How Effective Are Fire Emblem Mechanics?

[General Banzai]

I got one word for you all:

Berwick

[Constable Reggie]

Care to elaborate?

[Lord Raven]

Of course he isn't narrow minded, but the notion that a game should be judged ONLY on gameplay and how everything affects it's gameplay is.

Some people would seriously only judge it on its gameplay because that's the core of their involvement in some of them. Personally, I think Tales games tend to have atrocious plotlines (save Legendia) but I am perfectly fine with that because the gameplay is so fun... Granted, I still play Legendia even though its gameplay is awful, but if the plot is awful it's way more forgivable than the gameplay being awful to the general population.

[General Banzai]

Care to elaborate?

Imagine if FE6 had never happened and instead the Fire Emblem series built off of Thracia's gameplay mechanics.

That's Berwick Saga for you.

[Anouleth]

When a game mechanic that's there is there not purely because of gameplay reasons, but for something more, then it's ridiculous to dismiss it solely on it's gameplay merits.

I don't care what reasons IntSys have for putting it in! Why the fuck would I?

It's not there just as a "fun" mechanic. Fun games are great, but don't sacrifice uniqueness for it.

And like I said earlier, I think that if "uniqueness" is the only thing that permadeath has going for it, it shouldn't be in the game at all. Not that permadeath is even unique. Characters die permanently in other games. Even Diablo 3, which is basically as mainstream as an RPG can get, has an hardcore mode that is infinitely more punishing than Fire Emblem. And no, I'm not going to treat permadeath, or in fact, any element of Fire Emblem as being sacrosanct and above criticism, when it isn't, it's just a game mechanic, like any other. Fire Emblem is not "special". It does not get to follow special rules. It is not different from any other series. It should stand on it's own merits, not merely because it's different.

[Constable Reggie]

I don't care what reasons IntSys have for putting it in! Why the fuck would I?

"Ugh, why does Demon's Souls have a fatigue bar? It takes away from my enjoyment of hacky slashy!"

"Ugh, why does Spec Ops: the Line have me keep climbing down ropes? It takes away from my enjoyment of killing dudes!"

"Ugh, why does Amnesia keep blurring my screen? It takes away from my enjoyment of seeing clearly!"

"Ugh, why does Eternal Darkness waste my time with fake perceptions? It takes away from my enjoyment of not having my time wasted!"

"Ugh, why do I have to replug my controller in MGS? Does the game think it's fun to replug controllers?"

[Anouleth]

"Ugh, why do I have to replug my controller in MGS? Does the game think it's fun to replug controllers?"

I don't know anything about the other things, but I thought it was pretty cool. Psycho Mantis in general is a fun boss battle.

[Tamanoir]

"Ugh, why does Demon's Souls have a fatigue bar? It takes away from my enjoyment of hacky slashy!"

"Ugh, why does Spec Ops: the Line have me keep climbing down ropes? It takes away from my enjoyment of killing dudes!"

"Ugh, why does Amnesia keep blurring my screen? It takes away from my enjoyment of seeing clearly!"

"Ugh, why does Eternal Darkness waste my time with fake perceptions? It takes away from my enjoyment of not having my time wasted!"

"Ugh, why do I have to replug my controller in MGS? Does the game think it's fun to replug controllers?"

But Perma death should affect the ennemy as well...

The important point is : Does permadeath affect the story. If it is doesn't add anythingin to the game's plot or atmosphere, you can drop it.

In FE5, Permadeath and Fatigue are essential to the feeling of the game, as is capture... You have a verysmall army that is constantly fleeing ennmies more powerfull and more organized.

So Fatigue works in FE5, but if you put it in FE4, it becomes an annoying gimmick, because FE4's feeling is totally different. And in Fe4, Permadeath is important for plot reasons. Chapter 5 would not be the same without it...

If in your examples, it add something to the game, and I think that it does, then keep it. If no, then it's a useless gimmick that stop you to enjoy the game.

Permadeath in Fire Emblem shouldn't be used just because it's FE, but because it's a major part of the game !

It's a story about war and sacrifices, that's why we should have Permadeath. FE4 and Fe5 does it well. They don't work without this mechanic.

FE2, with the Rudolph fight, makes it as well as he can with limited capacity. This could have made more senseful, but it wrks well.

FE8 doesn't need Permadeath. You fight monsters most of the time, and when they try to implement trhe moral question, they fail lamentably, because they don't add anything.

So, as I say in a previous post, Permadeath should be more meaningful for the ennemies as well, and you should have rewards or punitions for killing people.

Also, if you really think Permadeath is important, try to include it in your story. Permadeath, just for Permadeath isn't good. It's just frustrating.

How well it was implemented in each Title depends. FE2 and FE8 doesn't implement it really well...

(FE2 has Rudolph, and FE8 have a message about the necessity to accept death, but can't really link its story and its gameplay....)

FE4 and FE5 uses it well. (FE5 is a great example of how to makes your mechanics and scenario works together.)

For the others I'm less sure...

[Constable Reggie]

I don't know anything about the other things, but I thought it was pretty cool. Psycho Mantis in general is a fun boss battle.

Replugging your controller is a flawed mechanic. I don't care why it's there, having to manually replug your controller is not fun and just because it's unique is no excuse for having it.

[Snowy_One]

First, I'd like to address the original question. How effective are the Fire Emblem mechanics? My answer is 'what works about them works WONDERFULLY! What DOESN'T work about them works HORRIBLY!'. I know that sounds like a 'no-duh' statement but it's very true. Fire Emblem has contained a slew of mechanics in it from its original days and we wouldn't be at game 12 going-on-to-13 if there was some huge, over-riding problem with the game mechanics. That being said, there are a lot of problems still. Swords get the shaft far too often in terms of weapon-balancing (lowest MT, most common WTD, lack of 2-range options especially ones that don't require an abnormally large MAG stat) while axes get too much in return. Mounted units tend to dominate as their stats are solid and they have high movement. The 'Jiegan' unit is very distinctly good while 'Est' units tend to come too late and are too hard to raise up. That's just a few of the problems that the series has, but it's still managed to survive. If you ask me the following changes could be very welcome though.

1) Shifting avoid from being a speed-based stat to a SKL based stat. This can be justified in-universe via parrying or something similar, but this is to help balance out the stats. As-is SPD is simply too good in comparison to other stats while SKL is near-worthless. You get lots of hit from your weapon anyways and there is no point besides a few points of critical to raising your SKL after hitting 100 hit. Even at 30 (the highest normally) SKL you only get 15 critical anyways, so letting it do something would be nice.

2) Perma-deaths need to be rethought. I don't think they should be removed. Not at all. I know some people have doubtless claimed 'but people reset every time they lose a character' and that is likely true. But I would counter by saying 'you cared so much about that character or a perfect playthrough that you reset your game'. Instead I think we need some fodder that won't matter if it gets killed or not. Faceless soldiers whom are 'okay' to lose and, at the same time, won't be shafted to the sidelines.

3) More customization! MU seemed to work well as did forging. Maybe they could give each unit 20% unassigned growths that can be added to their bases. Obviously this would need some retinkering or else it would end up as 'just give everyone 20% more SPD' but the concept of being able to modify the army JUUUUUST a bit would be great.

4) Shaft tier-list players. Okay, BEFORE PEOPLE WHO LOVE THE TIER LISTS GET UP IN ARMS, LISTEN! One of the key aspects of Fire Emblem is building a well-rounded team. However, it's quite easy to stack ones team with high-quality units while some other units would be stupid to deploy. Would you rather deploy Ulki or Lyre in FE10? Would you rather spend time training up Amelia or simply use Franz? Most people who play this game will end up doing one of two things (among a number of binary choices). Either 1) They will go online for help or 2) They will not go online for help. Before the age of the internet 2 was common-place as it was difficult at best to engage in the level of conversation needed to build an online tier list. That age is gone now and tier-lists can be easily be found and, with them, a heavy tilt towards using only high and upper-mid units unless forced onto the team. That is a problem and one that needs fixing as one of the key things of Fire Emblem is the huge cast of characters. I don't think tier lists will ever vanish, but I do think some effort can be put in to balance the units so that, aside from playthroughs with specific goals in mind, the 'tier list difference' between the best and worst units is small enough so that people can easily ignore the tier list without suddenly ending up with a horrible team. This goes hand in hand with...

5) Embrace the Internet! We live in an online world now-a-days with our games. Things like downloading patches aren't just possible, they are the norm. Odds are that, if you own a game on the 360 or PS3 or a newer game on your PC (especially if its via a download service like Steam), you've had to deal with patches and downloads. Why not take full advantage of this? Imagine if, the moment it became clear that a unit was having some huge problem (like Lyre) a patch came out to fix her growths, or to add a small amount of stats to Fiona's guards on easy mode, or if people could make maps and campaigns and send them too others over the internet, or one of many other options. This goes hand-in-hand with 4 because the moment people start making their own maps, or patches can be placed to shore up weak points, the tier lists will need to be rebalanced. However, denying the internet is stupid.

[Constable Reggie]

Interestingly enough, in Fe5 (and to a lesser extent, Fe6), swords were generally much better than axes (partly because of lesser triangle advantage and indoor sword use). Also, the issue of mounted units was remedied a little bit with forced indoor dismounting. Also also, skill was pretty important in Fe5, since hit is generally never perfect and capture lowers it even farther, and low skill could screw you over hard (Ffffffffuuckkkkk youuuuu Tina). What a great game Fe5 is. Shame they took the way they did with Fe6.

I don't agree that AS should be moved to skill. Skill can be incredibly important when done right, just look at Fe5 and 6. I think the bigger problem lies with the generally too high hit rates for weapons. Just from a glance, they're still pretty high in Fe13.

I also have issues with your permadeath/generic unit idea, but I'd rather not get jumped on about it again.

As for number 5, I'm pretty sure Fe13's already doing that to an extent with the downloadable content. I agree that they should adopt some form of Advance War's custom map creation system, but I could see the possible glaring problems with balance issues. I'm not so sure about the rebalancing of characters, though.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Constable Reggie

[Rehab]

RE Snowy on the tier list players thing: an idea that goes towards fixing unit balance where it may have been deficient before is nice, but it's utterly pointless for developers to chastise their players for the method they use to get through the game, especially with a mostly-SP series like FE. If there are high discrepancies between characters' performances, that's directly the responsibility of IS, yes, but part of the thing about tier lists is that making a game where options are hard to tier won't necessarily stop people from forming tiers. It might give the discussion new life, even.

If people are looked down on for using characters that are (popularly) considered low(er) tier, especially when those players wouldn't have known, that's a problem that has reared its head at times, yes, but it's something only a community of players can work out. The offending people aren't even necessarily the people having the discussions that form the tiers, they're the awkward bozos that take the consensus to heart and either take offense or see a chance to bully (or both) when somebody mentions playing differently.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Rehab

[Anouleth]

Replugging your controller is a flawed mechanic. I don't care why it's there, having to manually replug your controller is not fun and just because it's unique is no excuse for having it.

I thought it was fun, even if you apparently didn't. But I agree that it being unique is no excuse for having it.

I don't agree that AS should be moved to skill. Skill can be incredibly important when done right, just look at Fe5 and 6. I think the bigger problem lies with the generally too high hit rates for weapons. Just from a glance, they're still pretty high in Fe13.

They're even higher when you consider that you also get weapon rank bonuses, vastly improved support bonuses, and true hit on your side. Apparently, it's not difficult even for low skill units such as Sariya to maintain good hit rates.

And I think it's a good thing that a game that requires such precise play, with such high stakes as Fire Emblem is moving towards being more deterministic.

As for number 5, I'm pretty sure Fe13's already doing that to an extent with the downloadable content. I agree that they should adopt some form of Advance War's custom map creation system, but I could see the possible glaring problems with balance issues. I'm not so sure about the rebalancing of characters, though.

I think that many people miss the main point of custom map creation in Advance Wars: that it was good, but because Advance Wars can be played multiplayer, competitively. The maps are not to be played single-player. Nobody is going to create a map to play by themselves. However, stuff like shareable maps might work.

[Snowy_One]

I don't agree that AS should be moved to skill. Skill can be incredibly important when done right, just look at Fe5 and 6. I think the bigger problem lies with the generally too high hit rates for weapons. Just from a glance, they're still pretty high in Fe13.

First off, I said AVO, not AS. While I don't deny that lowering the hit-rate of weapons would increase the value of SKL, it would also make it so that double-attacks are extra-valuable. After all, when most units struggle to even hit, a double-attack will double the chances of you actually dealing damage. Never mind double-damage.

I also have issues with your permadeath/generic unit idea, but I'd rather not get jumped on about it again.

We sort of had them in recent FE's with Summoners and Reinforce which would provide units who weren't strong, but to whom there was no attachment if they died, but COULD be important. IIRC Shadow Dragon made it so you would get replacement units if your unit count was below the max (I never lost a unit there, let alone went that low, so I can't say). All I'm suggesting is basically upping that to a point where unit loss happens. Maybe not with named characters, but at least increased so that death isn't something that happens only to enemies and stupid allied units.

As for number 5, I'm pretty sure Fe13's already doing that to an extent with the downloadable content. I agree that they should adopt some form of Advance War's custom map creation system, but I could see the possible glaring problems with balance issues. I'm not so sure about the rebalancing of characters, though.

One of the problems FE has had in the past is that some units, skills, and weapons simply work on paper, but not in the actual game. I'm sure that, on paper, Lyre didn't seem like she'd be as bad as she is, but when the game got released and it became obvious how weak she was... what could they do? Up her base stats? Her growths? Both of those required them to patch the game in order to make her better. Something they couldn't do.

Also, custom maps could go a LONG way to evening things out. Think RES is weak? Wait until you play a map with a ton of magic-using units.

RE Snowy on the tier list players thing: an idea that goes towards fixing unit balance where it may have been deficient before is nice, but it's utterly pointless for developers to chastise their players for the method they use to get through the game, especially with a mostly-SP series like FE. If there are high discrepancies between characters' performances, that's directly the responsibility of IS, yes, but part of the thing about tier lists is that making a game where options are hard to tier won't necessarily stop people from forming tiers. It might give the discussion new life, even.

It's not 'chastising' players. It's not giving an undue amount of praise towards people who use some units and punishing those who use others. I'm not saying 'Titania is worth 3, but Rolf is worth .1, so lets make Rolf 1 and make Titania .5 (though that would be more even)'. It's saying 'One of the key aspects of Fire Emblem is in making a well-rounded team and another aspect is in making a team with the units you love, so we shouldn't punish players for using the units they love on a well-rounded team because they're not 'optimal' units. Likewise, people who don't use well-rounded teams should have to deal with the shortcomings of their teams, not have it glossed over because all the units they picked are high-tier units.'

If people are looked down on for using characters that are (popularly) considered low tier, especially when those players wouldn't have known, that's a problem that has reared its head at times, yes, but it's something only a community of players can work out. The offending people aren't even necessarily the people having the discussions that form the tiers, they're the awkward bozos that take the consensus to heart and either take offense or see a chance to bully (or both) when somebody mentions playing differently.

It's not a problem with the people I'm referring to. IS will never be able to control the fans and, even if every unit was perfectly identical, there would be people debating if Unit 1 is better than Unit 2 and shoving Unit 3 aside because they don't like his name or something else similar. There will always be feuding and debating. However, I've seen first hands in other games that when a certain build, or certain team, is declared the 'best' people will flock too it. This is where the term 'cookie-cutter builds' comes from in WoW. Groups like Elitist Jerks sat down and figured out what the best builds were and, suddenly, a LOT of people were using them simply because they had access to the information. I know two people who used teams made entirely of 'high-tier units in FE10 simply because Gamefaqs (at the time) said that they were some of the best units in the game. This is something that needs to be addressed in future installments. This isn't 1990 anymore. It's 2012. The internet exists and effort needs to be made to account for it. I doubt less than 30% of gamers play their game in a vacuum anymore and will resort to strategy guide and asking online for help when they get stuck. Heck, that's the whole reason these online communities get founded in the first place. Fans get together to try and help people and to meet other people who enjoy the game.

[Constable Reggie]

First off, I said AVO, not AS. While I don't deny that lowering the hit-rate of weapons would increase the value of SKL, it would also make it so that double-attacks are extra-valuable. After all, when most units struggle to even hit, a double-attack will double the chances of you actually dealing damage. Never mind double-damage.

My bad, I meant avoid. It's true that double attacking is very useful, but that doesn't negate the fact that skill is entirely useless (see: Gonzales). Is speed a really good stat? Sure. Does that mean skill, str, def, etc are not? Of course not. Should IS, in the future, break down speed's elements and spread it out? Arguable, but I personally think that Fe5/6 (if you ignore the weight/con problem of Fe6) already remedied that issue. Even Tearring Saga handles it better. It's a shame that Shouzou Kaga left IS.

I thought it was fun, even if you apparently didn't. But I agree that it being unique is no excuse for having it.

So what if you think it's fun? It's a flawed mechanic, therefore it never should have been in the game in the first place, because on a purely technical level, it hurts the game. Do you agree?

They're even higher when you consider that you also get weapon rank bonuses, vastly improved support bonuses, and true hit on your side. Apparently, it's not difficult even for low skill units such as Sariya to maintain good hit rates.

Yeah. While I think the double rn system was a pretty good mechanic to cater to newer players without really hurting anything too badly, starting from Fe7, it basically eliminated the need for a decent amount of skill. Fe6 was on the right track, it's simply that the additional weight usually associated with the lower accuracy was overkill. Highly experienced players and perfectionists (probably a good majority of this forum) will probably disagree with me, but I believe part of the charm from Fire Emblem comes from the small portions of randomness in the systems (don't argue that "charm" does not matter in games, that's not going to go anywhere). It's not too big of an issue for me personally, though, as compared to say, permadeath.

I think that many people miss the main point of custom map creation in Advance Wars: that it was good, but because Advance Wars can be played multiplayer, competitively. The maps are not to be played single-player. Nobody is going to create a map to play by themselves. However, stuff like shareable maps might work.

I didn't mean singleplayer maps. I was implying that they would be player versus player maps, like Shadow Dragon's. But I'm not too sure if campaign-styled maps shared online would be such a bad idea either, though. Games like Littlebigplanet showed that it's a pretty cool idea.

One of the problems FE has had in the past is that some units, skills, and weapons simply work on paper, but not in the actual game. I'm sure that, on paper, Lyre didn't seem like she'd be as bad as she is, but when the game got released and it became obvious how weak she was... what could they do? Up her base stats? Her growths? Both of those required them to patch the game in order to make her better. Something they couldn't do.

What about Lyre looks good on paper Just because Lyre's incredibly weak, though, doesn't mean she's unusable. I mean, this is a singleplayer game, it's not like the balance is necessary to prevent unenjoyment(?) for others. It's not like Square Enix goes back to rebalance FF13's characters. While the idea's decent on paper, I'd have a feeling that it would simply take away from the time to do cooler things, like spotpass characters or other downloadable stuff for not much gratification. As long as everyone in the game's at least somewhat usuable, I'd argue it's unnecessary. Even Ronan, who I bet his growths were accidently fucked up, is somewhat usable. But I"m no expert on tier listing and all that shit and if hardcore players think that IS should rebalance the characters, so who knows.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Constable Reggie

[Anouleth]

My bad, I meant avoid. It's true that double attacking is very useful, but that doesn't negate the fact that skill is entirely useless (see: Gonzales).

I don't see how Gonzales is an argument that skill is useless. Gonzales is a good unit, but he would be even better if he didn't have serious accuracy issues, which really affect him in Sacae.

Is speed a really good stat? Sure. Does that mean skill, str, def, etc are not? Of course not. Should IS, in the future, break down speed's elements and spread it out? Arguable, but I personally think that Fe5/6 (if you ignore the weight/con problem of Fe6) already remedied that issue. Even Tearring Saga handles it better. It's a shame that Shouzou Kaga left IS.

If anything, I think that Skill, Speed and Luck should be consolidated into one stat, which doesn't affect avoid. I don't see the point in tying avoid to these stats, nor do I see any need to have avoid or hit go up when you gain levels. Nobody likes gaining these stats anyway, except to double units with. It's an unnecessary multiplication of stats, and IntSys, or indeed, anyone who's discussed it on Serenes Forest, have all struggled to come up with well-defined, yet balanced roles for them.

So what if you think it's fun? It's a flawed mechanic, therefore it never should have been in the game in the first place, because on a purely technical level, it hurts the game. Do you agree?

No it doesn't. If a mechanic is fun, it is by definition not flawed because the purpose of a video game is to have fun. I don't know about what it does on a purely technical level.

Yeah. While I think the double rn system was a pretty good mechanic to cater to newer players without really hurting anything too badly, starting from Fe7, it basically eliminated the need for a decent amount of skill. Fe6 was on the right track, it's simply that the additional weight usually associated with the lower accuracy was overkill. Highly experienced players and perfectionists (probably a good majority of this forum) will probably disagree with me, but I believe part of the charm from Fire Emblem comes from the small portions of randomness in the systems (don't argue that "charm" does not matter in games, that's not going to go anywhere). It's not too big of an issue for me personally, though, as compared to say, permadeath.

The problem is really the combination of the two. The classic example is Chapter 1 on FE11, H5. Jagen is your best unit and pretty much required here: which is fair enough. What isn't fair is that Jagen's 1 luck means that he has a significant chance to die if you use him at all. I had to reset more than once in H3 earlygame, just because Jagen was killed by an unpreventable critical hit. While other popular RPGs do have critical hits, and in that respect Fire Emblem is actually extremely lenient with the possibility of preventing them altogether for most units, other popular RPGs don't inflict serious long-term penalties on you for a unit dying.

I didn't mean singleplayer maps. I was implying that they would be player versus player maps, like Shadow Dragon's. But I'm not too sure if campaign-styled maps shared online would be such a bad idea either, though. Games like Littlebigplanet showed that it's a pretty cool idea.

Not just LittleBigPlanet. Many strategy games, such as Battle For Wesnoth, have fan-made adventures, and PC strategy games often attract mods. As we've seen on this forum, people like to make ROMhacks. The only reason you don't see more ROMhacks here is because ROMhacking is actually pretty difficult and timeconsuming, unlike with a game like Super Mario World where ROMhacking is easier. A built-in map editor could be much easier to use.

I think that player-created maps would improve multiplayer greatly. Like Advance Wars, some of the maps in Shadow Dragon are imbalanced.

What about Lyre looks good on paper Just because Lyre's incredibly weak, though, doesn't mean she's unusable. I mean, this is a singleplayer game, it's not like the balance is necessary to prevent unenjoyment(?) for others. It's not like Square Enix goes back to rebalance FF13's characters. While the idea's decent on paper, I'd have a feeling that it would simply take away from the time to do cooler things, like spotpass characters or other downloadable stuff for not much gratification. As long as everyone in the game's at least somewhat usuable, I'd argue it's unnecessary. Even Ronan, who I bet his growths were accidently fucked up, is somewhat usable. But I"m no expert on tier listing and all that shit and if hardcore players think that IS should rebalance the characters, so who knows.

I think that players should have good reason to try and use every character in the game... even if it's in a niche role. Or even if it's just for the challenge. Part of the strength of Fire Emblem is the great variety of units in the game, but there is no point in having that variety if players don't use those characters.

[Rehab]

Mandating that everybody's team be well-rounded, and punishing players if theirs isn't in every situation, is where I start to chafe, theoretically. Balance such that every unit has a role to play and is strong in its own way is good, yes, as different people may have fun picking different team setups, and balance shouldn't be so bad that one team setup leaning heavily in one direction is completely inferior to another team setup that leans heavily in a different direction, yeah. So if you mean that a team that isn't balanced shouldn't have fewer overall weaknesses than one that isn't balanced, I'm basically fine with that way of putting it. But that's only so long as a team whose talents are skewed in one direction can be effective in a situation that plays to its strengths. I wouldn't call balance "shafting tier players," assuming by those you mean people who look up all the best strategies online before playing, because they benefit as much as anybody from having a wealth of options.

Just making sure we recognize that there's neither anything wrong with a player pushing the limits of a game and coming upon some sizable differences in the effectiveness of certain units in the process, nor with somebody who wants to know what the former player found.

Class balance is one thing I think XCOM: Enemy Unknown did really well, so far as each class available is unarguably valuable, yet it's also possible to do very well using teams full of only a class or two. The artificial numbers balance, where you can't choose what classes to pay to recruit and generally get only units of the class you have the least of, is a bit less desirable, I think.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Rehab

[Constable Reggie]

I don't see how Gonzales is an argument that skill is useless. Gonzales is a good unit, but he would be even better if he didn't have serious accuracy issues, which really affect him in Sacae.

I meant "isn't", my bad.

No it doesn't. If a mechanic is fun, it is by definition not flawed because the purpose of a video game is to have fun. I don't know about what it does on a purely technical level.

I disagree with you about the fact that it's fun, therefore it's a bad mechanic. Who's to say your opinion is correct and mine isn't? Are you going to argue that getting up, moving to your console, and replugging your controller is fun? Because I'd call that menial work that has no direct gratification.

The problem is really the combination of the two. The classic example is Chapter 1 on FE11, H5. Jagen is your best unit and pretty much required here: which is fair enough. What isn't fair is that Jagen's 1 luck means that he has a significant chance to die if you use him at all. I had to reset more than once in H3 earlygame, just because Jagen was killed by an unpreventable critical hit. While other popular RPGs do have critical hits, and in that respect Fire Emblem is actually extremely lenient with the possibility of preventing them altogether for most units, other popular RPGs don't inflict serious long-term penalties on you for a unit dying.

I was talking more about hit/avoid randomness, but random crits are also much more prevalent in the ds games. I think part of the problem for Shadow Dragon is that it's INCREDIBLY difficult to get avoid rates below 50, so the 2 rn system, which usually was in the player's favor, works against you. Since most enemies in SD generally use the 2 rn system against you, coupled with a great number of units in SD having incredibly low luck, enemies have much higher chance to crit. More of a problem specific to SD rather than FE in general. How many enemies in Fe7-9 have more than 0 crit without special weapons/classes?

I think that player-created maps would improve multiplayer greatly. Like Advance Wars, some of the maps in Shadow Dragon are imbalanced.

Agreed. I'd probably enjoy campaign-styled maps more than pvp ones, personally.

@Rehab: I agree with you, but just to play devil's advocate, what does SD Macellan do better than Dolph? Dolph has higher base stats everywhere, and beats him in all growths except 20% in luck (of all things) and negligible amount of str. IS has been pretty good about diversity in units, but this example and a few others simply baffle me.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Constable Reggie

[Rehab]

Yeah, that's an example of an opportunity wasted on IS part, at best, them acting like dumb designers at worst.Giving a player 2 units of the same class at once and making one better than the other in almost every way is.. I don't even know what the reasoning on that one is. Maybe they thought the player would be happy just to get some more knights?

Giving a player more than one unit just so they can go "wow, look at how much better this one is performing!" and maybe get some enjoyment from having picked an option that's better in every relevant way, is just lazy, far as I can tell.

[Snowy_One]

I don't see how Gonzales is an argument that skill is useless. Gonzales is a good unit, but he would be even better if he didn't have serious accuracy issues, which really affect him in Sacae.

While I will admit I don't know much about Gonzales, I am more than willing to wager that he's an axe user with a low SKL growth and no high luck-growth to counter it. The problem is that, with the copious amounts of hit on a weapon, it's quite easy to hit 100% hit rates and missing by a huge amount required a VERY specific set-up. In order for a SKL up to matter, the unit must have had VERY low hit. But once your hit is high enough to reliably hit, there is no point in extra SKL unless you're focusing on criticals and some skills. With SPD there will likely always be enemies your trying to double and extra AVO is very nice.

Mandating that everybody's team be well-rounded, and punishing players if theirs isn't in every situation, is where I start to chafe, theoretically.

I think I'm stating it wrong. Imagine if I made a team of mages and swordsmasters. You would expect that this team would likely have good PP offense, but weak defenses, right? At least if we're going with how the classes are intended to be played. However, lets say that they had higher defensive growths than normal. Suddenly you have a team that has strong PP offense AND isn't quite so squishy on the EP. A 'well-rounded team would be one that's flexible to unknown conditions and has taken steps to reduce the number of downsides. It may not have as many upsides, but it is flexible and so-forth. This *should* be an ideal team. Or at least more ideal than stacking mounted units/fliers who have high movement and good stats all-around. Stacking one type of unit or units with one distinct advantage SHOULD carry a corresponding drawback. If you stacked bow-users you'd expect trouble countering on the EP. Axe users you would expect trouble with speedy sword-users. Sword users would have trouble with high-DEF lance units, and so-forth.

[Anouleth]

I disagree with you about the fact that it's fun, therefore it's a bad mechanic. Who's to say your opinion is correct and mine isn't? Are you going to argue that getting up, moving to your console, and replugging your controller is fun? Because I'd call that menial work that has no direct gratification.

I think the majority of players would agree that Psycho Mantis is a fun boss battle.

I was talking more about hit/avoid randomness, but random crits are also much more prevalent in the ds games. I think part of the problem for Shadow Dragon is that it's INCREDIBLY difficult to get avoid rates below 50, so the 2 rn system, which usually was in the player's favor, works against you. Since most enemies in SD generally use the 2 rn system against you, coupled with a great number of units in SD having incredibly low luck, enemies have much higher chance to crit. More of a problem specific to SD rather than FE in general. How many enemies in Fe7-9 have more than 0 crit without special weapons/classes?

Well, some characters have very low luck. Knoll, for instance, has 0 luck at base, and shows up at a time when most enemies have about 5 crit. Moulder also sees a lot of critical hit chances.

Agreed. I'd probably enjoy campaign-styled maps more than pvp ones, personally.

@Rehab: I agree with you, but just to play devil's advocate, what does SD Macellan do better than Dolph? Dolph has higher base stats everywhere, and beats him in all growths except 20% in luck (of all things) and negligible amount of str. IS has been pretty good about diversity in units, but this example and a few others simply baffle me.

The idea is that if Dolph dies, as people should be doing in a game with permanent death, you can use Dolph instead. Macellan is not meant to be as good as Dolph, but in a game with permanent death, he doesn't have to be. Or you can use both.

[MacLovin]

Permadeath is great.

It makes me think ahead!

[FrostyFireMage]

Eh, I always thought permadeath was a flawed mechanic, especially in the harder modes/FEs. If your best unit suddenly died to some BS hit/critical, your weaker units might follow en masse. Since part of FE's charm comes from training units from weaklings to badasses, this is rather cumbersome.

Permadeath also doesn't really make much sense for the series, which is considerably more idealistic than other depictions of medieval times in the media. I could get Sain up to an A support with Rebecca and accidentally get her killed, yet Sain goes back to his skirt-chasing shenanigans at the end of the game if he survives, completely forgetting the character development he received during their support.

Getting the A support and killing off Rebecca just so Sain will get character development or stat bonuses, however, is extremely dark for the general tone of the series.

Then again, permadeath does increase the tactical aspect of the series, even though it can easily be circumvented with arena abuse and the like.

[Tamanoir]

Yeah, Speed is basically useless in the DS game, because you will generally never avoid. In the GBA game it's overpowered, and thus defnce is useless.

In the GBA ones, a Swordmaster is a far better Tank, than a General, even more with the addition of poisoned weapons.

RES is also usefull to avoid these Status Staves...

The Skill Stats is good in the games that have special Techniques (Why using the same words for 2 different things ?)., because a lotof themare based on Skill stat.

Def is really important early game, but at the end of the game, it become totally useless. I'd say that if a stat should be rethought it would be DEF befor Skill.

2) Perma-deaths need to be rethought. I don't think they should be removed. Not at all. I know some people have doubtless claimed 'but people reset every time they lose a character' and that is likely true. But I would counter by saying 'you cared so much about that character or a perfect playthrough that you reset your game'. Instead I think we need some fodder that won't matter if it gets killed or not. Faceless soldiers whom are 'okay' to lose and, at the same time, won't be shafted to the sidelines.

Sorry, it defeat the purpose of permadeath, or you should have bonus to makes them survive, like the ally soldier in CH E16 of FE7.

You should also have reasons not to attacks the ennemy. We have World Maps and Zombie/Monsters. use this opportunity to adda morality aspect.

Once again it have already be done before. Because, you're supposed to be the good guys and you kill other peoples without a second thought !

Because youhave no reasons, not to do it.

4) Shaft tier-list players. Okay, BEFORE PEOPLE WHO LOVE THE TIER LISTS GET UP IN ARMS, LISTEN! One of the key aspects of Fire Emblem is building a well-rounded team. However, it's quite easy to stack ones team with high-quality units while some other units would be stupid to deploy. Would you rather deploy Ulki or Lyre in FE10? Would you rather spend time training up Amelia or simply use Franz? Most people who play this game will end up doing one of two things (among a number of binary choices). Either 1) They will go online for help or 2) They will not go online for help. Before the age of the internet 2 was common-place as it was difficult at best to engage in the level of conversation needed to build an online tier list. That age is gone now and tier-lists can be easily be found and, with them, a heavy tilt towards using only high and upper-mid units unless forced onto the team. That is a problem and one that needs fixing as one of the key things of Fire Emblem is the huge cast of characters. I don't think tier lists will ever vanish, but I do think some effort can be put in to balance the units so that, aside from playthroughs with specific goals in mind, the 'tier list difference' between the best and worst units is small enough so that people can easily ignore the tier list without suddenly ending up with a horrible team. This goes hand in hand with...

You can already play with different characters. And with the addition of world maps, it become even easier.

World Map makes also training Est characters far more easier than before, especially if they are mages. Because you wouldn't have to sacrificeother units to do it.

For the Franz VS Amelia thing (Or Amelia Vs Gillam). You can train Franz and have a perfectly good unit. Or spend more time in Amelia to have a better unit.

You will be rewarded for your efforts, but you're not forced.

Even in FE7, everyone is more or less usable. You can use Sain, Kent or even Lowen, or two of them/all of them. And you won't have problem.

Erk can turn better than Pent and Nino is usually better, but far worse to train. Pent is good when it comes and stay good until the end, even if he will never be outstanding.

The thing is : you generally don't need tier list. You'll probably play the game more than once. Especially if you want to complete supports conversation.

And you will not always use the same team in every game or it'll become boring really fast...

As far as I know,no game can be completely screwed by your units choice...

[BBM]

From what I've heard, a good majority of characters in FE11 H5/FE12 H3/FE13 Lunatic are just flat-out unusable. So I wouldn't say that you can't screw up the game for yourself by making bad unit choices. Now, one is unlikely to jump straight to the hardest difficulty in any game without first getting a feel for the game and its characters on an easier difficulty, but still.

The real problem with most Est units is not that training them up is difficult, especially in a game like FE8. The real problem with them is that even after training, their leads over your other units are simply not significant enough to make up for the time invested in training them. Look at Franz v Amelia. Even at the end of the game, after training your characters up to 20/20, the only significant lead in a useful stat that Amelia has is +5 RES. The couple points of SKL, 1 point of SPD, and the extremely high LUK lead are irrelevant in comparison to the fact that Franz didn't require all the extra training and still has a couple points of STR and around 6 HP on her.