Ideally, how would you design a FE game in order to make it as balanced as possible?

[Zerxen]

While still maintaining a challenge? How would you go about approaching mechanics, growth rates, stat caps, classes, unit balance, promotion, skills, map design, etc? I have played most of the Fire Emblem games, sans the NES titles, and personally felt that every single one of them had been broken one way or another. 

[Tryhard]

I wouldn't. I find any attempts to go towards "balance" of a game like Fire Emblem to be a bad thing. While I would maintain that every unit should at least have some semblance of being useful (even if they have a tedious grind or non-efficiency to get there), I'd prefer there was a variance on the usefulness of the character roster.

And you're right about them all being broken.

[Von Ithipathachai]

Limit reclassing to one other class line, period.  None of that Partner/Buddy Seal crap.

[Zerxen]

22 minutes ago, Von Ithipathachai said:

Limit reclassing to one other class line, period.  None of that Partner/Buddy Seal crap.

I was never too fond of reclassing. Took away from the individuality of every unit and made giving skills to a character too much of a hassle, though it does make PMU runs more interesting. I do not mind branched promotions however.

[Shoblongoo]

I think Conquest got it ALMOST perfectly right, in terms of difficulty level and game mechanics and balanced gameplay. So that would be my starting point.

…beyond that…

I’d bring back weapon durability as a game mechanic, because the manner in which Conquest attempts to “balance" infinite-use weapons just doesn’t work.

…maybe do something like they did in FE4, where weapon durability is repairable for gold. But with Conquest's gold-is-scarce gameplay, such that repairing weapons has a high opportunity cost and may not always be a wise thing to do.

And make forged weapons extra expensive to repair.

Also—for the love of god—bring back fog-of-war. Its such a good mechanic for adding difficulty and flavor to chapters without going gimmick-crazy like they did in revelations

(if every valla chapter was just a gimmick-free variant of the same map, but with fog-or-war and more aggressive AI, you could actually get a decent gameplay experience out of the Valla Arc. The Realm of Anankos would actually feel dark and foreboding and mysterious)

Speaking of AI--with very few exceptions--there should always be at least SOME aggressive units on a map actively trying to attack you, at some point or another. Instead of just sitting around waiting for you to pull them.

An overabundance of passive AI makes for very boring, very dry and predictable gameplay.

And then I guess beyond that…work on balancing good gameplay with good storytelling.

This seems to be a consistent problem throughout the series: entries that focus on building an amazing gameplay experience cut-corners on story, and entries that focus on building an amazing story fall short on gameplay.
 
…You can have both…

Edited May 19, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Zerxen]

3 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

I think Conquest got it ALMOST perfectly right, in terms of difficulty level and game mechanics and balanced gameplay. So that would be my starting point.

…beyond that…

I’d bring back weapon durability as a game mechanic, because the manner in which Conquest attempts to “balance" infinite-use weapons just doesn’t work.

…maybe do something like they did in FE4, where weapon durability is repairable for gold. But with Conquest's gold-is-scarce gameplay, such that repairing weapons has a high opportunity cost and may not always be a wise thing to do.

And make forged weapons extra expensive to repair.

Also—for the love of god—bring back fog-of-war. Its such a good mechanic for adding difficulty and flavor to chapters without going gimmick-crazy like they did in revelations

(if every gimmick chapter in valla was just a gimmick-free map with fog-or-war and aggressive AI…you could actually get a decent gameplay experience out of the Valla Arc. The Realm of Anankos would feel dark and foreboding and mysterious)

And then I guess beyond that…work on balancing good gameplay with good storytelling.

This seems to be a consistent problem throughout the series: entries that focus on building an amazing gameplay experience cut-corners on story, and entries that focus on building an amazing story fall short on gameplay.
 
…You can have both…

I agree with your points on Conquest in regards to balance. Aside from CQ's decent map design and the fact that the higher growth rates did not impede variation among units, CQ enemy units remain consistent in regards to the threat they pose on the player and I say this since most FE games have pathetic lategame enemies. The weapons system and stat boosters within Fates kinda threw off the balance IMHO. Pair up did the same to an extent, but since it was not exclusive to the player, it was a little more balanced yet highly abusable.

[The DanMan]

I know:
Remove leveling up. Make promotion bonuses the only stats a unit will gain, putting the focus on the player's capabilities and the strategy offered by the maps first and foremost. With much less of a numerical stat focus, balancing the numbers left would be a lot easier.

Of course, that's removing half the SRPG factor and people probably wouldn't find it near as fun, so... .
Every FE game (and pretty much every RPG in general) has one or two things that are head-and-shoulders above the remaining options and break it; I'd just say be glad that nothing truly gamebreaking has stayed consistent throughout the series.

Edited May 19, 2017 by The DanMan

[Zerxen]

8 minutes ago, The DanMan said:

I know:
Remove leveling up. Make promotion bonuses the only stats a unit will gain, putting the focus on the player's capabilities and the strategy offered by the maps first and foremost. With much less of a numerical stat focus, balancing the numbers left would be a lot easier.

Of course, that's removing half the SRPG factor and people probably wouldn't find it near as fun, so... .
Every FE game (and pretty much every RPG in general) has one or two things that are head-and-shoulders above the remaining options and break it; I'd just say be glad that nothing truly gamebreaking has stayed consistent throughout the series.

FE is a numbers game governed by RNG. I suppose that genuine balance is impossible to achieve for something like FE so trying to avoid anything gamebreaking is more realistic. Never thought about it that way.

Edited May 19, 2017 by Zerxen

[Camus The Dark Knight]

I find the main issue is mounted units... while each game has it's own imbalances, mounted units seem to be the only consistent one throughout the series. The games would be so much more balanced if high movement units were gimped in some way. Horse-killing weapons are not an excuse either since 98% of the time enemies don't have them. If they did something like make *all* lances super effective like bows with fliers that might be something different (Not saying they should, just using it as a point). They are even more god-like in the games with canto. I think canto's idea is pretty cool, but it's OP as hell.

On a side-note, armors suffer in almost every game for the same reason, they deserve some sort of buff as well if they keep low movement. I always liked the idea of FE8 generals, weapon triangle control, invincibility skill, caps higher then most classes, etc. At least then they would be decent in a casual run.

As for the RNG comment, I propose FE9's fixed mode should be added back, I liked it a *lot* and am sad it was removed. It could be modified slightly with which weapons/items were equipped, but not by much and in the end your characters ended up with roughly average stats so you couldn't get RNG screwed.

 

[Von Ithipathachai]

37 minutes ago, Drew Pickles said:

I find the main issue is mounted units... while each game has it's own imbalances, mounted units seem to be the only consistent one throughout the series. The games would be so much more balanced if high movement units were gimped in some way. Horse-killing weapons are not an excuse either since 98% of the time enemies don't have them. If they did something like make *all* lances super effective like bows with fliers that might be something different (Not saying they should, just using it as a point). They are even more god-like in the games with canto. I think canto's idea is pretty cool, but it's OP as hell.

On a side-note, armors suffer in almost every game for the same reason, they deserve some sort of buff as well if they keep low movement. I always liked the idea of FE8 generals, weapon triangle control, invincibility skill, caps higher then most classes, etc. At least then they would be decent in a casual run.

As for the RNG comment, I propose FE9's fixed mode should be added back, I liked it a *lot* and am sad it was removed. It could be modified slightly with which weapons/items were equipped, but not by much and in the end your characters ended up with roughly average stats so you couldn't get RNG screwed.

 

So make mounted units overall statistically inferior compared to infantry in exchange for better movement?  That doesn't sound like a bad idea.  Maybe give the mounted units more HP as well so they're not too fragile.

If my understanding is correct, Iuchar and Iucharba from FE4 would exemplify this system best; Iuchar has overall worse stats, but more mobility, whereas Iucharba has overall better stats, but worse mobility.  The differences would be particularly pronounced in that game, where the maps are enormous and infantry have a hard time keeping up with cavalry.

Also, on a side note, I really wish armors got more love from the developers and the fans...

Edited May 19, 2017 by Von Ithipathachai

[Zerxen]

23 minutes ago, Von Ithipathachai said:

So make mounted units overall statistically inferior compared to infantry in exchange for better movement?  That doesn't sound like a bad idea.  Maybe give the mounted units more HP as well so they're not too fragile.

If my understanding is correct, Iuchar and Iucharba from FE4 would exemplify this system best; Iuchar has overall worse stats, but more mobility, whereas Iucharba has overall better stats, but worse mobility.  The differences would be particularly pronounced in that game, where the maps are enormous and infantry have a hard time keeping up with cavalry.

Also, on a side note, I really wish armors got more love from the developers and the fans...

Would it be a terrible ideas for Generals to have access to the entire Weapon Triangle? I mean it is a bit overkill, but Generals are already slow and suffer from low movement. Unless all Armor Knights become designed like Effie, it seems like a reasonable buff.

[Von Ithipathachai]

3 minutes ago, Zerxen said:

Would it be a terrible ideas for Generals to have access to the entire Weapon Triangle? I mean it is a bit overkill, but Generals are already slow and suffer from low movement. Unless all Armor Knights become designed like Effie, it seems like a reasonable buff.

It might not be, if Great Knights lose access to Swords.  I imagine a General not concerned about mobility could afford to lug around one of each weapon type, whereas a Great Knight might be just a tiny bit more concerned about how much his horse can carry.

[Zerxen]

1 hour ago, Von Ithipathachai said:

It might not be, if Great Knights lose access to Swords.  I imagine a General not concerned about mobility could afford to lug around one of each weapon type, whereas a Great Knight might be just a tiny bit more concerned about how much his horse can carry.

Well regardless, cavaliers are consistently broken. Would locking them to a single weapon before promotion be sufficient enough to balance them? I haven't played enough of the Tellius games so I don't know the full extent of their usefuness.

[Von Ithipathachai]

1 hour ago, Zerxen said:

Well regardless, cavaliers are consistently broken. Would locking them to a single weapon before promotion be sufficient enough to balance them? I haven't played enough of the Tellius games so I don't know the full extent of their usefuness.

One thing that could be done is that Cavaliers can be locked to Lances, and they gain Swords when promoting to Paladins or Axes when promoting to Great Knights.

I have a whole set of my own drawings of Fire Emblem classes in the Creative section of the forum, and this is what I did when designing my version of the Cavalier class (except that instead of Great Knights, they promote into Dragoons, which ride flightless dragons instead of armored horses).

[Baldrick]

I'd balance unit types by making them designed for a particular purpose. Cavalry are generally good at hit-and-run tactics, and fliers are good for ignoring terrain to reach otherwise inaccessible areas. Both jobs are essentially solo missions. So I'd give mounts console canto, and an appropriate trade-off (for example, they can't participate in Attack stances).

[Camus The Dark Knight]

Just bring back "knight-cavaliers" for four weapon types, I miss those and I liked the concept of picking your 2nd weapon after promotion. It made units like Astrid in FE9 rather good after promotion being able to pick axes as their 2nd weapon (as any mounted units with bows seem to be stuck with swords after promotion most of the time). And it fits in with non-promoted units having one weapon type.

EDIT: On a more humorous note, with my Astrid comment, it made me think how axe using classes are not common among female characters, yet the stereotypical female growths (more agility focused) are much better for wielding axes.

Edited May 20, 2017 by Drew Pickles