If You Were Head of Intelligent Systems, What Changes Would You Make to FE?

[angienessyo]

LISA's on there right? cause the LISA series totally has some.

It's literally every game ever made, so it should be on there! I was pretty surprised there weren't more than 48,000 games but I'm under the impression the list isn't complete yet.

[Dunal]

Yeah except like, the doubling of the damage has proven not to be detrimental to the quality of difficult FE games.

Singling this out since it's the basis for your argument.

Thing is, like I said, how would you know any different if removing this or changing this in a big way has yet to be explored (beyond FE4 where the execution wasn't right either)?

"detrimental to the quality of difficult FE games" is a baseless statement since there's no actual comparison to be made with that system not existing, and replaced with something that makes more sense (such as Myrms/Pegs/Thieves/Weaker Light Magic etc.. having exclusive rights to double or something, or even preventing it on enemy phase outright).

My argument mostly corresponds to the situation where you unit arbitrarily doubles their damage by reaching a random threshold of stats.

The fact that FE is RNG actually works against itself when it comes to mechnics like that because it creates far too much disparity in when a unit is a allowed or not allowed to be useful.

Sure, a unit like Zeiss isn't likely designed to double at all, so they are balanced accordingly. In reverse, a Myrmidon or Peg Knight IS balanced to double. That's perfectly fine.

However, what's not healthy for balance is the fact that units that are not really meant to double are suddenly given the ability to do so under random elements. Or if units that are meant to double suddenly cannot. It's these types of units/situations that is truly the worst part of FE balance. It isn't the armor knights that aren't meant to double anything (and often have low enough speed/growth for the system to not apply to them anyway) and opposite for Pegs/Myrms.

In more extreme instances a singular stat (in this case speed) shouldn't dramatically change the usefulness of a unit by how many times it arbitrarily increases for these mid-range speed units. No other stat has this issue, aside from possibly defense when you're starting to take low single digit damage.

If your speed is designed to be very low or very high then that isn't really an issue though. Doubling in itself isn't broken, but the RNG surrounding something so important to the game. Some people might look as Eliwood as an 'balance' unit -- but his stats are in a place where one stat alone single-handedly decides if he is to be good or not. But instead why not give them +5-8 strength (either short-term or long-term or both, doesn't matter which) but remove the ability to double? He becomes a far more reliable unit who isn't at the mercy of one stat. Or take Boyd from FE10. Strip him of the ability of double, but buff him elsewhere. Now he goes from being either mediocre or great to.... consistently good.

Given those examples, why couldn't it improve the game?

Edited January 7, 2016 by DLuna

[Tolvir]

Okay hold on, are you arguing against doubling itself, the ability for larger units like knights to double, or that speed is OP? what are you saying because to me it seems that you argument changes every post.

[Dunal]

Okay hold on, are you arguing against doubling itself, the ability for larger units like knights to double, or that speed is OP? what are you saying because to me it seems that you argument changes every post.

My argument mostly corresponds to the situation where you unit arbitrarily doubles their damage by reaching a random threshold of stats.

But essentially, limiting doubling to player phase (as a pure example) would reduce the significance of the above.

Edited January 7, 2016 by DLuna

[Irysa]

Eh, the easy solution to that is just to bring in growth bracketing, no? Besides, the concept of being able to kill enemies in one round without having to oneshot them with an effective weapon has a lot of merit in terms of strategy. It helps to create diversity in how one handles enemies in general as long as enemies who are difficult/near impossible to double are mixed in intermittently.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Irysa

[Tolvir]

But essentially, limiting doubling to player phase (as a pure example) would reduce the significance of the above.

Well Fates is already moving in a good direction in that idea. There are multiple weapons that negate doubling, and also have negatives to defense or speed for using them.

[Tolvir]

To be honest, with the way I play I couldn't care less about doubling. I like to take maps slow to lower any kind of mistakes. If my General isn't doubling, so what. That isnt his job, his job is to be the angry wall of meat that blocks the hallway to keep enemies from getting to my mages and priests.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Tolvir

[Dunal]

Well Fates is already moving in a good direction in that idea. There are multiple weapons that negate doubling, and also have negatives to defense or speed for using them.

I don't disagree. And also, I believe IS has made it so that doubling requires 6 more AS rather than 4 AS.

So it seems like IS actually agrees with me to some extent. They have definitely nerfed speed and it's great.

To be honest, with the way I play I couldn't care less about doubling. I like to take maps slow to lower any kind of mistakes. If my General isn't doubling, so what. That isnt his job, his job is to be the angry wall of meat that blocks the hallway to keep enemies from getting to my mages and priests.

Like I said, there's nothing wrong with Armors not doubling, or Myrmidons doubling etc... it's the entire concept of borderline doubling through a single statistic.

If a unit is balanced around not doubling at all, or is balancing around doubling most of the time, then that's perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned.

[NekoKnight]

The Sacred Stones, Gaiden, and the Tellius games are the only ones that aren't centered around dragons (Thracia as well, but that's a midquel of a game that is centered on dragons, so I'm not sure if I'd count it). I'm not saying that there shouldn't be more dragon-centric villains, I think there should be! It's ingrained in the DNA of the series. But I'd like to see more villains like Fomortiis and Ashnard.

While dragons are involved in the plot, Nergal is still the primary antagonist and major instigator of most of Balzing Sword's conflicts. I wouldn't call the game very dragon centric.

Unless you just liked him for aesthetic reasons, would it really have made a difference if the Demon King was a dragon? He's basically just Grima. What Fire Emblem needs is well written antagonists. No more "I'm gonna destroy the world for shits and giggles" whether it's a dragon or otherwise.

[Dunal]

While dragons are involved in the plot, Nergal is still the primary antagonist and major instigator of most of Balzing Sword's conflicts. I wouldn't call the game very dragon centric.

Unless you just liked him for aesthetic reasons, would it really have made a difference if the Demon King was a dragon? He's basically just Grima. What Fire Emblem needs is well written antagonists. No more "I'm gonna destroy the world for shits and giggles" whether it's a dragon or otherwise.

The Tellius games were fine in that regard and that was only two games ago (ignoring remakes):

FE9/10 spoilers

Lehran is technically the main villain who plans for the world to restart over. But the context surrounding that isn't really evil. Ashera isn't Evil either -- she's a neutral being who will perform the former depending on circumstances.

In terms of a huge threat to humanity without a complete disregard of morality or purpose, FE10 is about as good as we'll get, probably.

[SSbardock84]

I'd put those fools to work and get things done faster.

[Jotari]

The Tellius games were fine in that regard and that was only two games ago (ignoring remakes):

FE9/10 spoilers

Lehran is technically the main villain who plans for the world to restart over. But the context surrounding that isn't really evil. Ashera isn't Evil either -- she's a neutral being who will perform the former depending on circumstances.

In terms of a huge threat to humanity without a complete disregard of morality or purpose, FE10 is about as good as we'll get, probably.

I think Lekain is such a colossal dick that he manages to offset those two characters by himself.

Edited January 8, 2016 by Jotari

[Dunal]

Eh, the easy solution to that is just to bring in growth bracketing, no? Besides, the concept of being able to kill enemies in one round without having to oneshot them with an effective weapon has a lot of merit in terms of strategy. It helps to create diversity in how one handles enemies in general as long as enemies who are difficult/near impossible to double are mixed in intermittently.

You're kinda missing the point.

There's nothing wrong with the concept of doubling. The problem is a unit arbitrarily being able to double purely because a single level up or chain of them -- setting up a unit to double their damage when the game is likely balanced / made difficult enough that this shouldn't happen.

I mean, my solution to this on my hack(s) is to make speed caps extremely strict but easy to reach. In tier 1 a fighter can have a high growth but a cap of 15 (aka. Nolan), so they are purely balanced around the fact that they will seldom double but are balanced accordingly, meaning I can give them higher strength or defenses. But it does mean that speed only give them avoid.

Whilst a Myrmidon, is given a sufficient amount of speed/caps to always consistently double and be balanced around that. Including enemies.

The underlying issue with doubling is borderline cases that are arbitrarily triggered under pure RNG. A singular stat or growth should not trigger the ability to suddenly double their damage.

It's that entire concept that's kinda ridiculous and everyone seems to just turn a blind eye to it because it's never really been any different. When tier discussions or unit comparisons are mostly to do with whether they can or cannot double, its gets a bit silly but it's always been that way. There's certainly room for change there but at least FE Fates is making some effort.

[Gradivus.]

"detrimental to the quality of difficult FE games" is a baseless statement since there's no actual comparison to be made with that system not existing, and replaced with something that makes more sense (such as Myrms/Pegs/Thieves/Weaker Light Magic etc.. having exclusive rights to double or something, or even preventing it on enemy phase outright).

Dude

It's pretty ridiculous to reduce my post to one statement, ignore the reasoning for it given in the same post and call it baseless, on top of claiming that it's the basis for my post when it's vice versa.

And yes, there is a viable comparison. FE4 assigns the doubling ability differently and I took it into account. Other comparisons would have to be made based on conjecture that still wouldn't be invalid, but there's nothing fallacious with claiming it's not detrimental, even without opposite examples existing, because if the game/mode is good with the concept and the concept can't be called out as a particularly visible weakness for it, then it's intuitive to say it doesn't drag its quality down.

replaced with something that makes more sense (such as Myrms/Pegs/Thieves/Weaker Light Magic etc.. having exclusive rights to double or something, or even preventing it on enemy phase outright).

The former particularly doesn't make sense. It was terrible in FE4 and would be likely to introduce imbalances of a different and worse type (see two paragraphs below) instead of really removing imbalance as a whole. Paladins are not supposed to be capable of doubling Generals, Cavaliers and mages with heavy tomes? I mean you can just give the enemy snipers, paladins, myrmidons and falcoknights or whoever you don't want them to double the kind of stats that well, just make Paladins unlikely to double them without notable investments. It's highly arbitrary to assume that Paladins and Warriors shouldn't double anything just because they have stronger weapons and more strength as a stat - you're explaining the purpose of speed and trying to say "that's why speed shouldn't determine it". Look at this part - you're making misrepresentative (pseudo-)concessions:

Sure, a unit like Zeiss isn't likely designed to double at all, so they are balanced accordingly. In reverse, a Myrmidon or Peg Knight IS balanced to double. That's perfectly fine.

Zeiss isn't designed to double consistently (said this more or less literally in the initial post). Nor are Gotoh, Jeigan and what examples I gave. Why isn't he supposed to double enemies like archers, wyverns and druids that have pretty heavy weapons? He doesn't double stuff like wyvern lords, snipers / falcoknights*, mercs / heroes, nomad( trooper)s, myrmidons/SMs and heck even mages/sages as reliably. Other classes/units (Shanna, Sue, Shin, Rutger) are designed to double this sort of classes at the cost of not having the same level of strength and def. I feel you actually understand this wholly but are somehow trying to oversimplify it for your convenience though. If the context makes it a better idea to just let them never double anything faster than thwomps, then it can be implemented accordingly, and that's not inherently a bad idea, but it's not always a good premise.

*okay these are weirdly slow in this game so he actually has a decent shot at it

Also, FE7-10 would probably be considered less fun without EP doubling. They have relatively high enemy density (FE7 on HHM anyway) and if you make ORKOing them on EP prohibitively difficult, you'd turn the games into repetitive "hit on EP, then finish off next PP 20-30 times per map" fests or clusterfucks, and maps where the player is way outmanned and charged at would really drag out, even moreso on maps with reinforcements. A noticeable number of FE5's maps would fall under a similar category.

Let's not put a focus on " 'balance' > what is broadly considered fun" when balance was never considered an important/primary criterion to people finding games good, whereas fun is (typically) the one decisive factor. There are no FEs between 4 and 13 (i.e. the ones I played enough to judge) without significant imbalances and people focus a lot more on how much they enjoy the game, which is wholly independent of balance. I dislike FE4 and FE10 because I failed to have fun with them and I like FE5, 6, 11 and 12 especially for the opposite reason. Most of the rest here holds the games in a lower or higher regard depending on similar perceptions, and most people can live perfectly without balance being in a special focus. And don't strawman or misunderstand this part as saying "balance doesn't matter", it's just balance shouldn't come at the cost of fun, which based on my claims would certainly be a possibility with the system your proposing.

It's also arbitrary/overstated logic that the ability to double your damage output is particularly broken in Fire Emblem. FE is a series that relies on positioning and there generally being a largish number of enemies on a map relative to the player. The player is the one that has to strategize and they're given tools to deal with enemies at a notslow pace, one of which is doubling. I agree with the part of your notion that doubling shouldn't trivialize units that are supposed to be threats, but my main points that a) this isn't really the case anyway and b) your suggested system has various questionable aspects stand.

Edited January 8, 2016 by Gradivus.

[BrightBow]

Well, I would say that Tear Ring Saga managed to balance the doubling system rather well. At least for the most part. Not that there are no ways to break the game or anything but there are definitely some interesting design decisions.

They tweaked a lot things. For example they increased the doubling threshold, lowered growths as well as caps caps and were more creative with the stats of enemies and weapons. This results in the stats of weapons and the bases of classes become more important relative to level and growths. So in the majority of confrontations double attacking becomes only a reliable attribute for Mymidones. Classes with average speed stat might still be able to double attack but might have to sacrifice both attack power and accuracy for it. (Seriously, how come Fire Emblem is so damn consistent when it comes to giving heavy, high power weapons such low accuracy?) For example, in Tear Ring Saga, the axe with the lowest accuracy is also the lightest axe of them all.

There is no shortage of situations were being able to attack once but being able to actually hit is preferable over double attacking. Some enemies are basically made to be killed by a single use of weapon that has both high accuracy and power. Like, Harpies for example.

Harpies are flying archers with high agility but have low movement and durability. As archers, they can shot past the frontliners and as fliers, they have immunity to terrain, so they are very dangerous to fliers and healers but their low movement limits their options. Since Summoners can keep calling them, they need to be taken out quickly in order to avoid being plain overwhelmed or getting into a lengthy stalemate. They have just barely enough HP to survive one hit from most weapons and enough speed to avoid being doubled by most weapons, so a single reliable high power attack is the most effective way to deal with them. Especially for another archer, since they don't even care how much of their speed they have to sacrifice for high accuracy because their effective damage ensures that any Harpie will be dead before it gets their second attack off.

Meanwhile, there are enemies with such high defenses, that the heavy guns are basically required to even scratch them. Some of these guys actually have agility in the negative single digits, so even the heaviest and inaccurate weapons can hit them twice, making light weapons even loose that advantage.

On the other hand of the spectrum, there are weapons with such hard attack power that units with low defense end up with basically the same kind of durability as units with high defense... except that their accuracy is so shit (sometimes less then 50% before counting avoid) that characters who maximize their avoid by carrying a light weapon survive far better. Catapults are a good example of this.

Edited January 8, 2016 by BrightBow

[Irysa]

You're kinda missing the point.

There's nothing wrong with the concept of doubling. The problem is a unit arbitrarily being able to double purely because a single level up or chain of them -- setting up a unit to double their damage when the game is likely balanced / made difficult enough that this shouldn't happen.

I mean, my solution to this on my hack(s) is to make speed caps extremely strict but easy to reach. In tier 1 a fighter can have a high growth but a cap of 15 (aka. Nolan), so they are purely balanced around the fact that they will seldom double but are balanced accordingly, meaning I can give them higher strength or defenses. But it does mean that speed only give them avoid.

Whilst a Myrmidon, is given a sufficient amount of speed/caps to always consistently double and be balanced around that. Including enemies.

The underlying issue with doubling is borderline cases that are arbitrarily triggered under pure RNG. A singular stat or growth should not trigger the ability to suddenly double their damage.

It's that entire concept that's kinda ridiculous and everyone seems to just turn a blind eye to it because it's never really been any different. When tier discussions or unit comparisons are mostly to do with whether they can or cannot double, its gets a bit silly but it's always been that way. There's certainly room for change there but at least FE Fates is making some effort.

So, why does growth bracketing not solve the problem? Are you seriously saying that if growth bracketing existed it would still be dumb because a Paladin would eventually double if you invested enough EXP into them?

[Magical Glace]

How about just reduce the second hit's damage or something

And giving it as like a speed% trigger or something for the higher speed unit in the battle.

[Dunal]

So, why does growth bracketing not solve the problem? Are you seriously saying that if growth bracketing existed it would still be dumb because a Paladin would eventually double if you invested enough EXP into them?

It doesn't, no. Doesn't matter how 'long' it takes.

In one singular moment, that paladin is doing X damage.

Then he level ups once and suddenly he's doubling that.

Imagine having a job.. and you were told "In 5 years, we will double your wage, but until then, you'll stay on this low pay".

Then you respond "Why not just gradually increase my wage over time???".

It's silly.

Also, to put it even further into perspective, when that Paladin is 1 speed from doubling, that low growth is awkward because it's a completely random chance as to whether said paladin will suddenly start doubling his damage.

So it's more like "We'll double your wage in 5 years... or 6 years... or 7 years. We'll flip a coin each time".

Compare speed to strength. Strength is balanced because each time you gain strength you gain a small benefit and can see your character grow.

A single point of speed can make a unit go from average to amazing and it's just not a good mechanic under any kind of context. OR when you get speed, it does absolutely nothing to help your offense. There is zero in-between.

If doubling was 50% more damage rather than 100%, or limited to player phase, or controlled by class, then it'll be better balanced. But ultimately, it's the concept of having a threshold that's the issue. Because an extremely important threshold over one particular stat is not something that can feasibly be balanced.

That paladin example doesn't work because the power curve of that unit literally doubles in one particular instance which is ridiculous. Doesn't matter how long it takes. No other statistic has this issue because every point of it will benefit the unit in a small way, with no incredible thresholds. One point of STR/DEF/RES reflects one point of damage for instance. So in terms of units getting stronger, it's a gradual process rather than AS which has an extreme one way or the other.

But the thing is, Armors/Myrms/Pegs/Thieves are completely absent from this for the most part. And you know what, from a balance perspective they are arguably the most balanced classes in terms of combat in the series. They are never usually broken and are balanced fine around doubling or not doubling. Fe7 for example, Florina, Dorcas, Oswin, Guy etc... are an example of these units. They are consistently doubling/not doubling throughout the entire game. But Eliwood? Bad until he starts doubling. Sain? Goes from decent to amazing. Rebecca? Terrible until she starts doubling. Balance is so incredibly haphazard with a mechanic like this. Units that need to grow in order to spontaneously double is bad design so the paladin example is not a good one.

The solution for the most part is either nerf doubling, or force it so a unit will either double or not -- no exceptions.

Edited January 8, 2016 by DLuna

[Gradivus.]

Also, to put it even further into perspective, when that Paladin is 1 speed from doubling, that low growth is awkward because it's a completely random chance as to whether said paladin will suddenly start doubling his damage.

A single point of speed can make a unit go from average to amazing and it's just not a good mechanic under any kind of context. OR when you get speed, it does absolutely nothing to help your offense. There is zero in-between.

That paladin example doesn't work because the power curve of that unit literally doubles in one particular instance which is ridiculous. Doesn't matter how long it takes. No other statistic has this issue because every point of it will benefit the unit in a small way, with no incredible thresholds. One point of STR/DEF/RES reflects one point of damage for instance. So in terms of units getting stronger, it's a gradual process rather than AS which has an extreme one way or the other.

Apparently there's a hard limit between doubling against everything and not doing it at all, with no middle ground for different enemies.

Edited January 8, 2016 by Gradivus.

[Dunal]

Apparently there's a hard limit between doubling against everything and not doing it at all, with no middle ground for different enemies.

That isn't really a good thing by itself.

Gaining speed:

"You now have double damage on knights. So mostly avoid fighters/mages over these".

"You now have double damage on fighters. So mostly avoid mages over these".

"You now have double damage on mages".

Heck, if enemy speed has huge disparity then it becomes even more arbitrary as to when you will or will not be useful or not. You pigeonhole your units to attack one unit over another (not necessarily by class) and end up having wonky damage potential surrounding everything. Well, perhaps not strictly pigeonholing, but certainly devalues certain strategies on targets you can attack or retaliate against effectively.

OR

Your unit did not gain speed. So a certain subset of units you're still doing half damage to them still. Yay?

Gaining defense:

"You take 1 less damage from everything".

There. Your unit got stronger and not in a ridiculous way.

Or

You didn't get defense?

It's not going to be detrimental to your strategy at all, at least not in a big way.

EDIT: Whoops, wrong stat.

Edited January 8, 2016 by DLuna

[Gradivus.]

"You now have double damage on knights. So mostly avoid fighters/mages over these".

"You now have double damage on fighters. So mostly avoid mages over these".

"You now have double damage on mages".

so you're literally assuming that mages, fighters and knights are fought against in similar ways and that you can just relegate your units to engaging in combat against fighters because they don't double mages

let alone wyverns, archers, mercenaries, cavs and nomads.

Edited January 8, 2016 by Gradivus.

[Dunal]

let alone wyverns, archers, mercenaries, cavs and nomads.

Err.. you do realize I was going by pure example? I shouldn't have to mention every single class to make the same point.

so you're literally assuming that mages, fighters and knights are fought against in similar ways and that you can just relegate your units to engaging in combat against fighters because they don't double mages

So... doubling your output on some units by pure chance of what set speed you have doesn't really mean much?

No, doubling isn't immediate required for some situations (like when the enemy is low and the first attack will kill anyway) but:

A) It doubles damage.

B) Doubles chance to critically hit and therefore wipe an enemy unexpectedly.

C) Activate skills -- not necessarily based on damage either (Like Sol or Healing).

D) If your first attacks misses then you get a chance to kill them again (relevant when the enemy is really low)

E) Double WEXP.

Randomly being able to do the above on a random subset of units (and no that's not a good thing) is just something that's really hard to defend.

And yes, that list is just to plainly point out how the difference between doubling and not doubling is huuuuge. The extent of how much it need toning down is arguable but to argue it shouldn't be at all? I can't get behind that.

Edited January 8, 2016 by DLuna

[NekoKnight]

so you're literally assuming that mages, fighters and knights are fought against in similar ways and that you can just relegate your units to engaging in combat against fighters because they don't double mages

let alone wyverns, archers, mercenaries, cavs and nomads.

Not to mention that a unit not doubling isn't always a deal breaker. You don't have to one-round every enemy you face. Knights aren't going to be doubling many enemies, but if a lance stab weakens the opponent to a level that another unit can kill them, then mission accomplished.

Sounds like Dluna is arguing passionately against a principle, even if in practice it works. Who else brings up doubling mechanics as a significant weakness of the system?

[Dunal]

Not to mention that a unit not doubling isn't always a deal breaker. You don't have to one-round every enemy you face. Knights aren't going to be doubling many enemies, but if a lance stab weakens the opponent to a level that another unit can kill them, then mission accomplished.

Sounds like Dluna is arguing passionately against a principle, even if in practice it works. Who else brings up doubling mechanics as a significant weakness of the system?

...... =S

I've already argued that doubling in itself is NOT an issue, but the difference of doubling and not doubling is so extreme to be completely manipulated by the RNG of one singular statistic. Or to simply going from being weak against a particular enemy is pretty strong in a very quick transition.

Knights are extremely healthy classes because they do not double much at all and are not expected to. Pegasus are fine because they are completely balanced around being able to double. Therefore their power curve is never skewed. I've repeated this many times.

With those units. they are consistently able to do the thing they should be doing. But units that are arbitrarily doubling and not doubling is an issue because the difference between the two is completely staggering and controlled by a single stat, even if it's only against a subset of certain units or classes.

Fates increasing the speed threshold is good. Removing doubling on certain weapons is good. Are you arguing they should not have done that? Or can't go a bit further with it?

Because I'm partially defending IS's decision.

Edited January 8, 2016 by DLuna

[NekoKnight]

Fates increasing the speed threshold is good. Removing doubling on certain weapons is good. Are you arguing they should not have done that? Or can't go a bit further with it?

Because I'm partially defending IS's decision.

I'd say the game is balanced as is and doesn't need a major overhaul. I understand objecting to the principle of the speed stat determining your ability to double, but in practice I don't find it problematic. Your argument is too simplistic and writes off all the ways a unit can still be useful even if they can't double. Some units will fall behind and be less useful if they can't succeed at their niche, but isn't that more an issue of a unit's growths rather than the doubling system itself? You make it sound like one's ability to play efficiently is entirely up to a dice roll, but it's really about choosing the right units and strategies.