Fire Emblem

So I am even more lost on this discussion than I thought. Why isn't it worth to use better weapons?

Because past Steel they have retarded drawbacks.

Like, Silver weapons give, iirc, -2 DEF/-2 STR until your next turn or something ridiculous like that

Strength and Skill

It recovers at a rate of 1/turn, so using a silver weapon once is a 2 turn debuff. God help you if you take more than one Enemy Phase attack.

edited 26th Feb '17 12:27:49 PM by Watashiwa

Holy shit. Yeah, that seems really bad. I guess it is useful to deal with bosses but, unless they changed it in Fates, you usually could just surround them with units anyway.

Yup. Silver weapons are cool in theory, but in practice the most you usually need is steel. I even use iron regularly, because most of my units can kill reliably with that, and the lack of a debuff is good.

EDIT: Heck, after promotion I remember having Laslow murdering tons of stuff with a bronze axe. His strength and speed were good enough, despite the low weapon rank.

edited 26th Feb '17 12:35:01 PM by ILikeRobots

The Royal brothers vaporize bosses anyway.

Yeah, Fates' weapon balance system is... not good.

I honestly just preferred stronger weapons having lower durability. Yeah, it meant that there was never any reason not to use A-rank weapons since low durability isn't a very potent drawback, but it's better than there never being a reason to use anything above C-rank and thus no real tangible benefit to improving weapon rank.

edited 26th Feb '17 12:39:17 PM by Anomalocaris20

Durability can be a drawback if you limit the money supply.

I wouldn't know if any game ever did that, though. I am so stingy with resources that I keep using C or even D weapons well into the late game no matter what.

The weapon system benefits enemies. Silver Lance debuff is irrelevant since they don't have long lifespan. They also have less speed, so they don't miss much when using Hand Axe/Javelin/Kodachi.

The AI doesn't really care about their own survivability. They only have to kill a single member of your army to "win" on Classic Mode, and they know that.

Yeah, this was how previous FE games (except for Gaiden) did it. I would argue that durability in and of itself was all the drawback that we needed. Sure, your more powerful sword lets you take out an enemy easier, but you can only use it a total of 20 times before it's gone forever. Thus, you're more inclined to use it wisely.

See: The Jugdral Holy Weapons, which...strangely have limited uses despite being weapons passed down through hundreds of years, and having been blessed by gods in the past. Sure, cool balance decision, but how does that make sense in-universe?

The Holy weapons are easy to fix since their users curbstomp arena.

As flawed as the Fates system can be, I vastly prefer it over durability. With durability you frequently run into Too Awesome to Use for some weapons, and often times end up sticking to Iron or Bronze anyway because they're cheap and have a ton of uses before breaking. It also forces you to manage character inventories much more frequently when stuff breaks.

No durability sucks. Gaiden didn't do it well and Fates' way of handling it is even worse.

How was it on Gaiden?

The inventory is weird in Gaiden, like usual. Weapon is essential upgrades for damage with some special weapons here and there, and there are accessories to wear but that force you to use generic weapon which has no might. Go to serenesforest.net for more info. on inventory in Gaiden, because it is weird for me to. They are going to bring back that system in Echoes, but with some adjustments here and there.

Personally, I like the no durability.

edited 26th Feb '17 1:36:54 PM by mariovsonic999

Fates actually made me think about which level weapon to use. Durability never added anything meaningful. Glad it's gone.

I love durability being gone, but I wouldn't mind both systems being hybridized somehow. Like maybe some weapons have finite uses but they don't break when the hit 0, just become unusable until the map is completed.

Well, Genealogy has the money system where weapons are repairable so they are essential unlimited durability at a price.

I disagree. I think durability was a great mechanic, not only adding realism to FE, but also you can't use your overly powerful weapons too much, because you only get so much of it.

You only got the really strong, infinitely durable weapons (i.e., Ragnell) lategame, where you were meant to feel like a badass.

Not to mention, a debuff after using a regular old weapon is ridiculous. In Fates I defaulted to using iron because it didn't put a goddamn annoying debuff on my unit, or steel when I needed just a tiny bit more power. Silver was worthless. Even bronze could hold its own just fine. I feel like it made weapon levels more meaningless, if anything.

You mean people don't repair their weapons after carrying them in every battle?

Also, weapon level gives bonuses based on how high the ranks is, like sword giving more damage when raising their level or axes getting more accuracy. Honestly, I feel it is more of the price that make me not want to buy them more than the actual weapons.

The problem I feel about durability is that once you have a lot of money and you are near the end of the game, the low durability is negligible.

edited 26th Feb '17 1:43:29 PM by mariovsonic999

Each weapon has its specific niche. Bronze to mitigate crits. Iron for basic functionality and power. Silver for high power at a cost. Now it's not so easy to just throw a Silver weapon at a boss, because now you have to calculate whether you can survive the next turn. Adds a layer of strategy while removing an element that was a mild annoyance at best.

Now the Royal Weapons were broken yes, but I prefer legendary weapons to actually be legendary rather than brittle.

edited 26th Feb '17 1:43:31 PM by Sterok

If weapons are breakable then there should be an easy way to fix or merge them. The GBA and Tellius are my least favorite when it comes to weapon weight and durability

Maybe to mitigate Too Awesome to Use, legendary weapons could be made to not break when they hit 0 durability, and instead cannot be used again until they are repaired, which would cost a hefty sum.

Enemy crits are never all that much of a problem, unless you're trying to use Arthur. Most units get enough luck to negate the already-negligible crit chance of most enemy units (Random Number God shenanigans and 1% crits notithstanding). Iron is literally all you need.

Except you literally never need silver at any point in the game. Not only does it actually hinder you, but your units are more than strong enough to take out a boss with iron.

And I never saw durability as annoying. If anything, the debuff is more annoying, because it actually can mean the difference of your unit surviving or dying at any given point.