Non-Existent Member Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Skills can be learned by leveling up? Sweet! just like in TearRing Saga. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arvilino Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Above was just an example, as said. You could remove effectiveness from Generic magicks and add specific spells for effectiveness if that makes people happy. The way I had it set up was to have mages as more of a Utility unit than an offensive unit, packing utility counters to certain types of units, and having the ability to deal with those easily. I think the thing is that every Mage would be able to deal with every mounted,armour and flying unit too easily. As a close comparison your system allows any Mage to have the same effectiveness coverage as Excalibur and Thani on the same character. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Othin Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) Above was just an example, as said. You could remove effectiveness from Generic magicks and add specific spells for effectiveness if that makes people happy. The way I had it set up was to have mages as more of a Utility unit than an offensive unit, packing utility counters to certain types of units, and having the ability to deal with those easily. How about a better example? Fire Mt: 4 Hit: 90 Crit: 0 Uses: 40 Range: 1-2 Rank: E Thunder Mt: 6 Hit: 65 Crit: 5 Uses: 35 Rank: E Range: 1-2 Effect: Bonus damage against dragons Elfire Mt: 9 Hit: 60 Crit: 0 Uses: 30 Range: 1-2 Rank: E Wind Mt: 2 Hit: 70 Crit: 0 Uses: 60 Range: 1-2 Rank: D Effect: 2 consecutive hits, bonus damage against flying foes Blizzard Mt: 5 Hit: 80 Crit: 0 Uses: 25 Range: 1-2 Rank: D Effect: Cancels enemy counterattack on contact Elthunder Mt: 12 Hit: 50 Crit: 10 Uses: 25 Range: 1-2 Rank: C Effect: Bonus damage against dragons Elwind Mt: 5 Hit: 60 Crit: 0 Uses: 40 Range: 1-2 Rank: C Effect: 2 consecutive hits, bonus damage against flying foes Lightning Mt: 9 Hit: 70 Crit: 5 Uses: 25 Range: 1-2 Rank: C Effect: Bonus damage against monsters Worm Mt: 10 Hit: 65 Crit: 0 Uses: 25 Range: 1-3 Rank: C The lower ranks should suffice for now, although I could give the upper ranks a shot if anyone cares. Regardless, it's just not as good as the possibility of having the same spells but with specialized mages like in TRS/BS. There is much, much more that can be done with such a system. Edited March 16, 2012 by Othin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ether Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) Then we get into the issue of taking away that effectiveness, and we get people bawwing over the fact that mages don't get effective weapons. If we spread effective weapons about, suddenly Mage1 can't due fuck all to Pegs because he isn't a Wind mage. Physical weapons have also been known to get effective coverage on multiple unit types per weapon type. Perhaps a specific Flyer-slaying tome(such as Aircaliber) and a Mount-slayer, without the armour effective weapon? @Othin: You realize that any mage worth his salt will utterly demolish basically anything but massive Res tanks with that ridiculous 60 use Elwind, right? I hate to see what you will do with higher ranks, will Arcwind have 80 uses and hit 4 times, 8 with doubling? Edited March 16, 2012 by Ether Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Othin Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) You see anyone complaining about that in the FE1/2/4/6/7/8/11, where effective magic was restricted or nonexistent? Didn't think so. The wind spells were based on a somewhat different system that in retrospect doesn't translate as well as I thought, now that you mention it. Two hits for all, then. Edited March 16, 2012 by Othin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ether Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Actually, yes, I have. People go on and on about how Physical weapons get all these specialty weapons, and how it's unfair to mages. It's stupid because they already get permanent 1-2 range with better hit than hand weapons that hit Res, but I still tried to cater to it, regardless. I removed the generic effectiveness from the above system by the way, there is now a single horse-slaying and a single Flier-slaying tome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arch Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) Everyone in this ridiculous magic argument needs to get off the computer, go smoke a cigar, have a glass of wine, and just cool their goddamned jets. Fuck it. Let's bring back weapon proficiency as a numeric stat, merge all the physical weapons into one group, and merge all the magic too. Just for you, Crash. Edited March 16, 2012 by Arch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Othin Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) Actually, yes, I have. People go on and on about how Physical weapons get all these specialty weapons, and how it's unfair to mages. It's stupid because they already get permanent 1-2 range with better hit than hand weapons that hit Res, but I still tried to cater to it, regardless. I removed the generic effectiveness from the above system by the way, there is now a single horse-slaying and a single Flier-slaying tome. I'm sure any complaints are more based on a wish for magic to just have flashy, special weapons in general. Effective weapons can be one way to go about that - certainly, it wouldn't be so difficult to give one effective weapon to each magic type, like was done with weapons in FE10. However, there are other ways as well, as I made an effort to demonstrate with some effects borrowed from TRS and BS. In particular, I doubt anyone would be complaining about magic if it had area attacks like in TRS. Edited March 16, 2012 by Othin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anouleth Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 AoE effects on magic don't seem very useful, however, especially if it comes at a cost like reduced accuracy and attack power. Anyway, I like the Dark/Light split, but the Wind/Fire/Thunder split seems really superfluous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Othin Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) http://serenesforest.net/ts/magic.htm http://serenesforest.net/ts/magic2.htm I assure you, they're quite effective. Worth noting that the descriptions are misleading. 5 or 9 refers to the area hit: 5 in a cross shape or 9 in a square. Edited March 16, 2012 by Othin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anouleth Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 http://serenesforest.net/ts/magic.htm http://serenesforest.net/ts/magic2.htm I assure you, they're quite effective. Worth noting that the descriptions are misleading. 5 or 9 refers to the area hit: 5 in a cross shape or 9 in a square. Oh, okay. I got the impression that it dealt 5 or 9 damage to adjacent units... which just makes them sound like shitty Onagers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Othin Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) That was my first impression, as well. Tried to prod them into clearing up the descriptions once I figured it out, but no luck so far. Edited March 16, 2012 by Othin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashGordon94 Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Care to explain why? Because that's not a good differentiation for DIFFERENT WEAPON TYPES! You don't merge Axes/Lances/Swords and then say it's okay because that wouldn't be good enough, neither is this! That's different. No, it's not, it's a good gameplay thign that wasn't in the original. Cut out the rest of this part because it's using stupid lore logic instead of the relevant gameplay stuff. You're saying magic should be different types for variety but you also think armors and regular infantry should have the same movement, reducing variety and also not making sense logically. Uhhh, no. One is opposing the needless and stupid merging of three distinct weapon types and the other is wanting to remove a stupid and unnecessary weakness from Armor Knights. They have nothing in common! As an example, what if Magic was all put into a single 'Tomes' weapon rank, and the weapons available were as follows: [snipped bullshit] That would suck horribly, put it into five distinct categories and we're getting somewhere. I don't see why this isn't preferable to having the exact same thing, just split between multiple weapon types, and having you wish your mage could do something aside from the single thing it's archetype calls for. Wish your Thunder mage had more Hit against those High Evd enemies? Too bad. Italics: The same reason we split the physical weapon triange. @Bold: You could make that complain with any class that's locked to one thing. "Wish your Myrmidon wasn't reamed by Lance users? Too bad.", "Wish your Pirate had a reasonable chance to hit Swordies? Too bad>" and yet those remain good ideas, magic needs to be completely split for the exact same reasons! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arvilino Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) Because that's not a good differentiation for DIFFERENT WEAPON TYPES! You don't merge Axes/Lances/Swords and then say it's okay because that wouldn't be good enough, neither is this! Sages or any character with the "Mage" class with no Fire/Thunder/Wind prefixes in the split Anima ranks usually have ranks in all of the tomes so why would it even matter in this case? Since I'd say the different types(except perhaps light and Dark) don't really need separate ranks when atleast 3(depending on the game) of them feature exclusively on the same classes(Mage/Sage). Edited March 16, 2012 by arvilino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashGordon94 Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Sages or any character with the "Mage" class with no Fire/Thunder/Wind prefixes in the split Anima ranks usually have ranks in all of the tomes so why would it even matter in this case? Since I'd say the different types(except perhaps light and Dark) don't really need separate ranks when atleast 3(depending on the game) of them feature exclusively on the same classes(Mage/Sage). And that's no reason to merge them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Othin Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Sages or any character with the "Mage" class with no Fire/Thunder/Wind prefixes in the split Anima ranks usually have ranks in all of the tomes so why would it even matter in this case? Since I'd say the different types(except perhaps light and Dark) don't really need separate ranks when atleast 3(depending on the game) of them feature exclusively on the same classes(Mage/Sage). Not necessarily the case, as TRS and BS demonstrate using staggered access to the elements. However, those both came at the expense of having Light and Dark as as prominent of playable weapon types, so the result was still not much more notable. Better than having so much focus on such a typically terrible weapon type as Light, though. But overall, the result is, it never really gets to be more than three weapon types. It just gets rearranged. So merging them into a smaller set of three is acceptable, as long as they're all actually good. (Unlike Light every time this has been tried.) So as long as they don't fuck up Light, I couldn't complain about a GBA-style triangle. I sure as hell will complain if it's an Archanea-style single weapon type, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marth.25 Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 i was wondering if anyone could clarify whats happening with the support conversations(as of the latest famitsu)this has probably been covered but i think that i have missed it. as i do not speak japanese i was wondering if anyone could creat a tranlated version? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEnd Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 i was wondering if anyone could clarify whats happening with the support conversations(as of the latest famitsu)this has probably been covered but i think that i have missed it. as i do not speak japanese i was wondering if anyone could creat a tranlated version? I'm too lazy to translate it word-by-word, but you can probably expect FE9's system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marth.25 Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 I'm too lazy to translate it word-by-word, but you can probably expect FE9's system. could you mabye tell what that was? ( sorry im just a bit ignorant...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEnd Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 could you mabye tell what that was? ( sorry im just a bit ignorant...) Support convos during base preparations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marth.25 Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Support convos during base preparations. aw. what?...i really like sacred stoneses version.. hopefully both.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Othin Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 More important, it grew based on deployment in the same maps rather than requiring the characters to be glued to one another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewjeo Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Because that's not a good differentiation for DIFFERENT WEAPON TYPES! You don't merge Axes/Lances/Swords and then say it's okay because that wouldn't be good enough, neither is this! First off, fusing axes/lances/swords doesn't make sense. Besides that, axe-only fighters are much more different from sword-only myrmidons than dark magic users typically are from light magic users. No, it's not, it's a good gameplay thign that wasn't in the original. Cut out the rest of this part because it's using stupid lore logic instead of the relevant gameplay stuff. Way to cut out all of my reasoning and insist things are one way when I've explained why they aren't. I'm not going to repeat myself when you just keep ignoring it and insisting you're right without actually backing up your claims with anything other than your opinion that it is necessary to have a horde of different magic types. Italics: The same reason we split the physical weapon triange. @Bold: You could make that complain with any class that's locked to one thing. "Wish your Myrmidon wasn't reamed by Lance users? Too bad.", "Wish your Pirate had a reasonable chance to hit Swordies? Too bad>" and yet those remain good ideas, magic needs to be completely split for the exact same reasons! The problem is that the magic triangle almost never matters. Magic users are very rare compared with sword/lance/axe users and typically you don't go after them with your own magic users anyways. The magic triangle may as well not exist in most games. If IS actually made anima/light/dark users as common as lance/sword/axe users, then I would say that there really needs to be a magic triangle. aw. what?...i really like sacred stoneses version.. hopefully both.. The problem with that system is that you have to go out of your way to make supports grow. Even fast supports can take 60+ turns right next to each other to get to A rank compared to needing to be deployed in the same chapter 12 times (but not necessarily be near anyone) to reach A with the PoR system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashGordon94 Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 First off, fusing axes/lances/swords doesn't make sense. Neither does merging Fire/Thunder/Wind. It's the exact same thing. Besides that, axe-only fighters are much more different from sword-only myrmidons than dark magic users typically are from light magic users. Irrelevant. Way to cut out all of my reasoning and insist things are one way when I've explained why they aren't. I'm not going to repeat myself when you just keep ignoring it and insisting you're right without actually backing up your claims with anything other than your opinion that it is necessary to have a horde of different magic types. I cut out "all" your reasoning because it was very bad reasoning, merging or splitting Anima is an entirely gameplay based thing so only gameplay logic can be argued with it, lore needs to be cast to the wind. The problem is that the magic triangle almost never matters. Magic users are very rare compared with sword/lance/axe users and typically you don't go after them with your own magic users anyways. The magic triangle may as well not exist in most games. If IS actually made anima/light/dark users as common as lance/sword/axe users, then I would say that there really needs to be a magic triangle. Also irrelevant. All that matters is that Fire/Thunder/Wind are specific weapon types, not how many people use them or how different their users are from each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashGordon94 Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 No, you are. Considering you've been going out of your way these page 4-5 pages to argue pointless shit WITHOUT GIVING ANY PROOF instead of leaving the topic. Arguing something is reasonable even if you don't like the way I do it, insulting people is wrong, stupid and against the rules. I win. 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.