The Reason for the Problems With Awakening

[Moishe Oofnik]

The player also has no access to hackforges, no Hit+10/Dragonskin/RG, no 50 deployment slots, reinforcements, no penalty for losing mooks, no requirement that their whole army must be defeated to lose, no Throne for their Lord and crazy caps in Apo. Enemy and player sides serve different gameplay purposes and can't and shouldn't be equal (this is incidentally why multiplayer is a bad idea). The player also has a lot of things the enemy doesn't, so saying that something is bad just because only one side has it is silly. Again: the player side and enemy side are different.

The player is a group the enemy is an entire army an army calls reinforcements a group doesnt really

Lunatic+ skills do not always activate, they simply don't randomly activate. There is a difference.

100% Activation rate they always activate if the enemy isnt dead by the time you attacked himV

Take Vantage+: if you're fighting on Player Phase, it will activate and may or may not make a difference in the battlers' HP after the fight. If you're fighting on Enemy Phase, it will never activate; there will be no difference between Vantage+ foes and non-Vantage+ foes. This is not random. It's based entirely on how you approach them- you have complete control over when the skill activates. Notably, this is a lot better than skills with actual random activations or skills that simply increase the amount of RNG present: it's very difficult to tactically negate things like Gamble and Avo+10 in bulk. Those just give an RNG advantage and can only be properly taken care of through sheer statistical superiority. But they aren't unique to Lunatic+, are they?

Vantage+ what if I am a myrm and I have vantage shouldnt I attack 1st when I am below half health Vantage+ always attacks 1st does the player have that no

also again an rng advantage can be countered by a smart AI who knows how to play

Having the normal versions of PavGis and Luna on enemies wouldn't change the proper strategy. They'd make it easier to just reset bomb your way through (not what you're supposed to do, so why would they make it easier for you?), but trying to deal with them tactically would be exactly the same (and possibly even more frustrating, since during bodyblocking situations you often want to miss KOes and PavGis can help with that).

So what im strating instead of a smart engaging AI we have one that relies on skills that the user cant get to counter user strats

(you can still grind and win the game doe 0-0 which is a noob strat that still works)

Bolt Axe B and Shockstick 1 range are indeed annoying. My theories on why they are the way they are are to stop Libra from instantly taking the Renown Bolt Axe and stomping without training first (but seriously, he doesn't need a combat nerf. Give him the instant Bolt Axe and nerf its uses if it's a concern) and the Shockstick is probably to stop Pegs from using it to mitigate their low Str while training to level easily (but given how random it is to obtain, this isn't important or needed).

They both should be fixed. However, I do find Levins to be in the right place regarding rank and mt. There's not really a need for E-A versions of them, they're primarily gimmicks/alternate forms of attack, not all-out magical versions of the whole weapon tree.

Game mechanics and formulas and whatnot: there's a line between ease of use (compare FE's formulas to Pokemon's. Which ones do you think most people could do in their heads?) and how closely they can model the behavior you want your game engine to exhibit. I personally would love to see an alternate version of Luna+ for Apo that multiplies the target's Def such that when their Def is at 0 or 100, 0 or 100 will be returned, when their Def is at the user's Skl then Def/2 would be returned, and the rest given by a curve generated to fit those points. It would essentially make Luna's damage more easily mitigatable through high Def and more punishing of low Def, which would in turn make Def actually change the number of hits you die in there. But such a skill would be completely impossible for the end user to figure out in their head, so you'd be gradually trading the ability to strategize on the spot for balance that it's likely people won't be able to notice as well since they can't see what's going on. As a consumer, I know I prefer the simpler formulas, especially since they still give a lot of room to do stuff.

Edited March 5, 2015 by TTPK_Tal

[Czar_Yoshi]

The player is a group the enemy is an entire army an army calls reinforcements a group doesnt really

Vantage+ what of I am a myrm and I have vantage shouldnt I attack 1st below health Vantage+ always attacks 1st does the player have that no also again an rng advantage can be countered by a smart AI who knows how to play

So what im strating instead of a smart engaging AI we have one that relies on skills that the user cant get to counter user strats

(you can still grind and win the game doe 0-0 which is a noob strat that still works)

...I don't usually rag on language barriers and whatnot but in this case I can't actually understand what you're saying.

The Lunatic+ skills have a 100% activation rate only if you meet the conditions for them to actually do something; Vantage+ does nothing on EP, Pavise+ does nothing if you attack with Magic/Bows/Manaketes, etc.

Lunatic+ does not rely on those skills to beat you. Vanilla Lunatic, which is the same except for the skills, has claimed many victories against players as well. The skills are merely another thing you have to deal with.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Czar_Yoshi

[Kuroi Tsubasa Tenshi]

Sure, you can grind and pretty much sweep the game, but if you do that, you're basically saying you no longer care about challenge. There are plenty of RPGs, and even FEs, that offer no resistance if you grind. I don't see why Awakening should get singled out for that. Besides that Lunatic+ still makes a token effort. Enemies have high HP values, low defenses and spam Counter. Barring some very, very extreme stats, an overleveled character thrown willynilly into the fray is probably going to blow up her/his own face.

Also, I missed addressing this before: XCOM AI is really not a good counter-example, if only because it's so similar to Awakening's. To elaborate:

-They both pretty much zerg (once the XCOM pod is activated, anyway, otherwise the groups of 2-3 aliens will just aimlessly trundle around). In the upper difficulties, both know they have the statistical advantage and have units that are completely expendable. Generally speaking, they will find the squishiest target that they have the best relative hit against and focus fire (assuming they know they can make a kill in Awakening, anyway; otherwise, they just try to maximize the amount of damage done to the team, which sometimes involves attacking other targets). Sure, the XCOM AI might move to take a flank shot if the player gives them an easy opening, but generally, they're pretty lazy and will just try to have all three units gun someone down from any cover—that is, they'll use partial to get a kill if they can't use full cover because they know they're expendable. Close observation will show that the Awakening AI will also try to make use of terrain bonuses (actually, very noticeable with Woods tiles in C1 and C2).

-If a unit has nothing better to do, it will try to move to cover each other from other angles of attack. This includes the Awakening AI, who will try to make it so if the player wants to kill a unit on PP, they're going to have to contend with being in attack range of a couple guys for EP.

-One place where they do differ a bit is due to game mechanics. XCOM guys bring explosives, which is not a thing for FE units. So the aliens will try to disperse themselves to avoid it (and fail about half the time, because they'd still rather zerg and focus fire than anything else). The closest Awakening has is that, all things equal, they'll try to body block to protect the wounded or squishier units. I say all things equal because they'll still prioritize using maximum movement, so the formation doesn't always turn out.

-Another same difference kind of scenario is running away. If there's only one active alien left, it will retreat, likely because its odds of doing lasting damage are very low. Awakening enemies require something a little more extreme, which is to be under half HP, at which point they'll try to go find a healing item or staff user (unless they can secure a kill, then screw that— it's suicide zerg time!).

-One thing that I will give to XCOM, which is moreso due to mechanics, is that if the aliens have terrible enough hit, they'll actually use their grenades, which have a 100% hit rate. Awakening's AI has no such option open to them.

I should also note that the XCOM AI does some really dumb things too (that Awakening doesn't have good comparison to, because mechanics), especially with four of the first five alien types to show up.

-The first is with the Sectoids. They almost always Mind Merge. Sure, it's worth an extra HP and some crit, which makes a single shot more likely to kill if it hits. However, if the supporting one dies on PP, they both die. And if both Sectoids had just attacked, they'd have had a better chance of getting someone, anyway.

-Next is Floaters, who have a map teleport that ends their turn. They will generally use this to get a flank on the team by jumping more or less into the middle of them. So now the aliens have an isolated unit that just ended its turn in the middle of a bunch of angry human soldiers. Thanks for the free kill!

-Then there's Seekers, who sound scary because they're essentially cloaked assassins. However, they have a custom AI that has them purposefully come piece meal to try to grab and incapcitate someone. It's worth noting that these guys come in pods of two, so the second guy is basically sitting off to the side with his tentacles up his bum while the first is attacking. An attempt to attack from stealth triggers overwatch (barring skills, allows a soldier/alien to react to movement with an attack that has a hit penalty multiplier). In XCOM, there's a hit bonus for proximity and the Seeker is melee. If the squad is remotely close together, it gets turned into paste.

-Then there's Chyssalids. Fearsome in close quarters in the original because of their instant kill (although dumb as rocks out in the open because it would never commit to an attack and just run in circles), noooot so much in new XCOM. Sure, they have dangerous damage levels and high mobility, especially in close combat, but due to the way the mechanics work, they're even dumber than rocks. Each alien/soldier gets 2 AP, which can be spent to move, then attack or move, then move (in the alien's case; players can spend both at once to dash, which lowers the chance of overwatch hitting them). Each AP spent moving uses about half of the unit's listed mobility value (it's got a weird formula that sometimes lopsides it by 1). What this means is that Chryssalids will happlily zerg 11 tiles (1 AP will get them up to 10 tiles), denying themselves an attack action, just to get next to that soldier they want to eat. And guess what? They just gave that soldier and all her/his buddies the proximity hit bonus. Thanks for the free kill!

In short, every AI has its flaws and complexity of the game doesn't necessarily make the enemies any better. If you're gonna be harsh on Awakening, please apply that same level of criticism to whatever you hold up as the better example, because odds are, it's not as polished as it looks.

[Interceptor]

I still think RD and PoR still hold up pretty well today and yeah the GBA titles are looking pretty dated especially with the convoy system but they're still fun.

As for the UI yeah Awakening's is the best helped particularly by having two screens to display things. Although being the most recent in the series I would certainly hope that it would be the best one to date.

The GBA titles aren't just dated, they have bad design that can't be explained away by the platform. It's not like we didn't have the technology to make a decent UI at the turn of the century, after all. I don't care about the graphics or the music, I care about having to fight with the game to do basic tasks. Wrangling Blazing Sword is like playing the piano while wearing mittens. PoR and RD are slightly better at dealing with this, but still made some gameplay decisions that are real head-scratchers in retrospect.

This aspect of efficient use of gaming time doesn't really resonate in a forum full of teenagers and college kids; I get that. But it's a thing for gamers who lead busy lives.

Because let's face it, the AI in this series sucks ass.

The AI in Fire Emblem is pretty damned good, considering what it's expected to do and what it has to work with. Do you have any idea the kind of effort and computational power it takes to do something like what we get in Awakening? There are a few logical tweaks that could be made (strategy is always going to lag when you introduce new mechanics like Awakening did), but for the most part it's fiddling around the edges.

It should blow your mf'ing mind that you can even "skip" Enemy Phase on a handheld device in the first place.

[Knusperkeks]

about the AI in this game [spoiler=mildly relevant]

In the end it comes down to who has more dakka.

And Interceptor just blurted out what I was tiptoeing around.

I believe that 25% penetration/healing on Luna/Sol with Skill*2% would make the game better, even if you can cap it at 50 skill.

Vengeance can be capped in this same way, and it's one of the best skills because of it. Depending on whether the target has 20 or 40 defense, you either get a weapon faire or an permanent aggressor out of it, with no preparatory measures. That's pretty sweet.

And this would make things essentially easier to calculate. I've had instances where my character had her own vengeance crit kill herself against Aegis+/Counter. It wouldn't have happened if only one rng fell into my "favor", but it happened and my character died, the chance was very low, I took the "risk".

Personally, I do not think that having your character perform a certain action - which under normal circumstances is always great, without exception - should turn into a bad move just because you're facing counter.

I even started to replace Thoron with Bolganone for this reason.

[Interceptor]

And Interceptor just blurted out what I was tiptoeing around.

It annoys me. There is just mass ignorance when it comes to the general difficulty of implementing "good" AI; your average person just takes their brain's extensive pattern recognition power for granted. It took a supercomputer just to match a Chess grandmaster at the turn of the century, and AI still can't beat a Go expert without a massive handicap, even though the game has been around for 2,500 years.

I think that I am just going to post this xkcd comic in every thread where someone complains about the AI in this series:

[Sentacotus]

It annoys me. There is just mass ignorance when it comes to the general difficulty of implementing "good" AI; your average person just takes their brain's extensive pattern recognition power for granted. It took a supercomputer just to match a Chess grandmaster at the turn of the century, and AI still can't beat a Go expert without a massive handicap, even though the game has been around for 2,500 years.

I think that I am just going to post this xkcd comic in every thread where someone complains about the AI in this series:

Lets hope that day doesn't come too soon or we'll have Skynet on our hands. Oh god what if Skynet came from Fire Emblem AI? It all makes sense now...

[Moishe Oofnik]

Wall

I do not single out awakening I rip off on FE8s CLEAR VALNI 1 10000 FUCK CHALLENGE or FE12s Arena

I do not fault awakenings gameplay it has many good things about it it has the best UI in fire emblem but saying its falws are not flaws cuz it forces more strategy (which it doesnt diffrent way=/=more strategy)

Honestly I like awakening to a certin degree (I dont hate it I am dissapointed in its quality Id rate it a 7 or a 6(Which are high scores for me)) and I kinda find the well other FEs were more versitile with there map types

FE4 and FE6 every map is basicly sieze so objectives dont really bother me its rather stail character and map design the lol ridicolus thing that reclassing can become the lack of balance beetween skills and such Class Imbalance (Why choose SM over assassin the only notable reason I can find is astra and but after you get astra and swordfaire youd switch back to assassin anyway)

Its Laughable difficulty in Normal and Hard(Not FE8 normal lolzy shit but a close runner) I generly dont like time travel storys (my personal prefrence/opinion) especialy when they are done poorly like awakenings

So yea its not that like I hate awakening Im just notifing flaws in it

The goal isnt that the enemy can win against the best LTC players is that it can produce challenge in an even playing

Your looking black and white while not realizing a clear grey area Interceptor

Edited March 5, 2015 by TTPK_Tal

[Mufanda]

The GBA titles aren't just dated, they have bad design that can't be explained away by the platform. It's not like we didn't have the technology to make a decent UI at the turn of the century, after all. I don't care about the graphics or the music, I care about having to fight with the game to do basic tasks. Wrangling Blazing Sword is like playing the piano while wearing mittens. PoR and RD are slightly better at dealing with this, but still made some gameplay decisions that are real head-scratchers in retrospect.

This aspect of efficient use of gaming time doesn't really resonate in a forum full of teenagers and college kids; I get that. But it's a thing for gamers who lead busy lives.

The AI in Fire Emblem is pretty damned good, considering what it's expected to do and what it has to work with. Do you have any idea the kind of effort and computational power it takes to do something like what we get in Awakening? There are a few logical tweaks that could be made (strategy is always going to lag when you introduce new mechanics like Awakening did), but for the most part it's fiddling around the edges.

It should blow your mf'ing mind that you can even "skip" Enemy Phase on a handheld device in the first place.

Also, the UI in the GBA titles isn't that bad. It's not as good as Awakening's, but it's not bad. It's navigable enough. Bad UIs are ones that you literally have to fight to make them work. Like record of agarest war levels of bad. If you haven't played it, then you'll have to take a leap of faith on this one, that interface is so bad that even something as simple as switching a party member from slot 1 to slot 2 is a hassle on the player's part. Or seeing support bonus ranges are impossible without actively being the character which requires you to constantly move back and forth to verify. No, Awakening's interface is just incredibly well made. GBA titles are standard UIs. They work, but with a bit more effort they could have been better.

I wouldn't say the AI is pretty damned good. It's AI, it's definitely AI, but it's not that good. And yes, I do know what type of efforts and computational power it can take when making AI. I'm not asking for it to play like a master of chess. People are missing my point about the AI (this isn't aimed at you because you didn't do it necessarily, but), but it could stand to be a bit better than what we have now. The AI in Awakening is better than what we've had in the older ones, but it's still not that good, and because of some of the maps and the way they are made, it doesn't lend well to any of the AI's strengths. Thus resulting in bad AI. The AI shouldn't be godlike, because if it were, it'd always win because it has a numbers advantage and the higher difficulties, but something a bit more interesting than "I place my units and then the enemy runs up to me and dies on EP" would be nice. And even with slight tweaks to the AI that we've had in Fire Emblem from the older ones, it's not much different from say... The first one. Perhaps it's that Fire Emblem is too simple for my likes, but it seems that Awakening was trying to push outside of that scope with all the skills and the skills locked to classes and the branching promotions and the second seals, and what not. I'm pretty sure this Fire Emblem has more skills than any other Fire Emblem in existence.

Except I reiterate again, I'm not complaining about the ability to actually SKIP the EP. My argument is more along the lines of "should we really be happy that we WANT to skip the EP?" And then I proceed to say, there's not enough happening that you do on EP or even that the AI does to make you want to see what it was doing or going to do based on its choices. Is that not a question I'm allowed to ask? As of now, I pretty much always skip the EP because I feel nothing of value is gained from watching it outside of my own time. I don't think I ever watched a turn after the first arc of Awakening from my first playthrough.

@ Kuroi: your response about my XCOM statement is completely swung and missed. The issue wasn't "XCOM has amazing AI" it was "XCOM's AI does things that make it worth watching." While your argument might be leaning towards "the mechanics DO more than Fire Emblem," I'd still say it's something worth talking about. Because I never claimed the AI in XCOM was incredible or the game was polished (no, it definitely needs more polish because I had 2 IronMan runs ruined by the wonky saving). Just that its AI is worth watching. Hence the poker comparison I made earlier. I was hoping I made myself clearer to everyone-- I guess not.

[Sentacotus]

Except I reiterate again, I'm not complaining about the ability to actually SKIP the EP. My argument is more along the lines of "should we really be happy that we WANT to skip the EP?" And then I proceed to say, there's not enough happening that you do on EP or even that the AI does to make you want to see what it was doing or going to do based on its choices. Is that not a question I'm allowed to ask? As of now, I pretty much always skip the EP because I feel nothing of value is gained from watching it outside of my own time. I don't think I ever watched a turn after the first arc of Awakening from my first playthrough.

Even on higher difficulties? Granted I've only played once through Lunatic and never plan to do that again but there were multiple times that things came down to the wire and multiple one hit get away type situations that had me on edge enough to not want to skip. This is especially true when enemy reinforcements come on and have the ability to move on the same turn. If I skip I never know where they come from so if I die or something I can't plan for it the next time I attempt the chapter.

[Kuroi Tsubasa Tenshi]

@Mufanda: Well, I guess I didn't communicate the counterpoint as well, either, but it was definitely encompassed in the whole of my analysis. I showed how XCOM and Awakening's AIs have very similar behaviours, including XCOM being predictably (and often fatally so to the alien units). This is especially true once one has played all the maps and knows how to approach them. Council Missions (for those who don't know, pre-selected maps with staticly-placed units and reinforcements who don't even patrol until the player activates them) are notorious for basically turning into shooting galleries at this point because the AI will react almost exactly the same to certain player moves.

Given how they're both quite similar and very predictable, I ask: can you quantify what about XCOM's AI makes you think it's worth watching (because, personally, there were more than one occassion where I wished XCOM had a skip or fast forward for alien phase)? Is it that you're not completely familiar with them yet or is it some other attribute?

Even on higher difficulties? Granted I've only played once through Lunatic and never plan to do that again but there were multiple times that things came down to the wire and multiple one hit get away type situations that had me on edge enough to not want to skip. This is especially true when enemy reinforcements come on and have the ability to move on the same turn. If I skip I never know where they come from so if I die or something I can't plan for it the next time I attempt the chapter.

I want to second this. No-grind Lunatic+, especially, has enemies that are strong enough where individual rolls can still be the difference between a strong unit living and dying (I mean, sure, it's easy to soft reset and save scum things, so maybe that cheapens the possible death for some people, but still). I would question "I place my units and then the enemy runs up to me and dies on EP" because these enemies are actually durable enough to live (especially with Pavise+/Aegis+) or inflict serious enough harm to cause other enemies to change target (Luna+ and Counter; the second of which causes very bad things if one is just positioning to watch enemies die on EP). Do you have PP so locked down that formulating a plan around what the results of enemy actions isn't interesting?

I should add that skipping the remainder of an EP is probably something anyone can easily be happy about, if for no other reason than the AI starting to move the back end of their huge army that won't even be able to engage the player for another three turns.

[-Cynthia-]

Storywise, I like some of the ideas but the execution could have been better. For example the ending choices ("sacrifice" Avatar or have Chrom seal with Falchion) seem like an interesting choice at first but it didn't really work.

First off, I think Chrom should have had a different preference based upon his support level with the Avatar. If he has an A or higher, he would support the sealing option like he does ingame. His in game reasoning makes sense for a lover/close friend, particularly if he brought up how he couldn't save Emmeryn (atoning for past mistakes etc.) If Chrom isn't at A with the Avatar though, he probably still likes and values them, but perhaps not enough to justify risking the future of his nation- this would show Chrom becoming a stronger leader.

They also completely took any weight out of the ending choices by having Avatar's sacrifice not actually kill them (and no one even believes they die apparently), because of invisible bonds of friendship or whatever. It's just...lame, especially when compared to similar RPG endings like Dragon Age:Origins.

[Irysa]

Whilst that is valid criticism, I'm not really sure it would fit into the game as it currently is if you implemented a change like that. A more meaningful choice at the end would have been nice but the game spends forever hammering in all the invisible ties stuff so it would be pretty weird to go back on that for the finale. Awakening's ending isn't spectactular but it knows what it wants to be and executes it well in the context of the full game.

If we start adjusting things throughout the game, a change like that wouldn't be inappropriate though.

EDIT: Also I'm pretty sure Avatar does actually die if he or she hasn't gotten an S support with someone.

Edited March 7, 2015 by Irysa

[-Cynthia-]

Well the whole invisible ties stuff was really cheesy. I know Fire Emblem usually has a speech at the end where the lord thanks all the friends for their service, but Awakening takes it to a whole other level.

I'm not seeing any mention anywhere that an S support is needed for the Chrom/Lissa/Avatar scene at the end.

[Irysa]

Well the whole invisible ties stuff was really cheesy. I know Fire Emblem usually has a speech at the end where the lord thanks all the friends for their service, but Awakening takes it to a whole other level.

Thats besides my point. I'm not here to defend what it did, I'm simply saying that you can't just change the ending like that without also adjusting the way the game conveys it's themes in the narrative previously. Having an out of context ending is not an improvement over an ending that whilst cheesy, is completely in context.

I'm not seeing any mention anywhere that an S support is needed for the Chrom/Lissa/Avatar scene at the end.

Yeah I looked into it more and you're correct. Avatar comes back no matter what lol.

They do at least tease well with the game going THE END before you get the final CG and you're like "is this another time loop" or what then you realise it's not and you get the epilogue for Avatar/Avatar spouse.

Edited March 7, 2015 by Irysa

[omega zero]

I mentioned this in another thread, but one tweak that the AI could use is to prioritize moving towards weaker units rather than waiting in a huge clump to take their turn in doing 0 damage to a strong unit. No more peeling guys away one at a time while they all crowd uselessly around the Avatar.

Also, do we know if the FE AI uses simulations?

[Czar_Yoshi]

Thats besides my point. I'm not here to defend what it did, I'm simply saying that you can't just change the ending like that without also adjusting the way the game conveys it's themes in the narrative previously. Having an out of context ending is not an improvement over an ending that whilst cheesy, is completely in context.

The obvious solution is to make Robin's coming back entirely dependent on support levels (having an S support isn't sufficient, the comeback should be dependent on the total number of supports they've got- 10 or so for gameplay reasons but I think something like 25 would be better for story).

[Irysa]

That sounds pretty reasonable yeah. 25 seems a little steep though, 20 should be the upper limit I think. Perhaps instead making it so you've achieved at least 5 or 6 As which is somewhat more difficult than just amassing a bunch of Cs with friendship supports.

Also I think KTT posted in the wrong thread lol.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Irysa

[Sentacotus]

The obvious solution is to make Robin's coming back entirely dependent on support levels (having an S support isn't sufficient, the comeback should be dependent on the total number of supports they've got- 10 or so for gameplay reasons but I think something like 25 would be better for story).

I actually like this idea. Shouldn't be too hard to implement from a programming perspective although from a script/story writing perspective it'd be interesting to see what they'd come up with.

[Kuroi Tsubasa Tenshi]

That sounds pretty reasonable yeah. 25 seems a little steep though, 20 should be the upper limit I think. Perhaps instead making it so you've achieved at least 5 or 6 As which is somewhat more difficult than just amassing a bunch of Cs with friendship supports.

Also I think KTT posted in the wrong thread lol.

Yeah, that was really dumb. Sorry about that. Thanks, whoever moved it.

Anyway, as for the support levels for reviving Robin, I agree that the player should be encouraged to do more than spam C supports, but also think that the C supports should still be worth something. Perhaps instead of a straight raw count of support levels, it could scale. Something like 1 point for C, 2 points for B, 4 points for A and 8 points for S (or something similarly huge, since you can only get one of these). Going off of that scaling, I'd make the requirement be 16 points. That way, there's some flex for how Robin achieves it without making the process too grindy. Maybe an S and a bunch of Cs and Bs such that Robin is surrounded by a spouse and several friends. Or maybe Robin gets an S and two As, so she/he has a spouse and a couple really close friends. Of even two As and the rest Bs and Cs such that Robin is just that integral centre to a big group of platonic friends.

[Czar_Yoshi]

Programming wise it would probably be easy enough to even implement in a patch once those are a thing. Making the alternate cutscene would be more work than the support check.

Something like 1 point for C, 2 points for B, 4 points for A and 8 points for S (or something similarly huge, since you can only get one of these). Going off of that scaling, I'd make the requirement be 16 points.

I'd take it one up to 17 just to ensure that it can't be done with supporting just three units (Chrom, Fred or Lissa, husband/wife?) but yeah scaling supports could be a thing.

Alternately, while spamming C supports would certainly be easier from a gameplay perspective, how different would it be for the story? Still a ton of bonds.

[FrostyFireMage]

I think the poor map design and AI is what makes pair-up appear to be broken - you can just put two strongish units in the middle of a group of enemies and they'll all throw themselves on your unit's weapons.

I also noticed there were almost no enemy healers which might be a reason why enemy units play so offensively.

[eclipse]

I also noticed there were almost no enemy healers which might be a reason why enemy units play so offensively.

Tell that to Pheros. I can't stall out the map properly because she'll use up the Fortify she's supposed to drop.

Staff units with staves are pretty rare, but if they do appear, they'll heal when the AI deems it's necessary.

[Rxmonste]

Storywise, I like some of the ideas but the execution could have been better. For example the ending choices ("sacrifice" Avatar or have Chrom seal with Falchion) seem like an interesting choice at first but it didn't really work.

First off, I think Chrom should have had a different preference based upon his support level with the Avatar. If he has an A or higher, he would support the sealing option like he does ingame. His in game reasoning makes sense for a lover/close friend, particularly if he brought up how he couldn't save Emmeryn (atoning for past mistakes etc.) If Chrom isn't at A with the Avatar though, he probably still likes and values them, but perhaps not enough to justify risking the future of his nation- this would show Chrom becoming a stronger leader.

They also completely took any weight out of the ending choices by having Avatar's sacrifice not actually kill them (and no one even believes they die apparently), because of invisible bonds of friendship or whatever. It's just...lame, especially when compared to similar RPG endings like Dragon Age:Origins.

I disagree with the Dragon Age comparison. It's a wonderful game, I'm not taking anything away from it, but [spoiler=No plot specifications, but it's kinda spoilers?] One of the endings had your main character survive so your argument about the avatar's survival hurting the ending is invalid. Or at least the comparison part of it.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Rxmonste

[-Cynthia-]

Yeah but there's an actual cost to the decision to save the main character in Dragon Age, either the lives of one of the other Wardens or the unknown cost of Morrigan's ritual.

In Awakening, I have no problem with the Chrom sealing Grima with Falchion choice- the avatar chooses to save themselves, but Grima comes back eventually. There's little incentive to choose it though when the other ending kills Grima forever, but the avatar comes back anyway with no indication that they're harmed (and no one even believes they die which sucks even potential emotional weight out of it).

Edited March 19, 2015 by -Cynthia-