Mechanics that you want

[Rewjeo]

I've said before that enemies are not generally stronger than player units (especially true for casual players) on the hardest difficulties.

The enemies can sure be frustrating near the beginning. Later on, difficulty always peters out in FE, but that's really just another problem I think FE should fix.

I don't think so. There are only 3 ways to increase a unit's atk: increase his str, increase the MT of his weapon, or give an invisible +atk bonus. There are only 3 ways to increase a unit's physical durability: increase his def, increase his HP, or increase his avo.

What about skills? Formations? Weapon diversity? There's more to what makes a unit good than its ATK, DEF, and AVO.

The inclusion of weapon forges among enemy units is to try to make sure that the player doesn't get complacent and use his 6RKO'd player unit to plow them down. Now obviously this didn't work out quite so well in practice (what with Barst reaching some fairly high durability numbers), but when you consider the lack of enemy density in the DS FE games (something you have not addressed yet), this is really as perfect a solution as you can get.

Obviously I disagree about the whole "perfect a solution as you can get" based on us saying what we're saying. And for the enemy density? So what? That doesn't change the fact that i don't like how they're going about making the game difficult. It makes it more manageable, but manageability was never something I had a problem with.

This is not really the point. Imagine how dull such a game would be. FE is not really a game that can be adequately played between 2 people capable of thought; it would be an eternal game of cat and mouse, with each player waiting for the other to make a first move, and making such a move is generally a mistake. With the unforgiving mechanic of permanent death, such a game would be objectively not fun.

Can you make something objectively not fun? Anyways, obviously the AI wouldn't be perfect so that that would be avoided. I suspect it could be given certain restrictions, and a reset AI option would probably be included.

[Othin]

I actually think the best idea for the enemies is to just not attack you at all. That would make every map frustratingly difficult to complete because they would keep getting in your way and you'd have to waste time clearing them out.

Except when you can just walk past them. Or when you want them to at least appear threatening to the characters you control rather than to your turncount. Such a change would obliterate any worth the series has both in terms of having a moderately believable story and in terms of having gameplay of any worth outside of LTC. If you had little or no risk of taking attacks except when you choose to allow it, the game wouldn't be "frustratingly difficult" in the slightest; all it would be is an easy and non-strategic but frustrating game based around a completely absurd conflict. I would not waste even a second of my life playing such a terrible game as to make that change anywhere outside of extremely specialized and well-justified circumstances.

Your suggestion is simply a response to a different problem: when enemies attack one of your characters, it more often benefits the player than the enemy. There are much better solutions to simply ensure that the attacker can gain an upper hand in combat. At present, outside of specialized circumstances, the only time it matters which character initiates combat is when they kill the enemy before they can counterattack. There are many ways to limit or weaken counterattacks to solve this problem, to make it so that an enemy attacking one of your characters is the danger it should be rather than the convenience it is.

[RNG Princess]

Bow users need to be given advantage(s) ^^' what if they made hand axes, javelins, and the other 1-2 range weapons much less common and added chapters where bow using enemies were majority? Thats the only way I think bow users can have an advantage. I think hard mode should be less forgiving and give out less funds than the easier modes, it would help thiefs and the chest keys being rare in hard mode can help them out too.

I want weaker characters to be more useful rather than flat out useless sort like how we can make Vika useful in FE10. Enemies always try to go for the weaker units but what if they had jeaigan-like enemies to challenge the player's jeigan/ouifaye? The enemies would focus on weakening the player's jeigan, would that help weaker units be better?

I also think foot units need more love, since move is considered one of the most important aspects of a character; perhaps chapters where foot units have advantages over the mounted characters. Knights should be more knightly even if they keep their move and they could help their case by adding more defense based situations.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Queen_Kittylincia

[Vicious Sal]

Best part, between Bow users and 1 Range units, Bow users IN THEORY have a better EP. 8 squares of counters agaisnt one. (We assume no ORKO's by the players unit) Shame is that they need the 4 1 range spaces clogged up first, and therer aren't that many 2 range enemies.

So practically they suck... Shame. Bows are awesome.

Um yeah, still no comments on my idea of how to tone down high move units?

Crap I had a really nice idea that was an addition to something... I forgot... I'll remember one day.

NVM remembered it now.

Ok, listen up... We are gonna nerf HIGH move units on some chapters! Take a look at the Sneak chapter in fe9, the prison.

Now picture an ambush of some sort, and your entire team of deployed units has to stay together! No one may be away from eachother further than 5 spaces. OR 6 or so, so everyone is hustled together. PReventing you from using your OP Jeaigan with awesome growths and stats (jeigan what actually?) from going ahead and decimating the enemy. He has to stay close to the lord, other units and that pink 5 move armor. Fuckyeah.

Some chapters, not all of them. Just where the situation calls for hustle together. (Even though we have an OP unit who destroys the enemy.)

Edited December 22, 2011 by Vicious Sal

[Othin]

Number of squares a character can counterattack isn't what what matters; it's the likelihood that an enemy will attack from one of those squares. The problems are, as Q_K noted above, that enemies with bows are uncommon (and enemies particularly effective with them even more so), and that Javelins and Hand Axes dominate many FE games, leading to an expectation of not 1 range, but 1-2 range.

I maintain my earlier stance that melee weapons should not have common 1-2 range options, ever.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Othin

[bottlegnomes]

I still like FE12's solution. 1-2 range weapons aren't exactly common, but they aren't particularly rare, but they have incredibly low might. It's low enough that characters with great strength, like Palla, will still struggle to ORKO even on difficulties as low as H1. That way, it allows characters to counter everything, but not kill, only weaken them. Bows on the other hand, can pretty much guarantee a ORKO at range, as long as the unit isn't terrible. For example, again only on H1, but anyway, my MU was ORKOing dragons with an iron bow about 75% of the time midgame, and ORKOing them with a steel bow about 80% of the time at endgame.

[arvilino]

Bow users need to be given advantage(s) ^^' what if they made hand axes, javelins, and the other 1-2 range weapons much less common and added chapters where bow using enemies were majority? Thats the only way I think bow users can have an advantage. I think hard mode should be less forgiving and give out less funds than the easier modes, it would help thiefs and the chest keys being rare in hard mode can help them out too.

I want weaker characters to be more useful rather than flat out useless sort like how we can make Vika useful in FE10. Enemies always try to go for the weaker units but what if they had jeaigan-like enemies to challenge the player's jeigan/ouifaye? The enemies would focus on weakening the player's jeigan, would that help weaker units be better?

I also think foot units need more love, since move is considered one of the most important aspects of a character; perhaps chapters where foot units have advantages over the mounted characters. Knights should be more knightly even if they keep their move and they could help their case by adding more defense based situations.

Foot units generally have better combat than mounted ones. It's just that in a lot of cases the difference becomes irrelevant, mostly due to the strength of the enemies you're fighting as opposed to how much better a foot unit is. E.g. Oswin has better defense than Lowen, but Lowens defense holds out at the point that in most cases Oswin advantages are basically excessive. I'd rather see a general nerf of player mounted units(I'd say mostly the speed stat) than a boost to foot ones.

Bow users, I think having them gain more EXP per combat than other units to make up for the fewer counters would be nice. They do have better 2-range combat than Handaxe/Javelin users though and in FE10's 2-3 Marksmen Range and the fewer but stronger enemies in FE11 and FE12(plus the handaxe/javelin nerf) with fliers being some of the most dangerous give situations where bow users can shine.

[Vicious Sal]

Number of squares a character can counterattack isn't what what matters; it's the likelihood that an enemy will attack from one of those squares. The problems are, as Q_K noted above, that enemies with bows are uncommon (and enemies particularly effective with them even more so), and that Javelins and Hand Axes dominate many FE games, leading to an expectation of not 1 range, but 1-2 range.

I maintain my earlier stance that melee weapons should not have common 1-2 range options, ever.

You missed the words in caps, unless you are denying that being able to counter 8 times on Ep is worse than 4 times. As I said, it's in theory, in pratice, it doesn't work out well for them, but in theory the 8 counters > 4.

Actually, you missed most of what i said:

"It's the likelihood"

and therer aren't that many 2 range enemies.

Javelins and hand axes were left out of the equation, because they dominate, I stated 2 range vs 1 range. I left out 1-2 range out because everyone knows that that is the best anyway.

So as I stated, in THEORY 2 range > 1 range. In practice, not so much.

ALSO, COME ON:

Ok, listen up... We are gonna nerf HIGH move units on some chapters! Take a look at the Sneak chapter in fe9, the prison.

Now picture an ambush of some sort, and your entire team of deployed units has to stay together! No one may be away from eachother further than 5 spaces. OR 6 or so, so everyone is hustled together. PReventing you from using your OP Jeigan with awesome growths and stats (jeigan what actually?) from going ahead and decimating the enemy. He has to stay close to the lord, other units and that pink 5 move armor. Fuckyeah.

Some chapters, not all of them. Just where the situation calls for hustle together. (Even though we have an OP unit who destroys the enemy.)

[Othin]

Foot units generally have better combat than mounted ones. It's just that in a lot of cases the difference becomes irrelevant, mostly due to the strength of the enemies you're fighting as opposed to how much better a foot unit is. E.g. Oswin has better defense than Lowen, but Lowens defense holds out at the point that in most cases Oswin advantages are basically excessive. I'd rather see a general nerf of player mounted units(I'd say mostly the speed stat) than a boost to foot ones.

It's situations like this that make differences in mere statistical details so irrelevant. Statistical differences should not be relied upon unless they completely change the way a character is played; there are other ways characters can and should be differentiated, and those ways can very much make foot units make up the differences.

Bow users, I think having them gain more EXP per combat than other units to make up for the fewer counters would be nice. They do have better 2-range combat than Handaxe/Javelin users though and in FE10's 2-3 Marksmen Range and the fewer but stronger enemies in FE11 and FE12(plus the handaxe/javelin nerf) with fliers being some of the most dangerous give situations where bow users can shine.

And the above makes the relevance of this "better 2-range combat" highly suspect.

You missed the words in caps, unless you are denying that being able to counter 8 times on Ep is worse than 4 times. As I said, it's in theory, in pratice, it doesn't work out well for them, but in theory the 8 counters > 4.

Actually, you missed most of what i said:

"It's the likelihood"

and therer aren't that many 2 range enemies.

Javelins and hand axes were left out of the equation, because they dominate, I stated 2 range vs 1 range. I left out 1-2 range out because everyone knows that that is the best anyway.

So as I stated, in THEORY 2 range > 1 range. In practice, not so much.

I'm saying 8 squares instead of 4 isn't relevant to theory or fact except for its impact on how likely an enemy is to attack from one of those squares.

Characters reliant on range 1 matter as much as they exist, which isn't much. And what I am saying is by no means limited to addressing what you were saying personally; don't get the idea that it's all about you.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Othin

[Vicious Sal]

I'm saying 8 squares instead of 4 isn't relevant to theory or fact except for its impact on how likely an enemy is to attack from one of those squares.

Characters reliant on range 1 matter as much as they exist, which isn't much. And what I am saying is by no means limited to addressing what you were saying personally; don't get the idea that it's all about you.

You are completely missing the point. Let's make it a real simple example. We have will in a field of bow users, and we have eliwood in a field of sword users. (To avoid someone saying "they could wield javelins / hand axes (cause lollightbrand)") Neither of them will ORKO any unit. The objective is rout. Who will be the first to win if they employ EP only. Yup, it's will. BEcause he has 8 spaces to be attckaed from and counter. Eliwood only has four. If there are 16 enemies, and all of them are 2hko'd. (Eliwood and Wil don't double them). Will will finish in 3 turns. EP 1 is halving 8 enemies their HP, Ep 2 koing them, and halving the second group their HP. EP 3 he Ko's them all.

Eliwood takes way longer, because there aren't that many tiles enemies can stand on to attck him.

This however, is a situation that would never happen in any fe game. that's why i Said in theory. Because in reality there are way more 1 range units, and a 2 range unit will likely get surrounded by 1 range units and then won't be able to move. I stated myself in my first post that this was all in theory, and that in reality, it doesn't work out that way for various reasons, so why you have to point that out to me even though I stated it already. "and therer aren't that many 2 range enemies. "

So the likelyhood you mention all the time is something that I have already adressed, stating why in reality 2 range is wors than 1 range.

Your first counterargument against my post was an argument about enemy density, likelyhood of being attacked, something I already adressed beforehand, and bringing 1-2 range into the equation, whereas I specificly left that out because we all know it's the best.

And you are right, it's not all about me, because it takes to to argue.

Actually, now that you mention it, this rings bells of a quote of a friend of mine:

I find myself so important that i'm not going to listen to you guys anyway and I assume i'll be starting a conversation myself.

Have a nice day the weather in Taupo is amazing =D.

[Othin]

In that situation, Wil will kill faster, but he'll also get killed faster. I wouldn't call that automatically a win in overall capabilities. If four squares isn't enough, that means getting attacked a lot of times in a row, which is sometimes okay, and sometimes isn't.

You're making the mistake of assuming that this is all an argument. It isn't. In my original post, the only argument I made with you was the first sentence. The rest, such as the remarks about 1-2 range, is related information I wish to bring up to people here in general. It has little or nothing to do with you.

[Baldrick]

Ok, listen up... We are gonna nerf HIGH move units on some chapters! Take a look at the Sneak chapter in fe9, the prison.

Now picture an ambush of some sort, and your entire team of deployed units has to stay together! No one may be away from eachother further than 5 spaces. OR 6 or so, so everyone is hustled together. PReventing you from using your OP Jeigan with awesome growths and stats (jeigan what actually?) from going ahead and decimating the enemy. He has to stay close to the lord, other units and that pink 5 move armor. Fuckyeah.

Some chapters, not all of them. Just where the situation calls for hustle together. (Even though we have an OP unit who destroys the enemy.)

It's a nice idea (there's plenty of possibility for story justification, it would force you to think carefully about your next move) but I think it would be unnecessarily restrictive, since there are times you'd want to seperate your party apart from soloing the map with one unit e.g. fight on two different fronts, collect treasure, hold a chokepoint etc. In the ambush scenario, it'd require more strategy if your team were seperated at first, and you had to gather them together to survive (something like FE5 Chapter 19, with more enemies in between the groups, or FE7 Chapter 24, but make it indoors so fliers couldn't make it easy to regroup).

My idea to encourage that sort of play would be to seriously nerf cavalry (like, give them Wendy-level bases) but also give them a larger move lead and FE4/5 Canto. So they could run around doing useful things, but couldn't handle multiple enemies at once.

[Momo]

Stop giving them the ridiculous amount of weapons. Let them use one weapon type their entire life, and possibly restrict them from using heavier ones.

[Snowy_One]

Maybe one idea would be to make handaxes and javelins 2 range only then? It may not actually fix the bow problem, but it lessens the gap that bows have between other weapons (in order to attack at 2-range, a warrior has to give up his ability to attack at 1-range basically). With that alone you get bows having more MT at 2-range than the melee weapons and suddenly handaxes/javelins aren't so amazingly awesome anymore. Combine with the marksman 3 range and you can give bows a lasting advantage. Snipers will end up being amazing at ranged combat, but melee units can't break into it unless they give up their ability for melee counters and even then they won't be as good as a sniper.

Edit: What I'm suggesting is basically something like this.

As it is now.

Bows: ||||||

Melee: ||||||||||||

1-2: |||||||||||||||||

After:

Bows: ||||||||

Melee: ||||||||||||

1-2: ||||||||||||||

Edited December 22, 2011 by Snowy_One

[Colonel M]

Actually, the buffer enemies in H5 and Lunatic Mode made bows very appreciated. In Lunatic Reverse, its a godsend.

FE12 did 1-2 range right: need the shit out of their Mt. They should never have been stronger than their Iron counterparts.

Taking away their 1 range capability is also retarded. Javelins and Hand Axes can be used in one range combat in real life. Before you say bows, their issue is an arrow has to be put in the bow then pull string, aim, and finally fire.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Colonel M

[Snowy_One]

Actually, I'm not worried about 'real life' at this moment. I'm worried about making the game balanced. I could argue either way (that throwing weapons lacked the range of bows, that they were awful in melee combat compared to their non-ranged counter parts, that giving lances and axes 1-2 range weapons but swords none is unfair as ****, that bows could manage point blank shots), but I want to see balance appear.

I agree that nerfing the MT out of 1-2 range weapons isn't a bad idea. It isn't the only solution though, and I would not say that it is a mutually exclusive one either. If we nerfed MT and removed 1-range counters, it would mean that any melee weapon user using these weapons will be faced with a strategic dilemma. By using the weapon, he will be able to deal some damage without having to worry about taking a counter, but in doing so, not only does he have the issue of possibly not killing other enemies, but he won't be able to counter at 1-range either. It's a strategic dilemma and it can be a good one. The question is 'is it one we want'?

[Othin]

Taking away their 1 range capability is also retarded. Javelins and Hand Axes can be used in one range combat in real life. Before you say bows, their issue is an arrow has to be put in the bow then pull string, aim, and finally fire.

I'm sure there are some throwing axes and spears that are capable of being used effectively in melee rather than just when thrown, but I'm also sure there are some that just don't work well if you just try to swing or stab it at someone. A given fantasy setting could include one type, the other, both, or neither, whichever seems like it would work better.

[BwdYeti]

Maybe throw axes/javelins could still have 1-2 range on attack, but only counter at 2? The biggest problem with their balance is being able to counter everything, so removing that would be one solution

Edited December 22, 2011 by BwdYeti

[Paperblade]

I don't see a reason to make them work in a unique way compared to most other weapon types. One of the things I (and probably most other people) like about the series is that on the surface it's very simple. Why should we take that away to fix a problem that was fixed in FE4 and FE12?

Edited December 22, 2011 by Paperblade

[dondon151]

The biggest problem with their balance is being able to counter everything,

Not quite; the biggest problem is being able to counter and kill everything.

If we really want to get into creative ways to nerf them, give them the GBA FE Eclipse effect where they can only attack once per round of combat. That's still being rather complicated, though.

[Othin]

Under a system this simple, there's a right way and a wrong way to do things. There's little more to think about, because the "wrong" way doesn't have enough options to be worth serious consideration next to the "right" way. That can work fine in games with substantial real-time elements, where you can't take the right action at the right time just because you want to. But with a game that's purely strategy-based, such as FE, it's not enough to think about. A purely strategy-based game where the strategy is all this simple is, quite simply, a bad game.

Having some weapons fail to double attack isn't even complex in the slightest. As you noted, it's already been done with Eclipse, a far more complex weapon, and there are other far more complex things that have been added to the series, such as capturing and skills. More likely, you've come to expect almost the exact same thing from every FE game, so any changes that would deviate from that formula and make you think about something a bit different seems insane. In reality, it isn't: those are in fact the changes that healthy series thrive on.

[Snowy_One]

Not quite; the biggest problem is being able to counter and kill everything.

If we really want to get into creative ways to nerf them, give them the GBA FE Eclipse effect where they can only attack once per round of combat. That's still being rather complicated, though.

My problem with just reducing MT is that it doesn't actually make it so that they can't kill, just so that it's harder. That kind of goes against the spirit of the weapon. For example, in FE9 Boyd can have up to 35 attack before weapons. Even with a 2MT handaxe, that's 37 MT (38 most of the time). A swordmaster can get up to ~24 attack. This means they need to wield a silver blade to match it (38 attack after WTD) and that lacks the advantage of being able to counter at 1-2 range. This is just a handaxe as well. A shortaxe or Tomahawk would yield more. Boyd is a powerful killing machine even with the weak axe. Meanwhile, Oscar likely has 27 MT (24 + 2 + 1WTA), which is weaksauce compared to what almost any other unit could do.

So Boyd remains king of the kill, SM need high-end weapons to keep up, and units who might actually want to use it get screwed hard since they will lack the MT to reliably kill anything.

IMO, the problem isn't that they can kill or kill at 2 range, but that they can kill at one and two range.

[Colonel M]

Oh my fucking God, I'm sorry but this is really starting to irritate me.

"Mt" comes from weapons. "Str" comes from a unit's base Str. "Atk" is Mt + Str + Supports.

Can we please get this shit right before I beat Othin into Banzai?

Also, there were 1-2 range Swords in FE12. "Levin Swords", and they actually weren't "too" bad.

[Dark Sage]

My problem with just reducing MT is that it doesn't actually make it so that they can't kill, just so that it's harder. That kind of goes against the spirit of the weapon.

This has to be the stupidest complaint I've heard in this thread, or at least a contender for "harder enemies don't actually change my strategy baw!" It's a goddamned weapon. What, do you suddenly not want weapons to not kill. Steel Swords are so unbalanced, they can kill better than an Iron Sword!

For example, in FE9 Boyd can have up to 35 attack before weapons. Even with a 2MT handaxe, that's 37 MT (38 most of the time). A swordmaster can get up to ~24 attack. This means they need to wield a silver blade to match it (38 attack after WTD) and that lacks the advantage of being able to counter at 1-2 range. This is just a handaxe as well. A shortaxe or Tomahawk would yield more. Boyd is a powerful killing machine even with the weak axe. Meanwhile, Oscar likely has 27 MT (24 + 2 + 1WTA), which is weaksauce compared to what almost any other unit could do.

Wrong. Boyd has no attack before weapons. He needs weapons to have attack.

So Boyd remains king of the kill, SM need high-end weapons to keep up, and units who might actually want to use it get screwed hard since they will lack the MT to reliably kill anything.

Yes how dare that Boyd, a Warrior, who is supposed to have high might and does deal a lot of damage, can deal more damage even with a handaxe than a swordmaster. By that logic, every unit should the same amount of attack, and I guess hit, avoid, and critical as well so it won't hurt any other unit's poor wittle feelings.

IMO, the problem isn't that they can kill or kill at 2 range, but that they can kill at one and two range.

[Momo]

His point was that at his worst, Boyd does as well as a Swordmaster at his best, and also has two range. That doesn't sound very fair to me.