What makes a good/fair/well-done difficulty?

[dondon151]

I had forgotten that I'd referenced Cynthia in my post, but consider that, aside from Genesis where you don't need them as much and might not go to anyway, CoD is the only chapter in the game where you need a significant amount of Res and Res-boosting material, and the HHM version is completely different from all other modes of the game, meaning there's absolutely no reason to expect it on a first run and it's not particularly unlikely to forget about it later, especially if you don't play it again for a long time, and more so if you re-play through other modes of the game first.

living legend has a lot of mages and crazed beast has an entire section of the map dedicated to monks. there are a few reasons to get the res-boosting material (i've mentioned previously that hawkeye and pent do very well against magic enemies without outside assistance); there are fewer reasons to get a restore staff, and that's probably what trips players up the most.

So while I admit I misunderstood your comment in the first place, I still don't agree with a lack of complete preparedness for such a curve ball to be "barely competent." Thus, we can now go back through the "barely competent = not perfect" shenanigans and end up back where I ask you to show me where anyone mentioned a bumbling, barely competent player.

well, you quoted me, and i was responding to cynthia when i used that characterization. we've gone over this already.

And that's the problem here. You don't judge a game's difficulty by how the experts play it. If you did, every game would be easy. It would be like judging the average playtime of a game by how fast the speedrunners beat it.

that's not true at all. i like to think that i'm an expert at FE5 and FE6, and i don't find them easy by any means. horace is an FE8 expert, and he probably doesn't find it to be a walk in the park. neither does PKL, likely, for FE12. i won't speak for chiki because this sort of assumption can nosedive into a tangential philosophical argument, but you should get the point.

for example, it's challenges like FE6 status staff spam that led me to discover the AI targeting priority, which makes it much easier to deal with, but not altogether trivial. so while the average player complains of enemies putting his units to sleep and his killer weapons not getting enough critical hits, i think about how best to reduce the impact of status staves and maximize the likelihood of KOs via critical hits. the fundamental problems are similar, but the perspectives are different based on the level of knowledge of game mechanics.

if fire emblem really were as easy to an expert as you say it is, i'd be completing entire chapters in my head regardless of their difficulty. short of warpskips and the simpler FE12 gaidens, i don't think that has ever happened. difficult maps in FE6 have in fact taken days for me to figure out - even something as ostensibly simple as the chapter 23 2-turn strategy took me that long because of the issues caused by enemy placement and status staff spam.

Edited March 17, 2014 by dondon151

[Florete]

living legend has a lot of mages and crazed beast has an entire section of the map dedicated to monks.

Living Legend has Pent (and Hawkeye) and Crazed Beast Monks are much more easily dealt with than the entirety of CoD. Like, if I recall correctly, Farina can tank those Monks really well, though you'll need someone else to handle the Bishop.

that's not true at all. i like to think that i'm an expert at FE5 and FE6, and i don't find them easy by any means. horace is an FE8 expert, and he probably doesn't find it to be a walk in the park. neither does PKL, likely, for FE12. i won't speak for chiki because this sort of assumption can nosedive into a tangential philosophical argument, but you should get the point.

for example, it's challenges like FE6 status staff spam that led me to discover the AI targeting priority, which makes it much easier to deal with, but not altogether trivial. so while the average player complains of enemies putting his units to sleep and his killer weapons not getting enough critical hits, i think about how best to reduce the impact of status staves and maximize the likelihood of KOs via critical hits.

if fire emblem really were as easy to an expert as you say it is, i'd be completing entire chapters in my head regardless of their difficulty. short of warpskips and the simpler FE12 gaidens, i don't think that has ever happened.

The point is that judging how difficult a game is by how the experts play it is representative of a very small playerbase and will always make it seem much easier than it really is, even if that's not "a walk in the park." If a game remains difficult even for experts, that just means it has some level of good difficulty (I say "some" because I wouldn't for a moment argue that FE6 has good difficulty). So as far as the topic at hand's question, FE8 HM is a "better" difficulty than HHM, even though HHM is probably harder for most players.

And, while I'm not saying you're not an expert at FE6 (you're sure as hell more of one than me at that game), I bet if it really came down to it and you learned all the deep, dark secrets of the game, you would eventually find it pretty easy.

[eclipse]

Part of me is still salty about what the RNG likes to do to me in FE7 (in general). Currently doing FE13 Lunatic for the first time, mostly blind (and raising Ricken), and I am having less problems with it than I remember having when I played FE7 HHM. I think this is because I have more experience with FE now than I did when I first tried FE7. I think opinions change as we get more experience with the harder modes!

Edited March 17, 2014 by eclipse

[dondon151]

Living Legend has Pent (and Hawkeye) and Crazed Beast Monks are much more easily dealt with than the entirety of CoD. Like, if I recall correctly, Farina can tank those Monks really well, though you'll need someone else to handle the Bishop.

yes, the crazed beast monks are easy to deal with. if they're tinking you, then you shouldn't have much of a problem with the unpromoted magic users in CoD, either. the greatest source of frustration in CoD is not the deluge of reinforcements, but it's between the valks and the status druids. everything else is pretty easy.

The point is that judging how difficult a game is by how the experts play it is representative of a very small playerbase and will always make it seem much easier than it really is, even if that's not "a walk in the park."

a particular game gets easier on an absolute level with experience, but we're comparing one game to another, so the relative difficulty of each game should still be about the same to a novice and an expert. there is a confounding factor in that experts tend to be challenged by different things than novices, but it shouldn't make a huge difference. (another confounding factor includes discoveries that just blow a game apart, e.g., wing spear forging in FE11.)

there has been a good bit of anecdotal evidence suggesting that FE8 HM is actually more difficult than FE7 HHM; whether that is actually true or representative of all players is not terribly relevant, but it does indicate that we should cast away the opinion that FE7 HHM is the perfect difficulty while FE8 HM is too easy.

And, while I'm not saying you're not an expert at FE6 (you're sure as hell more of one than me at that game), I bet if it really came down to it and you learned all the deep, dark secrets of the game, you would eventually find it pretty easy.

i doubt it. there isn't much else to learn other than how the AI determines attack behavior, but such knowledge is only situationally useful. take FE12, which is much less mysterious, and you won't find anyone claiming that to be easy even though the AI behavior has been accurately characterized with few exceptions. being able to predict AI movement a few turns in advance (for a respectably sized map) is not a feat that human minds are capable of.

Edited March 17, 2014 by dondon151

[Baldrick]

The concept of a universally perfect difficulty level is unsound. There's only difficulty levels good for people with a certain playstyle and experience level.

[Marston]

Regarding this whole "expert vs normal player" and "not being prepared for map XXX" debate, let me tell you something from my side of view:

I am probably a normal player, maybe a bit average. I have played most of the FE Games (not 1-3 and not really 5-6, 12 I am currently playing), but most of them only once and on normal mode (FE 11 on H2, 12 currently on H1 and Awakening on Hard) unless there were several routes (FE 7/8).

Now regarding this status thing:

During my playthroughs, I barely use them. Yes, I had often a few my characters asleep or going berserk on some maps, but it wasn't so hard that I thought to myself that I now HAVE to use Restore. Also, I actually never have used a pure water. It's one of those items where I simply see absolutly no need for it on normal mode. And the status staves are nice to have, but you can play through the game without much problems except for maybe a few maps.

I have started several of the games on hard mode. No idea how far I have gotten there, FE 8 I am in "Father and Son", FE 9 I was somewhere after the 4-part chapter (as that 19?), in FE 10 I was in the finale of part 2. But that was years ago. If I would start "Father and Son" now, I would probably don't give any of my characters Restore, Pure Water or something similar, simply because it was not necessary. So, am I now not prepared? I can still change it (even though the save is during preparation, so I can't go back to the world map) but just for the first time trying to do the map I wouldn't use that stuff because from my memory, it isn't needed. Regarding this CoG discussion, I don't even remember which chapter that was. Therefore, I also wouldn't buy additional staves or pure water. And I am pretty sure no one would really do that on the first playthrough, especially since said things are nice to have but by no means necessary to beat the normal mode, which you have to beat in order to unlock hard mode.

Now, take a look at FE 4. I finished the game for the first time last year and had much more problems with it. I abused save states (simply because it would annoy me to no end to reload the whole turn each time) because the game was so ridiculous compared to newer games. But also, this was one of the few games (if not the only one till now) where I really had to use restore quite frequently. Just the starting enemies from the Finale are more then enough with all their siege tomes and status staves:

Lastly, some of the things posted here, like "It is hard to Low Turn Count chapter Y in game Z", that is something no one who playes the game/hard mode for the first time will do. You can't really judge LTC, 0% Growths or something similar with a normal (hard mode) run. The game allows it, but it was hardly designed for that in the first place.

[Chiki]

I agree that LTCing and 0% shouldn't be considered.

But FE4 is probably one of the more difficult games in the series (first gen, until you get Levin).

Edited March 17, 2014 by Chiki

[Marston]

But FE4 is probably one of the more difficult games in the series (first gen at least).

Yeah, I am sure about that, but it's also one of the games that only had one difficulty. And that was definitly more on the harder side, at least for someone who played it for the first time.

[Chiki]

I don't think the part of the game you cite is hard at all, as long as you know what you're doing. You can literally just throw your Holsety Sety into the middle of all the enemies and beat them.

[X-Naut]

I agree that LTCing and 0% shouldn't be considered.

But FE4 is probably one of the more difficult games in the series (first gen, until you get Levin).

The only hard part pre-Levin is the first part of Chapter 2 (if you're going for the Knight and Bargain Rings) and baiting Ayra (mainly if it's your first time). If you know how to use terrain the first two chapters are a cakewalk.

I found the hardest parts of the game to be in Gen 2, specifically beating Arvis. And while he may have the highest Attack in the series pre-FE10, it's mainly his stupidly high Avoid combined with durability and healing; mostly tedium. Areone and the Falcon Knight sisters are runner-ups, although Holsety trivializes them unlike Arvis.

Edited March 17, 2014 by X-Naut

[BrightBow]

That's funny. First run or not, if I had to name the easiest Fire Emblem, I would choose FE4 without hesitation. The Eltoshan and his Cross Knights are a bit of a pain but otherwise it's smooth sailing through both generations.

And that is not even accounting for the possibility of being able to save every turn.

Edited March 17, 2014 by BrightBow

[RJWalker]

Yeah, I am sure about that, but it's also one of the games that only had one difficulty. And that was definitly more on the harder side, at least for someone who played it for the first time.

It has a difficulty setting. I don't know what it does but in the options menu, you can change the AI to hard.

[Marston]

I don't think the part of the game you cite is hard at all, as long as you know what you're doing. You can literally just throw your Holsety Sety into the middle of all the enemies and beat them.

Yeah, Holsety. I actually managed to miss that one, so I didn't have that.

[Thor Odinson]

I like the multiple-difficulties setting. Normal Mode of pretty much every FE is too easy for me at this point, but it comes from playing the series for years. A good difficulty for a beginner is different than a good difficulty for someone who's been at this for a while and looking for a challenge. I think FE12 Lunatic is the closest to being perfect on the challenging-end of my ideals: Even with an OP'd MU there's parts of the game where you can't solo and much of it is figuring out the AI and lots of positioning. Only certain classes have existent avoid so depending on luck-based dodging is out of the question at least when I play 12L. If ambush reinforcements weren't a thing or at least better announced ahead of time instead of suddenly getting a unit killed without warning by no fault of my own, it'd be pretty ideal. Better character balance too. Perhaps if it was done with a smaller cast and FE13's join-time-based HM bonus system we wouldn't have so many units that just can't be used.

But by no means am I saying that 12L is ideal for someone who is a beginner to the series.

[ZemZem]

The beginning of Chapter 2 in FE4 was and still is the only part of the game I had and can have trouble with. That stupid Bargain Ring, man.

[Marc71]

If this has to be related with Fire Emblem:

It should have multiple difficulties that have to be labeled properly. An easy mode for the beginners, a normal mode and one or two harder modes.

So everyone has their right difficulty. The game should not shame you in any way if you pick easy mode for some reason

An easy mode is...an easy mode. Since FE13 is the best selling FE, this was necessary to keep the series alive. For those who are familiar with the series, the harder modes are availble.

Normal mode is half-way between easy and hard, which is self-explanatory

Now the harder modes is where things get interesting. There are a few do's and don'ts.

-Enemy stats should increase but not overwhelmingly so. Increasing the difficulty with stronger and more enemies is ok, but not as the only means of so.

-Harder objectives in harder difficulties. This would make a big difference where in easy/normal mode you just need to kill the enemies/boss where in hard+ you need to protect or defend for an example

-Turn limits in higher difficulties, either as forced objective or as a means to unlock additional chapters.

-Informing the player is very important, in all difficulties. You should not fail because the game failed you to tell you something critical that is needed to win the game.

-You should not lose the game because your luck is terrible. While the idea of lethal enemies with killer weapons is kinda neat, do not overdo them.

-Harder or more advanced map layouts in higher difficulties. See Advance Wars.

-Units by themselves must be balanced, gamebreakers should be eliminated whenever possible, it would encourage vareity. (MUsolo, Galeforce pairs, etc.)

-For that matter, onemanning should be discouraged, no single unit must be able to do everything. How to implement...I don't know (proper fatigue system, restirctions, splitups...?)

-Reinforcements should NOT spawn and act in the same enemy turn. They should spawn when your turn starts so your pegknight wont be killed by an ambushspawned sniper.

-Resource management should be encouraged in higher diffculties.

-Level grinding (like in FE8/13) should be avoided in a FE game, at least in higher difficulties (it must be still beatable)

-Most importantly, you must be able to complete a game without paid DLC.

-Optionally grading after finishing the games like in FE4-FE8.

-Each difficulty including the hardest one must be properly playtested so it can be beaten

-A proper difficulty curve. FE13 Chapter 2 L(+), I am looking at you! (Early Game Hell should be avoided)

Hard games are good but only so if these hard games are fair. In a way that the game only punishes your mistakes when you really did these mistakes. Not because the game design is flawed.

Difficulty should not be a luck based difficulty. While L+ in FE13 theroetically required adaption, in practice its a luckfest, hoping that no one had Luna+/Hawkeye.

Another idea is a proper hardcore/ironman mode. A additional difficulty option that would autosave every couple seconds, where the savefile cannot be copied and thus, resetting would be theoretically impossible. Every decision is final. The RNG may be a fixed table of RNs that cannot be changed anymore. However, the luck factor must be at least somewhat removed, at least by a bit, so that your units will not die from 1% crits by giving you a skill that negates low enemy crits for an example.

[RJWalker]

I'll just point out that Awakening is very good at providing just the appropriate amount of hints for when and where ambush reinforcements will be coming from, like Morgan saying 'sounds of footstep and more down below' in his/her paralogue when said paralogue has stairs from below. Pretty much every chapter does this and the hints are sometimes subtle, sometimes obvious. Ambush spawning is not a problem, at least in Awakening, even if it doesn't make sense that the enemy is loudly announcing the arrival of their reinforcements.

[BANRYU]

Blazing Sword.

/thread

No but in all seriousness, Rollertoaster pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Players want to feel in control of the situation. If they lost, they should feel like it was their fault, not the game's for being unfair. Therefore, difficulty should be based on the game itself.

I h'ain't played FE7 in a while, so I don't know that I could analyze what exactly makes it so balanced, but I just know that it is. I just... know.

[arvilino]

Blazing Sword.

/thread

No but in all seriousness, Rollertoaster pretty much hit the nail on the head.

I h'ain't played FE7 in a while, so I don't know that I could analyze what exactly makes it so balanced, but I just know that it is. I just... know.

I recently played FE7(a bit every now again for a ranked HHM playthrough) and there are a few cases that don't make the player feel in control especially when allied NPCs are involved. For example in chapter 23(Living Legend) Pent can die to 3 hits from the Wyvern Riders, there's a chance Pent can die on turn 2(or less likely but still possible turn 1) before the player can reasonably intervene.

[dondon151]

and of course, jaffar can die on something like turn 2 in HHM chapter 28, with nothing that can be done.

really, the more that i reflect on FE7, the more my estimation of it diminishes.

Edited March 21, 2014 by dondon151

[BANRYU]

I guess that's not really the best example. Well, Marc does a pretty good job of summing up an answer to this thread's question, I'd say. I guess I don't know that any FE game really perfectly hits that nail on the head, but a lot of them come pretty close. FE13 definitely had some of the worst transgressions as far as balanced difficulty goes. The reinforcements appearing AND moving without you getting a chance to react to them first is pretty damn cheap.

[XeKr]

I guess that's not really the best example. Well, Marc does a pretty good job of summing up an answer to this thread's question, I'd say. I guess I don't know that any FE game really perfectly hits that nail on the head, but a lot of them come pretty close. FE13 definitely had some of the worst transgressions as far as balanced difficulty goes. The reinforcements appearing AND moving without you getting a chance to react to them first is pretty damn cheap.

Which happens far more egregiously in other FE games. FE13 is often mentioned as one of the best at addressing it. A recent topic in this forum discusses it in more detail.

It's a bit silly when people complain about the RNG factor or circumstances outside one's control, yet favor FE7 as perfect. Plus, are we also going to pretend Marcus or others don't steamroll that game? That it's actually that hard, given how incredibly low enemy stats are, compared to later Maniac/Lunatic modes? That (hold out for X turns) defense maps aren't for the most part trivial? That swords and their main users are systematically underpowered? That magic triangle matters? etcetc.

Tactics/other ranks are potentially something, but I'd say a good subset of players who care about that sort of thing can meet the (fairly) lenient cutoffs easily, while most other players don't care about meeting these (seemingly) arbitrary values.

For some reason FE7 gets special treatment as being super strategic/tactical/well designed/balanced, which I admit I'm a little puzzled with. (some of this is clearly quite subjective, but there's also some inconsistency in how it has traditionally been assessed when compared to other games. Some small, but relevant, considerations are often glossed over or ignored)

Edited March 22, 2014 by XeKr