Do you mind lowmanning being viable?

[AnonymousSpeed]

I remember people used to complain about lowmanning and I've seen it come up again since I left. So, I decided to ask what people think of lowmanning, if it's a good thing, a bad thing, or neither, and the reason why.

Personally, I've never minded lowmanning. The reasoning is admittedly a bit shallow, and basically amounts to "let people do what they want." I don't see what's wrong with people focusing on just a few units for an easier time if that's the sort of experience they want to have. Of course, I also acknowledge that restricting a player's options can make a game more enjoyable (because it forces you to decipher a new, less obvious strategy), but I have no further comment on that beyond acknowledging it.

So...yeah. Share your arguments.

[NekoKnight]

I don't really care. I use as many units as I'm allowed because I like using a variety of characters. If someone wants to play in a different way (and potentially break the difficulty), it's of no consequence to me. I feel the same way about Pokemon.

[DragonFlames]

I don't see how the reasoning "let people do what they want" is shallow in any way. To me, that's the most reasonable response there is.
I've done lowman runs before and some were incredibly challenging, funnily enough. Try using only Chrom, Robin, Frederick and Lissa for pretty much half of Awakening when there are some maps where you wish you had others with you. It can get pretty stressful, believe me.

Personally, I prefer using as many units as possible, because it's just more fun to me, but I'm one of those people that say "to each their own". As long as they don't get in my face and say "but that's the ONLY WAY to play the game right! You're playing the game wrong!!!" I don't mind if someone has a different playstyle from mine.

Edited June 22, 2018 by DragonFlames

[The Roger The Paladin]

5 minutes ago, DragonFlames said:

I don't see how the reasoning "let people do what they want" is shallow in any way. To me, that's the most reasonable response there is.
I've done lowman runs before and some were incredibly challenging, funnily enough. Try using only Chrom, Robin, Frederick and Lissa for pretty much half of Awakening when there are some maps where you wish you had others with you. It can get pretty stressful, believe me.

I agree. Besides that, multiple methods of playing the game successfully add replay value. I mean, there are so many possible combinations of teams in some of the Fire Emblems, and possible advantages and disadvantages to any of them.

[DragonFlames]

12 minutes ago, Mad-manakete said:

I agree. Besides that, multiple methods of playing the game successfully add replay value. I mean, there are so many possible combinations of teams in some of the Fire Emblems, and possible advantages and disadvantages to any of them.

Indeed. If there was only one way to beat a game, why replay it at all?

[The Roger The Paladin]

9 minutes ago, DragonFlames said:

Indeed. If there was only one way to beat a game, why replay it at all?

Because some people believe there is a wrong way to have fun apparently. Actually there probably is, characters like Peri are good examples of why it's just that it doesn't apply to video-games in that you're not harming real people when you act like a psychopath.

[SavageVolug]

Personally I don't care if someone low mans or not. It's their run and playthrough they should be able to do it however they want. Generally I use as many units as I'm allowed but I have also done a few solos which I found fun to do. My first was an Alm Solo for Echoes and then I followed this by a Alm and Celicae Solo. Where only Alm and Celicae were allowed to be used (healers being the only exception). Is this optimal? No. Was it fun? Yes.

Now something I would like to see is more that the number of deployable units available increases. Rather than staying around 10 for the majority of the game. It feels like I have a lot of units that I like using and are good but I end up being restricted to a small fraction of these units due to the deployment limit staying the same for a large majority of the game despite the fact that your roster has increased. Basically I guess I also want high manning to recieve a sort of buff to it's approach.

[MacLovin]

low manning is fine and dandy.

I mean you bring your team members for the map. In the case of fe10, don't forget to bring the fillers

[Jotari]

Low manning should be viable, but it shouldn't be preferable. If clearing the game with a single unit is something the player wants to do, then they absolutely should be able to do it, however, if it is objectively the easiest and most effective way to play through the game, then you have a problem, as it's effectively reduced the strategy of the game to a one man stomp. Players have to artificially handicap themselves to play more of the game in a single sitting. Plus, just in general, the things that discourage low manning like split objectives, unit recruitment and supports are just fun elements that have multiple practical uses.

[DiogoJorge]

Lowmanning should never be viable. I don't think it should be nerfed, since it shouldn't exist in the first place, but if it has to exist, then they should keep it mostly as it is in most games.

As in, lowmanning means having to use lesser number of units, thus it takes more effort to finish the chapter in a proper fashion.

[DisobeyedCargo]

Why exactly do people care about this being a "problem"?

just play how you want to play. 

[SavageVolug]

7 hours ago, DisobeyedCargo said:

Why exactly do people care about this being a "problem"?

just play how you want to play. 

EXACTLY! Couldn't have said it better myself. I'm all for playing more efficently, every time I re play Radiant Dawn or some other Fire Emblem game I try to see if there's a better approach to the map in question than what I've been doing. BUT, I do not believe with the idea of "This is how you do this map, if you don't do it this way you're doing it wrong." There are many ways to play including low manning. Due to the many ways of playing and differant peoples' play style as well as unit type preferences it does bother me when I only get 2 or 3 of a unit type vs. closer to 5 or more. My thinking is there should be multiple of most if not all unit types. Take for example Fire Emblem Awakening, without including child units or Second Sealing you will only get one archer for the entire game, I really think there should have been a couple more archers in the game (and archers aren't even my favorite class). And the reason I ignore Second Sealing is that without using the DLC your funds will be really limited meaning the amount of Second Sealing you can do will also be quite limited as well. Also I don't think Second Sealing is the answer to "I want more of _______ class" there should be more of that class in the base game. Consider FE7 you got about 5 axe users (3 Fighters/Warriors including Geitz and 2 Berserkers) 5 cavaliers, 4 bow users (including Rath, 5 if you include Lynn's promotion, not to mention the Warriors you may or may not have who can also use bows). Now it is true some classes they were a little stingy on, such as there's only two Heroes for the entire game, but still I think you get my point.

Just realized I may have derailed the topic at hand a little bit. Sorry about that, I was just trying to express that I agree with playing however you want including low manning.

[gjuptonv]

23 hours ago, DiogoJorge said:

Lowmanning should never be viable. I don't think it should be nerfed, since it shouldn't exist in the first place, but if it has to exist, then they should keep it mostly as it is in most games.

As in, lowmanning means having to use lesser number of units, thus it takes more effort to finish the chapter in a proper fashion.

More units ≠ more efficient
Until you define proper your statement is meaningless.

Edited June 23, 2018 by gjuptonv

[Loki Laufeyson]

15 hours ago, DisobeyedCargo said:

Why exactly do people care about this being a "problem"?

just play how you want to play. 

This. Im not arsed at all if someone lowmans. Hell, ill do it for fun just to see what happens. 

[DisobeyedCargo]

5 minutes ago, Loki Laufeyson said:

This. Im not arsed at all if someone lowmans. Hell, ill do it for fun just to see what happens. 

Exactly!

if using only 3 units is more fun for you then all the more power to you!

Edited June 23, 2018 by DisobeyedCargo

[X-Naut]

While people will inevitably try to lowman I would prefer that "high-manning" be more efficient than low-manning. (Solos can be unviable.) At its core Fire Emblem is a strategy RPG with medieval warfare, and while there are acceptable breaks from reality there needs to be a limit on how far it stretches. You don't win wars by deploying the bare minimum of troops per battle!

[DiogoJorge]

On 23/06/2018 at 4:52 PM, gjuptonv said:

More units ≠ more efficient
Until you define proper your statement is meaningless.

It's not meaningless though.

Since it takes less effort that way, more units, means you can attack enemies more. It's more effective that way, efficieny isn't as important.

[DisobeyedCargo]

27 minutes ago, DiogoJorge said:

It's not meaningless though.

Since it takes less effort that way, more units, means you can attack enemies more. It's more effective that way, efficieny isn't as important.

Sometimes it could take more effort to train up another unit than what it's worth, unless you want to bring in a undertrained team member. 

Sometimes it's better to leave one or so units behind.

[MacLovin]

27 minutes ago, DiogoJorge said:

It's not meaningless though.

Since it takes less effort that way, more units, means you can attack enemies more. It's more effective that way, efficieny isn't as important.

 

Why  complain about efficiency as a metric? There's nothing wrong with low-manning as a playstyle since people are free to do whatever they want.

It's just that strict low-manning is the easiest way to play the game since it funnels everything towards a small group early on. Add in filler units with solid bases and you're pretty much good to go.

I mean, low-manning is what's used in ltc/draft settings, but it's not the sole way to play. Sometimes one just wants to get that Bartre up to a higher level for early promotion. Low manning lets him take more exp, therefore taking more potential advantage of his solid growths and decent not-speed bases. 

In an EP centric game like fe7, low-manning is easy to do. But even in some like fe4 with all the map sizes and legit dangerous enemy mobs, there's not much of a need for low-manning since the game's pretty much totally different. Fe5 is even more different.

Fe6-onwards seems to favor low-manning. Fe6 gets away with making the bow-locked dudes usable due to the abundance of wyverns, 3x effectiveness, and making chip damage something desired in hard mode's earlygame when you have forced deployment. Funneling the exp into someone like Shanna or Alan/Lance in fe6 gives you an early promoted monster. Early promoted Dieck/Rutger is almost a necessity for bosskilling in HM. Funneling resources into saayyyyy Lugh/Lilina gives you a forblaze user with good supports and spare healing. But the only way to get to early promotion asap is to pour the exp into these dudes.

Fe8 no-grinding runs favor 1-2 range and solid bases+level. The earlygame dudes are potential monsters in any kind of run, since you get so many resources. Artur/Lute can early promote into MK/Bishop for utility (movement boost/slayer skill) and the shot to build their staves rank higher. Garcia and GIlliam get good with promotions early on (Both get good speed boosts on promotion to Hero/GK) Vanessa gains a lot from early promotion, and etc. Hell even Neimi gains a lot if you promote her asap to ranger if you somehow get her promoted without slowing down your pace. (I'm talking about a pace that doesn't involve Seth+Franz/Vanessa doing fucking everything.)

Fe9/10 gets bexp dumps and forges. Your early lords+entourage are usually pretty decent. (fe9 GMs barring Rofl/maybe Gatrie and fe10 DB barring Leo/Meg/Fiona) If anything, these games show us that low-manning can snowball a unit into becoming monstrous. (Lol fe9 Marcia, fe10 Haar, and Jill in both games)

Fe11/12 are ok with low-manning. Again, you only really need like Marth+Caeda with forges+warper to beat the game fast, so everyone else bar the thieves is judged on merits outside of pure combat prowess at endgame. Ogma/barst/Doga/Xmas Cavs are earlygame dudes, Minerva/Whitewings are good midgame selections, and Sedgar/Wolf have stupidly good growths, get reclass, and arrive early enough to make use of the growths+ok bases. Fe12 is just stupid with how low-manning is easy to set up with the tutorial. Ding dong we got Ryan/Luke/Roderick and a my unit. This makes shit too easy to shitstomp even without considering warp. 

fe2/3- Don't remember enough.

[gjuptonv]

On 2018-06-25 at 9:12 AM, DiogoJorge said:

It's not meaningless though.

Since it takes less effort that way, more units, means you can attack enemies more. It's more effective that way, efficieny isn't as important.

Saying "my statement has meaning" does not grant it meaning. Use this forum as an opportunitiy to practice explaining your points of view and responding to others, rather than dismissing them as you've done so across these forums.

Playstyles differ between individuals, pretty simple right? Some people try to play the game with the lowest turn-count, others try to play the game as fast as possible, others enjoy making zeroes in to heroes, etc. More units attacking more enemies does not necessary ensure survival, just as it does not necessarily mean you will be more efficient. You declaring one playstyle or goal as being paramount does not make it so. 

Edited June 26, 2018 by gjuptonv

[DiogoJorge]

On 25/06/2018 at 2:40 PM, DisobeyedCargo said:

Sometimes it could take more effort to train up another unit than what it's worth, unless you want to bring in a undertrained team member. 

Sometimes it's better to leave one or so units behind.

I never have that many bad units that would require leaving one behind, I usually have a good party of 12 characters.

[iridium137]

I don't mind lowmanning being viable. The problem is, relying on a small number of overpowered units is often the easiest way to beat most maps. FE is supposed to be a strategy game, but throwing a few units into a bunch of enemies and demolishing them all, is the antithesis of strategy.

[Shadow Mir]

Low-manning being viable is one thing. If it winds up becoming mandatory, however, that’s a problem. See: Awakening Lunatic.

Edited June 29, 2018 by Levant Mir Celestia

[Dark Holy Elf]

1 hour ago, iridium137 said:

I don't mind lowmanning being viable. The problem is, relying on a small number of overpowered units is often the easiest way to beat most maps. FE is supposed to be a strategy game, but throwing a few units into a bunch of enemies and demolishing them all, is the antithesis of strategy.

These are basically my thoughts as well. I'm fine with it existing as an option for a good challenge run, but if low-manning makes a game significantly easier that's a problem from a balance standpoint in my opinion. Generally I think if FE wants to keep its "get exp for hits/kills" mechanic then it should curve it heavilly so that small parties don't get overlevelled. Fates gives ~6 less exp for every level you are above your opponent while Tellius gives only ~1.5; I much prefer the former. (And even then, low-manning in Fates is still fine.)

[Refa]

2 hours ago, iridium137 said:

I don't mind lowmanning being viable. The problem is, relying on a small number of overpowered units is often the easiest way to beat most maps. FE is supposed to be a strategy game, but throwing a few units into a bunch of enemies and demolishing them all, is the antithesis of strategy.

This.  I don't really get the general thread opinion of discouraging lowmanning being an elitist opinion lol.  I don't (and I would assume most) don't care if you personally lowman, but the game shouldn't encourage that playstyle because it destroys any attempt at creating a balanced game.