What if Fire Emblem brought back fatigue?

[RJWalker]

You might as well complain that Fin can't use axes. Both infantry and cavalry axe users exist. Random villagers can do it, why can't he?

That's just too silly. Try to be less silly.

Finn is trained to use both Lances and Swords. Which weapon he can use depending on whether he's on a horse or not is silly.

Silly right?

But no, you'd rather have Finn be incompetent.

[Baldrick]

@Ranger Jack

Go learn how to use lances on horseback, then try to apply that technique while on foot.

The difference between swinging a sword and swinging an axe is much less than the difference between using a lance on horseback and using a lance on foot. So my example is less silly.

[PuffPuff]

No.

It makes the games to force you to use more characters. It shouldn't comeback.

Edited December 15, 2013 by Dark_Huntress

[PKL]

We don't need silly mechanics to stop low-manning. My issue with it, is that a lot of people play with very clear favorite units. The game suddenly telling the player they can't deploy their favorite unit or use their favorite unit, is such a slap in the face. There's better ways to encourage multi-manning the game, like the DS games did. They just have to build a good main game next time without all the brokeness.

[dondon151]

I never said riding a horse in a castle makes sense. But you're selectively dismissing things that don't make sense while accepting other things that don't make sense either.

It's not about what makes more sense. It's about the undeniable fact that dismounted units being hilariously incompetent is just silly.

pot calling the kettle black. when it comes to these matters that aren't black and white, you're not helping yourself by neglecting to make a good argument for where to draw the line. the whole weapon limitation thing in fire emblem (i.e., units can only use weapons for which they have a weapon rank) doesn't make sense, either. the crucial question to ask when examining the FE5 dismounting mechanic is, does it add something to the game by taking something away from it?

i would make the argument that it does. first, let me dispel the notion point that dismounted units are hilariously incompetent. that's simply not true. some dismounted units are rather bad (e.g. glade and hicks with E rank swords), but most are serviceable, and many are actually really good (e.g. felgus, fred, dean, amalda) despite getting penalized when dismounted. there's a significant correlation between sword rank and how good a unit is when dismounted, but that doesn't mean that the default position should be to resort to the lazy solution of giving every unit their mounted weapon rank when dismounted. for one, a better weapon rank system (which FE5 sorely lacked) could partially address the issue. additionally, as a design consideration, you might want to make some mounted units relatively more incompetent indoors.

second, i will address the complaint that it's lazy to strengthen foot units by forcing mounted units to dismount. why? mounted units are already better versions of foot units. this has been the status quo. you need to give an argument for why this is bad. the obvious argument for why this is good is that it makes foot units far more relevant, thereby adding something to the game by taking something away from it.

third on the chopping block is the complaint that dismounted units default to swords. a lot of people don't like this for some reason, but this was one of my favorite design choices in FE5. the first argument in favor of this has to do with the real-life differences between using a weapon on horse and a weapon on foot (although to be consistent, FE5 should have had separate mounted/dismounted sword ranks for free knights and cavaliers). the problem here obviously is that any argument that appeals to real life has to selectively ignore other aspects of the game that don't make sense, but keep in mind that being able to justify a design choice with an appeal to real life is still a net positive (i.e., you can't whip out the "but other things don't make sense" card and expect that to work). the second argument in favor of this has to do with gameplay. restricting mounted units to swords inflates the value of infantry that can use axes and lances. this particularly wasn't even that big of a deal because FE5 had a lot of good swords and not very many good axes or lances, so mounted units with a decent sword rank didn't mind the switch at all.

That's just too silly. Try to be less silly.

Finn is trained to use both Lances and Swords. Which weapon he can use depending on whether he's on a horse or not is silly.

repeating that something is silly does not constitute an argument...

We don't need silly mechanics to stop low-manning. My issue with it, is that a lot of people play with very clear favorite units. The game suddenly telling the player they can't deploy their favorite unit or use their favorite unit, is such a slap in the face. There's better ways to encourage multi-manning the game, like the DS games did. They just have to build a good main game next time without all the brokeness.

the mechanic doesn't just stop low-manning, but it also encourages the player to be careful about who to send into combat and to manage staff users. now, i don't see why the game forcing the player to undeploy a favorite unit every now and then is a slap in the face. first, it adds a human aspect into the game (well, no one can fight forever). second, a lot of games prevent the player from using their favorite character. tellah dying halfway through FF4 doesn't decrease my enjoyment of the game. fludd being taken away during the super mario sunshine secret levels doesn't decrease my enjoyment of the game.

Edited December 15, 2013 by dondon151

[Refa]

Dismounted mounts being locked to swords doesn't make any less sense than riding a horse in castle. Or a teenage boy being able to outfight various professional soldiers. Or some guy from a village being able to fight close to an empire's elite soldiers. Or Guy with capped strength being weighed by a Steel Sword. And so on.

Fire Emblem is a video game series.

OK, I don't really agree with Ranger Jack Walker about dismounting being godawful either, sounds like he just has an issue with its implementation in FE5 and his issues seem super easy to fix. Butbutbut, this is the worst counterargument ever. Just because it's a video game does not mean it has to be completely unrealistic. There's this thing called suspension of disbelief, and once you break it it becomes a hell out of a lot harder to take it seriously. Also not really pertaining to my point, but your Guy point is dumb. Digressions aside, while I can agree that some of those points are definitely pretty unrealistic, they don't really break my suspension of disbelief because the games never emphasis them (also considering adulthood in FE, at least FE3, is at 16 and this is psuedo medieval ages, I can buy it even if it's not the most plausible thing in the world). Dismounted units being locked to swords bothers people more because it actually impedes their gameplay experience (I actually didn't mind it at all, but devil's advocate and all that), all while not really making a whole lot of sense.

Also too lazy to quote anything, but I do agree with dondon's points. Just...the "oh, it's a video game series" is like the most cop out reply ever.

[NinjaMonkey]

But PKL, you forget this is the game that made FE mainstream.

No, that was Awakening, not FE5.

[Phoenix Wright]

dismounting is pretty sweet, it can--and should--be implemented better. i feel exactly the same with the fatigue system. though, more thought will have to be put to it; i think the dismounting issues are more easily fixed.

[Czar_Yoshi]

the mechanic doesn't just stop low-manning, but it also encourages the player to be careful about who to send into combat and to manage staff users. now, i don't see why the game forcing the player to undeploy a favorite unit every now and then is a slap in the face. first, it adds a human aspect into the game (well, no one can fight forever). second, a lot of games prevent the player from using their favorite character. tellah dying halfway through FF4 doesn't decrease my enjoyment of the game. fludd being taken away during the super mario sunshine secret levels doesn't decrease my enjoyment of the game.

None of those games you mentioned are made by IS or even remotely similar to FE, and in both cases the character item was removed for a different purpose (FF4 the character died, different than random periodic restrictions and part of the plotline (people don't bash FE7 because Matthew occasionally disappeared for plotline/gameplay reasons, it's a different case), SMS you lose an ability temporarily at pre-defined points that are all skippable and are purely for gameplay purposes, said ability being a character with no personality whatsoever). In fact, FEs often give you a postgame in which you can play as major (dead) NPCs/enemies from the game just so people would be able to use their favorite characters. Taking that ability away is silly.

[dondon151]

None of those games you mentioned are made by IS or even remotely similar to FE,

why does this matter?

and in both cases the character item was removed for a different purpose (FF4 the character died, different than random periodic restrictions and part of the plotline (people don't bash FE7 because Matthew occasionally disappeared for plotline/gameplay reasons, it's a different case),

1. why does a plotline death get a free pass?

2. the restriction is not even remotely "random." there's a parameter called fatigue, and all you have to do to figure out whether a unit will be imminently fatigued is to compare that fatigue parameter to max HP.

In fact, FEs often give you a postgame in which you can play as major (dead) NPCs/enemies from the game just so people would be able to use their favorite characters. Taking that ability away is silly.

this is a non sequitur. i never said anything about taking away the ability to use bonus characters.

[Czar_Yoshi]

why does this matter?

1. why does a plotline death get a free pass?

2. the restriction is not even remotely "random." there's a parameter called fatigue, and all you have to do to figure out whether a unit will be imminently fatigued is to compare that fatigue parameter to max HP.

this is a non sequitur. i never said anything about taking away the ability to use bonus characters.

It matters because FE is a different case, period. You're comparing apples to oranges. If anyone missed FLUDD in SMS as a character in the void levels, I'd seriously question their sanity, but they don't, while apparently they do not appreciate being unable to use their favorite characters in FE (if this wasn't the case, you wouldn't have brought up the point). Why the discrepancy? Because they're different cases and you can't compare them.

When I say "random" I mean it doesn't happen at predetermined times and instead happens periodically based on player input (the same as all other "random" events in games) without a good reason. I don't mind if a character has to leave for a while if they have a good reason, but balancing mechanics that don't work are a really bad reason (the story, especially in a plot-heavy series like FE, is a good reason).

My point is that FE goes out of it's way to allow you to use characters who you can't use in the main story, which means the game obviously cares about letting me use my favorite characters, thus, restricting them for no good reason is silly.

[RJWalker]

OK, I don't really agree with Ranger Jack Walker about dismounting being godawful either, sounds like he just has an issue with its implementation in FE5 and his issues seem super easy to fix.

You're right. It's implementation is my only problem. Dismounted units losing stats, I can deal with. If they were able to use the same weapons regardless of whether they're mounted or not, I would have no problem with the feature. Hell, if lances are harder to use on foot, then lower the lance rank of dismounted units. That would combine gameplay features with some form of realism that I can really get behind rather than how it's done in FE3 and FE5 where pretty much no one can use lances in the final chapters except freaking Generals. This is not really a problem in FE3 since there's no weapon triangle even though the triangle doesn't make much difference in the late stages of the game.

[Baldrick]

What is the opinion on my proposal for fatigue? If a player really can't tolerate not using their favourite character they will work around the penalty (wouldn't be any harder than training Wendy)

PKL, if you think re-implementing fatigue would kill the series, what do you think removing the brokenness would do?

Czar, if a plot point was the protagonist was being haunted by a demon that killed anyone that spends too much time with him (read: deployed in too many chapters in a row), that means you would accept fatigue, right?

[dondon151]

It matters because FE is a different case, period. You're comparing apples to oranges.

not an argument; you have to explain why i'm comparing apples to oranges. especially in the FF4 tellah case, i really don't see it. because, you know, tellah didn't have to die. they could have just written it differently.

Edited December 16, 2013 by dondon151

[Czar_Yoshi]

Czar, if a plot point was the protagonist was being haunted by a demon that killed anyone that spends too much time with him (read: deployed in too many chapters in a row), that means you would accept fatigue, right?

Well, in that case I'd likely spend more time talking about the story being silly than the game mechanics (yes, I know Awakening is not a paragon of storytelling). As for the actual mechanic, I'd probably not mind it as much, but still want it implemented differently.

And personally, I would like Fatigue much more if it had a gradual effect instead of an immediate cap, and if it comes back I'd like it to go in that direction. If characters sounded/acted tired as well, that would be a bonus.

not an argument; you have to explain why i'm comparing apples to oranges. especially in the FF4 tellah case, i really don't see it. because, you know, tellah didn't have to die. they could have just written it differently.

FE is an RPG. It has characters who are there for something other than gameplay purposed. SMS is not. It does not have characters who are there for something other than gameplay purposes, or to get kidnapped and give you a reason to go on your quest.

They also could have, you know, never made FF in the first place. But they did, and Tellah did die, and not because of gameplay choices.

[ShadowSlayer]

I like the idea of fatigue, I'd rather have it over a minimum unit restriction. I like to send in many units at a time, as I think it's more "fair" than one or two OP units, and I also get Experience. But sometimes on my Lunatic run I'm just on this super annoying level that's always requiring me to rescue people, the enemies always get crits, reinforcements always come from behind, and movement is restricted, etc; And I just get pissed and say "I'm not gonna waste hours and hours of time because Stahl is always dying to the Wyvern Rider reinforcements, screw this" and proceed to send in Chrom paired with Sumia and Donnel paired with Sully and get it done much easier.