Zerxen Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 I have yet to play the Tellius games but to my knowledge, the cavaliers and knights are split based on weapon usage. I have played FE4 before and this title did the same. For gameplay balance, should these classes be weapon locked? I feel this should happen moreso for Cavaliers considering their mobility and access to multiple weapons gives them an unfair advantage over other base classes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maybe Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 i think theyre fun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slumber Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 I like them, and they give flexibility without seeming too crazy. It also is a good way to give the classes a little personality(I've never been a fan of cavs in games like FE6/7/8 purely because the class is the most bog-standard class in the universe), like the headstrong, passionate axe wielder, the flippant, careless sword wielder, the responsible, well-rounded lance user, and the timid, demure bow user we got from Keiran, Makalov, Oscar and Astrid(The Knights are a little more difficult to pin). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magical Glace Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 We need more magic using variants of them (and fliers)! So in other words, yeah. Mix it up, and don't make cavs the only class with two weapons at base. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azz Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 I really like what Heroes did give each movement type their own separate class for each weapon, so yes, I would definitely like to see more variation in cavs and armours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interdimensional Observer Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Sure, do it again. If only to take away the dual weapon status of cavaliers as has been pointed put. Being mounted with balanced stats across the board is good enough, having two-thirds weapon triangle control as well is too much. Splitting up armor works as well. More variety for enemy and player units alike is nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkhead Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 1 hour ago, unique said: i think theyre fun ^ I enjoy the variety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NekoKnight Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 Hm, I never really thought it was "unfair" that Cavs get 2/3 of the triangle because they still have to train those weapon ranks up. I suppose I could go either way, either keeping armors/cavs locked to one weapon set or make them all have 1 variable weapon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extrasolar Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 Yeah, I was never someone who considered cavaliers having an unfair advantage because of access to multiple weapons; I actually kind of like that aspect of them, since they're meant to be all-arounders who don't particularly excel in any one area, so having access to each main physical weapon sort of just fits that. That, and the fact that they're most often trained military soldiers. Like NekoKnight said, the fact that they have to train those weapons up is also meaningful. Still, I do kind of prefer storywise if knights are locked to one weapon, perhaps, as cavaliers, and gain another upon the promotion to paladin or great knight, since it gives them more individuality as characters and/or potential use. I might use both Cain and Abel if, say, Abel was locked to lances and Cain was locked to swords pre-promotion, simply for the weapon variety, rather than just grabbing Abel and benching Cain just because of stats. As for mobility, yeah, cavaliers tend to shine on flat, wide-open maps where their high movement is a boon. On desert maps or maps with more uneven terrain, though, they tend to struggle more, which I like to an extent (barring how annoying it is from a pure gameplay perspective). I do think we could use more hazard maps in order to nerf the mobility of horses every now and then to let the foot infantry shine a little more, or something like the high winds nerfing flier mobility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NekoKnight Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 2 hours ago, Extrasolar said: Still, I do kind of prefer storywise if knights are locked to one weapon, perhaps, as cavaliers, and gain another upon the promotion to paladin or great knight, since it gives them more individuality as characters and/or potential use. You could do that in PoR if I recall correctly. I'd be 100% open to cavaliers locked to one weapon if they could choose their second weapon upon promotion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SullyMcGully Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 I don't know about this. On one hand, I don't want to get overclassed. I would prefer a game with sixteen classes, each having their own very distinct differences, over a game with scores of classes that are almost the same stat-wise. On the other hand, I think PoR did a great job with its mounted units, giving me mounted options for each major weapon without overcrowding me with mounted units. It should be remembered that mounted units, simply by nature of their mobility, have quite a lead on their infantry counterparts, and the only way to balance this is by making them weaker (which would really just annoy me), rarer (in which case they're still OP, but there aren't enough of them to fight a battle without foot units), or give them a class weakness like what pegasus knights have (which is the best option in my opinion). I mean, in PoR, fire magic was effective against beasts, right? Couldn't it be made effective against units who ride beasts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slumber Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 7 hours ago, Extrasolar said: Yeah, I was never someone who considered cavaliers having an unfair advantage because of access to multiple weapons; I actually kind of like that aspect of them, since they're meant to be all-arounders who don't particularly excel in any one area, so having access to each main physical weapon sort of just fits that. That, and the fact that they're most often trained military soldiers. Like NekoKnight said, the fact that they have to train those weapons up is also meaningful. Still, I do kind of prefer storywise if knights are locked to one weapon, perhaps, as cavaliers, and gain another upon the promotion to paladin or great knight, since it gives them more individuality as characters and/or potential use. I might use both Cain and Abel if, say, Abel was locked to lances and Cain was locked to swords pre-promotion, simply for the weapon variety, rather than just grabbing Abel and benching Cain just because of stats. As for mobility, yeah, cavaliers tend to shine on flat, wide-open maps where their high movement is a boon. On desert maps or maps with more uneven terrain, though, they tend to struggle more, which I like to an extent (barring how annoying it is from a pure gameplay perspective). I do think we could use more hazard maps in order to nerf the mobility of horses every now and then to let the foot infantry shine a little more, or something like the high winds nerfing flier mobility. Bringing back dismounting could help a lot. Nerf cav/paladin movement indoors, forcing the rider to get off the horse with a few stat penalties for indoor use. It makes sense if you want a "realistic" reason to nerf mounted units. You ever see a horse try to maneuver in closed spaces? They're super clumsy animals indoors, to the point where trying to ride one would be dangerous and slow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camus The Dark Knight Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 (edited) I like them a lot. I don't think the game auto-sucks without them, but I think they make the game more interesting. Imagine if say FE6 had them, it would make the (questionable as a unit) armors more interesting and make FE6's 46321524 cavaliers slightly more interesting. Quote Bringing back dismounting could help a lot. Nerf cav/paladin movement indoors, forcing the rider to get off the horse with a few stat penalties for indoor use. It makes sense if you want a "realistic" reason to nerf mounted units. You ever see a horse try to maneuver in closed spaces? They're super clumsy animals indoors, to the point where trying to ride one would be dangerous and slow. That's something I liked about Thracia it forced you to use a diverse cast instead of 6 or so mounted units. The fatigue system, as annoying as it was, also helped with this making it so you can't beat the game with 5 units. I like the fatigue system sort-of, I think it could of been really cool if it were implemented better. Edited May 19, 2017 by Drew Pickles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extrasolar Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 14 hours ago, Slumber said: Bringing back dismounting could help a lot. Nerf cav/paladin movement indoors, forcing the rider to get off the horse with a few stat penalties for indoor use. It makes sense if you want a "realistic" reason to nerf mounted units. You ever see a horse try to maneuver in closed spaces? They're super clumsy animals indoors, to the point where trying to ride one would be dangerous and slow. Oh yeah, I'd forgotten about that mechanic. That would definitely help...but only for indoor maps, which are fairly rare in comparison to outdoor maps. But a combination of forced dismount and more hazard maps would definitely be a step in the right direction. We have things like mountains and stuff that only flying units and bandits can take advantage of, or water tiles that only pirates can stand on, for instance, but I think we should see more elevation changes like we saw in RD, where horses can't hope to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interdimensional Observer Posted May 20, 2017 Share Posted May 20, 2017 The problem with making more hazardous terrain is making it so that it only neuters horses and not anyone else. We don't want a game that's 3/4s desert, hills, forests/bushes, water, and poison marshes. Height and cliffs would work nicely, but the problems here are that climbing cliffs takes a good bit of move, and if height bonuses are too significant, any enemies blocking the way are going to be a chore to take out. The introduction of ladders could counter the cliff movement consumption problem though. Historically, weren't there fences/barricades specifically designed to keep horses away? Those might help a little, but I don't think they'd be enough. An increase in the number of enemies packing anti-horse weapons is one direct and simple, if crude option to weaken mounted units. Or we could include horse durability (or "fatigue" if you don't like the idea of horses dying/making them into items). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.