Weapon rank, how much should it matter?

[Zapp Branniglenn]

"You want to know something? You need to give weapons to those who can wield them. Otherwise, it’s just a waste of a perfectly good weapon. Take this blade. I mean, I can use it, but… I’m not too strong, and… I just hate being counterattacked. Anyway, think strategically about who you give weapons to.” -Matthew, trying to teach us how Con works but I thought was a weapon rank tutorial as a kid

Attaining weapon experience and ranking up has been in the series for most of its entries. Mostly acting as a barrier from using the strongest weapons. Then Shadow Dragon gives you a bonus to combat stats when wielding that weapon type, starting at rank C and increasing from there. Plus the weapon triangle was modified to be similar to this. As you and your enemies get higher weapons ranks, WT advantages and disadvantages are more pronounced. A further reward for mastering the weapon triangle, and a lesser penalty for players early in the game still wrapping their head around it.

But with Echoes about to release, I think we need to take a look at this system again. Does Fire Emblem work without weapon ranks? Should units get bonuses for achieving higher ranks, and if so, how big should those bonuses be?

[Slumber]

More or less how it is now. I like that it's something you get better with as you level, and it mitigates the weapon triangle disadvantages. It makes sense from an RPG perspective. You get better with everything else as you progress through these games, and even your relationships advance, so why not the combat prowess of your units increase beyond just how hard they swing their weapons? Makes sense that an axe wielder who has spent the better part of the last few months/years(Depending on the game) would eventually get better at hitting those pesky swordies.

And I think the weapon triangle is something FE should include as it has in the past, not so much how Fates went about it. The secondary weapon triangle for ranged weapons was a lot less compelling than the traditional magic triangle+Bows. I also think every game should do Nature/Anima magic+Light+Dark magic, just because there's so much more variety there without it feeling contrived. I like the idea of Light/Dark magic being these rare magics that only holy men or magic students willing to dabble in dark magics can wield.

[Interdimensional Observer]

Keep Weapon Rank, keep it slow to level. Maybe keep the rank bonuses, because otherwise, later in the games WTA/WTD stops mattering completely. That said, we don't need triangles that represent simple strategy, we can balance characters and classes other ways.

Get rid of the Fates inclusion of Bows, Magic, and Daggers in the triangle, keep them aloof from it all. The Anima-Light-Dark Trinity of Magic Triangle was almost meaningless, it can stay gone too.

Making Anima the main magic type and relegating Dark and Light to secondary and special roles is okay by me. But if we make Light and Dark standard, make sure that they are actually all distinct.

By why not try a Chinese "5 Phases" system once? Fire-Water-Metal-Earth-Wood? We could shove Wind, Dark, Light and Thunder in there somewhere- just as Wind contains Ice, and Fire and Dark, Earth, in the current system.

I toyed with the idea of Weapon Rank and Weapon Level once. Weapon Rank determines what weapons you can use, and your Weapon Level vs. your opponent's determines the size of the atk/hit bonuses/losses.

[NekoKnight]

I think the combat bonuses just add unnecessary complications to Fire Emblem's otherwise refreshingly simple battle system so I'm in favor of weapon ranks only affecting weapon usage. 

One change (more related to classes, but I digress) I would like to see is promoted classes having a higher minimum rank than the base class. Dropping down to E-rank punishes reclassing and makes you grind just so you can actually use weapons appropriate for you place in the game.

[Shadow Mir]

42 minutes ago, Slumber said:

I also think every game should do Nature/Anima magic+Light+Dark magic, just because there's so much more variety there without it feeling contrived. I like the idea of Light/Dark magic being these rare magics that only holy men or magic students willing to dabble in dark magics can wield.

I disagree - the magic triangle just feels tacked on imho. I feel like it never makes a significant difference in combat.

That said, I like the weapon rank system as it is now.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Levant Mir Celestia

[Slumber]

25 minutes ago, Levant Mir Celestia said:

I disagree - the magic triangle just feels tacked on imho. I feel like it never makes a significant difference in combat.

That said, I like the weapon rank system as it is now.

There was a bit of weird balance, since usually you'd just use physical units to deal with magic, negating the purpose of the triangle for magic. I think adopting a Heroes style of doing it could help. Have dark magic be able to work against lances, light work against axes, anima against swords. Or maybe lowering res and raising defense for magic users to actually make using magic against magic users a bit more viable, and making it more difficult to just toss melee against magic.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Slumber

[Shadow Mir]

42 minutes ago, Slumber said:

There was a bit of weird balance, since usually you'd just use physical units to deal with magic, negating the purpose of the triangle for magic. I think adopting a Heroes style of doing it could help. Have dark magic be able to work against lances, light work against axes, anima against swords. Or maybe lowering res and raising defense for magic users to actually make using magic against magic users a bit more viable, and making it more difficult to just toss melee against magic.

"A bit of weird balance" is putting it VERY lightly - you either had one magic type being head and shoulders above all the others (Genealogy), or you had mages not exactly being all-star units (Radiant Dawn), or it was something else entirely. There's also that matter of mages tending to be a minority in both the player's and enemy's armies.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Levant Mir Celestia

[Magical Glace]

I'd say a faster version of FE6's system.  Make staves not take 9000 years to level compared to weapons, and give higher base WL for new things on promotion.

[Dunal]

17 hours ago, Levant Mir Celestia said:

"A bit of weird balance" is putting it VERY lightly - you either had one magic type being head and shoulders above all the others (Genealogy), or you had mages not exactly being all-star units (Radiant Dawn), or it was something else entirely. There's also that matter of mages tending to be a minority in both the player's and enemy's armies.

It's more to do with how the games are balanced overall, not that magic triangle is inherently pointless. I've resolved (FE10 hack) it by:

• Increasing enemy magi numbers (also helps to make RES a more relevant stat).
• Have magi with lower RES and higher DEF (typically thunder and dark mages).
• Increasing magic WTA bonuses/penalties (+/- 4 damage and 15 hit).
• Varying magic range (thunder/dark 1 range, wind 2-3 range). 1 range magic also helps mages in higher numbers be less annoying as well (having too many 2 range enemies is not good design). 
• Skill interactions that make magic vs. magic even more relevant. 
• Reaver magic.

Basically, there is zero reason why the magic triangle(s) cannot be relevant. It's not inherently useless. It can be just as impacting as the standard weapon triangle.

Shame that IS scrapped it just because they didn't know what to do with it.

Edited April 18, 2017 by DLuna

[Shadow Mir]

2 hours ago, DLuna said:

It's more to do with how the games are balanced overall, not that magic triangle is inherently pointless. I've resolved (FE10 hack) it by:

• Increasing enemy magi numbers (also helps to make RES a more relevant stat).
• Have magi with lower RES and higher DEF (typically thunder and dark mages).
• Increasing magic WTA bonuses/penalties (+/- 4 damage and 15 hit).
• Varying magic range (thunder/dark 1 range, wind 2-3 range). 1 range magic also helps mages in higher numbers be less annoying as well (having too many 2 range enemies is not good design). 
• Skill interactions that make magic vs. magic even more relevant. 
• Reaver magic.

Basically, there is zero reason why the magic triangle(s) cannot be relevant. It's not inherently useless. It can be just as impacting as the standard weapon triangle.

Shame that IS scrapped it just because they didn't know what to do with it.

No, they scrapped it because it was irrelevant. Also, looking at your suggestions, if you have to go that far to make it work, that just goes to show that it DOESN'T work, far as I'm concerned (it's obvious something's wrong when your solution involves boosting the WTA/WTD bonus/penalty to ridiculous levels).

Edited April 18, 2017 by Levant Mir Celestia

[Augestein]

No it doesn't. The reason that the magic triangle didn't matter is because of the imbalance between enemy mages and ally mages. Mages in the series that are enemies are generally weak. Like... Much weaker than the physical enemies. It really doesn't make much sense. The reason the magic triangle doesn't matter is because the mages generally do 0-4 damage to your mages. Your res is too high and the enemy magic is too low. Seriously, tweak the enemy numbers and formations and yours and you'll realize just how much it can matter. 

 

[Extrasolar]

I do like the idea of weapon ranks providing bonuses in combat, just for the fact that it makes sense logically. I like when it's acknowledged that it takes endless time and practice to be good at something, and weapon wielding (and magic) is no exception, and when you get really good at it, you'll be outperforming those who aren't as practiced.

When you're above average in swordsmanship (or lancemanship and axemanship), it makes sense that you'd know where to strike in order to cause the most damage to your opponent, as opposed to a guy who's just picked up a sword and is sitting at E rank.

Though now that it's brought up, it never really made sense why weapon rank acted as a mysterious barrier of entry for certain weapons, other than pure game mechanics. Even a novice swordsman can pick up any sword, even if it's a type he or she is unfamiliar with, and use it for its most basic of functions.They won't be great at it, of course, but they can still cut a guy if they need to.

Maybe in the future, all weapons are usable at any rank, but incur heavy penalties for being used by inexperienced users, or perhaps just make the bonuses of those weapons locked to people below a certain weapon rank? That's enough to discourage a newbie from using a Silver Sword, without making it literally unusable and weird in-universe.

I think, regardless for promoted units or not, units that are just now getting access to a certain weapon type should start at E rank. They're literally a beginner.

I actually really liked the magic triangle. Sure, it wasn't necessarily the most helpful thing in the world mechanically, since magic-using units tend to have high resistance, and you generally throw a physical attack at a mage to kill it. Then again, I'm someone who's very much in favor of tons of diversity in magic, and I really dislike the magic simplification that's happened in the newer games.

I've seen lots of people in favor of getting rid of the weapon triangle, but I actually like it, simply for realism's sake. In real life, it's far, far harder to win a battle against a guy with a lance when you're wielding a sword just due to the huge difference in reach, for instance, and the magic triangle had that same sort of logic to it...well, for the most part.

Fire magic was good against wind magic? Oxygen fuels flames and makes them larger. Light magic being strong against dark magic? That's a common thing - goodness and holiness cleansing unholy/dark energy.

I would like a little more explanation about how wind beats thunder, or how darkness is strong against anima. Might be an interesting little tidbit to insert into a support or base conversation somewhere.

I don't like magic, hidden weapons and bows being in the physical weapon triangle, because that has no logic to it whatsoever. What makes an axe user better at taking magical hits than a sword user? Why are bow-users strangely susceptible to daggers and shurikens?

As a side note, yes, please, buff the stave weapon level up rate, and the experience gain of healers in general. It's always a struggle training them up unless you're grinding scratch damage heals, which is bad for your staff durability.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Extrasolar

[Shadow Mir]

54 minutes ago, Augestein said:

No it doesn't. The reason that the magic triangle didn't matter is because of the imbalance between enemy mages and ally mages. Mages in the series that are enemies are generally weak. Like... Much weaker than the physical enemies. It really doesn't make much sense. The reason the magic triangle doesn't matter is because the mages generally do 0-4 damage to your mages. Your res is too high and the enemy magic is too low. Seriously, tweak the enemy numbers and formations and yours and you'll realize just how much it can matter. 

 

I see that as a contributing factor to the magic triangle's irrelevance, along with mages being a minority. And that's on top of other factors.

[Magical Glace]

Then why not make mages not such a minority?  Why not add more variety to them?

I never understood why they decided to take steps backward with magic diversity in Awakening.  There's nothing stopping them from expanding on the idea, it's not inherently irrelevant, it just needs expansion.

[Dunal]

21 hours ago, Levant Mir Celestia said:

No, they scrapped it because it was irrelevant. Also, looking at your suggestions, if you have to go that far to make it work, that just goes to show that it DOESN'T work, far as I'm concerned (it's obvious something's wrong when your solution involves boosting the WTA/WTD bonus/penalty to ridiculous levels).

That's some questionable reasoning/perspective.

It's like saying: "In order to make the weapon triangle matter, they had to make physical enemies appear more often relative to magi, give some of them low/middling DEF, have varying range, have reaver weapons etc... All of which exist still in modern fire emblem in order to make the mechanic relevant. And even then, rarely is in lategame.

The reason why the WTA bonuses are strong is just because HP values are higher and to keep the triangle relevant at lategame (plus, most FE10 units start at tier 2 already, meaning damage values scale up quickly -- so it's the difference between someone like Soren dealing 18 damage and 22 damage with WTA), kind of how in recent FE games, WTA bonuses increases based on weapon rank.

Logically, if physical weapons were in the minority and all of them had high DEF, would the weapon triangle be relevant? Highly unlikely. It already tapers off in relevence past early/mid game. So by your logic (which seems to stem from cognitive bias as opposed to understanding why it had little impact to begin with), they should scrap it as well.

Then we have Heroes... Which takes things to another extreme to make it relevant at max levels. Because dealing 1 or 2 extra damage when the enemy has 50 HP is practically useless.

Edited April 19, 2017 by DLuna

[Shadow Mir]

1 hour ago, DLuna said:

That's some questionable reasoning/perspective.

It's like saying: "In order to make the weapon triangle matter, they had to make physical enemies appear more often relative to magi, give some of them low/middling DEF, have varying range, have reaver weapons etc... All of which exist still in modern fire emblem in order to make the mechanic relevant. And even then, rarely is in lategame.

The reason why the WTA bonuses are strong is just because HP values are higher and to keep the triangle relevant at lategame (plus, most FE10 units start at tier 2 already, meaning damage values scale up quickly -- so it's the difference between someone like Soren dealing 18 damage and 22 damage with WTA), kind of how in recent FE games, WTA bonuses increases based on weapon rank.

Logically, if physical weapons were in the minority and all of them had high DEF, would the weapon triangle be relevant? Highly unlikely. It already tapers off in relevence past early/mid game. So by your logic (which seems to stem from cognitive bias as opposed to understanding why it had little impact to begin with), they should scrap it as well.

Then we have Heroes... Which takes things to another extreme to make it relevant at max levels. Because dealing 1 or 2 extra damage when the enemy has 50 HP is practically useless.

The way I see it, 9 times out of 10, mage vs mage combat tends to boil down to one of two things - either one of the two outclasses the other pretty badly, or you get a scenario where you might as well be sending a myrmidon at a knight. Combine that with the rarity of mages relative to physical enemies (outside of the last two parts of Radiant Dawn's endgame, when were mages ever common as an enemy type?) and the fact that most mages tend to be specced to have high resistance, and...

[Beelzebub]

I loved FE4's class-based weapon ranks. It makes every class unique and it eliminates rank grinding. Played well with the holy blood system, too.

[Dunal]

Just now, Levant Mir Celestia said:

The way I see it, 9 times out of 10, mage vs mage combat tends to boil down to one of two things - either one of the two outclasses the other pretty badly, or you get a scenario where you might as well be sending a myrmidon at a knight. Combine that with the rarity of mages relative to physical enemies (outside of the last two parts of Radiant Dawn's endgame, when were mages ever common as an enemy type?) and the fact that most mages tend to be specced to have high resistance, and...

But... you're basically just going over the issues that are fixable. There's no real reason why mages all need have high RES, or no reason why mage numbers are so small. Or why range differences, reaver weapons can't exist like with physical weapons. Because if physical units didn't have the latter, or all had high DEF etc... then it would be meaningless for them to have a triangle as well.

Again, it's confirmation bias. "Magic triangle is pointless because X, Y and Z". Sure? No one is going to contest that. But the whole point is that those things are fixable. Give magic equal treatment to weaponry and voila. 

It's like saying that Pair-up should be removed after awakening because it was broken in that game (even though it had room for improvement, as seen in Fates, and can continue to have improvements). Or that dark magic should have discontinued because it was almost always weak pre-FE13 (or the units themselves were all weak/undertuned outside of like, Niime).

Different types of magic in the series have rarely ever been interesting -- it normally just boils down to the difference of 10-20 HIT and 1-4 MT across all tomes of the same tier; with no meaningful triangle to make the type you're using important (outside of Tellius weaknesses perhaps). Without a triangle and therefore a purpose to have different magic types to begin with, you're just left with a generic tome line that is required to fit into the actual weapon triangle like in Fates. Is that the best solution? Not really. Because the better alternative is possible just by re-balancing magic and mages as a whole.

[Shadow Mir]

4 hours ago, DLuna said:

But... you're basically just going over the issues that are fixable. There's no real reason why mages all need have high RES, or no reason why mage numbers are so small. Or why range differences, reaver weapons can't exist like with physical weapons. Because if physical units didn't have the latter, or all had high DEF etc... then it would be meaningless for them to have a triangle as well.

Again, it's confirmation bias. "Magic triangle is pointless because X, Y and Z". Sure? No one is going to contest that. But the whole point is that those things are fixable. Give magic equal treatment to weaponry and voila. 

It's like saying that Pair-up should be removed after awakening because it was broken in that game (even though it had room for improvement, as seen in Fates, and can continue to have improvements). Or that dark magic should have discontinued because it was almost always weak pre-FE13 (or the units themselves were all weak/undertuned outside of like, Niime).

Different types of magic in the series have rarely ever been interesting -- it normally just boils down to the difference of 10-20 HIT and 1-4 MT across all tomes of the same tier; with no meaningful triangle to make the type you're using important (outside of Tellius weaknesses perhaps). Without a triangle and therefore a purpose to have different magic types to begin with, you're just left with a generic tome line that is required to fit into the actual weapon triangle like in Fates. Is that the best solution? Not really. Because the better alternative is possible just by re-balancing magic and mages as a whole.

Yeah, it isn't unfixable. The problem, as I see it, is that your so-called "fixes" are likely to give birth to more problems than they'd solve. I mean, stripping magic of its greatest asset - its versatility? Really now? What in the seven hells do you hope to accomplish with that??? And therein lies the problem - I don't like the extremes you're willing to go to to "fix" it. And let's not forget that the game you hacked was one where mages had issues, namely weak tomes and speed problems.

Edited April 20, 2017 by Levant Mir Celestia

[Dunal]

10 hours ago, Levant Mir Celestia said:

Yeah, it isn't unfixable. The problem, as I see it, is that your so-called "fixes" are likely to give birth to more problems than they'd solve. I mean, stripping magic of its greatest asset - its versatility? Really now? What in the seven hells do you hope to accomplish with that??? And therein lies the problem - I don't like the extremes you're willing to go to to "fix" it. And let's not forget that the game you hacked was one where mages had issues, namely weak tomes and speed problems.

What exactly do you mean by "striping versatility?" It's the complete opposite. Reaver weapons, dark magic that passively reduces damage taken by weapons, 2-4 range wind magic (albeit lower accuracy at further range). More magic that inflict effective damage. Lower RES mages to make magic more effective on them (along with meaningful WTA) with mages being more common overall. Mages being buffed in stats overall (with hugely varying stats as well like physical units). Further skill integration (Corona/Flare rework + new skills) etc...

Don't want to move this discussion to my hack since that's a different topic altogether. But the point is that you're making huge assumptions and isolating magic WTA without context."likely to give birth to more problems than they'd solve". That really doesn't mean anything and again, making complete assumptions. Does the standard weapon triangle cause more problems than benefits? You tell me.

Magic WTA gives magic depth beyond being statically 1-2 range and having very little interaction with each-other. Mage vs. Mage combat is woefully underwhelming in most games unless one mage has vastly out-levelled the other. Is that not a design flaw worth looking into? Turns out it's not even difficult to fix. (You also force mages to have typically lower stats/potential than physical units since they are permanently 1-2 range and target RES that tends to be lower than DEF)

1-range magic actually turns out to be extremely healthy for the game as well (in the exact same way 1-range weaponry does). You can increase the number of enemy mages since they no longer all have magical javelins/handaxes to make enemy phase a slog (unless you also happen to have 1-2 range weapons always equipped as well; which is not ideal at all). It also makes tank-like mages balanced and healthy for the game as well. So you end up increasing versatility for magical units beyond all of them just being 1-2 range squishes. Someone like Micaiah can have high offense and range with light magic or be a lot more defensive with dark magic. If that isn't versatility, I don't know what is.

 

Not meaning to seem condescending or anything, just largely interested why would be so against improving aspects that are pre-established in many games in the series. If we get FE4 echoes then it will very likely return, so it's not like there is not opportunity to improve the mechanic. And from experience, it's absolutely possible and definitely adds more depth and consideration to the game.

[Shadow Mir]

4 hours ago, DLuna said:

What exactly do you mean by "striping versatility?" It's the complete opposite. Reaver weapons, dark magic that passively reduces damage taken by weapons, 2-4 range wind magic (albeit lower accuracy at further range). More magic that inflict effective damage. Lower RES mages to make magic more effective on them (along with meaningful WTA) with mages being more common overall. Mages being buffed in stats overall (with hugely varying stats as well like physical units). Further skill integration (Corona/Flare rework + new skills) etc...

Don't want to move this discussion to my hack since that's a different topic altogether. But the point is that you're making huge assumptions and isolating magic WTA without context."likely to give birth to more problems than they'd solve". That really doesn't mean anything and again, making complete assumptions. Does the standard weapon triangle cause more problems than benefits? You tell me.

Magic WTA gives magic depth beyond being statically 1-2 range and having very little interaction with each-other. Mage vs. Mage combat is woefully underwhelming in most games unless one mage has vastly out-levelled the other. Is that not a design flaw worth looking into? Turns out it's not even difficult to fix. (You also force mages to have typically lower stats/potential than physical units since they are permanently 1-2 range and target RES that tends to be lower than DEF)

1-range magic actually turns out to be extremely healthy for the game as well (in the exact same way 1-range weaponry does). You can increase the number of enemy mages since they no longer all have magical javelins/handaxes to make enemy phase a slog (unless you also happen to have 1-2 range weapons always equipped as well; which is not ideal at all). It also makes tank-like mages balanced and healthy for the game as well. So you end up increasing versatility for magical units beyond all of them just being 1-2 range squishes. Someone like Micaiah can have high offense and range with light magic or be a lot more defensive with dark magic. If that isn't versatility, I don't know what is.

 

Not meaning to seem condescending or anything, just largely interested why would be so against improving aspects that are pre-established in many games in the series. If we get FE4 echoes then it will very likely return, so it's not like there is not opportunity to improve the mechanic. And from experience, it's absolutely possible and definitely adds more depth and consideration to the game.

Oh, puh-lease. You can't believe that this wouldn't absolutely mangle the game's balance, and you gotta admit, your idea is completely departed from any sense of reality. And believe me, Unintelligent Systems can't balance their way out of a paper bag. Also, I don't see a remake that might not happen as a very endearing argument. Anyways, what I meant by stripping magic of its versatility was that I like magic being able to attack enemies both adjacent and at range.

Edited April 20, 2017 by Levant Mir Celestia

[Dunal]

2 hours ago, Levant Mir Celestia said:

Oh, puh-lease. You can't believe that this wouldn't absolutely mangle the game's balance, and you gotta admit, your idea is completely departed from any sense of reality. And believe me, Unintelligent Systems can't balance their way out of a paper bag.

"You couldn't possibly know what you're doing if the main devs don't!" Sure, because no-one's ever made a good fangame before.

All the changes I mentioned are implemented and test fine so far (outside of number tweaking). But thanks for your detailed analysis, I guess? I have no idea what you believe is imbalanced (mages take damage from magic? the horror) but I'll clearly take your word since you've played so much of it.

(Not that I don't understand why people would be highly suspect of huge changes being executed well from some random fangame; let alone made by someone who's fav game is Thracia it's just not correct to make huge assumptions like yourself as if it's impossible or that it wouldn't improve depth/diversity in the gameplay. "Believe it when I see it" is the best stance to take. Either way, every single change I've made is from a balance perspective, or earnestly to improve the game -- whether you agree/disagree on certain aspects is fine and many things can be taken out of context with other changes).

Don't get be wrong though, I've tried testing dozens of new mechanics (I think I went through 5 different variations on the new Laguz Gauge), or even map designs/bonus objectives, most of which do not work out as intended, inflict balance issues elsewhere, or just do not feel fun when play-tested. It's not like these ideas/concepts are added on a whim and are untested. 

 

By the way, it's perfectly fine to admit something like "I don't like the idea of magic WTA because I think Fate's system is fine" or "because it overcomplicates the game for newer players" etc... But the idea that "it's bad because it's always been pointless/non-impactful" isn't really a valid or meaningful one. That's really the whole point.

 

EDIT: To be relevant to the topic itself, I think how the weapon system is right now is fine. Although tying WTA bonuses to weapon rank does usually favour the player more so than the enemy. So it really depends if that should be tweaked. But the idea is fine; if anything they should scale harder so long as the bonuses/penalties are directly tied to both side's weapon level rather than the highest.

Edited April 20, 2017 by DLuna

[Florete]

I pretty much like weapon ranks as they are now, though I think they could be a bit more creative with how the bonuses work.

 

On 4/20/2017 at 9:49 AM, Levant Mir Celestia said:

Oh, puh-lease. You can't believe that this wouldn't absolutely mangle the game's balance, and you gotta admit, your idea is completely departed from any sense of reality. And believe me, Unintelligent Systems can't balance their way out of a paper bag. Also, I don't see a remake that might not happen as a very endearing argument. Anyways, what I meant by stripping magic of its versatility was that I like magic being able to attack enemies both adjacent and at range.

You're expressing some major confirmation bias in this conversation. Since you've never seen the magic triangle done well, you're insistent that it can't be, and you're not taking a step back to look from a broader perspective and imagine how maybe it could actually work. Stop being so narrow-minded. "Unintelligent Systems can't balance their way out of a paper bag" Oh, puh-lease yourself.

[Shadow Mir]

12 hours ago, Florete said:

I pretty much like weapon ranks as they are now, though I think they could be a bit more creative with how the bonuses work.

 

You're expressing some major confirmation bias in this conversation. Since you've never seen the magic triangle done well, you're insistent that it can't be, and you're not taking a step back to look from a broader perspective and imagine how maybe it could actually work. Stop being so narrow-minded. "Unintelligent Systems can't balance their way out of a paper bag" Oh, puh-lease yourself.

Confirmation bias or no, I don't see IS taking any steps to make the magic triangle a legit strategic element, as opposed to an afterthought, anytime soon. Like I said earlier, about the only way it'd be worth paying attention to is if you buffed the WTA bonus to utterly ridiculous levels (think something along the lines of +/-6 Mt and +/-40 Hit), and with WTA bonuses being rank dependent nowadays, that's asking the impossible.

Edited April 23, 2017 by Levant Mir Celestia

[ping]

Ummm.... I think there might be some other ways.

Honestly, I think that the top two points DLuna alone would make a magic triangle relevant. The main reason why it feels so pointless when it's present is because there tend to be rather few battles between mages since there are (with a few exceptions, of course) very few mage-heavy maps and since enemy mages are usually much easier to kill with physical attacks. If all physical units in a game had knight-like stats and did only single-digit damage per fight to each other, the physical triangle would mean jack either, simply because the magical damage dealt to them would be far more significant.