• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Dunal

  • Birthday 04/01/1993

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Fire Emblem Game
    Thracia 776

Member Badge

  • Members
    Rajaion (Wyvern)
  1. Canto's her class skill while Tormod's is Paragon (since they cannot be removed). They have the same base movement (6 > 7) and Celerity is definitely a high priority skill for Calill later on due to Canto. Enemy tier 2.5 classes have variable movement and skills. Axe Generals only have 5 movement for example but have innate Nihil and higher stats. While Lance/Sword Generals have 6 movement and Resolve/Fortune respectfully.
  2. CALILL If you're familiar with Fates she's basically Nyx. High offence and speed, shaky accuracy, low durability. However, Calill has rather great HP so she'll always avoid getting one-shot and does have decent evasion considering that she negates 'Focus' through Nihil. She's also the only mage in the game with 'Canto'. That's her selling point beyond offence. Being able to retreat to safety after attacking results in her frailness to be a minimal problem. Her RES is average but she does have almost full magic triangle control as well. Her main downside is still availability, but unlike the original game she shouldn't be too under-levelled when re-joining in late part 3. It helps that Soren and Ilyana have completely different niches; Soren being a buffer/artillery mage and Ilyana being a low-range tank.
  3. Enemies are really aggressive/threatening and you'll also be flanked each side by fliers. Some enemies also work like Conquest CH10 where they'll prioritise going for the defend point if unprotected (or attempting to kill someone who's on it). You do have a decent number of fliers to rotate around in order to deal with them, but you can't really focus on any particular area of the map. Occasionally Elincia/Leanne (Sacrifice) will be occupied with restoring sleep/silence as well. There's a lot going on (to the point where successfully going for bonus objectives/loot is incredibly tough -- Meteor!Calill is the "easy" way to cheese the map and even that's very high risk).
  4. 2-E is designed so that you basically need the Crimean Knights to swoop in and clear out enemies faster than they spawn. Ludveck is surrounded by Crossbows/Horseslayers so you can't cheese the map with a few units either. Ludveck himself has a Tempest Blade (that drops as well) with capped DEF, 96 HP, but low RES. Calill or Heather are essentially required to kill him (they have WTA keep in mind). There's also a miniboss on the map (bottom left) that has huge incentive to kill as well (drops Meteor) which you can then use to kill Ludveck over 5 or 6 turns (or less with Leanne). But you need to kill this sage before turn 5 otherwise you're running out of its uses. So even if you cannot get the Master Crown from Ludveck (the only one in the game until 3-12) then you can at least snipe the Tempest Blade (which is nice for Makalov in 3-9 if you grab it this way with Calill). Speaking of which, Makalov's niche is his biorhythm type plus insane growths (430% total which is fourth best in the game behind Elincia, Sanaki and Micaiah). As for Danved, you'll want to rescue drop him since there won't be much downside to doing so. Otherwise it's difficult enough to survive. Going to be a fun map, I promise! Volug and Nailah now have steal untransformed by the way. It does mean that in part 4 you'll have the option to steal on every map.
  5. Is Lowen "Good" experiment.

    You're missing the point. Lucius outperforms Canas in offense before promotion with a Lightning (and then are the same post-promotion IF Canas is doubling which he can only really do with Flux). However, Lucius can actually still double beyond his base tome so actually has an option to secure 1RKOing if need be. It's a pretty minor point since Shine doesn't appear until later (possibly around the time they're promoting) but the point is that it's essentially an immediate +4 ATK which counteracts Canas' ability to enable doubling slower enemies. Both are likely killing if doubling regardless since enemies (and their RES) are pretty bad in this game, but... ... clearly isn't true aside from the circumstance where Canas has promoted (early on) and Lucius hasn't. C isn't low. One rank away from using any staff except Fortify or Warp. Otherwise MAG is only other important factor for staves (movement aside) and Lucius doesn't exactly lack in that regard. Also the argument that "unit X is bad because I'm using Y" isn't a great one. You could easily argue that Canas is "bad" because Pent exists or that Marcus and/or other prepromotes can collectively stomp the game regardless. Spending a Guiding ring on Serra for example is purely preference for the long term and neither unit invalidates eachother. I'm not even advocating Lucius > Canas or vice versa, they're more-or-less even as far as units goes (same with Erk). One's a better player phase nuke and the other has some enemy phase potential with an earlier possible promotion. Either way comparing the two isn't strictly necessary since having two units that target RES isn't inherently flawed (in that sense you're getting more mileage from Lucius than you are Rebecca/Wil/Lyn for player phase purposes, who then ends up with utility later on... keep in mind that enemies barely have RES, so unlike the aforementioned Lucius or Erk etc... are dealing high damage no matter what). The former is hyperbole (if comparing to Rebecca/Lyn for example) since enemies usually either inaccurate or weak in this game. I don't really understand your latter point if we're strictly comparing him to Canas. Which is again, different from other units who target DEF instead. It doesn't help that Canas doesn't get an "upgrade" to Flux (meaning that his ATK increases quite slowly throughout the game in comparison -- no MAG on promotion either). Either way, you do understand that wasn't my whole argument to begin with. Regardless, Lucius =/= bad if that's what you're trying to argue. He's fairly decent overall. Same with Erk/Canas and they're all fairly interchangeable depending on what you value more (availability, damage/utility or bulk). Lucius himself might as well be an speedy archer who targets RES in context to how he's used (for player phase) as an absolute minimum (ignoring matchups against enemy magi and his possible 1-range against them, plus staff utility), which happens to be inherently more palatable than certain other units. Also, to go back on-topic, Lowen's pretty great just by virtue of being a cav. Maybe not quite as good as Sain/Kent (with Lyn mode) but not far off. Even Isadora is decent/good due to her class.
  6. Is Lowen "Good" experiment.

    I think the point being made is that "Lucius is bad because Light magic is bad" is a bit of a pitfall. Light vs. Flux is the difference in 3 MT which is pretty negligible since Lucius is doubling consistently before promotion whilst Canas isn't. Then after promotion in cases where Canas is doubling, their damage amount is pretty much the same (unless Lucius is using Shine, in which his will be higher) since Lucius has +3 MAG if both promote at LV15, while Lucius also gets C staves rather than E. What Canas has going for him is a level lead (possibility for an early promotion) and is bulkier (while also having Nosferatu as a situational option). Luna is incredibly niche since it weighs Canas down and enemies rarely have RES. And even then, both can be used (using Lucius + Canas is usually strictly better than say, Rebecca/Wil + Canas for example, in the context of a player phase unit) and you can use a Guiding Ring on Lucius for an immediate healer rather than promote Serra/Priscilla. Using two of Erk/Lucius/Canas is not inherently flawed.
  7. Conquest and FE7 has objectively the better designed hard modes IMO. Mostly because it actually feels like the game's design/balance was made with their harder modes in mind. I don't get that vibe from other FEs (from FE6's hard mode bonuses to certain units, or most of FE12's cast having considerably awful bases for what you're up against etc...). With that said, worst is going to be Awakening if you're discussing Lunatic (although its hard mode itself is too easy to break due to the game's mechanics -- there's never a middle ground when it comes to this game's difficulty... which is probably why Lunatic feels like the developer's desperation attempt to make the game difficult in the first place. Between pair-up mechanics and the EXP formula, there is never going to be a middle ground).
  8. I do plan on submitting this once again for a latter map. The candidates are likely to be either 1-8, 2-2 or 3-1. 1-E might not be the best candidate in terms of difficulty or length. Will probably end up being 1-8 (with all units auto-levelled) so the host has some degree of options as to who they want to use. Might depend on who that is though (and what they've played previously). As for an update, I will likely be delaying the next release until the FEE3 showing this year. Will be midway Part 3 along with plenty of changes to previous maps and balancing.
  9. Well then let's just agree to disagree since 'balance' and 'unfairness' are really not what I'm contesting at all. It wasn't perfectly balanced in FE7 and I'm not deputing that. I however wouldn't say it's intended to be 'unfair' either (and the core of its design) and it's missing the point I'm trying to make. I suppose the best way to summarize it was that heavy weapons were not designed to double on most units (without crippling slower units even more). While lighter weapons are only designed to double in the hands of high SPD units. Does that explain it? It's not "unfair" in that context since the intended design would be: What I am saying is that the mechanic was well designed (when balanced correctly) especially if undergone some further refining/tuning. It's intended design had good purpose. I have yet to see you really comment on its benefits or deputing that as opposed to picking apart specific balancing. In which, I'm not denying that those exist in some cases, but basing your entire argument on that is a bit short-sighted. I'm trying to look at both sides here (as in, I'm not denying it could use improvement) rather than discrediting it completely. If Three Houses chooses to adapt on it then that could be interesting assuming its balanced well. I'm just of the mind that the mechanic had its pros/cons and that it was well intentioned in order to boost slower units (regarding weapons that units are not typically meant to double with). Fates also had some good ideas to help resolve this, but by forcing slowing units to suffer the same penalties (such as someone like Arthur losing 5 AS with a Hand Axe, often causing him to be doubled). The more I think of it, the steel weapon model Fates used was really good though, and should have been used more. I wouldn't mind that mechanic being the entire basis for WT on weapons (reducing capability to double but not susceptibility to being doubled). Is that a fair assessment? The reason to bring this up is because Three Houses has the possibility of bringing the mechanic back. It's definitely worth discussing how the mechanic worked well in some cases instead of writing it off as objectively bad. It definitely was designed with a purpose -- not to be randomly "unfair" without any further context.
  10. @Shadow Mir Read my previous post... Hard focusing on the actual balance isn't really discussing the benefits of the mechanic (and/or the main factor to discredit it). And the only reason why I compared Florina/Dorcas is completely under the context of the slower unit not being made worse by heavy weaponry (allowing such units to exist in the first place -- Dorcas isn't a great unit, but he'd be so much worse in a game with no AS penalties). Whether it's him, or Heath, or Oswin etc... Is besides the point. The system isn't there to specifically penalize someone like Florina, it's more to make low SPD units better (by allowing them to use strong weaponry without them being doubled). Whether that was perfectly balanced in FE7 (it wasn't) isn't factoring why the system is there. Only that it's "unfair". Honestly, flat SPD penalties would work just the same if they worked like Steel Weapons in Fates. Where they only reduce your doubling capability rather than increasing the enemy's capability to double. It didn't technically reduce your SPD. CON works the same way in practice (or how it's intentionally designed). Isadora isn't exactly a good example since she's a perfectly decent unit that is actually rather well designed for a mounted (and/or prepromoted) unit. She's the worst Paladin (not really saying much due to the inherent quality of them) but that's only because of her availability. Her base SPD of 16 is +5 on Marcus while he has +5 CON. If it weren't for her availability (being the reason she's worse than others, especially Marcus) having +5 SPD is strictly better because it means she has higher AS with lighter weapons, but (at worst) the same AS with heavier weaponry (with her higher SPD growth creating a gap with heavier weaponry later on). Which is really the whole idea behind CON (stronger weapons being normalized between faster/slower units... with the faster units having the option to have often more offence with lighter weaponry, in return for potential retaliation damage on player phase...). Still, she's an above average unit so I really don't think her CON is a design flaw. It's more that the other paladins don't sacrifice enough to be mounted.
  11. All really based on individual balancing rather than arguing against the purpose for why CON exists or the benefits it inherently provides. Whether females are treated unfairly is besides the point (and often times untrue in the first place, because it counterbalances other statistics or is meant to -- IS didn't arbitrarily give units low CON without balancing other factors, with Florina being a good example). Most females are also statistically treated unfairly when it comes to STR or DEF as well (on average), but that isn't an inherit flaw with STR/DEF itself. And for the most part they're not. Units like Rebecca aren't bad because of her CON, but because her base SPD doesn't make up for it (only her growth does in the long term). Nino's higher SPD to make up for her CON is negated by her poor availability. Isadora vs. Marcus is a case of availability (where otherwise her SPD would counterbalance her CON really well). Florina vs. Heath may be a better example, but class doesn't matter in the context of the doubling mechanic and how weaponry effects that. Making low SPD units more viable is exactly what CON helps to accomplish, especially when tuned well (and don't get me wrong, CON/WT on each unit/weapon is not tuned perfectly, which is entirely what you're focusing on rather than the core of the mechanic). It helps them specialize in stronger weaponry without gutting their durability. The entire purpose of CON is exactly the same as flat weight except that it doesn't make slow units even slower (while also making weapon selection variable between each unit). You can argue as to whether you think females are treated unfairly, or Florina's CON is too low, or Heath's is too high, or X weapon is too heavy etc etc... And some of those may not necessarily be untrue (though still highly debatable since Florina is the better unit in the grand scheme of things)... but that's an entirely different debate. If you look at Awakening or Tellius, slower units are often bad because faster units can use literally any weapon they want and still double. Offensively, your faster units are much better as a result, and defensively your slower units get the short end of the stick because fast enemies with strong weapons will double them (keep in mind that CON affects enemies as well). CON was/is a rather elegant solution in making slower units comparatively viable by normalizing offense and durability (since AS affects both) by virtue of weapon selection. Fates had the next best solution by making some weapons impossible to double with (which only benefits slower units) but didn't have the nuance that CON could have with its design/balancing (not to say the execution was perfect in that regard). Fates was also still flawed in that "heavy" weapons (like steel weapons) punished slower units equally to faster ones. CON's objective on the other hand was to differentiate that (if ideally tuned). And CON isn't exactly perfect. A hard cap of -5 SPD would probably be fine. And lowering only AS (as opposed to avoid as well) might also work. Are there ways to improve it? Sure. But don't discredit the entire mechanic just because some units are affected more than others from it (which is often just part of their design). It's less of a punishment of faster units (since flat weight like FE3 or Echoes would affect them the same way more or less), but more of a boon to slower units (it doesn't crush their already low AS). However, slower units would still have the drawback of not being able to double with lighter weapons (meaning there's still obviously an advantage to having high SPD no matter what your CON is), making those more suited to faster units. Not when enemies are also weighed down a lot and Florina's SPD is so much higher than the average enemy where she'll still double most of them. And it's not a bad thing if she doesn't double all of them. Again, why is not doubling in some cases inherently bad design? Just because a unit doesn't double everything with a heavier weapon, doesn't make the system bad. Flat SPD penalities would do the exact same thing as well, just that the slower (but higher CON) units aren't screwed over by using the same weapon. Keep in mind that the difference here is that fast units being weighed down usually only effects their offense. While slow units being weighed down affects their durability. Now... you could argue "why not just buff the slower units" or even "why do slow units exist in the first place?" because A) It over-emphasises on how important SPD generally tends to be and B) It homogenises the design of each unit. Sure, you could just balance low AS units by giving ridiculous stats in other areas but that's a messy way of doing it. CON isn't necessarily the perfect solution at all, but it was a reasonably effective one, if not executed perfectly.
  12. Low CON is worked around by having higher SPD as a counterbalance (when tuned appropriately). Or selectively targeting slower enemies. Or securing kills with the stronger weapon (is it really the end of the world if a unit doesn't double with a particular weapon or against certain enemies?) Honestly the whole idea that units need to double to be good/useful has always been questionable design when it comes to FE (it's removing additional nuance or decision making while making low SPD units generally worse off). And saying that a mechanic is assumed to be flawed because it helps balance low SPD units vs. high SPD units (which is entirely what CON does) isn't really true either. Low CON doesn't need to be "worked around". It's like arguing that lower movement units cannot "work around" their lower movement compared to cavalry or fliers (when preferably there would be enough draw backs to having higher movement... not usually the case in GBA FE but that's discussing balance). Low CON units generally have high SPD + growth (and high SPD growth widens the gap between low SPD units as the game goes on, regardless of weapon usage -- Florina's AS with a Steel Lance widens compared to Dorcas with a Steel Axe for example, since the penalties remain almost static but her base AS increases much faster). Focusing on the balancing (for very specific weaponry) is still missing the point of why the mechanic exists in the first place. Those weapons are tied to individual units however so they don't have anything to do with how certain weapons effect units in regards to balancing SPD. Durandal might as well have the description "lower SPD by 7" because it's specific to Eliwood. Doesn't really have anything to do with CON or why the mechanic is there (nerfing high SPD). Wait, what? In Mystery of the Emblem a Steel Axe had a flat SPD penalty of -9 or Javelin had -20. I am speaking in the context of the -4 AS penalty I mentioned (for steels, in the example I gave which is pretty reasonable for FE7) should flat penalties exist once more. Under that context, the example I gave with Florina and Dorcas holds true. Dorcas becomes worse and Florina becomes a lot better. All flat penalties do is benefit high SPD units (since they also affect enemies keep in mind), while CON actually manages to even out the power level between both types of units by making slower units innately better with stronger weapons (this helps slower units be good outside of over-tuning their other stats). Florina is still a much better unit than Dorcas despite their CON because the mechanic is rather well balanced as a whole, with Florina still benefiting from using steels to finish off enemies on player phase or occasionally doubling slower units especially later on. Low CON obviously doesn't "screw over a unit" at all. In fact, lower movement is a far worse trait if we go by most games. I also don't understand how stat caps have much relevance in terms of balance when, if they are reached, are fairly overkill especially when it comes to SPD in FE7 (and only ever apply strictly in the lategame). Base SPD + growth are pretty consistently in favour of low CON units which is the main factor. Because Vaida doesn't double with any weapon (for the most part) vs. much faster units who double with most weapons (does Florina really have a problem doubling a lot of enemies with a Javelin by the time Vaida joins? Not really).
  13. I don't see how that's any different that saying "low STR is nothing but a handicap". Yes, having a low amount of something is a drawback of a unit. That's kind of the point. But it's a counterbalance to the SPD stat itself, which is inherently one of the most important or game-breaking aspects of FE (doubling your damage output or dodge tanking ad-infinitum it it's high enough). You're still focusing on the individual balancing (most of which you discussed) rather than the system itself, and the pros and cons of it. Florina is one of the most extreme examples when using a Steel Weapon (and it's arguable as to whether that actual numbers should be different) but it's counterbalanced by her SPD or other attributes like class/utility/availability. And using steels to secure kills is incredibly useful early on -- and when that's no longer needed to avoid damage, she can double a fair amount of enemies with it anyway (shortly past promotion and/or being a decent body ring candidate) mostly because FE7 enemies are slow. So despite being weighed down by a Steel, it's useful especially since it's barely more expensive than other cheap/common options. Slim Lance is also situational because it's weak, but might be her only option to double in some cases. Or Javelin similarly weighs her down a lot, but often having a 1-2 range equipped is better than not. Silver is "situational" because it's expensive -- same with Killer/Brave/Reaver which are limited in quantity. Either way, it doesn't take her long at all to mostly avoid being doubled with a Steel, so the trade-off is merely hitting harder for not doubling. Which is completely fair. What else would you expect in this case? Again, steel isn't a premium weapon like Killer or Silver, so a cheap/powerful option to double most enemies wouldn't be interesting. All it accomplishes is a buff to Florina... which is unnecessary. So what do you do? Nerf her STR to be balanced around doubling with a steel consistently? Nerf SPD to counteract the lower SPD loss? Nerf the HIT of steel weapon even further to still give it a legitimate drawback etc... Keep in mind that relative to enemy SPD and Florina's own SPD long-term, the numerical loss isn't even that detrimental, nor is it a bad thing that it often situational early on (like Iron, Steel is cheap and unlimited; this isn't a Silver Weapon situation like in Fates). However, that's still ignoring the point of the mechanic's existence. The advantage of the system is that low SPD units are not further penalised for already having a serious flaw (which is exactly what happens when weapons have a flat SPD penalty) which high SPD units (generally the better units in FE on average) have drawbacks in taking advantage of their SPD in terms of stronger weapon usage. That mitigates the huge power difference of unit archetypes of low/high SPD. Dorcas and Florina in the early/mid game usually have around the same AS when using a Steel Axe or Lance respectfully, but Florina still has the upper hand of being faster when using a different weapon like Iron or Silver (and since her SPD growth is higher, the gap in AS increases as the game goes on when using Steel). Meanwhile, if Florina and Dorcas both lost SPD on a steel weapon (let's say a flat -4), then Dorcas would then get doubled by a huge amount of enemies (he would have ~4 AS) in the mid game (Dracos can have 8-9 AS, Mercs with Steels would start doubling him as well). While Florina would have 12-14 AS and still double a lot of enemies. The viability gap becomes massive, since Florina is now dealing a lot of damage with not a lot of drawback, while Dorcas durability drops rather significantly unless he equips a weaker weapon. So it's pretty clear that in the context of FE7, CON is balanced rather well. In reverse, if we introduced CON/WT to Fates, and gave Arthur high CON, and Camilla lower CON to suffer ~5 SPD from a Steel Axe (while Arthur would not) then their base SPD difference suddenly becomes less prominent since they aren't playing by the same rules anymore with certain weapons. This diversifies weapon usage between these two units by making Arthur uniquely more viable with steel weapons (so he only needs to worry about HIT) while still giving the unit with higher SPD (or stats in general) a drawback for being innately stronger. What this accomplishes is having two units with very different SPD values that are closer in effectiveness based on weapon availability. Since high SPD is universally a powerful thing, this balances this out effectively. And that's really all the CON system is. The best way to summarise CON/WT is that it enables an actual (situational) penalty to having high SPD while allows you diversify SPD values (and weapon usage) without giving more heavy drawbacks to those latter units (like horrible STR, survivability or utility). Whether you feel that say, Florina's penalty with Steels or Canas with Nosferatu is too high is besides the point (helping to diversify units and/or tone down the prominence of SPD). Florina is allowed to have decent STR or other stats (while retaining high SPD as well) because of the drawback of CON. If CON didn't exist and her STR was lowered instead, then she'd be really weak with Slim/Iron just for the sole purpose of being 'balanced' with Steels, while Dorcas would need the opposite treatment; buffed SPD so Steel Axe isn't such a risk... which would just homogenise unit stats or make them uncharacteristic. Dorcas is specifically designed so that the only drawback of a Steel Axe is losing HIT, so he is encouraged to use the stronger weapon to hit hard (since he only attacks once even with a lighter weapon -- unlike Florina he gets minimal benefit). Of course, the exact numerical stats of each unit's CON or weapon WT can be debated as to what's too strong or weak (including for enemies), but that's got nothing to do with the pros/cons of the system itself. Especially when compared to flat SPD penalties which only cripple lower SPD units (especially in games where enemies are faster). That pretty much covers everything as to why I believe the mechanic is a positive one. How you agree is up to you; as to whether SPD diversity between units can be made more interesting. The doubling mechanic in FE could potentially be reworked altogether but with how the system has always functioned in the past (I don't see it changing much) then CON/WT has been the best system so far to counterbalance the stat the most effectively. Fates is second best, what with some weapons like Javelin disabling doubling to benefit slower units better.
  14. Radiant Dawn Gameplay Changes?

    Uh... Fair enough? I mean my point is that anything is possible, whether it's fan-made or by IS. Either way, this topic is about gameplay changes and it's unlikely that IS will release a remake any-time soon, so I'm just mentioning possibilities that the current engine has. There have certainly been some quirky mechanics in the series like critical coefficient. A coefficient that affects EXP isn't that absurd. Especially if viewable in-game as a statistic. Of course, the better solution in the context of FE10 would be to probably make them playable earlier if you moderately change the story to accommodate it. At least you can use them for a longer stretch of the game. There's just alternate solutions that are proven to be possible. Most other games in the series have a 'power' rating for each class in the game which also affects EXP. Soldiers and Thieves in GBA FE have a lower rating for this, so EXP for them is higher (but lower to units who kill them).
  15. Radiant Dawn Gameplay Changes?

    That's what I'm sure they were referring to though. Meg has good SPD (relatively speaking, hence "fast") but her movement is bad due to her class. Who says you can't? Nothing's a barrier in game design. I'm creating a hack that does exactly that; changing the EXP formula on individual units and how they interact with Paragon as well (including being a locked skill). Enemy EXP can be made higher on part 1 in general (to improve the EXP/level curve of the Dawn Brigade, while doing the opposite for the GMs in part 3). Tormod can actually become ~20/3 in part 1 if you mostly solo with him, with Vika/Muarim also gaining 30-50 EXP per kill (although Laguz EXP curve is reworked overall). Here is someone's Tormod after 1-E (most enemies on this map are ~LV5 Tier 2):