What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

[Seazas]

1 minute ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Pair up has been around longer than adjutants.

See, I get that my point sucks, but the point is supposed to be satirical. It sucks because it mirrors your point, which also sucks.

A mechanic isn't bad because it's a central mechanic which you are expected to utilize and interact with. It's not bad because it's new. The idea that the core ideas from the early games are more valid than core ideas from later games is arbitrary and dumb.

Except I don't even mind adjutants or Mila's Turnwheel. It's not because it's "new", it's a bad system I do not care for. And you're the one who made use older games since you needlessly brought up older and different systems to Pair up. Like the entire grid based gameplay. That was a terrible point.

[Ottservia]

Just now, Seazas said:

Except I don't even mind adjutants or Mila's Turnwheel. It's not because it's "new", it's a bad system I do not care for. And you're the one who made use older games since you needlessly brought up older and different systems to Pair up. Like the entire grid based gameplay. That was a terrible point.

Oh so just because you personally don’t like it that means it’s objectively bad? That sounds incredibly arrogant to me if you can excuse me being blunt

[Seazas]

1 minute ago, Ottservia said:

Oh so just because you personally don’t like it that means it’s objectively bad? That sounds incredibly arrogant to me if you can excuse me being blunt

When did I ever say pair up sucked as a system "objectively"? You do realize what thread we're on? It's unpopular opinions and since the topic was about pair up, I have my own opinion.

[Benice]

3 minutes ago, Seazas said:

Except I don't even mind adjutants or Mila's Turnwheel. It's not because it's "new", it's a bad system I do not care for. And you're the one who made use older games since you needlessly brought up older and different systems to Pair up. Like the entire grid based gameplay. That was a terrible point.

I don't get what's wrong with adding another layer of planning, though. I also like FE to be simpler and fast, but in my limited experience with pair-up in Fates, it works very well. It is concrete and not luck based, and you can plan your phase around utilizing the two different types of pairs. Similarly, they aren't needed to complete the game. It adds diversity to play styles, is relevant but not mandatory, but isn't pointless at all.

[AnonymousSpeed]

Just now, Seazas said:

Except I don't even mind adjutants or Mila's Turnwheel. It's not because it's "new", it's a bad system I do not care for.

Yeah, but you didn't say why, really.

You said it was unnecessary, but also that the game is centralized around it? Which is contradictory because the latter means that pair up is very much necessary for Fates's design.

Just now, Seazas said:

Like the entire grid based gameplay. That was a terrible point.

It's an extreme point, but it illustrates that a mechanic isn't bad because the game is built around it. The extremity is to demonstrate that your reasoning breaks very easily.

Just now, Seazas said:

And you're the one who made use older games since you needlessly brought up older and different systems to Pair up.

Technically, you mentioned older games first. You said the grid has been around since day 1- very true, but I had merely said it was central to the gameplay.

[Ottservia]

7 minutes ago, Seazas said:

When did I ever say pair up sucked as a system "objectively"? You do realize what thread we're on? It's unpopular opinions and since the topic was about pair up, I have my own opinion.

“It’s a bad system, I do not care for” that sounds pretty objectivist to me. If you don’t mean to imply objectivity then don’t use such objectivist language. The moment you start trying to justify your “opinion” with logical reasoning and evidence then it becomes more than just an opinion. It becomes an actual argument that can and will be proven wrong.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Ottservia

[Florete]

27 minutes ago, Seazas said:

I don't care for it and the general meta that centers around pair up 100% being optimal.

Unless you're talking about the overall pair up + stance system, pair up is absolutely not 100% optimal in Fates. When I played on Lunatic I'd typically only have one or two pairs, if any, because every pair sacrifices offensive power via attack stance.

4 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

“It’s a bad system, I do not care for” that sounds pretty objectivist to me. If you don’t mean to imply objectivity then don’t use such objectivist language. The moment you start trying to justify your “opinion” with logical reasoning and evidence then it becomes more than just an opinion. It becomes an actual argument that can and will be proven wrong.

While I don't agree with Seazas's opinion on pair up, this topic is made for such statements and calling him out like this seems rather unfair. Voicing disagreement is definitely fair game, but let people say what they want to say.

[Seazas]

15 minutes ago, Benice said:

I don't get what's wrong with adding another layer of planning, though. I also like FE to be simpler and fast, but in my limited experience with pair-up in Fates, it works very well. It is concrete and not luck based, and you can plan your phase around utilizing the two different types of pairs. Similarly, they aren't needed to complete the game. It adds diversity to play styles, is relevant but not mandatory, but isn't pointless at all.

Adjutants add another layer of planning, especially if realized and is still optional. I can't do that with Fates, my playstyle forces pair up on me since I cannot keep a unit close to another without them being involved. I also just... greatly dislike the system's animations and effect on  the game balance. Specifically when enemies are anywhere near each other, pair up with potential buffs or anything still happens on the enemy side. 

8 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

“It’s a bad system, I do not care for” that sounds pretty objectivist to me. If you don’t mean to imply objectivity then don’t use such objectivist language. The moment you start trying to justify your “opinion” with logical reasoning and evidence then it becomes more than just an opinion. It becomes an actual argument that can and will be proven wrong.

It's clearly opinionated and taking it immediately that I'm trying to force it as fact is unnecessary. Especially when I don't use any words like "objective" and arguing a quality of something is always subjective since someone else will enjoy it. Especially on video games and this is a thread centered around opinions, not facts or what the majority will agree on in terms of what makes a game good. I can state what I desire, as long as I'm not insulting you, calling me out over this is silly.

13 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Yeah, but you didn't say why, really.

You said it was unnecessary, but also that the game is centralized around it? Which is contradictory because the latter means that pair up is very much necessary for Fates's design.

It's an extreme point, but it illustrates that a mechanic isn't bad because the game is built around it. The extremity is to demonstrate that your reasoning breaks very easily.

Technically, you mentioned older games first. You said the grid has been around since day 1- very true, but I had merely said it was central to the gameplay.

I have to constantly justify subjective stuff like an opinion...really? I simply find it terrible and unnecessary. 

Pair up is a major part of Fates design to the point it affects unit placement and if an enemy is near another enemy and gets buffed. Oops! That planned strategy to barely kill the enemy is at risk of being moot. That's not counting the system where an enemy automatically blocks it with certain requirements.

Technicalities are technicalities. You directly brought up an older unrelated system as a rebuttal. Which doesn't count since the grid system is central part of Fire Emblem as a whole since the beginning. I find the other systems you brought up as comparison just better all around.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Seazas

[Benice]

2 minutes ago, Seazas said:

Adjutants add another layer of planning, especially if realized and is still optional. I can't do that with Fates, my playstyle forces pair up on me since I cannot keep a unit close to another without them being involved.

Yes, that is very fair. If they had a setting to enter Attack stance instead, the system would definitely be improved. (Granted, I personally don't have a problem with other units chipping in, but that's playstyle.)

[Seazas]

8 minutes ago, Benice said:

Yes, that is very fair. If they had a setting to enter Attack stance instead, the system would definitely be improved. (Granted, I personally don't have a problem with other units chipping in, but that's playstyle.)

Exactly, I try to bring a strong physical unit directly in front of a squishy magic tanking archer. My playstyle mostly being bait and punish with a switch up occasionally. But when pair up gets involved. There's a slew of buffs, debuffs and worry that I won't get the kill or even land a damned hit because the enemy could just jump in front and tank it. The system is not for me and my playstyles. I especially love keeping units close and potentially building support or abusing support bonuses in general that usually increase my unit's stats.

The animations also take me out of my immersion. You're telling me that a smaller cleric girl can leap in front of a sword and block it for "zero damage" when the fully armored unit would've took some damage otherwise? Also seeing badasses or very emotional people immediately running with their tail between their legs when their paired up ally gets struck down is terrible for me.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Seazas

[Shrimpica]

1 minute ago, Seazas said:

But when pair up gets involved. There's a slew of buffs, debuffs and worry that I won't get the kill or even land a damned hit because the enemy could just jump in front and tank it.

That's an extra layer of complexity. That, and ''enemy jumping infront'' isn't random in Fates. There's a guard gauge. You can calculate when it will happen.

2 minutes ago, Seazas said:

The animations also take me out of my immersion

>FE Animations
>Realistic

[AnonymousSpeed]

6 minutes ago, Seazas said:

I have to constantly justify subjective stuff like an opinion...really? I simply find it terrible and unnecessary.

You gotta get some new words, man.

I wouldn't ask you to justify it, but you invited an argument by saying more than your peace.

6 minutes ago, Seazas said:

Pair up is a major part of Fates design to the point it affects unit placement and if an enemy is near another enemy and gets buffed.

I mean, God forbid a mechanic affect how you position units in a game about positioning units.

6 minutes ago, Seazas said:

Which doesn't count since the grid system is central part of Fire Emblem as a whole since the beginning.

Why shouldn't it count though? Is the grid special because of seniority? When you assess how a game and its component mechanics function, that is independent of how its predecessors and their component mechanics function.

1 minute ago, Seazas said:

Exactly, I try to bring a strong physical unit directly in front of a squishy magic tanking archer. My playstyle mostly being bait and punish with a switch up occasionally. But when pair up gets involved. There's a slew of buffs, debuffs and worry that I won't get the kill or even land a damned hit because the enemy could just jump in front and tank it.

If you just don't like it because it's a difficult system to work with, that's fine. Pair up can be dauntingly complicated, but you didn't say that. Enemy guard gauge is very easy to plan around, though, and it usually starts empty.

The animations are dumb though yeah. I play with them off, it makes things go faster. Very nice.

[Ottservia]

3 minutes ago, Florete said:

While I don't agree with Seazas's opinion on pair up, this topic is made for such statements and calling him out like this seems rather unfair. Voicing disagreement is definitely fair game, but let people say what they want to say.

I’m not saying he’s not allowed to voice his opinion just that he’s voicing it in such a way that implies objectivity whether he means to do so or not. Just because you say something as your opinion doesn’t magically protect you from people correcting you on things you said that are provably incorrect. To say you simply don’t like pair-up is one thing but to say pair up is a “bad mechanic” is another. One implies simply an opinion while the other is an actual argumentative claim that can be proven right or wrong because it uses objectivist language. Fact is he said “pair up is bad mechanic because it goes against my personal playstyle”. Calling it “bad” implies objectivity inherently and but the reason given is inherently subjective. The mechanic is not “bad” because it goes against his personal playstyle because that’s completely subjective. Sure he may not like it but that reasoning is simply irrational and illogical.

[Seazas]

17 minutes ago, Shrimperor said:

That's an extra layer of complexity. That, and ''enemy jumping infront'' isn't random in Fates. There's a guard gauge. You can calculate when it will happen.

>FE Animations
>Realistic

It doesn't suit my playstyle and I don't LIKE the system. I don't care for that "specific layer" and is why I prefer adjutants since they're optional and a choice for the player. Pair up completely changes the balance in a way I personally don't find appealing. My point was proven correct that pair up is not some avoidable system that I can just turn off or simply work around. It should not be a mainstay lmao.

That's a terrible excuse. Clerics and plenty of mages are known for needing to be protected by armor units or units that can actually take a hit. Seeing the units I'm supposed to protect doing a better job at tanking than my actual tank units with the guard guage really gets me out of it. Also, the character battle animations do at least reflect their character since they're just fighting + character defining battle quotes, not randomly turning tail unless absolutely required in the narrative. Seeing Corrin run away as their child gets struck down in the pair up system is terrible and makes Corrin look like a jackass than this "all loving mother/father".

14 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

You gotta get some new words, man.

I wouldn't ask you to justify it, but you invited an argument by saying more than your peace.

I mean, God forbid a mechanic affect how you position units in a game about positioning units.

Why shouldn't it count though? Is the grid special because of seniority? When you assess how a game and its component mechanics function, that is independent of how its predecessors and their component mechanics function.

If you just don't like it because it's a difficult system to work with, that's fine. Pair up can be dauntingly complicated, but you didn't say that. Enemy guard gauge is very easy to plan around, though, and it usually starts empty.

The animations are dumb though yeah. I play with them off, it makes things go faster. Very nice.

"Invited an argument" by saying it's a bad system in an opinion thread. I didn't claim it was objective nor go into detail. It was easily ignorable or an "agree to disagree" situation.

Not all mechanics are magically good just because they affect the gameplay, what is that logic? Or some unit affecting systems and some map designs that affect your unit and their placements wouldn't be criticized.

I find the grid system better functioning since it lays the foundation for literally everything else in Fire Emblem in a smooth and clean manner. 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Seazas

[Florete]

4 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

I’m not saying he’s not allowed to voice his opinion just that he’s voicing it in such a way that implies objectivity whether he means to do so or not. Just because you say something as your opinion doesn’t magically protect you from people correcting you on things you said that are provably incorrect. To say you simply don’t like pair-up is one thing but to say pair up is a “bad mechanic” is another. One implies simply an opinion while the other is an actual argumentative claim that can be proven right or wrong because it uses objectivist language. Fact is he said “pair up is bad mechanic because it goes against my personal playstyle”. Calling it “bad” implies objectivity inherently and but the reason given is inherently subjective. The mechanic is not “bad” because it goes against his personal playstyle because that’s completely subjective. Sure he may not like it but that reasoning is simply irrational and illogical.

You're not wrong, but you're talking like he shouldn't be voicing his opinion in a topic about voicing opinions. How he worded it shouldn't matter when the context of being in this topic should be enough to make it clear that it's an "unpopular opinion." When the topic title is "What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?" we shouldn't need every post to start out with "in my opinion."

What I'm saying is, arguing with what someone says is fine. But let them say it.

[Ottservia]

Just now, Florete said:

You're not wrong, but you're talking like he shouldn't be voicing his opinion in a topic about voicing opinions. How he worded it shouldn't matter when the context of being in this topic should be enough to make it clear that it's an "unpopular opinion." When the topic title is "What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?" we shouldn't need every post to start out with "in my opinion."

What I'm saying is, arguing with what someone says is fine. But let them say it.

It wouldn’t bother me so much if he didn’t keep trying to use the opinion card as a shield to deflect criticism of his argument. He claims to not have said his claim as objective but he’s clearly using objectivist language and actual argumentive reasoning to back up his points. That is an argumentative claim if I’ve ever seen one. It doesn’t matter what he said or what his opinion is. The fact is he’s making a claim and trying back it up with logical reasoning. But when people try to criticize it he hides behind the opinion card as if he wasn’t making an argument at all when he very clearly was.

[AnonymousSpeed]

2 minutes ago, Seazas said:

"Invited an argument" by saying it's a bad system in an opinion thread. I didn't claim it was objective nor go into detail. It was easily ignorable or an "agree to disagree" situation.

Yeah, but people responded saying they disagreed and you responded.

2 minutes ago, Seazas said:

Not all mechanics are magically good just because they effect the gameplay, what is that logic? Or some unit affecting systems and some map designs that affect your unit and their placements wouldn't be criticized.

No, but you seemed upset that pair up affected how you played. Your argument came off as complaining that you had to interact with the mechanic rather than complaining about specific issues with it.

2 minutes ago, Seazas said:

I find the grid system better functioning since it lays the foundation for literally everything else in Fire Emblem in a smooth and clean manner. 

There we are. That's a good reason. It doesn't lay the foundation for literally everything else- combat doesn't involve the move stat, though I guess terrain is involved. But it's pretty cool.

5 minutes ago, Seazas said:

That's a terrible excuse. Clerics and plenty of mages are known for needing to be protected by armor units or units that can actually take a hit. Seeing the units I'm supposed to protect doing a better job at tanking than my actual tank units with the guard guage really gets me out of it.

"Narrative"-gameplay segregation like that has been around forever, though. Mechanics in games are inherently abstract, which is good because reality is a mess. Promotion is kind of weird, there's no given reason why seals let you class change or why you lose and gain weapon proficiency on reclass/promotion. Is it weird to see a cleric intercept an attack for an armor knight? I mean, I guess, but I wouldn't say it's more weird than giving people boots and then they can move further, even though they aren't wearing the boots as far as you can tell.

[Seazas]

32 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

It wouldn’t bother me so much if he didn’t keep trying to use the opinion card as a shield to deflect criticism of his argument. He claims to not have said his claim as objective but he’s clearly using objectivist language and actual argumentive reasoning to back up his points. That is an argumentative claim if I’ve ever seen one. It doesn’t matter what he said or what his opinion is. The fact is he’s making a claim and trying back it up with logical reasoning. But when people try to criticize it he hides behind the opinion card as if he wasn’t making an argument at all when he very clearly was.

You're the one who jumped to conclusions and made those claims. Naturally I'm going to have to make it clear that it's my opinion especially when you tried to call me "arrogant" over your assumptions.

31 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Yeah, but people responded saying they disagreed and you responded.

No, but you seemed upset that pair up affected how you played. Your argument came off as complaining that you had to interact with the mechanic rather than complaining about specific issues with it.

There we are. That's a good reason. It doesn't lay the foundation for literally everything else- combat doesn't involve the move stat, though I guess terrain is involved. But it's pretty cool.

"Narrative"-gameplay segregation like that has been around forever, though. Mechanics in games are inherently abstract, which is good because reality is a mess. Promotion is kind of weird, there's no given reason why seals let you class change or why you lose and gain weapon proficiency on reclass/promotion. Is it weird to see a cleric intercept an attack for an armor knight? I mean, I guess, but I wouldn't say it's more weird than giving people boots and then they can move further, even though they aren't wearing the boots as far as you can tell.

I find it tedious and a chore to interact with. It's not even something I brought on myself since the attempted counterarguments in defense of pair up literally just proved that pair up is a big part of Fates and isn't something you can just ignore and move past. Enemy units are commonly near each other and if I want to build support or abuse support bonuses to increase one's stats, pair up is forced on me through the enemies or my own units. Usually both. Adjutants are better purely for being optional while bringing others who would've been benched in a fairly interesting and justifiable way. People rightfully find say... cantors a terrible mechanic despite them affecting your unit placement and strategy. Desert maps and poison swamps as well. Pair up changes the gameplay and strategy in a way I don't jive with. I already have to plan for the buffs, debuffs, stats, weapons and the skill system, that's more than enough especially when Fates added entirely new classes and an entirely new weapon triangle. Along with SO MANY debuff skills and debuff weapons that I have to look out for since it's unavoidable. Pair up just throws an unnecessary wrench in a playstyle I greatly enjoy doing. 

There is zero excuse of the characters completely breaking character and running for the hills. Even bosses, monstrous foes and many who wouldn't actually do that adhere to the shitty pair up animations anyways. I hate it and further takes me out of the system and immersion. 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Seazas

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

4 hours ago, Seazas said:

Pair up is a trash mechanic, a fleshed out adjutant system is better.

Do you always “invite an argument” by saying something is trash? I´m sure that´s a cool way of starting a calm conversation about anything. Because to me it looks plain inflammatory (which I guess means you baited successfully).

I´m curious but what game has a fleshed-out Adjutant system? What layer of planning do Adjutants add in FE:TH? Adjutant-Follow-Up is chance based, Adjutant Guard calculates damage reduction percentage based and Adjutant Healing is limited in its uses – not to mention it´s amount of HP restored. I no way does the game explain what it does with its Adjutants, nor does it mention its chances no?

I could not find much in this regard but what other games are as upfront with how it´s supports mechanics work as Fates?

Aren´t mechanics that allow for more options in how to play the game normally seen as good?

Nitpick: Your lack of understanding what Guard Stance and Attack Stance are, is showing.

[Jotari]

2 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

FE day 1 also had it so you couldn't promote knights, which was not a strictly necessary addition later on. Stat caps above twenty aren't really either.

I uh, wouldn't really object if we go back to that every now and then. Makes stuff like Luna more usable.

[Seazas]

6 minutes ago, Imuabicus said:

Do you always “invite an argument” by saying something is trash? I´m sure that´s a cool way of starting a calm conversation about anything. Because to me it looks plain inflammatory (which I guess means you baited successfully).

I´m curious but what game has a fleshed-out Adjutant system? What layer of planning do Adjutants add in FE:TH? Adjutant-Follow-Up is chance based, Adjutant Guard calculates damage reduction percentage based and Adjutant Healing is limited in its uses – not to mention it´s amount of HP restored. I no way does the game explain what it does with its Adjutants, nor does it mention its chances no?

I could not find much in this regard but what other games are as upfront with how it´s supports mechanics work as Fates?

Aren´t mechanics that allow for more options in how to play the game normally seen as good?

Nitpick: Your lack of understanding what Guard Stance and Attack Stance are, is showing.

I was speaking in hypotheticals regarding the system. If it received an opportunity to improve itself like pair up did, I'm sure it'd be a lot better for many who don't care for it. And I find it better purely because it's optional and not another gimmicky mechanic shoved down my throat like pair up is.

Not EVERY mechanic that changes up the gameplay is good, why do people keep claiming this? If that was the case, anything that mixed up the way someone played would be good like Cantors. I find pair up a tedious chore and I do not care for it.

And saying something is terrible is fine, especially in a thread that's all about sharing "hot takes" and "unpopular opinions" it's not objective and you aren't wrong for immediately disagreeing. 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Seazas

[AnonymousSpeed]

1 hour ago, Seazas said:

I find it tedious and a chore to interact with. It's not even something I brought on myself since the attempted counterarguments in defense of pair up literally just proved that pair up is a big part of Fates and isn't something you can just ignore and move past.

Having to interact with a game mechanic does not make it bad. You keep acting like that's somehow a drawback instead of something mechanics are generally supposed to do.

You can not like a mechanic but your argument against it can't be that it's there.

1 hour ago, Seazas said:

People rightfully find say... cantors a terrible mechanic despite them affecting your unit placement and strategy. Desert maps and poison swamps as well.

Yeah, because those things are tedious to deal with. Having tons of monsters to fight slows you down, desert and poison slow you down, but pair up enables you to go further ahead than you otherwise could. You rightly assess that impacting movement doesn't make a mechanic good, but remember that it doesn't make it bad either.

1 hour ago, Seazas said:

There is zero excuse of the characters completely breaking character and running for the hills. Even bosses, monstrous foes and many who wouldn't actually do that adhere to the shitty pair up animations anyways. I hate it and further takes me out of the system and immersion. 

1 minute ago, Jotari said:

I uh, wouldn't really object if we go back to that every now and then. Makes stuff like Luna more usable.

I wouldn't either, actually. I don't much care for Luna or its particular usability but lower stats and growths overall keeps things more restrained.

[Seazas]

18 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Having to interact with a game mechanic does not make it bad. You keep acting like that's somehow a drawback instead of something mechanics are generally supposed to do.

You can not like a mechanic but your argument against it can't be that it's there.

Yeah, because those things are tedious to deal with. Having tons of monsters to fight slows you down, desert and poison slow you down, but pair up enables you to go further ahead than you otherwise could. You rightly assess that impacting movement doesn't make a mechanic good, but remember that it doesn't make it bad either.

I wouldn't either, actually. I don't much care for Luna or its particular usability but lower stats and growths overall keeps things more restrained.

Having to constantly interact with a terrible mechanic isn't exactly going to make the appeal skyrocket but whatever. Still find it terrible and shoving it down my throat will not help with such matters. As stated before, I prefer adjutants for this very reason since it doesn't bend a lot of the game's balance to significantly include pair up.

Which is just your subjective take like how pair up being an unnecessary nuisance is my own subjective opinion. It's a waste of resources and effort that can go to other things.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Seazas

[Samz707]

 

5 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Pair up has been around longer than adjutants.

See, I get that my point sucks, but the point is supposed to be satirical. It sucks because it mirrors your point, which also sucks.

A mechanic isn't bad because it's a central mechanic which you are expected to utilize and interact with. It's not bad because it's new. The idea that the core ideas from the early games are more valid than core ideas from later games is arbitrary and dumb.

Well, they are though? if they're still around that (usually) means they're solid mechanics that work well (Usually anyway.), something new inherently is arguably less valid because it could not work, (Like the Three Houses Monestary, which feels like an unfinished Alpha that was rushed in which is kinda bad for the literal selling point new feature.) it could work but I've definitely played games with new mechanics in a series that I've felt "Yeah I'm not going to ever miss this if it never ever comes back.", by the nature of being new they aren't as tried and tested as old mechanics.

 

5 hours ago, Benice said:

I don't get what's wrong with adding another layer of planning, though. I also like FE to be simpler and fast, but in my limited experience with pair-up in Fates, it works very well. It is concrete and not luck based, and you can plan your phase around utilizing the two different types of pairs. Similarly, they aren't needed to complete the game. It adds diversity to play styles, is relevant but not mandatory, but isn't pointless at all.

For me, Pair-up just adds trial and error in Awakening. (and I hate trial and error in strategy games, alot.)

You can only check Dual Strike/Dual Guard stats with the "full" interface and when attacking on YOUR turn, there is no way to check it if you have the simple interface and if there's no enemy in range, which actually means you have to pair up before you can potentially see the chances of it, got two dudes paired up and and a Wyvern is going to attack them next turn flying across half the map? no way of actually predicting if you'll get extra damage/completely avoid damage, which are both kinda things that I consider very important to actually know.

Even when it doesn't screw me over, it frequently wastes weapon durability if the Support partner can't actually do any decent damage to the target due to weapon triangle/damage values. (And probably switches weapon too, since Units with a ranged weapon in their inventory but not equipped still has Dual-Strike chance when I have them paired with a ranged unit, meaning.) so I essentially have to account for a bunch of attacks I didn't actually call for when it comes to weapons breaking, in a game where I can waste a decent amount of in-game money to upgrade weapons that I normally can't repair. 

Secondly, it actually so far has made Support bonuses an active downside for me, Lets say Vaike is holding down a 2 tile hallway with  let's say, Lon'qu  on the other tile, Vaike will get dual strike/guard chance even if unpaired up since even units who aren't paired up but next to each other do these, Vaike can survive being hit once for whatever reason (Already injured from a previous turn or enemies simply hitting that hard), and while the dude coming for him is too far away for me to actually see the combat forecast, I can reasonably presume he'll survive one hit and have a healer heal the more injured Lon'qu next to Vaike before another enemy attacks him, since the enemy who will attack him will block off his other melee-only dudes behind him from attacking Vaike, hence I can take time to heal him,  I have absolutely no way of predicting if Vaike will get a Dual strike or Dual Guard, so when Dual Strike DOES kick in and Vaike dies since now the enemy behind the enemy Lon'qu just killed can now attack him, this situation has happened to me way, way more times in Awakening than I'd like, Dual Strike has only given the enemies cheap kills on my units via stats I couldn't see, since you can only see the chances in the Combat Forecast. (And each character has different chances of Dual Strike/Dual Guard in my experience so it's not even like the chances are the same for everyone.), it made Chapter 6 in Awakening a god damn nightmare til I lucked out and no one got any dual strikes for the most part.

It's such a terrible "Assist" to the player that it actively harms you that a successful play through of a level actually hinged on it not triggering for me.

I have no way of seeing the numbers if I can't attack the enemy on the same turn (and for the longest time since I was using the simple HUD, I had no way, at all.) and my chances of getting screwed over in this way will actually increase the more support bonuses I have, it takes what is supposed to be a positive and actually manages to make it an objective downside for me, since now I can get killed since I can no longer predict if enemies will block off their allies easier, at least Critical Hits I can predict due to stats actually on the stat sheet/weapon type, it's bad enough to the point where I'm considering never doing supports til my units manage to get OP stat-wise since it's almost never actually helped me in a way that didn't get me killed on the same enemy phase.

With other controversial mechanics, like deserts (mostly) and Swamps or Cantors, I can predict them, I can actively plan around them since I know they'll function the exact same way, Cantors will always spawn more units after a turn or two, Deserts and swamps always slow down my units. (And weapons don't break in Echoes so it's not like Cantors potentially  break all my weapons.)

So yeah, it's actually made supports increase the chances of my units dying by stats that I can't see half the time.

Not to mention the fact it's annoying since Awakening already has lower unit caps for chapters than Fe7 and cutting those in half means I'm essentially controlling 6 units at most half the time.

 

 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Samz707

[Jotari]

2 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Having to interact with a game mechanic does not make it bad. You keep acting like that's somehow a drawback instead of something mechanics are generally supposed to do.

You can not like a mechanic but your argument against it can't be that it's there.

Yeah, because those things are tedious to deal with. Having tons of monsters to fight slows you down, desert and poison slow you down, but pair up enables you to go further ahead than you otherwise could. You rightly assess that impacting movement doesn't make a mechanic good, but remember that it doesn't make it bad either.

I wouldn't either, actually. I don't much care for Luna or its particular usability but lower stats and growths overall keeps things more restrained.

Well so long as enemies scale appropriately stat inflation doesn't really make that big a difference (much like money). Lower stats however does make it much easier for more newly recruited units to catch up. It also increases the potency of stat boosters (which by and large haven't been scaled with stat inflation).