When will laguz be added to heroes?

[Vince777]

By gimmick what I meant is something that would differenciate them from sword/lances/axes beyond stuff like not being weak to weaponkiller skills, which I feel is rather bland.

Sort of like what differenciates bows from daggers. Despite both of them being colourless physical range, one is always strong against fliers and the other applies debuffs. It's in this sort of manner that something else that's triangle physical melee should be different from what already exists.

 

 

Edited December 6, 2017 by Vince777

[The Lord Of Gems]

Hopefully soon. I would dump tons of money for Naesala, and to a lesser extent, Tibarn.

[Ice Dragon]

3 hours ago, Vince777 said:

By gimmick what I meant is something that would differenciate them from sword/lances/axes beyond stuff like not being weak to weaponkiller skills, which I feel is rather bland.

Sort of like what differenciates bows from daggers. Despite both of them being colourless physical range, one is always strong against fliers and the other applies debuffs. It's in this sort of manner that something else that's triangle physical melee should be different from what already exists.

The thing is that I don't think it is necessary for Strikes to be differentiated from other weapon types. Simply being different doesn't add value.

Bows are a successful weapon type not because they all deal effective damage to fliers but because they have access to powerful offensive options with few units that naturally resist their damage and require specific units or skills to counter kill.

Daggers were not a successful weapon type because their low damage output and focus on applying debuffs did not have a place in a metagame that revolves around one-round killing your opponents. The new refining updates remedy most of these issues, but debuffing is still a role with only niche usefulness.

What's important is not that they are different, but that they bring something useful to the table for the player to utilize.

 

Along those lines, you don't need the weapon mechanics to be unique. Strike users could simply be given skills that can only be learned by the weapon class. Anyone remember those Laguz-only skills that debuff the opponent if the user is attacked from outside melee range? With the increase in unit bulk in Heroes and the increase in availability of skills that prevent the opponent from counterattacking, a series of Strike-only skills with the effect "if unit cannot counterattack, inflict [debilitating debuff] after combat" could be useful for enemy-phase or hybrid teams, even more so if the effect cannot be blocked by killing the unit.

By "debilitating debuff", I mean things like:

• Unit cannot initiate combat.
• Unit cannot counterattack.
• Unit movement range reduced to zero.
• Unit cannot perform follow-up attacks (overrides all other effects).
• Unit's opponents always perform follow-up attacks (overrides all other effects).
• Unit takes additional damage after every round of combat.
• Unit's passive skills are negated.
• Unit cannot use Assist skills or be targeted by Assist skills.

[Tenzen12]

4 hours ago, Vince777 said:

By gimmick what I meant is something that would differenciate them from sword/lances/axes beyond stuff like not being weak to weaponkiller skills, which I feel is rather bland.

Sort of like what differenciates bows from daggers. Despite both of them being colourless physical range, one is always strong against fliers and the other applies debuffs. It's in this sort of manner that something else that's triangle physical melee should be different from what already exists.

 

 

Well there is plenty of possible gimmicks they can have. For one similarly to breaths strikes could be inherited between different colours.

If we get Hone Laguz it would mean full buff despite different movement type, which is unheard so far.

If beasts ones get 3 movents , you would be able enjoy advantage of cavalry without fear of wolf tomes (as ironically it sounds). Or maybe beasts might get 2 range as infantry but being able ignore forest ect.

It's not like weapon is only thing that make unit interesting, is it?

[SSbardock84]

It's not just you, Tellius has been getting the least amount of characters. Thracia may actually have less, but still. Yeah, I really want laguz and I hope they add them. I do agree that they are much more appealing and likable than the manaketes. Tiki, Ninian, and Myyrh all great, but there are more likable laguz imo.

[Ice Dragon]

1 hour ago, Tenzen12 said:

If beasts ones get 3 movents , you would be able enjoy advantage of cavalry without fear of wolf tomes (as ironically it sounds).

This would require them to create a new movement type since effective damage against cavalry is specifically linked to the movement type and not any other feature.

[C. Turtle]

1 hour ago, SSbardock84 said:

It's not just you, Tellius has been getting the least amount of characters. Thracia may actually have less, but still.

Game-wise, Thracia 776 has gotten less, as you yourself said. Radiant Dawn may only have one character, but every Path of Radiance character in the game is also in Radiant Dawn, which cannot be said for the Genealogy of the Holy War characters with Thracia 776.

Continent-wise, Magvel has nine characters to Tellius's ten.

In what way exactly has Tellius been "getting the least amount of characters"?

I mean, it's fine to want the Laguz in (I'm a fan of some of the newer beast-shifters, so getting beast units in the game would be fine by me), but facts are facts, and Tellius having the least amount of characters is not a fact.

Edited December 6, 2017 by C. Turtle

[Ice Dragon]

3 minutes ago, C. Turtle said:

but every Path of Radiance character in the game is also in Radiant Dawn,

Largo. Devdan.

[C. Turtle]

2 minutes ago, Ice Dragon said:

Largo. Devdan.

Probably should have clarified that when I said "the game", I meant Heroes. My mistake.

Edited December 6, 2017 by C. Turtle

[gone]

On 5.12.2017 at 1:30 AM, Dragoncat said:

Seriously, I like them more than manaketes, and it's completely unfair to just have manaketes while neglecting other shapeshiters. Heck, is it just me, or is Tellius getting the short end of the stick anyway? Seems like the vast majority of characters added are from other FEs. Even the GBA games have more representation, I'm pretty sure.

That's a good question. We'll probably get Leif and Micaiah by the end of 2018 if we're lucky. #whatisaThracia776/RD???

[thecrimsonflash]

2 hours ago, C. Turtle said:

Game-wise, Thracia 776 has gotten less, as you yourself said. Radiant Dawn may only have one character, but every Path of Radiance character in the game is also in Radiant Dawn, which cannot be said for the Genealogy of the Holy War characters with Thracia 776.

Continent-wise, Magvel has nine characters to Tellius's ten.

In what way exactly has Tellius been "getting the least amount of characters"?

I mean, it's fine to want the Laguz in (I'm a fan of some of the newer beast-shifters, so getting beast units in the game would be fine by me), but facts are facts, and Tellius having the least amount of characters is not a fact.

I'm pretty sure they are actively avoiding radiant dawn, with them refusing to add micaiah, who was in the top ten female characters in CYL, and them adding path of radiance mia when they got her ranking from the radiant dawn version who scored higher, I think they only added radiant dawn sanaki because she never was depicted fighting in any capacity in path of radiance and someone at IS has a thing for sanaki. Almost makes you wonder if in a hypothetical situation where sothe got let's say dorcas' place in CYL would they have chosen his radiant dawn version for his inclusion or would we have gotten path of radiance sothe. also canonically radiant dawn black knight would have made more sense because he can be killed with any weapon in that game on account of his blessing being gone but that is a nitpick. 

I don't know enough about tharcia to comment so I won't on that front.

[C. Turtle]

1 minute ago, thecrimsonflash said:

I'm pretty sure they are actively avoiding radiant dawn, with them refusing to add micaiah, who was in the top ten female characters in CYL, and them adding path of radiance mia when they got her ranking from the radiant dawn version who scored higher, I think they only added radiant dawn sanaki because she never was depicted fighting in any capacity in path of radiance and someone at IS has a thing for sanaki. Almost makes you wonder if in a hypothetical situation where sothe got let's say dorcas' place in CYL would they have chosen his radiant dawn version for his inclusion or would we have gotten path of radiance sothe. also canonically radiant dawn black knight would have made more sense because he can be killed with any weapon in that game on account of his blessing being gone but that is a nitpick. 

I don't know enough about tharcia to comment so I won't on that front.

I highly doubt they're going out of their way to avoid Radiant Dawn, or else they'd never have included Sanaki in the first place, since there's plenty of other siblings they could have chosen from instead of using her. They probably used Path of Radiance Mia because it's her game of origin, and it don't think it's really all that important which version of the character is used unless there's a significant difference between them (like Mystery Tiki vs. Awakening Tiki) or one version is significantly more important than the other (which from what little I know, would be like PoR Sothe vs. RD Sothe).

They're probably saving Micaiah and Leif so they don't blow through all their protagonists in the first year alone. Remember how people kept complaining about how Ike wasn't in the game? And then all of a sudden, bam, there's Ike, everyone rushes in to get him, people who had trailed off from the game are playing again, and people are spending money trying to get him from his banner. Why wouldn't they want to save another popular protagonist like that for when the game's starting to drop off?

[NekoKnight]

Birds can be blue, beasts green, herons colorless and dragons whatever you want (like other manaketes). Dragons can share breath weapons with manaketes, and beasts/birds can share strike weapons. Herons could have a unique property of dancing anyone they heal.

For beasts, I propose they have infantry movement but not be obstructed by trees. In exchange, they will have a weakness vs horseslayer weapons (to be patched over as 'beast slayer' weapons).

 

[Tenzen12]

Better if colour is decided by tribes then by movement type. Herons would be blue (Holly), Hawks green (wind) and Kilvas red (darkness). Beasts would have to be decided more arbitrarily, but it's would still be better options.

[Seafarer]

^ From the developers' point of view, it's probably better again to determine colour by weapon type. Non-dragon laguz weapons are split into claws, fangs, and talons (beaks in PoR). It would make sense to divide the colours by the weapon type used in the original game and prevent inheritance across colours, to save having to create invisible classes defining which units can inherit talons on top of the visible colour classes. The best part is, 3DS-era beast units fit fairly neatly into those three categories if you look at their attack animations: kitsune use their mouth to strike, wolfskin use their fists, and taguel also use their claws (I think... it's been a while).

Dragon laguz are likely to just slot in with manaketes. I imagine them being divided by colour - red dragons become red, white dragons become green, and black dragons become blue. I also doubt that herons will be distinguished from other bird tribes - they'll just have a Dance/Sing equivalent assist.

[Tenzen12]

Inheriting across colors work perfectly fine for dragons so I don't see why it should break game balance when it comes to Laguz units (especially as you fine with it if it's Laguz dragon). 

Having all beasts gave one colour would be same as having all cavalrymen being swordies. Not just it's boring but also running Laguz emblem would be impossible.

@NekoKnight There is no really reason not put Lagus slaying weapons into game, it's not different from Armorslayer/smasher or horsbane.

 

Edited December 9, 2017 by Tenzen12

[C. Turtle]

2 hours ago, Tenzen12 said:

Inheriting across colors work perfectly fine for dragons so I don't see why it should break game balance when it comes to Laguz units (especially as you fine with it if it's Laguz dragon). 

Having all beasts gave one colour would be same as having all cavalrymen being swordies. Not just it's boring but also running Laguz emblem would be impossible.

@NekoKnight There is no really reason not put Lagus slaying weapons into game, it's not different from Armorslayer/smasher or horsbane.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe anyone was saying that cross-colour inheritance would "break game balance". I believe people were more so saying that it would be easier to restrict certain weapons to certain Laguz if they're separated by colour. For dragons it's fine, because they're all labeled under "breath", and all the dragons are shown attacking with their breath, but with "strike", allowing any Laguz to inherit any strike could result in a cat laguz attacking using a beak or something. Relegating certain weapons to certain colours would prevent that, without the need to include some sort of invisible marker that says a unit can't use certain strikes even if they match the colour.

Granted, that could probably be handled by making Claws/Fangs infantry exclusive and Beaks/Talons flier exclusive (which has been done with passives but I don't believe it's been done with weapons yet), provided people aren't too concerned with a Wolfskin punching someone with a "fang" weapon and the like, but I just thought it was worth noting that I'm pretty sure the argument wasn't about balance, but rather aspects of the game at a programming level or some such.

[Tenzen12]

Hmmm, I could misinterprete part of this post

10 hours ago, Seafarer said:

^ From the developers' point of view, it's probably better again to determine colour by weapon type. Non-dragon laguz weapons are split into claws, fangs, and talons (beaks in PoR). It would make sense to divide the colours by the weapon type used in the original game and prevent inheritance across colours, to save having to create invisible classes defining which units can inherit talons on top of the visible colour classes. The best part is, 3DS-era beast units fit fairly neatly into those three categories if you look at their attack animations: kitsune use their mouth to strike, wolfskin use their fists, and taguel also use their claws (I think... it's been a while).

 

I assumed "invisible" was typo and it meant to be "invincible". Looking on it again it probably is former, though I don't have idea what " invisible classes" is supposed mean.

And yeah I meant to be limited by movement type. Programming wise it shouldn't be problem (I think), weapon should be basically same as skill and in worst case scenario flier laguz and beast laguz would be two separate classes with hones and slayers being effective on both, where weapon inheritance limited on one or other.

[Zunanma]

I would love to see the Laguz. Tellius - or even RD compared to PoR - needs more attention anyway. Where is Micaiah? So many great characters we're missing out on. But that doesn't seem to bother IS, instead they add more Fates characters of which I couldn't even remember some.

[C. Turtle]

2 minutes ago, Tenzen12 said:

Hmmm, I could misinterprete part of this post

I assumed "invisible" was typo and it meant to be "invincible". Looking on it again it probably is former, though I don't have idea what " invisible classes" is supposed mean.

And yeah I meant to be limited by movement type. Programming wise it shouldn't be problem (I think), weapon should be basically same as skill and in worst case scenario flier laguz and beast laguz would be two separate classes with hones and slayers being effective on both, where weapon inheritance limited on one or other.

By "invisible classes", they're basically saying that restrictions would have to be applied by some sort of marker in the code that isn't linked to a character's weapon or movement type, and thus isn't visible within the character's stats and attributes. At present, some skills are limited to weapon or movement type, but if we wanted to do something like "cat laguz can't use beaks even if they're both green" or "only Lords can use rapiers" or something, then it would need to be linked to an arbitrary "class" that isn't represented in the game at present.

This explanation is, of course, ignoring the possibility of limiting to movement type, for the sake of making the terminology clearer.

[Seafarer]

17 hours ago, C. Turtle said:

Granted, that could probably be handled by making Claws/Fangs infantry exclusive and Beaks/Talons flier exclusive (which has been done with passives but I don't believe it's been done with weapons yet), provided people aren't too concerned with a Wolfskin punching someone with a "fang" weapon and the like, but I just thought it was worth noting that I'm pretty sure the argument wasn't about balance, but rather aspects of the game at a programming level or some such.

The trouble with that is that Rafiel doesn't have flier movement, despite being of a bird tribe. Assuming that the Herons will be given weapon skills (like Ninian was, despite not being able to attack in her original game), that would either let Rafiel have claws and fangs, but not talons, or require him to be tagged invisibly as a talon-wielding infantry. Obviously, that's possible, but it's not the simplest solution.

Oh, and thanks for translating my intent for Tenzen. :-)

[C. Turtle]

2 minutes ago, Seafarer said:

The trouble with that is that Rafiel doesn't have flier movement, despite being of a bird tribe. Assuming that the Herons will be given weapon skills (like Ninian was, despite not being able to attack in her original game), that would either let Rafiel have claws and fangs, but not talons, or require him to be tagged invisibly as a talon-wielding infantry. Obviously, that's possible, but it's not the simplest solution.

Oh, and thanks for translating my intent for Tenzen. :-)

Ah, well then. I've never had a chance to play the Tellius games, so I wasn't aware there were birds who weren't considered fliers. Thanks for the clarification.

[a bear]

17 hours ago, C. Turtle said:

For dragons it's fine, because they're all labeled under "breath", and all the dragons are shown attacking with their breath, but with "strike", allowing any Laguz to inherit any strike could result in a cat laguz attacking using a beak or something. Relegating certain weapons to certain colours would prevent that, without the need to include some sort of invisible marker that says a unit can't use certain strikes even if they match the colour.

The whole point of making the weapons strikes instead of claws or talons or beaks or what have you would be to replicate breaths for dragons. Wolves bite, cats claw, hawks rake, ravens peck. Herons peck too, but whatever. Even among tribes, they'd have to limit weapons if they were names after body parts (and having Velouria eat Volug for his fangs is kinda weird, but we're past that). 

Let the weapons instead just be descriptors like "Fierce Strike", "Running Strike", "Poison Strike", and so on. Animate the weapon's hit effect the way specials or Fjorm's weapon are animated. Tada, now you have a weapon type that can be fully animated without having to thematically restrict anything by category or giving Laguz beaststones they never used.

[NekoKnight]

I think people should keep in mind that we don't need to keep 100% fidelity to the original game mechanics. SoV doesn't have tomes, but all their mages use them in Heroes. Laguz can use beaststones and generic strike weapons instead of body part specific weapons.

On 12/8/2017 at 9:20 PM, Tenzen12 said:

 

@NekoKnight There is no really reason not put Lagus slaying weapons into game, it's not different from Armorslayer/smasher or horsbane.

The reason for this is so that a single unit doesn't have multiple weaknesses. If there were all encompassing Laguz Slayers, bird laguz would have a weakness to them and bows despite not having any other strengths above other fliers.The same could be said of dragon laguz if they are weak to manakete killers (which are technically effective against breath weapons, which would include dragon laguz). You could make a beastslayer that only effects beast laguz (as in my mind, the beast would have a unique class that can move freely through trees) but the bird and dragon laguz are not unique classes.

Edited December 10, 2017 by NekoKnight

[Ae†her]

I want Laguz badly, and it's mainly because I like the idea of them, I would really like to be able to have gigantic Lionman turn into an even more gigantic Red Lion, that sprints across the map and lunges at common soldiers. His high BST forming his defensive stats -- a representation of his thick impenetrable hide.