Lonely_Dolphin said:
MTZehvor said:
The point is that if your unit is moved up and kills an enemy, it's going to draw retaliatory attacks in return. Story maps in 3H, especially post timeskip, are designed where even if you one shot enemies, you're going to trigger usually multiple retaliatory attacks from other enemy units (often more). Many of these are going to be units that are themselves in the range of others, so moving to strike them just puts whatever character you use to hit them in even more danger. Chapters 13, 19, and 20 all especially notable examples of this, along with other chapters where ballista/magic garrisons exist that are out of any single unit's move space. If your unit can consistently tank 3, 4, even 5 attacks being initiated by the enemy in a single turn in a Fire Emblem game, you're either significantly overleveled, you've gotten extremely lucky with growth rates, or you're playing Awakening with maxed pair up supports. Obvious exception is if you've got a def/res tank or something and all the enemy units are physical/magic, but that doesn't really seem to be what you're talking about here.
Personally I'd just be curious to see an example of what you're talking about tbh, if you can maybe take a picture from a chapter you play on later. Lysithea and whoever else you have as a mage are certainly capable distance killers, but the sheer number of flying/cavalry enemies that can one shot her means you either can't just place her willy nilly without getting offed, and those characters are usually far enough away to the point where they can't be killed without drawing their own degree of retaliatory fire.
I'm not telling you to not do paralogues; just maybe focus on getting the majority of exp with characters who aren't higher level. I'm also not saying it's "your fault," but a simple aspect of game design with optional battles and a leveling system is that you're never going to be able to perfectly balance maps for all playstyles. Either you balance it assuming people have done paralogues/optional maps consistently and risk making it too difficult for people who haven't, or balance it assuming people haven't and risk making it too easy for those who did use optional maps. Fates leaned more towards the former, 3H leans more towards the latter. But this is something that all strategy games and, dare I say, all RPGs themselves struggle with.
|
(Formatting broke for some reason) It's like we're playing a completely different game haha. Another reason I can aggro so easily is because enemy groups are generally spaced too far away to support each other. Course again, thanks to increased survivability I can still aggro even if there will be a few enemies still in range. Not all Fire Emblem games are balanced the same way, and the rest of that argument I could say also, that you're underleveled and unluckly. I'd rather use facts to support my opinion, such as overall higher tankiness where even my frailest unit can take a hit when in Awakening/Fates they'd die instantly, aswell as up to 5 range letting me attack further off enemies without them counterattacking. These factors are what makes the game oversimplified.
That's easily solved by difficulty options. I chose hard mode which specifically said is for experienced players.
JWeinCom said:
I'm not exactly sure what you are looking for. You're complaining HP is too high, but your character's going to die in the range or more than one unit. Should you just instantly be dead if anyone is in range? It doesn't really feel much different from previous Fire Emblem games where everyone except maybe my white mages could take at least a hit. I'm actually finding characters dying in one hit more frequent in this game, mostly because of the lack of pairing and weakening of rally. Although it also could be because I take more risks knowing I can divine pulse if it goes badly.
The rest of what you're saying simply doesn't square up with what I'm playing. There are tons of mounted units, not to mention that the enemy has access to bows as well. So I have no idea how you're killing anything that could potentially counter attack your weaker units. Last level I played had literally over a dozen wyverns. If you know a way to kill them all without ever getting in their range, I'd love to know.
I have seen one person in this topic agree that the game is easy, but they're playing on normal casual. I'm sure if you look on reddit you could find people that agree with any opinion. As for your "cold hard facts" I have no idea what you're point is. It's a fact that you have more range in this game... so? That's a completely neutral fact that doesn't necessarily tell us anything about the game's difficulty.
Anyway... here are some things I could truthfully say. In Awakening, I never had to worry about my frail units being counter attacked ever, because they could be paired up behind a bulky one. In either game I could attach fliers to my bulkier units, giving them all the benefits of bulk classes without the drawback. In Awakening, my characters recovered half their health when they killed enemies. In Fates I could make a duplicate of my best character allowing them two have two turns. In Awakening, I had characters that got a bonus turn when they killed an an enemy unit letting them instantly run to safety or kill another one. In Fates, I could duplicate my best units, then each of those duplicates got a bonus turn for killing an enemy, allowing my most powerful character to attack four times in a turn. In Awakening, my character could kill an enemy, recover half his hp, move again, and regain the other half. In Fates I revived a dead character.
Point is, there are lots of other cold hard facts you have to consider if you're talking about the game's difficulty, but you're just focusing on one, which absolutely screams confirmation bias.
|
I'm looking for more reason to care about how I position my units, the order I move them in, just general gameplay depth. Units being more vulnerable naturally means I need to be more thoughtful in my approach. I like having that tension where one small mistake means someone dies. I was just playing Fates not too long ago so the contrast is stark to me. Already mentioned the difference between the game's frailest units, there's also crits and flying weakness to bows, which are instant death in Fates, but in 3 Houses I've survived through those which is just crazy to me.
Of course I'll bait enemies that I can't reach, Calavry and Wyverns love to suicide in. Enemy magic are mostly 1-2 range, bows 2-3 range, so I can either outrange or melee, using gauntlets/brave weps against magic if I need to avoid the counterattack.
So why do you care how many agree when you believe one can always find people who agree? Personally I couldn't careless how many agree or disagree, I only believe facts and evidence. As for range meta, it should go without saying that being able to attack further off enemies without retaliation makes the game much simpler than if you couldn't do that.
Sure you can make Awakening/Fates a cakewalk if you buy dlc and grind and stuff, but in their rawest form they provide more depth and challenge than Three Houses in it's rawest form does. In Awakening/Fates, I can choose to play an easy game or a harder one, but in Three Houses I can only choose to play an easy game.
|
