Old classes you would like to see return to the franchise

[Sage of the Mist]

8 minutes ago, Shadow Mir said:

Cute logic. Too bad you're way off base. Physical units are generally more varied in terms of stat spreads than mages, which as a whole tend to have high resistance with low defense. Ergo, I'm screwed if a mercenary gets to my fighter, but not so much when my mage runs into a shaman.

I wasn't try to be snarky or anything,  just asking a question. If your going to be like this then forget I asked,  I don't have the  time nor the effort to deal with people who are rude for the no reason. You're an adult are you not?  Act like it.

Edited August 27, 2018 by Sage of the Mist
spelling mistake

[Shadow Mir]

8 minutes ago, Sage of the Mist said:

I wasn't try to be snarky or anything,  just asking a question. If your going to be like this then forget I asked,  I don't have the  time nor the effort to deal with people who are rude for the no reason. You're an adult are you not?  Act like it.

Well, excuse me for pointing out the glaring flaws in your logic, and along with them, why it doesn't make sense.

Edited August 27, 2018 by Shadow Mir

[DisobeyedCargo]

6 minutes ago, Shadow Mir said:

Well, excuse me for pointing out the glaring flaws in your logic, and along with them, why it doesn't make sense.

The “cute logic” part was uncalled for. You literally could have cut out the first two sentences and still have gotten your point across. 

There’s no reason to be so rude and condescending all the time. He literally just asked you a question. 

Edited August 27, 2018 by DisobeyedCargo

[Shadow Mir]

5 minutes ago, DisobeyedCargo said:

The “cute logic” part was uncalled for. You literally could have cut out the first two sentences and still have gotten your point across. 

I didn't mean to offend @Sage of the Mist, and sure, I might have deigned to say it in a nicer way, but the logic he was using was, to be blunt, dumb.

[Tetragrammaton]

25 minutes ago, Shadow Mir said:

I didn't mean to offend @Sage of the Mist, and sure, I might have deigned to say it in a nicer way, but the logic he was using was, to be blunt, dumb.

Well, as the way I see it, your logic is simply that you're bad at playing game.

You should know that sometime for some people, playing against some annoying thing is the fun part.

[Jotari]

2 hours ago, Shadow Mir said:

Well, whatever. I am not one to believe in holding back for the sake of being nice anyhow.  Instead, I prefer to say what I feel - which is that the magic triangle is an afterthought. It was either useless or broken in literally every FE game with it.

I agree with that sentiment. But the difference is that it's basically all you do, in a needlessly petty and uncompromising fashion that makes you look like a dick. I actually have points about the magic triangle I'd like to discuss about it's future possibilities. Right now I'm implementing a FE6 hack where I've made it more useful. But you're attitude actively discourages conversation on subjects because you're so completely arrogant and hostile about any opinions that don't fit into a very narrow, preconceived, view of the world.

Edited August 27, 2018 by Jotari

[RexBolt]

14 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I agree with that sentiment. But the difference is that it's basically all you do, in a needlessly petty and uncompromising fashion that makes you look like a dick. I actually have points about the magic triangle I'd like to discuss about it's future possibilities. Right now I'm implementing a FE6 hack where I've made it more useful. But you're attitude actively discourages conversation on subjects because you're so completely arrogant and hostile about any opinions that don't fit into a very narrow, preconceived, view of the world.

Changing the subject to more interesting things. Mind talking about these changes you have been doing to the triangle? All i could think about was making Resistence a lesser stat in the unpromoted casters, minus Cleric/Troubadour. 

[Heptade]

4 hours ago, Shadow Mir said:

Which would most likely do nothing but waste game code because why the hell are you having your mages engage other mages, besides stalling them? Or their being stronger the the enemy by a notable margin, at which point the magic triangle means nothing?

Um... I respectfully disagree...

Yeah, the Mage vs. Mage aspect is definitely an afterthought in the games that used the triangle, but I enjoyed the variety of characters that the magic triangle brought. Also, the Dark tomes always had neat abilities. Why not make it so that the two other types have some unique spells as well?

Though I quite enjoyed the new double triangle introduced in Fates (which I will note proves that they can do 2 triangles that do matter in a single game), the old magic triangle strikes nostalgic chords within me, and I was a bit disappointed that they never made it matter more than it did.

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, RexBolt said:

Changing the subject to more interesting things. Mind talking about these changes you have been doing to the triangle? All i could think about was making Resistence a lesser stat in the unpromoted casters, minus Cleric/Troubadour. 

I'll make a thread about the hack entirely when I'm finished play testing it (currently in Ilia). What I'm working with now is weapon triangle advantage giving +10mt and +60% hit and wepaon triangle disadvantage giving -5mt and -40%hit (because the positives and negatives don't actually have to be the same). Plus 10 sounds extreme, but due to the aforementioned bulky Res of mages it actually balances out pretty well. I originally had it at only +5, but some units couldn't even touch enemies even when they had WTA with that. By far the biggest difference is to the hit though, especially when it comes to siege tomes. Fortunately I've also given every promoted mage class (except Valkyrie who get swords) two types of magic available so they can better control the triangle. Design a game from base though, I would definitely try to vary Res as a stat among classes. More res focused melee units and some non res focused mages. I actually think that would be agood way to implement Barons. Just because you attack Res, doesn't mean you can tank Res.

Edited August 28, 2018 by Jotari

[Shadow Mir]

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

I agree with that sentiment. But the difference is that it's basically all you do, in a needlessly petty and uncompromising fashion that makes you look like a dick. I actually have points about the magic triangle I'd like to discuss about it's future possibilities. Right now I'm implementing a FE6 hack where I've made it more useful. But you're attitude actively discourages conversation on subjects because you're so completely arrogant and hostile about any opinions that don't fit into a very narrow, preconceived, view of the world.

Sure, I might come off as not exactly a nice guy and be hostile when it comes to arguing, but you gotta admit, sometimes the jerkass has a point. Anyway, some of my other issues with the magic triangle include mage quantity (and sometimes quality as well), in addition to balance between the magic types - either one type is flat out worse than the rest, or the opposite is true. Genealogy is especially egregious about this because both are true. Not that most of the other FEs were significantly better at avoiding this... Light suffers in BB thanks to being exclusive to a promoted class, and dark draws the short straw in most of the others.

34 minutes ago, Heptade said:

Um... I respectfully disagree...

Yeah, the Mage vs. Mage aspect is definitely an afterthought in the games that used the triangle, but I enjoyed the variety of characters that the magic triangle brought. Also, the Dark tomes always had neat abilities. Why not make it so that the two other types have some unique spells as well?

Though I quite enjoyed the new double triangle introduced in Fates (which I will note proves that they can do 2 triangles that do matter in a single game), the old magic triangle strikes nostalgic chords within me, and I was a bit disappointed that they never made it matter more than it did.

I never really found the games with it to be much more varied unit wise than the others.  Also, I found the dark tomes having special abilities to not be enough to make them worthwhile when most of their users are worse off than users of other magic types.

What's this about a double triangle? Fates only has one - red > green > blue.

[DisobeyedCargo]

4 minutes ago, Shadow Mir said:

Sure, I might come off as not exactly a nice guy and be hostile when it comes to arguing,

That’s the thing, you always come off as incredibly hostile/aggressive to people’s opinions. 

Its okay to disagree with someone’s opinion, but it’s another matter entirely to be hostile about it

 

and as for the magic triangle thing. I would like to see it back if becomes more prevalent. I never did that much Mage V Mage combat. If that was more prevalent I’d gladly welcome it back.

and as for the topic another class I would like back is an Archsage like class for a Gotoh like character if we get one again. Athos having a unique class with complete mastery of all magic was really cool and made him feel unique.

[Jotari]

2 minutes ago, Shadow Mir said:

Sure, I might come off as not exactly a nice guy and be hostile when it comes to arguing, but you gotta admit, sometimes the jerkass has a point. Anyway, some of my other issues with the magic triangle include mage quantity (and sometimes quality as well), in addition to balance between the magic types - either one type is flat out worse than the rest, or the opposite is true. Genealogy is especially egregious about this because both are true. Not that most of the other FEs were significantly better at avoiding this... Light suffers in BB thanks to being exclusive to a promoted class, and dark draws the short straw in most of the others.

I never really found the games with it to be much more varied unit wise than the others.  Also, I found the dark tomes having special abilities to not be enough to make them worthwhile when most of their users are worse off than users of other magic types.

What's this about a double triangle? Fates only has one - red > green > blue.

It doesn't matter how much of a point you do or don't have when you actively resist acknowledging anyone else's point. You don't respect other people's opinions. That's the problem. You just constantly spout your own view without actually listening to anyone else. And even though it doesn't matter, no, I don't think you do have a point most of the time, as you're extremely close minded when it comes to potential. If someone, in any circumstance, says they want to see something return, you immediately leap on it and criticize the mechanic (and frequently the person too) as if it's intrinsically flawed. If a mechanic was implemented poorly in the past, then it's stained in your eyes. You can't conceive of it actually being done in a better fashion. The magic triangle is a perfect example of this. Yes, it was rather useless in the GBA and Tellius games, but that doesn't mean it's inherently unworkable (or hell even that it's a bad thing to have in the game even if it's useless. It's not like it actually wastes much code like you claimed. I'd say it's like six lines and five minutes work at most). You even said it yourself that it worked in Heroes due to more revisionist Res distributions and percentage based triangle bonuses. Or maybe to sum it all up another way, you're not wrong that the magic triangle was poorly used in the past, but that doesn't actually make you're argument in any way right.

Don't challenge me on the workability of the magical triangle, because honestly I don't want to talk to you about it. I was just using it as an example of what is now your very predictable, typical and tiresome behavior.

[Shadow Mir]

14 minutes ago, Jotari said:

It doesn't matter how much of a point you do or don't have when you actively resist acknowledging anyone else's point. You don't respect other people's opinions. That's the problem. You just constantly spout your own view without actually listening to anyone else. And even though it doesn't matter, no, I don't think you do have a point most of the time, as you're extremely close minded when it comes to potential. If someone, in any circumstance, says they want to see something return, you immediately leap on it and criticize the mechanic (and frequently the person too) as if it's intrinsically flawed. If a mechanic was implemented poorly in the past, then it's stained in your eyes. You can't conceive of it actually being done in a better fashion. The magic triangle is a perfect example of this. Yes, it was rather useless in the GBA and Tellius games, but that doesn't mean it's inherently unworkable (or hell even that it's a bad thing to have in the game even if it's useless. It's not like it actually wastes much code like you claimed. I'd say it's like six lines and five minutes work at most). You even said it yourself that it worked in Heroes due to more revisionist Res distributions and percentage based triangle bonuses. Or maybe to sum it all up another way, you're not wrong that the magic triangle was poorly used in the past, but that doesn't actually make you're argument in any way right.

Don't challenge me on the workability of the magical triangle, because honestly I don't want to talk to you about it. I was just using it as an example of what is now your very predictable, typical and tiresome behavior.

Bold: You do realize Heroes is the exception, not the rule because of what you said and the resulting reliance on being on the winning end to not lose? Also, someone else would have mentioned it if I hadn't.

So what I'm getting here and from your last post is that there are about only two ways to make it relevant, neither of which I'm willing to bet on.

[DisobeyedCargo]

5 minutes ago, Shadow Mir said:

Bold: You do realize Heroes is the exception, not the rule because of what you said and the resulting reliance on being on the winning end to not lose? Also, someone else would have mentioned it if I hadn't.

So what I'm getting here and from your last post is that there are about only two ways to make it relevant, neither of which I'm willing to bet on.

Did you not read that last part about how he didn’t want you to challenge him on the magic triangle?

[Dragoncat]

I just want laguz again.

[DisobeyedCargo]

1 minute ago, Dragoncat said:

I just want laguz again.

How exactly would they work? They seem to be rooted very heavily in tellius lore. Just have the same concept but call the race a different name?

[Dragoncat]

1 minute ago, DisobeyedCargo said:

How exactly would they work? They seem to be rooted very heavily in tellius lore. Just have the same concept but call the race a different name?

I guess.

Or Tellius remakes.

[Jotari]

33 minutes ago, DisobeyedCargo said:

Did you not read that last part about how he didn’t want you to challenge him on the magic triangle?

Oh I'm sure he read it, but predictably, he didn't actually listen to what I was saying. The response basically proved the entire point I was trying to make.

[Shadow Mir]

4 hours ago, hanhnn said:

Well, as the way I see it, your logic is simply that you're bad at playing game.

You should know that sometime for some people, playing against some annoying thing is the fun part.

What the hell are you going on about? Because I am not sure I have a clue.

[DisobeyedCargo]

4 hours ago, hanhnn said:

Well, as the way I see it, your logic is simply that you're bad at playing game.

You should know that sometime for some people, playing against some annoying thing is the fun part.

I’m not entirely sure we understand what you mean

[RexBolt]

8 hours ago, DisobeyedCargo said:

How exactly would they work? They seem to be rooted very heavily in tellius lore. Just have the same concept but call the race a different name?

I think for shapeshifters to work again, specially in a story where they are not the focus but just another part of the world, it's for them to not be a race. There's plenty of myths about magic turning people in animals, if they said that beaststones are just another kind of magic that humans developed it would be much more acceptable than another opressed animal people that we never hear of during the game outside the chapter of introduction.

[DisobeyedCargo]

31 minutes ago, RexBolt said:

I think for shapeshifters to work again, specially in a story where they are not the focus but just another part of the world, it's for them to not be a race. There's plenty of myths about magic turning people in animals, if they said that beaststones are just another kind of magic that humans developed it would be much more acceptable than another opressed animal people that we never hear of during the game outside the chapter of introduction.

I could definitely see that as a possibility   

[Jotari]

58 minutes ago, RexBolt said:

I think for shapeshifters to work again, specially in a story where they are not the focus but just another part of the world, it's for them to not be a race. There's plenty of myths about magic turning people in animals, if they said that beaststones are just another kind of magic that humans developed it would be much more acceptable than another opressed animal people that we never hear of during the game outside the chapter of introduction.

That could make for some interesting transformation units that also use tomes to contribute when untransformed too.

[DisobeyedCargo]

1 minute ago, Jotari said:

That could make for some interesting transformation units that also use tomes to contribute when untransformed too.

Maybe have them flip flop between strength and magic depending on their state?

 

[RexBolt]

3 hours ago, Jotari said:

That could make for some interesting transformation units that also use tomes to contribute when untransformed too.

Exactly. I was actually thinking of an updated version of the Druid using stones, staffs and maybe tomes, if it fit with the triangle used.