If this game had actual multiplayer...

[Airship Canon]

I doubt that, given how "almost" doesn't count, except in horseshoes.

And Hand Grenades.

...

Also, I just realized a way to make FTA/First turn sweeps a non-thing.

FE4 deployment.

In short, instead of starting on standard positions, both players get a castle. First Turn: Castles Cannot be Captured. [Capture Castle is victory. Rout would be the other condition, but it counts units inside the castle: just because a player has no units on the map doesn't mean they're out.] In the event a player reaches the other player's castle on the first turn (beyond this, if this occurs, that player wins should the castle not be defended), if they blockade the cap point, any unit inside the castle can attack (The castle's controller gets to pick range, and their units get a gate/throne [+3 DEF/RES,+20 Avoid, +20% Healing] bonus.) the camper. Pair Ups, Rallies, etc. can be initiated from within the castle, but only apply to those within. [They don't hit the guy you set to defend, who is considered out of range for everything but Ranged Healing Staves] (This way the defending player gets to set up properly instead of getting swept on the first turn)...

Also once a unit has left the castle [this counts the unit set to defend] they cannot return. [Defending unit can move out, which lets you change your defense unit, but units cannot enter the "Indoor"/Safe Zone once they've left.]

This doesn't solve all the other issues, but FTA/Coinflip meta wouldn't be a thing.

Edited December 8, 2013 by Airship Canon

[Czar_Yoshi]

Interesting.

That actually gives me another thought of how to defeat FTA: As I see it, the metagame is/would be currently Lawnmower with FTA vs. Lawnmower without FTA, so why not make unequal victory/battle conditions to balance things out?

Basically, the fights could act more like Streetpass and have an attacking team (who must route to win and gets FTA) and a defending team, whos units start paired up (but can't activate Dual Strikes and Dual Guards, those are attacking team only), moves last, and only needs to take out any one of the enemy units to win. FTA gives a huge boost to one team, so it makes sense to not try to make every single other aspect of the teams be on equal footing.

For that matter, what if the defending team, instead of using their real units, got to customize a team beforehand or on the spot (all units have neutral mods, innate Limit Break/All Stats +20, have all classes and are generic), with access to the Lunatic+ skills, twice as many units, and the ability to start their units anywhere on the map (but no pair up)? It would then be a contest of Ultimate Lawnmower vs. Player-controlled Apotheosis with skills that are unknowable in advance, instead of Lawnmower with FTA vs. Lawnmower without FTA. The defending side could even use NPC/outrealm portraits for their characters.

Edited December 8, 2013 by Czar_Yoshi

[Airship Canon]

That Player-controlled Apoth idea actually sounds pretty good, since it would force the hell out of optimization for the attacker to even remotely have a chance. [but even then it may not be skill that determines victory at all]

For example a Sorc with All+20 [innate] and Apoth skills:

80 50 64 58 60 65 61 64

Dragonskin, Aegis+, Vantage+, Luna+, Hawkeye

Waste++

ATK: 84 [brave]

Hit: 184 [infinite/Hawkeye]

Avo: 122

CRT: 29

Survival Thresholds: >56 SPD: 84 RES; <56 SPD: Unsurvivable

Basically, if you have less than 84 RES, you're screwed, since this has Vantage+ [and let's be honest here. Player Controlled Vantage+ won't attack a Vantage unit.]

You'd do jack crap with Mire/Double Bow thanks to that Aegis+. Physical units likely won't have the RES to get in attacks.

Worst possible scenario? The defender decides "Full team of Sorcs", and cluster****s you with these guys.

[This guy would make a fun actual Apoth boss. I'd fear him far more than Invinicisorc, I'll tell you what.]

[Shadow Mir]

And Hand Grenades.

...

Also, I just realized a way to make FTA/First turn sweeps a non-thing.

FE4 deployment.

In short, instead of starting on standard positions, both players get a castle. First Turn: Castles Cannot be Captured. [Capture Castle is victory. Rout would be the other condition, but it counts units inside the castle: just because a player has no units on the map doesn't mean they're out.] In the event a player reaches the other player's castle on the first turn (beyond this, if this occurs, that player wins should the castle not be defended), if they blockade the cap point, any unit inside the castle can attack (The castle's controller gets to pick range, and their units get a gate/throne [+3 DEF/RES,+20 Avoid, +20% Healing] bonus.) the camper. Pair Ups, Rallies, etc. can be initiated from within the castle, but only apply to those within. [They don't hit the guy you set to defend, who is considered out of range for everything but Ranged Healing Staves] (This way the defending player gets to set up properly instead of getting swept on the first turn)...

Also once a unit has left the castle [this counts the unit set to defend] they cannot return. [Defending unit can move out, which lets you change your defense unit, but units cannot enter the "Indoor"/Safe Zone once they've left.]

This doesn't solve all the other issues, but FTA/Coinflip meta wouldn't be a thing.

From coin-flip meta to camping matches... Yay? I'm totally jumping for joy at this idea.

Edited December 8, 2013 by Levant Fortner

[Czar_Yoshi]

Indeed, I don't believe Secret Apo threw out even one Vantage+/Luna+/Hawkeye enemy. Anna should have had that.

Maybe the Defending team could have some sort of thing where they start out with even higher stats (+~35) and receive a penalty based on what skills they equip. Dragonskin would be free, Vantage+ and Luna+ would be the most expensive. Normally obtainable skills would be free (excluding Counter), encouraging you do do something other than make your own Lawnmower Squad.

Oh, and maybe Lethality+RG should be banned.

Edited December 8, 2013 by Czar_Yoshi

[Airship Canon]

The Nightmare Sniper might as well have had Hawkeye with that 83 SKL. [And he has Vantage+/Luna+ (And Shields+)]

You know....

*Stares at that sorc*
*calculates Aether Damage*

2+11

*Looks at Inigo*

2. 2 Damage.

My freaking Morgan doing her best would drop 2+11+2+2 = 17 Damage on him. 17.

That Sorc would stop my crushing of Apoth cold.

A special dance would bring her up to 3 + 11 + 2 + 2 = 18

Yep. Successfully blocks this from happening, since he's most likely mobile, and I have absolutely no way to punish him outside of Double Bow.

This one unit would force full power. And that'd be awesome.

[shadowofchaos]

since it would force the hell out of optimization for the attacker to even remotely have a chance.

Look, while I hate to go hating on the optimization concept that the hardcore FE fanbase is known for, multiplayer in any form would have Nintendo/Intelligent Systems considering it for the BROADER spectrum of players.

Even Apotheosis had ways to cater to the less than hardcore optimization members of the fanbase like yourself.

For starters, while I'm probably one of the few who absolutely dislike reclassing, I'm still able to screw around and have fun with original classes only even in Apotheosis.

Which is why I don't even see the point for a lot of people starting threads for the "best pairings" and you going gung ho about how "godlike" Third Generation... especially Lucina Morgan is... but that's for a different discussion.

That kind of a multiplayer if there's a possibly of it even existing, would be DLC at best catered to the hardcore fans.

Not everyone enjoys grinding the hell out of people comparable to EV training in older generations of Pokémon... and doing that just to stand a chance at multiplayer?

Not to state the obvious, but the fact that Dual Guard is unfair when used on a living, breathing, human opponent is a factor of enjoyment, rather than a straight out positive on in single player because you're fighting against AI and we just brush it off because it is an ADVANTAGE to us and that the AI's feelings isn't hurt... is not a reason to use an uphill battle to have an unfair advantage for the other side to "balance" it out.

The Nightmare Sniper might as well have had Hawkeye with that 83 SKL. [And he has Vantage+/Luna+ (And Shields+)]

You know....

*Stares at that sorc*

*calculates Aether Damage*

2+11

*Looks at Inigo*

2. 2 Damage.

My freaking Morgan doing her best would drop 2+11+2+2 = 17 Damage on him. 17.

That Sorc would stop my crushing of Apoth cold.

A special dance would bring her up to 3 + 11 + 2 + 2 = 18

Yep. Successfully blocks this from happening, since he's most likely mobile, and I have absolutely no way to punish him outside of Double Bow.

This one unit would force full power. And that'd be awesome.

You guys are thinking of "what can we do to screw around with Apotheosis if theoretically the movements weren't *JUST* controlled by the AI" for a challenge in all honesty... not a practical way to have FE13 have a multiplayer... which in my opinion has none.

Dual Guard isn't common enough

A rallied Dual Guard+ S support pair up is not uncommon to have a near 50% chance of Dual Guarding.

Edited December 8, 2013 by shadowofchaos

[Shadow Mir]

I just don't see a way that FE can have a multiplayer without it being unbalanced as all git out and/or outright unplayable. I remember Tables saying in some other threads that FE could have a workable multiplayer... which I dismiss as wishful thinking to the extreme.

[Czar_Yoshi]

I just don't see a way that FE can have a multiplayer without it being unbalanced as all git out and/or outright unplayable. I remember Tables saying in some other threads that FE could have a workable multiplayer... which I dismiss as wishful thinking to the extreme.

So make the power of the Multiplayer teams you can make vary based on whatever factor is used to control Risen strengths in the attacker's game, or on the hardest DLC map they've beaten (count Apo and Secret Apo as separate maps and require beating wave 5 to count as defeating them). There, now it's accessible to everybody.

Said Nightmare Sniper lacks pass and the ability to retaliate at 1-range, which make him easy to box in/rescue rush. I've boxed in his entire team on wave 5 using Pass and Deliverer before, it was fun.

Considering as no human with Vantage+ would attack someone else with active Vantage, it might just be a good idea to ban Vantage+ (or at least restrict it to 1-range units and Bow users).

Regarding Dual Guard rates, I think my unoptimized Manakete Morgan gets 54 without a +Def support. 60% should be easily attainable if you're trying to get it. But would you attack an enemy if you knew they had a 40% chance of ending your game? In a competitive scene, the stakes would be higher than just a reset, too.

Edited December 8, 2013 by Czar_Yoshi

[Shadow Mir]

So make the power of the Multiplayer teams you can make vary based on whatever factor is used to control Risen strengths in the attacker's game, or on the hardest DLC map they've beaten (count Apo and Secret Apo as separate maps and require beating wave 5 to count as defeating them). There, now it's accessible to everybody.

Said Nightmare Sniper lacks pass and the ability to retaliate at 1-range, which make him easy to box in/rescue rush. I've boxed in his entire team on wave 5 using Pass and Deliverer before, it was fun.

Considering as no human with Vantage+ would attack someone else with active Vantage, it might just be a good idea to ban Vantage+ (or at least restrict it to 1-range units and Bow users).

Regarding Dual Guard rates, I think my unoptimized Manakete Morgan gets 54 without a +Def support. 60% should be easily attainable if you're trying to get it. But would you attack an enemy if you knew they had a 40% chance of ending your game? In a competitive scene, the stakes would be higher than just a reset, too.

Thank you very much for proving why it wouldn't work. No one would go into PvP without packing their team with as much killing power as they could, for one. Second, people are likely to stick to a dominant strategy. You oughta know that much, at least. That means, as far as this game goes, to be even remotely viable, you'd have to have all capped stats, with Limit Breaker, and forged brave weapons. That's not very interesting, for one, and second, not everyone has the patience to grind until everyone's got Limit Breaker and capped stats (or even access to Limit Breaker).

[Czar_Yoshi]

...Are you quite sure you quoted the right person? My post suggested scaling the maximum power of the Defending team with the Attacking team's progress in the game, which is the opposite of requiring LB and capped stats to even think about multiplayer.

But if you're really against PvP, what about team battles (real ones, not Double Duel) against high volumes of strong enemies with two independent player teams and phases? Would that please you?

[Shadow Mir]

...Are you quite sure you quoted the right person? My post suggested scaling the maximum power of the Defending team with the Attacking team's progress in the game, which is the opposite of requiring LB and capped stats to even think about multiplayer.

But if you're really against PvP, what about team battles (real ones, not Double Duel) against high volumes of strong enemies with two independent player teams and phases? Would that please you?

Never mind the part where it is extremely likely to devolve into a camping match. That's no fun.

[IceBrand]

If this game had multiplayer, the battles would be filled with Sorceres with forged Nosferatu... And probably with Armshift to.

[Airship Canon]

SoC, you're not getting the point that I'm 150% certain PvP wouldn't work. There's a huge slew of problems with it, and frankly no way to make it work right.

Normal PvP would do the job of forcing maxed optimization anyways since it's PvP. [No one is going to willingly walk into PvP unprepared]

The idea of the Controllable Apoth wouldn't exactly be a form of PvP since it's so hilariously onesided [Go ahead and try to take out those Sorcs. Any player will just create an arsenal of those, and Defense will win every time.]

Dual Guards are simply not the greatest issue. DG cannot be referred to as reliable, and wouldn't exist on FT [since one side hasn't moved yet] in most cases, and Dual Strikes will laugh at them [You're still dead].

[That controllable Apoth idea has a better purpose. A level editor. That should happen.]

Edited December 8, 2013 by Airship Canon

[IceBrand]

Fire emblem could have Co-op.

[Excalibro]

There's tag battles. That's kinda co-op

[LeaderR Elliot]

FETO is the prefect example of how this is absolutely true.

Fans -tried- to make a PvP focused FE. It is/was a horrible mess that is/was nigh-unplayable. (I have no Clue if FETO still exists, and couldn't be assed to check.)

Please don't lie I have 500+ battles done in Fire emblem tactics online, and it still exist.

I think it was well done.

[Stellar]

>FETO is the prefect example of how this is absolutely true.

>Fans -tried- to make a PvP focused FE. It is/was a horrible mess that is/was nigh-unplayable. (I have no Clue if FETO still exists, and couldn't be assed to check.)

As a development GM of FETO, I would like to ask you a couple of questions.

-How long have you played before making this statement?

-How much have you played of the game before making this statement?

I want to gauge your knowledge of the game before I ask the next and more important question.

-What exactly did you see in FETO that was so broken that it was "unplayable"?

Certainly there must be something that me and the current developers don't see. Me, along with 4 others (sirocyl is spearheading the development as of this post), are currently working on a FETO 3.0 to upgrade the current system and rewrite it to a new platform, and working towards 4.0. We will also be separating it from the forums to be a stand-alone project so that it will be easier to manage.

If you have any concerns, leave a PM and I will answer them as best as I can. We have begun reworking the system since late August early september if the news hasn't gotten around yet.

On Topic: The FE13 battles would be absolutely unbalanced online and would lead to people bringing entire teams made of one specific use, such as counter/vengeance/nosferatu tanks and other such combos I'm sure plenty of other people mentioned.

Edited December 9, 2013 by Stellar

[Czar_Yoshi]

The tag battles restrict a ton of your skills and have next to no strategy involved. If there's going to be co-op, I want a real map and two player phases.

[PowerOfKaishin]

Please don't lie I have 500+ battles done in Fire emblem tactics online, and it still exist.

I think it was well done.

>FETO is the prefect example of how this is absolutely true.

>Fans -tried- to make a PvP focused FE. It is/was a horrible mess that is/was nigh-unplayable. (I have no Clue if FETO still exists, and couldn't be assed to check.)

As a development GM of FETO, I would like to ask you a couple of questions.

-How long have you played before making this statement?

-How much have you played of the game before making this statement?

I want to gauge your knowledge of the game before I ask the next and more important question.

-What exactly did you see in FETO that was so broken that it was "unplayable"?

Certainly there must be something that me and the current developers don't see. Me, along with 4 others (sirocyl is spearheading the development as of this post), are currently working on a FETO 3.0 to upgrade the current system and rewrite it to a new platform, and working towards 4.0. We will also be separating it from the forums to be a stand-alone project so that it will be easier to manage.

If you have any concerns, leave them here and I will answer them as best as I can. We have begun reworking the system since late August early september if the news hasn't gotten around yet.

I was hoping you guys wouldn't respond to this. >_e

Airship Cannon: Give it a shot again. I think FETO is a pretty good game. It's not very deep nor active, but it'll keep you amused for a little while if you're the kind of person who can play it on and off. And who knows, maybe you'll enjoy it.

As for the topic: God knows the dominant strategies would be crap like Galeforce + Siege Tomes or Nosferatu Vengeance Counter Suicide Tanks that never die.

Edited December 9, 2013 by PowerOfKaishin

[shadowofchaos]

We have begun reworking the system since late August early september if the news hasn't gotten around yet.

I'm actually indifferent towards FETO in general... and my only complaint would be... the very outdated bad first impression I got on art quality when it came to sprites. Sure I'd expect varying levels of quality when it came to users uploading their own mugs/portraits, but the default portraits provided and the map sprites used for classes just... made me not want to even touch the system. But that's not really a system problem... more like an aesthetics appeal problem. And even then, it's just my outdated opinion and is debatable of being a "problem".

[sirocyl]

Hi, FETO's current head dev and FEPlanet sysop here.
It's rubbish. FETO is absolutely garbage, it's unfinished, and it's playable but annoying. You're absolutely right on that.

FEPlanet isn't looking to great itself, either. Outdated and outmoded web design coupled with spambot and attempted hack attacks, I've been running myself up a wall keeping things from going haywire.

We've gone through some hardships over the past few years though, mainly because our site's old owner left us hanging.
Also, it was made sometime between 2004 and 2009, before they just dropped it entirely and left it to fend for itself.

The old owner finally had enough, and did something good; rather than shutting off the site and deleting it, he passed it over to fensti, our sysadmin.

I'm here to make it better though. We have a dedicated community, and we're expecting to rewrite it from the bottom up in the coming year.

The same goes for FEPlanet, the site and the community. It's been dying recently, only staying up mainly because of FETO.

I want to make FEPlanet a better Fire Emblem site than it is now, and mainly, complement Serenes, rather than compete.

But yeah, I recommend, at least trying out FETO, and checking out the amazingly detailed guides and such available for it, made by our community.

I wouldn't recommend going in and expecting the quality of a finished game, however.

Once we get a few more devs, though, we can improve and get more features and fix bugs and such.

The core game mechanics and code will remain closed, but the additions to the engine that become FETO 3 and 4, I plan to have them be open-sourced.

I just need somewhere to put a private Git-style repository that won't cost us too much.

I would host it on our server, except that our hosting provider would be none too happy with us not buying their (relatively expensive) development shared server, which is way more than we need to host a small project like FETO.

edit:

I'm actually indifferent towards FETO in general... and my only complaint would be... the very outdated bad first impression I got on art quality when it came to sprites. Sure I'd expect varying levels of quality when it came to users uploading their own mugs/portraits, but the default portraits provided and the map sprites used for classes just... made me not want to even touch the system. But that's not really a system problem... more like an aesthetics appeal problem. And even then, it's just my outdated opinion and is debatable of being a "problem".

We're taking your concerns into consideration. If you'd like to help out on suggesting design and aesthetics decisions, we're open to ideas! :)

edit 2:

Maybe we should talk about this elsewhere? This topic was about multiplayer, online tactics in Fire Emblem, not Fire Emblem Tactics Online multiplayer. :o

Edited December 9, 2013 by sirocyl

[Integrity]

edit 2:

Maybe we should talk about this elsewhere?

Took the words right outta my mouth. :o