Why play a game that isn't fun?

Although, I never had much issues with FE6's hitrates outside of earlygame and chapter 7. Maybe it's because I lean towards swordsmen and let Paladins (Marcus's skill is quite nice, actually) and Heroes, who have naturally good skill -- handle axing rather than axe-maining classes like Warrior and Berserker. But that's just because I find the pallies and heroes more attractive (or in Echidna's case, fucking badass), though. I can see how someone would rage when they wanna use, say, idk, Ward (even though he sucks), and he can't hit a thing aside from loldiers and should he be in a game like FE7 or 8, his hitrates would improve at least a little.

Yeah, most of the accuracy issues are early game. And I agree with the last couple sentences, that's the main point to me. A lot of axe-users especially were pretty much screwed/reliant on luck if they weren't fighting lance users. I dunno. Personally, I'd rather see sword users get more crit than see axe users see less hit. >.>

[Thor Odinson]

I definitely agree. That way, it won't make axemen shitty, but it'll make swordsmen better and fill an interesting niche. I mean, they'd still suck against armours without effective weapons, but they'd be better against the ones with medium to low defense this way, and have a pretty good player phase since handaxes and javelins>magic swords any day. Except in FE4/5.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Luminescent Blade

[Aethereal]

I definitely agree. That way, it won't make axemen shitty, but it'll make swordsmen better and fill an interesting niche. I mean, they'd still suck against armours without effective weapons, but they'd be better against the ones with medium to low defense this way, and have a pretty good player phase since handaxes and javelins>magic swords any day. Except in FE4/5.

This also makes having a balanced army more important. I bet Swordmasters still won't be as good as Wyvern Riders, but it's a step in the right direction. Win/Win to me.

[Thor Odinson]

Yeah well, Wyverns are just that good. I can't really see much to screw them over besides upping magic units and/or bowmen (if in games where bow screws over all fliers) but that'd also screw over swordies since their lack of good 1-2 range. Upping magic unit density would make res a more important stat, though.

...maybe in games without str/mag separation, have res be the magic sword ranged casting stat and like, not half it? I mean fuck swordmasters have a decent res cap for a physical class anyway, at least the females in GBA.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Luminescent Blade

[dondon151]

Although, I never had much issues with FE6's hitrates outside of earlygame and chapter 7. Maybe it's because I lean towards swordsmen and let Paladins (Marcus's skill is quite nice, actually) and Heroes, who have naturally good skill -- handle axing rather than axe-maining classes like Warrior and Berserker.

I don't quite believe you. There is nothing that can adequately salvage FE6 Hand Axe's 50 base hit. Even a super awesome hero with like 22 skl and 12 luk only has 100 hit before factoring in enemy avo. And enemy avo in this game, even for scrubs like endgame wyvern knights, still hover around 30. Which means that you only have 80 displayed with a very generous estimation of skl and luk parameters in addition to WTA.

And 80 hit is definitely not reliable for a weapon that you'll be using to attack huge hordes of enemies at a time.

Edited December 8, 2011 by dondon151

[Thor Odinson]

Well, I don't have aversions to missing occasionally like you do. I generally just stick like, Dieck in the middle of shit and let him at it. If he miss, great, I move him and let the wyverns suicide on him later anyway. And if they don't have ranged, or only a few does, I park him there with Iron Axe instead.

I also don't play nearly as fast as you do, so maybe the missing doesn't affect me as much with ~80%s. With you speed, I can see why it could be an issue.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Luminescent Blade

[Anouleth]

Yeah well, Wyverns are just that good. I can't really see much to screw them over besides upping magic units and/or bowmen (if in games where bow screws over all fliers) but that'd also screw over swordies since their lack of good 1-2 range. Upping magic unit density would make res a more important stat, though.

non-HHM Heath is pretty dire, so is Eda. So I guess they just need to have poor stats.

And even though HHM is pretty heavy on magic users and Wyverns, Guy and Raven are still pretty good, so it's not like sword users can't be good in such an environment.

[Thor Odinson]

I found Guy to be mediocre at best without KE, really (before you get on my case about Joshua, I like him more because of his looks. I don't even play FE8 with anyone except Seth). Raven, I'll give.

Heath can still ferry, if anything. He's one of those few people who can ferry Hector when promoted, which is nice.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Luminescent Blade

[Anouleth]

I found Guy to be mediocre at best without KE, really (before you get on my case about Joshua, I like him more because of his looks. I don't even play FE8 with anyone except Seth). Raven, I'll give.

Heath can still ferry, if anything. He's one of those few people who can ferry Hector when promoted, which is nice.

Outside of HHM, you need to ferry Hector much less often...

[Thor Odinson]

I still don't like that he has 5 move. I like to have him get dropped further down the road and then kill everything. :3

[Othin]

If you can reliably deal with enemies that you consistently have a 40-70% chance of hitting, or some other unreliable number, then you and I have a different idea of competent. Wether that's because they have worse weaponry and skills, or because there aren't enough of them, or they have lower stats doesn't matter much.

First of all, battle accuracy in Berwick Saga with a standard weapon and no skills in effect tends to range from 60-80%, keeping in mind that this is using a 1 RN system. Rarer and more effective weapons tend to be more accurate, while skills can help with accuracy: 9 skills reliably increase accuracy, in certain situations. Weapons and skills can also grant additional hits, which can make up for the lack of accuracy.

Second, I did not say you can do everything perfectly on a reliable basis. There is, as I noted, an element of luck present that must be managed rather than removed, and checkpoints reasonably limit the progress that can be undone by particularly bad luck.

Anyway, my time is better spent playing Berwick Saga than arguing about it. And the same goes for you. Don't take my word for it or your impressions; play it and find out for yourself what you think.

I don't quite believe you. There is nothing that can adequately salvage FE6 Hand Axe's 50 base hit. Even a super awesome hero with like 22 skl and 12 luk only has 100 hit before factoring in enemy avo. And enemy avo in this game, even for scrubs like endgame wyvern knights, still hover around 30. Which means that you only have 80 displayed with a very generous estimation of skl and luk parameters in addition to WTA.

And 80 hit is definitely not reliable for a weapon that you'll be using to attack huge hordes of enemies at a time.

80% real hit is precisely what I would call reliable for any reasonable purpose. But FE6 has 2 RNs, making it 92.2% real hit, more than enough. Perhaps you're expecting too much out of an already overpowered weapon at too little cost, hm?

Edited December 8, 2011 by Othin

[eclipse]

Someone has not been on the other end of the FE6 RNG, whose sole existence is to screw you in new and interesting ways.

"Oh, look, I missed my 85% and the enemy just smacked me at 50%"

EDIT: If you REALLY want to see weird hitrates, play Battle for Wesnoth.

Edited December 8, 2011 by eclipse

[Refa]

I definitely agree. That way, it won't make axemen shitty, but it'll make swordsmen better and fill an interesting niche. I mean, they'd still suck against armours without effective weapons, but they'd be better against the ones with medium to low defense this way, and have a pretty good player phase since handaxes and javelins>magic swords any day. Except in FE4/5.

Didn't FE12 already make swordsmen viable?

[dondon151]

80% real hit is precisely what I would call reliable for any reasonable purpose. But FE6 has 2 RNs, making it 92.2% real hit, more than enough. Perhaps you're expecting too much out of an already overpowered weapon at too little cost, hm?

Perhaps you need to work on your inference skills, hm?

I just pulled those numbers out of my ass, but Dieck doesn't reach 22 skl, 12 luk until 20/8 on average, and that's way late in the game, if at all. Among axe users Dieck also has exceptionally high skl; OJ doesn't reach that level of accuracy until 20/12, Allen until 20/18, Lance until 20/12, and Percival until --/20. The 80% was also assuming favorable positioning in the weapon triangle against an endgame class that has some of the lowest avo; you lose 5 hit if you switch to a Javelin and have no WTA, and the classes against whom you do have WTA with Javelins also have 10-15 more avo.

Or maybe I can cite those Sacaean nomads that everyone hates; these guys have 40-45 avo and there's no way to leverage the weapon triangle on them. You're pulling off maybe 60 hit at best against them with a Javelin.

There's also no way that one can consider 80% reliable. Imagine if you played chess and there's a 20% chance that any move would fail. Man, I would rage so much!

[Thor Odinson]

Didn't FE12 already make swordsmen viable?

On the harder modes because wtf enemy speed and them being the only class that'll get actually somewhat reliable avoid. They're still inferior in NM and H1.

Lunatic is a pretty bullshit difficulty, anyway.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Luminescent Blade