Weapon scarcity and why removing durability adds strategy

[Mango Giamatti]

The original purpose of weapon durability was to create weapon scarcity. Weapon scarcity adds strategic value to the game because the player has to make meaningful choices by distributing limited resources across the army. However, because of the easy access to weapons in most games, weapon scarcity can never exist because resources are barely limited. Thus, weapon durability has failed its purpose. Weapon scarcity cannot exist in a game where weapons are replenishable. Having to distribute a limited number of infinite use weapons is much more strategic than having a virtually unlimited supply of weapons with limited uses.

I’d argue that FE4, which, for all intents and purposes, does not have weapon durability, has the best inventory/weapon management in the series. The decision of whether or not to give the brave lance to Finn or Fury is more meaningful than simply replenishing a unit’s weapon as you would in any other game. The fact that there is only one brave lance adds this depth. However, if the brave lance had limited uses, the decision would not be so meaningful, because the decision would no longer matter when the brave lance breaks.

The permutation between weapon scarcity and weapon durability also fails. A game where weapons are both in limited supply and of limited use would have to be very tediously balanced. You need the unlimited uses of the weapons to make up for the fact that there are not a lot of weapons available in the first place.

Of course, this is all balancing speculation at this point. We will not actually know how weapon management is balanced in FE14 until it is actually released.

[Refa]

Just make the standard weapons have unlimited uses at certain intervals and give the special weapons limited uses at all times, easy.

[Paperblade]

Devil's advocate:

You state weapon scarcity does not exist because we can just buy new ones, but then turn around and give the example of a weapon not being able to be replenished (the Brave Lance), and completely ignore your previous paragraph to state that actual weapon scarcity doesn't matter because resource allocation (who gets what weapon) is irrelevant because the weapon eventually breaks. Here, you're selectively deciding what's important (resource allocation vs. resource scarcity) to suit your argument. Is the breakable Brave Lance not a counterexample to your claim that weapons in FE are not scarce because they are replenishable?

Furthermore, FE4 made those choices matter more because you couldn't trade weapons between units easily, you had to go to a castle, sell it, and then have the other unit come buy it, incurring a fee each time you did so (sell price = half of buying price). All FEs since have had the trade function, which means that giving the Brave Lance to someone is in no way a permanent choice because you can just trade it away. Thus, FE4 is a misleading example to argue in favor of this mechanic's inclusion in FE14 unless FE14 also makes changing inventories similarly restrictive, such as only allowing weapons/items to be moved between inventories at base.

Continuing on, the Brave Lance being limited use in no way diminishes the decision of who is using it at a given time, all other things being equal. It simply means the decision of who is using it at a given time ceases to matter after it breaks, whenever that is.

However, when the Brave Lance only has limited uses, each time you attack with it in your inventory you are making a choice: Do I use it here for the superior offense, or conserve its uses for later? With infinite durability this decision does not matter, you simply use the highest offense for a given situation unless you would have reason to do otherwise, such as softening a unit for another unit to take the killing blow or not wanting to kill units on enemy phase and dying by being overwhelmed. Note that these scenarios still exist with or without durability.

In short, weapon durability does add strategic depth, while removing it adds none to take its place.

[spoiler=Real opinion]If IS designs weapons in a way such that different weapons are better in different scenarios, no weapon durability is an interesting idea. This would require weapons to be much different from how they've existed in past FEs though, where they mostly have slightly different basic stats and different levels of scarcity.

FE4 is actually a really bad example in favor of removing weapon durability because the 4th paragraph of my argument outside these tags was basically what ended up happening: everyone with a holy weapon just spammed that shit and everyone else used the best thing they could get their hands on, which was generally a Brave/Silver weapon. Why? Because in FE4 you had infinite weapons but the game wasn't ~really~ changed to accommodate that in any way. Imagine if a recent FE game had infinite durability without anything changed for it--Fred would just spam Silver Lance without a single fuck given, those "limited use" Killing Edge from Navarre wannabes are suddenly being spammed everywhere, and random goodie killer/silvers give a huge, permanent bump in power. And late game is just Brave spam without a single fuck given

Weapons need to be really different to make this interesting, on the level of the special stuff from New Mystery/Awakening and then some. Stuff like the NAME's WEAPON and such, where some weapons gave skills, some gave minor stat boosts, some had very unique statlines/niches (such as the Volant Axe)

Edited May 13, 2015 by Paperblade

[Baldrick]

Having to distribute a limited number of infinite use weapons is much more strategic than having a virtually unlimited supply of weapons with limited uses.

So a more accurate title would be removing weapon durability and limiting weapon supply adds strategy?

The former without the latter doesn't work, and so far only the former has been confirmed.

[The Geek]

Another thing to consider is that infinite durability applies to the enemy as well. So no more sending in strong allies to wear out an enemy's weapon and then give your weaker allies a chance.

[Tangerine]

I pretty much agree with this + Paper's spoilers, lol. If it's implemented correctly it could really add a lot to the series.

Of course, if it's not implemented correctly then it's just going to become another mechanic you don't have to worry about.

[euklyd]

Another thing to consider is that infinite durability applies to the enemy as well. So no more sending in strong allies to wear out an enemy's weapon and then give your weaker allies a chance.

When's the last time an enemy actually managed to attack enough times to actually break its weapon tho (that wasn't a siege weapon / status staff)?

e: actually, unbreakable siege tomes will be uh

"interesting"

Paperblade basically said everything I have to say on the matter; limited numbers of weapons to distribute involves strategic depth whether or not they can break, and something would have to be very different for this to be "superior" strategically.

(And even then, I'm not convinced that there would be any more depth in an environment in which there were a wide variety of interesting, differently useful scarce-but-unbreakable weapons, than in a second environment identical in all ways except that weapons can break... I feel like you'd really have to make things very scarce, and limit even vanilla weaponry.)

Edited May 13, 2015 by Euklyd

[Tangerine]

When's the last time an enemy actually managed to attack enough times to actually break its weapon tho (that wasn't a siege weapon / status staff)?

People could level grind by letting someone tank a boss until their weapons break, and then hit them over and over with weaker units while they healed on the throne. I imagine they're referring to that.

[euklyd]

People could level grind by letting someone tank a boss until their weapons break, and then hit them over and over with weaker units while they healed on the throne. I imagine they're referring to that.

How does that add strategic depth tho? :^)

I keep forgetting that's a thing tbh

even when I levelgrind I've always found that way too tedious...

[Tangerine]

Well, that particular instance might not have strategic value, I think he only intended to say that it prevents that form of grinding. Some previously low use weapons are more dangerous on enemies and can no longer be stalled though, long range magic with clever enemy placement could call for a different approach towards a chapter. But I see you edited that into your first post now that I'm typing this lol. Even in the hands of players it will give mages a different role, but I sincerely hope they're nerfed or something!

Either way, it has great potential as an alternative and makes money management much more interesting to me if it's balanced properly.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Tangerine

[euklyd]

...I'm halfway interested in doing a siege weapon-only run, now.

[-Cynthia-]

Eh, unlimited use limited weapons sounds like it would centralize a small cast even more- imagine if there were one unbreakable Nosferatu(none buyable) in FE13 for instance. Now, if said weapon were a Prf weapon and locked to a unit with bad bases or otherwise marginal character then I could see it being interesting, but otherwise I don't think it's a good idea for balance.

Edited May 13, 2015 by -Cynthia-

[B.Leu]

I actually agree, it can be very interesting. We just have to see how they do it. :p

[arvilino]

Eh, unlimited use limited weapons sounds like it would centralize a small cast even more- imagine if there were one unbreakable Nosferatu(none buyable) in FE13 for instance. Now, if said weapon were a Prf weapon and locked to a unit with bad bases or otherwise marginal character then I could see it being interesting, but otherwise I don't think it's a good idea for balance.

The reverse may also be true though. I mean with limited weapon uses you might have your strongest unit stacked with your better equipment because their crits with killer weapons deal more damage(and conserve more uses) the way it currently is creates a situation where it's a waste to let weaker units use better weapons and it's more effective to have your stronger units use the stronger/rarer weapons which increases the gap between weak and strong units.

With unlimited uses you can justify spreading and trading(during the player phase) the better weapons out between more units earlier in the game. You won't be "well he/she won't be able to even kill an enemy with a critical so I can't justify them ever making use of the Killing Edge since he/she'll waste it".

Your stronger units will still be the best users of them but if for example your "Jeigan" unit only needs a Silver weapon for a chapter, your weaker units can also contribute because the early Killer Weapon can be used anyone who can wield it without hesitation anymore, which gives weaker units better opportunities to get stronger.

Edited May 13, 2015 by arvilino

[Neoleo21]

Since IS confirmed that Weapons are going to have more diverse effects, giving incentives to not just hoard is a little more interesting. Hopefully they do implement a limited number of these weapons.

[X-Naut]

Another problem that nobody's brought up yet is how it will interact with forging. We don't know if it's back in yet, but it's been in every game since it first appeared and without your forges breaking anymore...

[iavasechui]

Another problem that nobody's brought up yet is how it will interact with forging. We don't know if it's back in yet, but it's been in every game since it first appeared and without your forges breaking anymore...

The only characters who even got forged weapons were 50 luck armsthrift users in my game because I was not wasting money forging something that was going to break.

[-Cynthia-]

The reverse may also be true though. I mean with limited weapon uses you might have your strongest unit stacked with your better equipment because their crits with killer weapons deal more damage(and conserve more uses) the way it currently is creates a situation where it's a waste to let weaker units use better weapons and it's more effective to have your stronger units use the stronger/rarer weapons which increases the gap between weak and strong units.

With unlimited uses you can justify spreading and trading(during the player phase) the better weapons out between more units earlier in the game. You won't be "well he/she won't be able to even kill an enemy with a critical so I can't justify them ever making use of the Killing Edge since he/she'll waste it".

Your stronger units will still be the best users of them but if for example your "Jeigan" unit only needs a Silver weapon for a chapter, your weaker units can also contribute because the early Killer Weapon can be used anyone who can wield it without hesitation anymore, which gives weaker units better opportunities to get stronger.

I guess you can trade weapons during the Player Phase, although this tends to limit strategies (only being able to attack when adjacent to an ally and an enemy for 1 range weapons).

The thing is in the "1 early Silver, 1 early Killer" scenario, that likely just centralizes around the Jeigan+ 1 other. If there are enough good early weapons to support the whole team, then that kinda throws out weapon strategy entirely- unless said weapons are only useful for otherwise underpowered characters.

[The Geek]

Maybe a way to compensate for that would be to make weapon level growths extremely low. Though that may just end up being tedious.

[Espella]

I just considered the possibility of enemies with unlimited berserk staves and siege tomes. I am now terrified.

[Tangerine]

I can't imagine berserk staves will be making a return. It'd certainly make restore actually useful if they were brought back though. Couldn't just stall or bait them out of uses with high res units and then pass, lol.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Tangerine

[euklyd]

on the other hand if you get a couple siege tomes you get to pick them off from a distance without worrying about running out of ammo

well, maybe

if they had competent res + healers who knows

[The Geek]

I just considered the possibility of enemies with unlimited berserk staves and siege tomes. I am now terrified.

Have you ever played FE4? Weapon durability didn't apply to enemies, so they could spam that stuff as long as they liked.

[Leif]

Remember, FE4 had infinite siege tomes. Take Chapter 5's fire mages in the desert, as well as the Dark Mage from Chapter 1 with the Fenrir tome. I wouldn't rule out siege tomes from FE14; it'll just be enemy only, probably...

EDIT: The Geek beat me to it.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Leif

[NekoKnight]

This is another reason I'm not overfond of the removal of durability. A lot of weapons/items are balanced around having low durability so without that limit, they just won't exist (or be annoying as fuck enemy only weapons, which is arguably worse than being completely removed).