My issue with the current support system.

[NeedTheFriction]

Before i say anything i just want to point out that i have been trying to avoid spoilers until the English release, that said i do know the basic new and returning features. First off fates has some "unconventional" features. The homosexual relations was out of left field but not bad from what i hear, the fire emblem amie (you know what i mean) is kinda creepy but its optional so i don't mind. In fact many new changes i thought were awesome including the re-imagined weapon triangle and the absence of durability which actually makes the forge useful. I think my biggest issue really isn't about fates specifically but more on the return of free marriage and supports. Hear me out on this, what made supports in other games so charming to you? I cant answer for you but for me it felt like they were actual people in conversation. I didn't notice until a while after awakening but i just didn't feel that with it. I liked the characters quirks and personalities so why didn't i enjoy their supports? I concluded it was because you could have anyone with anyone. In a school classroom do you make friends and find common interests with everyone in class? i doubt it and its the same here. No matter how interesting the characters are on paper having everyone get along makes them feel cardboard as a whole. In blazing sword the dynamic between Matthew and Jaffar is tense, and it should be! I wouldn't want to be on the same continent with someone who killed my only family. They do end up working together but they shouldn't have to like each other and that's natural. In terms of marriage so many seem extremely forced. I like having options but choices feel worthless to me if it doesn't feel right. Donny is an amazing unit but i don't know how anyone has him marry and thinks he legitimately fits with any of the girls as a character. It doesn't help that some people play the game and pair up purely to create perfect children. When the characters relationships are like this its almost taunting people to disregard character dynamics simply to maximize potential. When i see people doing this it makes me feel sad, like the humanity inside these characters doesn't exist. They go from being the Shepherds to the livestock. Don't get me wrong i'm REALLY looking forward to fates as a whole, So many changes are happening for the better. Even so to me supports were special because they were limited but not forced, does anyone else think this should have been one of those things?

[NekoKnight]

Yes, I think we should go back to limited (as in partner selection, unlimited supports for a single playthrough should stay) support options and only have supports between people it makes sense or where opportunities to provide interesting commentary arise. The problems began when marriage and the second generation became an unfortunate series staple, so you have Awakening to thank for that.

Welcome to the forums and don't forget your complimentary mint.

[The Archsage]

Agreed. Being able to basically have anyone support anyone is just annoying. I haven't played Fates yet, so I'll use an Awakening character as an example.

Why should Tharja be able to support with someone like Stahl, or Vaike? Neither of them have anything in common with her, and quite frankly, most of the male units she can support with don't have anything in common with her. Honestly, for Tharja, the only ones who should have been able to support with her, aside from the few females she could support with, should be her children, Libra, Henry, and Avatar. And that's just one example.

I'm positive that, in Fates, there's some cases like this, where a character being able to support with another character doesn't make any sense.

That said, I do understand where it's coming from. It gives you free reign to decide who your units interact with, because, let's face it, whether you like someone or not, if you're forced to fight alongside them, eventually, you're going to talk, and try and become friends with them, if for no other reason then because you always seem to be fighting by their side.

But, using that line of thinking, that's where I think they should use two styles of supports. Battle Support, sort of like what Radiant Dawn had, and Base Support, like what Awakening, Fates, and Path of Radiance used.

Battle support would apply only for battle, so that two characters who work well together in combat can support each other in combat, and doesn't really give us much of a clue about what they're like and is really only there to help power-up the units while on the field.

Base Support would give us the excellent character development and conversations we've come to love from previous Fire Emblem installments. Plus, if they happen to have some effects in battle, all the better.

Don't know if anyone else thinks that'd be a good idea though.

[nocturnal YL]

I think there are so many things wrong with the current support system. The most obvious point is that it's a bad idea to mix it with the FE4-style marriage system, but there are other issues as well.

And the biggest issue (besides marriage) is that it tries to keep a parity between all characters. Counting only the ones within the marriage system, version-exclusive characters have 3 same-gender supports plus one cross-version support, while common characters get 3 total. Now we have the artifict where Aqua and Camilla would never talk. Or Ryoma and Crimson. Or any cross-generation pairing because ooh, FE13 is so sacred, we must follow its pattern in places where it makes least sense.

It did an excellent job distinguishing itself from Awakening with only a few exceptions, one being support and marriage. The conversations in general are better, but the overall structure is still about the same. Or arguably worse, since we don't have as many special case supports like Tiki in FE13 this time.

I do hope the Fire Emblem team would do better. Maybe I should write to them about this.

Edited November 11, 2015 by nocturnal YL

[Leona]

I don't know what the Fates supports are like, but I felt like the Awakening ones were pretty weird, and sometimes just stupid. Nobody seems to acknowledge the fact that I'm married into the Ylissean royal family, or just acknowledge that I'm married.

And I also have a problem with some of the supports making no sense. The Archsage mentioned this above, but I want to point out that the opposite is also true, and there are some missing supports where there should be supports, like between Flavia and Basilio. Heck, the two seem perfect together, why isn't there even an A rank support between them?

[FireRuby14]

There is a C-A support for Flavia and Basilio.

[Leona]

Ignore me, then

Maybe Chrom and Emmeryn was a better, more accurate example.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Bakura the British

[Great Geargia Gateway]

Agreed. Being able to basically have anyone support anyone is just annoying. I haven't played Fates yet, so I'll use an Awakening character as an example.

Why should Tharja be able to support with someone like Stahl, or Vaike?

*Cough*RickenxTharja*Cough* Uhh... lo-zinger plez.

But I agree. It's just pandering, but I think they could have dialed it back a bit while still having some bait for the otaku.

Don't divide the fanbase, encourage to make a truce.

[MCProductions]

^Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've read about the third route, isn't it supposed to do that.

On topic, I like Awakening's system even if I don't care for most of it's supports, because say in FE7, I want to see Matthew and Fiora converse for whatever reason, I can't do that in that game, but I can in Awakening.

I feel if the Archsage's idea was implemented, I would be perfectly sated, but I'm more than okay with what we have now.

[NekoKnight]

Battle support would apply only for battle, so that two characters who work well together in combat can support each other in combat, and doesn't really give us much of a clue about what they're like and is really only there to help power-up the units while on the field.

Base Support would give us the excellent character development and conversations we've come to love from previous Fire Emblem installments. Plus, if they happen to have some effects in battle, all the better.

Don't know if anyone else thinks that'd be a good idea though.

I'd love this implementation. Base supports for characterization and battle supports for gameplay. Everyone wins.

[Metal Flash]

Same, as much as I like Awakening, having limited partner options definetly seems better. Probably the most obvious supports that show this, as far as I know, are Cordelia`s S-supports. Almost all of them mention Cordelia`s crush on Chrom, it gets really annoying.

[nocturnal YL]

Having both base and battle supports would be a good idea.

I'd say the supports should also be broken into chapter-based and character-based conversations (and both should act as base conversations, because who talks during battles?), like what FE12 did. Chris also talks to everyone without getting too friendly with the likes of Misheil.

I said this before, but I'm more for the abolishment of the marriage system. If anything, people who are already married should be allowed to fight.

(I'm also supportive of having fixed marriages FE10-style, but some may not agree.)

[Red Lilies]

Base supports + battle supports seems like it should be a thing, though it is hard to imagine people who fight well together wouldn't talk and thus need to complete base C-A supports as well to unlock full bonuses.

Maybe a character fights well (so battle supports, like higher hit and critical rates) with only 4 other characters, and that stacks with base supports (which should provide some sort of battle bonus - maybe upping the chance partner blocking enemy - but not as much as battle supports), and if both battle and base are cultured, the characters get the most bonuses.

It could be interesting especially if they played it with you can base support with everyone, but not reveal who characters would work well with - and reaching A with certain characters opens options for a battle support (aka, they're besties now, and work well together, so get an option for additional supports.)
I don't really want them to nerf character wide C-A as I never liked not being able to have certain characters interact. But playing with a post A support system would be fun, imo. It would be great to have base supports C-A, plus additional "we work well together, should we culture that?" A+ (and A++ maybe?) support which raises battle power-ups. If they nerfed the kids options, then A+ could be friends, romantic, etc, and be a limited support (so only some characters work for other characters) because the whole 'everyone can marry everyone' seems to be a bit of a fallout of the "produce children" system. Of course, it would be more work I guess....but if they nerfed kids, they'd have more time to make a more extensive support system.

My perfect world?
-Base supports for everyone, plus limited battle supports.

-Reaching A for a pair of characters with battle supports makes them ultimate team on battlefield.

-Certain characters when reaching A find out they can reach A+ (Locked to one?) which provides additional bonuses and ideally extra support convos. Also limited.

[Shinehollow]

One of my biggest peeves is the lack of platonic supports.Now,there is as many romantic supports as platonic supports in the old games.I mean,two men or two woman can have an ending without marriage,IS.

Edited November 11, 2015 by ShadowShine

[NeedTheFriction]

first of all i did not expect so many responses. this is a pretty big peeve for me so its nice to hear i'm not the only one with concerns. some people even gave possible solutions, needless to say i'm glad i put this on the table. i am going to take you up on your offer and thoroughly enjoy the mint slowly. thanks for the warm welcome everybody and i look forward to chatting with you all on other subjects too. for example the communities problem with radiant dawn, but that's for another post.

Yes, I think we should go back to limited (as in partner selection, unlimited supports for a single playthrough should stay) support options and only have supports between people it makes sense or where opportunities to provide interesting commentary arise. The problems began when marriage and the second generation became an unfortunate series staple, so you have Awakening to thank for that.

Welcome to the forums and don't forget your complimentary mint.

(pssst where are the mints again?)

[Nyanko]

One thing that I hate is how few same-gender or even just platonic supports there are compared to opposite gender supports. I'd like half of the supports to be platonic/same-gender supports and the rest to be opposite gender. That would at least help a little to narrow down marriage candidates to ones who make more sense and free up opportunities to have interesting supports with other characters.

[Namarid]

I'm pretty much in agreement with what's been said already so theres no need to repeat it. It was this line of thinking that prompted me to make a thread for people to post there opinion on the limited support options for characters.

Here's the link if your'e interested, the topic is dead though lol. http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=57824#entry4037382

[nyainou]

One thing that I hate is how few same-gender or even just platonic supports there are compared to opposite gender supports. I'd like half of the supports to be platonic/same-gender supports and the rest to be opposite gender. That would at least help a little to narrow down marriage candidates to ones who make more sense and free up opportunities to have interesting supports with other characters.

I agree. In awakening, I always liked the same-gender supports better than any of the opposite gender ones. I can't really explain why but they were so much more interesting.. Maybe its because in same-gender supports they weren't pushing for romance? I'd totally be down for gay supports, but in either case platonic supports are way more interesting.

[lysander]

I just want romantic supports to be separate from normal supports, if they exist. C-A being vaguely romantic or non-romantic only for S to be proposal is jarring. If you want to do a system with S supports either let C-S be fully romantic or make it so you get another C-S after clearing a normal C-A. I think that overall it'd actually take less writing effort to do it that way since the way things are now you can feel the writers struggling. And you get really awkward stuff when married people go through their other C-A supports every now and then.

Or abandon the "everybody marry everybody" in the first place to separate romantic from non-romantic that way, like older games did. But I definitely don't see them going that route now--they opened up pandora's box and it'll be very hard for them to close it.

[AbsoluteZer0Nova]

Not only that I wish we could have paired endings that don't have to be romantic love related again like Garcia and Ross (stronger family bond), Forde and Kyle (becoming dearest friends) also Duessel and Amelia (being actual trusted companions and not like what Awakening did with Lucina and Owain as we all know full well that it is more than just that).

Edited November 11, 2015 by AbsoluteZer0Nova

[nordopolica]

At the very least I want a "let's give being together a go" or "I kind of like you" instead of "we have spoken 3 times. let's get married."

But I've always been a stronger advocate for platonic and limited supports based on who the character actually fits with. They did it with Chrom and Sumia, so why not everyone else? I know it's a big draw for a lot of people and their shipping tendencies, but at the cost of a lot of character development as well as narrative problems (such as in the case of Fates' miraculous insta-babies, not to mention generic supports and even ending slides!)

[Minischew]

I think the whole concept of limited supports could backfire, though. For instance, Chrom had limited supports. Because of this, in theory, he should have had better supports, right? After all, there are valid reasons as to why these supports exist (e.g. Sully is Chrom's childhood friend; hence, it's only natural that they have supports), and the support writers could focus on this small amount of supports instead of going crazy writing a million different supports.

However, despite Chrom's limited pool, his supports are quite honestly lackadaisical. They don't do much to develop his character. The only support that adds decent development (that I can think off the top of my head) for Chrom is Chrom/M!Robin, but somehow, I feel like that's the quality of the support itself rather than the limiting factor.

It's also worth noting that even with Chrom's limited supports, one of the biggest issues surrounding him was "WHO MAKES A BETTER MOTHER: OLIVIA OR SUMIA" and people still focused on the optimization aspect. I don't think that factor is going to disappear regardless of what IS does with supports.

Sorry for being a downer, but I think that even if Fates implemented a limited supports feature, it wouldn't achieve the effect people here are hoping for, but would instead cripple the flexibility in pairings we have with this current system.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Minischew

[NeedTheFriction]

I think the whole concept of limited supports could backfire, though. For instance, Chrom had limited supports. Because of this, in theory, he should have had better supports, right? After all, there are valid reasons as to why these supports exist (e.g. Sully is Chrom's childhood friend; hence, it's only natural that they have supports), and the support writers could focus on this small amount of supports instead of going crazy writing a million different supports.

However, despite Chrom's limited pool, his supports are quite honestly lackadaisical. They don't do much to develop his character. The only support that adds decent development (that I can think off the top of my head) for Chrom is Chrom/M!Robin, but somehow, I feel like that's the quality of the support itself rather than the limiting factor.

It's also worth noting that even with Chrom's limited supports, one of the biggest issues surrounding him was "WHO MAKES A BETTER MOTHER: OLIVIA OR SUMIA" and people still focused on the optimization aspect. I don't think that factor is going to disappear regardless of what IS does with supports.

Sorry for being a downer, but I think that even if Fates implemented a limited supports feature, it wouldn't achieve the effect people here are hoping for, but would instead cripple the flexibility in pairings we have with this current system.

on the contrary i'm sorta glad you disagree. its great to know there are people who agree with me but its just as important to me to see the opposing views. the only way to see this objectively is to have people on both sides of the fence. regardless of where each of us stands its kinda sad that we are inevitably at the mercy of nintendo on this one. in a sense i don't blame them for pandering to what people loved about awakening because if it wasn't so big we wouldn't be getting fates. the problem is i think it will be long and difficult to even attempt to change back because one wrong move could bring the series back to square one again, then no one wins. although i'm not a fan of the current support and marriage system many other changes i am very happy with so i can look past this in favor of the good parts. either way i am ultimately still looking forward to fates.

[NekoKnight]

However, despite Chrom's limited pool, his supports are quite honestly lackadaisical. They don't do much to develop his character. The only support that adds decent development (that I can think off the top of my head) for Chrom is Chrom/M!Robin, but somehow, I feel like that's the quality of the support itself rather than the limiting factor.

It's also worth noting that even with Chrom's limited supports, one of the biggest issues surrounding him was "WHO MAKES A BETTER MOTHER: OLIVIA OR SUMIA" and people still focused on the optimization aspect. I don't think that factor is going to disappear regardless of what IS does with supports.

Fewer supports won't automatically equate to better writing but it will at least mean there is less bad supports to sift through to find the good ones. Ultimately, good writing with be contingent on having good writers.

Concerning your second paragraph, the key problem is "mothers", ie if a second gen weren't a concern (the whole reason why we have "everyone supports everyone", optimization wouldn't be so important. Furthermore, if there were a division between "supports for characterization" and "supports for gameplay", people could pair characters freely.

[NeonZ]

Eh... I don't think limited supports necessarily lead to better writing. The current trend of a large number of supports does result in some repetitive traits driving conversations at times, and the supports with background information being surrounded by a bigger number of ones that only focus on character interaction, however, when I look at past games, I don't think limited supports necessarily resulted in better writing. Rather than that, at least from my point of view, limited supports sometimes just resulted in characters without any worthy ones at all.

For example, Path of Radiance with its racism theme had a lot of relevant subject matter for the conversation of the Laguz related characters - either positively or negatively, like Jill. However, there were also characters like Mia and Ilyana which were just left with nothing of worth there in spite of only having limited conversations with a select number of characters. FE6's supports often just featured characters talking about fighting together, adding little to them. FE7's supports were pretty much the only ones that seemed to consistently keep a balance between relevant conversations and pure character interaction, even for minor characters, but it doesn't look like it's something they could really repeat well.

Even look at Awakening itself - Chrom's and Sumia's romantic supports, in spite of being limited, often still were pretty generic or outright bad (like Chrom/Sumia itself). There's no guarantee that the developers' view on writing quality necessarily lines up with yours, which is why I prefer a larger selection.

Edited November 12, 2015 by NeonZ