Most useful version of the AS system?

[BrightBow]

Maybe 'cause of the other ways that they can be balanced other than weight like, say, hit vs. might, which Iron and Steel are already partially balanced around? Or, say, cost/uses, which they're also already balanced around?

I'm in favor of weapon weight, but this is sort of iffy logic.

I took hit into account for that statement above. As far as I am concerned, hit is essentially a non-issue for the most part. Not in a way that compares to damage. At least I figured that's the reason people don't like the heaven affinity.

And without that, there isn't really much left for Iron. Steel has more might then Iron, so Steel wins.

Edited November 13, 2012 by BrightBow

[Integrity]

You're operating from the standpoint that none of these things can be modified in any way. Yes, Hit is essentially irrelevant in <insert FE>, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily irrelevant in all FEs, future included.

EDIT: F'example, look at FE6. Steel definitely has a sortof split with Iron there, even weight factored out, due to shitty hits all around.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Mr. Sparkles

[Original Alear]

You're trying to protect someone on a big ass horse from a bunch of enemies in the heat of combat.

Are you carrying them? How does that work?

They got off your horsey and onto your horsey. It seems pretty obvious, given how horsey characters have better rescuing stats than foot units (I believe horsey units can capture as though their build stat was 20, and I'm sure you know how aid is factored into rescue in later games).

I understand that taking 1 turn, but not really it taking 2 turns (or rather, why it couldn't be done in one).

Explain to me how someone gets off a horsey, goes in a building, then walks out another door and gets on their horsey.

In like, a goddamn interior courtyard.

http://www.fireemble...guia/cap21x.htm

Ya I bet you just have some spare Pegasi that lift the horses into the courtyard for the riders. Or the riders are dismounted, but their horseys enter the building with them.

I took hit into account for that statement above. As far as I am concerned, hit is essentially a non-issue for the most part. Not in a way that compares to damage. At least I figured that's the reason people don't like the heaven affinity.

The hit bonus from heaven might be more useful if you didn't have Nailah (and the BK) for 1-F, considering how annoying (IMO) the leadership bonus to dodge is in that chapter. Of course, evasion might still be even better. I believe heaven's also been identified as handy for 4-F-5. Of course, those are two pretty small pieces of the pie.

In games besides FE10, you probably want to look at support options to determine an affinity's bonus, but I think the only pure hit support affinity in fire emblem is in the tellius games (I don't really pay attention to this stuff, obv). So FE9 is probably the only one where heaven could be useful for a particular character...but I certainly didn't feel like I needed hit in FE9 HM, unless I was using a growth unit that I could toss forges on.

Edited November 14, 2012 by L1049

[SgtSmilies]

They got off your horsey and onto your horsey. It seems pretty obvious, given how horsey characters have better rescuing stats than foot units (I believe horsey units can capture as though their build stat was 20, and I'm sure you know how aid is factored into rescue in later games).

Yes, because dragging your horse around while on another is both practical and efficient.

Explain to me how someone gets off a horsey, goes in a building, then walks out another door and gets on their horsey.

In like, a goddamn interior courtyard.

Question: Why does it matter? Are you really that upset that a game mechanic isn't one hundred percent accurate and realistic? Also, why was that relevant to the discussion at hand in the slightest?

And if you're going to get antsy then why don't you try riding your horse in close quarters, because I guarantee that it won't work out in your favor.

[Baldrick]

Explain to me how someone gets off a horsey, goes in a building, then walks out another door and gets on their horsey.

Judgral obviously has Pokeball technology.

[Hawk King]

I think a mixture of Str = AS, and Con = AS would work best. Like (STR + CON)/2 = AS. That way someone like Guy isn't fucked for the whole game because of his shitty CON. As his STR rises his AS will rise too, but it wont become irrelevant as quickly as in the Tellius games.

The rescue formula also won't get screwed up like it does with BLD.

[Integrity]

Lumi shat out a decent formula for just that yesterday, that more heavily weighted CON than STR. I really rather liked it.

[Thor Odinson]

The current version I have is con+floor[(str+5)/10] so that every unit can start with at least their con for wt deduction and only goes up from there. It's also not very difficult to calculate since the formula's written for a computer to understand and for a human to calculate it's basically divide str by 10, round up, tack it on to con. May still run a few more tests though.

Edit:

Results of effective "con minus the whole rescue bits" using my formula vs averaging str and con formula using Lyn mode characters - Nils as test subjects

The latter has problems of actually reducing the effective "con" for characters whose strength is lower than their con. Characters want a strong start so they'll be more likely to be used and actually use their growths, and this would weaken their start than before. It also inflates effective con too high around endgame and gives the same problems str-based calculations gave, pretty much negating weapon weight around then.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Zhuge Liang

[Anouleth]

I think a mixture of Str = AS, and Con = AS would work best. Like (STR + CON)/2 = AS. That way someone like Guy isn't fucked for the whole game because of his shitty CON. As his STR rises his AS will rise too, but it wont become irrelevant as quickly as in the Tellius games.

I really don't understand this. Guy is not "fucked" in FE7. He's a fairly decent unit that is held back mainly by low strength.

[Original Alear]

Yes, because dragging your horse around while on another is both practical and efficient.

Question: Why does it matter? Are you really that upset that a game mechanic isn't one hundred percent accurate and realistic? Also, why was that relevant to the discussion at hand in the slightest?

And if you're going to get antsy then why don't you try riding your horse in close quarters, because I guarantee that it won't work out in your favor.

You asked me for my opinion on something, I gave my opinion, and you're acting annoyed that I gave it because it wasn't "relevant." It addressed your post perfectly. If it didn't address the topic, and you think that's bad, you shouldn't have responded in the first place.

Stop giving me shit.

Lumi's formula seems cool. In practice, it just seems like saying a unit's con in con VS weight should be able to grow without shifting its rescue (if the "problems" are things that aren't wanted).

The latter has problems of actually reducing the effective "con" for characters whose strength is lower than their con.

If this kind of problem is bad, then you could just replace "str" in your equation with something that is only used for that equation (indivudally tailored constant(s) added or multiplied by a character's level would basically be a non-rng-based stat - you could also add another stat, that would basically be a bld growth that doesn't affect rescuing/being rescued).

It also inflates effective con too high around endgame and gives the same problems str-based calculations gave, pretty much negating weapon weight around then.

In FE9 endgame, most or all characters already had high enough effective con to make most or all weight irrelevant. Probably a while before endgame, actually.

[Thor Odinson]

Lumi's formula seems cool. In practice, it just seems like saying a unit's con in con VS weight should be able to grow without shifting its rescue (if the "problems" are things that aren't wanted).

If this kind of problem is bad, then you could just replace "str" in your equation with something that is only used for that equation (indivudally tailored constant(s) added or multiplied by a character's level would basically be a non-rng-based stat - you could also add another stat, that would basically be a bld growth that doesn't affect rescuing/being rescued).

In FE9 endgame, most or all characters already had high enough effective con to make most or all weight irrelevant. Probably a while before endgame, actually.

Well, I've never played FE9 but if it's the same system as FE10's, it's precisely the problem with pure str-based AS reduction system. I wanted to use str because strength actually makes sense in affecting how heavy one can lift in addition to one's build, but I divided it by 10 so it won't grow out too much. Another stat just seems kinda redundant and takes up space on the statsheet. It's not like dividing by 10 then rounding up is very complicated math, either. Previous editions had stuff like 2/3 con + str/ 7 (or something like that) and whatnot and that didn't work out as well and isn't as nice to mentally calculate either. Had to play with numbers a bit to make it work.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Zhuge Liang

[Rehab]

I always saw con as body type and strength as muscle definition. Or something approximating.

In that vein, I think it's ok for weapon weight to matter less as the game goes on, because the army's getting better at using their weapons and mitigating the weight. I guess that makes weapons less things that force the player to make a decision, based on whether using a weapon is worth a weight penalty, and more things the player just grows into having available, but that sounds more or less good by me.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Rehab

[FEAnon]

Without branching off to a new formula for the Con system, I think that bows had the best overall ratio for Con to weapon rank for the physical weapons. Since Steels had +4 Wt compared to Iron while the other physical weapons had something like +5 Wt compared to Irons. While this is mostly due to the fact that archers on a whole tend to have lower con, if the physical weapons on a whole followed a similar ration to that of bows albeit a bit modified maybe then we would have less cases of units being drastically affected by really really heavy weapons.

[Tangerine]

Con is the best and most balanced system they've used to date. There is no way to improve it, the only alterations that can be made are trivial and only attempting to fix what wasn't broken. The only problems that can possibly arise with this system are entirely character and item based. Some characters whose games feature this system are poorly balanced, but the system itself is not.

The only complaints I've ever seen about it are "low con units can't wield steel" and stuff like that. That isn't a problem - low con units aren't supposed to be able to wield steel. It's a disadvantage for a reason, and they often have something going for them that makes up for their con (very high speed being the most common for foot units). Like who thinks Pegs aren't one of the best player classes in the series just because they usually lose a lot of AS from steel weapons? It's also not the fault of the con system that the developers overloaded enemies with weapons they lose a ton of AS from. They didn't do that unknowingly, they just either weren't thinking or attempting to make the game easier. Steel weapons in general are not superbly balanced, but the fact that not every single character can effectively use them is not a problem either.

Str on the other hand is a very bad idea.

[MacLovin]

Con=AS kinda fucked the low con units.

Like the pegs, many myrms, and some mages.

[Lord Raven]

Anyway, I'm definitely against getting rid of penalties of heavier weapons like in FE12.

Why would you even use weaker weapons under those circumstances?

Weapon Levels and Cost

Furthermore, in FE13, you can't use Steel until you're a C rank which takes a while. Until then you're stuck with Bronze or Iron. I think the issue is less with the weight system and more with how easy it is to get to the rank you need to use the weapon. It doesn't help FE12 that you can use Steel as soon as you class-change to sniper or something.

[FEAnon]

I don't mind that some units can't use Steels and whatever since not every unit should be able to use everything. But we have cases of the pegasi being unable to even use Irons without crippling their AS before promotion which might not affect us on the player side that much but ends up making enemy pegasi a complete and utter joke. Not to mention when IS tried to fix tome weights in the gap from FE6 to FE7 and wound up making them too heavy and made using tomes higher than D Rank, a waste of time unless you really needed to kill that generic wyvern or something.

[Original Alear]

Like who thinks Pegs aren't one of the best player classes in the series just because they usually lose a lot of AS from steel weapons?

Probably no one. But pegs have high move and fly, and they often join before wyverns. When a peg cannot double, wyverns beat them in a lot of other areas that are "class-based," I think.

They didn't do that unknowingly, they just either weren't thinking or attempting to make the game easier.

If they did it unknowingly, that's more or less the same thing as not thinking...but I think they were thinking fine.

but ends up making enemy pegasi a complete and utter joke.

Enemy pegs can be annoying for weak units like healers, since they have flying and move. They're very stupid, though, and frequently crash into your 18-wheelers like a bicycle. I never played FE6 HM or Ilia, though. But even weak pegs present a certain kind of challenge most units don't when they're dispersed well around rough terrain, or in FoW (FE5 and FE10 have a fair amount of that).

[Anouleth]

Con is the best and most balanced system they've used to date. There is no way to improve it, the only alterations that can be made are trivial and only attempting to fix what wasn't broken. The only problems that can possibly arise with this system are entirely character and item based. Some characters whose games feature this system are poorly balanced, but the system itself is not.

How is Con the best system? By what metric?

The only complaints I've ever seen about it are "low con units can't wield steel" and stuff like that. That isn't a problem - low con units aren't supposed to be able to wield steel.

I don't see what your point is. I can use the "it's supposed to be that way" defense for literally any aspect of the game. "High level units aren't supposed to be slowed down by weapons!" "Iron weapons are supposedly to be obviously inferior to Steel weapons!" "Fiona is supposed to be very very weak!" The question is whether this element makes the game more fun. Imposing disadvantages and advantages on various units can indeed, make the game more fun, because it increases variety between units. It can also make the game less fun because it makes the game more complex. Many players seem to have the impression that it isn't "fair" that certain units are just inherently worse with no opportunity to overcome this. "Fairness", is of course, entirely subjective, and it's rather strange to point out differences in CON when there are so many other ways that units can be better or worse than each other, but for whatever reason people seem to dislike it, which I guess is why IntSys changed it.

At least, I think that's a better way to judge a game mechanic than trying to play guessing games about what weapons low con or low strength units are supposed to be able to wield.

[Tangerine]

Probably no one. But pegs have high move and fly, and they often join before wyverns. When a peg cannot double, wyverns beat them in a lot of other areas that are "class-based," I think.

Class-wise this is a show of poor balance itself, and con is only one factor in it. Pegs aren't worse than Wyverns because of the con system, they're worse than Wyverns because IS made them statistically inferior and balanced them in ways that don't matter for the player in practice. As far as the player cares, Wyverns only have one weakness when they are supposed to have two. They don't really have two because they rarely give the enemy the ability to exploit the Wyvern's second weakness.

On the other hand, in actual gameplay, the advantages given to the Pegasus-classed characters often see them rated above Wyverns. Vanessa compares favorably to Cormag, and Florina/Fiora compare very favorably to Heath. FE6 is different simply because Miledy is so statistically superior to Thany and Tate as a combat unit that they have no hope of comparing to her even with the usual advantage Pegs receive. But that's a character balance issue.

Myrmidons have similar advantages over other foot units. They have very high speed scores in the games they're featured in that often make up for their con issue, as well as a critical bonus on promotion. For example, Guy may lose 2 AS from his Killing Edge at base, but he -still- has more AS than every single other combat unit in your party when weighed down, short of Marcus and Matthew (and in HM he ties them weighed down, though not if you did Lyn mode for Matt). Rutger is one of the best units in FE6 despite losing AS from some of his weapons. Joshua is also fairly good. Myrmidons are usually let down by their strength stat, which is not a con issue at all. This is Guy's biggest issue; if he had Rutger's critical bonus he would've been able to keep up despite his strength.

Mages' advantages go without saying, although it should be noted that all magic classes have awful bases.

I don't see what your point is.

My point should be obvious. Low con units have advantages that make up for their low con, and that is ignored by people who whine about some class' low con scores. They were intended to not be able to wield more powerful weapons without a cost. I don't even understand how most of your examples apply. The con system gets blamed for character and item balance issues. Most units that use lances and axes lose AS from Steel Lance and Steel Axe, that isn't proof that the con system is flawed, it could've been for a few reasons. Perhaps they intended for the few high con units to use that as an advantage to counter their own disadvantages. It didn't really work out in Knight's case, but it's hard for us to say what they were thinking with weapon weight. A trade in AS for power is the most obvious.

And it's certainly better than having it rely on str - that creates balance issues among classes that don't use the stat.

Edited November 18, 2012 by Tangerine

[BrightBow]

Weapon Levels and Cost

Furthermore, in FE13, you can't use Steel until you're a C rank which takes a while. Until then you're stuck with Bronze or Iron. I think the issue is less with the weight system and more with how easy it is to get to the rank you need to use the weapon. It doesn't help FE12 that you can use Steel as soon as you class-change to sniper or something.

The costs are negligible and since Steel isn't available at the beginning, the weapon level will be high enough by the time they can be bought and stop being rare.

If weapon level and costs are the only factor by that point, it makes them little more but mere upgrades to Iron.

[Anouleth]

My point should be obvious.

Well, it isn't. I thought for a minute that you were saying that any complaints about CON weren't valid because the things that people don't like about it are deliberate, but I have decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that is not what you meant.

Low con units have advantages that make up for their low con, and that is ignored by people who whine about some class' low con scores.

Do they? Please elaborate on the advantages that Sophia, Farina, or Marisa bring to the table to make up for their low CON, because despite your protests to the contrary, low CON units are not universally balanced with high CON units.

They were intended to not be able to wield more powerful weapons without a cost.

And I don't think people particularly care what IntSys' intentions were when designing the CON system.

The con system gets blamed for character and item balance issues.

I don't blame the CON system for that: partially because I don't see a lack of balance as being an inherently bad thing.

And it's certainly better than having it rely on str - that creates balance issues among classes that don't use the stat.

I don't understand at all how STR-based AS causes imbalance among magic users. In fact, in Path of Radiance, STR-based AS lead to the magic users being the most balanced relative to each other in the history of the entire series. The gaps between Ilyana, Tormod, Soren, and Calill are far smaller than the gaps between say, Pent, Erk, and Nino.

[Esaka]

FE5 Build wins my vote.

[Lord Raven]

The costs are negligible and since Steel isn't available at the beginning, the weapon level will be high enough by the time they can be bought and stop being rare.

If weapon level and costs are the only factor by that point, it makes them little more but mere upgrades to Iron.

Yeah so? If a character wants to pick up a secondary weapon, they can't as easily as they could on FE12 so you're generally stuck with one weapon. And all new weapons are E rank.

[arvilino]

The costs are negligible and since Steel isn't available at the beginning, the weapon level will be high enough by the time they can be bought and stop being rare.

If weapon level and costs are the only factor by that point, it makes them little more but mere upgrades to Iron.

Well most the higher ranked weapons are simply upgrades. For example Silvers in games with weight systems are stronger, lighter and more accurate than Steel, Killer Weapons are for the most part lighter steel weapons with a high critical rate.