Jump to content

Anyone else want to see Fire, Thunder, Wind magic ranks return


Want Fire, Thunder, and Wind Ranks to return  

59 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you want individual anima ranks to return

    • Yes, it could be interesting if expanded
      30
    • No, its unnecessary complication
      27
    • Other which I'll post
      2


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, ElectiveToast said:

Let's bring back RD's system of magic, where wind beats thunder, tuunder beats fire, fire beats wind, and all of the aforementioned beat light but are beaten by darkness that can only be beaten by light. If we want to expand the weapon system into physical units, lightly armored units could be susceptible to fire, heavy units to thunder, and and flying units to wind. 

No. Just no. I don't see it adding anything to gameplay, especially when one of the main characters in said game was disadvantaged against most other mages... only to give zero fucks about it anyway. Well, that, and juggling three weapon ranks is a serious pain in the ass.

Edited by Levant Mir Celestia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't mind it if they made the different types of anima more distinct from one another (different effects or being better against certain unit types, or what have you) but I'm not a fan of making them all separate weapon ranks.  That didn't add anything of substance to the game, just made it a nuisance trying to train up all your different tome ranks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Levant Mir Celestia said:

No. Just no. I don't see it adding anything to gameplay, especially when one of the main characters in said game was disadvantaged against most other mages... only to give zero fucks about it anyway. Well, that, and juggling three weapon ranks is a serious pain in the ass.

Just because it wasn't tuned properly, doesn't mean it cannot be executed well. That's the general consensus I've gotten from the answers in this topic; the fact it hasn't been executed well before means that it cannot be. But that's not the case.

The full complete magic triangle in all it's glory (and weapon ranks separately for fire/thunder/wind) can work. It just needs to be in a world where different magic types actually have meaning beyond the triangle itself and/or said triangle actually being relevant.

Usually it involves limiting a magic unit to two (sometimes three) magic types of out the five which doesn't clutter them with different spells to learn; and that the two types that they do have are made significantly different in the same way that each of the physical weapons can be different. In the end, the only base difference between standard weaponry and magic is... one targets DEF and one targets RES. The problem is that magic lacks variety and most mages have very similar stat spreads compared to physical units (who are very varied). What about a 1-range magic type given to high DEF mages like an Armor? Or 2-3 range magic given to weaker mages like an Archer? The design implications would be assumed to be hard to balance... but it really isn't. Because that same foundation already exists for physcial units -- so with the correct tuning through the tome stats and unit RES amounts, it works just as well.

Ultimately, the problem stems from differing magic never really being anything more than thematics/animations. There are rare exceptions in spells like Nosferatu... but that's about it. If you look at Radiant Dawn itself, all mages have the exact same stat spreads (high MAG, low/average speed, low DEF, high RES, average-good SKL) and the magic types themselves are hardly different aside from a varying 1 MT and 5 HIT between eachother and some rarely relevant effective bonuses (Fire magic being effective against enemy beasts matters for 1 whole map (4-5) out of 44 maps). Again, execution for varying mages/magic was poor, but that doesn't mean it can't be done well. IS just hasn't figured it out yet -- their gameplay design for mage units is stagnant compared to physical units, what with the archers and armors and T1 fliers etc...

It also doesn't help that player/enemy magic units are in far less quantity than physical units. But part of that problem is that since they're universally 1-2 range, the game design cannot afford to have too many of that for the same reasons (in that same way that having an over-abundance of handaxes/javelins on enemies is a problem).

 

Edited by DLuna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/17/2017 at 3:01 PM, DLuna said:

Just because it wasn't tuned properly, doesn't mean it cannot be executed well. That's the general consensus I've gotten from the answers in this topic; the fact it hasn't been executed well before means that it cannot be. But that's not the case.

The full complete magic triangle in all it's glory (and weapon ranks separately for fire/thunder/wind) can work. It just needs to be in a world where different magic types actually have meaning beyond the triangle itself and/or said triangle actually being relevant.

Usually it involves limiting a magic unit to two (sometimes three) magic types of out the five which doesn't clutter them with different spells to learn; and that the two types that they do have are made significantly different in the same way that each of the physical weapons can be different. In the end, the only base difference between standard weaponry and magic is... one targets DEF and one targets RES. The problem is that magic lacks variety and most mages have very similar stat spreads compared to physical units (who are very varied). What about a 1-range magic type given to high DEF mages like an Armor? Or 2-3 range magic given to weaker mages like an Archer? The design implications would be assumed to be hard to balance... but it really isn't. Because that same foundation already exists for physcial units -- so with the correct tuning through the tome stats and unit RES amounts, it works just as well.

Ultimately, the problem stems from differing magic never really being anything more than thematics/animations. There are rare exceptions in spells like Nosferatu... but that's about it. If you look at Radiant Dawn itself, all mages have the exact same stat spreads (high MAG, low/average speed, low DEF, high RES, average-good SKL) and the magic types themselves are hardly different aside from a varying 1 MT and 5 HIT between eachother and some rarely relevant effective bonuses (Fire magic being effective against enemy beasts matters for 1 whole map (4-5) out of 44 maps). Again, execution for varying mages/magic was poor, but that doesn't mean it can't be done well. IS just hasn't figured it out yet -- their gameplay design for mage units is stagnant compared to physical units, what with the archers and armors and T1 fliers etc...

It also doesn't help that player/enemy magic units are in far less quantity than physical units. But part of that problem is that since they're universally 1-2 range, the game design cannot afford to have too many of that for the same reasons (in that same way that having an over-abundance of handaxes/javelins on enemies is a problem).

 

Because it isn't like IS has tried thrice only to fall flat on their asses every time, right? (Thracia had weapon ranks be a pain in the ass to build, and the Tellius saga wasn't much better about it) Anyway, the over-optimism you're exhibiting is groundless. And I still believe separate weapon ranks for fire, wind and thunder reeks heavily of a step in the wrong direction.

Edited by Levant Mir Celestia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎01‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 3:57 AM, Emperor Hardin said:

Fire: Deals damage to horses in addition to beasts(if they include them).

Thunder: Deals damage to Wyverns and Dragons. Unlike RD, Wyvern riding units are still weak to bows.

Wind: Deals effective damage to Pegasus Knights.

I agree with everything thing except the parts I've italicised, because no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather it be under one tome rank, the spells can be diversified through their individual effects like in Fates rather than elements. Why dedicate a whole weapon type/rank like Fire or Thunder to a bunch of spells that perform the role a single weapon(Beastslayer and Wyrmslayer) does in another weapon type?

Plus considering the situational use of each, using them effectively also means that weapon experience growth would be unfocused and split between the elements. The concept of separate spell ranks is interesting but it doesn't really benefit Magic using units, it hamstrings them. It'd be like if you made the Hammer a separate weapon rank to Axes, it's more complex but it doesn't add anything it just narrows down the options a unit has.

Edited by arvilino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I would be okay with Tome ranks if it was automatic and mages had specialties, so you didn't need to individually level every tome like in Awakening but still had a preferably type per unit like in Tellius.

Say, Soren would start with D Wind E others, and when he gets to C Wind, the others automatically go to D rank if they hadn't been there before. You aren't able to manually work your other ranks, however.

 

But honestly, simply making multiple kinds of magic to work as different weapons within the tome class is better. They don't need to stand as equals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of different elemental ranks HOWEVER, I think there needs to be a means by which these ranks can be raised and not be annoying. In Radiant Dawn while I liked the idea of different mages excelling in differant elements from one another it was a major pain to raise Soren's other elements or Pelleas' for that matter especially since you got him late game. I'd say one approach might be to upon promotion automatically give all mages a C in those elements they didn't have access too until now and additionally have elemental tomes in each type that will raise the weapon level faster. Much like how a steel or silver weapon raises weapon rank faster than iron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I absolutely think it should return. Fire Emblem is a strategy game, and adding something as relatively simple as a magic triangle for players to consider when making moves only makes the game better.

In fact, I'd like magic to get the same loving treatment that physical weapons get. Why are there not critical magic spells? Or spells that reverse the weapon triangle? There are so many more physical weapons than there are magic, and it makes mages, and magic as a whole feel like a bit of an afterthought. But forget long range magic. That adds nothing to the game other than cheesing, poor difficulty design, and baiting and sponging which isn't interesting in the slightest.

However, I'm not in support of mages having universal magic access, i.e. able to use all types. Give me specific Fire, Wind, Thunder, etc. mages. Ditto for Dark and Light, each with specific strengths and weaknesses. Obviously some classes can have multiple specialties, like with physical units, but this should be the exception, rather than the rule (and placing lower weapon level caps on non-specialized magic is probably a good idea to maintain the design space and reduce redundancy). I'd also like to see Phys/Mag mixed characters who can actually do both well. 

Magic is a rather special form of attacking relative to just stabbing someone, but the game really treats it like any other attack apart from the stats it uses. Effective damage, status effects, or completely unique effects (applying a magic element to an ally's physical weapon, for example) are all things that should be explored with magic. There's so much untapped potential that could make the game more strategically interesting, and could make magic and mage units more interesting as a whole. 

In general, I'd like to see more mages, both playable and as enemies. The Resistance stat is in need of some more value. Honestly there are a million things I can think of to make magic more interesting, and a magic triangle is certainly part of that. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...