If Radiant Dawn Got a Remake

[Anouleth]

The problem with just buffing growths/bases is that since str/spd/def are basically the only important stats, if you want to balance the characters they all end up with similar builds. A character with a stat spread like Leo/Astrid/Sigrun/Ilyana where they have poor str/spd/def should all be usable, but because the stats and classes aren't equal (let's ignore the fact that some of those listed also have availability problems) they just end up crap.

I really don't see how you'd make them equal. One point of HP is never going to equal a point of defense, unless you make enemies so strong that all your characters are 2HKOed or 3HKOed, like in FE12. But that also reduces the value of luck, since avoid-based durability is only useful over many rounds of combat because you can spread risk. The only thing that you could really do is reduce the ability to forge weapons, but the highest characters on the tier list are already high strength units who don't get much out of forges, like Haar, Titania, Ike, and Volug. Maybe remove the ability to forge hit? Rather inelegant, I guess. Alternatively, you could use the FE12 critical formula so that more skill would be useful for increasing crit chances, but we already have something very similar with the presence of skill-based mastery skills, and you don't think skill is valuable enough now. Plus, it's impossible to make these stats valuable in a vacuum. One point of skill can very well be more valuable than a point of strength, depending on the situation. It just so happens that the most common situation in FE10 is that you have a ton of units with outrageously high skill stats wielding 100 hit forges with the benefit of authority stars. It would be like saying that speed is a useless stat in FE8 because almost everyone in the game is fast enough to double common enemy types.

And to be honest, how could you possibly make Astrid's or Sigrun's stat spread usable? Good Luck and good RES, and that's it, with atrocious stats in every other department. It's one thing to suggest that the luck stat should be more useful, but how could you possibly make that stat spread good?

The strategy in FE should come from determining how to beat the chapter, not figuring out what makes a unit good or bad and then using said good units to break the game (because it obviously takes so much strategy to figure out how to have Haar or Ike solo the game, which requires only slightly more effort than a-moving them across the map) or using the bad units to make a challenge on yourself.

And there is an enormous amount of that kind of strategy in this game: in fact, the game is almost entirely focussed on that kind of strategy rather than unit selection, since a lot of the time, you're forced to use certain units. In that sense, the only thing you need to do is nerf the very best characters and make some of the obviously bad lower tier characters like Danved or Leonardo better.

What I DO care about, though, is not to have the game be a pain in the ass to beat because I just stuffed my team with low tiers and because of that I either have to fill the rest of the slots with the best units in the game or chapters just become annoying as hell. Ever tried using Edward in DB maps on HM? I know you do, you like Edward. But notice how you can't use Edward AND Leo AND Meg simultaneously?

Yes, and I've already said that the usability of lower tier characters should be improved. But I don't think that as you say, it would be necessarily to completely overhaul the game and rewrite the mechanics from the ground up so that one point of SKL is equal to one point of STR in all situations.

Casual players will see noticeable differences in difficulty if they chose good characters over crappy ones like Pelleas/etc., and THAT is what needs to be dealt with. Why should these players be punished in difficulty of the game because they want to use certain characters?

Yet casual players regularly hype the everloving shit out of Pelleas, and Ilyana, and Soren. So your casual assertion has no basis in reality.

Some characters being better or worse is obvious, I think what smash suggests (and something that I would suggest too) would just be to try and close the gap as much as possible. It's not a problem if there are characters that are generally more useful than the alternatives, the problem is when the gap is huge or the lower one can't be reasonably argued over the better one.

Yeah, and I agree with that, but the implication of his statement is that characters should be perfectly balanced. As I have already said, I think that ultimately all that's needed is buffing the Lower Mid and lower characters and nerfing the very best characters rather than a total overhaul.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Anouleth

[Progenitus]

I really don't see how you'd make them equal. One point of HP is never going to equal a point of defense, unless you make enemies so strong that all your characters are 2HKOed or 3HKOed, like in FE12. But that also reduces the value of luck, since avoid-based durability is only useful over many rounds of combat because you can spread risk. The only thing that you could really do is reduce the ability to forge weapons, but the highest characters on the tier list are already high strength units who don't get much out of forges, like Haar, Titania, Ike, and Volug. Maybe remove the ability to forge hit? Rather inelegant, I guess. Alternatively, you could use the FE12 critical formula so that more skill would be useful for increasing crit chances, but we already have something very similar with the presence of skill-based mastery skills, and you don't think skill is valuable enough now. Plus, it's impossible to make these stats valuable in a vacuum. One point of skill can very well be more valuable than a point of strength, depending on the situation. It just so happens that the most common situation in FE10 is that you have a ton of units with outrageously high skill stats wielding 100 hit forges with the benefit of authority stars. It would be like saying that speed is a useless stat in FE8 because almost everyone in the game is fast enough to double common enemy types.

HP, sure.

The other stats (except I suppose mag on physical units and str on magical units)? They can be worked around. They don't have to be exactly equal; for example res can still be a weak stat, but it shouldn't "res is almost completely worthless" like it is right now.

Forging hit is fine, but the problem is each "step" in forging hit is +5 (compare that to att which is only +1), which right now is equivalent to 2.5 skl, so it's a combination of both forging hit increases by too much and skl doesn't increase hit by enough. If it was, say, forging hit was +3 per level and skl gave +3 hit per point it would be a bit better.

(note: forging crit as +3 per step is fine due to how crit works).

And to be honest, how could you possibly make Astrid's or Sigrun's stat spread usable? Good Luck and good RES, and that's it, with atrocious stats in every other department. It's one thing to suggest that the luck stat should be more useful, but how could you possibly make that stat spread good?

That's the point. Why should units like Astrid and Sigrun be bad when they excel in certain stats and are poor in others? I mean look at a dude like Zihark; huge skl and spd and he's pretty much crap in the others, yet he's fine because spd is so bloody overpowered. Mia is pretty much the same thing except with a bit better str/def, but relative to the other GMs they're still bad. Why is it okay for someone like Zihark or Mia to be lopsided but not someone like Astrid/Sigrun/Ilyana/etc.?

And there is an enormous amount of that kind of strategy in this game: in fact, the game is almost entirely focussed on that kind of strategy rather than unit selection, since a lot of the time, you're forced to use certain units.

And how is this a good thing?

Yes, and I've already said that the usability of lower tier characters should be improved. But I don't think that as you say, it would be necessarily to completely overhaul the game and rewrite the mechanics from the ground up so that one point of SKL is equal to one point of STR in all situations.

Yeah, and I agree with that, but the implication of his statement is that characters should be perfectly balanced. As I have already said, I think that ultimately all that's needed is buffing the Lower Mid and lower characters and nerfing the very best characters rather than a total overhaul.

It would require a huge overhaul unless you want every character to have the same stat spreads.

Yet casual players regularly hype the everloving shit out of Pelleas, and Ilyana, and Soren. So your casual assertion has no basis in reality.

Casual players include more than just bad players that don't understand the mechanics of the game (the kind who would hype crappy units).

Go poll a random FE board and ask them to rank characters based on how useful they are and you'll see that the majority of players do know what makes a unit good or bad even if they don't participate in debates or tiers. They won't be able to list the units from best to worst with 100% accuracy, but they will know things like "Haar is a badass while Fiona sucks ass, Oscar is decent", etc. Here's an example...

http://www.neoseeker.com/forums/32359/t1639262-character-ratings-part-treux-finished-list-on-first-post/

While I did vote for the rankings it didn't influence it that much, since my votes were generally the same as the general consensus. I would say that units that have a margin of error of 1-2 points are accurate enough, so there are only a couple of units that I disagreed with (and likewise I bet you would find less than 10 characters you would say are off by more than 1-2 points).

There are also other factors which could distort a player's perception of a unit; for example if he had a good transfer for Soren, he becomes usable.

And really, of the units you listed, only Soren is really hyped from what I have seen. Most players realize that Pelleas and Ilyana are bad.

EDIT: I just remembered that a very similar debate happened between you and me (with a few other people), so I'm going to cut it from here and just link to that topic.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/932999-fire-emblem-radiant-dawn/58197164

Edited October 14, 2011 by smash fanatic

[Anouleth]

HP, sure.

The other stats (except I suppose mag on physical units and str on magical units)? They can be worked around. They don't have to be exactly equal; for example res can still be a weak stat, but it shouldn't "res is almost completely worthless" like it is right now.

The only way to do that is increase the number of magic-using enemies in the game.

Forging hit is fine, but the problem is each "step" in forging hit is +5 (compare that to att which is only +1), which right now is equivalent to 2.5 skl, so it's a combination of both forging hit increases by too much and skl doesn't increase hit by enough. If it was, say, forging hit was +3 per level and skl gave +3 hit per point it would be a bit better.

(note: forging crit as +3 per step is fine due to how crit works).

That's true. It's especially egregious in FE11 where you can make up a 10 skill lead just with a bit of forging.

That's the point. Why should units like Astrid and Sigrun be bad when they excel in certain stats and are poor in others? I mean look at a dude like Zihark; huge skl and spd and he's pretty much crap in the others, yet he's fine because spd is so bloody overpowered. Mia is pretty much the same thing except with a bit better str/def, but relative to the other GMs they're still bad. Why is it okay for someone like Zihark or Mia to be lopsided but not someone like Astrid/Sigrun/Ilyana/etc.?

Zihark also boasts good base stats and is easily BEXPable. Astrid is not in such a fortuitious area: her base stats are atrocious, she can't BEXP for a very long time, and her raw availability is low. Zihark is not just faster than Sigrun but with worse luck. He's also significantly stronger and has more time to use BEXP, coupled with far greater availability. It's not hard for Zihark to have a four point strength lead over Sigrun and a 6 point lead in skill and speed. True, she wins in durability and movement, but durability and movement can only do so much, and she doesn't even win durability in terms of supports. Unless you can somehow turn her luck lead into offense, or give enemies so much crit that Zihark is at risk of death (hint: this is a terrible idea), then lots of luck is not going to be useful.

It would require a huge overhaul unless you want every character to have the same stat spreads.

It would require you to redefine completely what Luck does, to the point where the stat would not be recognisable. You might as well remove Luck completely from the game and create a new 8th stat in it's place.

Casual players include more than just bad players that don't understand the mechanics of the game (the kind who would hype crappy units).

Go poll a random FE board and ask them to rank characters based on how useful they are and you'll see that the majority of players do know what makes a unit good or bad even if they don't participate in debates or tiers. They won't be able to list the units from best to worst with 100% accuracy, but they will know things like "Haar is a badass while Fiona sucks ass, Oscar is decent", etc. Here's an example...

I guess that's true, but I still don't think that the typical FE player is really as bothered by the lack of balance as the "hardcore" players often seem to be. I think that if the majority of players want to use character X, they'd just play on a more lenient difficulty setting.