BwdYeti

FE7x: Immortal Sword - Part One Complete

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, BrightFlame said:

That's a weak argument. Anyone who has played fire emblem knows growth of characters is subjected to RNGesus.

It's not that people won't expect the RNG, it's that people won't consider other arguably more important factors, such as base stats and starting level, utility, challenges faced, supports, etc. 

Because of stat colouring, growths can also be calculated with a few playthroughs/a little crowd sourcing. Less data's needed if you don't need as exact an idea. However, yeah, character balance is good enough that in general you should be dropping redder units and keeping green ones. So you can find the growths, but not without getting a sense on how base stats and starting level (and other aspects of the unit) affect their performance. You'll also get a sense of some of the challenges these units will face (at least in the first half of the game). Basically, giving growths right away can easily give a false sense of what units will be like in the future, with so many other unknowns. 

Edited by deranger2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, deranger2 said:

Because of stat colouring, growths can also be calculated with a few playthroughs/a little crowd sourcing. Less data's needed if you don't need as exact an idea. However, yeah, character balance is good enough that in general you should be dropping redder units and keeping green ones. So you can find the growths, but not without getting a sense on how base stats and starting level (and other aspects of the unit) affect their performance. You'll also get a sense of some of the challenges these units will face (at least in the first half of the game). Basically, giving growths right away can easily give a false sense of what units will be like in the future, with so many other unknowns. 

Admittedly, this is why I'd still really love a fixed growth mode like in FE9. It would a pretty reasonable difficulty increase assuming enemies are balanced around average stats to begin with (particularly in part 2 when most units you'll be using at that point are likely those who are blessed to various degrees). Especially from a ranking perspective.

Otherwise, I suppose you could argue that since people are going to be able to figure out growths regardless, it doesn't matter if they are revealed or not. It is true however that people generally overvalue growths when it comes to initially evaluating units. +3 in a base stat is usually going to matter a lot more than a +20% growth for example.

Edited by Dunal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still not sold on it as a general difficulty thing. It definitely makes the game more puzzle like. When you can always use a certain tool to clear a certain challenge if you know they'll be exactly on their average, certain aspects become "easier" due to repeatability. Though yes, by nature of only keeping some units while dropping others, I can see it being on average a slight difficulty increase for general combat. I expect the creators won't have a fixed mode, due to wanting higher replayability. 

Especially from a ranking perspective.

Not sure what you meant by this? Ranking players against eachother? Just have them play a large enough number of ironmans and compare scores, if you can even get them to agree on the criteria.


Yeah, +20% is less than +10 (9.4) at end game for a lvl 1 trainee. So average of +5 for that unit tops, except that unit probably isn't a lvl 1 trainee, so half that again to 2.5%. Earlier stats are more helpful than late stats generally. And most units won't reach 20/20, some might gain hardly any levels. It all adds up.

Edited by deranger2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, deranger2 said:

 I expect the creators won't have a fixed mode, due to wanting higher replayability. 

It's an option though, just like how Lunatic / Lunatic+ is in some games. Thing is, it's a better option than to have an actual Lunatic mode in the context of 7x. Hard mode already has strong enough enemies based on the units/tools you have access to, and the balance is tuned well for it. Should another difficulty valve exist on top of 'Hard', then a fixed mode makes a lot of sense. It's a very healthy way to add additional difficulty based on how FE is usually played.

When it comes to part 2, either one of these things is going to be true:

1) Enemies/maps are balanced around average stats, so if you happen to have a lot of powerful, blessed units (that overcome the EXP curve) then the difficulty is potentially trivialized to a degree. This is bad for ranked, either by player comparison and/or satisfaction of getting perfect ranking. Suddenly the later parts of the game have completely different difficulty depending on RNG. Obviously, luck will always be a factor due to HIT/CRIT, but that's a different aspect altogether (incorporating a lot more decision making).

2) Enemies are balanced around multiple units being blessed or just being stronger than average. Meaning that those that are average become weaker than the aforementioned scenario. This makes it difficult to trivialize the difficulty, but also isn't very healthy for game balance.

Don't get me wrong, it's the same with all other FE games -- but most are easy regardless and/or do not have a ranking system. So it doesn't really matter if you have the opportunity to overpower the mid/late-game even more. 

 

Also, fixed mode has plenty of replayability. Strategies and unit combos can involve a lot more in-depth discussion because every player is playing on an even field (there's a reason why units are often discussed with average stats in mind). It then becomes a matter of decision making on any given run; how you allocate EXP/resources, unit usage, support combos etc... Which is great in a game with ranking. With that said, it also makes it very easy for the developers to test unit balance or get feedback on it, since average stats are going to yield the best data for that.

Just my perspective. I think it's a very underrated mode since in FE9, the game isn't really difficult enough for it to matter by default. And Maniac... just becomes tedious if you're not making use of overpowered units with really high offence to overcome the enemy bulk. It wasn't exactly the best environment for it in either circumstance. Therefore I understand why its often overlooked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, deranger2 said:

It's not that people won't expect the RNG, it's that people won't consider other arguably more important factors, such as base stats and starting level, utility, challenges faced, supports, etc. 


Because of stat colouring, growths can also be calculated with a few playthroughs/a little crowd sourcing. Less data's needed if you don't need as exact an idea. However, yeah, character balance is good enough that in general you should be dropping redder units and keeping green ones. So you can find the growths, but not without getting a sense on how base stats and starting level (and other aspects of the unit) affect their performance. You'll also get a sense of some of the challenges these units will face (at least in the first half of the game). Basically, giving growths right away can easily give a false sense of what units will be like in the future, with so many other unknowns. 

 

See but I've played plenty of fire emblem before. Pretty much anyone who's playing this has played plenty of fire emblem before. I know all these things already. I don't see how knowing the growths would change that. I wouldn't really say supports are more important than growths. Supports don't let me double units. Also I'd like to point out that Uther's team has 7 trainees. When it comes to most of them, you could argue that growths are more important, as they are going to be leveling up a lot, so it will account for a lot of their stats. I'm kinda getting sidetracked here though. The point is that revealing the growth rates of the characters would just be a nice convenience for the players, and I just think it's dumb to hide them. People are gonna figure them out eventually, so you might as well cut out the middle man and reveal them yourselves. It doesn't even have to be in the game or anything. They could release a text document for all I care. It wouldn't normally be that big of a deal, but becuse the game has so many trainees, who rely a lot on their growths to be good, I'd have liked to know them in advance. Like, had I known that Harken would be so Incredibly slow, I probably wouldn't feed him as much experience as I did, and maybe promoted Isadora and Cybil quicker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jonahtron said:

When it comes to most of them, you could argue that growths are more important, as they are going to be leveling up a lot, so it will account for a lot of their stats.

And those trainees level up quite quickly, so you can get a sense on their growths before they're even t1's.  

11 hours ago, Jonahtron said:

Like, had I known that Harken would be so Incredibly slow, I probably wouldn't feed him as much experience as I did, and maybe promoted Isadora and Cybil quicker.

Unless he's under leveled or below average, Harken will be doubling most Cohorts in 7 and probably all the fighters 7x (while Uther often can't). That means he's the closest to being able to one round both of those units with his huge str. That's a benchmark that growths can't tell you.

All this is to say that I get that knowing growths can theoretically help you plan better, but this isn't a game where some units are obviously better than others. Leveling up your units a few times will give you a rough estimate of growths, and unless you don't care about turns/rankings, every trainee will be getting a few levels. Also, growths can be more misleading than helpful about how useful a unit will be in the future to most players, so including the middle man of needing to ask or do some calculation to figure out growths is a good way to tend knowledge of growths towards those who will use them more correctly. 
So I'm not sure if you're arguing that players in general will use knowledge of growths correctly, or that the game's current way of conveying them is too vague/too much trouble. I find the colouring gives a good idea on both how units are supposed to turn out and why a given unit is over or under performing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Like, had I known that Harken would be so Incredibly slow, I probably wouldn't feed him as much experience as I did, and maybe promoted Isadora and Cybil quicker.

B- this is exactly why yeti doesn't want you knowing the growths. you devalue all the work harken puts in in the intermediate time because all you care about is the endgame

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16.11.2018 at 3:47 PM, Myke said:

B- this is exactly why yeti doesn't want you knowing the growths. you devalue all the work harken puts in in the intermediate time because all you care about is the endgame

Well, there WERE cases where knowing the character has good growths when it's not obvious is literally the only thing keeping them from reject pile - FE11 Wolf/Sedgar for example. Would you have even tried to use them, considering they are lvl3/1 prepromoted horsemen with about the same bases as Roshea (a Lvl 3 cav) and only very slightly better than Castor (who is a lvl 3 Hunter), without knowing how crazy their growth rates are? I wouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kruggov said:

Well, there WERE cases where knowing the character has good growths when it's not obvious is literally the only thing keeping them from reject pile - FE11 Wolf/Sedgar for example. Would you have even tried to use them, considering they are lvl3/1 prepromoted horsemen with about the same bases as Roshea (a Lvl 3 cav) and only very slightly better than Castor (who is a lvl 3 Hunter), without knowing how crazy their growth rates are? I wouldn't.

I mean,

A) people do use Wolf and Sedgar for their slightly better bases and because they're pre promotes, even when not relying on their growths.

B) If a unit has Wolf level growths cough Elle cough, you'll be able to see it from their first good level-up or two in conjunction with stats staying yellow. Or with their stats turning orange really quickly. 

C) No 7x unit is clearly worse than those around them other than maybe Fargus and that's not because of his stats, meh as they are, so use who you want or who's green. Unit balance is at least aimed for with play testing, and bases and growths aren't going to tell you enough, when so many other factors in chapter design and progression play a role. In general, easier to use units early will be harder to use later. So in this game at least, if the player is putting people in the reject pile before experimenting with them, that's on them. Doing well in this game isn't done easily by picking "top tier" characters, since the devs work towards eliminating that concept, in favour of looking at team dynamics and blessing. Using whoever is above average and can support well, in my many playthroughs, has yielded the best results me.

Interestingly, basically all the early pre-promotes somewhat resemble Wolf/Sedgar, with how bad their bases are for their level/tier and their above top tier growths. So they're more slightly ahead at the start and not as far behind during the mid-late game. Sort of another time when a lot of players would tunnel vision on good growths, not paying attention to how much slower exp gain is at high levels and how number of levels to utilize them and promotions remaining make an arguably larger difference. Average stats and estimates on where units will be in their progression are what really matter, and stat colouring and playing are the most holistic ways to portray that.

It is possible that knowing growths would help some players, but I don't think it will for the majority, with all the other unknowns. And for those that would be able to use them correctly, they can quite easily get estimates early on. Imo, the stat colouring is the correct amount of info to give.

Edited by deranger2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.