What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

[NaotoUzumaki]

They should do both in the way chrono trigger did. Small subtle thing in first play through and new game plus adding onto it more. Half of three houses story is a longer version of Fates first 5 chapters and then splits. How do you solve this issue you make Byleth herself only playable in the teacher phase of the monastery and a green unit in battle with Godly AI to prove her merc status and given advice like the splitting path in the zanado bandit proving her battlefield knowledge and combat expertise. Then at the part with Edelgard and Rhea at the Holy Tomb to to choose a side. Byleth involvement and Story ends there. They take the SoC and Stab themselves in the heart destroying the Crest Stone and telling her students to make their own path like Sothis told her and there’s no right or wrong in war only moral grey. This confusion allows all 3 classes to escape the monastery and Rhea Goes Immaculate and Insane. After that you chose Birth by Sleep Style your Lord. Edelgard/Crimson Flower Dimitri/ Azure Moon  Claude/Verdant Wind   Rhea/Seiros/Silver Snow so Byleth has an emotional impact and important sacrifices that pushes them differently 

[Samz707]

25 minutes ago, lenticular said:

Interestingly, I look at Fire Emblem pretty much the exact opposite way. I play a lot of strategy and tactics games, turn-based games, and games with ironman modes or similar where you have to live with the consequences of your mistakes (chess, X-Com, Europa Universalis, classic roguelikes, etc.). I already have plenty of other strategy games that are all about the game mechanics, so Fire Emblem's big appeal to me is that it can do story and characters as well. In comparison, I do play a few RPGs here and there, but not as many. From my perspective, I can equally as well say that we already have other games with permadeath and that Fire Emblem is the turn-based tactics game for people who want to prioritise storytelling and characters. Neither perspective is right or wrong; it just depends what direction you're coming from.

For me personally, the perma-death moments with story ARE what hit well for me.

Matthew not being there when Leila's body is found as well as the (sadly missed on my initial playthrough because Turnwheel was a mistake.) moments where Alm fails in Echoes and Mathilda/Zeke die (or Celica failing to save Valbar) are infinitely better moments than any plot-death I've had in the series simply because the perma-death and story mixes to create a genuinely great moment, where someone died, it's actually your fault and the game reacts to it, I really, really hate most moments when games try to guilt trip the player, the "Oh you did a bad thing!, we literally made it impossible for you to proceed otherwise, maybe even to the point of blatantly cheating to do so but feel bad because we said so!" moments, when I'm actually responsible, it effects me.

Hell even without it, it still hits harder than X-com because that Unit isn't easily replaced usually and actually was a unique person, they had worth other than stats and even then you can just pay for a new unit in X-com, in X-com pretty much only large loses/high end troops are valuable while IMO pretty much every unit in FE is valuable because you mostly don't get generics. (And in the case of Echoes, your generics are incredibly weak aside from the Dread Fighter invokes, can't be controlled and need to be summoned via health penalty by a weak unit.)

 

Edited August 15, 2020 by Samz707

[Paper Jam]

On 8/11/2020 at 1:42 PM, Whisky said:

 

• The Zephiel assassination plot being retconned from how it was stated to have happened in FE6.

 

Was it? This is what Eliwood and Hector say about the Zephiel assassination plot at the end of FE7:

 

Quote

Eliwood:
“Hector… By the way, I heard that the king of Bern died. It was fairly sudden, too.”

Hector:
“I can’t be certain, but according to one of our spies, he was killed in an assassination attempt on Prince Zephiel.”

Eliwood:
“The prince? I trust he was unharmed.”

Hector:
“It’s a strange tale… At first, I’d heard that the prince was killed. Then new information came three days later saying that it was the king who had died.”[/quote]

And this is what Guinevere tells Roy about the same plot in FE6:

 

 

Guinevere:
“Our father was a man of ordinary skill and intellect. Therefore, Zephiel’s outstanding skill made our father cold towards him.”

Roy:
“Jealousy…?”

Guinevere:
“And then one day, our father told Zephiel that ‘the next heir to Bern would be Guinevere’s husband.'”

Roy:
“What! That’s awful!”

Guinevere:
“But Zephiel was very patient. He said that he did not mind even if he could not gain the throne. But the people around us, who were looking forward to Zephiel’s ability to be a good king, would not allow anyone else to be the heir. Pressured by the public, our father lost his patience at last, and…”

Roy:
“Decided to kill King Zephiel…?”

Guinevere:
“At a banquet, our father gave Zephiel a poisoned drink from his own hands. And that was the first and last cup that Zephiel took from our father. After returning to his room, Zephiel started to get sick. For ten days and nights, Zephiel lingered between life and death. But Murdock, Zephiel’s teacher and loyal general, saved his life.”

Roy:
“…The former king never did anything after that?”

Guinevere:
“No… But I have heard that he had plans to get rid of Murdock and Zephiel’s mother as traitors. He was scheming to murder them all along with Zephiel. After hearing that, Zephiel made believe that he was dead. Our father then checked the coffin to confirm Zephiel’s death. At that moment, Zephiel rose up from the coffin and…with his sword…”

Roy:
“……”

Guinevere:
“I was but a child then, so naturally I could not have understood what was going on. All I knew is that after our father died, Zephiel never smiled again. Until then, he was strict at times, but he was always a kind and loving brother to me. So…”

The only real discrepancy is that FE6 places ten days between Desmond's last attempt on Zephiel's life and his murder by Zephiel, whereas the news of those events reached Hector three days apart. But even that could be explained by a delay in the relaying of the first piece of news.

Edited August 16, 2020 by Paper Jam

[Venger_06]

13 hours ago, lenticular said:

Having a few important characters who can't actually die but instead are maimed and retreat also comes with problems of its own. To start with, it feels very contrived. There's often no particular reason why some characters should live while some die. Are they supposed to be more prudent and know when they are beaten? Are they supposed to be tougher and able to survive? How come a character like Reyson who is both hot-headed and fragile manages to survive a lethal blow? Obviously, its because he still has a role in the story, not for any logical in-world reason. This makes actual for-real death feel arbitrary and unfair. The gameplay impact is the same either way, you can no longer use that unit, but the storyline impact is vastly different.

Three Houses has sorta given an excuse for this: it can be said that the Unit's battalion suffered heavy losses, but the character who commanded it survived at the expense of his army. Soldiers sacrificing themselves for their commander is not unheard of.

10 hours ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

What he means is the script has different conditionals to account for the possibility that characters have died. As an example take the prebattle script of chapter 4, which I have put in the spoiler boxes below, with sections in quotation marks, and the conditionals that triggered them separated in italics and bolded, and conversation continues indicating the end of the conditional statement.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

If Gatrie, Shinon, and Rhys are dead

 

If Gatrie and Rhys are dead

 

If Shinon and Rhys are dead

 

If Shinon and Gatrie are dead

 

If Gatrie is dead

 

If Shinon is dead

 

If Rhys is dead

 

If everyone is alive

 

Conversation continues

 

If Rhys is alive

 

If Rhys is dead

 

Conversation continues

 

If Rhys and Gatrie are alive

 

If Rhys is alive, but Gatrie is dead

 

If Gatrie is alive, but Rhys is dead

 

If Rhys and Gatrie are dead

 

Conversation continues

 

If Titania is dead

 

Conversation continues

 

If Shinon is alive

 

If Shinon is dead

Conversation continues

 

 

 

 

That's neat, didn't know it happens. However, the changes are few and do not make much difference in the grand scheme of things.

4 hours ago, Whisky said:

Fire Emblem is the Tactical RPG for people that like permadeath, and maybe there are other Tactical RPGs without permadeath for people that prioritize the story telling and want side characters to be more relevant.

...I don't think people are drawn to Fire Emblem because of permadeath, at least not the majority of players. Also, other Tactical RPGs are severely lacking in the areas that Fire Emblem excels.

19 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Honestly if IS is going to keep permadeath around just make it a purely gameplay thing and have it not mentioned or even brought in the story at all. Permadeath hinders the storytelling more often than not so the easy workaround is just to not acknowledge it within the context of the story at all

This is probably the best way to go if IS wants to please those who seek challenge and not be limited in their storytelling.

[Alastor15243]

36 minutes ago, Maof06 said:

That's neat, didn't know it happens. However, the changes are few and do not make much difference in the grand scheme of things.

You should check out the script for the first eightish chapters on Serenes Forest sometimes. There are some pretty major things they add, even though they don't really change the plot (that would indeed be way too much work for all of those characters). But several scenes where every character normally takes part  have contingency plans for basically every combination of living and dead characters.

[Jotari]

8 hours ago, Benice said:

Because he should have been relevant to the plot, given that one of Hector's major character points is caring deeply for the family he has left- Hector's half-brother should have at least been mentioned or it should have explained why he has a half-sibling in the first place. Granted, it's not the best example of FE7's disparity with FE6, but it does demonstrate how FE7 ignores a lot of the plot points FE6 set up.

Orun was a really weird thing to leave so completely unaddressed, but I wouldn't say this is really a standard for Blazing Blade. A lot of the playable cast is made up of characters who were only briefly mentioned in supports in the previous game.

[Whisky]

@Paper Jam Yeah, I forgot the details because I haven’t played that game in a while (FE7). My bad. The assassination wasn’t retconned. @Jotari, you corrected me on this earlier too and I forgot to reply, so thanks for the correction guys.

2 hours ago, Maof06 said:

..I don't think people are drawn to Fire Emblem because of permadeath, at least not the majority of players. Also, other Tactical RPGs are severely lacking in the areas that Fire Emblem excels.

I mean, some people probably don’t. But the games have Casual mode now. So pretty much anyone who plays on Classic mode would seem to prefer permadeath. The games would play very differently if they didn’t have permadeath and it’s something the series was more or less founded on and has always had so I don’t think it should be changed now. The older games in the series especially were balanced around permadeath and I think removing it would hurt the gameplay of the games a lot. They could remove permadeath in future games and design them very different to make it work, but it would be a very different game from what Fire Emblem has always been.

[Venger_06]

41 minutes ago, Whisky said:

But the games have Casual mode now. So pretty much anyone who plays on Classic mode would seem to prefer permadeath.

I've seen people who prefer casual but plays on classic anyway because they want to be prepared to play the older games and see what they're missing (I was on that field myself when I started playing FE), others who play classic because they don't want to be labeled as a "casual" (trust me, this is more common than you think), etc. Reasons for playing classic mode can vary.

59 minutes ago, Whisky said:

They could remove permadeath in future games and design them very different to make it work, but it would be a very different game from what Fire Emblem has always been.

It's like @lenticular said, IS could experiment with these ideas on future installments like Chimera Squad did with XCOM, but the fanbase must give it a chance.

[Mars of Aritia]

They should bring back those conversations from FE4. every map has a couple of conversations between characters, and give a little bonus. helps flesh out minor characters and encourages using a wider range of units. and go nuts with boss conversations like the tellius games did, those are a big help to characterisation.

and for the permadeath issue, have casual mode be the game proper with a story, and forced deployment of a side character relevant to the plot of the chapter (but give a proper punishment for losing units like losing gold or missing out on some bonus, and keep the mc & plot relevant death as a game over). Then make classic mode more like a sandbox with minimal or no story and use whoever you want. You can call them story mode & challenge mode (or SRW mode & X-com mode).

 

 

[Acacia Sgt]

SRW mode... actually, that wouldn't be a bad idea. Unit lost all HP? No worries, they'll be fine next chapter... after paying a sum of gold.

Give a more tangible punishment to loosing a unit in Casual mode. Loose gold instead.

[Alastor15243]

14 minutes ago, DukeBox said:

and for the permadeath issue, have casual mode be the game proper with a story, and forced deployment of a side character relevant to the plot of the chapter (but give a proper punishment for losing units like losing gold or missing out on some bonus, and keep the mc & plot relevant death as a game over). Then make classic mode more like a sandbox with minimal or no story and use whoever you want. You can call them story mode & challenge mode (or SRW mode & X-com mode).

 

 

Please, no, that would be terrible. I don't want to have to play on casual mode to enjoy the story. That would be hell for me.

I don't think the casual players who think permadeath is "outdated" and should be removed realize just how completely mindless casual mode is for anyone well acquainted with the series' mechanics. The gap between the fail state for classic and the fail state for casual is mind-bendingly vast. This isn't the sort of game where an experienced player even has a chance in hell of losing on casual, on any difficulty, unless the game is turned into something monstrously, psychotically unfair, with shit like ambush spawns up the wazoo.

Edited August 16, 2020 by Alastor15243

[Seazas]

-I feel happy yet extremely sad that Archanea Saga/BS FE characters are practically guaranteed to never matter and would be lucky to have one piece of content in Cipher/Heroes. On one hand, we have characters ripe with potential with really good dynamics like Malice and Dice. But on the other you have Roberto, Belf and Leiden. I greatly adore their designs but they make the most sense dead. FE12's way of forcing them in was fucking awful and they fail to stand out. 

-Kris didn't need to exist. With the cast bloat Archanea has, many would've filled his/her role more effectively while offering more characterization than their attempts with Kris hogging the support pool. It's annoying how many supports center around Kris themselves than the actual cast. 

-Furthering my point. None of the new characters in the remakes needed to exist. FE3 had the perfect amount of playable characters with room to give everyone a decent amount of supports. Including the BS FE characters, cut characters from Shadow Dragon, DS Remake characters AND FE12 debut characters was overkill as hell. I liked Norne but she really kills the vibe after being turned into one of Kris's cheerleaders rather than fleshing out Draug. The cut characters and BS FE characters could've been implemented in DLC side campaigns (like fully fleshing out Archanea Saga and even adding some new scenarios) than being forced in the main plot. 

-Echoes = Best handled side cast and writing. They have the most opportunities (prisms, supports, mild plot bearing before optional recruitment, DLC narrative actually being good, consistently great voice acting, really good dynamics + writing and base conversations) while having an extremely fleshed out lore and world to work with (with a whole detailed timeline! Echoes is the best!). Tellius would've beat it if it wasn't for Radiant Dawn with its inconsistent portrayal of some characters. Astrid's siblings being inconsistent is a prime example that they lost track of all the characters and their details.

-FE12 gets worse and worse the more I recheck it. Every time I look at it, I find a bad/forced writing somewhere, extreme missed opportunity and baffling decisions. It tried too hard to bring everyone together at the expense of quality, Cain and Draug are STILL shafted despite them being fairly iconic faces of Archeanea, Cain and Abel still don't have significant interaction, the Assassins needed their own game: not an appearance of MORE Archanea characters in an already bloated cast, etc. I hope FE12 never gets localized. There's some hits but way too many misses that I just want Intsys to leave it behind outside of some spinoff stuff like Cipher.

I just hope Archanea's remakes stop at FE12. The cast bloat is a serious problem and will hold the remake down. There's also the whole Kris issue as a whole. No thanks.

Edited August 16, 2020 by Seazas

[Jotari]

2 hours ago, Seazas said:

-I feel happy yet extremely sad that Archanea Saga/BS FE characters are practically guaranteed to never matter and would be lucky to have one piece of content in Cipher/Heroes. On one hand, we have characters ripe with potential with really good dynamics like Malice and Dice. But on the other you have Roberto, Belf and Leiden. I greatly adore their designs but they make the most sense dead. FE12's way of forcing them in was fucking awful and they fail to stand out. 

-Kris didn't need to exist. With the cast bloat Archanea has, many would've filled his/her role more effectively while offering more characterization than their attempts with Kris hogging the support pool. It's annoying how many supports center around Kris themselves than the actual cast. 

-Furthering my point. None of the new characters in the remakes needed to exist. FE3 had the perfect amount of playable characters with room to give everyone a decent amount of supports. Including the BS FE characters, cut characters from Shadow Dragon, DS Remake characters AND FE12 debut characters was overkill as hell. I liked Norne but she really kills the vibe after being turned into one of Kris's cheerleaders rather than fleshing out Draug. The cut characters and BS FE characters could've been implemented in DLC side campaigns (like fully fleshing out Archanea Saga and even adding some new scenarios) than being forced in the main plot. 

-Echoes = Best handled side cast and writing. They have the most opportunities (prisms, supports, mild plot bearing before optional recruitment, DLC narrative actually being good, consistently great voice acting, really good dynamics + writing and base conversations) while having an extremely fleshed out lore and world to work with (with a whole detailed timeline! Echoes is the best!). Tellius would've beat it if it wasn't for Radiant Dawn with its inconsistent portrayal of some characters. Astrid's siblings being inconsistent is a prime example that they lost track of all the characters and their details.

-FE12 gets worse and worse the more I recheck it. Every time I look at it, I find a bad/forced writing somewhere, extreme missed opportunity and baffling decisions. It tried too hard to bring everyone together at the expense of quality, Cain and Draug are STILL shafted despite them being fairly iconic faces of Archeanea, Cain and Abel still don't have significant interaction, the Assassins needed their own game: not an appearance of MORE Archanea characters in an already bloated cast, etc. I hope FE12 never gets localized. There's some hits but way too many misses that I just want Intsys to leave it behind outside of some spinoff stuff like Cipher.

I just hope Archanea's remakes stop at FE12. The cast bloat is a serious problem and will hold the remake down. There's also the whole Kris issue as a whole. No thanks.

I would have loved it if it was actually Shadow Dragon that implemented Roberto, Belf and Leiden instead of New Mystery, but not as allies, instead let's see them as enemies working with Camus. I love Shadow Dragon as a game, but it really played it way too safe in just adapting the Dark Dragon and the Sword of Light instead of using it as an opportunity to expand the lore of Archanea. Jiol doesn't even use the death quote from Book 1 where he foreshadows the existence of Sheema. And man did they waste a great opportunity to characterize pre-villain Hardin.

[lenticular]

7 hours ago, Whisky said:

I mean, some people probably don’t. But the games have Casual mode now. So pretty much anyone who plays on Classic mode would seem to prefer permadeath.

I play on Classic mode but don't prefer permadeath! Casual mode isn't fun for me in terms of gameplay (too easy/mindless for my tastes), but permadeath isn't fun for me in terms of story (since it effectively removes content and makes it impossible for me to see it unless I replay). My prefered way of playing is Classic mode but treating any character death as a failure state and resetting. I've tried Casual mode, and I've tried embracing permadeath and doing an ironman style run, and I don't have as much fun with them. The impression I get is that this is not exactly a rare way to play.

6 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

I don't think the casual players who think permadeath is "outdated" and should be removed realize just how completely mindless casual mode is for anyone well acquainted with the series' mechanics. The gap between the fail state for classic and the fail state for casual is mind-bendingly vast. This isn't the sort of game where an experienced player even has a chance in hell of losing on casual, on any difficulty, unless the game is turned into something monstrously, psychotically unfair, with shit like ambush spawns up the wazoo.

If removing permadeath means getting rid of Classic mode, not replacing it with anything else, and only having Casual mode, then I agree with this 100%. That would be terrible. But I don't think that removing permadeath has to mean that because it can be replaced by other things. There absolutely needs to be a consequence for having a unit fall in battle, but that consequence does not have to be permadeath. One option would be to turn any unit death into a game over (which, as a side consequence, would mean that unfair nonsense would probably be cut way down). Another would be to replace death with injuries or other long term consequences. As a for instance, what if a defeated unit: loses a random item from their inventory (plot-vital items excluded), has to miss the next battle, loses two points from all stats (numbers plucked from the air and would probably need changing after a balance pass). Maybe there could be a new mechanic of flaws (think: negative skills) and unit deaths could tie into that. Maybe a system of reputation/renown/glory/whatever where your reputation as a commander decreases if you let your units be severely wounded. And so on and so forth. There are lots of potential ways to incentivise keeping everyone alive.

[Jotari]

Fire Emblem should have five different gameplay modes.

-Casual

-Injury Mode (a killed character cannot be deployed for three maps after their death, this would be a nice compromoise between Casual and Classic to encourage Casual Players to graduate into classic so to speak).

-Classic

-Iron Man (I'd get around the lord issue by giving you a certain number of credits when you play, maybe you get to set the number at the start of the gplaythrough, those credits are how many times you're lord is allowed to die before you lose that save entirely, otherwise you could just kill your lord to reset any mission by getting a game over).

-Reset Whore (every character death causes a gameover)

 

[Alastor15243]

22 minutes ago, lenticular said:

If removing permadeath means getting rid of Classic mode, not replacing it with anything else, and only having Casual mode, then I agree with this 100%. That would be terrible. But I don't think that removing permadeath has to mean that because it can be replaced by other things. There absolutely needs to be a consequence for having a unit fall in battle, but that consequence does not have to be permadeath. One option would be to turn any unit death into a game over (which, as a side consequence, would mean that unfair nonsense would probably be cut way down). Another would be to replace death with injuries or other long term consequences. As a for instance, what if a defeated unit: loses a random item from their inventory (plot-vital items excluded), has to miss the next battle, loses two points from all stats (numbers plucked from the air and would probably need changing after a balance pass). Maybe there could be a new mechanic of flaws (think: negative skills) and unit deaths could tie into that. Maybe a system of reputation/renown/glory/whatever where your reputation as a commander decreases if you let your units be severely wounded. And so on and so forth. There are lots of potential ways to incentivise keeping everyone alive.

Reducing the consequences of letting a unit die would still make ironmanning it less fun. Also, my main grievance would still stand, just to a slightly lesser degree.

The lower the consequences for unit death, the more easily it has to happen for the game to stay hard. As it stands, FE is a game of huge consequences for deaths, but you can easily see them coming if you do the math. Contrast this with other strategy games like, say, FF Tactics, which has damage math it's almost physically impossible to do in your head, but you're not expected to because individual unit deaths are almost no consequence at all. Fire Emblem would have to become more like other strategy games the more permadeath is phased out in order to stay interesting, and as I said before, that would involve making the game borderline unrecognizable.

[Lightcosmo]

15 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

 Contrast this with other strategy games like, say, FF Tactics, which has damage math it's almost physically impossible to do in your head, but you're not expected to because individual unit deaths are almost no consequence at all.

Eh? FFT's math is easy. Also, deaths have consequence, you just don't realize it because the AI is always ill equipped to handle you.

[Alastor15243]

7 minutes ago, lightcosmo said:

Eh? FFT's math is easy. Also, deaths have consequence, you just don't realize it because the AI is always ill equipped to handle you.

From what I remember, in contrast to FE, you're given almost no means in-game to determine the actual damage formula for attacks. I haven't played the original to be clear, but the sequels and several games inspired by it, and that always seems to be the case in those. But even if that isn't the case, that's still a major phenomenon in a lot of other strategy games.

And I wasn't saying the deaths had no consequence in that specific battle, just that there's no expectation to rout every team with your whole group alive. It's a battle system that ideally comes more down to the wire, with you losing some of your units as you try to whittle down their forces.

Edited August 16, 2020 by Alastor15243

[Seazas]

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

I would have loved it if it was actually Shadow Dragon that implemented Roberto, Belf and Leiden instead of New Mystery, but not as allies, instead let's see them as enemies working with Camus. I love Shadow Dragon as a game, but it really played it way too safe in just adapting the Dark Dragon and the Sword of Light instead of using it as an opportunity to expand the lore of Archanea. Jiol doesn't even use the death quote from Book 1 where he foreshadows the existence of Sheema. And man did they waste a great opportunity to characterize pre-villain Hardin.

Dude.

Your brain is massive. Roberto, Belf and Leiden being enemies would've been perfect. Either way, if they did an actual fleshed out remake of BS FE. That could've also been a good sendoff to the three sable knights. Especially when unlike Camus, they're just grunts and can easily work being put to the sword. 

Echoes only had 4 new characters. And only 2 are playable. Shadow Dragon didn't need the amount of OCs they forced in, honestly. Especially when they fail to flesh out anyone else. Only Norne came close and she got stuck as a Kris bot than someone sharing a close bond to Draug and Gordin. 

[Lightcosmo]

10 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

From what I remember, in contrast to FE, you're given almost no means in-game to determine the actual damage formula for attacks. I haven't played the original to be clear, but the sequels and several games inspired by it, and that always seems to be the case in those. But even if that isn't the case, that's still a major phenomenon in a lot of other strategy games.

And I wasn't saying the deaths had no consequence in that specific battle, just that there's no expectation to rout every team with your whole group alive. It's a battle system that ideally comes more down to the wire, with you losing some of your units as you try to whittle down their forces.

FFT's math is usually static. If you have 6 attack power, and your weapon has 6 power, your base damage is going to be 36. There is no variance in this, you can't sometimes deal 30, or 40, always 36 at base. Then you divide/multiply that based off of Zodiac compatibility with the other unit. +/- 25 % for good/bad +/- 50% for best/worst. And, that's all there is to it, really. Not going in depth with crits and such of course yet.

Well, yeah but that depends on the battle. Against the Lucavi bosses for example, them petrifying your team can kinda end you if not tended to.

Edited August 16, 2020 by lightcosmo

[Venger_06]

55 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Fire Emblem should have five different gameplay modes.

-Casual

-Injury Mode (a killed character cannot be deployed for three maps after their death, this would be a nice compromoise between Casual and Classic to encourage Casual Players to graduate into classic so to speak).

-Classic

-Iron Man (I'd get around the lord issue by giving you a certain number of credits when you play, maybe you get to set the number at the start of the gplaythrough, those credits are how many times you're lord is allowed to die before you lose that save entirely, otherwise you could just kill your lord to reset any mission by getting a game over).

-Reset Whore (every character death causes a gameover)

 

Injury mode looks like the best compromise. The only thing that should stay the same is a forced game over if the main lord dies.

[Alastor15243]

Just now, lightcosmo said:

FFT's math is usually static. If you have 6 attack power, and your weapon has 6 power, your base damage is going to be 36. There is no variance in this, you can't sometimes deal 30, or 40, always 36 at base. Then you divide that based of Zodiac compatibility with the other unit. +/- 25 % for good/bad +/- 50% for best/worst. And, that's all there is to it, really. Not going in depth with crits and such of course yet.

Noted. But unless it explains this in-game, that suggests to me that, like I said, it isn't something it expects the player to understand in order to win.

At any rate, @lenticular, if the only complaint is the story impact, and you're already willing to sacrifice the heaviness of characters actually dying and just replace it with injuries, wouldn't just making everyone retreat for being too injured like the game already does for major characters be a solution to your problems? I still wouldn't agree with that, but there doesn't seem to be any need to touch gameplay in order to get rid of the "limitations" permadeath has on the story.

[Lightcosmo]

3 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

Noted. But unless it explains this in-game, that suggests to me that, like I said, it isn't something it expects the player to understand in order to win.

The tutorial explains things pretty well, I just never watched/read them all since it would take quite a long time.

[Alastor15243]

3 minutes ago, lightcosmo said:

The tutorial explains things pretty well, I just never watched/read them all since it would take quite a long time.

Wait, the tutorial explains the damage formula? That's surprising, because I've never heard of a game tutorial doing that.

[Lightcosmo]

15 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

Wait, the tutorial explains the damage formula? That's surprising, because I've never heard of a game tutorial doing that.

I'm pretty sure it explains how most of it works, yes. They don't go in depth with how Zodiac compat works but they give you a basic structure. I think that's actually pretty good. Maybe they want the player figure some of it out, who knows?

Edit: Ignore that, they do tell you what it does right here:

Spoiler

Spoilered for size reasons.

Edited August 16, 2020 by lightcosmo