Mechanics that you want

[CrashGordon94]

Tiny Mt/Hit/Wt differences don't mean shit. Bigger differences can be good, like the ones in FE4, but that only goes so far on its own, and FE4 had its own obvious issues there.

I was advocating the big ones, and I only want it to go "so far", I don't want wacky shit like BS.

That said, I like what bottlegnomes said too.

[Othin]

*fewer and *fewer /being a dick

Anyway, for balance purposes, it would make sense to have them all have a similar tome like that. They can still have differences in overall type, but to have one with a brave weapon while the others get nothing is just bad balance. That said, I'm personally for differentiation, while still remaining balanced. Look at something like the FE5 magic swords. All of them were pretty good. The wind sword was great for units with good magic, but low speed, and also good for boosting avoid. The fire sword was good for doing more damage or for units with low magic. The thunder sword was good for hitting enemies with high avoid. Granted it's not perfect, but they all have their own niche and are reasonably balanced.

I didn't say one gets a brave tome while others get nothing. What I mean is that the others can each get something other than a brave tome. Maybe it's better or worse than the brave tome; that's okay. Perfect balance isn't necessary as long as things each have their role, rather than wholly or largely outclassing each other.

I was advocating the big ones, and I only want it to go "so far", I don't want wacky shit like BS.

That said, I like what bottlegnomes said too.

Awaiting an explanation for what issues you've encountered with Berwick Saga's system.

[CrashGordon94]

It's weird and silly, I don't like that kind of "difference"!

[I.M. Gei]

A word of advice, Crash: be more specific. "It's weird and silly" won't cut it with this crowd.

[Othin]

A word of advice, Crash: be more specific. "It's weird and silly" won't cut it with this crowd.

Indeed.

Crash, please name specific weapons and elaborate on what you find "weird" or "silly" about their effects, compared to weapons you prefer in the other games.

[Dark Sage]

Othin, don't bother arguing with Crash. He basically throws a temper tantrum whenever anybody does so and refuses to back up his statements with anything besides "I don't like it". It's a waste of your time, trust me.

For the record, I agree that weapon types do need to be differentiated in terms of effects. I think in this way, the DS FEs got it right. Swords, Lances, and Axes each had effective weapons for two types of enemies. There was some overlap (Wyrmslayer/Dragonpike, Halberd/Ridersbane, Armorslayer/Hammer) but the innate statistics of the weapon, combined with the different bonuses weapon rank gave depending on the weapon type, gave each weapon a nice niche. Sword users also had access to the Levin Sword.

FE5's magic swords were also neato. I'd like to see them make a good comeback.

[Othin]

Problem is, those differing stats and weapon rank bonuses don't mix well. In FE11/12, a Silver Sword with an A rank bonus has 15 Mt and 100 Hit. A Silver Lance with an A rank bonus has 15 Mt and 95 Hit. A Silver Axe with an A rank bonus has 14 Mt and 95 Hit.

[General Banzai]

Something I actually liked in FESD was that the higher your weapon level got, you got certain bonuses when using that weapon type. It helped balance swords out at least by making them weak in the beginning but better as you train with them. It wasn't perfectly balanced, however, and Axes definitely got the short end of the stick. Something like that system, only more balanced, would be a nice addition. It would also allow the player some degree of character customization without compromising story integrity. Say you have Franz join with a D in Swords and a D in Lances. You can choose to raise him in either; swords however have WTD against most of the enemies and are initially weak while lances have WTA but by the end of the game aren't much stronger than swords, and also less accurate.

Of course this only matters at all in a game where accuracy matters, and those games are annoying as shit because missing is never fun. So it would need tweaks.

[bottlegnomes]

I didn't say one gets a brave tome while others get nothing. What I mean is that the others can each get something other than a brave tome. Maybe it's better or worse than the brave tome; that's okay. Perfect balance isn't necessary as long as things each have their role, rather than wholly or largely outclassing each other.

Never said you did, just giving a reason for why crash might oppose it. Also never said I agreed or that it was a good argument. As for the second part, that's exactly what I suggested.

[CrashGordon94]

Crash, please name specific weapons and elaborate on what you find "weird" or "silly" about their effects, compared to weapons you prefer in the other games.

Simply, I don't think those things you mentioned about stuff likes Lances working only on horseback and getting powerful with movement and the three elements functioning in different ways sounded terrible. I really don't want them to go beyond Might/Hit/Crit/Weight, that's good and all they ever need to or should do.

[Othin]

Simply, I don't think those things you mentioned about stuff likes Lances working only on horseback and getting powerful with movement and the three elements functioning in different ways sounded terrible. I really don't want them to go beyond Might/Hit/Crit/Weight, that's good and all they ever need to or should do.

Do you not understand what "explanation" means?

Try again, using actual facts instead of words like "think", "sound", and their variations.

[dondon151]

Do you not understand what "explanation" means?

Try again, using actual facts instead of words like "think", "sound", and their variations.

I must warn you that Crash's perception of the world is limited to himself and "everyone else," and that he thinks "everyone else" should think and do as he wishes.

A rather sad state of mind, but amusing to observe.

Edited January 13, 2012 by dondon151

[Othin]

I must warn you that Crash's perception of the world is limited to himself and "everyone else," and that he thinks "everyone else" should think and do as he wishes.

A rather sad state of mind, but amusing to observe.

I shall consider myself warned.

Crash, a note: The weapons that work only on horseback are a small and specialized group within the larger "spears" weapon type, which corresponds more closely to the lances in other games. Most spears regardless get a small bonus to power on their first hit after moving for each space moved, and those small bonuses add up fast, which is good because spears are largely dependent on them.

So the result is simply that one weapon type is less effective on the enemy phase but more effective when used in certain situations, increasing viable strategies. In my experience, this increases relevant strategies and makes the difference between a character using spears and a character using anything else much more prominent than in other games, which I can only regard as a good thing. Can you explain any negative implications you are concerned about this having on gameplay, even as a well-balanced (usually) option?

[CrashGordon94]

Do you not understand what "explanation" means?

Try again, using actual facts instead of words like "think", "sound", and their variations.

Yes I do, but you're just being super pedantic, I happen to hold my positions based on my own opinions and this is a topic about what we want to see - our own personal views, those happen to be mine.

Crash, a note: The weapons that work only on horseback are a small and specialized group within the larger "spears" weapon type, which corresponds more closely to the lances in other games. Most spears regardless get a small bonus to power on their first hit after moving for each space moved, and those small bonuses add up fast, which is good because spears are largely dependent on them.

And I don't want that in my Fire Emblems, I hate the sound of that, I'd much rather have "Lances have middling Might, Hit and Weight ratins compared to Swords and Axes while serving roughly the same purpose", I don't want to see something weird and complicated like this that makes it completely different.

So the result is simply that one weapon type is less effective on the enemy phase but more effective when used in certain situations, increasing viable strategies. In my experience, this increases relevant strategies and makes the difference between a character using spears and a character using anything else much more prominent than in other games, which I can only regard as a good thing. Can you explain any negative implications you are concerned about this having on gameplay, even as a well-balanced (usually) option?

Becahse I don't want these "differences" because that would mean all characters being harder to balance and more difficult to use because they all function differently based on something that really should be a fairly minor detail and "relevant strategies" would seem to mean "really complicated crap because of these stupid weirdo weapons". I enjoy the Might/Hit/Weight/etc. differences without these special effects and I don't want that ruined because of some daft obsession with making everyone SPESHUL. Thankfully I don't think IS will ever try ideas like these so I'm safe!

[Snowy_One]

I think it's a bad idea to put differences between Iron/Steel/Silver weapons of the various types. Namely because the differences are either negligible (a small amount of hit difference between weapon types. 10 hit at most) or great (like MT, which can make one weapon-type horribly OP'ed). I think the three core weapons (iron/steel/silver) should be similar, but the possible variations varied greatly (like axes getting hammers, swords getting longswords, and so-forth).

[Celice]

Well, what about all of us who want wacky and distinct character units available to use? An in addition, the original caste won't be done away with, so you'd still be able to keep your mellow and predictable whatever it is you're wanting. They don't erase suddenly 'cause new things are added.

[Othin]

Crash, we as humans rarely just want things; we almost always want them for one or more reasons. (Even if those reasons are irrational.) You've brought up two reasons so far: A more complex system would be harder to balance, and it would be more difficult to use. For balance, I say the same thing as I said to bottlegnomes: Having a group of things balanced is less important than ensuring that they each have their own important roles. Even if some characters and weapon types become worse overall than others, if their own roles increase in importance in comparison to those of the better characters, the "worse" characters get even more reason to be used because they are no longer entirely eclipsed by the others. And indeed, establishing more clear, distinct roles is precisely what these changes do.

Your complaint about difficulty just strikes me as odd. Yes, it requires you to think more, to use more strategy. FE is a strategy game; that's what's supposed to happen. The alternative to difficulty and strategy is using options that work all the time without having to think or do anything - such as those Jagens you hate so much, or at least the most powerful ones. Simple weapons that are effective without difficulty and strategy are the Jagens of the equipment world, so I'm thoroughly confused as to how you can hate one but demand the other.

And what Celice said.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Othin

[eclipse]

Othin, it's Crash. If the world doesn't agree with him, then the world is wrong, and must be told this repeatedly until it agrees with him. In other words, while what you're doing is noble, it is a waste of time.

[Othin]

Othin, it's Crash. If the world doesn't agree with him, then the world is wrong, and must be told this repeatedly until it agrees with him. In other words, while what you're doing is noble, it is a waste of time.

So I've been hearing.

What, you think the laws of reality apply to me?

[Lord Raven]

I've got the popcorn if you want to continue this. I'm more than happy to share with anyone who wants some.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Mercenary Raven

[bottlegnomes]

Crash, we as humans rarely just want things; we almost always want them for one or more reasons. (Even if those reasons are irrational.) You've brought up two reasons so far: A more complex system would be harder to balance, and it would be more difficult to use. For balance, I say the same thing as I said to bottlegnomes: Having a group of things balanced is less important than ensuring that they each have their own important roles. Even if some characters and weapon types become worse overall than others, if their own roles increase in importance in comparison to those of the better characters, the "worse" characters get even more reason to be used because they are no longer entirely eclipsed by the others. And indeed, establishing more clear, distinct roles is precisely what these changes do.

Your complaint about difficulty just strikes me as odd. Yes, it requires you to think more, to use more strategy. FE is a strategy game; that's what's supposed to happen. The alternative to difficulty and strategy is using options that work all the time without having to think or do anything - such as those Jagens you hate so much, or at least the most powerful ones. Simple weapons that are effective without difficulty and strategy are the Jagens of the equipment world, so I'm thoroughly confused as to how you can hate one but demand the other.

And what Celice said.

You act like I actually disagree with you.

I've got the popcorn if you want to continue this. I'm more than happy to share with anyone who wants some.

Yes please. Watching internet arguments is always fun.

[Othin]

You act like I actually disagree with you.

I understand that that is not the case, and it was not my intention to imply that it is.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Othin

[bottlegnomes]

I understand that that is not the case, and it was not my intention to imply that it is.

Fair enough, my bad.

Anyway, I'd like to see some bigger scale battles, like 3-12 and 3-13 where there are a shitton of units on both sides, like 40-50, just starting, there'd also be reinforcements, but you control all of them. Most of them would be generic, like Glade's knights in the chapter he joins in, and would go away afterwards, but your units would be like the commanders. So like how the enemies generally tend to be grouped so there are a bunch of low level units and then one or two promoted/strong units. There wouldn't be a lot of these chapters, maybe like one or two.

Edited January 13, 2012 by bottlegnomes

[Anouleth]

Fair enough, my bad.

Anyway, I'd like to see some bigger scale battles, like 3-12 and 3-13 where there are a shitton of units on both sides, like 40-50, just starting, there'd also be reinforcements, but you control all of them. Most of them would be generic, like Glade's knights in the chapter he joins in, and would go away afterwards, but your units would be like the commanders. So like how the enemies generally tend to be grouped so there are a bunch of low level units and then one or two promoted/strong units. There wouldn't be a lot of these chapters, maybe like one or two.

I don't know, I think that 6-12 units is a pretty happy medium. I wouldn't want to have to control tons and tons of units, because then you have to keep track of so much...

It's like... have you ever played Sacred Contention? It's a hack where you get to control either all FE7 characters or all FE8 characters: and while I fully understand that SC isn't supposed to be a "proper hack" and more of a "just for fun" thing, having to direct 50 units at once gets old pretty damn quickly.

That being said, having extra, generic units is a neat idea. For example, in earlygame, the converse problem exists: the game just isn't really that interesting when you just have two or three units. And while that's fine for a firsttime player who's just getting into it, perhaps it could be a way to "even out" the level of complexity over the course of the game in Hard Mode. Or perhaps, if you can't, or don't want to fill a deployment slot with a unit, the game will automatically fill it with a generic unit.

[bottlegnomes]

I don't know, I think that 6-12 units is a pretty happy medium. I wouldn't want to have to control tons and tons of units, because then you have to keep track of so much...

It's like... have you ever played Sacred Contention? It's a hack where you get to control either all FE7 characters or all FE8 characters: and while I fully understand that SC isn't supposed to be a "proper hack" and more of a "just for fun" thing, having to direct 50 units at once gets old pretty damn quickly.

Yeah, I was kinda thinking the same thing. I was thinking it'd be a kill the boss chapter since it'd be hell for a chapter like that to be a rout. Plus, a lot of the units are meant to die, like in a real battle, and you probably won't care since they're generic (though there could and probably would be a reward for keeping more alive) so it would thin out pretty quickly so by the end of the battle it'd basically be your units left with a few others.

That being said, having extra, generic units is a neat idea. For example, in earlygame, the converse problem exists: the game just isn't really that interesting when you just have two or three units. And while that's fine for a firsttime player who's just getting into it, perhaps it could be a way to "even out" the level of complexity over the course of the game in Hard Mode. Or perhaps, if you can't, or don't want to fill a deployment slot with a unit, the game will automatically fill it with a generic unit.

Yeah, they could kinda be some random soldiers that accompany you and have very poor growths but decent bases so you can use them early on but later on they'll likely be replaced by real characters. For the last part, isn't that kind of what FE11 and 12 did with generics?