How strong should the Weapon Triangle be?

[Shin]

20% hit and 2 might is nice. The only reason 20% didn't work so well in FE4 was because swords were amazing. You'd be better off being at a WTD using swords than going in with axes... or even neutral with lances. The weight difference was too great for it to matter.

[Renall]

20% hit and 2 might is nice. The only reason 20% didn't work so well in FE4 was because swords were amazing. You'd be better off being at a WTD using swords than going in with axes... or even neutral with lances. The weight difference was too great for it to matter.

That's very true, the whole system of doubling and weapon weight was just borked in FE4 to the point that discussing its Weapon Triangle is a bit tricky. It certainly didn't help that having WTA on Shanan meant dick-all if you were most enemies, you still weren't going to hit him. I'd be interested to see what +/- 20% would do in a game that's pretty close to it already, like FE7. I'm not sure you'd even notice.

[Celice]

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.

And Fighters would destroy Knights. It works both ways.

You mean "make the game very easy"?

Sounds like you have no clue what Тайные Тропы 2 was.

Edited March 16, 2012 by Celice

[dondon151]

And Fighters would destroy Knights. It works both ways.

IS has done this before. It's called FE7 HHM chapter 22. It was very easy.

I would personally like a 2 MT, 10 hit weapon triangle system.

I'd be interested to see what +/- 20% would do in a game that's pretty close to it already, like FE7. I'm not sure you'd even notice.

20% is huge. Even the difference between 10% and 15% is pretty noticeable. So many players like to brush aside "small" hit differences like 5%, but they add up over many rounds of combat.

Edited March 16, 2012 by dondon151

[Anouleth]

And Fighters would destroy Knights. It works both ways.

Well, it's a good thing that you don't have to use Knights, then. How does that even matter? If any of the dozen sword users you have by that point in the game can effectively solo chapter 9, why does it matter that a Knight would be completely useless there?

The reality is that since the player has a brain, can switch weapons, has the luxury of picking what units he brings into battle, he is usually the one with WTA, not the enemy computer. What you're talking about might work in multiplayer or something, but in any existing FE game it would completely trivialise the entire game. The game, and the way the game works, would have to be completely redesigned from the ground up so that the player couldn't win every battle merely by abusing WTA.

Sounds like you have no clue what Тайные Тропы 2 was.

Wipe the off your face. Not only do I not know about your obscure STALKER mod, I don't care. No doubt, you'll tell me alllll about how Difficult and Challenging it is.

[Renall]

20% is huge. Even the difference between 10% and 15% is pretty noticeable. So many players like to brush aside "small" hit differences like 5%, but they add up over many rounds of combat.

That may be true in 1 RNG hit systems, at least. The 5% change only really starts to become meaningful around 60-70 displayed in a 2 RNG system.

But there's also the entirely meaningful question of whether misses are an expected eventuality for the player and something that should be a constant tactical consideration. In rather a lot of FE games, the player presumes to hit most of the time but the enemy can be counted on to miss frequently. Even Thracia 776 - "the hard one" - still has wildly more inaccurate enemies than player units in most cases.

There are going to be people who swear by the necessity of misses being a major part of the game and people who think it penalizes strategic thinking. The Weapon Triangle in some way balances these positions out by forcing less reliability if the player isn't strategically matching up weapons. To that extent, WTD needs to have teeth in order to give the player the impression that using the wrong weapon is something of a gamble.

[deranger]

Leave it like FE7. The math's easier, and there are other reasons typical sword users beat typical axe users (def is used twice if you're attacking twice, which sword users often do. Lance users typically have high def, axe users typically do not.) etc.

[Celice]

Well, it's a good thing that you don't have to use Knights, then. How does that even matter? If any of the dozen sword users you have by that point in the game can effectively solo chapter 9, why does it matter that a Knight would be completely useless there?

The reality is that since the player has a brain, can switch weapons, has the luxury of picking what units he brings into battle, he is usually the one with WTA, not the enemy computer. What you're talking about might work in multiplayer or something, but in any existing FE game it would completely trivialise the entire game. The game, and the way the game works, would have to be completely redesigned from the ground up so that the player couldn't win every battle merely by abusing WTA.

A large chunk of playable classes don't command a weapon triangle. They couldn't possibly always be at the advantage, and as such, the players will have more reason to choose specific tactical classes, making the strategy element a bit more prominent than it already is (now, it's almost entirely driven by mere stats).

This would almost make promotions much more prestieged, giving classes the capability of defending themselves against the triangle system. It's not just a bump in caps or movement any longer. Plus, it's not as if a stat couldn't augment the disproportion a weapon disadvantage gives you--the higher the skill a unit has, and some luck, could work to counteract the weapon triangle a little more each time. The game's system of stats is functional, but it can be made much more efficient too. There's very little specialty in terms of what each stat does--instead, it sort of just jumps between always meh, always okay, or always great. I'd like to the see the system revamped where there's a little more purpose in choosing specific characters, weapons, or classes to use.

After all, this is a conceptual thread.

Wipe the off your face. Not only do I not know about your obscure STALKER mod, I don't care. No doubt, you'll tell me alllll about how Difficult and Challenging it is.

How do you not know about the second-most popular mod for all of 2011? That's like saying NS is an obscure mod. If you're going to say the mods weren't difficult, but actually easier, you should at least recognize your cherry-picking of mods.

Not my fault you made an erroneous claim

[Anouleth]

A large chunk of playable classes don't command a weapon triangle. They couldn't possibly always be at the advantage, and as such, the players will have more reason to choose specific tactical classes, making the strategy element a bit more prominent than it already is (now, it's almost entirely driven by mere stats).

And your suggestion would lead to choosing classes being entirely driven by a rather uninteresting rock-paper-scissors mechanic. It would be like altering Advance Wars so that Artillery OHKOed Meches which OHKO Tanks which OHKO Artillery: a crude flanderisation of the subtle relationship between the three core unit types. Or Pokemon so that not-very-effective attacks do no damage. These games can and should be more complex than that, and Weapon Triangle should not be a crude auto-win mechanic but something that needs to be manipulated in concert with other mechanics, or something that you can win in spite of.

"Strategy" which consists entirely of matching up units that have the correct weapon type is bland and uninteresting.

This would almost make promotions much more prestieged, giving classes the capability of defending themselves against the triangle system. It's not just a bump in caps or movement any longer.

There's no reason that can't be true with the existing weapon triangle system. The problem is that often weapon ranks acquired upon promotion are hopelessly low. FE11 and FE12 offered a partial solution to this, however, with reclass letting you build other weapon ranks in anticipation for promotion.

Plus, it's not as if a stat couldn't augment the disproportion a weapon disadvantage gives you--the higher the skill a unit has, and some luck, could work to counteract the weapon triangle a little more each time.

In many FEs, a 50 hit penalty is pretty insurmountable, unless the enemies are absurdly weak.

The game's system of stats is functional, but it can be made much more efficient too. There's very little specialty in terms of what each stat does--instead, it sort of just jumps between always meh, always okay, or always great. I'd like to the see the system revamped where there's a little more purpose in choosing specific characters, weapons, or classes to use.

Well, it's funny because a lot of other people like smash complain that FE is basically just picking the top tier characters and there's no thought or tactics in the rest of the game.

How do you not know about the second-most popular mod for all of 2011?

Gee, maybe because I don't play STALKER and likely never will? Even if this was the most popular mod, I wouldn't care.

That's like saying NS is an obscure mod. If you're going to say the mods weren't difficult, but actually easier, you should at least recognize your cherry-picking of mods.

Why would I say that the mods are easier when they obviously aren't? Mods of games are almost always harder. You can go ahead and regale me with the minutae of how every enemy has a rocket launcher and 2 million hit points and how big your e-penis is as a result, I really, really don't care. And my overall point still stands that making the weapon triangle in FE more powerful would make the game easier rather than harder.

Edited March 16, 2012 by Anouleth

[dondon151]

That may be true in 1 RNG hit systems, at least. The 5% change only really starts to become meaningful around 60-70 displayed in a 2 RNG system.

The difference between 70 and 75 disp hit already corresponds to 5% true hit, and it only gets larger when you get closer to 50 disp hit.

But here, let's say that the weapon triangle alteration reduces your hit rate from 75 to 70 (87.75% to 82.30%). Not an unlikely assumption - you have 85 hit before WTD, which is the base hit of something like an FE6 Iron Sword. You're missing 44.5% more attacks than you would normally - pretty significant. The difference is greater than 5% when you switch to a more inaccurate weapon that's more likely to be used (Javelin, Hand Axe).

I suppose your concerns can be most adequately addressed with the kinds of structured weapon triangle systems as described previously: axes suffer a greater hit improvement or penalty with the weapon triangle, while swords suffer a greater damage improvement or penalty. But for a static weapon triangle system, I think it's better overall to focus on the reliable modifier (the damage) rather than the unreliable modifier (the hit). Quite often in the interest of speed, players would willingly go up against the weapon triangle, and decreasing the hit penalty would decrease the reliance on good luck.

Edited March 17, 2012 by dondon151

[Renall]

I suppose your concerns can be most adequately addressed with the kinds of structured weapon triangle systems as described previously: axes suffer a greater hit improvement or penalty with the weapon triangle, while swords suffer a greater damage improvement or penalty. But for a static weapon triangle system, I think it's better overall to focus on the reliable modifier (the damage) rather than the unreliable modifier (the hit). Quite often in the interest of speed, players would willingly go up against the weapon triangle, and decreasing the hit penalty would decrease the reliance on good luck.

That's a pretty good point. It's better - at least I think it's better - to reduce the influence of random factors in strategy games wherever possible, simply because things happening randomly reduces the degree to which outcomes depend on what the player actually does. Influencing damage more aggressively and Hit only slightly means you know a little bit better what will happen in particular matchups as opposed to what may happen.

It would also make it much less reliable to dodge tank Lances with a Swordmaster. They might not always hit, but the extra Mt means it's going to hurt a lot more. If that pushes them into 2HKO or OHKO territory it becomes more valuable to have somebody who has real DEF and WTC hold the line... something Generals are supposed to do, at least.

[whase]

I'm surprised nobody has said mentioned bosses. most bosses won't have WTC.

[Renall]

I'm surprised nobody has said mentioned bosses. most bosses won't have WTC.

Invent a skill called Preparedness, which auto-switches you to the most powerful weapon you have in inventory if attacked (and always gives you range and Weapon Triangle Control when it can). Give all bosses this skill.

[Othin]

Invent a skill called Preparedness, which auto-switches you to the most powerful weapon you have in inventory if attacked (and always gives you range and Weapon Triangle Control when it can). Give all bosses this skill.

Sounds very subjective and therefore difficult to program.

[dondon151]

Didn't seem so hard to implement in FE4...

[Othin]

Didn't seem so hard to implement in FE4...

FE4 just had them set to have one weapon permanently equipped and switch to another temporarily to counter ranged attacks. It was that simple; WTC and effectiveness other than range were never taken into account.

Edited March 18, 2012 by Othin

[Rehab]

It's still an idea, though.

Might be subjective sometimes if one weapon has like 15-20% less hit yet does more damage than another, or has higher crit, but something along those lines to make bosses tougher would be interesting.

[dondon151]

FE4 just had them set to have one weapon permanently equipped and switch to another temporarily to counter ranged attacks. It was that simple; WTC and effectiveness other than range were never taken into account.

Let's consider some of the possibilities:

1. Boss has a Silver Lance and a Spear. This is easy; default equip him to Silver Lance for melee attacks and Spear for ranged attacks.

2. Boss has a Silver Lance, a Silver Axe, and a Spear. Same as above, except the game needs to check for weapon triangle when deciding between the Silver Lance and the Silver Axe.

Unless the boss has an assload of weapons, then this is not a difficult decision to make.

3. Boss has a Silver Axe, a Spear, and a Tomahawk. I suppose this is more difficult - does he want the Silver Axe for all 1-range attacks, or the Spear for enemy sword users? The current FE games tend to prioritize damage over hit rate (so the boss would choose the Silver Axe), but it's not hard to establish some sort of formula that optimizes weapon choice in these scenarios. Or, as a programmer, you can just avoid these situations altogether with some better decision making about which boss gets what.

Edited March 18, 2012 by dondon151

[Anouleth]

Invent a skill called Preparedness, which auto-switches you to the most powerful weapon you have in inventory if attacked (and always gives you range and Weapon Triangle Control when it can). Give all bosses this skill.

I'm sorry, but this sounds like a really horrible idea. Many Thrones and Gates already give unnecessarily large avoid penalties without having to deal with continuous WTD on top of that.

[Thor Odinson]

if (hit rate over certain percentage)

prioritise damage

else

go with wta

doesn't really sound that difficult to implement. But I agree with Anou. What's the strategy if you're just gonna be constantly disadvantaged anyway? It wouldn't be fun. I mean hell if Rutger doesn't even see that great of hitrates on bosses (60% or so sometimes depending on boss and I have overleveled Rutgers because I love that fucker), I don't want boss fights to be all 40% hit rate terrible damage etc

that's just cruel

Edited March 18, 2012 by Luminescent Blade

[Othin]

Let's consider some of the possibilities:

1. Boss has a Silver Lance and a Spear. This is easy; default equip him to Silver Lance for melee attacks and Spear for ranged attacks.

2. Boss has a Silver Lance, a Silver Axe, and a Spear. Same as above, except the game needs to check for weapon triangle when deciding between the Silver Lance and the Silver Axe.

Unless the boss has an assload of weapons, then this is not a difficult decision to make.

3. Boss has a Silver Axe, a Spear, and a Tomahawk. I suppose this is more difficult - does he want the Silver Axe for all 1-range attacks, or the Spear for enemy sword users? The current FE games tend to prioritize damage over hit rate (so the boss would choose the Silver Axe), but it's not hard to establish some sort of formula that optimizes weapon choice in these scenarios. Or, as a programmer, you can just avoid these situations altogether with some better decision making about which boss gets what.

Well, adding WTC to range seems reasonable enough. It's just the "better" weapon that seems difficult to expect it to figure out. So perhaps if it first prioritized using a weapon able to counter with the best triangle advantage, then the narrowest range. That seems doable.

[Renall]

I'm sorry, but this sounds like a really horrible idea. Many Thrones and Gates already give unnecessarily large avoid penalties without having to deal with continuous WTD on top of that.

1) They're called "bosses" for a reason.

2) Not every boss will have full WTC. A Swordmaster boss will have, at best, a 1-range sword and a 1-2 range sword.

3) Throne/Gate penalties can be adjusted to account for the boss behaving intelligently.

4) Bosses can be given damaging but less accurate weaponry (like Master weapons in FE5), meaning they won't always have the best hit.

5) It can be a strategic measure; give the boss an intentionally inaccurate weapon that certain characters are able to exploit, making them ideally suited to fight him.

6) Not every boss is on a throne. In fact, the sooner FE gets away from parking its bosses on thrones all the time the better in my mind. I'd rather see better and more mobile bosses and more interesting and varied objectives.

Well, adding WTC to range seems reasonable enough. It's just the "better" weapon that seems difficult to expect it to figure out. So perhaps if it first prioritized using a weapon able to counter with the best triangle advantage, then the narrowest range. That seems doable.

Prioritize in this order. The weapon selected is...

• ...able to counter at all (eliminate weapons that are out of range); and
  
• ...able to obtain WTA if possible (eliminate weapons that would be disadvantaged unless there are none, but preserve neutral weapons to the next step); and
  
• ...likely to do the most damage mathematically (i.e. taking hit% into account, pick the highest average damage); and
  
• ...if there are still multiple candidates, switch to the one most likely to hit; if all are equal, switch at random.

The reason for preserving neutral weapons is Bows/Magic basically. There are situations where WTA and WTN will have identical (100%) chances to hit, so a stronger Bow might be better than a weaker Lance, and even if magic would hit no harder than a Hand Axe, it might be preferable for other reasons.

Honestly, you could just have the average damage factor in such that an enemy will even put himself at WTD if he thinks he'll do more average damage. Then the triangle wouldn't even be the main consideration. Example: Boss has a 24mt Axe with 50% true hit on an enemy Swordmaster, and a 12mt Javelin with 80% true hit on the same enemy. Neither doubles. Assume his STR and the Swordmaster's DEF cancel out. The average damage of the Axe is 12; the average damage of the Javelin is 9.6. The boss chooses to stick to his Axe and hope he'll hit for more damage versus switching to the Javelin for a more certain chance of doing less damage. If the Javelin hit chance were raised to 100%, he'd choose it instead because the average damages are the same but one is guaranteed.

You could make the AI more calculating than this (such as considering how much damage it would take back on a counter or if it would get doubled from equipping a heavier weapon), of course, but you could also make it intentionally "dumb" to be tactically exploitable. The AI switching to its "best" weapon doesn't necessarily mean it always does so correctly. You could even make this a game mechanic to, say, introduce a tough boss early on who has one especially bad weapon choice that you can force him to make, letting the player dispatch him easier while teaching said player about the mechanic and justifying it in-story that the boss isn't very bright; later, one can introduce more difficult and in-story cunning bosses with more optimized weapon loadouts, and figuring out how best to attack their swiss army knife setup becomes a challenge.

[Anouleth]

1) They're called "bosses" for a reason.

What do you mean? Are you saying that bosses should be difficult? Because bosses can, and have been difficult in the past without this ability; at the same time, even with this ability, a boss could still be easy.

2) Not every boss will have full WTC. A Swordmaster boss will have, at best, a 1-range sword and a 1-2 range sword.

Well, I don't mind bosses having skills that don't do anything. Why not give him Celerity too?

3) Throne/Gate penalties can be adjusted to account for the boss behaving intelligently.

But what you describe isn't behaving intelligently: it's altering the rules so that the boss can switch weapons at any time. "Behaving intelligently" would be keeping the current rules about equipping weapons, but having the boss equip a 1-2 range weapon if you have a unit that can damage him at 2-range nearby and a 1 range weapon in other cases.

4) Bosses can be given damaging but less accurate weaponry (like Master weapons in FE5), meaning they won't always have the best hit.

5) It can be a strategic measure; give the boss an intentionally inaccurate weapon that certain characters are able to exploit, making them ideally suited to fight him.

What on earth is the point of buffing bosses by letting them switch weapons whenever they want when you're just going to nerf them to make up for it?

6) Not every boss is on a throne. In fact, the sooner FE gets away from parking its bosses on thrones all the time the better in my mind. I'd rather see better and more mobile bosses and more interesting and varied objectives.

Oh, so like Pugo, Isaiya ( ), Burton, Pain, Agony, Wystan, Laverton, Radmin, Jarod, Zeffren, Tashoria, Ludveck, Rommit, Istvan, Veyona, Kezhda, Septimus, and Yuma?

Honestly, you could just have the average damage factor in such that an enemy will even put himself at WTD if he thinks he'll do more average damage. Then the triangle wouldn't even be the main consideration. Example: Boss has a 24mt Axe with 50% true hit on an enemy Swordmaster, and a 12mt Javelin with 80% true hit on the same enemy. Neither doubles. Assume his STR and the Swordmaster's DEF cancel out. The average damage of the Axe is 12; the average damage of the Javelin is 9.6. The boss chooses to stick to his Axe and hope he'll hit for more damage versus switching to the Javelin for a more certain chance of doing less damage. If the Javelin hit chance were raised to 100%, he'd choose it instead because the average damages are the same but one is guaranteed.

But surely, an intelligent boss would also factor in the advantage that his Javelin can counter any nearby ranged enemies?

Edited March 19, 2012 by Anouleth

[Renall]

I'm well aware that there are bosses that aren't on thrones, but you brought it up in that context.

Again, it's an alteration of the rules that has existed in the past. It's not normally allowed to swap weapons on the enemy's turn, but FE4 bosses could do it. It's not necessarily an ability every mobile boss even needs to have (because they can get around range problems by moving), but it could be a fun challenge on some of them.

Because the player can bring enormous variety to bear on a boss - especially an immobile boss - gaming the system by making him equip the wrong weapon is something that's already relatively well-established. It's also incredibly easy: Park any unit at 2 range against a boss with a Silver Lance and a Javelin, and he will have the Javelin equipped next Player Phase.

The point here, and why it relates at all to the topic of the Weapon Triangle, is that it would introduce an element of thinking that the player has to work through that could be changed up at the mapper's discretion. If a boss can equip Swords and Lances, and can auto-switch between them, it becomes a matter of either gambling with WTD in using a Sword/Axe, or bringing in a Lance-user who will only be WTN. If he can't switch, it's just a matter of hitting him with a different form of WTA every turn. If WTA/WTD is made stronger (which isn't to say it should be, necessarily), giving bosses the ability to in some instances force WTN or even WTD on the player makes them trickier. The player is thus introduced to challenges like "if this General can auto-switch, I'll always be at WTD; so which character will be hurt least by being disadvantaged?" This can actually teach some pretty useful skills. A sort of "Advanced Weapon Triangle" primer, where the player - who already knows the rock-paper-scissors nature of the Weapon Triangle from earlier tutorials and experience - is introduced to more complex situations where he can't simply throw rock vs. scissors or even scissors vs. scissors, and has to decide which "paper" unit he has is best for the job.

Furthermore, it lets bosses be more durable than lackeys not because they happen to be sitting on a chair that inexplicably makes them more durable and evasive, but because it's difficult or even impossible to achieve WTA on them, lessening their damage intake. This allows the "roaming boss" archetype to be a truly frightening prospect, able to show up and cause trouble for several turns more than his flunkies might because he doesn't die as fast.

And of course, if it's a skill, the player could get access to some unit who has it. Maybe something akin to the Sergeant from TearRing Saga, a foot unit with full WTC who gets the skill upon promotion. Now the player has access to a unit who will never have WTD, which could be situationally useful but not necessarily game-breaking either. Indeed, one cure for a boss with that skill is to throw your guy who also has the skill at him and just sandbag on your turn, forcing the boss to make WTD attacks on his own phase since your Sergeant will always switch to the counter to whatever the boss chooses to attack with.

[Anouleth]

I'm well aware that there are bosses that aren't on thrones, but you brought it up in that context.

I brought it up in the context of "bosses don't need to have more avoid".

Because the player can bring enormous variety to bear on a boss - especially an immobile boss - gaming the system by making him equip the wrong weapon is something that's already relatively well-established. It's also incredibly easy: Park any unit at 2 range against a boss with a Silver Lance and a Javelin, and he will have the Javelin equipped next Player Phase.

So because trying to manipulate enemy AI is easy, you suggest that we throw out the AI and just have the boss switch weapons whenever he wants?

The point here, and why it relates at all to the topic of the Weapon Triangle, is that it would introduce an element of thinking that the player has to work through that could be changed up at the mapper's discretion. If a boss can equip Swords and Lances, and can auto-switch between them, it becomes a matter of either gambling with WTD in using a Sword/Axe, or bringing in a Lance-user who will only be WTN. If he can't switch, it's just a matter of hitting him with a different form of WTA every turn. If WTA/WTD is made stronger (which isn't to say it should be, necessarily), giving bosses the ability to in some instances force WTN or even WTD on the player makes them trickier. The player is thus introduced to challenges like "if this General can auto-switch, I'll always be at WTD; so which character will be hurt least by being disadvantaged?"

Except this is a faulty premise. You assume that right now, beating a boss is just a matter of finding a unit that has WTA, when in reality it is nothing like that. For example, the best units to engage General bosses are usually sword users in FE6 and FE8 because of Armourslayer access, even with WTD. The weapon triangle works exactly as it should: a factor considered amongst many others. You would have to be an enormous fool to try and put Lot or Ward up against any boss in FE6, even if it's Sir Lancey McLancerson of Lanceville, just for the sake of getting that pretty WTA arrow on your battle screen.

And yes, forcing the player into WTD does make the game trickier. However, I question if giving the player accuracy penalties is the best way of making the game trickier, or for that matter, whether the game needs to be trickier in the first place. Are "tricks" really necessary when you could just give the boss higher stats?

Furthermore, it lets bosses be more durable than lackeys not because they happen to be sitting on a chair that inexplicably makes them more durable and evasive, but because it's difficult or even impossible to achieve WTA on them, lessening their damage intake.

This allows the "roaming boss" archetype to be a truly frightening prospect, able to show up and cause trouble for several turns more than his flunkies might because he doesn't die as fast.

Bosses already are more durable than generic enemies.