link arena Fire Emblem Link Arena Discussion Topic

[Elieson]

The only time that I ever want to attack is if my blow will finish off my enemy. Otherwise, I'd generally prefer to be struck and deal damage via counter.

[Tables]

Somebody stallying the opponent with 3 extra units. Mediocre or not, they're 3 extra units that might determine the course of the battle, so not having Tanith may be considered a disadvantage in such case.

All this argument says is that Reinforce provides some potential advantage. Which it better, or it'd be completely pointless. The three units you summon are pretty bad - one of them will usually get himself killed instantly without hurting the opponent due to Javelin having 1-2 range. One of them will deal single digit chip damage to fragile units. One of them can actually hurt the opponent reasonably, maybe even dealing low double digit damage, and might survive one attack. In all cases though their accuracy is poor, and they die extremely quickly attacking anything that's not a bow user. So basically they make for nice anti-sniper units and for scouting, and maybe dealing just a little extra damage occasionally and/or stalling by summoning them - but their damage/hit/survival is pathetic. They might determine the course of the battle - that's exactly the point of using a 15 CAP skill unique to a single (otherwise poor) character!

Somebody rigging Corrosion procs to leave an enemy unarmed, just no. Unfair disadvantage.

Sorry, but what? I don't understand this point at all. How do you 'rig' Corrosion procs? To leave an enemy unarmed you would need to hit them with at least four Corrosions (or more depending on how it were implemented), which each have a ~25% chance of activating. Most people you hit at least four times are going to be dead, yo. Even then, supposing what you said was all true - that it COULD be rigged to always activate, and you happen to be fighting someone with the bulk to survive. How is this an unfair advantage? You've left someone close to death with no weapons, instead of using a skill like, say... Adept, which would have simply killed them. Or similar things. Both people would have access to Corrosion after all and could do this, if it could happen.

If Corrosion were added, I think it's main use would probably be trying to disable key weapons on specific targets - things like the S rank weapons, Sniper Brave Bows, stuff like that. It would still be luck dependent and you'd not have a huge chance of success, but maybe we'd see the occasional niche Corrision/Brave Sword/Mia trying to get those weapon smashes in.

[Elieson]

How about Corrosion can't ever break the char's weapon if they're holding 1 weapon. I mean, you don't see Corrosion destroying Laguz mouths do you?

[Tables]

How about Corrosion can't ever break the char's weapon if they're holding 1 weapon. I mean, you don't see Corrosion destroying Laguz mouths do you?

Man, I want whatever toothpaste they're using.

[dondon151]

How about Corrosion can't ever break the char's weapon if they're holding 1 weapon.

how does this make any sense at all

there are 2 reasons why we shouldn't bother implementing corrosion in FE9:

1. tracking remaining weapon uses is a huge hassle for the host

2. it will never do anything because it has a skl/2% chance at activating and it only reduces weapon use by 10 per activation

for reference, forged silvers have 25 uses, brave weapons have 30 uses, VK has 25 uses, and Wishblade has 20 uses. even 2 corrosion activations on a 25-use weapon is going to leave that unit with plenty of opportunities to strike.

[PKL]

Yeah, Corrosion is a gimmick and just a hassle for the hosts.

[Quintessence]

there are lots of occasions where i'd rather not attack, and screwing over any laguz lategame or removing a laguzguard doesn't sound like a bad option at all

i kind of like stealing personally, because otherwise volke is a waste of space

LA doesn't have a command menu. It's just attack.

Sorry, but what? I don't understand this point at all. How do you 'rig' Corrosion procs? To leave an enemy unarmed you would need to hit them with at least four Corrosions (or more depending on how it were implemented), which each have a ~25% chance of activating. Most people you hit at least four times are going to be dead, yo. Even then, supposing what you said was all true - that it COULD be rigged to always activate, and you happen to be fighting someone with the bulk to survive. How is this an unfair advantage? You've left someone close to death with no weapons, instead of using a skill like, say... Adept, which would have simply killed them. Or similar things. Both people would have access to Corrosion after all and could do this, if it could happen.If Corrosion were added, I think it's main use would probably be trying to disable key weapons on specific targets - things like the S rank weapons, Sniper Brave Bows, stuff like that. It would still be luck dependent and you'd not have a huge chance of success, but maybe we'd see the occasional niche Corrision/Brave Sword/Mia trying to get those weapon smashes in.

To begin with, LA doesn't feature weapon usage. Instead of Corrosion, why not add Disarm?

[General Horace]

LA doesn't have a command menu. It's just attack.

To begin with, LA doesn't feature weapon usage. Instead of Corrosion, why not add Disarm?

Roar? Equip and unequip items? Those aren't in original LA either.

Edited March 24, 2014 by General Horace

[PKL]

Volke will be useless with or without Steal. Just sayin.

[Quintessence]

Roar? Equip and unequip items? Those aren't in original LA either.

Yeah, Roar was added, dunno why since, imho, it'd be better to add the stun effect to an attack as Stun, but probably it's too late to argue against it. Equip and unequip items is necessary to introduce PoR into LA. Yet LA originally allows items (Delphi Shield, Iron Rune, etc.) despite some of them aren't usable (Elixirs, Vulneraries, etc.).

Volke will be useless with or without Steal. Just sayin.

Lol. Not even Lethality into consideration?

[Tables]

LA doesn't have a command menu. It's just attack.

To begin with, LA doesn't feature weapon usage. Instead of Corrosion, why not add Disarm?

I don't remember Disarm being in FE9. Also that point doesn't address a single criticism I just made of what you said.

[Quintessence]

I don't remember Disarm being in FE9. Also that point doesn't address a single criticism I just made of what you said.

Yeah sorry, I'm always thinking in RD's mechanics. I was assuming Corrosion dropped 40 wpn uses according to RD, but forgot you guys are sticked to PoR. However, there's the possible scenario of Snipers using Brave Bow or, as you said, SMs using Brave Swords.

But yeah, why not add Disarm?

Edited March 24, 2014 by Quintessence

[Tables]

Yeah sorry, I'm always thinking in RD's mechanics. I was assuming Corrosion dropped 40 wpn uses according to RD, but forgot you guys are sticked to PoR. However, there's the possible scenario of Snipers using Brave Bow or, as you said, SMs using Brave Swords.

But yeah, why not add Disarm?

Well, because it's not in the game? Not to mention what would disarm do that guard doesn't? And the possible scenario there is pretty much the only way to make the skill worthwhile. And even then they probably have better skills they could use.

Now you do bring up what I think is the biggest issue with adding the skill: What would it do exactly? If it just reduces 15 uses, it'd be close to worthless, as well as introduce a new hassle of tracking weapon uses, which is kinda dumb and annoying for mods. So it really needs to just flat out destroy weapons. But that makes it very close to being always better than guard (okay guard is pretty mediocre already), so... what then? It's not obvious exactly what it should do if implemented. But personally, I would prefer skills being added from FE9 rather than introducing things from other games, and then there's a tension between I'd like to keep them close to the originals and I'd like them to add interesting strategic options. So what to do?

[AnonymousSpeed]

Well, I might as well talk:

Stealing: I think it's fine, it's interesting, but it does really hurt royals. Maybe that's a good thing. If you're using stealing, chances are its Volke, and Volke isn't a real powerhouse unit in FE9.

Vague Katti: It's in the game, leave it in the game. Vague Katti has weaknesses, and no one has mentioned banning killer weapons despite featuring only 5 less crit.

Reinforce: I don't see why we can't have it, as long as you don't have to kill them to win, it has enough limits to keep it from being broken.

Corrosion: Maybe it could disable a weapon for a certain number of turns? Uses aren't a thing in Link Arena, so it's that or destroy the weapon. With such a low activation rate I don't see why it would be so bad.

Nihil: I don't think limiting to one Nihil is nescessary, but limiting to 2 is something I'd be fine with. That's one innate+scroll, and to me that sounds pretty balanced.

Dragons: these things are so problematic, but I am always reluctant to reach for the ban hammer. Don't we count them as royals? I think that could work to balance them outside maxes, simply add the limits of no boosters or custom skills, or at least reduce capacity to 25.

[Elieson]

AS don't forget Parity. All you are suggesting is to ban two innateNihils on one team

[PKL]

Normal crit weapons dont give +3 def and have a chance to OHKO any unit with 20 def. Unless it's Boyd I guess but Killer hit sux. That 3 MT over Killers is a big deal.

Edited March 24, 2014 by PKL

[General Horace]

Parity isnt a big deal, its not like nihil where one side has skill s and the other doesn't. And the only innate Parity is Lucia, who noone uses anyway

[Quintessence]

Well, because it's not in the game? Not to mention what would disarm do that guard doesn't? And the possible scenario there is pretty much the only way to make the skill worthwhile. And even then they probably have better skills they could use.Now you do bring up what I think is the biggest issue with adding the skill: What would it do exactly? If it just reduces 15 uses, it'd be close to worthless, as well as introduce a new hassle of tracking weapon uses, which is kinda dumb and annoying for mods. So it really needs to just flat out destroy weapons. But that makes it very close to being always better than guard (okay guard is pretty mediocre already), so... what then? It's not obvious exactly what it should do if implemented. But personally, I would prefer skills being added from FE9 rather than introducing things from other games, and then there's a tension between I'd like to keep them close to the originals and I'd like them to add interesting strategic options. So what to do?

First, why talk about weapon uses? I think we all agree it is just an inconvenience and a load of work for hosts to keep track of each hit and Corrode proc.

Second, Disarm doesn't reduce enemy weapon use. Disarm makes the opponent unequip its weapon until he reequips it and uses it.

Third, the difference between Cancel/Guard and Disarm is that Disarm has the potential of affecting the Weapon Triangle, while Cancel only cancels an enemy attack. For best case scenario, a swd user (with the ability to double) can disarm an enemy lance user and gain a +1 mt, or +3 if using a brave swd, resulting in a temporary convenience. However, it can as well be not a benefit, since a swd user can disarm an axe user and lose +1 mt for his second attack.

I'm not insisting on adding Disarm, necessarily. Just bringing up the idea of evaluating Disarm vs Corrosion. No problem if it's not added, though.

[PKL]

Remember that to equip weapons you have to attack with that unit...so Disarm would be OP.

[AnonymousSpeed]

Normal crit weapons dont give +3 def and have a chance to OHKO any unit with 20 def. Unless it's Boyd I guess but Killer hit sux. That 3 MT over Killers is a big deal.

That's a good point. I maintain that VK can stay, but this certainly explains why it's much better than a killing edge,

[Quintessence]

Remember that to equip weapons you have to attack with that unit...so Disarm would be OP.

Exactly, so if you don't want your unequipped unit to be targetted, then you'll be forced to attack with him. Thanks pkl

[dondon151]

Vague Katti: It's in the game, leave it in the game. Vague Katti has weaknesses, and no one has mentioned banning killer weapons despite featuring only 5 less crit.

this is a non-argument. nihil is in the game, and we want to partially take it out, with good reason. ike x oscar was in the game, now it's not. ragnell was in the game, now it's not. these examples aside, you even were careless enough to contradict yourself:

Dragons: these things are so problematic, but I am always reluctant to reach for the ban hammer. Don't we count them as royals? I think that could work to balance them outside maxes, simply add the limits of no boosters or custom skills, or at least reduce capacity to 25.

40 SP dragons are in the game; leave it in the game! All 40 of that SP!

obviously there are good reasons to set arbitrary limits on what should and shouldn't be allowed, since we're not dealing in absolutes. there is, i believe, a litmus test for both the exclusion of existing options and the inclusion of non-existing options.

to exclude an existing option (i.e., ban), the suspect in question must:

- demonstrably centralize the metagame around using and countering said option, and/or

- introduce an undesirable source of luck

to include an non-existing option (i.e., make up a mechanic), the option in question must:

- rectify a problem created by an already existing option

so reviewing previous mechanics, we can categorize them by what portions of the test they pass (or, in my opinion, fail):

ragnell ban: centralized the metagame around using ike.

ike x oscar ban: centralized the metagame around using ike and oscar; introduced a lot of luck.

proposed nihil ban or limitation, or nasir ban: centralized the metagame around nasir and units with innate nihil.

shade/provoke inclusion: this fails the litmus test for inclusion of a new mechanic.

reinforce inclusion: this fails the litmus test for inclusion of a new mechanic.

stealing inclusion: this fails the litmus test for inclusion of a new mechanic.

[AnonymousSpeed]

You raise a very good point, and I was flawed in my argument. Allow me to further rectify my points:

We have banned no weapon except the ragnell which is the most ridiculously powerful weapon in the Fire Emblem series and the Vague Katti still suffers from several issues:

1. It suffers from WTD from lance users, and there are many good lance users. Among them are Oscar, the Generals, Makalov if you choose, and Nephenee to a certain extent. Even Geoffrey has displayed a fair bit of competence on occasion.

2. The amount of VKs in the game is one, thus is limited to one per team. Secondly, the VK means picking it over another S rank weapon, though I would not call this a major enough point to get it's own bullet.

3. Each team can have one Vague Katti so long as they have one of many sword weilders on their team, making it more flexible and less centralizing.

4. Unlike the ragnell, the VK only works at one range and cannot counter bows.

5. The Vague Katti lacks the power or hit of the Silver Sword in exchange for some crit and the defense boost. While these are very good boosts, as an S-rank weapon they are rather fair advantages in my opinion.

Here are analyses of power, whether used to further or retract the agenda of banning the Vague Katti is up to the rest of you:

The highest possible attack on any VK user is 60, if it is Resolve Brom with A Boyd and then one other support at B. And they must all be alive.

If a paladin has 2 offensive boosting supports (take into account that this can't happen with one using swords as far as I recall), and they are in Resolve, they can achieve 53 attack.

Outside of generals and paladins, the highest possible attack of a VK user is 50 if it is Resolve Mia with full attack boosting supports, provided all are alive.

Ike with the VK can achieve a maximum of 49 attack with the VK if in Resolve.

Regarding the litmus test, I must disagree with this philosophy. When this all began the original users simply had averages, no boosters, no custom skills. There were quite a few deadly combos out there, but we added in maxes, custom skills, and boosters over time to increase options available and make the arena more enjoyable. To me, the purpose of the arena is to provide an enjoyable experience to the players through following in the footsteps of the GBA link arena, which followed very closely to the original game without staves. While some things do need to be banned, I believe that unless something is banned and it's in the game then we should strive to add it in order to most closely reflect the main game. After all, some matches have supports cut from the game, so why not skills that actually made it in?

On a separate not, Shade/Provoke and stealing would actually pass your test:

Shade increases the use of otherwise lesser used mages.

Provoke can reduce the ability of the foe to gang up on weaker units. While more of a strategic luxury than problem solver like shade, having one without the other is odd.

Stealing makes royals less appealing, and royals are not only popular but among the strongest units available.

I still however disagree with the idea of the litmus test, I simply wished to point these things out. Feel free to point out any errors in my arguments.

[Tables]

First, why talk about weapon uses? I think we all agree it is just an inconvenience and a load of work for hosts to keep track of each hit and Corrode proc.

Second, Disarm doesn't reduce enemy weapon use. Disarm makes the opponent unequip its weapon until he reequips it and uses it.

Third, the difference between Cancel/Guard and Disarm is that Disarm has the potential of affecting the Weapon Triangle, while Cancel only cancels an enemy attack. For best case scenario, a swd user (with the ability to double) can disarm an enemy lance user and gain a +1 mt, or +3 if using a brave swd, resulting in a temporary convenience. However, it can as well be not a benefit, since a swd user can disarm an axe user and lose +1 mt for his second attack.

I'm not insisting on adding Disarm, necessarily. Just bringing up the idea of evaluating Disarm vs Corrosion. No problem if it's not added, though.

Weapon uses aren't worth tracking, I agree. That's kind of the point, actually. If you want Corrosion in the game, doing exactly what it does in game would be a massive pain. You can keep it almost true to the original with changes like, it flat out destroys the opponent's weapon. I don't think that's overpowered but it might be worth testing and seeing what it can do.

I forgot that Disarm doesn't just unequip the weapon for the rest of the turn but actually unequips the weapon until it's re-equipped. Too used to using it in game I suppose. So yeah forcing people to need to re-equip it could possibly be interesting, but I dunno. For me I dislike that it's introducing new mechanics into the game - and well that's not a problem on it's own as there's a precedent for doing so what with Shade/Provoke (admittedly that one is up for contention...) and the fact you can't check enemy data like weapons - but I think it needs to add something significant to do so. And yeah, I guess the change in WT is also something, but honestly that feels so minor (and potentially a source of minor moderating errors as numbers change mid-battle) I'm not convinced it's worth the hassle.

Personally, I'm neither for nor against Corrosion. I think it's an interesting idea and maybe worthwhile of testing, with some rules on it both players agree to.

[PKL]

You raise a very good point, and I was flawed in my argument. Allow me to further rectify my points:

We have banned no weapon except the ragnell which is the most ridiculously powerful weapon in the Fire Emblem series and the Vague Katti still suffers from several issues:

1. It suffers from WTD from lance users, and there are many good lance users. Among them are Oscar, the Generals, Makalov if you choose, and Nephenee to a certain extent. Even Geoffrey has displayed a fair bit of competence on occasion.

2. The amount of VKs in the game is one, thus is limited to one per team. Secondly, the VK means picking it over another S rank weapon, though I would not call this a major enough point to get it's own bullet.

3. Each team can have one Vague Katti so long as they have one of many sword weilders on their team, making it more flexible and less centralizing.

4. Unlike the ragnell, the VK only works at one range and cannot counter bows.

5. The Vague Katti lacks the power or hit of the Silver Sword in exchange for some crit and the defense boost. While these are very good boosts, as an S-rank weapon they are rather fair advantages in my opinion.

Here are analyses of power, whether used to further or retract the agenda of banning the Vague Katti is up to the rest of you:

The highest possible attack on any VK user is 60, if it is Resolve Brom with A Boyd and then one other support at B. And they must all be alive.

If a paladin has 2 offensive boosting supports (take into account that this can't happen with one using swords as far as I recall), and they are in Resolve, they can achieve 53 attack.

Outside of generals and paladins, the highest possible attack of a VK user is 50 if it is Resolve Mia with full attack boosting supports, provided all are alive.

Ike with the VK can achieve a maximum of 49 attack with the VK if in Resolve.

Regarding the litmus test, I must disagree with this philosophy. When this all began the original users simply had averages, no boosters, no custom skills. There were quite a few deadly combos out there, but we added in maxes, custom skills, and boosters over time to increase options available and make the arena more enjoyable. To me, the purpose of the arena is to provide an enjoyable experience to the players through following in the footsteps of the GBA link arena, which followed very closely to the original game without staves. While some things do need to be banned, I believe that unless something is banned and it's in the game then we should strive to add it in order to most closely reflect the main game. After all, some matches have supports cut from the game, so why not skills that actually made it in?

On a separate not, Shade/Provoke and stealing would actually pass your test:

Shade increases the use of otherwise lesser used mages.

Provoke can reduce the ability of the foe to gang up on weaker units. While more of a strategic luxury than problem solver like shade, having one without the other is odd.

Stealing makes royals less appealing, and royals are not only popular but among the strongest units available.

I still however disagree with the idea of the litmus test, I simply wished to point these things out. Feel free to point out any errors in my arguments.

1. Holsety is the most ridiculous weapon in the series, not Ragnell.

2. Ragnell also suffers from WTD against lances. Not a reason to keep something around.

3. Ragnell was also one and you know what happened to it.

4. I dont see how only having one Vague Katti makes it less centralizing. Consider for a moment that only one Vague Katti means that in the teambuilding process, you will often not want to use 2 Sword users precisely because of Vague Katti.

5. The Vague Katti not being 1-2 range means it is still good against Bows. It increases the user's Def to take a bow hit and afterwards allows the user to crit the Bow user, being able to OHKO both Snipers (without 1 Robe 1 Draco) or Boyd just because of luck.

6. Silvers cant OHKO less-than-20-def units.

Edited March 25, 2014 by PKL