Its too bad there's still no archer lord

[Othin]

A "discussion with a reasonably malleable setting" is not the kind of thing I'm expecting to find out there. And even then, seeing how people tend to get into arguments when they're talking about things utterly unimportant, I can only guess where malleability would lead(not particularly reffering to SF).

So yes, I'm quite fine with the latter, personally.

Malleability is precisely the thing that allows discussions like this one and the "Mechanics that you want" thread to function. Your standpoint has been that a suggestion would never work because recent games have had Battle Saves (which is largely a non sequitur, but that's hardly relevant to the current point), but what about a suggestion that Battle Saves be removed from future games, either in isolation or paired with the previous suggestion? Would you also dismiss that one, simply because Battle Saves were present in the recent games, even in spite of their absence from FE5-9? For that is what you are doing by dismissing the possibility without it being explicitly suggested. That would be as absurd as dismissing a suggestion for Rescuing to be brought back simply because 11 and 12 did not have any stat to correspond to Bld or Con.

Thinking that the series can never change more than the tiniest increment is the mindset that has set the FE series in the death spiral it has been in ever since Kaga left.

[Cysx]

Malleability is precisely the thing that allows discussions like this one and the "Mechanics that you want" thread to function. Your standpoint has been that a suggestion would never work because recent games have had Battle Saves (which is largely a non sequitur, but that's hardly relevant to the current point), but what about a suggestion that Battle Saves be removed from future games, either in isolation or paired with the previous suggestion? Would you also dismiss that one, simply because Battle Saves were present in the recent games, even in spite of their absence from FE5-9? For that is what you are doing by dismissing the possibility without it being explicitly suggested. That would be as absurd as dismissing a suggestion for Rescuing to be brought back simply because 11 and 12 did not have any stat to correspond to Bld or Con.

Thinking that the series can never change more than the tiniest increment is the mindset that has set the FE series in the death spiral it has been in ever since Kaga left.

Ok, guess I misunderstood then. Your point stands, as I have no proof that battle saves will end up being in the next FE.

So, to fix my mistake, a growth rate on range for archers only would imply the possibility to have a handful of archers clearing the whole game for you(because even an 1% growth rate is still 1% chance of +1 range every level). I have argued how giving them 3-range at the beginning would be a mistake, I can hardly see how giving them the possibility of having even more would be any better. Range is probably the worst stat in the game to put a growth rate onto, as even getting +1 even once trough all 38 levels up a basic level 1 unit gets would be an incredible blessing, and make the unit that much above the others. It's even worse than move, as in the end, your units average move in any FE game would be around 7, so getting +1 is increasing an unit's move by roughly 14%. Range's average, though, is around 1,5(0+ average weapon's range). So increasing it by one single point would mean getting a 66% average upgrade. +14% average move doesn't equal +66% average range, ever. And we saw how 14% average move was incredibly good in FE5. Then, making it class-exclusive would make it even worse.

Finally, I don't think fixing archer's problem can go through giving them an extremely low growth on such an important stat, as growth are largely abusable by those wo whant to(effectively making low turncounts completely uninteresting to watch), and those who don't want to abuse them would end up with archers as bad as always.

I could have told that to him. Fact is, though, in my view it seemed obvious that nobody would answer him(and nobody else did in the end, but that could be because of me), that I did; not saying that's what everybody else should do, that's just how I, personally, act. And it didn't seem polite to mash such a wall of text on the head of somebody who was simply making a suggestion. So battle saves seemed good enough in this case. Well, they still do.

Edited November 16, 2011 by Cysx

[Dunal]

Archers tend to be bad because their base stats are awful (Or Leonardo who's growths are the problem). That's really all there is to it. People are over-exaggerating about the whole 2 range business. Units such as Klein or Shinon are fine, because they have stats that are worth a damn; above all else, bows aren't awful (flying units or simply map design such as FE6 CH12). IS should just stop giving us archers that are only useful for early chip damage. Actual offense please.

And then there's ballista, which IS have no idea what to do with. They just place them in every FE like some kind of novelty without even considering making them an actual meaningful mechanic. Just let us buy them at the base panel or preparation screen or something so it doesn't feel like archers have a unique gimmick that are just randomly placed and often enemy only. Then maybe archers can have something unique going for them.

Or bows could receive a WTA when attacking anything at two range, and WTD at close range. More defense against Javalin/Hand Axe units and mages + extra offense against anything else. A bigger penalty for not defending them but that's never been difficult.

[Lux Aeterna]

Super late, but other than crossbows, you have to consider how practical a bow at close range would be.

Okay, so there's the double bow, which is the best bow, at least in Radiant Dawn. That makes sense, considering its craftwork--and in a sense, anyone good enough to use that bow should be fast enough to nock and shoot before they get shanked.

I've used a bow before... and it's a really bad idea to shoot any closer than ten yards, for a few reasons.

1. There's the chance that your target could reach you before you shoot (unless you're quick, hence the double bow example)

2. A close range actually makes it very hit or miss. The fact that you're closer means that any movement you make with your bow will change the place where the arrow will hit far more drastically than if you were at a rather standard 20 yards. In a sense, this means there's a "perfect shooting distance"--where you're far enough to get a good chance for precision, but not too far that the shot becomes a reach.

3. There's a minute chance arrows can ricochet off certain things. You don't want to be close when that happens, for obvious reasons.

And if you were to induce shooting from a range of 1 - 2, you'd have to make the bows weaker, because a class like an archer or a sniper that could be at melee range would be overpowered. With the magic classes it makes sense--they are specifically designed to be glass cannons. But archers are more durable, and thus they could tank it out and take enemies from all sides.

One possible solution is programming the S rank in bows to allow someone to shoot at a range of one, sort of like the marksman class allows one to shoot at the range of three. It would make the shot more powerful because it would be closer range, but perhaps have less accuracy. Though, weapon exp levels up really quickly, so one might have to lengthen the leveling up weapons process.

There is a lot people could do with weapons, such as what DLuna suggested, but the main problem is fire emblem isn't geared towards hardcore players who like to take into account all strategic things. It's a strategy game, but not one like Empire Earth or something like that.

Maybe I'm just silly for asking for realism in Fire Emblem.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Lux Aeterna

[BwdYeti]

Or bows could receive a WTA when attacking anything at two range, and WTD at close range. More defense against Javalin/Hand Axe units and mages + extra offense against anything else. A bigger penalty for not defending them but that's never been difficult.

This is really a great solution; I've been trying it out in playtesting FE7x and right now it's looking good enough to keep. It helps reinforce Archers in their main goal of providing extra damage on the player phase, making that damage easier to cause with the hit and atk bonus. Also Archers become the best units for attacking enemy mages or javelin/throw axe users, giving them a good niche use. Plus it also helps against immobile bosses, which it nice but not a huge thing. It has the obvious downside that when they actually get attacked up close it'll be that much more dangerous, but it just means that they have to be used strategically and you have to be more aggressive about not letting them get hit up close than normal, and then it won't come up much.

Also it works well when coupled with 1-2 or 2-3 range bows. For 1-2 range it means they're be far worse up close than at range so attacking from range is still preferable, and for 2-3 you have to choose between a powerful attack at 2 range, putting them closer to the enemy and blocking a tile another unit could use, or attacking from 3 range with slightly lower stats but where no one can counter (except other longbow users of course :R ).

[CrashGordon94]

And if you were to induce shooting from a range of 1 - 2, you'd have to make the bows weaker, because a class like an archer or a sniper that could be at melee range would be overpowered. With the magic classes it makes sense--they are specifically designed to be glass cannons. But archers are more durable, and thus they could tank it out and take enemies from all sides.

This actually is a very good idea IMO, if I made an FE I'd have "normal" 1-2 range Bows (perhaps in addition to Crossbows) but they'd be really weak - one idea being to give the Short Bow (in this case it'd be an E Rank weapon, like a Javelin or Hand Axe) the Might of a Slim Sword or maybe a little less than an Iron Sword and the Hit of a Hand Axe or maybe a little less than a Steel Axe.

And I love DLuna's idea too, it's simple enough to be bearable for a casual player while having plenty of strategy.

[Anouleth]

ITT: People forget that there have been good mono bow users who didn't need 1 range weaponry.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Anouleth

[CrashGordon94]

It'd still be a nice option anyway. If 1-range people can have 2-range then 2-range people can have 1-range.

[Othin]

We should not think of 1 range, 2 range, or 1-2 range as the birthright of all characters. Such thinking only destroys an important part of their potential to take on different roles.

[CrashGordon94]

Tough, having the option is handy and I really don't want to hear your special snowflake shit again!

[Othin]

Well that's just too bad for you. Having different characters do different things instead of all being clones of each other is also nice to have.

Surely you're self-aware enough to realize the absurdity of telling me "tough" when I say something and then acting like I might give a shit about what you don't want to hear me saying?

[CrashGordon94]

Except that that alone is not enough to make them "clones". That's a complete strawman just because I (and quite a number of other people) just want more options for more units.

[Othin]

Except that that alone is not enough to make them "clones". That's a complete strawman just because I (and quite a number of other people) just want more options for more units.

Alone? No, of course not. But in order to not be clones, no matter how many options the characters have, some important options need to be different. Changing or removing options for fighting at certain ranges for some characters is one effective way to do that. Without that, the characters have to establish their differences in other ways, which they haven't been too stellar at managing.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Othin

[Lightli]

In my opinion, an archer lord would, if executed poorly, result in the worst lord in the series. Being locked to 2-range is just way too much of a drawback.

Now if it was a lord that could use (insert weapon type here) and bows from the start, then it would probably work out just fine.

[CrashGordon94]

...Like being considerably more effect at one range than the other? That's what I (and many others) seem to be suggesting.

[Othin]

...Like being considerably more effect at one range than the other? That's what I (and many others) seem to be suggesting.

Depends on how considerable it is.

In what you are suggesting, what exactly will ranged fighters be able to accomplish at range 2 that other characters cannot?

Edited January 27, 2012 by Othin

[dondon151]

The problem with giving bows 1 range (even with WTD) is that they're still just way too good. Compare an Iron Bow to a Hand Axe - even with WTD, the Iron Bow would still have about as much hit as the Hand Axe, and you can actually improve the Iron Bow substantially (whereas Hand Axe can really only be improved to a Tomahawk, and those come late and are not common).

If the goal is to nerf bows at 1 range, you're going to have to make them significantly weaker than Hand Axes or Javelins. But if you make them that weak, you might as well not give bows 1 range at all.

Edited January 27, 2012 by dondon151

[CrashGordon94]

Othin, very significant and doing considerably more damage considerably more accurately.

Dondon, I don't suggest giving ALL Bows 1-range, I just meant having SOME 1-2 range Bows, and they COULD be weaker than Hand Axes/Javelins. Plus, it wouldn't make them pointless either, Hand Axes and Javelins apparently aren't pointless in FE12 even though they're really weak there.

[Othin]

Othin, very significant and doing considerably more damage considerably more accurately.

That's not an accomplishment.

How often should that extra damage and accuracy make the difference between three-rounding an enemy and two-rounding an enemy, or two-rounding an enemy and one-rounding an enemy? That is an accomplishment. More accuracy and more damage won't accomplish anything if the characters one-round everything with 100% accuracy regardless; that's not a significant difference at all.

[CrashGordon94]

Fine then, have it do that. I just think you're being really picky about this. :/

[Ciarre]

Maybe they could make it so that archers can hit enemies with their bow by swinging it at one range. Or stabbing with an arrow.

[Othin]

Fine then, have it do that. I just think you're being really picky about this. :/

That wasn't an answer; that was a question.

I have to be picky because you're talking about ideals that can be incongruous with possible realities.

[CrashGordon94]

No you don't, you really don't. The discussion seemed to be doing fine without that element.

[Othin]

The discussion was ignoring reality without that element.

Let's look at FE12's weapons, since those are supposed to be the best balanced. A Javelin has 3 Mt and 70 Hit. A Steel Bow has 8 Mt and 80 Hit. So at range 2, the Steel Bow has +5 Mt and +10 Hit to make up for its lack of melee. Sounds good, right? It's very plausible that that could make a difference in how long it takes to kill an enemy.

Now let's say the Javelin user has ~5 more Str than the Steel Bow user, for whatever reason. That's not too strange of a situation; there are plenty of ways it can happen. In that case, the Javelin user won't often take longer to kill things than the Steel Bow user at all. As a result, the bow's advantage is largely gone, unless the bow user upgrades all the way to Silver Bows. These small statistical differences can matter sometimes, but they can disappear so easily; a level lead or luck with stat gains can eclipse the relevance of other factors.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Othin

[CrashGordon94]

Then just give the Archer or other Bow user more STR, simple! Also, you ignored Hit.

And it wasn't "ignoring reality", we just weren't pulling special snowflake crap like you always do, not everything has to be unique and special, y'know.