How strong should the Weapon Triangle be?

[Renall]

Just a thought, the Weapon Triangle in FE games has taken many forms over the years, and some have been more severe than others. The only really consistent factor is that Hit is affected, but it can be anything from gentle to somewhat severe. Sometimes effective Might is also a factor, though sometimes not.

Are there any good reasons for it to be more or less forgiving than it usually is? Is there any other change to it you might find interesting? Is there any interaction that other weapons normally outside the triangle (e.g. Bows) could have with them?

One thing I wondered about recently is, what might happen if your ability to double - or be doubled - was tied somewhat to WTA? For example, the general standard for doubling in FE is 4 AS difference. If we imagined this as "neutral" doubling speed, what if we halved it for WTA and doubled it for WTD? In other words, Sword vs. Sword needs 4 AS to double, Axe vs. Sword needs 8 AS, and Lance vs. Sword needs 2 AS? That might be a bit severe, so maybe +/- 1 or 2 is better, but I thought it was kind of interesting. Those slow Fighters who get doubled anyway by Swordmasters wouldn't feel much pain, but could perhaps have a shot at doubling all those Soldiers and Knights they have WTA on. Having control of the triangle could be a big thing if you have the ability to avoid doubling on command just by swapping weapons.

In general, I suppose the question is whether it should be more disadvantageous to attack with the wrong weapon than it already is. In many games, the Weapon Triangle hardly matters, but in others it can be a pretty big deal. Is the problem - if there is one - with the Weapon Triangle itself, or just with the game not properly itemizing and statting things to operate within it (i.e. giving weapons too much baste Hit or characters too much SKL)? The game emphasizes its Rock-Paper-Scissors nature, but I've rarely felt so compelled by it that I had to use the right weapon. But then again, maybe that's intentional?

[Dr. Tarrasque]

10% damage effect.

10-15 hit effect.

1 damage effect in all instances strikes me as "too static".

20 hit was too much in FE4, 5 was too small in FE5

[BBM]

I personally like the one in FE7: +/- 15 Hit and +/- 1 Might. I feel like it's not too harsh and not too gentle. While the AS idea is intriguing, I think it might harm slow Lance users like Knights. Even if they need less AS to double Sword users, they probably aren't doubling Mercenaries and Myrmidons anyways, although it might help them from getting doubled. However, it decreases their chances of being able to double Axe users, or they might even get doubled now.

[Renall]

10% damage effect.

10-15 hit effect.

1 damage effect in all instances strikes me as "too static".

20 hit was too much in FE4, 5 was too small in FE5

The only real problem I can see with that is that it's a bit harder for the player to intuitively grasp what 10% damage is going to be. Indeed, the same argument of complexity applies to my AS idea (if it takes different AS amounts to double depending on WTA, it gets confusing for a player). The advantage of +x damage as a static value is it's easily comprehensible. Same thing with +/- Hit%, it's a simple figure that is immediately graspable.

That said, I think you're in the right ballpark on the Hit. 20% is a lot, 5% is barely meaningful. I think it needs to be higher than 10% though, as I really never cared about it that much in 10% games like FE9. On the other hand, the game where I notice it most is FE6, and that's more because Hit is lower across the board than because of the particulars of the Weapon Triangle in that game.

[a.f.k.a. Howard Hughes]

Im personally very fond in the weapon system of Fe11 and 12. I think it works, exspecially the disadvantage/advantage getting bigger as weapon ranks go up

[Dr. Tarrasque]

The only real problem I can see with that is that it's a bit harder for the player to intuitively grasp what 10% damage is going to be. Indeed, the same argument of complexity applies to my AS idea (if it takes different AS amounts to double depending on WTA, it gets confusing for a player). The advantage of +x damage as a static value is it's easily comprehensible. Same thing with +/- Hit%, it's a simple figure that is immediately graspable.

I don't think it'd be significantly harder, they could just floor it (drop the decimal basically, 1.9 would result in just 1) or round it up and either of those would be pretty easy to pick up on. For example, if the calculations result in 15 or 16 damage and you end up seeing the complete thing as 17-18, you'll already know that is rounded.

It's not like it's necessary I'll admit, the static damage boost just seems a little dull and could use a small change to promote STR and MT a bit as usually SPD is such a dominant stat in the game because of how advantageous it is to double-attack.

[Othin]

Well, to answer this, we must look at the fundamental question: What is the purpose of the weapon triangle? What is it meant to achieve in terms of its impact on strategy?

[Scarlet]

It's not like it's necessary I'll admit, the static damage boost just seems a little dull and could use a small change to promote STR and MT a bit as usually SPD is such a dominant stat in the game because of how advantageous it is to double-attack.

That's an issue with the doubling mechanic, though. As long as it remains as easy to double as it is, or as long as doubling is really a free second attack, all other stats are significantly less valuable. Even in FE11, where the Hit/Avd formula was completely balls and dodging things was basically impossible, Spd was still the most valuable stat simply for allowing doubling.

@Topic: Personally, I like the FE7/FE8 weapon triangle best, with 1 Mt and 15 Hit.

20 like in FE4 is way too much, 5 like in FE5 is too little. 15 is still severe, but can be dealt with - if you really need to kill an enemy while in WTdA, you still have a good shot at doing so, but you're much more likely to actually eat the counterattack.

The Mt difference may look tiny at first, but depending on the unit stats, it can be very significant - some units can ORKO with the 1 Mt bonus from WTA when they couldn't do so without it, and essentially having +1 Def while in WTA can also significantly improve a unit's durability.

Weapon level affecting the effectiveness of the weapon triangle is also an interesting system, but I'm not perfectly happy with the way the DS FEs did it. Personally, I could see it go like this:

E/D Rank: +10 Hit/Avd, +1 Atk/Def when in WTA

C Rank: +10 Hit/Avd, +5 Crt/CEv, +2 Atk/Def when in WTA

B Rank: +15 Hit/Avd, +5 Crt/CEv, +2 Atk/Def when in WTA

A/S Rank: +15 Hit/Avd, +10 Crt/CEv, +3 Atk/Def when in WTA

...or something like that. I'm honestly surprised that the weapon triangle so far has never done anything to Crt or CEv.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

...or something like that. I'm honestly surprised that the weapon triangle so far has never done anything to Crt or CEv.

I was gonna put up a value like +5 crit or something like that but then I thought of how unpleasant it would be end up in an scenario with so much WTD that everyone and their mother has existent crit. It probably wouldn't be as bad as Sacae's crit rates but I doubt the damage would be as bad.

Of course, there's also the fact that you typically end up with WTA early on in the game.

E/D Rank: +10 Hit/Avd, +1 Atk/Def when in WTA

C Rank: +10 Hit/Avd, +5 Crt/CEv, +2 Atk/Def when in WTA

B Rank: +15 Hit/Avd, +5 Crt/CEv, +2 Atk/Def when in WTA

A/S Rank: +15 Hit/Avd, +10 Crt/CEv, +3 Atk/Def when in WTA

This is one Weapon Triangle system I'd consider worth implementing. By the time A/S ranks show up often, there should be enough ways to work around the enemies having it.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Sirius

[Anouleth]

10% damage effect.

10-15 hit effect.

1 damage effect in all instances strikes me as "too static".

It's easy to predict and calculate. Nothing wrong with that.

Perhaps the bonuses and penalties could vary depending on which weapon it was? For example, Swords could get +/- 3ATK for WTA and WTD. Axes could get +/- 15 hit. and Lances would get +/- 2ATK/5HIT.

E/D Rank: +10 Hit/Avd, +1 Atk/Def when in WTA

C Rank: +10 Hit/Avd, +5 Crt/CEv, +2 Atk/Def when in WTA

B Rank: +15 Hit/Avd, +5 Crt/CEv, +2 Atk/Def when in WTA

A/S Rank: +15 Hit/Avd, +10 Crt/CEv, +3 Atk/Def when in WTA

How would WTD work?

Edited March 15, 2012 by Anouleth

[whase]

what if you'd make WTA/WTD bonuses depend on the weapon type themselves?

swords already have high hit. give them +2 dmg with WTA/-2 dmg with WTD

axes already have high MT. give them +20 hit with WTA/-20 hit with WTD

Lances are usually in the middle. give them +1 dmg &+10 hit with WTA/-1 dmg & -10 hit with WTD

same for the magic triangle. wherein light is the magical equal to swords, anima to lances, dark to axes, wind to swords, thunder to lances, fire to axes.

[Scarlet]

How would WTD work?

The differences would be determined entirely by the weapon level of the combatant who has WTA.

If someone with a D rank in their weapon had WTA against someone with an A rank, the effects would be +/-10 Hit and +/-1 Atk.

If the A rank combatant had WTA against the D rank combatant, the effects would be +/-15 Hit, +/-10 Crt and +/-3 Atk.

[a.f.k.a. Howard Hughes]

Popping in To say I approve Ray's idea

[Anouleth]

what if you'd make WTA/WTD bonuses depend on the weapon type themselves?

swords already have high hit. give them +2 dmg with WTA/-2 dmg with WTD

axes already have high MT. give them +20 hit with WTA/-20 hit with WTD

Lances are usually in the middle. give them +1 dmg &+10 hit with WTA/-1 dmg & -10 hit with WTD

same for the magic triangle. wherein light is the magical equal to swords, anima to lances, dark to axes, wind to swords, thunder to lances, fire to axes.

Hey look, it's someone saying the EXACT same thing I did ten minutes previously.

[Momo]

what if you'd make WTA/WTD bonuses depend on the weapon type themselves?

swords already have high hit. give them +2 dmg with WTA/-2 dmg with WTD

axes already have high MT. give them +20 hit with WTA/-20 hit with WTD

Lances are usually in the middle. give them +1 dmg &+10 hit with WTA/-1 dmg & -10 hit with WTD

same for the magic triangle. wherein light is the magical equal to swords, anima to lances, dark to axes, wind to swords, thunder to lances, fire to axes.

FE11/12 does almost the exact same thing, it's just that you get those bonuses from weapon ranks, and being on the wrong end of the triangle negates them.

[whase]

Hey look, it's someone saying the EXACT same thing I did ten minutes previously.

yeah, sorry. I was typing really slow due to eating pizza and watching TV at the same time...

[Junkhead]

Hey look, it's someone saying the EXACT same thing I did ten minutes previously.

That's funny, no one seemed to notice when Richter used to do it.

[The Envoy of the Beginning]

That's funny, no one seemed to notice when Richter used to do it.

He still does it though.

Edit: I feel that the 10-hit effect in FE6/9/10 is still too low. 15 is just perfect.

Edited March 15, 2012 by BLS

[Renall]

Perhaps the bonuses and penalties could vary depending on which weapon it was? For example, Swords could get +/- 3ATK for WTA and WTD. Axes could get +/- 15 hit. and Lances would get +/- 2ATK/5HIT.

Again, it basically comes down to the same issue you pointed out: Having WTA mean the same thing regardless of who has it or what they have is more consistent, but it's also less nuanced. If the Weapon Triangle's importance expands enough and is complex enough, more tutorial must be allotted to the concept outside of the standard "Swords beat Axes, Lances beat Swords, Axes beat Lances," since there are more factors in play.

That doesn't mean it's a bad idea, by any means. Just one that merits clearer explanation to the player. And the effects themselves have to be things the player can either intuitively grasp or see easily on the pre-combat stat matchup.

[NTNP]

I would personally love to see something like this implemented:

+/-2 Might

+/- 15 Hit

+/- 10 Crit

This would give the weapon triangle a larger role in the game to be sure. The +2 might is considerable to be sure, but I feel like that is a necessary aspect of the Weapon Triangle. From what I have grasped, it was originally used in order to promote a variety of weapon type usages and to give a 'rock paper scissors' styled advantage based on those weapons. The physical classes have already been examined here, so why don't we look at the magical ones instead. I would be willing to bet, even with the sky high RES stats of most playable/generic magic users that 2 extra damage would have some impact on their durability. Secondly losing 2 damage per attack would also make it where relying on a single school of magic extensively (such as anima for example) could have some negative consequences. As many others have said, 15 hit tends to be just about perfect in most games. Baring something like FE9-10 where the SKL stat is usually capped quickly, it should help balance things a little bit. Now to the part that IS has never used but ideally will someday... gaining a crit advantage/disadvantage with the Weapon Triangle. First, while we all hate those little 2-8 listed crits that certain character's face this addition would make units with higher luck (or those that use crit blocking equipment/skills) a bit more useful since usually high Luck isn't exactly a 'must have' trait. Secondly it would weaken the effectiveness of killer weapons and certain magic tomes, helping with some balancing issues. Lastly, I believe that extra 10 crit could really help certain classes that are dependent upon landing crits for damage, in particular classes like myrmidons or soldiers.

[Anouleth]

Again, it basically comes down to the same issue you pointed out: Having WTA mean the same thing regardless of who has it or what they have is more consistent, but it's also less nuanced.

The problem wasn't that it was inconsistent, but that the mental arithmetic required is too much. You have to calculate the damage, then multiply by 0.1 and add it to the original damage. That's significantly more complicated than calculating the damage and adding 3.

If the Weapon Triangle's importance expands enough and is complex enough, more tutorial must be allotted to the concept outside of the standard "Swords beat Axes, Lances beat Swords, Axes beat Lances," since there are more factors in play.

Uh, why? As it is, the tutorials usually don't go into the specifics of what WTA and WTD do (the FE7 tutorial doesn't say that it gives +1ATK and +15 hit for instance). It just says that you have an "advantage", which is rather vague and could mean a lot of things.

[Othin]

Multiplying damage by decimals is just annoying. If we want to make the Mt change adjust to not lose relevance as the game progresses, we can do that well enough with a bonus from weapon rank, like people have suggested.

[Rehab]

Well, to answer this, we must look at the fundamental question: What is the purpose of the weapon triangle? What is it meant to achieve in terms of its impact on strategy?

This is interesting. I forget, did they ever explain exactly why they added it in developer interviews?

One of the most basic reasons for the weapon triangle's existence I can think of is to try to give all (affected) units at the very least a sense of usefulness against a WT-disadvantaged enemy. Even if a unit isn't found so useful that they're deployed everywhere, the WT can try to guarantee that said unit at least has a use against enemies that arguably better units might not have the same advantage against, giving everybody at least a situational use and effecting a meager kind of balance.

A player who uses a strong WT advantage smartly might force the enemy to fight a unit of theirs with the WT advantage, and be rewarded with an easier fight. They might also be forced to use units they wouldn't have otherwise used, if a favored unit with the WT disadvantage is proving too unreliable against a certain group of enemies.

If the intention is balance, I think whether the desired effect there is achieved depends on, at least, the strength of the WT (dis)advantage, the stats of the weapons, the stats of the player characters, and the (relative) population of each type of weapon user in the enemy ranks.

Say, the weapon triangle could have very strong bonuses, but if all we ever fight then are soldiers, armors and cavaliers, sword units would be kinda screwed and the weapon triangle wouldn't be expanding options but limiting them, I think. Making sense of it seems kinda delicate.

[Celice]

I'd rather see a huge hike in terms of accuracy, something like at the very least 40%, more like 50% penalties for being against the triangle, and 20% for being on top of it. Damage increase should be relative to weapons--axes would do more damage than either lances or swords if at advantage, but also is at the biggest fault if played against.

Then again, this is S.t.a.l.k.e.r.-mod mentality.

[Anouleth]

I'd rather see a huge hike in terms of accuracy, something like at the very least 40%, more like 50% penalties for being against the triangle, and 20% for being on top of it. Damage increase should be relative to weapons--axes would do more damage than either lances or swords if at advantage, but also is at the biggest fault if played against.

Wouldn't that make the game extremely easy, however? A character could easily trivialise any combat situation by merely having WTA. For example, even someone like Treck could be virtually indestructible by virtue of having WTA against Fighters.

Then again, this is S.t.a.l.k.e.r.-mod mentality.

You mean "make the game very easy"?