Zohda Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 (edited) That sounds like a terrible idea. So if you use a lot of a particular type of unit, the game suddenly becomes really difficult? What if you use lots of a particular type of unit because I don't know... you /want/ to? This seems to me to be exactly the same as Snowy's suggestion. You want to make it more important to "pick the right team" rather than actually play well, by penalising players who pick a team you perceive as "bad". It's not like I'm saying the enemies are going overboard with Horsekillers, maybe like four or five per map. Or just the commander has one. It would just add a little extra difficulty. EDIT: And as for using a whole bunch of one unit, again, it's not like the entire map is going to have WTA against you, but somewhere near 50% or so. Edited November 17, 2011 by Zohda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 I'd like to see a reactionary system in place for the enemy where they deploy units and weapons that counter your army. For example, say that you're deploying a lot of sword users, so more the enemy would deploy more lance users, or if you're deploying fliers, the enemy fields archers, Armors would result in Hammers, etc. This would be determined by the MVPs of your team, going by FE9 and FE10's method of determining MVPs. Wouldn't a better idea be to just, you know, give more enemies effective weapons? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zohda Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Wouldn't a better idea be to just, you know, give more enemies effective weapons? But that's a static distribution. The idea is for it to be a bit more dynamic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Refa Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 (edited) That sounds like a terrible idea. So if you use a lot of a particular type of unit, the game suddenly becomes really difficult? What if you use lots of a particular type of unit because I don't know... you /want/ to? This seems to me to be exactly the same as Snowy's suggestion. You want to make it more important to "pick the right team" rather than actually play well, by penalising players who pick a team you perceive as "bad". See, I don't view a reactionary system as bad in and of itself. It'd probably work great...in a game like Final Fantasy Tactics, which is all about customization. I don't view it as neccesarry in a game like Fire Emblem, which is more about the strategy. Really, I'm sure this new FE game will turn out just as fine as the last 12, I just hope it comes out to the US. ...But I'd be super happy if it had canto, rescue, and leadership stars. Edited November 17, 2011 by Refa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 But that's a static distribution. The idea is for it to be a bit more dynamic. Please explain to me the functional difference between an enemy definitely having a Horseslayer and an enemy probably having a Horseslayer. Or rather, please explain to me why it is a worse idea for the weapon distribution to be static. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor Odinson Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Dynamic weapon distribution doesn't make sense to me. Isn't the point of FE to come up with a strategy that'd actually be good against the enemy? It'd honestly suck if you're at a disadvantage all the time, and the game wouldn't be as fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zohda Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Alright, then how about dynamic weapon distribution not affecting an entire map? Only a small list of enemy units per map would have it, and that same group would remain static no matter the playthrough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anouleth Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 (edited) I don't see the point of having it at all. Playing against an AI is not the same as playing against a human player and it shouldn't try to be. It's not like I'm saying the enemies are going overboard with Horsekillers, maybe like four or five per map. Or just the commander has one. It would just add a little extra difficulty. There are plenty of other ways to add extra difficulty. Make it so the enemies carry more than one weapon type, or up their stats, or put more of them. Edited November 17, 2011 by Anouleth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zohda Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 I don't see the point of having it at all. Playing against an AI is not the same as playing against a human player and it shouldn't try to be. There are plenty of other ways to add extra difficulty. Make it so the enemies carry more than one weapon type, or up their stats, or put more of them. I'm not sure, but I think they already have that. Let me check. Oh yeah, they do. It's called Hard Mode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Refa Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 I'm not sure, but I think they already have that. Let me check. Oh yeah, they do. It's called Hard Mode. I'm not sure what your point is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor Odinson Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 And we like Hard Mode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zohda Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 I'm not sure what your point is. My point is that that layer of difficulty already exists and is implemented. This isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor Odinson Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 It being implemented doesn't guarantee it making a return, though seeing the trend from 6 and on it is very very likely so. And I like hardmode as it is. With the exception of FE8HM (except like, two chapters) and EHM (dunno about FE9 since I never played it, heard Maniac(JP) was fairly difficult, though) the difficulty that was added by those changes were enough to make it more interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anouleth Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 (edited) I'm not sure, but I think they already have that. Let me check. Oh yeah, they do. It's called Hard Mode. Well thank you from descending from your pedestal to enlighten dirt-eating peasants such as myself with your glorious knowledge. Any more rare pearls of wisdom to share with us, Athena? My point is that that layer of difficulty already exists and is implemented. This isn't. Many things aren't implemented in Fire Emblem, but many of them are also bad ideas. As a layer of difficulty goes, enemy stats and number and positioning is a pretty good one, unless you are suggesting that FE12 H3 is not difficult enough and could not possibly be made more difficult by the addition of enemies and increasing their stats. Edited November 17, 2011 by Anouleth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zohda Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 It being implemented doesn't guarantee it making a return, though seeing the trend from 6 and on it is very very likely so. And I like hardmode as it is. With the exception of FE8HM (except like, two chapters) and EHM (dunno about FE9 since I never played it, heard Maniac(JP) was fairly difficult, though) the difficulty that was added by those changes were enough to make it more interesting. Considering that Hard Mode got upgrades in FESD and FE12, I doubt it's going away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 I'm not sure, but I think they already have that. Let me check. Oh yeah, they do. It's called Hard Mode. OK. So why is your suggestion any better? What makes it so different and unique from a generic hard mode? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor Odinson Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 (edited) I liked the multiple Hard Modes option, anyway. I like how FE11 had 12 had the lower HMs for a challenge but still enough flexible room for a good variety of strategies, and H5/Lunatic for those days when you feel particularly masochistic (at least for the majority of us players). Considering that Hard Mode got upgrades in FESD and FE12, I doubt it's going away. In which case, good. Because I like them. Edited November 17, 2011 by Luminescent Blade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zohda Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Well thank you from descending from your pedestal to enlighten dirt-eating peasants such as myself with your glorious knowledge. Any more rare pearls of wisdom to share with us, Athena? Many things aren't implemented in Fire Emblem, but many of them are also bad ideas. As a layer of difficulty goes, enemy stats and number and positioning is a pretty good one, unless you are suggesting that FE12 H3 is not difficult enough and could not possibly be made more difficult by the addition of enemies and increasing their stats. You're right, those are a good ideas. But if that is the only thing that makes Hard Mode "Hard Mode" then it's going to get stale real fast. Having new ideas would keep a game fresh and interesting, and that's the entire point of this topic. On a side note, has there really been any new game changing mechanics since FE7 and have been retained? Like, Rescue-level changes? OK. So why is your suggestion any better? What makes it so different and unique from a generic hard mode? It changes things up. Adds more variety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emblem Lugh Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 But that's a static distribution. The idea is for it to be a bit more dynamic. The only way I can see this working is if a few reinforcements' weapons depend on who you deploy. It wouldn't make sense theoretically or story-wise if the initial map enemies' weapons depended on who you deployed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zohda Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 The only way I can see this working is if a few reinforcements' weapons depend on who you deploy. It wouldn't make sense theoretically or story-wise if the initial map enemies' weapons depended on who you deployed. I already did that. Alright, then how about dynamic weapon distribution not affecting an entire map? Only a small list of enemy units per map would have it, and that same group would remain static no matter the playthrough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Refa Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 It would make for an interesting escape mission objective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor Odinson Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 You never specified that if they start on the map or are reinforcements. Starting on the map makes no sense, but I agree with Refa in that if in the hands of reinforcements, would make for good escape missions. And it would make sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emblem Lugh Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 (edited) I already did that. Alright, then how about dynamic weapon distribution not affecting an entire map? Only a small list of enemy units per map would have it, and that same group would remain static no matter the playthrough. That implies that those enemies are still on the map from turn one to begin with (unless I interpreted that statement wrong). "Oh shi-! They have 5 strong cavaliers? Give one of the next reinforcements a horseslayer!" Like you said in one of the first posts suggesting this, it should be reactionary. If units from the start have it, that is not reactionary. @Refa: That would be fun! Edited November 17, 2011 by Cammy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zohda Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 You never specified that if they start on the map or are reinforcements. Starting on the map makes no sense, but I agree with Refa in that if in the hands of reinforcements, would make for good escape missions. And it would make sense. Ah, I forgot to mention that I had it in my mind that there would be something like a story scene where Generic Solder A reports to Generic Commander B that the enemy has a large number of elite mounted units. Generic Commander B points to Armorer C to fetch the Horseslayers. But I like the reinforcement idea better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Banzai Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Escape missions ought to feel like, you know, you're actually escaping. Not like in FERD/PoR where it instead feels like you're just going somewhere casually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.