Mechanics that you want

[Othin]

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.

That doesn't sound strange at all. What is there to complain about?

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!

Sounds like in a lot of situations, it's not enough, but in some, it is. Indeed, getting 80% real Hit just requires 68% displayed Hit, which will be an issue against some enemies, but it's quite reasonable against others.

Hit rates don't apply to moving, just attacks. If chess has a 20% chance that any attempt to capture a piece would fail, that would be damn interesting. It's not a change I would advocate, as chess has been notable for never involving any chance, but FE is not that way, unless you want hit rates removed entirely. And I have to say, I like playing FE more than I like playing chess.

But more relevantly, a 20% chance of failing is notable, but it is small. You can expect it to work quite a bit more often than not; if failing that chance would be that damaging to your strategy, I suggest coming up with better strategies.

[Colonel M]

But more relevantly, a 20% chance of failing is notable, but it is small.

Dude, that's a fucking 1 in 5 chance of missing. That's pretty damn relevant if you ask me.

Also dondon, I think I would emphasize more on capturing a chess piece than moving. 20% chance of not having taken the opponent's Queen? Bullshit. (Well I understood what you meant, but Othin didn't).

Edited December 8, 2011 by Colonel M

[dondon151]

It's all dependent on individual perception. I say we let Othin return to his world of 80% chess games.

As rather experienced Pokemon players, though, I think CM and I have a better idea of 80% than Othin does in a practical setting (see: Stone Edge). Having to make strategies with needlessly complicated contingencies is not particularly fun nor engaging - it's always nice to have one, but it's not always possible.

It's not a change I would advocate, as chess has been notable for never involving any chance, but FE is not that way, unless you want hit rates removed entirely.

General rule: games are not better when they involve a larger luck-based element. Removing luck altogether takes away the replayability of a single player game, but strategy RPGs are not supposed to be about weighted coinflips.

Edited December 8, 2011 by dondon151

[Colonel M]

Using competitive Pokemon for example, let me tell you how 80% accuracy can be unreliable.

Let's assume you're revenge killing Garhcomp that has a Yache Berry attached with Starmie. It isn't behind a Substitute, and it doesn't have +2 Atk (for this assumption, so that way it 2HKOes Starmie). Sandstorm is activated.

First hit, of course, has an 80% chance to hit Garchomp with Ice Beam. For both Ice Beams to hit, you have a 64% chance of succeeding. Do you want me to compound that further and show how unreliable this can be; especially in an instance where opponents are 3HKOed (like some are in Fire Emblem) and you have to land 80% blows?

Please, don't kid around. 80% chance is good for one hit sometimes. Going further than that, you're playing a gamble.

[Aethereal]

Sounds like in a lot of situations, it's not enough, but in some, it is. Indeed, getting 80% real Hit just requires 68% displayed Hit, which will be an issue against some enemies, but it's quite reasonable against others.

Having ways of manipulating hit rates, so that you can get into higher percentages and have reliable strategies is good. Maxing your hit out at 80% displayed, in the best case scenario, after you've gotten to level 20/12, against a slow enemy type that you have WTA against is not enough. And it is not "reasonable against some enemies" when the enemies are not pushovers. FE6 is a game where the enemies are difficult. A quick look at the numbers dondon provided shows me that OJ, Allen, and Percival all have very real chances of never seeing 80% hit with a hand axe. In that case, you either hope to get lucky, or you turtle. There's no other strategies, and no one else is interested in a game like that but you.

[General Banzai]

In a Minimum Restarts playthrough, high skill is valuable as it minimizes chance of having to restart and can even eliminate uncertainty if high enough.

It's all in how you play.

[eclipse]

In a Minimum Restarts playthrough, high skill is valuable as it minimizes chance of having to restart and can even eliminate uncertainty if high enough.

It's all in how you play.

Which means you most definitely do not want the "80% string" in this kind of run.

[Thor Odinson]

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

God I love that game. But I also hate missing 4 70%s in a row.

[Othin]

Using competitive Pokemon for example, let me tell you how 80% accuracy can be unreliable.

Let's assume you're revenge killing Garhcomp that has a Yache Berry attached with Starmie. It isn't behind a Substitute, and it doesn't have +2 Atk (for this assumption, so that way it 2HKOes Starmie). Sandstorm is activated.

First hit, of course, has an 80% chance to hit Garchomp with Ice Beam. For both Ice Beams to hit, you have a 64% chance of succeeding. Do you want me to compound that further and show how unreliable this can be; especially in an instance where opponents are 3HKOed (like some are in Fire Emblem) and you have to land 80% blows?

Please, don't kid around. 80% chance is good for one hit sometimes. Going further than that, you're playing a gamble.

Oh, I am well familiar with Sand Veil - and Smogon in general, in spite of Dondon's imprudent jumping to the contrary conclusion. Before Smogon banned Garchomp in Gen 5, I spent quite a bit of time there attempting to rally support for a ban that would remove Sand Veil's practical uses, for the reason of it being uncompetitive.

And this highlights the difference between these situations. No one wants an unavoidable miss to decide a competition, but FE is no such thing; nothing can be uncompetitive in a single-player game. If your luck happens to be so bad as to foil a reasonably stable strategy in a single-player game, such as FE, you can simply try again. Otherwise, sure, you'll miss sometimes. You don't need a chance to miss to be so small that it never happens; you simply need it to be small enough that it's unlikely to happen when you need it to happen. If you're using such flimsy strategies that you absolutely need everything to work out right all the time, then, again, use better strategies. It's not necessarily an option in Pokemon or in Dondon's hypothetical 20% chess game, but it is in FE.

[Anouleth]

Oh, I am well familiar with Sand Veil - and Smogon in general, in spite of Dondon's imprudent jumping to the contrary conclusion. Before Smogon banned Garchomp in Gen 5, I spent quite a bit of time there attempting to rally support for a ban that would remove Sand Veil's practical uses, for the reason of it being uncompetitive.

And this highlights the difference between these situations. No one wants an unavoidable miss to decide a competition, but FE is no such thing; nothing can be uncompetitive in a single-player game. If your luck happens to be so bad as to foil a reasonably stable strategy in a single-player game, such as FE, you can simply try again.

Otherwise, sure, you'll miss sometimes. You don't need a chance to miss to be so small that it never happens; you simply need it to be small enough that it's unlikely to happen when you need it to happen. If you're using such flimsy strategies that you absolutely need everything to work out right all the time, then, again, use better strategies.

But the best strategies are the ones that need everything to work correctly. The best strategies use every available resource and push every unit to their limit. The best strategies are the ones where after the dust settles, all of your units are left on 1 HP, and the reason that they're good is because you made use of every single HP available to use, with no "waste".

And really, this is quibbling over personal opinion. You think that a 20% chance is small enough that it's unlikely to happen when you need it to happen, well, I would disagree.

[Othin]

But the best strategies are the ones that need everything to work correctly. The best strategies use every available resource and push every unit to their limit. The best strategies are the ones where after the dust settles, all of your units are left on 1 HP, and the reason that they're good is because you made use of every single HP available to use, with no "waste".

And really, this is quibbling over personal opinion. You think that a 20% chance is small enough that it's unlikely to happen when you need it to happen, well, I would disagree.

That is one form of "best strategy". It is one where there is one relatively simple "right answer" to a given situation, leaving little room for other interesting "best" options once it has been found. It is one that optimizes for one or more relevant factors, but it is clearly not optimized for minimum resets, which I would call a damn good secondary factor to optimize for. You might call strategies like those the best strategies, but I never would.

We will have to agree to disagree both about that and about how to define a "small" chance.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Othin

[Anouleth]

That is one form of "best strategy". It is one where there is one relatively simply "right answer" to a given situation, leaving little room for other interesting "best" options once it has been found.

Well, duh.

It is one that optimizes for one or more relevant factors, but it is clearly not optimized for minimum resets, which I would call a damn good secondary factor to optimize for. You might call strategies like those the best strategies, but I never would.

A low number of resets is part of that too. The player that uses a healer correctly and thus doesn't have to reset so that his units dodge is clearly playing the game better than one that just brute-forces his way through.

The point is more that it's a good thing that the player doesn't have to play super conservatively and constantly hold back for fear of someone missing. It lets them be more adventurous and aggressive: and I think that playing aggressively is a lot more fun than playing defensively.

[Colonel M]

Oh, I am well familiar with Sand Veil - and Smogon in general, in spite of Dondon's imprudent jumping to the contrary conclusion. Before Smogon banned Garchomp in Gen 5, I spent quite a bit of time there attempting to rally support for a ban that would remove Sand Veil's practical uses, for the reason of it being uncompetitive.

And this highlights the difference between these situations. No one wants an unavoidable miss to decide a competition, but FE is no such thing; nothing can be uncompetitive in a single-player game. If your luck happens to be so bad as to foil a reasonably stable strategy in a single-player game, such as FE, you can simply try again. Otherwise, sure, you'll miss sometimes. You don't need a chance to miss to be so small that it never happens; you simply need it to be small enough that it's unlikely to happen when you need it to happen. If you're using such flimsy strategies that you absolutely need everything to work out right all the time, then, again, use better strategies. It's not necessarily an option in Pokemon or in Dondon's hypothetical 20% chess game, but it is in FE.

The problem is that 20% chance can still mean a lot of situations:

1) The situation can possibly mean that another unit has to finish the leftover.

2) This prevents certain units, such as possibly growth units, from finishing the opposition off. This pisses off casual players.

3) This could likely result in death.

There's a lot of risky situations in Fire Emblem, but saying that either a) the strategy is poor or b) resetting is okay is wrong. The goal of Fire Emblem, so to speak, is to play to have fun, and from what I know of that usually consists of as little resets as possible. I just gave an example where 80% chance isn't always that great. Considering that you think 1 in 5 chances is "small", I also provided how you possibly miss ORKOing someone nearly 1/3 of the time. Fire Emblem involves risk and reward, and while 80% chance to hit isn't "bad", it still isn't 100% chance to hit, which is what we all wish we could aim for.

I'm sure you played FE6. You should know that even with the 68% Displayed Hit is still pretty horrible even if it is 80% true. I know this for a fact, as I've used units like Lot and also went to dangerous routes such as Sacae. Hitting shit wasn't fun. It is also what makes Gonzales very borderline of a unit to use; especially when you have to attempt to counterattack Nomads with Hand Axe, which is god awful.

[dondon151]

Better example of why bad hit rates aren't fun: FEDS chapter 1, H5. Javelin tosses miss (with WTD, mind), and you get set back. Jagen misses his Silver Lance attack against the boss, and you have to spend 2 turns healing his HP back to max.

[Paperblade]

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.

fuck Battle for Wesnoth

we don't speak of that abomination here

Edited December 9, 2011 by Paperblade

[Snowy_One]

I agree that low hit-rates aren't fun (another reason I am for standardizing the sword/axe/lance base weapons. Either everyone can get 100 hit and axes/lances dominate due to higher damage or 100 hit is missed and people lean towards swords whenever possible). The problem is that they are a needed mechanic ATM. You have plenty of weapons like the hammer that have low hit making them worth-less against normal units due to the chance to miss, but are also more potent than normal weapons in their specific area. Plus, imagine FE without the chance to dodge. That would REALLY suck!

[Aethereal]

I agree that low hit-rates aren't fun (another reason I am for standardizing the sword/axe/lance base weapons. Either everyone can get 100 hit and axes/lances dominate due to higher damage or 100 hit is missed and people lean towards swords whenever possible).

The implication of the above, and more importantly the bolded, is that swords are better than other weapons when you don't have 100% hit. That is very very far from true.

[Snowy_One]

The implication of the above, and more importantly the bolded, is that swords are better than other weapons when you don't have 100% hit. That is very very far from true.

It's also the only time when the extra boost on hit for swords is useful. When the hit rate is low enough so that the extra amount means something. Otherwise, the superior MT of axes and lances dominates swords except for when facing lots of axe users.

IMO, if the baseline weapons really can't be standardized, make it like this. All (iron) weapons have 70 hit and 5 MT (numbers picked at relative random). Swords get a boost in skill activation and/or a boost to dodge, lances deal 'piercing damage or something (Always deal at least 1/4 of potential damage regardless of foe? I literally made this up on the spot), and axes have access to a variety of weapon types capable of effective damage. Please note it is 6 A.M. and I just came up with that on the spot, so it isn't balanced/thought out. The main goal here, though, is to remove focus from weapon MT and put it instead on weapon capabilities. That way you can't go 'oh hey, I can use axes! Awesome! more damage! No more need for swords' but instead need to actually think about your weapon type 'if I take axes I can get that nifty slayer, but this unit is dodge-focused, do I need them?'

[arvilino]

It's also the only time when the extra boost on hit for swords is useful. When the hit rate is low enough so that the extra amount means something. Otherwise, the superior MT of axes and lances dominates swords except for when facing lots of axe users.

IMO, if the baseline weapons really can't be standardized, make it like this. All (iron) weapons have 70 hit and 5 MT (numbers picked at relative random). Swords get a boost in skill activation and/or a boost to dodge, lances deal 'piercing damage or something (Always deal at least 1/4 of potential damage regardless of foe? I literally made this up on the spot), and axes have access to a variety of weapon types capable of effective damage. Please note it is 6 A.M. and I just came up with that on the spot, so it isn't balanced/thought out. The main goal here, though, is to remove focus from weapon MT and put it instead on weapon capabilities. That way you can't go 'oh hey, I can use axes! Awesome! more damage! No more need for swords' but instead need to actually think about your weapon type 'if I take axes I can get that nifty slayer, but this unit is dodge-focused, do I need them?'

You could ask the same question if you had a low con unit who could use Axes and Swords, e.g. with Isadora axes do more damage, but lowers her evade and AS. Swords keep her evade higher but do less damage(though it could double).

[Life]

<Cocaine> I'm about to shoot a guy

<Cocaine> Due to many factors, I'll hit him 80% of the time

<Cocaine> If I miss, I die

<Cocaine> I'm still scared of that 20% chance that he blows my head off

That's to Othin but that should seal the debate. Even a 0.00000000000000000001 chance of something happening is too high if you transpose it to real life. Mind you, this is coming from a future combat soldier.

[dondon151]

I agree that low hit-rates aren't fun (another reason I am for standardizing the sword/axe/lance base weapons. Either everyone can get 100 hit and axes/lances dominate due to higher damage or 100 hit is missed and people lean towards swords whenever possible).

Even when you don't have 100 hit (or 85 hit), there's a reason to use axes and lances over swords. In games with lower hit, swords may have a higher expected value for damage and definitely have a higher consistency when doing damage. This is important just for when you want to damage enemies, and you don't care how much. Axes and lances have a higher damage ceiling but lower consistency; this is important when you want to damage enemies to a certain desired extent.

It's just that in FE, particularly for faster strategies, it's more important to hit that damage threshold than it is to maintain consistency, since very often you're dealing with just 1 or 2 enemies at a time, and in the cases where you're dealing with more than 2 enemies at a time, you don't have the option to use swords. There's also no such thing as a damage randomizer or gradient that you'd see in a lot of other RPGs (MMOs, classics, etc.) so there's not a whole lot of ways to "improve" consistency.

For faster play, the balance between weapon types also doesn't really even matter. You use what you can, and that corresponds 90% of the time to the weapon in which you have the better rank.

[Kngt_Of_Titania]

Better example of why bad hit rates aren't fun: FEDS chapter 1, H5. Javelin tosses miss (with WTD, mind), and you get set back. Jagen misses his Silver Lance attack against the boss, and you have to spend 2 turns healing his HP back to max.

Going for low turn clear.

Oh crap, 65% hit chance jav throw missed, somebody died.

Going for boss, Jaigan missed...lose 2 turns.

Going for boss, Jaigan critblicked...get 10 turn clear.

Seriously, though, once you know what to do, the difference in turn count between great luck and horrible luck is like 10 versus 17 turns. It's terrible. FEDS Chapter 1 turn count is more dependent on hit rates for turn count than any other chapter of any other FE game I can think of. Tbh, I don't even think it's turn count should be included in most drafts for that reason. >.>

Edited December 10, 2011 by Kngt_Of_Titania

[General Banzai]

The early chapters of H5 were mostly bullshit anyways. Hell, all of H5 was bullshit. It was the laziest excuse to create a "hard" mode I've ever seen. Just steroiding the stats and weapons without changing enemy formations or AI? Yeah, that will make it more difficult, but not in any way where beating a chapter feels rewarding.

FE7 had the best hard mode; it not only gave increases to enemy stats but also changed enemy positions and added new enemies, oftentimes completely changing the strategy of the chapter.

[Snowy_One]

Hard modes are difficult to do like that. Ideally, hard modes would see a pick-up in status effects and better enemy formations with only minimal stat-increases. However, increasing stats is a guarenteed, but really non-challenging, way to make the game better. All you do is make it so that only a select team can win easily while any 'bad' units suddenly struggle a lot more. In FE9 for example, pretty much anyone who wasn't a healer, mounted, or named Ike was on the low end of playability in hard (I know there are some exceptions, but it is largely true), while in FE10, only those units who were really easy to level up and ended really well were worth playing with. Meanwhile, units like Ilyana who had the most avalibility of any unit, but lowish stats, were left in the dust.

[Momo]

The early chapters of H5 were mostly bullshit anyways. Hell, all of H5 was bullshit. It was the laziest excuse to create a "hard" mode I've ever seen. Just steroiding the stats and weapons without changing enemy formations or AI? Yeah, that will make it more difficult, but not in any way where beating a chapter feels rewarding.

FE7 had the best hard mode; it not only gave increases to enemy stats but also changed enemy positions and added new enemies, oftentimes completely changing the strategy of the chapter.

Wouldn't say so, the only bullshit chapters I can remember are 1 and 3, and only the latter of which involved retarded luck. Instead of just pouring tons and tons of enemies on you, the ones they make you fight are significantly strong enough that you have to plan which ones you're fighting at all times.

FE7 on the other hand just threw a fuckton of weak guys at you, and your units were ridiculously overpowered. If you can dodge one enemy Monk you can dodge them all, fighting 50 of them is not much of an accomplishment.