Weapons and Items That Should Return

[Cysx]

11 hours ago, X-Naut said:

It's called an equip item slot. Can't stack growth boosters so much when you can only equip one at a time!

It's a start, but I don't think that's really enough. The best ones would still end up on key units even with an equipment slot, and it'd become yet another tool to snowball through the game. I kinda want measures to stop that from happening, the series would only be better for it imo.

Edited March 24, 2019 by Cysx

[Von Ithipathachai]

2 hours ago, Shadow Mir said:

What secondary weapon triangle? All I know is the normal weapon triangle and the RGB weapon triangle.

I think he's referring to the Tomes/Daggers/Bows part of the RGB Triangle.  I hope that doesn't come back, because those weapon types are specialized enough that they have no business being part of a Triangle.

[Martin]

Yeah. That's the one!  Personaly, if they switch the knife and tome around in the effectiveness, it'll make more sense to me. 

Edited March 24, 2019 by Martin

[PrincessAlyson]

1 hour ago, Von Ithipathachai said:

he's referring to the Tomes/Daggers/Bows part of the RGB Triangle.  I hope that doesn't come back, because those weapon types are specialized enough that they have no business being part of a Triangle.

Yeah, I think they're specialized too. And daggers being effective against swords (which have longer reach and thus more potential) makes absolutely no sense. Magic should stay in its own triangle (light magic, please come back!!!).

[Von Ithipathachai]

5 minutes ago, PrincessAlyson said:

Magic should stay in its own triangle (light magic, please come back!!!).

If the Trinity of Magic comes back, magic wielding classes need to have more varied defensive stat spreads to justify its existence.  Otherwise Tomes should be Triangle-independent, with regular Mages and Sages having exclusive access to Light magic and Dark Mages and Sorcerers having exclusive access to Dark Magic.

Edited March 24, 2019 by Von Ithipathachai

[PrincessAlyson]

5 minutes ago, Von Ithipathachai said:

If the Trinity of Magic comes back, magic wielding classes need to have more varied defensive stat spreads to justify its existence.  Otherwise Tomes should be Triangle-independent, with regular Mages and Sages having exclusive access to Light magic and Dark Mages and Sorcerers having exclusive access to Dark Magic.

Agreed. Come on IS, gives us some magic users that don't fall under the "squishy wizard" trope please. Dark Mages were less squishy in Awakening/Fates but even still... Also, can we have more ice spells? Maybe some ground/plant based ones? Water? There's so much you could do as magic user!

[Von Ithipathachai]

10 minutes ago, PrincessAlyson said:

Also, can we have more ice spells? Maybe some ground/plant based ones? Water? There's so much you could do as magic user!

SRPG Studio does have three Ice tomes among its default assets.  One idea I had for Triangle-independent Tomes was that Fire tomes would be the most durable and have higher Might than the other elements, but wouldn't be effective against a particular class type.  Ice, Thunder, and Wind tomes would have lower Might and Durability, but be effective against certain class types, with Ice being effective against Cavalry, Thunder being effective against Armored, and Wind being effective against Flying.  Light and Dark tomes would have special quirks between them like HP drain, Brave attacks, higher Critical, etc.

Edited March 24, 2019 by Von Ithipathachai

[PrincessAlyson]

4 minutes ago, Von Ithipathachai said:

Ice, Thunder, and Wind tomes would have lower Might and Durability, but be effective against certain class types, with Ice being effective against Cavalry, Thunder being effective against Armored, and Wind being effective against Flying.

This makes so much sense! Ice would trip up horses, Wind has always been effective against flying as far as I know, and metal armor conducts electricity. They should do this in FE. More strategy and more things to look out for. 

[link16hit]

21 hours ago, Shadow Mir said:

 

Personally, I hope status ailments DON'T come back - they're cancerous bullshit that tends to not help the player much, if at all, if they ever get to use them.

If weapons debuff is back then we need the restore staff. the Inevitable end in Conquest and hexing rod was cancer.

[Shadow Mir]

1 hour ago, PrincessAlyson said:

Magic should stay in its own triangle (light magic, please come back!!!).

No. Just no. It did nothing back when it was a thing, there's nothing to be gained whatsoever by reinstating it - there's no point to it when pretty much 10 times out of 10, you're either too strong for it to mean much or the units' stats would discourage mage vs mage combat.

Edited March 24, 2019 by Shadow Mir

[PrincessAlyson]

Everyone can have their own opinions and wishes, ya know. I'd personally like an overhaul to light magic.

Edited March 24, 2019 by PrincessAlyson

[Cysx]

44 minutes ago, Shadow Mir said:

No. Just no. It did nothing back when it was a thing, there's nothing to be gained whatsoever by reinstating it - there's no point to it when pretty much 10 times out of 10, you're either too strong for it to mean much or the units' stats would discourage mage vs mage combat.

To be fair, taking it away didn't make the games any better either. The worst part about it is that it's less significant than one would want, but it didn't actively make things worse by existing.

[Shadow Mir]

25 minutes ago, PrincessAlyson said:

Everyone can have their own opinions and wishes, ya know. I'd personally like an overhaul to light magic.

The thing is, I think bringing the magic triangle back would be a step in the wrong direction, especially after the Tellius saga was particularly bad about it (rank clutter for the loss).

15 minutes ago, Cysx said:

To be fair, taking it away didn't make the games any better either. The worst part about it is that it's less significant than one would want, but it didn't actively make things worse by existing.

Doesn't change the fact that it had no purpose to its existence (or if it did have a purpose, it failed to fulfill that purpose). I'm not okay with it being there just because.

Edited March 24, 2019 by Shadow Mir

[Flere210]

I'd like a game where there are as many magic classes/characters/enemies as phisical ones. While in most games mages are usually less than 30% of the units, hence defense is considered a great stat while res is borderline useless.

In a game like that a magic triangle make sense, in RD where you would at best use 2 mages on a 12 men team a magic triangle is just mechanic bloat.

[Cysx]

20 minutes ago, Shadow Mir said:

Doesn't change the fact that it had no purpose to its existence (or if it did have a purpose, it failed to fulfill that purpose). I'm not okay with it being there just because.

But you're fine with it not being there just because?

[Von Ithipathachai]

1 hour ago, Cysx said:

But you're fine with it not being there just because?

I think the implication in his statement is that more complexity is a bad thing, especially if doesn't look necessary.

[Cysx]

4 hours ago, Von Ithipathachai said:

I think the implication in his statement is that more complexity is a bad thing, especially if doesn't look necessary.

I oversimplified for sure, but the hostility towards the magic triangle in our community has always been a bit puzzling to me. At worst, it's basically just lore with little bearing on gameplay.

I can completely agree that improvements would be welcome, but I just never saw any shortcomings to its existence. It'd be like... let's see... if we were vocally against the return of wo daos, because they're pretty underwhelming and slightly redundant.

[Martin]

7 hours ago, Flere210 said:

I'd like a game where there are as many magic classes/characters/enemies as phisical ones. While in most games mages are usually less than 30% of the units, hence defense is considered a great stat while res is borderline useless.

In a game like that a magic triangle make sense, in RD where you would at best use 2 mages on a 12 men team a magic triangle is just mechanic bloat.

I agree with you 110 percent. There should be more than just mages and dark mages. How about mages with an eff ton of power, but a lack of both def and res? Or a malig rider with a base class that also uses magic? We already have a sword user with average stats all around AND one that focuses more on speed and skill. Heck, half the time, I still can't really tell the difference between a Fighter and a Barbarian. 

I specifically have a lust for an armored mage. No logic or reason behind. The concept and potential game play just seems so cool to me. 

And how about grounded dragon units? I'd like to have a reptile rider and not have to worry about bows for once. Kind of like with Corrin

Edited March 24, 2019 by Martin

[Von Ithipathachai]

2 minutes ago, Martin said:

I agree with you 110 percent. There should be more than just mages and dark mages. How about mages with an eff ton of power, but a lack of both def and res? Or a malig rider with a base class that also uses magic? We already have a sword user with average stats all around AND one that focuses more on speed and skill. Heck, half the time, I still can't really tell the difference between a fighter and a Barbarian. 

I specifically have a lust for an armored mage. 

The main issue I see with inflating the number of magic-wielding classes is making every single one distinct from the other.  I could see it being possible if there's no Trinity of Magic, with about two or three infantry classes (Mage, Dark Mage, and possibly Bard), a Cavalry class (Mage Cavalier), and maybe a Flying class (Bird Knight?).  Mage Armors would feel kind of forced in my opinion, and I only suggest Bird Knights because these are one of the custom classes JAPANWeb made SRPG Studio graphics for.

[Flere210]

They never had a problem with physical classes, they just need to replicate that. They need two thing : different stats spread(this ia the easy part), and weapons that feela different in a significant way. Swordmaster feel different than warriors because sword are nothing like axes and reinforce the class identities. On the other hand, all tomes are 1-2 and are more similars. In any given game you have iron,steel,silver lances, javelins,spears killer,brave,horseslayer and a leggendary. For tomes you have a bunch of irons, a bunch of steels, a bunch of silvers, nosferatu and a legendary of two. They are enought for a generic tome weapon, but if we want 3 types of tome, each need as many variation as the lances. They can make touch spell with 1 range but special proprieties or 2-3 or even weak 1-3 tomes. They can give different special weapons to different tome types instead of dumping them all into dark. They can make light tomes give more vision to the user in FoW maps. They can have dragon veins being actived by the proper tome instead of a royal. They can experiment again with summons. The possibilities are endless.

 

As for classes, i'd make regular mages, dark mage that mostly use 1 range touch spells and are beefier, light mages as the magic myrmidons, magic cavaliers and magic flyers if i find an appropriate mount.

 

[Martin]

@Flere210 One range tomes does indeed sound interesting. 

Back to in terms of returning items; longbows, because honestly, an archer always needs at least some type of advantage.

[Shadow Mir]

6 hours ago, Cysx said:

I oversimplified for sure, but the hostility towards the magic triangle in our community has always been a bit puzzling to me. At worst, it's basically just lore with little bearing on gameplay.

I can completely agree that improvements would be welcome, but I just never saw any shortcomings to its existence. It'd be like... let's see... if we were vocally against the return of wo daos, because they're pretty underwhelming and slightly redundant.

And I consider the support it gets just as, if not even more baffling. Also, to say it's lore is pretty generous.

I generally don't have problems with the Wo Dao, at least outside of Radiant Dawn, where they were a poor man's Killing Edge, and Killing Edges themselves aren't exactly great in said game, so just how useful do you expect the poor man's version to be?

4 hours ago, Martin said:

I agree with you 110 percent. There should be more than just mages and dark mages. How about mages with an eff ton of power, but a lack of both def and res? Or a malig rider with a base class that also uses magic? We already have a sword user with average stats all around AND one that focuses more on speed and skill. Heck, half the time, I still can't really tell the difference between a Fighter and a Barbarian. 

I specifically have a lust for an armored mage.

I think there's gonna be trouble there - you'd have to make all those distinct from the other. And if Fates was any indication, I don't trust them to not screw that up.

[eclipse]

On 3/22/2019 at 1:12 PM, Shadow Mir said:

No way. Being some naive optimist who believes nothing can go wrong and is completely divorced from any sense of reality isn't for me.

There's more to life than extremes.  And if I have to kick you off of these forums so that you learn that (among a lot of other things), so be it.  I'd rather you grow, personally.

On 3/23/2019 at 7:14 AM, Von Ithipathachai said:

Fates would really have benefited from having Restore staves for those nasty debuffs.

I can think of a single argument as to why it wouldn't be implemented, and that would be because of stat debuffs.  But if that was the case, then that's some seriously sloppy programming (make things like Freeze a status effect, and a stat debuff something else entirely).  Otherwise, the stat penalties inflicted by the likes of Silver weapons aren't as "balanced".

On 3/23/2019 at 10:14 AM, Flere210 said:

Status effects should be a separate action like Rally instead of something that just trigger when you fight. Those should ve easier to counter than seals because you can focus the debuffe on player phase.

If you're talking about the likes of Berserk, they are (in the form of staves).  If you're talking about status debuffs (like Fates daggers), then maybe?

---

Once again, make it so that 1-2 range weapons (Javelins and their ilk, not bows in general) can't double.  This keeps the game from turning into a "throw your strongest lancer into the fray with a Javelin and watch the fireworks", which was equally effective and boring.

I'd love to see a milder version of FE4 rings available - something akin to shard bonuses in FE12, but as rings, so only one can be equipped at a time.

[Light Strategist]

Not so much an item as a Forge System like Tellius'. Ideally combining the way it works with how it did in Awakening. What I liked about the Forge System in Tellius was that you could fully personalize a weapon and give it to a character that you felt deserved one. For example, I gave Mia a Purple Steel Sword named Lexia that was made both, lighter and stronger with much better crit and hit and it was the best forged weapon I've ever had.  It'd be nice to be able to use that principle and combine it with some weapons that were never able to be forged in those games and make it so that something like a Lancereaver can be used uniquely.

As for a specific weapon or item in itself... I think some of the long range tomes like Blizzard, Bolting, Mire and their general ilk would be really cool to bring back. It adds an extra layer of depth to the battlefield. And speaking of long range attacks, I'd like to see Ballistae on the maps again too, really add an extra layer of strategy to a skirmish.

[Shadow Mir]

3 hours ago, eclipse said:

Once again, make it so that 1-2 range weapons (Javelins and their ilk, not bows in general) can't double.  This keeps the game from turning into a "throw your strongest lancer into the fray with a Javelin and watch the fireworks", which was equally effective and boring.

Now that you mention it, I wonder how javelins, hand axes and the like are going to be treated in this game... I hope they do something that prevents the old 'throw a javelin or hand axe user into the middle of a pack of enemies and watch everything die" from being a thing.