Fire Emblem Binding Blade: Rebirth [In development]

[eclipse]

Man, what happened while I was out? ;/

Yeah, you can't just link 20+ chapters worth of video and tell people that's where they'll find their answer. Generally you should be able to express your point in a more succinct fashion, particular on an internet forum.

If you read through the topic, not only does he link the videos, he'll also provide brief explanations about the new stuff that shows up, whether it be characters or weapons. I had no problems following his thought process through the comments accompanying the videos. (sorry this bugged me enough to respond to it)

Now, back to the topic at hand. . .

TC, what exactly is your idea of a "good" FE game, and why is it "good", in your opinion? There will be some disagreement no matter what you do, but I'd like to see the driving force behind this topic.

(speaking of, it's in the wrong place; once you have a patch up, smack me, and I'll move it back)

[Dunal]

All you're doing is making high growth units become the best choice for lategame over high base units. That's not balancing anything, it's simply changing the dominant strategy.

By lowering growths overall, how am I doing that? Most tier 1 units now have ~250% total growths, so Alan/Lance probably need even more level ups to reach Marcus's power level to begin with, even with changes. Which means that Marcus is still your best unit for at least the same amount of time as in the original game. Everything is relative.

Awakening suffers from a bad exp formula, not from bad enemy design. Its enemy design is actually very good and only doesn't show because it's very difficult to not accidentally get someone ahead of the difficulty curve.

Perhaps so, but I was mainly talking about the early game. Enemies start out too strong but then don't scale enough relative to the tools that are given to you.

I speak about enemies around the mechanics of the game. EXP formula was bad and growths are too high, but the enemies weren't made to accommodate that. But it's true that those are what what need fixing first.

I don't anyone would ever accuse FE6 Marcus of trivializing the entire game.

On a similar topic, Perceval is designed to give you a strong, RNG proof cavalier (or character in general, really) to compensate for the lackluster growths of FE6 and thereby protect against having a playthrough severely comprised by the hand of chance. This is not an uncommon occurrence in Fire Emblem.

He's also not the problem with FE6's lategame, arguably.

I meant trivialising the early game. And maybe trivialising is the wrong word but he's a bit too good compared to other units, when enemies are also really strong to make him heavily relied upon. That makes it less interesting in regards to making the best use out of your full team. Marcus doing a bit less damage means you may need to make good use of another unit to make up for it. And with other units like Wolt being better then that's already applicable.

And as mentioned, with growths being lower then Marcus is still amazing for a long time, it's just that actual stat difference between other units is lower.

Percival's role in the game is fine -- I'm not contesting that. But he's a bit too good. A unit who has the 20/10 stats of a Tier 1 unit is a little bit more than 'RNG proof'.

TC, what exactly is your idea of a "good" FE game, and why is it "good", in your opinion? There will be some disagreement no matter what you do, but I'd like to see the driving force behind this topic.

In the original post and follow up posts explaining that?

- As mentioned I don't think the story/characterisation needs to be as in depth as say, FE9 but could be better or more fleshed out.

- More classes/weapons/units add more nuance to the game so long as they're balanced properly. Again, not strictly necessary but provides the player with increased options.

- Map design and variance in objectives could be improved.

Game balance is clearly an ongoing subject but my philosophy is this:

It doesn't need to be perfect, but it should be done in a way so that all units have some kind of purpose and do not completely disqualify each other. I also don't think any unit should be an auto-include, but have some kind of notable drawback to them, for the sake of having a reason to not deploy them (For example, there's nothing wrong with Percival being a statistically strong prepromote, but not to the point where he's an absolute auto include until the very end of the game -- the argument may be "what's wrong with that?" but in a game with 50 or so units it doesn't really benefit strategic diversity).

Units being at least closer together in overall usefulness does make it less obvious in regards to who is necessarily 'better'.

But a game where every unit is perfectly balanced and you have to deploy all ~15 unit slots with equally relied upon units is unrealistic. What can be done though is an improvement on the feasibility of beasting the game with 3-4 units. If LTC is the topic of discussion then any player doing it will obviously use a full team since everything counts. Usually. But relying on very specific units is still done to the degree where some improvement can be made.

By all means I'm happy with these discussions because it lets me gain the perspective of others before I make certain changes to the game. I'm not saying I'm necessary correct in my analysis. It's just a point of view.

I'm also not making changes on a whim. I'm testing the original game parameters with other map/weapon changes first, and then making changes I feel are beneficial (someone like Lot barely need changes with axes being better). It just happens to be that someone like Marcus improved the game when I changed him slightly, which is a matter or perspective others can input on when I release the game.

In the same way, I'm expecting I'll change Percival in some way for the reasons I've described, including tier 1 unit growth changes.

Edited February 7, 2015 by DLuna

[dondon151]

in the context of FE6 HM, i don't think perceval is "too good." he is one of the best units in the game, but no vanilla FE6 unit matches the power level of units like FE7 marcus or FE8 seth or FE9 marcia.

if DLuna is using FE7 has a ROM base, it could be that he's not going to use FE6's scaling HM bonus level paradigm, in which case perceval does need to have his stats reduced slightly. however, if enemies in chapter 22 are going to have 14 HM bonus levels instead of 5, then there's no reason to nerf perceval. those enemies are ridiculous.

It doesn't need to be perfect, but it should be done in a way so that all units have some kind of purpose and do not completely disqualify each other. I also don't think any unit should be an auto-include, but have some kind of notable drawback to them, for the sake of having a reason to not deploy them (For example, there's nothing wrong with Percival being a statistically strong prepromote, but not to the point where he's an absolute auto include until the very end of the game -- the argument may be "what's wrong with that?" but in a game with 50 or so units it doesn't really benefit strategic diversity).

i don't think you're going to find much success with this design philosophy. some units are going to intrinsically be so good that they should always be a part of the team. this has been true in literally every fire emblem game - some units are always going to be top tier, no matter what.

and for that matter, perceval is not an "absolute auto include." people can get away with not using perceval. maybe they're jealous of his handsome visage and flowing blond hair. maybe they have a phobia of horsies. maybe they're so far roped into the wendy hype that they can't recognize a good unit when they see one.

Edited February 7, 2015 by dondon151

[Yojinbo]

As far as character balance is concerned, no characters is so good that he needs to be nerfed. If you're really dead-set on re-balacing units then you should buff some of the bad ones [though Armors are pretty much a hopeless case in this game] but you gotta be reasonable about it. Increasing Sophia's growth rates while leaving her based untouched isn't the right way to handle her imo. I agree that giving Roy the option to promote earlier is something worth thinking about though.

If anybody trivializes the game it's Alance though. Miledy also probably makes a bigger difference than Percival does tbh. I don't think any of that should be fixed, same for Marcus.

Roy promotes super late, the growths in this game are awful, map design is a bit bland, etc.

Map design in FE6 is better than in most FE games imo. Chapter 2, Chapter 5, Chapter 7, Chapter 11 Lalum route, Chapter 12, Chapter 13, Chapter 14, the Ilia Chapters, most of the Sacae Chapters, Chapter 21 and Chapter 23 are everything except bland. Neither are the Gaiden Chapter even though they're admittedly annoying.

[Irysa]

Are you really saying that FE games are best being easier in the lategame than in the earlygame? Or that units like Percival make the lategame more interesting? I do disagree on both. 'Finesse' is arguable for anything. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Any strategy that doesn't involve turtling can be done better with 'finesse'. Whether Percival can 1RKO most things or not is irrelevant.

It's fairer to say the type of difficulty is different. If you want to slog through some of the harder lategame FE6 HM maps without utillising Warp and such they are actually still quite difficult due to the sheer amount of high stat enemies around, the difference is by this point you're capable of managing to effectively skirt the more difficult segments by proper use of good units and Warp. Percival definitely makes the lategame more interesting by sheer merit of what he lets you DO. You add more possibility space by including a unit like him because he lets you do more things, not less. Percival is not a "put in range of enemy units with a Javelin and win game" kind of unit whatsoever, he is just statistically solid. Not broken, SOLID. Seriously look at the enemy stats for some of the promoted enemies in Chapter 21 and 22 and tell me that Percival is somehow broken compared to them.

His bases for Chapter 15 are a bit crazy but when you consider the complexity of Chapter 16, all the non combat things you need to worry about in 16x, the fact he's not that helpful in 17i compared to your fliers and 17s has FoW, 18 has forests everywhere, 19i is FoW again and 19s is a gigantic fest of units he can't double or likely hit back at with decent 1-2, 20i is once again full of non combat complexities (much easier to trivialise though), 20s is FoW and has tons of Seige, 20xi and 20xs are both big slogs with lots of non combat threats (once again illia route is far easier to trivialise though), then you start to realise that the only chapters he is particularly dominant by himself (read, by himself) prior to the endgame are 15 and 18s because those have a lot of open combat without any real holds barred anywhere.

In fact MIledy is a far greater contributor to FE6 on the whole I would argue rather than Percival, because she is an incredible flier in some maps that desperately need you to have a good flier.

EDIT: Cecilia or Igrene are good examples of well balanced mid/lategame prepromotes. I will probably experiment with Cecilia having a worse staff rank but slightly better base stats + growths and that's about it. Niime is 'aight. Staff-bots are fine. But this is just my own thought process on things of course.

In fact, most prepromotes in FE6 are fine IMO. Percival is the only real exception and then you have... Yuno? Depends really because Falco Knights will likely be a lot better with other indirect changes, so might not even need that much of a change.

What even is your concept of what makes those two more "well balanced?" Cecilia is still leagues better than Clarine in any sort of efficient play because she comes with A Anima and a staff rank to use utility staves with, and lets you save your guiding rings for units that are going to make better use of it in Saul and potentially Lugh. Igrene's lack of Silver Bow access is dwarfed by the fact she can still just use a Brave Bow to own things and is statistically better than Klein or Dorothy or Wolt by a landslide. Niime lols at every other mag user in the game because of her staff rank and nosferatanking that none of them will ever be as good at.

Marcus was actually 1RKOing some enemies in hard mode with an iron sword -- still does against archers/magi in the hack's current state. Even with nerfs, he's strong enough. I actually had to give him a Bronze Sword so he doesn't melt everything (rather than reducing his stats even more).

I said he didn't ORKO vanilla FE6 HM axe enemies. Which he doesn't FYI, he weakens them to about 1 to 4 hp unless he uses a stronger weapon. Sure he's ORKOing loldiers and a few archers but he lacks the speed to double Cavaliers, Nomads and Mercs, which are actually the harder to deal with enemy types on the whole in earlygame FE6. If you're saying you made enemy stats weaker and so Marcus had to be weaker, wasn't your goal to do the inverse and buff units rather than just nerf the enviroment they are in?

I won't deny FE6 Marcus is probably the best designed 'Jeigan' in the series, but when there is room to move him down a notch without taking away his niche, then it feels better. He's still extremely good. And with some maps being Rout rather than Seize it enforces his efficiency even more, in some respects.

Just because there's room to do so doesn't mean you should though. Like, there's room to make certain stupid characters better, but that doesn't mean you should be doing it. Why does Marcus need to be worse when he doesn't by any means trivialise the game at all? So he can be closer to other units? Those other units can be used longterm with investment and Marcus can't! How is that balance at all?

It doesn't need to be perfect, but it should be done in a way so that all units have some kind of purpose and do not completely disqualify each other. I also don't think any unit should be an auto-include, but have some kind of notable drawback to them, for the sake of having a reason to not deploy them (For example, there's nothing wrong with Percival being a statistically strong prepromote, but not to the point where he's an absolute auto include until the very end of the game -- the argument may be "what's wrong with that?" but in a game with 50 or so units it doesn't really benefit strategic diversity).

I beat FE6 without using any of the HM bonus characters, including HM bonuses Percival. I got his NM bases which are still adequate to be useful, but a well trained Lance replicated what Percival needed to do anyway. You can quite well choose to not use him, he is not a mandatory pick.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Irysa

[Dunal]

As far as character balance is concerned, no characters is so good that he needs to be nerfed. If you're really dead-set on re-balacing units then you should buff some of the bad ones [though Armors are pretty much a hopeless case in this game] but you gotta be reasonable about it. Increasing Sophia's growth rates while leaving her based untouched isn't the right way to handle her imo. I agree that giving Roy the option to promote earlier is something worth thinking about though.

I've already discussed Sophia. I know that bases are much more important than growths. That goes for other units like Wendy too, of course. A unit should never have to rely on growths to be good. It just doesn't' work.

If anybody trivializes the game it's Alance though. Miledy also probably makes a bigger difference than Percival does tbh. I don't think any of that should be fixed, same for Marcus.

Percival would be fine if he joined later into the game, but he doesn't (Or if he wasn't a paladin, probably the best class in the game). His stats are a tad too good for the time he joins IMO. But again, that's subject to change. We'll see how it goes. I for one think he needs some kind of notable drawback, whether its just weapon ranks or something.

Map design in FE6 is better than in most FE games imo. Chapter 2, Chapter 5, Chapter 7, Chapter 11 Lalum route, Chapter 12, Chapter 13, Chapter 14, the Ilia Chapters, most of the Sacae Chapters, Chapter 21 and Chapter 23 are everything except bland. Neither are the Gaiden Chapter even though they're admittedly annoying.

Map design isn't bad overall but some are too large or linear (often both). Chapter 2 is fairly dull for instance -- it's just a straight path to the boss.

For that map for instance, I've made an extra path in the middle of the mountains towards the boss, which is much faster than the other route, but have more enemies blocking it. This feels like a far more natural route for Roy and Co. For Dieck and Co, They spawn the same as before and take the usual route to the right to meet up with the others, dealing with enemies along the way.

The way the map currently is, is awkward for Roy's group. With the changes it also means there's less to travel and units like Bors have more use.

The village is also higher up with some enemies blocking it, meaning you'll need to have a couple of your units dedicate to taking that objective rather than everyone just going straight for the boss.

Therefore it's more similar to CH5 which I agree is a well designed map. That map probably won't change much, if at all beyond enemy placement/classes.

It's changes like that I'm doing.

Edited February 8, 2015 by DLuna

[Irysa]

Map design isn't bad overall but some are too large or linear (often both). Chapter 2 is fairly dull for instance -- it's just a straight path to the boss.

For that map for instance, I've made an extra path in the middle of the mountains towards the boss, which is much faster than the other route, but have more enemies blocking it. This feels like a far more natural route for Roy and Co. For Dieck and Co, They spawn the same as before and take the usual route to the right to meet up with the others, dealing with enemies along the way.

The way the map currently is, is awkward for Roy's group. With the changes it also means there's less to travel and units like Bors have more use.

The village is also higher up with some enemies blocking it, meaning you'll need to have a couple of your units dedicate to taking that objective rather than everyone just going straight for the boss.

Therefore it's more similar to CH5 which I agree is a well designed map. That map probably won't change much, if at all beyond enemy placement/classes.

It's changes like that I'm doing.

You've diminished the value of using Thany to get the Armorslayer over to Dieck/Marcus on the other side of the mountain range by adding another path like that. The opening turns for Ch2 also have a neat rescuedrop thing you can do to get Marcus on the fort on turn 1, and Dieck (and Lott if you want) choke the next branch. That chapter is basically designed to tell you yo forts are good use forts and yo Pegs fly over shit use Pegs.

[Yojinbo]

What even is your concept of what makes those two more "well balanced?" Cecilia is still leagues better than Clarine in any sort of efficient play because she comes with A Anima and a staff rank to use utility staves with, and lets you save your guiding rings for units that are going to make better use of it in Saul and potentially Lugh.

Clarine is around for longer, doesn't actually need to promote to do her stuff and she has a number of good supports. She requires absolutely no resources and pays you back with more than 20 Chapters of very solid utility. Cecilia isn't "leagues better" at all. In the case of Troubadour/Valkyrie the game is actually pretty fairly balanced compared to other classes [especially when the availability of Promotion Items comes into play. Noah and Treck have virtually no realistic chance to ever get promoted, same goes for the vast majority of characters that promote via Hero Crest].

[dondon151]

i'm not sure how the proposed change to chapter 2 would make it less linear. instead of deke actually being useful because he starts halfway through the map this one time, marcus can just romp through the shorter path.

[Irysa]

Clarine is around for longer,

Clarine has some useful earlygame contributions but she's essentially just an extra horse for rescuedropping after chapter 8. Cecilia is definitely a better pick to deploy later on unless you spent forever heal grinding Clarine up. You could deploy both but at that point why wouldn't you just be healing with Cecilia and deploying a spare Paladin like Zealot if you only care about her mount?

doesn't actually need to promote to do her stuff

Neither does Cecilia, she's already promoted.

and she has a number of good supports.

That take ages to build with infantry units who don't match her movement, and actually would like to be in the thick of the action where Clarine definitely doesn't want to be unless once again, you grinded her.

She requires absolutely no resources and pays you back with more than 20 Chapters of very solid utility.

If you want her to actually be helpful utility in most maps past the earlygame then you need to put in a lot of investment/resources...even making it to level 10 is a bit difficult for her under any sort of brisk pace because of her starting level.

Cecilia isn't "leagues better" at all. In the case of Troubadour/Valkyrie the game is actually pretty fairly balanced compared to other classes [especially when the availability of Promotion Items comes into play. Noah and Treck have virtually no realistic chance to ever get promoted, same goes for the vast majority of characters that promote via Hero Crest].

Clarine is only slightly better off because she's technically competing with unmounted units for her promotion item, but her pathetic mag and mediocre staff rank in a game where it takes ages to level staves don't make her a desirable option, esp when Saul is a better candidate to be attempting to squeeze as much staff exp out of as possible. Clarine also is never ever without tons of investment using something like Cecilia Aircalibur which hurts Wyverns more than Clarine's crappy doubling with Fire even if you had a 20/1 Clarine to base Cecilia. I mean with less investment, Cecilia could potentially use Forblaze and chip a Makakete for a lot of damage or something in the last chapters.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Irysa

[Yojinbo]

Actually, the best way to re-balance the units in this game without tinkering with their stats would be to change the availability of promotion items. You get only 2 Knight Crests and 2 Hero Crests before Chapter 16 while having an abundance of characters that could use both. Units like Lott and Noah who aren't actually terrible have like no realistic chance to get used because of how stacked the competition for their respective Promo Item is. On the other hand, you'll have 3 Elysian Whips by the time Miledy joins which means that you can easily have all your flying unit promoted by Chapter 13. Orion's Bolt also is a non-issue because the next best unit to use it on after Shin is actually Sue which is meh. Just by increasing the amount of Knight/Hero Crests you can pick up before Chapter 16 by one or two you could boost a couple of characters [Gonzales, Lott, Fir, Noah and Treck all aren't that bad] while pushing an Elysian Whip back to a later point wouldn't really hurt anybody in particular.

[Irysa]

The problem with that is that instead of promoting them, you'd likely just sell them for more money since you don't need more units being used than what the game is letting you promote and use as it is.

[Dunal]

You've diminished the value of using Thany to get the Armorslayer over to Dieck/Marcus on the other side of the mountain range by adding another path like that. The opening turns for Ch2 also have a neat rescuedrop thing you can do to get Marcus on the fort on turn 1, and Dieck (and Lott if you want) choke the next branch. That chapter is basically designed to tell you yo forts are good use forts and yo Pegs fly over shit use Pegs.

You're basically saying "This exact strategy for this exact map is exactly how it should be played and if you can't replicate it then it's not as good".

Not that I'm saying I'm changing maps for sake of changing them, but surely a changed map would also have an alternative yet 'interesting' way to clear it? It would just need to be discovered (which, as far as I'm concerned is a good thing, it makes things feel fresh -- and a further reason to play the hack over the original game)? Whether it's better for LTC isn't the concern -- it's giving the map more nuance for all kinds of players. And actually makes better use of the units you have. Bors/Wolt/Roy have an application because mobility is less important. Marcus can't just blaze through the middle so his mobility means little. Bors is just as effective at clearing the path (I mean, he's now a level 5 Knight with strong bases to match, he's pretty darn good).

1) The village being guarded means that on turn 1-3 you can have say Lance/Alan go clear enemies to get to it (because Marcus can't do everything). Then have Thany port over the Armorslayer OR have an efficient way of getting the weapon from Lance/Alan/Whoever all the way to Dieck/Marcus.

Heck, Thany can reasonably handle the enemies with one other unit with her. So that works too. Then you ferry it.

2) Dieck and Co. still have a lot of enemies to deal with that will save you a lot of time. The forts near their starting location is still in close proximity to enemies 'defending' the boss. While Roy and Co. are clearing out the enemies towards the middle (which do spawn for a few turns), Dieck can clear the path for them on the other side, or even lure the reinforcements so Roy's group has less to do.

i'm not sure how the proposed change to chapter 2 would make it less linear. instead of deke actually being useful because he starts halfway through the map this one time, marcus can just romp through the shorter path.

3) Marcus can't solo the middle all that efficiently. There's a few 7 SPD soldiers/mercs he can't even double at base. There's also a soldier with a Horsekiller on a fort blocking the exit. Marcus isn't safe either. And by the time you reach the other side with Roy and Co. Deke's gang can clear the enemies on the other side.

But that's just a matter of argument without context.

And I thought that "Marcus romping though" was perfectly fine, and that he didn't even need stat changes? If anything, that supports the argument he shouldn't be able to destroy everything. Again. Marcus is still very strong, but can't solo everything and enemy placement means his mobility is hindered.

As for Clarine and the other healers, they will be balanced to be better when promoting early (much better promo gains or bases) while having less growths. 10/1 Clarine would be better, while 20/1 should be about the same.

The problem with that is that instead of promoting them, you'd likely just sell them for more money since you don't need more units being used than what the game is letting you promote and use as it is.

Promo items are better changed to be worth much less. As if it matters that it will enable you to buy more at secret shops. =p

And then having ~4 of each (2 or 3 Orion's/Whips) before CH14 or so is a good amount.

Edited February 8, 2015 by DLuna

[Irysa]

You're basically saying "This exact strategy for this exact map is exactly how it should be played and if you can't replicate it then it's not as good".

No I'm saying that there's an inherant value in the way it's currently designed that reinforces good strategies and apt use of particular mechanics. There are some good nuances and perks to what you can do on that map already, what you're doing is not measurably better by any means. It's different. My problem with your position is that you're reinforcing this belief that you're going to "improve" FE6 by fixing things, but I'd contest that changes like this are arbitary and diminishing objective qualites of the original in order to better fit your preferences. You may very well create an interesting hack but if your goal is to fix FE6, it should be fixing things wrong with the game, not removing things that are good/fine as they are.

Like think about it, that fort at the bottom is just out of range of your units but its an ideal spot to choke on. It's essentially presenting a scenario where you they're actually trying to get you to realise this and put two and two together to fufill this goal whilst simultaneously clearing out the initial group of enemies before the fort. Its a good example of teaching players without a shitty handholding tutorial in play, and is directly rewarding to anyone who does it. Why would you want to remove things like this?

Edited February 8, 2015 by Irysa

[dondon151]

3) Marcus can't solo the middle all that efficiently. There's a few 7 SPD soldiers/mercs he can't even double at base. There's also a soldier with a Horsekiller on a fort blocking the exit. Marcus isn't safe either. And by the time you reach the other side with Roy and Co. Deke's gang can clear the enemies on the other side.

But that's just a matter of argument without context.

And I thought that "Marcus romping though" was perfectly fine, and that he didn't even need stat changes? If anything, that supports the argument he shouldn't be able to destroy everything. Again. Marcus is still very strong, but can't solo everything and enemy placement means his mobility is hindered.

then you just give marcus an axe and rig a miss from the horseslayer soldier, done. isn't this what people usually do with frederick and the hammer fighter in chapter 2 of FE13?

i think you're trying to be obtuse just to win an argument while ignoring the main point that i'm making. marcus is the best unit that you have by that point in the game, nerfs or no nerfs, and the best solution to the problem of "here's a pile of enemies" is to throw marcus at them. it's what you're supposed to do in chapter 1 because marcus weakens everything to easy kill range for the rest of your units, and it's a necessary, though not overall interesting, choice for the player.

so the original version of chapter 2 is just fine. if you find it to be too linear and boring, well, welcome to seize maps. these maps are linear and boring if your habit is inching through them without using all of the commands at your disposal. i liked vanilla chapter 2: it gave deke's mercenaries a chance to shine and it tested the player's ability to build a rescue and/or trade chain through the chapter. i don't think players have the right to complain that a chapter is linear and boring if they don't have the creativity to build a strategy that's more complex than inching a pack of units forward.

there could be potential to improve chapter 2 with a major overhaul, but frankly i think it's much easier to make a chapter worse than to make it better.

[Dunal]

No I'm saying that there's an inherant value in the way it's currently designed that reinforces good strategies and apt use of particular mechanics. There are some good nuances and perks to what you can do on that map already, what you're doing is not measurably better by any means. It's different. My problem with your position is that you're reinforcing this belief that you're going to "improve" FE6 by fixing things, but I'd contest that changes like this are arbitary and diminishing objective qualites of the original in order to better fit your preferences. You may very well create an interesting hack but if your goal is to fix FE6, it should be fixing things wrong with the game, not removing things that are good/fine as they are.

If I were to explain, then I would consider improvements to be this:

1) The need to use more units in general and to use them well. Wolt/Bors/Low mobility units overall. Map changes so they can contribute and don't need to worry about being too sluggish.

2) That lack of requirement to rescue chains to not make the map feel sluggish. Because there are other players too who don't play absolutely perfectly. I've taken into account many people who've played the game. Most just tend to have Dieck and Co. sit and wait while Roy's group catch up to proceed (for EXP? For grouping up? Because they don't know any better? Players have a lot of different mentalities). This isn't just to accommodate LTC, but casual play is important to. And I'm not sacrificing anything for LTC other than for the sake of keeping it the exact same.

[dondon151]

2) That lack of requirement to rescue chains to not make the map feel sluggish. Because there are other players too who don't play absolutely perfectly. I've taken into account many people who've played the game. Most just tend to have Dieck and Co. sit and wait while Roy's group catch up to proceed (for EXP? For grouping up? Because they don't know any better? Players have a lot of different mentalities). This isn't just to accommodate LTC, but casual play is important to. And I'm not sacrificing anything for LTC other than for the sake of keeping it the exact same.

the only ways to achieve this are to make maps smaller or give roy more movement.

[Irysa]

2) That lack of requirement to rescue chains to not make the map feel sluggish.

Don't you see how redundant this position is? I could hypothetically complain about the fact I'm required to use the weapon triangle to my advantage to make maps go faster! Why is it bad that using a mechanic in the game makes it more enjoyable to play? Do you have something against the rescue command? Can you list what's bad about being encouraged to utilise it?

Edited February 8, 2015 by Irysa

[Dunal]

the only ways to achieve this are to make maps smaller or give roy more movement.

The middle road essentially makes the map smaller for his group.

The latter is true.

Don't you see how redundant this position is? I could hypothetically complain about the fact I'm required to use the weapon triangle to my advantage to make maps go faster! Why is it bad that using a mechanic in the game makes it more enjoyable to play?

I get the impression you're not reading my entire posts. =x

Not every player is like you or Dondon, I'm afraid.

In the end, the game isn't necessarily better for LTC, but it's at least different and not necessarily worse either (I mean, if you were to play the new map and have a point to be made as to why it's terrible well then... that's a different matter altogether, and if enough agreed I'd change it). It's a new puzzle to solve, for whatever that's worth. Instead of having to replicate what you've already learned, is there much wrong with it being different, even if slightly​? Hypothetically, if someone were trying to LTC it then things like rescue chaining would still be done. Probably.

For casual players, I would consider it an improvement. Dieck has the exact same role, but Roy's group constantly has something to do. 95% of players don't rescue chain every map, as far as I know. And as mentioned, units like Bors/Wolt are better. If casual players want to use those units, what's the problem? Are you saying that's wrong too? Again, it's a perspective to how you play.

With your standpoint, you're saying doing anything that isn't absolutely optimal is silly. That could also go for units, or weapons, or selling etc...

In fact, certain units being better may well completely change how a map is played anyway. Any context regarding how you think the new map would work out could be very different than perceived.

then you just give marcus an axe

Marcus isn't a great knight.

Another can of worms? =o

Edited February 8, 2015 by DLuna

[dondon151]

In fact, certain units being better may well completely change how a map is played anyway. Any context regarding how you think the new map would work out could be very different than perceived.

any context regarding how you think the new map would work out could be very different than perceived.

this is why i don't trust people when they say that making x changes to a game would cause y things to play out differently. i bet the developers of FE11 thought that forging was a neat trick and didn't anticipate that it would end up breaking the game entirely.

Marcus isn't a great knight.

Another can of worms? =o

then this is bullshit, lol, if you're going to introduce a horseslayer soldier in chapter 2 that you have to defeat.

Edited February 8, 2015 by dondon151

[Dunal]

any context regarding how you think the new map would work out could be very different than perceived.

Just test ran it. Was 'aight.

I get what you mean, but its in regards to many factors. Wolt gets a Cleave Bow if he specifically visits a village in CH1 (effective knights). So with it, you don't even need say, the armorslayer to be efficient regarding the boss. Or the Hammer which can reliably hit.

then this is bullshit, lol, if you're going to introduce a horseslayer soldier in chapter 2 that you have to defeat.

Bors 2RKOs the guy. He can reach him turn 2.

So can Wolt if gains a speed proc on a level.

Marcus doesn't have to do everything you know. Most things. Not everything. =p

Edited February 8, 2015 by DLuna

[Irysa]

I get the impression you're not reading my entire posts. =x

Not every player is like you or Dondon, I'm afraid.

I get the impression you're not replying to a large amount of points I've raised previously, and are also making a false assumption that I neccessarily have the exact same mentality as dondon. I'm not an LTC player. I play casually mostly but like to try to push myself a little in terms of things like brisk pace if I feel capable of it.

In the end, the game isn't necessarily better for LTC, but it's at least different and not necessarily worse either (I mean, if you were to play the new map and have a point to be made as to why it's terrible well then... that's a different matter altogether, and if enough agreed I'd change it). It's a new puzzle to solve, for whatever that's worth. Instead of having to replicate what you've already learned, is there much wrong with it being different, even if slightly​? Hypothetically, if someone were trying to LTC it then things like rescue chaining would still be done. Probably.

This isn't even a question for me of whether it's better for LTC or not. Period. It's just a question of what values are present prior in the original map design. To be different isn't wrong but to blatantly change things that are actually good the way they are needs some kind of reasoning. Do you have an actual reason for why it should be changed that doesn't equate to "I preferentially do not like to utilise a mechanic that the game encourages me to use because I don't like to have to put any extra effort in"?

For casual players, I would consider it an improvement. Dieck has the exact same role, but Roy's group constantly has something to do. 95% of players don't rescue chain every map, as far as I know. And as mentioned, units like Bors/Wolt are better. If casual players want to use those units, what's the problem? Are you saying that's wrong too? Again, it's a perspective to how you play.

Roy's team always have something to do anyway, unless you're trying to say that refusal to do these things means said possibility space doesn't exist? 95% is a bogus statistic and meaningless to this discussion, but to entertain the idea, why do you think they don't use them? I can already tell you the main deciding factor is that a lot of casual players rarely think more than 1 turn ahead when viewing maps, at least in terms of positioning. So are you basically just admitting that your design philosophy is just to cater to the notion that if you don't have some immediately apparent combat with which to engage or position in, that that's a failing of design?

With your standpoint, you're saying doing anything that isn't absolutely optimal is silly. That could also go for units, or weapons, or selling etc...

No it's that the game is designed in a way that directly rewards and encourages you to do certain things, and as a result, its not the game's fault if a player directly chooses not to do these things. The game (or rather the developers) are not at fault for the game being too difficult or slow if you purposely choose to utilise strategies that result in things being difficult or slow, because the game is providing you with the facilities to utilise strategies that AREN'T difficult or slow. It's like complaining that you have to grind to beat bosses in Dark Souls or something when you could just get better at actually dodging and timing your attacks appropriately. If you hate the maps being so slow, then try to speed up! Personally, I am completely comfortable with a relatively brisk pace on most of these maps. I don't aim to go superfast, I try to advance at a pace I find managable and enjoyable. FE6 maps on the whole feel are quite appropriate for this.

In fact, certain units being better may well completely change how a map is played anyway. Any context regarding how you think the new map would work out could be very different than perceived.

If we took vanilla Chapter 2 and just modified stats (not counting mov) on playable units you would have to resort to incredibly drastic nerfs or buffs to get a noticable difference in effective strategies. And I mean drastic. Buffs would make things go faster, whilst nerfs make it go slower, and a combination of the two cancel themselves out to a certain point and you're basically just weighing up who has the best mov, the best bulk and damage/speed to clear enemies out whilst advancing safely.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Irysa

[Dunal]

Do you have an actual reason for why it should be changed that doesn't equate to "I preferentially do not like to utilise a mechanic that the game encourages me to use because I don't like to have to put any extra effort in"?

Yes?

1) The need to use more units in general and to use them well. Wolt/Bors/Low mobility units overall. Map changes so they can contribute and don't need to worry about being too sluggish or forcefully ferried around (which won't happen for them).

---

If we took vanilla Chapter 2 and just modified stats (not counting mov) on playable units you would have to resort to incredibly drastic nerfs or buffs to get a noticable difference in effective strategies.

Which is the main reason why the map was changed to make everyone fairly useful to some degree.

So on that note, the debate's just going in circles. =p

To summarise it up -- that's the entire point. The intention is to tune the map to make every available unit relevant. And also to encourage splitting your units as well (some go north, some go to through the middle, others go to Dieck as normal if that's an option you still want go for, since there's more enemies in the middle).

Pretty much all my changes are made because of 'strategic diversity' even if it's just a better illusion of choice. I know many would argue that that isn't required -- as in, it's fine if specific units are much better than others. But... I just disagree. There isn't a right or wrong here.

Marcus is always going to be amazing unless, yeah, stats are changed tremendously. But that isn't the intention.

Buffing/nerfing stats of units isn't enough, you even said that yourself. If I need to make map changes to affect the priority on unit usage, then that's what I've done. Again, if you don't think certain units need to necessarily be more useful, then that's fine. But if your question is to why I've made those changes, this would be your answer.

[Irysa]

1) The need to use more units in general and to use them well. Wolt/Bors/Low mobility units overall. Map changes so they can contribute and don't need to worry about being too sluggish or forcefully ferried around (which won't happen for them).

Pretty much all my changes are made because of 'strategic diversity' even if it's just a better illusion of choice. I know many would argue that that isn't required -- as in, it's fine if specific units are much better than others. But... I just disagree. There isn't a right or wrong here.

These two statements seem at odds with each other. You can't enforce a NEED to use more/different types of units without making their particular contributions exclusive to their class. So in the case of armors, low mov, low speed, high def, you have to run through a bunch of criteria (that I assume you've already been through). Why do you need the armor over anyone else? They have enough defence to survive? Why can't someone just dodge? If dodging is impractical, how high is the hp/defence benchmark? How far away from coping do non armors do? Is it brutal enough to the point you need that armorknight? But if you fufill all these criteria, then haven't you made the game just way less flexible, and not promoted strategic diversity at all? At worst, you may have ended up requiring the player to train an armor? Oh so the bases you get now are adequate to cover for you? Doesn't that mean that you're just forcing the player to deploy an armor every now and then to fufill some arbitary task that only their class can do and the rest of the time you're just benching them?

Hypothetically, if I put a really obnoxious ass enemy on every map within 4 spaces of the starting position that has map wide nuking with 100% accuracy and kills everyone except my armor in 1 hit but is slow as shit, and for whatever reason can't be crit, I've made it nearly mandatory to just deploy an armor to kill that one asshole, but I haven't really improved the game balance, I've just enforced a dumb arbitary requirement on the player to deploy an armor. Granted, I took this to the extreme, but the notion of balance is fickle because adding a "need" to use more/different units is really a rather different proposition than just making it "viable". Because as it stands, it already is "viable", but it is "worse" by measure of time rather than anything else. If you want to make it MORE viable that's an entirely different proposition, and one that does not need to be forced down a player's throat.

I mean you previously complained about how Percival was an "auto deploy" (false), yet by using the word "need" about an armor implies you're okay with the prospect of forcing players to deploy units like armors to fufill particular roles? Like, you do have to go rather far with FE's current limitations to make them the only class capable/by a large margin the ideal candidate for doing anything when their mov sucks so much, as I've outlined. Far too much of your position assumes forced deployment.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Irysa

[Czar_Yoshi]

Sooooo...

I keep seeing things like "most players" and the like. What gorup of players are you talking about? FE players in general? Or the people who are likely to play your hack?

I don't know what you're planning on doing with the hack once it's finished, but I can guarantee that it's not going to get marketed by Nintendo to a huge, mostly causal and fairly quiet audience and whatnot, and as such your player base is going to be a bit different than that. Even if you go beyond advertising your patch on SF (a heavily gameplay-oriented community, to say the least), who are the kind of people who typically play hacks? I know I wouldn't go through the trouble of finding a rom, setting up an emulator, applying a patch and whatnot for a game that I don't particularly love and have played to death already.

So you've got something "fresh" to offer. New map design. New balance. But freshness is a thing limited to a first playthrough, and if you truly want to make a hack that's specifically an improvement/modernization/whatever of FE6, it had better be able to meet FE6 where it's at: not something fresh, but with established strategies and tradeoffs that you can make. The replay value of your hack is what will determine whether it's an "improvement" to FE6, not any freshness- every hack ever has that. Will you increase the number of ways to play the game? Will your new ways be more interesting than the old ways? More importantly, will you increase the number of different ways to play the game? A choice between two units with identical functions isn't much of a choice.

I think this idea is cool. I'd really like to see a hack that is FE6, but slightly better (but emphasis on still being FE6). However, I feel like the way you're going about making it is a little at odds with that goal- focusing more on adding things you specifically want to see rather than things that would be a major improvement to the game. And making a hack just for yourself isn't a bad thing, but... Is it really what you're trying to do?

So I'd advise stepping back and taking a good look at exactly what you want out of this patch. Maybe FE6 actually doesn't need anything- in which case, if you wish to improve it, you'd be best off focusing on minor polish, aesthetic details and maybe giving a buff to a bad unit here or there (in the form of bases/growths/join time/whatever. Not by making enemies that only they can defeat).

Anyway... Remember what I said about the exp formula being the cause of FE13 being broken and pairup being overpowered as a symptom of that? The same thing applies to what you're trying to do with Bors. The root problem is that Armors are bad in FE6, and a symptom of that is that they're not very useful to deploy. You're trying to address the symptom here (giving a reason to deploy an Armor), but adding a Soldier doesn't really change the fact that Armors are bad. Trying to fix problems this way (fixing the symptoms) can sometimes work, but more often than not it'll create issues down the line where something else goes wrong and you start working to fix a new exploit/make someone else useful, which is both a lot more of a hassle and requires constant maintenance as strategies are found to fix. You want to remove dominant strategies and make there be more ways to go about the game? Then take your problems, make sure they're actually problems, and fix them at their roots.