Low-manning: FE games encouraging small teams, and what could/should be done?

[Shengar]

I think I have a solution for Pokemon, and one for FE based on the same theme

You can't exactly solo in Pokemon if your moves have at most 5 PP (that's hardly the case, but if it is you probably won't run to the PokeCentre every second). Similarly, imagine FE characters being able to carry only a very limited number of weapon uses, e.g. 5 Javelin (so you don't even get to attack three guys in a row), 6 Iron Sword, 3 Silver Lance, etc. How you would circumvent that is probably trade a low-manning dude a new set of stuff each turn and leave the durable folks enemies will ignore with about-to-break equips, but if it's fixed when a chapter begins you're simply forced to utilise your full army to the max.

More limiting weapon uses wouldn't be the solution I think, since in Pokemon you don't retaliate, while in FE as long as the range suffice, your unit would retaliate and this will make weapon break pretty quick if they have more limited uses, becoming more of an annoyance than solution. Both Pokemon and FE does have a same problem of low manning. But since they also have fundamental difference, there would be no one solution that worked for both game.

I have solution to prevent low-manning in Pokemon that certainly wouldn't work for FE. I know this one is off-everything, but I'm itching to write it down.

Give PP point that worked like traditional skill point system to Pokemon. Move that isn't part of a Pokemon type would cost more PP to use. For example, if Alakazam use Focus Blast, it would cost 10 PP point instead of 5 or 7. If they keep Gen V exp formula, this would make low-manning or soloing to be exact, impossible as you will run out of PP before you could defeat all the E4 (unless you use ether or elixir of course). This idea could be further tweaked like giving Normal-type Pokemon less penalty when using different move type, reinforcing the idea of Normal type being "Jack-of-All-Trade".

Maybe this idea could fixed Pokemon problem in low manning, but it certainly wouldn't worked with FE since their gameplay is fundamentally different.

Arvilino suggestion is pretty great, although it indeed need some tweaks. For staff locked class, the EXP should diminished slower. Maybe two level before their EXP need for the next level in that chapter become doubled. As for Jeigan, they could balance it with slow growth, althought it makes them even more binary.

[dondon151]

your pokemon idea doesn't work because ethers exist

[shadykid]

combine super low-use weapons with Thracia costs

now money actually matters!

[Espinosa]

your pokemon idea doesn't work because ethers exist

They have very limited availability in most of the games though.

[Anouleth]

I don't think so, because Berwick Saga, using that system, had Ward, the least binary Jagen in existence. He's unlikely to ever grow from base, yet those bases simultaneously avoid breaking the earlygame and remain enough to assist as a very subpar but still usable unit all the way to the final chapter.

Granted, a lot of factors go into this. But it certainly wouldn't be possible if enemies had to keep up with uncontrollably-growing player characters.

I don't know much about Berwick Saga, but I can tell you that Frederick and Marcus would fall off pretty damn hard if they couldn't get experience from unpromoted units.

And in any case I think the whole concept of Jeigans have proven themselves, time and again, to be seriously flawed. The majority of players don't like them. They have binary gameplay. They distort earlygame difficulty to the point where the developers have to put the hardest chapters at the start of the game, to compensate for the player having one ridiculously strong unit. Anything that makes Jeigans more Jeigan-y, like reducing their growths, cutting their EXP gain, or whatever is bad. Anything that makes Jeigans less Jeigan-y, like shifting their power from their base stats to their growths, is good. That's the current State of the Jeigan.

[AnonymousSpeed]

2) More required characters: Sort of goes with the first, but imagine if, instead of just the lord and a few select others (usually) being both forced and required to survive, ALL characters had to survive unconditionally AND 5-7 were automatically FORCED to be deployed with extra slots left over for filler. Suddenly relying on one or two hyper-units isn't so great because you now have a whole team that needs to survive (so you can't just toss aside units you don't care for), a weak unit WILL eventually be deployed regardless of their power (so you have to protect them and leveling them will pay off when they are next deployed by force), AND leveling a hyper-unit can backfire (if your hyper is on the required list, suddenly you have extra slots and potentially a bunch of weak units

No. Being forced to bring in a bunch of specific characters would e really annoying, and take away the mix-matching of teams that makes FE fun.

[BrightBow]

They could just to the same thing they did with replacement characters in the DS games and simply autolevel enemies depending on the average level of your deployed party.

That way, it'd always harder to have fewer PCs on the map, no matter how strong they are.

Edited July 23, 2013 by BrightBow

[arvilino]

They could just to the same thing they did with replacement characters in the DS games and simply autolevel enemies depending on the average level of your deployed party.

That way, it'd always harder to have fewer PCs on the map, no matter how strong they are.

What if I never leveled a couple characters(level 1 characters like Rolf and Mist) and just fielded a dozen level 1-5 characters(placing them somewhere safe) and one highly leveled promoted one?

Even if there was a floor to how low leveled the enemies on a map could be, low manning would allow you space to field those low leveled characters alongside a low man team to skew the enemies levels downwards. .

Edited July 23, 2013 by arvilino

[BrightBow]

What if I never leveled a couple characters(level 1 characters like Rolf and Mist) and just fielded a dozen level 1-5 characters(placing them somewhere safe) and one highly leveled promoted one?

Even if there was a floor to how low leveled the enemies on a map could be, low manning would allow you space to field those low leveled characters alongside a low man team to skew the enemies levels downwards. .

Argh, rats...

Maybe the enemy level could depend on the highest leveled player unit and then lower it by 2-3 levels.

[Snowy_One]

Then the player deploys a small team and just jumps their level-up. Except now that the enemies are guarenteed to be at least close in level, the smaller team gets MORE EXP than they would.

Actually, here is an idea. Flip it about? Enemy level is dependent on the lowest-leveled unit deployed. That way there is a reason to field weakings, but you WANT them to get a fairly even build-up (jumping one unit up results in a ton of 1EXP kills, so making your party evenly leveled results in more EXP) so that you don't end up stagnating with bosses equipped with auto-slayer weapons for the highest leveled deployed unit.

Also, making more required characters doesn't affect the players ability to make varied teams. There are other slots for characters who aren't forced to be deployed and it would allow for unusual teams which normally wouldn't be used to be deployed as there would be little choice (EX: a team with all the mages would almost never happen in 'normal' FE, but might be required on a certain map).

Heck, just think of what could actually be DONE if you made it so all characters had to survive. A map where a ward has to be disabled, but the only way to do so is to have a mage at each of four seals, keeping it active while swarms of enemies spawn. Each needs defending, but you also need to breach the seal.

[dondon151]

They have very limited availability in most of the games though.

if by "very limited availability" you mean enough to forego all pokemon center visits after about the third gym or so, then i agree with you!

[Airship Canon]

More Secondary Objectives. Future Past was a great example. It punished players for not using the parent units. Now integrate that into the main game and you're gold.

[Othin]

More Secondary Objectives. Future Past was a great example. It punished players for not using the parent units. Now integrate that into the main game and you're gold.

Being directly punishing isn't always necessary if you can instead offer useful rewards. Like the sidequests for pairing up parents.

[Airship Canon]

Being directly punishing isn't always necessary if you can instead offer useful rewards. Like the sidequests for pairing up parents.

Rather than just pairing them- have it be there for using them. Basically reward players who are using more characters entirely, and punish those that underman. Only including the reward creates the Pokemon problem. You can't forget the punishment for those that do it wrong.

A combination is best.

Future Past, again, was a great design. If you didn't use the parents- instead you just paired them, the kid was too weak to survive. Kid being too weak and dying had harsh penalties for the player. Yes, it caused frustration for those that didn't want to use the parents, but it works wonders against those that only want to use a tiny team.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Airship Canon

[AnonymousSpeed]

Then the player deploys a small team and just jumps their level-up. Except now that the enemies are guarenteed to be at least close in level, the smaller team gets MORE EXP than they would.

Actually, here is an idea. Flip it about? Enemy level is dependent on the lowest-leveled unit deployed. That way there is a reason to field weakings, but you WANT them to get a fairly even build-up (jumping one unit up results in a ton of 1EXP kills, so making your party evenly leveled results in more EXP) so that you don't end up stagnating with bosses equipped with auto-slayer weapons for the highest leveled deployed unit.

Also, making more required characters doesn't affect the players ability to make varied teams. There are other slots for characters who aren't forced to be deployed and it would allow for unusual teams which normally wouldn't be used to be deployed as there would be little choice (EX: a team with all the mages would almost never happen in 'normal' FE, but might be required on a certain map).

Heck, just think of what could actually be DONE if you made it so all characters had to survive. A map where a ward has to be disabled, but the only way to do so is to have a mage at each of four seals, keeping it active while swarms of enemies spawn. Each needs defending, but you also need to breach the seal.

What if I get to bring twelve units, but Im being forced to take (as an example) Ike, Titania, Soren, Mist, Janaff, Ulki, Elincia and Marcia? I only get to choose four of the units I bring which (which cuts back in decision making), and maybe I don't WANT to use all of these characters! I understand the main lord(s), but after that your just being restrictive. And if you think I'm providing an extreme hypothetical scenario, one of things that pisses me of the most about RD is how, going to the Tower of Guidance, half the units your bringing are decided for you.

[Snowy_One]

I'm not going to argue that some players will be downright irritated at the thought of 'having' to take along certain characters, but there are two VERY distinct advantages to setting teams.

1) You can design maps around the units that are forced. Not only does this mean you can set up some situations where a character who might otherwise not be deployed will be good, you can also allow for deeper character development and interplay.

2) Ignoring characters has a visible drawback. Maybe you can ignore one or two characters and have your jeigan pick up their slack, but you simply can't afford to ignore everyone. Suddenly maps become less about 'clear as fast as possible' and more about 'clear as well as possible' because rushing a map with a small elite team has a huge drawback.

Also, funny you should mention RD. Remember what happened to the DB once Ike's mercenaries appeared? Instead of trying to raise the whole team up, it was better to focus on Sothe, Volug and maybe one or two more because once the GM's appeared they were simply inferior. That's the big problem here. Even casual players will pick the 'obvious' better units unless some direct incentive the other way is provided. Making it clear from the get-go that they can't afford to shaft every unit who isn't their Jeigan/lord is a good way to counter that. Especially if 0 deaths are allowed.

[Paper Jam]

This is one thing that I like about the ranking system in FE7, and the experience system in FE7's Hard Mode: to get a 5-star Experience ranking on either EHM or HHM, you pretty much have to use everyone you have.

[The Void]

Also, funny you should mention RD. Remember what happened to the DB once Ike's mercenaries appeared? Instead of trying to raise the whole team up, it was better to focus on Sothe, Volug and maybe one or two more because once the GM's appeared they were simply inferior. That's the big problem here. Even casual players will pick the 'obvious' better units unless some direct incentive the other way is provided. Making it clear from the get-go that they can't afford to shaft every unit who isn't their Jeigan/lord is a good way to counter that. Especially if 0 deaths are allowed.

Well, there's also how units like Leonardo really didn't have that much that sets them apart in practice from others in their class, let alone the whole army.

Really, I say at least one issue is that playable characters might not be distinct enough from others. Especially with high the growth rates have gotten up to this point.

[Snowy_One]

I think the solution to the growth-rate problem is to cut growth-rates, but ensure at least 1-2 stats per level-up. But that doesn't seem like it would be a cure-all by any means. I think the characters need to offer something intangible. The player has to WANT to use them even if they are the same. Supports help, especially the convo's (0 game impact, but I'm sure we've all used at least one character or done one support just to see the convo), but they are FAR from enough.

[AnonymousSpeed]

I think the solution to the growth-rate problem is to cut growth-rates, but ensure at least 1-2 stats per level-up. But that doesn't seem like it would be a cure-all by any means. I think the characters need to offer something intangible. The player has to WANT to use them even if they are the same. Supports help, especially the convo's (0 game impact, but I'm sure we've all used at least one character or done one support just to see the convo), but they are FAR from enough.

What if every character had a unique battle quote with the final boss and a unique rendition of the final boss theme?

[Shengar]

What if every character had a unique battle quote with the final boss and a unique rendition of the final boss theme?

As soon as those quotes appeared on wiki site, people would started low-manning in their next run.

[Snowy_One]

Sides, even if they weren't posted, no reason why a player couldn't just sacrifice a character to see their quote/hear their theme. They might miss their support ending, but restarts exist and no reason they couldn't do another PT just for supports.

The point I was trying to make is this. Even if we made it so EVERY character had to be deployed in EVERY chapter, the player can still focus on a small group of them and let the others barely survive/not fight. What I'm thinking of is something more like a possible achievement system. Imagine that they made an achievement for ending the game with every unit at 20/10 or higher. No reason the player couldn't opt to ignore it, doesn't actually affect gameplay, but a lot of people would try, at least once, to get it and there would be topics discussing how to do it (assuming it wasn't cake-easy). Also, maps designed so that a small team will struggle/be incapable of winning on their own would work.

Here's the thing. Nothing is going to stop the pragmatic player from low-manning. We can the limit, but he will still low-man until it is no longer the best course of action. Tier lists will ALWAYS favor it unless a massive effort is put in to ensure it isn't the best strategy. That is not going to change. What CAN be changed is how people react to it. Think about it. In WoW or any MMO, how do people usually react when their GM starts becoming too demanding? They quit or ignore him. What he's saying may, indeed, be 'better' from an objective standpoint, but may take away the fun for the player who is used to doing things *their* way.

So here is a suggestion: Give every character something truly unique that only THEY can do. Could be as simple as a flashy scene whenever they crit, or some sort of unique tag-team attack with their A-ranked support, but make it truly unique. Then, slowly, the tide will start to turn against using only a few characters because, while it may be the 'best' it's no longer the most enjoyable for anyone not obsessed with being the absolute 'best' at the game.

[shadykid]

most people already don't low-man in Fire Emblem because they pick their favorites

I'm not really sure why you think doing that changes anything

[Anouleth]

most people already don't low-man in Fire Emblem because they pick their favorites

I'm not really sure why you think doing that changes anything

The thing is that the player shouldn't be punished for that. The game should reward the player for having fun, rather than encourage playstyles that are less fun.

[shadykid]

The thing is that the player shouldn't be punished for that. The game should reward the player for having fun, rather than encourage playstyles that are less fun.

Snowy's suggestion doesn't do anything towards that though