Suggestions to balance FE

[Snowy_One]

What is 'blocking' though and how would it be defined?

Edit: Might as well say this. I had an idea today. What if, instead of having multiple tiers of weapons and the like, there was simply a 'base' weapon template and all weapons were forged by the player? Each weapon type would have different modifiers to the stats (costs less to raise and axes MT, less to raise a swords hit, and so-forth) and raising/lowering a stat changes its weapon rank. So you MIGHT be able to forge a sword with 20 MT on chapter 2, but it would cost an arm and leg and have so many negative modifiers as to be near-useless just so your E/D ranked sword-users can even consider wielding it.

Edited August 18, 2013 by Snowy_One

[Chiki]

Depending on your skill stat compared to the enemy's, you can "block" an attack and take no damage from it.

[dondon151]

1. Whenever you take damage it's always with your body: you never block a weapon with your own weapon. You tank it.

2. Generals have the highest possible defense whereas mages have the lowest (because Generals have armor whereas mages don't have any).

3. If defense was the ability to block an attack with a weapon, I don't see why Generals would have such high defense since even swordmasters can replicate it.

either you do not seem to understand what i am saying or you are purposely pretending that you don't understand mechanics.

say that i am thrusting the end of a pole at you. you aren't just going to stand there and take it, but for the sake of simplicity, let's say that you do. that's going to hurt a lot. but even if you're not wearing a thick metal plate around your abdomen, you still have options to reduce the amount of "damage" that you take:

- you can turn your body slightly such that the angle of impact is not orthogonal to the plane of your body.

- you can take a step backwards to reduce the amount of force transmitted to the point of impact.

- you can try using an appendage to share the force sustained by the body.

- you can "brace for impact" (which is kind of similar to all 3 points above)

when you bring actual armor and weapons into the equation, you have even more options for improving your "defense" without dodging or blocking an attack altogether.

note that i never said the defense wasn't related to how much armor one is wearing. the way i see it, that's what the base defense stat represents. every point attributable to growths or personal bases represents how well a unit performs at defending against an attack.

Edited August 18, 2013 by dondon151

[Chiki]

either you do not seem to understand what i am saying or you are purposely pretending that you don't understand mechanics.

say that i am thrusting the end of a pole at you. you aren't just going to stand there and take it, but for the sake of simplicity, let's say that you do. that's going to hurt a lot. but even if you're not wearing a thick metal plate around your abdomen, you still have options to reduce the amount of "damage" that you take:

- you can turn your body slightly such that the angle of impact is not orthogonal to the plane of your body.

- you can take a step backwards to reduce the amount of force transmitted to the point of impact.

- you can try using an appendage to share the force sustained by the body.

when you bring actual armor and weapons into the equation, you have even more options for improving your "defense" without dodging or blocking an attack altogether.

It feels like you're trying to make a game that isn't very realistic into a game that is. This entire thread is complaining about how unrealistic some bits of FE are. For example, the fact that Javelins just magically come back to you is incredibly silly, and so is the fact that archers can only shoot from a slight distance away. Fire Emblem isn't really a very realistic game and I don't see the purpose of trying to give a realistic explanation for an unrealistic game.

That isn't the only thing in my argument's favor, however. Let's look at the two bolded bits. You claim that turning your body away and stepping backwards are related to the defense stat, but these issues have to do more with speed than with anything else: you have to have good enough reflexes to react to an attack in that way (be able to turn to see an incoming attack, and so on). Let's see if your claim is true with an example.

Imagine a swordmaster with 20 speed, 20 skill and 20 def, and imagine a general with 0 speed, 0 skill and 20 def. Your logic would dictate that the swordmaster would take less or no damage from an attack due to being more skillful (can parry attacks, and can turn to minimize damage or whatever). But this clearly isn't true: a lance can hit both the general and the swordmaster for an equal amount of damage. But this doesn't make any sense at all!

As you can see with the above example, Fire Emblem's gameplay has very little to do with your realistic explanations. Fire Emblem isn't a realistic game, and that's why this thread exists: because I want to make it more realistic, and the defense stat is one of those issues.

[dondon151]

It feels like you're trying to make a game that isn't very realistic into a game that is. This entire thread is complaining about how unrealistic some bits of FE are. For example, the fact that Javelins just magically come back to you is incredibly silly, and so is the fact that archers can only shoot from a slight distance away. Fire Emblem isn't really a very realistic game and I don't see the purpose of trying to give a realistic explanation for an unrealistic game.

okay, fine, you're right. my reasoning doesn't make sense. a better explanation would be that magical defense fairies sprinkle defense augmentation dust on some units when they level up. fire emblem isn't a realistic series so obviously there is no need to incorporate any realistic elements. the fact that players can miraculously relate to the mechanics is purely coincidental and not a design choice.

That isn't the only thing in my argument's favor, however. Let's look at the two bolded bits. You claim that turning your body away and stepping backwards are related to the defense stat, but these issues have to do more with speed than with anything else: you have to have good enough reflexes to react to an attack in that way (be able to turn to see an incoming attack, and so on). Let's see if your claim is true with an example.

> using an example from a video game to contradict an example of real-life mechanics

let me say this: good boxers always keep their hands in front of their face whereas bad boxers always drop their hands. if you keep your hands in front of your face, you're better defended. this has nothing to do with reaction time and everything to do with ability and/or discipline.

Edited August 18, 2013 by dondon151

[Anouleth]

if defense reflects how tough your body is, why doesn't volug have 100% defense growth to represent his chiseled abs? or something.

I think how tough your body is is probably better reflected by HP... after all, warriors and berserkers (and volug) have amazing bodies (woof), but not a lot of armour, so we can better enjoy the view they have lots of HP but low defense.

[Chiki]

okay, fine, you're right. my reasoning doesn't make sense. a better explanation would be that magical defense fairies sprinkle defense augmentation dust on some units when they level up. fire emblem isn't a realistic series so obviously there is no need to incorporate any realistic elements. the fact that players can miraculously relate to the mechanics is purely coincidental and not a design choice.

> using an example from a video game to contradict an example of real-life mechanics

let me say this: good boxers always keep their hands in front of their face whereas bad boxers always drop their hands. if you keep your hands in front of your face, you're better defended. this has nothing to do with reaction time and everything to do with ability and/or discipline.

I don't know how to reply to this post; you didn't really make any counterarguments here as far as I can see. I personally find it very hard to relate to the mechanics, which is why I want to make it more realistic. I think others can agree here, too.

if defense reflects how tough your body is, why doesn't volug have 100% defense growth to represent his chiseled abs? or something.

I think how tough your body is is probably better reflected by HP... after all, warriors and berserkers (and volug) have amazing bodies (woof), but not a lot of armour, so we can better enjoy the view they have lots of HP but low defense.

By def I meant whatever outfit you're wearing. I'm not sure how much chiseled abs would help against a sharp sword.

Edited August 18, 2013 by Chiki

[dondon151]

I don't know how to reply to this post; you didn't really make any counterarguments here as far as I can see. I personally find it very hard to relate to the mechanics, which is why I want to make it more realistic. I think others can agree here, too.

1. your example is nonsensical

2. i provided a better example to illustrate my point

[Phoenix Wright]

olwen, i didn't explicitly say so in my post, but i feel like i implied units also shouldn't be given gamebreaking stats. it's an army of many, not an army of one type of deal. say marcia got slight nerfs and came a little bit later, i don't think she'd be gamebreaking.

what is the point of making the game realistic? next i'll be hearing about how double-jumping shouldn't exist in SSB and that pokemon should be fought by real animals or something. it's a video game that makes enough sense to play. if fire emblem were completely nonsensical, i'd understand the arguments that rally for realism, but it's not. it's fine the way it is, imo.

Edited August 18, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[Chiki]

olwen, i didn't explicitly say so in my post, but i feel like i implied units also shouldn't be given gamebreaking stats. it's an army of many, not an army of one type of deal. say marcia got slight nerfs and came a little bit later, i don't think she'd be gamebreaking.

what is the point of making the game realistic? next i'll be hearing about how double-jumping shouldn't exist in SSB and that pokemon should be fought by real animals or something. it's a video game that makes enough sense to play. if fire emblem were completely nonsensical, i'd understand the arguments that rally for realism, but it's not. it's fine the way it is, imo.

I personally think that the reason FE is appealing is because it's realistic and medieval (despite having magic, because everyone loves magic) whereas SSB isn't liked for that reason.

Well, I personally think FE should be realistic, and I think others would agree that it should be realistic as well.

1. your example is nonsensical

2. i provided a better example to illustrate my point

Why? Compare a level 20 20 def swordmaster Rutger to a level 20 20 def knight Wendy. Both take the same amount of damage despite Rutger having better reflexes and being able to turn from an attack.

Edited August 18, 2013 by Chiki

[Phoenix Wright]

I personally think that the reason FE is appealing is because it's realistic and medieval (despite having magic, because everyone loves magic) whereas SSB isn't liked for that reason.

it's appealing because of its setting, i agree, but its real appeal is mostly due to its structure and gameplay. have you ever played ghost recon: shadow wars on the 3ds, or any advance wars games? both exhibit modern/future settings, and are fairly similar to fire emblem. advance wars is arguably much more realistic than fire emblem, yet it has a smaller fanbase (i think).

how far do you want to go with making fire emblem realistic?

Edited August 18, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[Chiki]

As realistic as it can be with magic and dragons.

[Constable Reggie]

I'll take fun gameplay intentions over realistic gameplay intentions any day of the week.

If your realism makes the game less fun to play (ie implementing that stupid 1 use 1-2 range weapon idea), then you're going backwards imo

Edited August 18, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[dondon151]

Why? Compare a level 20 20 def swordmaster Rutger to a level 20 20 def knight Wendy. Both take the same amount of damage despite Rutger having better reflexes and being able to turn from an attack.

you are fixated on "turning from an attack."

like i said earlier, a class's base def stat represents the armor equipped while everything on top of that is attributable to "defensive skill." in this example, rutger has substantially greater "defensive skill" than wendy does.

[Phoenix Wright]

As realistic as it can be with magic and dragons.

what if i said magic granted better defensive capabilities. because in a game where there exists magic and dragons and shit, this is not a silly claim.

and what if i said that hand axes and javelins travel across the entire world and back in to the user's hand and a fraction of the speed of light due to magic (fun fact: that's how i like to think about those types of ranged weapons). in the setting of this game, practically anything is possible. even teleportation.

you're trying to morph together fairytale land and reality. it doesn't work. the realistic elements are only slightly necessary so as to not make players go, "what the fuck is this," when booting up and playing the game.

Edited August 18, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[Chiki]

you are fixated on "turning from an attack."

like i said earlier, a class's base def stat represents the armor equipped while everything on top of that is attributable to "defensive skill." in this example, rutger has substantially greater "defensive skill" than wendy does.

There's just no evidence for this claim whatsoever. All of your examples can be boiled down to either the speed stat or the skill stat. Parrying an attack slightly or slightly dodging it but failing both can be explained with those two stats.

Another thing that is absurd with your explanation is that units have consistently the same "defense skill." This isn't true in real life: sometimes you get hurt more by the same kind of attack when you don't see it coming, or for whatever reason. But in Fire Emblem you get hit for the same damage all the time. You won't be able to block hits from the same soldier in the same way all the time, but Fire Emblem certainly says you can.

In Fire Emblem, you always take the same damage from the same hit with the same weapon. This isn't realistic at all. There's no such thing as defensive skill.

Funnily enough, Fire Emblem agrees with me. Since the amount of damage you take is always stable, it means that defense is based on whatever outfit you have--because the only thing that remains stable is your outfit.

Edited August 18, 2013 by Chiki

[Phoenix Wright]

further proof that defense is based on magic: vidofnir.

explain how a lance adds to defense otherwise.

Edited August 18, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[Anouleth]

if defense isn't based on magic, then how do gates and forts and forests and the Power of Friendship give more defense?

checkmate, atheists

Edited August 19, 2013 by Anouleth

[dondon151]

There's just no evidence for this claim whatsoever. All of your examples can be boiled down to either the speed stat or the skill stat. Parrying an attack slightly or slightly dodging it but failing both can be explained with those two stats.

but it's not

Another thing that is absurd with your explanation is that units have consistently the same "defense skill." This isn't true in real life: sometimes you get hurt more by the same kind of attack when you don't see it coming, or for whatever reason. But in Fire Emblem you get hit for the same damage all the time. You won't be able to block hits from the same soldier in the same way all the time, but Fire Emblem certainly says you can.

this argument holds about as much water as using animations as justification for how units defend against attacks. developers are willing to go to great lengths to approximate things in order to make the game more enjoyable for players. the fact that "defensive skill" is apparently consistent doesn't invalidate my suggestion.

Edited August 19, 2013 by dondon151

[Chiki]

but it's not

this argument holds about as much water as using animations as justification for how units defend against attacks. developers are willing to go to great lengths to approximate things in order to make the game more enjoyable for players. the fact that "defensive skill" is apparently consistent doesn't invalidate my suggestion.

Lol, of course it does. You're adding realism to something that isn't realistic--you're claiming that defensive skill is realistic and FE has it, but the way FE has it isn't realistic at all, therefore it isn't realistic. It's a load of bullshit.

[Narga_Rocks]

olwen, i didn't explicitly say so in my post, but i feel like i implied units also shouldn't be given gamebreaking stats. it's an army of many, not an army of one type of deal. say marcia got slight nerfs and came a little bit later, i don't think she'd be gamebreaking.

what is the point of making the game realistic? next i'll be hearing about how double-jumping shouldn't exist in SSB and that pokemon should be fought by real animals or something. it's a video game that makes enough sense to play. if fire emblem were completely nonsensical, i'd understand the arguments that rally for realism, but it's not. it's fine the way it is, imo.

She'd still be gamebreaking, just not for as long. Removing bexp or like RF said once putting a cap on how much you can dump on a single unit at once is what's necessary. If you dropped all of Marcia's stats by 2, we'd probably just give her 3 extra bexp levels or something. Having flight and ORKOing and never dying is just that awesome that we'd probably suffer some other units being a little worse if it cut turns.

[Phoenix Wright]

She'd still be gamebreaking, just not for as long. Removing bexp or like RF said once putting a cap on how much you can dump on a single unit at once is what's necessary. If you dropped all of Marcia's stats by 2, we'd probably just give her 3 extra bexp levels or something. Having flight and ORKOing and never dying is just that awesome that we'd probably suffer some other units being a little worse if it cut turns.

I...I completely forgot about BEXP. Yeah, take all that out of the next FE.

[dondon151]

Lol, of course it does. You're adding realism to something that isn't realistic--you're claiming that defensive skill is realistic and FE has it, but the way FE has it isn't realistic at all, therefore it isn't realistic. It's a load of bullshit.

it's quite apparent to me that you are not able to reconcile realistic elements with fantastical liberties. to you, it's all one or the other.

meanwhile, the rest of us will continue enjoying our fire emblem. have a nice day!

[Refa]

Concerning the topic at hand, I've always felt that this blog did a good job of explaining things.

http://exploringbelievability.blogspot.com/