What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

[starburst]

27 minutes ago, Emmy said:

Well, i just don't want my units to die after i've become attached, and resetting just seems like a waste of time, because i can easily play without classic mode, so why should I?

I cannot speak for others, but since I also reset on every death, I could also share my thoughts about this.

For me, keeping the core units alive is a goal, and since I also choose my party because I like the characters, failing the goal implies a reset. As others have mentioned, replaying a map should be entertaining and not frustrating.
When I am unable to complete a certain map after a couple of attempts, I leave the game for a couple of hours, maybe days, so that I do not get tired of it. Then again, I am one of those who laugh out loud when one of my units dies against a 1 % critical hit at the last minute. I never take it seriously. Luck is fair.

And precisely because luck is involved is that every replay plays differently than the previous ones, even if I repeated all my movements (which I should not, for there is a reason why I am failed it before; and which most likely will not happen, for there are going to be different misses and connects.)

One should always enjoy the game. And what I enjoy the most is playing the maps.

[Samz707]

I play on Classic since a strategy game kinda needs some difficulty for me.

FE kinda can be easily cheesed if you could just lose everyone and get them back afterwards. (more so since apparently in TH even the lord/Byleth can just come back, so there's not even the "One dude who will die" aspect.)

I know you need an easy mode but there's a difference between "Easy" and "Really easy"

IMO, I'd be fine with a casual mode (even a game with the only option.) if there are actual punishments.

Marauder:Man of Prey is a sorta SRPG game that's a spin-off of 7,62mm High Caliber/Brigade E5, Instead of 40 recruitable mercs (In addition to your custom merc at the start) with a limit of around 8 who can all die, you only get a small handful (4 at max and that's only for a few battles, it's usually 3.)  of dudes,  Akhmet, the main character, is a game over if he dies however your companions will revive after a battle, however they will always suffer a critical injury (usually inflicted by random critical hit) afterwards, They may have reduced eyesight, a broken arm meaning they take longer to peform actions and have a substantial penalty to their chance to hit or a chest injury that means they'll become out of breath faster and eventually pass out., in addition, they will always revive with around 4-10 HP, which is basically nothing in this game's combat system as most attacks will easily deal more than that. (After enough progression in the main quest you will get HP refilled for free every now and then but you never get critical injuries healed for free.)

You either need a late-game medical skill (Which still requires you to have healing items.) or pay a (expensive, especially if you didn't heal that character at all.) fee at the Doctor in the game's marketplace area to get critical injuries fixed up.

So yeah units get back up after a fight but they suffer hefty stat penalties afterwards unless you pay up a fee and you'll have to heal them up afterwards, they don't come back at full health with no issues.

Edited August 20, 2020 by Samz707

[Jotari]

11 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

Under your formula, level 1 to level 5 would be 1, 2, 3, 4, which is 10, so it would actually be 20 to level 2 units from level 1 to level 5, and only 9 to level a level 10 unit once.

I have not claimed mathematics as my strong point.

[Alastor15243]

29 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I have not claimed mathematics as my strong point.

If you were talking about leveling a level 1 unit to level 10 though, that would be a different story, and something tells me that was what you meant to say now that I think about it. Also I was wrong, leveling a level 10 unit would take 10 exp under your system.

[Venger_06]

2 hours ago, Samz707 said:

Marauder:Man of Prey is a sorta SRPG game that's a spin-off of 7,62mm High Caliber/Brigade E5, Instead of 40 recruitable mercs (In addition to your custom merc at the start) with a limit of around 8 who can all die, you only get a small handful (4 at max and that's only for a few battles, it's usually 3.)  of dudes,  Akhmet, the main character, is a game over if he dies however your companions will revive after a battle, however they will always suffer a critical injury (usually inflicted by random critical hit) afterwards, They may have reduced eyesight, a broken arm meaning they take longer to peform actions and have a substantial penalty to their chance to hit or a chest injury that means they'll become out of breath faster and eventually pass out., in addition, they will always revive with around 4-10 HP, which is basically nothing in this game's combat system as most attacks will easily deal more than that. (After enough progression in the main quest you will get HP refilled for free every now and then but you never get critical injuries healed for free.)

You either need a late-game medical skill (Which still requires you to have healing items.) or pay a (expensive, especially if you didn't heal that character at all.) fee at the Doctor in the game's marketplace area to get critical injuries fixed up.

So yeah units get back up after a fight but they suffer hefty stat penalties afterwards unless you pay up a fee and you'll have to heal them up afterwards, they don't come back at full health with no issues.

This game intrigued me. I will look for more about it.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

On 8/20/2020 at 9:24 AM, Jotari said:

I'd say it needs to be more about exp scaling than amount. If the idea of bexp is to give units behind a fighting chance, then we need it to mean practically nothing to units who are at the head of the curve and a lot to units who are behind. Fates really scaled back the exp curve for combat exp, so if we saw something like that for bonus exp it would probably work more to service weak units than strong ones. It could maybe even be made into a more simplistic unit measurement kind of like grails in heroes. It costs one bexp to level a unit from level 1->2, two to level them from 2-3 and so on. So you could level two units from level 1 to level 5 in the same amount it takes to level a level 10 unit once.

Honestly, I would be game for such a system to be applied to experience in general. It would be neat if EXP were easily calculable - that could help inform whom I choose to get kills. Something like:

1 exp for combat where the foe takes damage

3/4/5 exp for defeating a foe of lower/same/higher level

1/2/3 exp for support magic (varies with the staff/spell)

2 exp for dancing (up to 5 times per map)

1 exp for rallying (again, up to 5 times per map)

Exp is doubled if the target is a commander (enemy bosses for attacks, Lord units for support)

Exp is doubled with the Paragon skill

I'm not totally sure on the numbers, but what would you think of such a system?

[null]

The main reason I choose classic most of the time is because it causes me to play more thoughtfully and carefully. For example, starting the series with normal/casual in Awakening taught me to just charge in without concern for the consequences since my units would never die (that and pair-up is really broken). Same with Fates.

But moving to the older titles where classic mode is the only option, like Path of Radiance and Blazing Blade, forced me to take my time and actually think about each movement I make, since one wrong decision could cause me to have to start over. That's not to say I haven't moved on despite losing a unit. I have, but I usually try to keep all of them alive if possible. I like that kind of difficulty, even if the actual difficulty I play on is usually normal.

That being said, if someone enjoys playing more on casual than classic, I think it's more important to actually enjoy what you're playing rather than get frustrated and quit because you're not having a good time. Options are always a good thing, and having casual mode be an optional mode for those who want it is great.

[Whisky]

22 minutes ago, twilitfalchion said:

That being said, if someone enjoys playing more on casual than classic, I think it's more important to actually enjoy what you're playing rather than get frustrated and quit because you're not having a good time. Options are always a good thing, and having casual mode be an optional mode for those who want it is great.

This is important to remember. I have only ever played on Classic mode and I like playing Ironmans, but the most important thing is to have fun. There is no right or wrong way to play. I’d recommend for people to try out Classic and Ironman runs, I find ironmanning a lot of fun (depending on the game), but I’m not saying that this is the right way to play the game. If it’s not for someone else then that’s fine, play the game however you want, but I’d suggest being open to playing the game in different ways if you haven’t tried it before to see if you enjoy it or not. 

[Jotari]

7 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Honestly, I would be game for such a system to be applied to experience in general. It would be neat if EXP were easily calculable - that could help inform whom I choose to get kills. Something like:

1 exp for combat where the foe takes damage

3/4/5 exp for defeating a foe of lower/same/higher level

1/2/3 exp for support magic (varies with the staff/spell)

2 exp for dancing (up to 5 times per map)

1 exp for rallying (again, up to 5 times per map)

Exp is doubled if the target is a commander (enemy bosses for attacks, Lord units for support)

Exp is doubled with the Paragon skill

I'm not totally sure on the numbers, but what would you think of such a system?

Well it's already simplified in that they display our exp as ranging from 0-100, compare to other games wherein experience starts off like that but goes into the thousands later on. And even if you look under the hood fire emblem probably works in a similar manner, the numbers displayed in bexp at least suggests that. I don't think going much lower than 100 would be anymore useful as already Fire Emblem does have certain scenarios where you gain only 1-3% exp and being able to scale down that low, especially for stringer units fighting weaker units is quite useful.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

11 hours ago, Jotari said:

Well it's already simplified in that they display our exp as ranging from 0-100, compare to other games wherein experience starts off like that but goes into the thousands later on. And even if you look under the hood fire emblem probably works in a similar manner, the numbers displayed in bexp at least suggests that. I don't think going much lower than 100 would be anymore useful as already Fire Emblem does have certain scenarios where you gain only 1-3% exp and being able to scale down that low, especially for stringer units fighting weaker units is quite useful.

That's a fair point; it could be hard to scale it properly, so that higher-level units don't quickly outpace your weaker allies (after all, the difference between needing 20 exp and 30 exp to level-up is... not a whole lot). Perhaps the exp needed could increase at a rate of more than just 1 per level? Say, +1 for the first 10 levels {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}, then +2 for the next 10 {12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30}, then +3, and so on. Still, that would undermine the intended simplicity of such a scheme (just look at your level, and you know what you need to promote), so IDK. The main point would be avoiding "guessing" games - like, will my Lv. 13 Myrmidon gain at least 27 exp by finishing off this Lv. 10 Mage? If not, could I feed the kill to someone else, who will level up? Stuff like that.

[Etrurian emperor]

On 8/20/2020 at 5:34 PM, ping said:

I considered adding that the interactions with Merlinus are my least favourite aspect of Roy's character.

Poor Merlinus has it rough. He's a combination of two shaky archetypes. 

He's the Clive who's always wrong and only serves to make the hero shine all the more. Though technically Merlinus came before Echoes Clive
And he's the Maladus who's the boring strategist type that just exists to give boring summaries of what's happening. 

[Samz707]

On 8/21/2020 at 2:58 AM, Maof06 said:

This game intrigued me. I will look for more about it.

Prepare for Russian Jank.

(It's on Steam as Marauder and it's actually on sale right now.)

While I wouldn't want this system to be the standard for FE (Since I actually really love what Echoes does with perma-death and that one moment in FE7 with Leila.) I'd not hate a casual-only game if there was simply some penalty for units being defeated that was significant.

FE simply doesn't feel balanced for casual, you can very easily cheese out maps in my experience if deaths don't matter, it's not quite like Men of War (or other strategy games.) where a single unit is effectively screwed on their own unless you're really good as outside of certain bosses, I'd say usually you will never lose absolutely everyone in a map. (and it'd be even worse in TH since apparently even Byleth/the lord can die and it keeps going.)

Strategy games kinda need some required strategy to be fun for me, even really easy maps can be fun if what I'm doing is a bit different (Such as locking down the bridge on that one map in Echoes with a single bridge in the middle) but if I can just throw my dudes at the enemy and win without any real thinking or camp a single spot in most/all of the maps, it's not particularly engaging or fun.

Again, me rushing fowards to secure the bridge in that one map in Echoes is fun, me literally camping on bushes 1 tile away where I spawn in Three Houses first optional battle and just spamming healing as the enemies rush foward and suicide on me isn't.

 

 

Edited August 22, 2020 by Samz707

[Perkilator]

Now that I think about it, Echoes' soundtrack (or at least, the remixes) should've mixed 8-bit sounds with Spanish-style melodies. It would be adding a Spanish flair to it while also reminding the player that this was once a Famicom game.

[Jotari]

17 minutes ago, Perkilator said:

Now that I think about it, Echoes' soundtrack (or at least, the remixes) should've mixed 8-bit sounds with Spanish-style melodies. It would be adding a Spanish flair to it while also reminding the player that this was once a Famicom game.

Should we add Russian marches to Path of Radiance while we're at it?

[Perkilator]

2 hours ago, Jotari said:

Should we add Russian marches to Path of Radiance while we're at it?

Okay, hilarious as that sounds, I said Spanish because that's the style they went with for the Brawl remix of With Mila's Divine Protection.

[Venger_06]

On 8/22/2020 at 6:21 PM, Samz707 said:

Prepare for Russian Jank.

(It's on Steam as Marauder and it's actually on sale right now.)

While I wouldn't want this system to be the standard for FE (Since I actually really love what Echoes does with perma-death and that one moment in FE7 with Leila.) I'd not hate a casual-only game if there was simply some penalty for units being defeated that was significant.

FE simply doesn't feel balanced for casual, you can very easily cheese out maps in my experience if deaths don't matter, it's not quite like Men of War (or other strategy games.) where a single unit is effectively screwed on their own unless you're really good as outside of certain bosses, I'd say usually you will never lose absolutely everyone in a map. (and it'd be even worse in TH since apparently even Byleth/the lord can die and it keeps going.)

Strategy games kinda need some required strategy to be fun for me, even really easy maps can be fun if what I'm doing is a bit different (Such as locking down the bridge on that one map in Echoes with a single bridge in the middle) but if I can just throw my dudes at the enemy and win without any real thinking or camp a single spot in most/all of the maps, it's not particularly engaging or fun.

Again, me rushing fowards to secure the bridge in that one map in Echoes is fun, me literally camping on bushes 1 tile away where I spawn in Three Houses first optional battle and just spamming healing as the enemies rush foward and suicide on me isn't.

I share your feelings about Echoes. It's a shame that you have to intentionally fuck up things to see these conversations.

[starburst]

On 8/22/2020 at 6:21 PM, Samz707 said:

I'd not hate a casual-only game if there was simply some penalty for units being defeated that was significant.

FE simply doesn't feel balanced for casual, you can very easily cheese out maps in my experience if deaths don't matter, it's not quite like Men of War (or other strategy games.)

Defeated units could be forbidden for three maps while they “recover” from their injuries. They could also lose all Experience points. Say, a unit that is defeated at Level 15 and has 73 Exp, would be at L15 and 0 Exp upon recovery. Even penalise Weapon Proficiency too.

People will always find ways to cheese any Casual deterrents, specially if the super mega Wheel keeps coming back, but it would at least set some penalties. Decisions must matter in strategy games.

[AnonymousSpeed]

Y'all talking like cheese is not inherent to these games.

[starburst]

36 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Y'all talking like cheese is not inherent to these games.

It depends: many LTC clears are elaborate puzzles worth watching, if anything for the novel use of resources. But, say, save-scumming through the magical Wheel is a meaningless cheese.

We have things in between, like making broken units even more broken and letting them carry the entire campaign, learning no new approaches; or turtling whole maps.

We can discuss how the game should correct these issues, then again, do players not know when they are abusing an exploit?
As I kid, I clearly remember being at the arcades and agreeing with challengers not to use certain broken mechanics, precisely to make the battle fairer. Or with family, agreeing not to use certain moves that trivialised simple games (like those Tiger ones.) We were mere children, and we knew what was fair and what was not.

[Alastor15243]

If your Fire Emblem game has too many mechanics to make a single-page unit info screen, you're probably overcomplicating things.

Christ am I going to miss the 3DS.

[starburst]

1 hour ago, Alastor15243 said:

If your Fire Emblem game has too many mechanics to make a single-page unit info screen, you're probably overcomplicating things.

Christ am I going to miss the 3DS.

We now use menus, mate. Tons of them. You are holding back the shining future.

[Shrimpica]

7 hours ago, starburst said:

Defeated units could be forbidden for three maps while they “recover” from their injuries. They could also lose all Experience points. Say, a unit that is defeated at Level 15 and has 73 Exp, would be at L15 and 0 Exp upon recovery. Even penalise Weapon Proficiency too.

 

What some other SRPG also do is give bonuses for surviving with every unit. Usually there are like 2-3 side objectives, and most of the time one of them is ''None of allied units retreat''

Some Maps also have gameover condition if any allied unit dies

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

On 8/29/2020 at 1:29 PM, starburst said:

We can discuss how the game should correct these issues, then again, do players not know when they are abusing an exploit?
As I kid, I clearly remember being at the arcades and agreeing with challengers not to use certain broken mechanics, precisely to make the battle fairer. Or with family, agreeing not to use certain moves that trivialised simple games (like those Tiger ones.) We were mere children, and we knew what was fair and what was not.

I would say there's a substantial difference in the matter of "fairness" between talking about player-player interactions, and player-computer interactions. To use Pokemon as an example - I wouldn't use a powerful legendary, like Mewtwo, in a battle with other people (unless the use of such Mons is explicitly permitted). But I'm not going to feel guilty over beating in-game NPCs with a totally stacked-out team. There's an argument that it's more enjoyable to forgo powerful tools, yes, but that's a practical argument, rather than an ethical one.

I, for one, don't feel bad about using a Divine Pulse to reset over, say, an 80% miss and 95% hit, and to then alter my turn order so I go with a 95% hit first, and an 80% hit next. Either way is a valid turn, one order is just more appealing to the Random Number Goddess than the other. I wouldn't use such a mechanic in PvP, though, especially if the other player is choosing to forgo said mechanic, because then I'd have an unfair advantage over a human opponent. Whom I can empathize with, more readily than a computer. Plus it'd likely be impractical, turns taking forever and whatnot.

[Jotari]

45 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

I would say there's a substantial difference in the matter of "fairness" between talking about player-player interactions, and player-computer interactions. To use Pokemon as an example - I wouldn't use a powerful legendary, like Mewtwo, in a battle with other people (unless the use of such Mons is explicitly permitted). But I'm not going to feel guilty over beating in-game NPCs with a totally stacked-out team. There's an argument that it's more enjoyable to forgo powerful tools, yes, but that's a practical argument, rather than an ethical one.

I, for one, don't feel bad about using a Divine Pulse to reset over, say, an 80% miss and 95% hit, and to then alter my turn order so I go with a 95% hit first, and an 80% hit next. Either way is a valid turn, one order is just more appealing to the Random Number Goddess than the other. I wouldn't use such a mechanic in PvP, though, especially if the other player is choosing to forgo said mechanic, because then I'd have an unfair advantage over a human opponent. Whom I can empathize with, more readily than a computer. Plus it'd likely be impractical, turns taking forever and whatnot.

OH wow. Imagine Turn Wheel in PVP. That would be bloody crazy.

[lenticular]

37 minutes ago, Jotari said:

OH wow. Imagine Turn Wheel in PVP. That would be bloody crazy.

I think it would be fine for local PVP or even online between friends. If you're playing with someone you know, it's easy enough to make house rules to limit its use, and I can definitely imagine circumstances where it could be useful, like to undo an accidental button press, or as part of a teaching game ("no, see, that doesn't work because I can do this in response; go back and try again"). Having it as a part of PVP with random matchmaking would be disastrous, though.