HeroMaster47 Posted May 14, 2012 Author Share Posted May 14, 2012 (edited) Aw man, I was looking forward to that! Most people seem against it, sorry. All chapters up to Chapter 10 are up in the OP, everybody. Edited May 14, 2012 by HeroMaster47 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Ohkay. . .uh, any reason why Florina's got less Strength growth and Wil's got his awful base Speed and growth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroMaster47 Posted May 14, 2012 Author Share Posted May 14, 2012 (edited) Ohkay. . .uh, any reason why Florina's got less Strength growth and Wil's got his awful base Speed and growth? 40% Spd growth isn't awful, it's average. If I made his growth any higher to the point where it made a difference, it'd almost be rivalling Rebecca's. His base spd is 2 lower than Rebecca's is, so I suppose it can go up 1, considering I basically increased most of his other bases. I suppose it wouldn't be too unreasonable to put Florina's Str growth back up to 40% now that I look at it. I can't remember why I lowered it. It's actually quite balanced the way it is. Fiora has 30% Str, Florina has 40% and Farina has 50%. I'll get right on to changing it back. EDIT: On testing Chapters 7x and 10, I discovered that the bosses are hard. VERY hard. Lundgren is packing 25 Atk and 17 Def and almost no-one can damage him but Wallace. Beyard also has the Wind Sword and could double most of my team at that stage. May need slight nerfs. EDIT2: The OP has been updated. Florina now has 40% Str growth and Will has a +1 Skl boost I forgot to put in, and now has +1 Spd Edited May 14, 2012 by HeroMaster47 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashGordon94 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Most people seem against it, sorry. Well actually, you probably just heard from the vocal minority who are against it, I'm pretty certain there are a number of people for it. Not to mention that it fits in with your hack plans, since you're increasing the availability of magic Swords. That would indicate that you're trying to increase equality and availability of 1-2 range weapons, why exclude Bow users from that? Not to mention that despite what those weirdos said it won't kill their "niche" as 2-rangers because it's just one weapon with sub-par stats. In fact it'd be less niche-killing than Hand Axes, Javelins and magic Swords because their 1-range would get overshadowed by all the melee units around (not to mention mages). It really just gives a little bit more flexibility by not having them locked to one kill per turn forever, which is not beneficial to game balance in any way and would take a lot of thought about balancing to surmount in a meaningful way, perhaps more thought than is in the scope of a self-proclaimed "simple" hack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gryz Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 (edited) Because it's pointless to make Iron AND Steel have the same weapon ranks. Makes Iron obsolete for most characters because they'd instead go for the higher MT. Steel is the next level up from Iron; it's only natural that it is D rank. I think the higher hit and lower weight are valid considerations for deciding between Iron and Steel. @Gryz: All promoted classes with a second and/or third weapon will have base D rank in it. Also, why would I want Athos to deliver the final blow to the dragon? Shouldn't it go to whoever I like? Although, the crit reduction might not be a bad idea... If all promoted classes start with D, then why does the E-rank even exist? Only Lyn Mode Kent/Sain would have it. To me, E-rank signifies having little experience with that weapon, which fits in with promoted classes getting a new weapon. There are some exceptions like the Lords and Bishops, but the majority get E. Making all Steel weapons be E-rank is just a compromise between letting newly promoted characters have more choices and not having E-rank be nonexistent. Plus, it pretty much has zero impact on the unpromoted characters. Also, why would I want Athos to deliver the final blow to the dragon? Shouldn't it go to whoever I like? Although, the crit reduction might not be a bad idea... Athos does not have to kill the dragon. But the dragon having 40 attack would prevent him from soloing the entire thing by himself with Luna, that's all. On the other hand, I didn't have an issue before with Athos being able to take on the dragon by himself - he is supposed to be the failsafe afterall. Edited May 14, 2012 by Gryz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anouleth Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 I don't want this to be a balance patch, that's just how it is for now, nor do I want to majorly change the stats because most of them are fine. You say this is a balance hack in your first post, so I assumed that naturally, one of the goals of this game is to make weak characters like Wil more useful relative to others. And Wil's stats aren't "fine". Ok, I understand the S-rank problem now. I don't pay attention to the rankings much, so I didn't know this would effect that. It'll be changed so they have 35 uses instead. Doest that sound fair? To be honest, why does the number of uses have to be changed at all? They appear in the final chapter. They are unlikely to run out of uses when the number of enemies remaining in the game can literally be counted on the fingers of two hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashGordon94 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Also, just a thought, I'd suggest giving Snipers and Assassins the crit bonus too. Strongly with Snipers but you're already doing a good job with Assassins so take that option however you want. The main reasons I went with critty Sins in my FE8 hack don't apply here and all the main Assassins are fine already but it's an option worth thinking about at least, if nothing else than for a decent activation rate on Lethality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrhesia Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Crash, I'm going to say this gently. Try and shoot someone in the face with a bow while he is literally within striking distance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubby Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 i've done it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashGordon94 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Crash, I'm going to say this gently. Try and shoot someone in the face with a bow while he is literally within striking distance. Try casting magic. Dude, realism is pointless in FE. Why didn't you give this up when you saw the sometimes skimpy clothing, young fighters, magic and fantasy stuff and silly hair colors? Besides the Short Bow is well... short. Would that not make it easy to let off a quickly-loaded shot? Plus, Jubby said he did it there ^. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrhesia Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Try casting magic. Are you saying that shortbows are magic? Because they're sort of a real thing. Dude, realism is pointless in FE. Why didn't you give this up when you saw the sometimes skimpy clothing, young fighters, magic and fantasy stuff and silly hair colors? Irrelevant. Child soldiers exist. Shortbows exist. Irrelevant. Besides the Short Bow is well... short. Would that not make it easy to let off a quickly-loaded shot? No. The fact that bows can double at all is a small miracle, considering that the unsarcastically fucking amazing quality of the English longbowmen let them loose like... six to ten arrows in a minute, I'm not certain which. But shooting people in the face from this close range just SLIGHTLY stretches credibility. Plus, Jubby said he did it there ^. ... Please tell me you aren't seriously this stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 (edited) I could see a nomad or horse mounted archer being physically capable of riding pretty close to an enemy unit and then firing a shot, and possibly riding away afterwards too. Since I'm pretty sure they were supposed to have better range than that, I can't see why they would, but it seems like it might work. It just doesn't seem like it would make sense to be able to counter. But considering that FE attack animations consist of units standing still as enemies attack them or dodging very slightly (or, recently, sometimes blocking), attacking and moving away from an enemy unit and attacking again while the enemy unit stands still (doubling helpless units in GBA games), units are attacked and allow their adversaries to then move away without reprisal (GBA games), all battles, whether against dragons, axe bandits with no sense of honor, or royal armies consist of a series of one-on-one bouts between individuals (every FE besides FE13), units perform as well or better at the brink of death as they do fully healed, fliers are unable to fly above ground units and avoid their attacks but can fly above mountains, etc, I think that having an on-foot archer shooting someone "point blank" even with a longbow does little in addition to break immersion. Unless you remove handaxes, as they currently exist, which return to their owners like boomerangs and maintain momentum after making contact with the target, and javelins (is the unit carrying 20 individual spears with them? Why don't the uses go down when you miss?) making the gameplay make sense in terms of "realism" is not worth any thought. These are just a bunch of numbers running around. Heck, in FE9 they didn't even change the visuals to mark a differeence between shooting someone with a 2 range bow and a 4 range bow IIRC. Edited May 14, 2012 by Hawkeye Hank Hatfield Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashGordon94 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Furret, my point was that FE isn't realistic so it doesn't have to portray Bows in any realistic way and 1-range Short Bows were covered by the willing suspension of disbelief, c'mon, don't tell me you can buy slut armor and Silver as a weapon material but not short-ranged archery! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaMonkey Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Also, Furet, the Double Bow in FE10 allows your Marksmen to attack at melee-range with a bow. So what's wrong with having a melee-range bow in this hack? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrhesia Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 (edited) Furret, my point was that FE isn't realistic so it doesn't have to portray Bows in any realistic way and 1-range Short Bows were covered by the willing suspension of disbelief, c'mon, don't tell me you can buy slut armor and Silver as a weapon material but not short-ranged archery! Silver in the hilt, and I think silver-gilt weapons still function. ... For bows, I don't know, because for Iron and Steel I think of it as arrow-tips. For silver... yeah... um... okay, I'm conceding this point. Falling back on the 'archers have the niche of being the best ranged units (in theory) and no melee barring a potential S-rank'. Also, Furet, the Double Bow in FE10 allows your Marksmen to attack at melee-range with a bow. So what's wrong with having a melee-range bow in this hack? That's an S-rank bow. Tying in with Crash's earlier, that ... okay, I'm actually not going to justify that with 'It's a MAGIC bow!! :downs:'. I'm in favour of 1-3 range S-rank bows, and my reason has to do with them being S-rank instead of hammered together by some scrub peasant hunter. Shortbows seem more like a thing that would be locked to nomads, hunters and rangers, but that makes no sense from a balance standpoint if you're using shortbows as an excuse for 1-2 range. Edited May 14, 2012 by Furetchen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashGordon94 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 okay, I'm conceding this point. Falling back on the 'archers have the niche of being the best ranged units (in theory) and no melee barring a potential S-rank'. I already addressed that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrhesia Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Well actually, you probably just heard from the vocal minority who are against it, I'm pretty certain there are a number of people for it. And that number is smaller than those in favour. That would indicate that you're trying to increase equality and availability of 1-2 range weapons, why exclude Bow users from that? Not to mention that despite what those weirdos said it won't kill their "niche" as 2-rangers because it's just one weapon with sub-par stats. In fact it'd be less niche-killing than Hand Axes, Javelins and magic Swords because their 1-range would get overshadowed by all the melee units around (not to mention mages). Javelins and handaxes are real things, as well as staples of the series. Magic swords are their own niche. I support javelins and handaxes receiving nerfs, as an aside. It really just gives a little bit more flexibility by not having them locked to one kill per turn forever, which is not beneficial to game balance in any way and would take a lot of thought about balancing to surmount in a meaningful way, perhaps more thought than is in the scope of a self-proclaimed "simple" hack. FE12 did it. So did Shinon, and it wasn't for his crossbows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashGordon94 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 You don't know the numbers are smaller, considering how often it comes up in hacks. And my point was that doing what FE12 did takes more than what can be done in a "simple" hack. Plus Shinon still gets a little bit gimped with the 1-range problem. And realism is 100% worthless in FE still. Plus 1-2 range doesn't kill the niche and allows more flexibility with balancing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 (edited) You don't know the numbers are smaller, considering how often it comes up in hacks. And yet you seem very confident that you're in the majority here, despite having arguably less of the facts than Furetchen does. EDIT: Since it's bound to come up, I take the latter point from the stance that - correct me if I'm wrong - Furetchen has been posting on this hacking board a lot longer than you have, so would have a much more founded concept of the trend of beliefs. And realism is 100% worthless in FE still. See this, this is a huge fallacy. "some things are unrealistic" does NOT mean "everything might as well be unrealistic". Edited May 14, 2012 by Integrity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashGordon94 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Yes it does, this is a fantasy game, complaining that something isn't realistic in a fantasy game is like complaining that there are too many cars in a racing game! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Yes it does, this is a fantasy game, complaining that something isn't realistic in a fantasy game is like complaining that there are too many cars in a racing game! You've obviously never heard of fantastical things that are grounded in reality. Like the Bible. You remember how all sorts of crazy shit happens in the Bible, yet we humans are still bound by physics? Yeah. Nightmarre calls it realistic fantasy, which incidentally is what Fire Emblem is for the most part. That's why we have bows that shoot, swords that cut, axes that chop, and everything that isn't unrealistic is explicitly magical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashGordon94 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Nope. Crazy hair colours, skimpy outfits that actually work and silver being strong as opposed to heavy and crap. There is nothing good to be gained from realism here and so much cool stuff that can be gained from flushing it down the toilet entirely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT075 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 (edited) by that logic... it would raise no eyebrows if player units could spontaneously develop the ability to shoot magical lasers out of their eyes for no reason gameplay aside, there should be no objections to the assertion that weapons should be indestructible likewise, it's an entirely valid idea to say that nobody should ever age there's "stretching things a little bit" and "absurd". And personally I feel that bow units don't need 1-2 range - my opinion is that if you really want to make them better then you make them stand out at what they're good at (MAKE 2 RANGE BETTER)- accentuate their strengths rather than try to cover their weaknesses. Edited May 14, 2012 by Camtech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrhesia Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Dude, I just told you that silver doesn't represent actual silver. Throwing a sword would be an apt simile here. Blue hair is NOT. Let's flush realism down the toilet entirely. Just follow that to its logical conclusion. I fucking dare you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashGordon94 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Let's flush realism down the toilet entirely. Just follow that to its logical conclusion. I fucking dare you. Sure, a typical fantasy story. Like Fire Emblem. And besides having a short-range bow is not THAT unrealistic, certainly more plausible than the way Javelins work in FE. And it may not be 100% necessary but it can only help and only be a good thing. 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.