Mechanics that you want

[bottlegnomes]

Meant verse (how the hell did I even make that mistake?). Fixed. Btw, I suck at poetry -- that IS in Iambic Pentameter, right? I think I screwed up the rhythm a bit with it.

EDIT: Playable monsters always feel so gimmicky, though.

I agree on them being gimmicky. Aside from maybe a summoner summon what would they add anyways?

Edit: Maybe a Evil Mode where you play as the forces of evil trying to overthrow everyone? Depending on what you want to do, it can be the rise of the monsters or going about and systematically killing off the party members.

That was just so I wouldn't be completely off topic <_< >_>

Anyway, I kind of like the magic weapons, and IMO levin swords were fairly decently balanced, at least on lower difficulties. The significantly higher might and def res gap made up for them using magic to attack, IMO. I wouldn't mind seeing them back again if they have javs/hand axes similar to how they were in FE12. If they're going to be like in other games, though, definitely give swords a physical ranged weapon, like RD.

Also, more characters like Bastian dammit!

Edited February 8, 2012 by bottlegnomes

[Momo]

What the fuck's Bastion

is it even the same genre as FE

Bastion is a Diabloesque game on the Xbox 360 home gaming console and PC. In which, the "Machete" weapon is throwable by the player character (called "The Kid).

It doesn't matter that it's nothing like FE, it just explains how you'd throw a sword.

[NinjaMonkey]

A machete is a knife, not a sword...

Also, more characters like Bastian dammit!

You'd like to see more characters that only have a very short amount of playtime, right at the end of the game?

Edited February 9, 2012 by NinjaMonkey

[bottlegnomes]

A machete is a knife, not a sword...

A very large knife that's generally bigger than the swords used by Greeks and Romans.

You'd like to see more characters that only have a very short amount of playtime, right at the end of the game?

Sure. Character =/= unit.

Edited February 9, 2012 by bottlegnomes

[Rewjeo]

In general I'd like to see fewer characters who are, well, better characters. That would come to be an issue gameplay wise, though. What effect would killing units off have? You would also lose a lot of replayability if you only had, say, 12 characters because you'd use basically all of them every time.

[Thor Odinson]

Machetes looks like something that could be aerodynamic when done right. Maybe. The swords standard in FE? Not a chance.

It ain't a sword, but if FE wants to lump it in the sword category and make it a physical throwable sword-type weapon despite being a knife, I'm not opposed, though for all I knows knives could return and /if/ FE ever introduces machete, hell knows it might be in there. After all, it's still not a sword and it's just really impractical to throw a sword even if it's doable. Magic swords work fine as long as it's balanced well, not something shitty like the lightsword in FE7 where Javelins and hand axes are so damn OP'd. Ranged swords that use magical animation that does physical damage works too, gameplaywise, though my logic side will always bother me but oh well

Edited February 9, 2012 by Luminescent Blade

[Refa]

The Light Sword would be awesome if it were readily available for Sword units in FE7.

[Thor Odinson]

That brings up another issue of 1-2 range for swords.

They have shit for availability, at least in GBA.

[X-Naut]

What I would like to see and my thoughts on them:

1~2 Range Bows: Bows can now counter at 1 Range, but with an accuracy penalty (-20 for Archera/Snipers, -30 for other foot units, -40 for mounts). They can't attack at 1 Range either. Short Bows will be the Javelin for bows, lacking the above drawbacks.

1~2 Range Swords: Low level is throwing knives, higher level is a saber. They'll be less effective than other weapon types, but something's better than nothing.

More enemy weapon variety: Seriously, if a unit can carry at least five weapons, let's see them use them. And I don't mean the standard "Iron/Steel + 1~2 Range," I mean having more Weapon Triangle coverage.

GBA-style Supports, but better: If two units are on the field and within support range, they will gain support points. Standing adjacent gives them bonus points, like in FE4.

Buff the Armors: I'd like to see an armor I can actually train from 1/0. Here's some ideas:

1. Being Armored now induces a Might penalty on all non-effective weapons.

2. They start out with the same move as the other foot units, but don't gain any upon promotion. BUT...

3. Instead of gaining movement, they now lose movement penalties over certain terrain, like forest tiles!

4. They have access to swords, lances, and axes upon promotion.

Nerf the Mounts: I can think of a few ways to balance out the extra movement...

1. Make mount-killing weapons more common and more accurate. Also, Ridersbane Bows. >:3

2. Foot units have a weaker version of Canto, allowing them to use items, trade items, and talk without sacrificing their extra move.

3. A little realism with this one: Canto-ing after battles only works if you hit once and aren't hit back.

Fixed Reclassing: It has potential, but was executed poorly. A proposal:

1. Reclassing is now done with an item, similar to a promotion. Only three will exist in the game, maybe four on harder difficulties.

2. Each individual unit has a set of three classes they can switch over to.

3. The "no more than one above normal" limit still exists.

4. Class growths have a less significant impact on stats, with a net worth +20% for Tier 1 units and +30% for Tier 2. (Tier 1 units have negative class growths that will be alleviated upon promoting.)

5. Only Tier 1 units may reclass. Once you promote, you're set for life.

[General Banzai]

Someone actually wants GBA-style supports? /gag

[CT075]

I like the GBA-style of building supports, less so the battle conversations. Like, if the GBA system was modified so you can only level up in base (and you receive the conversation then, ala PoR), I'd be all for it.

[Kngt_Of_Titania]

I like the GBA-style of building supports, less so the battle conversations. Like, if the GBA system was modified so you can only level up in base (and you receive the conversation then, ala PoR), I'd be all for it.

o.O

No, seriously, I'm shocked. Why would you POSSIBLY like GBA supports over those in FE9/12? The former are practically impossible to build in most cases if you're going fast, while the latter can be built easily while maintaining the awesome character building convos.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Kngt_Of_Titania

[CT075]

GASP SOMEONE DOES NOT SHARE MY OPINION I AM SO SHOCKED

First off, while I'm not against LTC, the fact that you need to specify "if you're going fast" doesn't really go so far as to convincing me. From a gameplay standpoint, I don't particularly care, since I rarely build supports regardless; but I still would prefer receiving the bonuses (that are not necessary to win the game) as a reward after reworking my strategy to keep unit X and unit Y together.

From a story standpoint, I'm going to say that I prefer the idea of fighting alongside, nearby a friend, and building up a bond with that person as the battles pass.

Note that I think that the idea of being forced to be adjacent is dumb, but being within, say, 3 squares of the person is more reasonable.

[I.M. Gei]

Having to paste two units together and mashing the End Turn button a few dozen times just to build supports is pretty annoying; that's why I'd gladly take the PoR support system over the GBA's.

[Othin]

LTC isn't the only thing too fast for GBA supports. Playing at standard speeds, I haven't tried going for them often, but it seems to me that aside from special cases, you need to either have the characters glued together or just spend a lot of time after emptying a map with them next to each other and hitting "end turn". The latter is just boring and not at all anything something would feel rewarding for. The former can be fun, but the extent to which it's required is fairly excessive.

[CT075]

well when it's like whoeverXSerra and the 81-turn supports then that's a bit extreme but if it's toned down properly

[Kngt_Of_Titania]

GASP SOMEONE DOES NOT SHARE MY OPINION I AM SO SHOCKED

No, it's not that. It's that I find the GBA support system SO bad I thought it was univerally hated. When I can go a whole game and easily finish without a *single* support, something's wrong.

LTC isn't the only thing too fast for GBA supports. Playing at standard speeds, I haven't tried going for them often, but it seems to me that aside from special cases, you need to either have the characters glued together or just spend a lot of time after emptying a map with them next to each other and hitting "end turn". The latter is just boring and not at all anything something would feel rewarding for. The former can be fun, but the extent to which it's required is fairly excessive.

Pretty much this. Even when I go all casual mode with Fire Emblem, I still only get a couple to C and maybe (MAYBE) one of the faster ones to B, unless I glue them together for the longest time.

[Snowy_One]

The GBA style seriously blew. You had to keep two characters practically joined at the hip just to build the supports. That cut into flexibility immensely and is simply not as effective as the FE9 system. To make it worse, if someone didn't care one bit about turn-counts, they could make the chapters drag on until the support finished and BAM! A-level supports at rapid speed. In my eyes that makes the mechanic pointless as a whole and makes it ripe for abuse.

Edit: Working on the opposite end, maybe increasing the range for supports. I wouldn't say the whole battle-field (though that is viable) but maybe 5 or 6 range instead of 3.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Snowy_One

[Shin]

3 range wouldn't be too bad. There's always the option of units building points just by being on the same chapter together, but getting more whilst adjacent. Kinda like FE4.

[Rothene]

Lower value of points needed for each rank or boost the gain per round or both should make it better if turns taken is an issue.

[CrashGordon94]

I'd just prefer the FE9 system, it worked EXTREMELY well IMO and I can't really think of much to improve it. I guess Supports building within a few spaces of each other would be acceptable but I really think the FE9 system would just be better.

Now, I think the AFFINITIES could do with some work, though the only seriously OP one is Earth and there aren't too many UP ones IIRC.

Edited February 10, 2012 by CrashGordon94

[Momo]

The only underpowered one I can think of is Heaven, and it wasn't so much underpowered as it was completely useless.

[CrashGordon94]

I was about to mention Heaven, wasn't sure if there were any others.

Buff Heaven, nerf Earth ().

[Snowy_One]

Wind was a bit weak as well, but that was related to it needing to match up to another AVO element.

[Anouleth]

I'd just prefer the FE9 system, it worked EXTREMELY well IMO and I can't really think of much to improve it. I guess Supports building within a few spaces of each other would be acceptable but I really think the FE9 system would just be better.

Well, the FE10 system was pretty similar. Most supports would be ready to level within 3 deployments, but using stuff like shove, adjacents, and healing, you could make them build faster if you wanted to. Obviously that would need to be slowed down a little bit since it would be silly to have everyone running around with A supports in Chapter 7, but being able to build a support in more ways than one is a good idea.

Now, I think the AFFINITIES could do with some work, though the only seriously OP one is Earth and there aren't too many UP ones IIRC.

Earth was never really that powerful. +45 avoid is strong and all, but the DS games let you get as much as +50 avoid.