How strong should the Weapon Triangle be?

[Renall]

Bigger numbers and rudimentary AI are less interesting than thought-provoking mechanics. Nuances like Armorslayers and the like will still exist and will still be valuable, but now maybe your Armorslayer Swordmaster will have to face WTD because you can't simply trick the boss by standing a sturdy unit at 2-range to force him to wield his Hand Axe. Depending on the combination of boss class, stats, and inventory, certain tricks may work better than others; there may be times a Hammer is preferable to an Armorslayer, there may be times the opposite is true, there may be times that a boss who is otherwise vulnerable to anti-Armor weaponry of all types will be engineered to have WTA on anyone trying to use one against him; in this case, perhaps a Mage is a better choice.

You're making it out to be some incredibly difficult or unfair thing when it isn't. And yes, simplified examples are by necessity not going to cover every eventuality and you and I both know that, so I realize WTA isn't the sole factor that matters, but that doesn't mean it's not one of them and it doesn't mean it can't be tweaked if it'd be interesting to do so. It wasn't some apocalyptic game-changer in FE4, all it did was ensure you couldn't needle a boss to death by consistently exploiting the fact that he could only counter with whatever he'd had equipped last turn. And that's especially important for immobile or less mobile bosses, who are sort of at the player's mercy on that front if they can't do a trick like this. That doesn't necessarily mean WTA is always going to beat that boss, but in many circumstances you're greatly advantaged by having the boss use the weaker of his weapons and then attacking with WTA (or at least ensuring the attacker faces no WTD). I'm just suggesting taking that idea and making it more interesting, because "I attack with the weapon that can hit rather than any consideration of what I might face later" is not good AI and I don't think you intended to suggest it was. And if a boss can switch on the fly, being able to still trick them clearly is a more difficult task and thus more worthy of praise on the player for figuring out how to do so, yes?

It's a very simple tactical nuance: Normally, the attacker has the benefit of weapon selection. In 99% of Fire Emblem situations, this is the case. The best control you have for Enemy Phase is to have, say, Marcus equip a Lance when facing a horde of Cavaliers. It's mitigating a worst case scenario. It would be interesting if, in some circumstances (such as certain bosses), either the player or the enemy has a unit who reverses this rule and has the initiative on weapon selection when not on his own phase. Used appropriately, it's a way to shake things up and require some forethought, and it presents unique challenges that the new mechanics can be used to solve. Perhaps a highly mixed force coming all at once; a unit on evasive terrain who never faces WTD could be a good choice to dodge tank this. It's a problem you could solve other ways, however; using a high-DEF unit like a General for example. More choices of approach can be nice.

It's not like toying with the Weapon Triangle is a new thing. *-reaver weapons exist. Teaching the player to utilize basic means of triangle control (selecting the right weapon, or the right classes due to the weapons they generally wield) has often been spiced up by features like "this Fighter has a Swordreaver, so this time use somebody other than your Myrmidon." Moving from that to "this boss can pull out either his Axe or his Sword at will, so the safest path may be to make a neutral Sword-Sword matchup unless you have a unit capable of doing more damage even at WTD" isn't a huge stretch, nor is it something that's impossible for even a fairly casual player to wrap their head around. It may still be smarter to use your Armorslayer Swordmaster against a boss who will always use a Lance against them. Maybe the boss is even designed for that and loses a bit of AS when wielding his Lance, making a Swordmaster the ideal choice. You can design more things around this, which can make bosses more distinct and particular challenges more unique.

[Anouleth]

Bigger numbers and rudimentary AI are less interesting than thought-provoking mechanics.

I do not think this is really a thought-provoking mechanic, however. While it might provoke thought on the part of the designer, it seems unlikely that it will provoke a whole lot of thought on the part of the player.

Also, bigger numbers can be more interesting.

Nuances like Armorslayers and the like will still exist and will still be valuable, but now maybe your Armorslayer Swordmaster will have to face WTD because you can't simply trick the boss by standing a sturdy unit at 2-range to force him to wield his Hand Axe. Depending on the combination of boss class, stats, and inventory, certain tricks may work better than others; there may be times a Hammer is preferable to an Armorslayer, there may be times the opposite is true, there may be times that a boss who is otherwise vulnerable to anti-Armor weaponry of all types will be engineered to have WTA on anyone trying to use one against him; in this case, perhaps a Mage is a better choice.

And again, you betray your lack of experience with bosskilling in FE. Often, the character with WTA is not the best choice for the job. That Armourslayer Swordmaster is often the best choice even though he faces WTD.

You're making it out to be some incredibly difficult or unfair thing when it isn't. And yes, simplified examples are by necessity not going to cover every eventuality and you and I both know that, so I realize WTA isn't the sole factor that matters, but that doesn't mean it's not one of them and it doesn't mean it can't be tweaked if it'd be interesting to do so. It wasn't some apocalyptic game-changer in FE4, all it did was ensure you couldn't needle a boss to death by consistently exploiting the fact that he could only counter with whatever he'd had equipped last turn.

But my point is that it really doesn't change anything that you couldn't also achieve by giving bosses higher stats, all it does is remove the ability of the player to plan ahead and manipulate the boss into equipping a more desireable weapon - as easy as you think that is, that's still more engaging than not being able to do anything. If you want the boss to be tougher, give him higher stats, or a stronger weapon; this "addition" seems highly unnecessary and rather annoying (since WT has a larger effect on hit rates than attack power).

Moreover, this "function" didn't really do anything in FE4 wrt to the weapon triangle. Even if bosses had carried more weapon types, it's unlikely that it would have made a difference; for example, even if Danan had carried a Silver Lance in addition to his Silver Axe, you would probably still use a sword to fight him with. And the holy weapons were so good, that neither you nor the enemies that use them would ever want to switch to anything else. So I think that FE4 is a very poor example, given that;

-enemies almost never carry more than one type of weapon in a triangle (I can only see Coruta and Robert)

-the different weapon types were highly unbalanced s.t. even if enemies could switch, you'd still prefer Swords

-the different weapons specifically were highly unbalanced s.t. you would never want to trade your Tyrfing for a Hero Lance even if you ended up with WTA as a result

And that's especially important for immobile or less mobile bosses, who are sort of at the player's mercy on that front if they can't do a trick like this. That doesn't necessarily mean WTA is always going to beat that boss, but in many circumstances you're greatly advantaged by having the boss use the weaker of his weapons and then attacking with WTA (or at least ensuring the attacker faces no WTD). I'm just suggesting taking that idea and making it more interesting, because "I attack with the weapon that can hit rather than any consideration of what I might face later" is not good AI and I don't think you intended to suggest it was.

It's not good AI, but I don't really care. I don't care how intelligent the enemy is, I don't think it matters. The game can still be challenging and fun even with extremely simple AI.

And if a boss can switch on the fly, being able to still trick them clearly is a more difficult task and thus more worthy of praise on the player for figuring out how to do so, yes?

But it's impossible to trick a boss that always picks the correct weapon. Unless you're suggesting their AI should be programmed to be deliberately flawed: like a boss that always tries to use Axes against thieves or something.

It's a very simple tactical nuance: Normally, the attacker has the benefit of weapon selection. In 99% of Fire Emblem situations, this is the case. The best control you have for Enemy Phase is to have, say, Marcus equip a Lance when facing a horde of Cavaliers. It's mitigating a worst case scenario. It would be interesting if, in some circumstances (such as certain bosses), either the player or the enemy has a unit who reverses this rule and has the initiative on weapon selection when not on his own phase.

I don't think that's interesting at all, since such a system seeks to minimise the rewards of picking the best weapon for the situation. And indeed, such a system completely defeats the original purpose of the Weapon Triangle.

Used appropriately, it's a way to shake things up and require some forethought,

But it /doesn't/ require more forethought. Under the current system, I can make a boss easier on myself by encouraging him to switch to an axe, then I can use my sword dude to kill him. Under your system, there would be no point in trying to encourage the boss to do anything: I should just attack without bothering to manipulate his AI. If anything, your system requires LESS forethought because no matter how much planning I put in, the enemy can just cheat and switch his weapon!

It's not like toying with the Weapon Triangle is a new thing. *-reaver weapons exist. Teaching the player to utilize basic means of triangle control (selecting the right weapon, or the right classes due to the weapons they generally wield) has often been spiced up by features like "this Fighter has a Swordreaver, so this time use somebody other than your Myrmidon."

I think you misunderstand the main purpose of Reaver weapons. The main purpose of Reaver weapons is not so that the game can go "surprise! your myrmidon is now dead, guess you should have checked the weapons of every enemy on the map hyuk hyuk". It's so that the PLAYER can use them and subvert the weapon triangle for themselves, so that they don't feel like their Myrmidon is totally useless against lance users.

It may still be smarter to use your Armorslayer Swordmaster against a boss who will always use a Lance against them.

So what difference does this mechanic make? What difference was it supposed to make?

Edited March 19, 2012 by Anouleth

[Renall]

I do not think this is really a thought-provoking mechanic, however. While it might provoke thought on the part of the designer, it seems unlikely that it will provoke a whole lot of thought on the part of the player.

Also, bigger numbers can be more interesting.

They can be, but not when that's always the case. Variety is the spice of life or whatever.

And again, you betray your lack of experience with bosskilling in FE. Often, the character with WTA is not the best choice for the job. That Armourslayer Swordmaster is often the best choice even though he faces WTD.

Do you have anything better to do than personally insult people you don't even know and completely ignore half the things they say?

But it's impossible to trick a boss that always picks the correct weapon. Unless you're suggesting their AI should be programmed to be deliberately flawed: like a boss that always tries to use Axes against thieves or something.

If the AI is sometimes willing to gamble, the player can exploit its willingness to do so. It's not that hard to imagine a situation where the boss makes a choice he sees as optimal that actually works for the player, depending on how he's programmed to think. For example, an overly cautious boss might always prefer the weapon that minimizes damage to himself, even if it means his ability to strike back against the player's units is lessened. It just depends on the selection logic.

I don't think that's interesting at all, since such a system seeks to minimise the rewards of picking the best weapon for the situation. And indeed, such a system completely defeats the original purpose of the Weapon Triangle.

No it doesn't. It occasionally changes up the game, which is interesting because it is novel and means that not every strategy applies in every situation. You've completely ignored my explanation as to the manner in which it intentionally subverts the Weapon Triangle toward a new end: Thinking about how the weapon triangle will be used against you on your own phase. This is a good teaching mechanic anyway as it will remind the player to think about what they have equipped on enemy phases as well.

You seem to think every single enemy in the game will now be able to do this. Bosses with this sort of ability can be given vulnerabilities if they lack a full inventory to handle every eventuality; it's absolutely no different from making a boss a General to give him vulnerability to Hammers or Armorslayers to subvert the fact that he has high Defense. And yes, maybe occasionally there is a boss who has his shit together and has full WTC and good weapons that are hard to really exploit. That's a challenge, it's difficult, and it's interesting. At times.

But it /doesn't/ require more forethought. Under the current system, I can make a boss easier on myself by encouraging him to switch to an axe, then I can use my sword dude to kill him. Under your system, there would be no point in trying to encourage the boss to do anything: I should just attack without bothering to manipulate his AI. If anything, your system requires LESS forethought because no matter how much planning I put in, the enemy can just cheat and switch his weapon!

Maybe if the player's a tactical idiot. But it's clear to anyone who actually reads what was said that there will be situations where you can choose to minimize the impact of potentially disadvantageous situation. That there is no other solution but to minimize your disadvantage is entirely the point. Sometimes there is no ideal solution. Sometimes a tactician must choose the least bad outcome. Mitigating loss to achieve victory is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask of a SRPG player. Maybe the option that damages the boss best is the riskiest; is it worth it? That's a question that's not always asked. I think it should be more frequently.

And are you seriously defending the short bus boss AI that will happily throw a Hand Axe at a guy he can't kill at 2 range, blissfully unaware of the Armorslayer guy standing at 3 range, ready to pounce? That's fine for a mook, and maybe even for a miniboss, but it just makes regular bosses look like chumps. Bosses not making stupid mistakes would be one of many ways to distinguish that they are bosses. Since under the current rules it's difficult for them to be able to make optimal selections (impossible, in many ways), I think an ability of this sort could make them more difficult in a manner the player still can easily understand.

I think you misunderstand the main purpose of Reaver weapons. The main purpose of Reaver weapons is not so that the game can go "surprise! your myrmidon is now dead, guess you should have checked the weapons of every enemy on the map hyuk hyuk". It's so that the PLAYER can use them and subvert the weapon triangle for themselves, so that they don't feel like their Myrmidon is totally useless against lance users.

You're completely misinterpreting me, as usual. Reaver weapons do exist on enemies. The goal is not to surprise the player when he robotically attacks a Reaver-wielding foe, but to encourage the player to check those things and respond appropriately. If I see a pack of Fighters and one has a Swordreaver, I plan my attacks accordingly, having my Sword users kill the regular guys and maybe have a Lance-packing Paladin go pick off the Swordreaver guy.

Again, this is just a way the series already subverts the Weapon Triangle concept to add depth to the gameplay. It doesn't throw them on every enemy, but it does occasionally toss them into the mix, and the player's given access to the same toys from time to time. That makes the game more interesting, and interesting and challenging things are fun.

So what difference does this mechanic make? What difference was it supposed to make?

I already explained it. Try reading it next time. But since you insist, the one-sentence summary: It makes certain bosses more challenging and introduces situations where the player must choose among non-ideal solutions to find the one which is least risky, harmful, or problematic, and apply that to win.

[Anouleth]

They can be, but not when that's always the case. Variety is the spice of life or whatever.

Do you have anything better to do than personally insult people you don't even know and completely ignore half the things they say?

I'm not personally insulting you. However, if you think that bosses are "merely" a case of picking the unit that has WTA, then you are wrong. Bosses are usually defeated by picking units that have a good chance of dealing a lot of damage to them and don't get 1-rounded back, and while the weapon triangle is a part of it, it's not the be-all end-all, it's one element of many. Which is, exactly how it should be.

If the AI is sometimes willing to gamble, the player can exploit its willingness to do so. It's not that hard to imagine a situation where the boss makes a choice he sees as optimal that actually works for the player, depending on how he's programmed to think.

So basically the AI would be programmed with deliberate flaws? I don't know if I really agree with that. After all, the player can't "see" the enemy AI and thus would be unable to plan around it. Especially since you make it sound like every boss would have distinct AI, and distinct from generic enemies too.

No it doesn't. It occasionally changes up the game, which is interesting because it is novel

Just because it's "new" doesn't mean it's good.

and means that not every strategy applies in every situation.

I think this is a false premise. There's no reason why implementing this would mean that you'd no longer be able to use the same strategy for different bosses: in addition, it's not currently the case that you can always use the same strategy for every boss. For example, in FE6HM, even if bosses always had WTA, you would still probably use Rutger to face the vast majority of them because Rutger still has the most appropiate stats and weapon type for fighting bosses. After all, Rutger lacks WTC to begin with, so it's not like anyone ever really cared that much about WT on bosses.

You've completely ignored my explanation as to the manner in which it intentionally subverts the Weapon Triangle toward a new end: Thinking about how the weapon triangle will be used against you on your own phase. This is a good teaching mechanic anyway as it will remind the player to think about what they have equipped on enemy phases as well.

They should do that anyway.

Plus, the effect of this /is/ to minimise the rewards of picking the best weapon. Against a boss with an Axe, the best weapon is clearly a Sword, by a significant margin (other things being equal). But if you had WTD no matter what you did, the correct weapon is no longer clear, because all your weapons will be roughly equal. Whether you use a sword, an axe, or a lance is probably going to make very little difference.

You seem to think every single enemy in the game will now be able to do this.

I don't believe I ever said such a thing.

Bosses with this sort of ability can be given vulnerabilities if they lack a full inventory to handle every eventuality; it's absolutely no different from making a boss a General to give him vulnerability to Hammers or Armorslayers to subvert the fact that he has high Defense.

What precisely is the point of this mechanic then? Wasn't the whole point of this mechanic to /remove/ vulnerabilities from bosses, specifically the vulnerability towards WTD, and in doing do make it harder to determine what the best way to kill him is?

And yes, maybe occasionally there is a boss who has his shit together and has full WTC and good weapons that are hard to really exploit. That's a challenge, it's difficult, and it's interesting.

I don't think that's really very interesting.

There's nothing wrong with challenging bosses. I just don't think the "challenge" should be "lolol you have 40 display hit on me and I have Big Shield gl", which is what WTD on a boss usually means. Bosses should be made challenging in other ways, such as by giving them minions that get in your way or making them mobile. How about this: that lance using boss has Mercenary reinforcements. So letting your Fighter face him on his own puts him at risk of being slaughtered by the reinforcements. You have to use your other units to kill the mercenaries and protect your Fighter while he takes the boss down. It avoids the issue I often have with boss fights; that it's just a case of sending your one Super Awesome Dude to fight the boss and everyone else kind of twiddles their thumbs because there's nothing to do.

At times.Maybe if the player's a tactical idiot.

Well, go ahead. Apparently, I'm a "tactical idiot", so enlighten me: what exactly can a player do to plan ahead or manipulate a boss that can switch his weapons whenever he feels like it?

But it's clear to anyone who actually reads what was said that there will be situations where you can choose to minimize the impact of potentially disadvantageous situation. That there is no other solution but to minimize your disadvantage is entirely the point. Sometimes there is no ideal solution. Sometimes a tactician must choose the least bad outcome.

Except that there's not really much you can do to minimise your disadvantage. Choosing between an Axe, a Lance, and a Sword is now just a matter of ~5 points of hit and ~1 point of ATK. It doesn't really matter what weapon you pick, since none of them is clearly better than the others. Which really just underlines what this "mechanic" does: it reduces the benefits of picking the best weapon in order to make it harder to determine what that weapon is.

Mitigating loss to achieve victory is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask of a SRPG player. Maybe the option that damages the boss best is the riskiest; is it worth it? That's a question that's not always asked. I think it should be more frequently.

Actually, that question is asked extremely frequently in FEDS. You can either use Jagen to fight the bosses, which is faster but puts him at risk of crits because he only has 1 luck, or you can grind Gordin to a higher level since Gazzak cannot counterattack him (a level ~11 Gordin is quite useful since the bosses of Chapter 2 and 3 cannot 2HKO him with Hand Axes and he deals good damage to them).

I don't think this question should be asked more frequently, is what I'm saying.

And are you seriously defending the short bus boss AI that will happily throw a Hand Axe at a guy he can't kill at 2 range, blissfully unaware of the Armorslayer guy standing at 3 range, ready to pounce? That's fine for a mook, and maybe even for a miniboss, but it just makes regular bosses look like chumps.

Yes, I am. I like to be able to manipulate enemy AI: it is more interesting than enemy AI that cannot be manipulated or tricked.

You're completely misinterpreting me, as usual. Reaver weapons do exist on enemies. The goal is not to surprise the player when he robotically attacks a Reaver-wielding foe, but to encourage the player to check those things and respond appropriately. If I see a pack of Fighters and one has a Swordreaver, I plan my attacks accordingly, having my Sword users kill the regular guys and maybe have a Lance-packing Paladin go pick off the Swordreaver guy.

That's another thing that Reaver weapons do, but the PRIMARY purpose of Reaver weapons is for the players to use and have fun with.

I already explained it. Try reading it next time. But since you insist, the one-sentence summary: It makes certain bosses more challenging and introduces situations where the player must choose among non-ideal solutions to find the one which is least risky, harmful, or problematic, and apply that to win.

For a start, there are other and usually better ways to make bosses challenging. I don't think that making bosses harder to hit really is the best way to make bosses more challenging...

In addition, it's an awful exaggeration to suggest that this is introducing non-ideal solutions. The ideal solution to a boss is a unit who kills them in 1-round with 100% accuracy. Few FEs offer such powerful units. It's already the case that you must choose among non-ideal solutions. After all, Armourslayer!Rutger is hardly an "ideal" solution.

In fact, there's no reason why this skill wouldn't make choosing between different bosskillers easier. For instance, Joshua, Ephraim, and Duessel are all potential canditates to kill Vigarde. Duessel is the most durable and doesn't need constant healing because he's 3/4HKOed, but won't double and has only 38 display hit with the Hammer. He might be able to 2HKO Vigarde, but will miss the 2HKO if Vigarde can use his throne healing, and he can switch to the more accurate Silver Axe and still deal damage if Vigarde's health is very low. Joshua doubles and even with WTD and throne healing will 4HKO Vigarde with 48 display hit: he's also got a good critical chance on his side and since he'll be newly promoted, has the lowest chance of activating Big Shield. However, a critical from Vigarde will always kill him, and he needs constant healing. Ephraim 3HKOes and doubles Vigarde and with the best accuracy (62), but also has the highest chance of activating Big Shield. Plus, he can't kill and seize in the same turn so it may cost a turn to use him. But Ephraim has the lowest chance of being criticalled (the chance is still there, about 2%).

As you can see, this is a fairly balanced matchup. It's not "obvious" which one to use at all, they all have useful advantages. The weapon triangle is a factor, but it's one of many factors, just as Narihiro says:

Narihiro

But, the match-up between different weapons is not that simple. Just understanding which measures up against the other is not an automatic key to victory.

However, what if Vigarde could automagically switch his weapon whenever he wanted? Well, Joshua would be the best one to fight him, pretty clearly (Ephraim would lose his accuracy advantage, Duessel would have almost no chance at all to hit). So I don't think your suggestion would necessarily "introduce situations where the player must choose among non-ideal solutions to find the blah blah blah"; we already have situations like that in FE, and there are examples where your mechanic actually destroys them.

[dondon151]

I think easy solution would be to give this skill to bosses and remove or severely cut down on throne/gate bonuses. Those were always a massive nuisance and even the modest bonuses offered by FE11/12 thrones and gates were still a pain in the butt.

[Renall]

I think easy solution would be to give this skill to bosses and remove or severely cut down on throne/gate bonuses. Those were always a massive nuisance and even the modest bonuses offered by FE11/12 thrones and gates were still a pain in the butt.

Also a point I entirely forgot: If it's a skill, that suggests other skills exist. Parity or Nihil could just cancel it, allowing a Nihil unit to exploit the boss's inability to change weaponry. Though one might argue Nihil's good enough already. But something could cancel it, so there's many ways to deal with it.

[dondon151]

And furthermore, you don't have to give bosses any sort of weapon triangle coverage if you really want to make him manipulable by the player.

[Anouleth]

Also a point I entirely forgot: If it's a skill, that suggests other skills exist. Parity or Nihil could just cancel it, allowing a Nihil unit to exploit the boss's inability to change weaponry. Though one might argue Nihil's good enough already. But something could cancel it, so there's many ways to deal with it.

Oh, Nihil doesn't cancel some stuff you might expect it to. Nihil, for instance, doesn't cut out Tide bonuses, and a lot of skills aren't even stopped by it in FE4. Parity seems like a better one.

Which makes me think (suddenly), does Parity or Nihil cancel out Saviour? or Daunt? does Parity even cancel out +crit skills? or Paragon? or Mercy? If a guy with Parity attacks a guy that's Rescuing someone else, do they drop him? Does Parity cancel out FE9 Lumina? I know all of this is completely off-topic but suddenyl I really wanna know.

And furthermore, you don't have to give bosses any sort of weapon triangle coverage if you really want to make him manipulable by the player.

I don't understand. If a boss only has one weapon type, you can't manipulate him into switching weapon types because... he can't switch weapon types.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Anouleth

[dondon151]

I don't understand. If a boss only has one weapon type, you can't manipulate him into switching weapon types because... he can't switch weapon types.

How many bosses do you actually need to force weapon switching against? Most bosses have some sort of 2RKO strategy that you'd choose regardless of their equipped weapon.

My understanding of this hypothetical skill is that it's designed to just make bosses tougher to deal with in general, not to promote any sort of super awesome strategy involving weapon triangle manipulation. If a boss only has 2 different weapon types, then there's very clearly a "best" weapon type for the matchup.

[Anouleth]

How many bosses do you actually need to force weapon switching against?

If it's the case that it doesn't matter what weapon a boss uses, then this mechanic changes nothing anyway, aside from making bosskilling less reliable.

None, but it's rare that in Fire Emblem you ever "have" to perform a specific strategy since in general the game lets you pursue alternative strategies. There are several cases of bosses where you might /want/ to make them switch their weapon; such as luring Beran into switching to his Longbow so you don't have to face his lancereaver, or luring Orson into switching to his Silver Lance so that he will not heal himself with the Runesword. There are some cases where you want to prevent the boss from switching his weapon; such as Cyclops, since if he switches to the Swordslayer he won't drop it when he dies, or Fomortiis since Ravager gives a higher defense boost than Demon Light (and it gives him 12 more crit).

Most bosses have some sort of 2RKO strategy that you'd choose regardless of their equipped weapon.

Therefore, this mechanic would change nothing?

My understanding of this hypothetical skill is that it's designed to just make bosses tougher to deal with in general, not to promote any sort of super awesome strategy involving weapon triangle manipulation.

Actually, he's been pretty clear that this skill has two purposes, firstly to make bosses more difficult and also to make them more "thought-provoking". And I think you would agree that there are better ways to make bosses more difficult than to give the player an accuracy penalty.

If a boss only has 2 different weapon types, then there's very clearly a "best" weapon type for the matchup.

Who cares?

[Renall]

The player doesn't have an accuracy penalty in a two-weapons situation, if he uses the weapon that's neutral to the boss.

[Progenitus]

How about instead of all the weapon swapping skill, just make a skill that prevents the enemy from getting WTD (and the opponent from getting WTA)? So if the boss is using an axe and the opponent has a sword, the weapon triangle is ignored.

However I do agree with anouleth, that making bosses harder shouldn't be "make it harder to hit them". Making more of them move would already be a good start.

Also, I liked the weapon triangle from FEDS with the weapon ranks and all, which allowed the weapon triangle to scale better as the game went on. Of course hit didn't really matter in that game (weapons had ridiculous hit and no one had any avoid because of the gimped formula), but the concept is there.

Edited March 22, 2012 by IMPrime