Fire Emblem Binding Blade: Rebirth [In development]

[Yojinbo]

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.

You understand though that there's a huge difference between not wanting to do something and not having the option to do something, right?

[Dunal]

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.

Except.... That's not true at all and I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Because Bors can do something better than Marcus he's 'forced to be used'? And as far as I'm aware I never said the word 'need' in regards to Bors at all. =/

The entire direction of this is now "Well you're forcing the player to use an Armor Knight! How is that a good thing?". Don't see why it's come to that. CH2 forces a deployment of one, and it's also true that Wolt/Roy wouldn't see much combat without map changes either. Even Alan/Lance don't really have much to do at all, combat wise. But there's a difference between "forcing them to be used" (which I don't understand the argument for TBH, Marcus isn't forced to be used either, he's just practical. So if Bors suddenly has 'practical' elements to him then how is that a bad thing?).

I mean, Bors would be a good unit in CH5 if say, he could use swords (now true) and his stats were higher (also true) so I don't have to do anything extra to help them out (or anyone, really). But that doesn't mean *gasp* you're forced to use him! No... you can beat it the same as before. If you want to. I'm not shoving him down anyone's throat. And I think it's fair to say CH5 is a good map in regards to making use of your full group, especially with enemy tweaks to the top of the map to encourage splitting your team a bit more for the different objectives.

CH4 is also a good map and could only use slight tweaks at best. The map is open ended and any unit can be put to use.

CH2 isn't necessarily bad -- I just still hold the belief that if ferrying Roy to the seize point is way more optimal than anything else (which, on a lot of other maps, really isn't too necessary at all and the map doesn't 'drag on' if you don't) then making a change to make the map feel more natural without having to resort to that (while also having much more combat use for the units that you have) seemed like a good idea to test out. Turned out it worked very well in practice, so I've stuck to it.

You can still actually do the old strategy of ferrying Roy around the bottom of the map (or with Thany) and still save a turn or two but a (possibly optional) more combat oriented route adds to map rather than taking away, especially one where Marcus can't completely solo, and you still have a diversion with the north Village to deal with too. Sounds like CH5 a lot doesn't it? Because that's the inspiration.

If I took CH5, and completely took away the bottom path of the map (let's say... block it with a mountain), and then placed all the enemies at the top of the map, would that make the map better? I would say no. (Although I would still consider it better than CH2 because, in CH2, Dieck's group pretty much means that most enemies will be cleared while Roy is playing catchup, meaning progressing the map isn't really that interesting beyond saving turns/time by ferrying effectively).

The way I see it, it would make CH5 very similar to the original CH2. Turns out making it more similar to CH5 is an improvement (IMO). That's the way it has worked out in practice, and everyone I've spoke to outside this topic regarding the change seems to agree with it (not that it means anything to you, or the debate at hand, but there's two sides to the argument here -- and I'm not trying to being biased towards one way or the other until people have played it -- may turn out to be bad and people have specific arguments to why that's the case).

To be fair, I haven't heard a strong argument from anyone saying why the map is 'fine the way it is' other then 'it's fine the way it is'. I get that rescue dropping can be cool and effective but saying that it should be the most optimal way to play is like saying 'armor knights are the most effective way to play'. I would disagree with either of those being necessary and I'm not advocating the latter like you think I am.

In fact, you're saying that Percival isn't 'forced' (which is true, no-one is 'forced', but you are losing a lot of efficiency if you don't use him) in the same way I'm saying that Knights aren't 'forced'. But also saying that him being amazingly good is fine while making Knights actually useful or good would be bad. There's some conflicting messages here.

On the topic of Armor Knights, it's not like I'm going to tweak every map to make them amazing or anything (In the original game, Knights aren't even remotely good in casual play, let alone anything more structured). Changing certain maps so that anyone who isn't a flying unit or a paladin is better off isn't out of the question though. Especially Roy, which, unlike Armor Knights, is actually forced deployment. =p

There will be *some* defend maps, and those should be sufficient enough to make them at least good in casual play. It doesn't really need to be much more than that -- I'm not forcing anything.

Apologies for the wall of texts. Trying to over-clarify myself, probably. =x

Edited February 8, 2015 by DLuna

[Haku]

Seriously why cant people give DLuna some slack? Every new idea he has seems to get completely bashed. Since this project is still in very early development, everything is open to change at a later date, and he has the right to test out his ideas. I mean most of this thread is a complete mess because members of the LTC community think their opinion should be valued above everybody else's. All I'm trying to say is that despite your opinions he's allowed to do whatever he wants :x

Edited February 8, 2015 by Haku

[Dunal]

Seriously why cant people give DLuna some slack? Every new idea he has seems to get completely bashed. Since this project is still in very early development, everything is open to change at a later date, and he has the right to test out his ideas. I mean most of this thread is a complete mess because members of the LTC community think their opinion should be valued above everybody else's. All I'm trying to say is that despite your opinions he's allowed to do whatever he wants :x

Nah, I think it's fair. Well, if/when it's played and there's still some argument to be had then sure I can change it back. I'm just holding that back for now since the changes I've made seem to work better/well in practice. It's a matter as to whether change is necessary but my intentions are to overall improve things for different kinds of players. Well, that's the aim at least. Being earnest, I suppose.

I mean, I get that the changes I'm doing may seem to be change for the sake of change for some people. And that's understandable. Communicating as to why I'm making the changes I am isn't the easiest thing in the world and I suppose said reasoning for them don't really mesh with how some people play or their views etc... And there's certainly been been interesting other opinions being made. So... eh, we'll see.

Edited February 8, 2015 by DLuna

[Lord Raven]

Seriously why cant people give DLuna some slack? Every new idea he has seems to get completely bashed. Since this project is still in very early development, everything is open to change at a later date, and he has the right to test out his ideas. I mean most of this thread is a complete mess because members of the LTC community think their opinion should be valued above everybody else's. All I'm trying to say is that despite your opinions he's allowed to do whatever he wants :x

Son, let me tell you something about life. If you can't take criticism and chug along with what you're doing, then you will release a poor product. Is there something wrong with playing devils advocate or should we just say "DLuna this project is amazing do you need a rimjob"?

And no Irysa is not an LTCer lol and dondon while he is an LTCer is bringing up points that are completely irrelevant to LTC play. The issue everyone seems to be having is they're not arguing the design heavily in favor of LTC or casual play but something in between, which gets lost on people. The idea is to give many different ways to finish a map, not just one specific way, the latter of which DLuna's ideas are surprisingly geared towards.

In all honesty if you're making a way for every char to be useful then you're probably going to make the game more singular if anything.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Lord Raven

[Blue Druid]

Well best of Luck to you DLuna! FE6 definitely needs an upgrade. The only thing I ask of you is to fully realise and finish your hack. Many FE6 hacks and overhauls didn't get past a first public patch version or even a few chapters. Anyway good luck! : ]

[eclipse]

Seriously why cant people give DLuna some slack? Every new idea he has seems to get completely bashed. Since this project is still in very early development, everything is open to change at a later date, and he has the right to test out his ideas. I mean most of this thread is a complete mess because members of the LTC community think their opinion should be valued above everybody else's. All I'm trying to say is that despite your opinions he's allowed to do whatever he wants :x

Do not start this shit again.

Read what's being said - this isn't about LTC, it's about core game design. As someone who plays on both ends of the spectrum, I agree that any changes need to be thought through, and the proposed solutions by DLuna probably aren't going to work out like he thinks they will (mostly because everyone has their own approach to the game, and trying to force people to think in one particular way tends to backfire outside of something like a speedrun). Change can be good, but it must be well-thought out.

I asked TC about what he thinks is a "good" FE game (which he sorta-answered, but not really), because those concepts will probably end up in this patch. I'm not interested in story/aesthetics ATM, so I'll go into the gameplay stuff. Trying to force unit rotation through niches is meh, IMO - there's usually another way around the problem. For example:

beasting the game with 3-4 units.

Since the RNG can be rigged without having to explicitly look at it, I can do things like force characters to gain levels in a particular way. Furthermore, there's a sometimes-used option called supports, which can do things like give a character an unforseen +3 MT and +15 hit/crit by Chapter 4 (that's Roy/Allen, BTW). There's no way to stop the former, and the latter requires stalling (which I'm more than happy to do, if it means making the rest of the game easier).

I'm glad that TC's open to criticism, but I think he should seriously consider what's being discussed.

[dondon151]

chapter 5 is very different from chapter 2. chapter 5 has different enemies, all of which are tougher than the ones in chapter 2. chapter 5 has forests to traverse whereas chapter 2 doesn't. chapter 5 doesn't have deke and co. entering the map on turn 2 to help you deal with the mob of enemies far advanced into the map.

the chapter 5 enemies that come out of the gate are so tough that your option is either to deal with them slowly or to maneuver past them with surgical precision. i actually don't think that chapter 5 is that well designed of a chapter because the gate option is still much faster than the ground option even if you take your sweet time with the reinforcements.

Seriously why cant people give DLuna some slack? Every new idea he has seems to get completely bashed. Since this project is still in very early development, everything is open to change at a later date, and he has the right to test out his ideas. I mean most of this thread is a complete mess because members of the LTC community think their opinion should be valued above everybody else's. All I'm trying to say is that despite your opinions he's allowed to do whatever he wants :x

i very much resent the fact that you can attach the epithet "LTCer" to something as if to say "how about let's not listen to this guy." this is ridiculous. if you were looking to design the gameplay of a ROMhack, shouldn't you listen to the expert players instead of blowing them off because they are too elitist for you? the expert players can exploit parts of the game that you might not think could be exploited.

[Dunal]

The idea is to give many different ways to finish a map, not just one specific way, the latter of which DLuna's ideas are surprisingly geared towards.

So one specific way meaning... to clear everything east with Dieck and ferry Roy across the map?

In all seriousness, If people aren't agreeing with my perspective, that's fine. But I'm having trouble understanding some of the points being brought up also. That doesn't mean "I can't take criticism, and if I don't revert the changes I'm wrong" especially before people have played it.

By all means, if people think it's bad after playing, and can give arguments as to why it isn't better, I would gladly revert the changes. However, after trying and playing multiple iterations of the map, I currently think the one in discussion is an improvement. Perhaps 'personal preference' is swaying my decisions too much (I get that people think that not all units should be 'useful', which is their own perspective also but in regards to game design I still haven't seen a valid reason for that rather than a preference to just keep things how it is).

And by arguments I mean things like:

"You didn't actually make Wolt/Bors/Roy/Cavs more useful"

"It makes clearing the map too long/short"

"Taking the village isn't worth the hassle"

"The enemy placement sucks"

"Marcus just destroys everything in the middle anyway"

"You're still better off just going south anyway w/ rescuing and ignoring the middle part altogether, so why does it even exist?"

Those would be perfectly valid reasons as to why the changes wouldn't work as well as I thought they would. And heck, perhaps some of those are true and I've overlooked it?

It's fine to be sceptical because even my ideas, let alone if they're good or not, might just be executed poorly. =p But saying I can't take criticism is far from the truth...

I'm not expecting people to go "Oh your ideas are amazing! They will obviously make things better!". But at the same time, the debate at this point has just come down to "your game design mentality is different from mine, and therefore doesn't make sense". One point to clarify; this isn't an attempt to make every unit equally useful, because that's unrealistic. The goal is to improve the amount of 'viable' units/classes/weapons/playstyles etc.... where really in-optimal things in the original game are made more practical. But that's the entire problem -- what some people would consider "viable" or "unviable" or "practical" or "optimal" is completely subjective. And whether you believe if something is "practical" or not matters at all is up to you. I wouldn't say I'm absolutely correct in my mentality, but I'm not objectively wrong either.

It would be pretentious to say I prefer "balanced" games, because that word in itself can have so many meanings. The attempt with my changes is to further 'blur the line' between what's optimal and what isn't. That concept may not be important to some people, but I'd argue for a lot of people, it is. Even if it's just an improved illusion of choice.

Buuut, I'm repeating myself and chances are my perspective just doesn't mesh with others. And either way, I'm likely not even eloquently explaining my stance anyway. Apologies if it appears that way, but in the end -- should this hack get far, I wouldn't be against changing/reverting anything that doesn't work as I had hoped, or if many people believe its a bad change upon playing it. They might not even end up executing my design goals well enough to begin with. But on the other hand, the opposite could be true for some changes that I made, that didn't expect to work.

EDIT: But in any case, I'll release the first patch with my changes included. Feel free to rip them apart from there. =P If they don't work out, they don't work out.

Edited February 8, 2015 by DLuna

[eclipse]

So, if I were to play this, and show off how I do things (which tends to be roundabout and not ideal), along with the logic behind everything, would that count? The biggest problem IMO is that everyone else has to glean things based off of your description of it, while you're the one with the patch itself. Just through those descriptions alone, I think the criticisms that you seem to think are unfounded are perfectly in-line. However, if those criticisms do hold water (and I think they do), would you be willing to overhaul the early chapters?

(I'll stop playing mafia outside of the mafia subforum)

[Irysa]

If it makes anyone feel better I'm not trying to be antagonistic, and I'm sorry if I came across that way.

Except.... That's not true at all and I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Because Bors can do something better than Marcus he's 'forced to be used'? And as far as I'm aware I never said the word 'need' in regards to Bors at all. =/

The statement says "need" to use more/different units then lists examples including him afterwards.

1) The need to use more units in general and to use them well. Wolt/Bors/Low mobility units overall.

I mean as it stands, if you want to play efficiently, you do actually use a lot of units, just not all for combat (except for like, Chapter 4 because everyone needs to contribute there). I mean sure the sentence is separate but the implication is still quite strong....

The entire direction of this is now "Well you're forcing the player to use an Armor Knight! How is that a good thing?". Don't see why it's come to that. CH2 forces a deployment of one, and it's also true that Wolt/Roy wouldn't see much combat without map changes either. Even Alan/Lance don't really have much to do at all, combat wise. But there's a difference between "forcing them to be used" (which I don't understand the argument for TBH, Marcus isn't forced to be used either, he's just practical. So if Bors suddenly has 'practical' elements to him then how is that a bad thing?).

Because like I said, if you want an Armor Knight to be an ideal, practical choice for a role in any given situation in a game like this then they have to fufill way too many criteria that make them more practical than anyone else. Because Armor Knights are pretty damn bad and unless you fufill those criteria, there's really no reason not to use someone else who has potential to do more on a map rather than an armor knight (besides preference or self imposed limitation which is already the case in the original). If you say after forced deployment stops that you won't require (or heavily impose upon) the player to actually use an armor knight, then why the hell won't I just use a cavalier to do something instead? You can't enforce the perspective of "needing" to use units like that without actually making it particularly niche. If your aim is just to buff them a bit so they're slightly more viable for people who preferentially want to use them, I have no qualms with that, but making changes to maps such as adding horseslayer enemies and removing axes from Paladins sends a strong implication that you're trying to deliberately prioritise the use of a particular unit type that is frankly tiresome to use because using them makes maps "drag", and little can be done about it, unlike your complaint about Chapter 2 "dragging" because you don't want to rescue ferry Roy.

I mean, Bors would be a good unit in CH5 if say, he could use swords (now true) and his stats were higher (also true) so I don't have to do anything extra to help them out (or anyone, really). But that doesn't mean *gasp* you're forced to use him! No... you can beat it the same as before. If you want to. I'm not shoving him down anyone's throat. And I think it's fair to say CH5 is a good map in regards to making use of your full group, especially with enemy tweaks to the top of the map to encourage splitting your team a bit more for the different objectives.

I don't see how Bors becomes a good unit in Chapter 5 just because of those changes. He's still got rubbish mov on a map with either lots of forest and mountain (if you go round the long way) or lacks the mov to pull off the positioning required to cleanly choke the quick route compared to alternative units. The only way you will make him more practical for this role than other sword wielders is if you've made the bandits way more accurate and you need his defence to survive, or statistically on offence he's somehow better for it than Dieck/Rutger/Alan/Lance/Marcus.

CH4 is also a good map and could only use slight tweaks at best. The map is open ended and any unit can be put to use.

It's more like you get forced to use as many units as possible because the enemy defence is rather high and your halberd is way too inaccurate, so you end up just having to either repeatedly let Marcus chip things whilst retreating or trying to get every single unit to hit at least once so you can secure kills. That chapter should probably be rebalanced or at least something done to the avo of the enemies, since one miss hurts a lot.

CH2 isn't necessarily bad -- I just still hold the belief that if ferrying Roy to the seize point is way more optimal than anything else (which, on a lot of other maps, really isn't too necessary at all and the map doesn't 'drag on' if you don't) then making a change to make the map feel more natural without having to resort to that (while also having much more combat use for the units that you have) seemed like a good idea to test out. Turned out it worked very well in practice, so I've stuck to it.

But why is it bad that ferrying Roy is optimal on that map? If you don't think it's that big a deal on most maps, then why is it a big deal if the occaisonal map has it? What's wrong with it being a map that encourages and rewards you in utilising rescue and high mov units, not just in ferrying Roy but in getting ideal positioning for turn 1?

You can still actually do the old strategy of ferrying Roy around the bottom of the map (or with Thany) and still save a turn or two but a (possibly optional) more combat oriented route adds to map rather than taking away, especially one where Marcus can't completely solo, and you still have a diversion with the north Village to deal with too. Sounds like CH5 a lot doesn't it? Because that's the inspiration.

As dondon already said, Ch2 and Ch5 are quite different, and it takes a LOT longer to go round the long way in Ch5 due to the high density of forests and continous reinforcements.

But to answer the question, you've taken away from the assets and focus of the original, like I said before. The original has an emphasis throughout on using using chokepoints, advantageous terrain (forts) and high mov units/rescue to get items and units to where they want to be, but it isn't restrictive about it because it's just chapter 2. I think it's a great example of introducing mechanical nuances and interactions without ever explictly telling you to do anything at all. Once a player has learnt how to do these things, they can try to figure how to effectively clear out the first group of enemies whilst still quickly getting Marcus and Roy to rendezvous with Dieck's team.

By adding an extra path with a clump of units in the middle, you're now changing the focus of the map to be centered around optimally clearing out that clump of enemies, which is something Marcus will do handily at this point in the game. So to remedy that you've taken the opportunity to place an obnoxious enemy there that according to you practically requires you to use Bors to kill said enemy safely. I don't know the exact positioning but I'm assuming the pull is quite large and the clump is too since otherwise Alance should be able to chuck a Javelin at that Soldier, or Wolt should be able to chip him for Marcus to secure a kill with his Silver Lance without ever risking getting hit by it, and that would undermine your goal of trying to get the player to use Bors. Since if I don't need to use him, I'm not going to because armors suck. On the whole, this sounds like a far less subtle and interesting dynamic to add into a map that already had a cohesive value and uniqueness to it.

If I took CH5, and completely took away the bottom path of the map (let's say... block it with a mountain), and then placed all the enemies at the top of the map, would that make the map better? I would say no. (Although I would still consider it better than CH2 because, in CH2, Dieck's group pretty much means that most enemies will be cleared while Roy is playing catchup, meaning progressing the map isn't really that interesting beyond saving turns/time by ferrying effectively).

The way I see it, it would make CH5 very similar to the original CH2. Turns out making it more similar to CH5 is an improvement (IMO). That's the way it has worked out in practice, and everyone I've spoke to outside this topic regarding the change seems to agree with it (not that it means anything to you, or the debate at hand, but there's two sides to the argument here -- and I'm not trying to being biased towards one way or the other until people have played it -- may turn out to be bad and people have specific arguments to why that's the case).

Again as dondon said previously, the terrain and layout and reinforcement and enemy stats of Ch5 all contribute to making that route way more of a slog than Ch2 is. You can't even efficiently ferry Roy across that part of the map beacuse of the obnoxious Nomads and Mercs continously running into you and your movement being slowed to a crawl due to terrain. We're running into this conflict agani here where you say that in Ch2, for Roy's group "progressing the map isn't really that interesting", and again I say in response; you have the facilities to do stuff to make it more interesting! Unless you're just saying you don't want to use the rescue mechanic beacuse you subjectively don't like it (for some reason).

To be fair, I haven't heard a strong argument from anyone saying why the map is 'fine the way it is' other then 'it's fine the way it is'. I get that rescue dropping can be cool and effective but saying that it should be the most optimal way to play is like saying 'armor knights are the most effective way to play'. I would disagree with either of those being necessary and I'm not advocating the latter like you think I am.

I haven't objected to the map being changed, I've objected to the changes you've actually said you've made...

People have given you reasons too anyway. dondon mentioned how Dieck's team actually gets time to shine because of spawning halfway through the map, instead of being relegated to falling behind Marcus. Changing it results in their contribution being worth far less, and resulting in them of just getting free exp because we're not going round the long way anyway. I've given you reasons articulating how as the second map in the game, it does a fantastic job of introducing and reinforcing and utilising principles immediately in a learning process, whilst also being subtle. Like the effective reward for just thinking a little is actually really high. You aren't improving a map by taking away from this, the "option" of it being there is meaningless when it's not being reinforced in what players are likely trying to achieve.

In fact, you're saying that Percival isn't 'forced' (which is true, no-one is 'forced', but you are losing a lot of efficiency if you don't use him) in the same way I'm saying that Knights aren't 'forced'. But also saying that him being amazingly good is fine while making Knights actually useful or good would be bad. There's some conflicting messages here.

You can replicate what Percival does with other units rather easily though, wheras the situation you've outlined specifically tries to create a situation where the only choice is Bors. I have no problem with you buffing Knights but I have a problem with you deliberately trying to make them the optimal choice because you have to do too many things to make them an optimal choice, so the end result is just far too linear and allows for less strategic diversity.

On the topic of Armor Knights, it's not like I'm going to tweak every map to make them amazing or anything (In the original game, Knights aren't even remotely good in casual play, let alone anything more structured). Changing certain maps so that anyone who isn't a flying unit or a paladin is better off isn't out of the question though. Especially Roy, which, unlike Armor Knights, is actually forced deployment. =p

Just give an example of something you've done/are going to do that actually makes infantry units somehow better/more practical/ideal/"needed" over fliers/cavalry that doesn't burn down to "I purposely made it so you need to use those units".

There will be *some* defend maps, and those should be sufficient enough to make them at least good in casual play. It doesn't really need to be much more than that -- I'm not forcing anything.

Why can't I just use a unit I'd actually rather get exp into and is going to likely be durable enough instead though? Once again, if you aren't restrictive enough, what's the point in using the armor over anyone else? The thing about defence maps is that the actually interesting ones have subobjectives, usually either being kill boss, or get some loot or w/e, and in those cases, more movement is actually pretty valuable, as is pushing out of your initial cubby hole. If you don't have any subobjectives then defence maps end up being exercises in waiting around for the map to end, or at best an attempt to milk as much exp as possible. Also no matter what you do, if you have chokepoints then given GBA rescuing mechanics, simply deequiping somebody and placing them in a choke then periodically healing and rescuing the healer trivialises whatever enemies are being thrown at you

Apologies for the wall of texts. Trying to over-clarify myself, probably. =x

No worries.

[Yojinbo]

FE6 definitely needs an upgrade.

Uhm ... no it doesn't? Not more than other FE games do anyway. There isn't that much wrong with the game that it "definitely needs" an "upgrade".

[Baldrick]

@Irysa; what's stopping you from ignoring the path through the mountain and going the long way around? It has less resistance and means you can combine your forces, which would make it an attractive option. It'd take more turns, but that doesn't mean anything on its own outside of an LTC context. If you go around, the map will still play the same way. Bors may be necessary to get through the mountain path reliably, but if you don't need to go through that path to win, he's not being forced on the player.

[Irysa]

You obviously can choose to do anything (including like, not play the game) but when we talk about improving the level and map design we have to make comparisons. By adding said features to the map you are actually lowering the emphasis and relative value of what the original map actually has. The emphasis is the important part because the original chapter is actually designed around the prospect of introducing players to various mechanics and good utilisation of those mechanics.

The maps are not in some vaccum by themselves here, it's about FE6 original (and all the intent and design withstanding there) and this "improved" version. If I decided to romhack the original NES Super Mario Bros and "improve" it, and then decided to start the player on the right side of the screen immediately on world 1 when they spawn (because you don't need to waste time walking across that empty space!) I'll have diluted and reduced the original valuable intent of why this was done - to instantly tell the player that the way to progress is to move right. Similarly, I could remove or add blocks or enemies on the next part of the screen, but I'd be diluting the emphasis of the original again where it was quite specifically designed to make sure the player ends up getting the mushroom.

[Dunal]

@Irysa; what's stopping you from ignoring the path through the mountain and going the long way around? It has less resistance and means you can combine your forces, which would make it an attractive option. It'd take more turns, but that doesn't mean anything on its own outside of an LTC context. If you go around, the map will still play the same way. Bors may be necessary to get through the mountain path reliably, but if you don't need to go through that path to win, he's not being forced on the player.

It's actually easier for Roy's group to reach Dieck now since the fort in the bottom left of the map has been replaced with more open land, meaning you don't need to shove your team through that narrow space. There's also less enemy resistance.

Dieck's group still has a lot of enemies to deal with near the eastern forts, so sending someone like Wolt or Lance (for artillery) can be quite useful.

I think what would be a good idea is for me to post a screenshot of the map and label points of interest. People can pick it apart or critique it more specifically at that point.

Or if it helps, people can point out changes that work and those that don't. At the very least some of the more minor changes (that I haven'r mentioned) could be sufficient in the long run.

Edited February 9, 2015 by DLuna

[eclipse]

You obviously can choose to do anything (including like, not play the game) but when we talk about improving the level and map design we have to make comparisons. By adding said features to the map you are actually lowering the emphasis and relative value of what the original map actually has. The emphasis is the important part because the original chapter is actually designed around the prospect of introducing players to various mechanics and good utilisation of those mechanics.

The maps are not in some vaccum by themselves here, it's about FE6 original (and all the intent and design withstanding there) and this "improved" version. If I decided to romhack the original NES Super Mario Bros and "improve" it, and then decided to start the player on the right side of the screen immediately on world 1 when they spawn (because you don't need to waste time walking across that empty space!) I'll have diluted and reduced the original valuable intent of why this was done - to instantly tell the player that the way to progress is to move right. Similarly, I could remove or add blocks or enemies on the next part of the screen, but I'd be diluting the emphasis of the original again where it was quite specifically designed to make sure the player ends up getting the mushroom.

That's odd, I thought Chapter 2 was an introduction to super-effective weaponry, and have never really bothered with rescue-chaining. My turn counts aren't amazing, but it's certainly doable by good ol' foot movement.

I can agree that adding a path through the mountains isn't ideal, but I disagree with your line of reasoning - not everyone will go "oh rescue-dropping" as soon as they see that map.

[Irysa]

I thought Chapter 2 was an introduction to super-effective weaponry,

Sure, it does that too. I just neglected to mention it because I don't believe that's being changed by what he's doing?

not everyone will go "oh rescue-dropping" as soon as they see that map.

They don't but the start of the map is so explict about it though.

http://www.fireemblemwod.com/fe6/guiafe6/capitulo2fe6.htm

That choke is so valuable to occupy on turn 1 but you can't actually just move anyone on it, you have to do a rescue > take > drop in order to occupy it. I'll admit, sure, ferrying units all the way through it isn't exactly what will come to mind immediately, but it follows pretty reasonably from the initial trick it does.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Irysa

[eclipse]

Sure, it does that too. I just neglected to mention it because I don't believe that's being changed by what he's doing?

It was what I thought of when I first saw the map, and the stuff from the village.

They don't but the start of the map is so explict about it though.

http://www.fireemblemwod.com/fe6/guiafe6/capitulo2fe6.htm

That choke is so valuable to occupy on turn 1 but you can't actually just move anyone on it, you have to do a rescue > take > drop in order to occupy it.

I normally lure the two nearby soldiers on turn 1, then have something on a horse race to the point on turn 2. IIRC those enemies don't move unless someone's in range. It's not ideal, but it still works.

[Irysa]

It was what I thought of when I first saw the map, and the stuff from the village.

I'm not saying it wasn't a primary consideration, but again, I was talking about points he was diminishing. Unless he removes the armorslayer from the village I didn't see the need to raise it as a point for the original chapter since we were discussing differences. I mentioned how you want to use Thany to ship the armorslayer from the left side to the right side since presumably whoever you've sent to the village to get it will be behind the rest of your units, and Thany can fly over the mountain to get it to where it needs to be quickly.

I normally lure the two nearby soldiers on turn 1, then have something on a horse race to the point on turn 2. IIRC those enemies don't move unless someone's in range. It's not ideal, but it still works.

The hand axe fighter and soldiers don't move unless someone's in range but the other fighters do. Regardless, once again, you don't HAVE to occupy the fort on turn 1, and I haven't made the claim at any point that you have to. Like, you can do whatever the hell you want as it stands within the constraints of the game, so if you want to move up slowly then they can't really stop you from doing it (unless they start spawning uber reinforcements but thats a bit too harsh for Chapter 2!). I've simply said it's very clearly laid out so that you can't just put a swordie in there on turn 1 beause they start too far away. This is far too deliberate to be just random nuance. If you want to get on the fort you have to apply yourself just a little, and you get directly rewarded for it in a good enemy phase. I know when I first saw this map I wanted to get a Cavalier onto the fort but realised I couldn't reach, so I realised I could just drop someone in there instead. That's by any measure of merit a pretty well implemented and subtle part of the starting positions and map design here.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Irysa

[Baldrick]

You obviously can choose to do anything (including like, not play the game) but when we talk about improving the level and map design we have to make comparisons. By adding said features to the map you are actually lowering the emphasis and relative value of what the original map actually has. The emphasis is the important part because the original chapter is actually designed around the prospect of introducing players to various mechanics and good utilisation of those mechanics.

I don't think the mountain would path detract from that introduction. A new player would probably still see the fort as a key strategic point to rendezvous with Dieck, and possibly realise creative use of rescue could allow a unit to take that fort immediately. An experienced player might decide to ignore it but they likely wouldn't need the lesson anyway.

@DLuna; I don't agree with clearing the bottom-left corner, the fort makes it a more interesting journey; without it, it's just a long hike around.

[eclipse]

I'm not saying it wasn't a primary consideration, but again, I was talking about points he was diminishing. Unless he removes the armorslayer from the village I didn't see the need to raise it as a point for the original chapter since we were discussing differences. I mentioned how you want to use Thany to ship the armorslayer from the left side to the right side since presumably whoever you've sent to the village to get it will be behind the rest of your units, and Thany can fly over the mountain to get it to where it needs to be quickly.

I intend on using every last turn on this map to build supports, what is this Thany you're talking about?

I can understand that, and agree with you there.

The hand axe fighter and soldiers don't move unless someone's in range but the other fighters do. Regardless, once again, you don't HAVE to occupy the fort on turn 1, and I haven't made the claim at any point that you have to. Like, you can do whatever the hell you want as it stands within the constraints of the game, so if you want to move up slowly then they can't really stop you from doing it (unless they start spawning uber reinforcements but thats a bit too harsh for Chapter 2!). I've simply said it's very clearly laid out so that you can't just put a swordie in there on turn 1 beause they start too far away. This is far too deliberate to be just random nuance. If you want to get on the fort you have to apply yourself just a little, and you get directly rewarded for it in a good enemy phase. I know when I first saw this map I wanted to get a Cavalier onto the fort but realised I couldn't reach, so I realised I could just drop someone in there instead. That's by any measure of merit a pretty well implemented and subtle part of the starting positions and map design here.

You're arguing for map intent - while I agree that it was probably the original map's purpose, I don't think that it should be held in such a way that it's the ONLY way of doing things (which is sort of the sense I'm getting with your posts). FE allows for flexible strategies, and it's something I like about the series.

That point can also allow for stupid things like grinding Wolt, but who in their right minds would even consider that?

[Dunal]

@DLuna; I don't agree with clearing the bottom-left corner, the fort makes it a more interesting journey; without it, it's just a long hike around.

Hmmm, may be something to reconsider. It just means that it's more viable (or painless) to send units bot with Dieck if you want to do that. Or ignore the middle route altogether.

Here is the map (the image is a tad big, but w/e). A video might have been better, but this should be sufficient:

I can re-add the fort with more enemies to boot, it just means that the middle route would be even better to send all your units through (outside of EXP). At least that's the way it felt before I changed it. Might not need the change though.

Well... assuming the middle route is a good idea in the first place. I'm still convinced it is. Its adding an option rather than taking one away, at least it feels that way in practice.

In any case, I know people here aren't a fan of the concept but hopefully that might add a bit of context to things. The comments in regards to "you can do this, or do that" are typically the numerous ways I've played it -- it's just examples.

Edited February 9, 2015 by DLuna

[eclipse]

Eeep, reinforcements on Chapter 2. . .and wyverns, no less! They're a pain in the ass to deal with on Chapter 7, and that's when you have access to better weapons!

[Dunal]

Eeep, reinforcements on Chapter 2. . .and wyverns, no less! They're a pain in the ass to deal with on Chapter 7, and that's when you have access to better weapons!

They're pretty weak, tbh. As with other classes their base stats got adjusted. Wolt can 1HKO them with a steel bow.

Also, they only spawn twice. Turn 3 and 5, so it's a bit inaccurate.

Edited February 9, 2015 by DLuna

[Baldrick]

My thoughts;

Move Roy's group up and to the right a bit, and put a fort on the second path. Make the fort too far for anyone to step onto on turn 1 to keep that map quirk.

Move the village/armory down and slice off the top part of the map. Have the wyverns move only if they can attack. I wouldn't want to have too many wyverns this early (without seeing their stats, I can't be specific), and it's probably best to have reinforcements only from the forts near the throne.