dragonlordsd

In theory, it's this map, the Binding Blade from... Binding Blade: The Binding Blade | Fire Emblem Wiki | Fandom Assuming you don't kill any enemies, there are over 120 enemies that can spawn, including reinforcements. There are 54 enemies initially. 12 more will spawn every turn for 3 turns, for another 36, bringing us up to 90 16 will spawn based on which path you take for 106 Galle and 12 more units will spawn in the middle for 119 Finally, if you don't finish the map fast enough, 3 more enemies will spawn on the 30th turn, for 122. That said, I don't know if it's possible to go 30 turns without killing any enemies, so idk. Final caveat: There are a few "infinite reinforcements" maps in conquest. I don't know if those count, since the reinforcements all aren't counted as regular enemies (you can't gain exp, etc). I'm also not sure how many anyone has actually succeeded in getting to spawn.

I mean, Eternal Poison was freaking awesome, its only downside was that it was stupidly difficult. I like the concept, though. I'm ok with a radical shake up of fire emblem from an aesthetics/story/concept perspective, I just want them to keep the gameplay the same.

Agreed. I mean, this is just one mechanic, it may not even be a big deal. Awakening had spotpass "heroes from the past" and that had very little effect on the quality of the game. That said, the word "squad" has me concerned I hope that's just a weird choice of word, and not indicative of going full Valkyria Revolution.

OOOH! That's clever. Definitely trying that out. That said, I don't like the idea of them being on the map but invincible, but I'll play around with it. Even if it doesn't work for that specific example, that's still a really cool trick.

Having experimented a ton with spawn types in SRPG Studio, I'll share my quick thoughts: Ambush spawns are really useful under some circumstances. For example, I made a map where the player was being chased, and the objective was to reach a certain point. Starting on turn 4, enemies would spawn at the start of the map every turn to chase down the player. (I had to switch it to every other turn, because every turn ended up spawning too many). Ambush spawning worked really well there because it A) added a sense of urgency, as it felt more threatening and B) forced the player to play the map as intended. They couldn't just react to enemies as they appeared forever and grind out a million levels. So, really useful there. Another situation is plot-ambushes, but those fall under the heading of "tripwire ambushes." Nevertheless, they are useful for specific plot-related moments, as they feel more natural and add extra intensity. Ex, the player enters the center of town, and enemies jump out and ambush them. It felt a lot better to playthrough if the enemies got a turn first. And.... that's it. In basically every other circumstance, they were bad. For all the reasons that have been mentioned above, they're just too frustrating in moment to moment gameplay. Even if you carefully control and telegraph spawn points, they don't add anything over regular reinforcements. Ok, so why not do both? Because everyone who tested my game hated it. It was just fundamentally too confusing. There isn't a great way to tell the player "these enemies will attack and move on the turn they spawn" and "these enemies won't do that", which just led to people being frustrated. All in all, ambush spawns can be really valuable, but I found that they aren't worth it. The situations in which they help are too rare, and usually can be worked around by changing up the design.

I thought the same thing. It may have been miswritten on one of the translations, because I distinctly remember reading that it was Castoria's 1st too.

One detail I find hilarious is that no Japanese release has been announced for Advance Wars. Is it going to be like Days of Ruin and never get a JP release?

We can only hope. There's still a ton we don't know about the game, so we'll see. That said, after the success of Hyrule Warriors, I'd find it strange if Link was the only playable character, but who knows?

Tragically, I don't think we'll be seeing KH on the switch, though I keep hoping to be proven wrong. There was an interview (which I'm having a hard time tracking down, since melody of memory dominates any "kingdom hearts switch" google searches) in which Nomura said they tried to port it to the switch after Dragon Quest XI's success, but that they couldn't get it to work properly. Advance Wars and Metroid Dread are definitely huge hype. Samus Returns was good, but I felt like a lot of the art style was wasted on the 3ds. It was hard to focus on the details in the background because the screen was so small, and the colors needed more pop. It looks like Dread will be a big improvement on that, which is hype. SMT V looks like... SMT V. Not sure what I was expecting, but I'll buy it, I'll play it, and most likely love it, so that's nice. Astria Ascending looks good... we'll see if it's actually good.

The biggest innovation in 3d graphics of the last decade is proper understanding of the Fresnel Effect, which determines how light reflects off surfaces. The complicated explanation can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_equations Most video game engines now either use it as their only system for lights, or their default system.

I may need to let it go, but I still give KOTOR2 crap for how unfinished the original version was. The Restored Content Mod is more or less essential for that game, but I will admit that with it, it's a fantastic game. For me, though KOTOR 1 will always be the best, just because of how good the plot twist was, as well as some of the side quests. But yeah, favorite star wars game would definitely be the KOTORs.

This is certainly true. Those stories make the news, and you have to remember, transgender people are a minority. Most people do not personally know any transgender individuals, and these stories are all they have to base their understanding on.

Given how deep of a hole that Last Jedi dug the franchise into, this movie is probably the best it could possibly be. Was it extremely easy to make fun of? Yes. Did I enjoy it? Surprisingly, yes. This movie, because of the mistakes the previous movie made, had to A) Be the last film in the Trilogy B) Resolve as many plot threads as they could C) Give a satisfying conclusion that would make people want to see future movies. I did have issues with it, but most of them were things that the film couldn't realistically have done any better on. The Knights of Ren, for example, should have gotten way more build up and development. But the movie was rushed as is, so realistically, they just didn't have time. Similarly, issues with Palpatine, a lot of other characters, etc, had to give way to finishing the story. In a perfect world, the first half of this movie would have been its own, separate film, but we can't make it four movies. They did the best they could with what they were given, it was actually fun, so that's a plus, I give it 7/10

I dunno, I'm really suspicious of these leaks. The "leaked pokedex" turned out to be intentionally misleading, at this point I think the "leakers" are just screwing with us. There's so little on this game, it's not really worth speculating on imo.

They are mostly not covering it. I didn't know what was happening until a buddy of mine in Chile was like, "Whelp, my city's on fire." But yeah, it's rough. I honestly can't sort out what's going on, because there are so many conflicting narratives.

I'd say it's more explicitly "America" in decline than "the west" as a whole. Europe's been on a roll for the last few years. Japan's been hitting their stride as they are finally catching up to the west in technology. Substance Designer suddenly became a thing, and even Nintendo is using it, Mario Odyssey being the first game I know of they used it for, though Nintendo is a bit of a black box even in the game industry. Capcom, similarly, has implemented SpeedTree (first used for Witcher 3), as well as marvelous designer to great effect. Additionally, Japanese companies have started bringing in more international artists, which has helped them greatly. Finally, the a lot of Japanese companies are switching to Unreal, rather than trying to build their own engines. Most of Square Enix's problems for the last decade were either out right caused by bad engines, or were exacerbated by them. By switching to Unreal for everything, they're saving a lot of time and effort, and it shows in DQ11 and Kingdom Hearts.

2019 has been a great year for gaming, though not a lot of great stuff came out. That said, a lot of great trends have continued, and customers have been able to push companies in the right directions. Big things that happened in 2019: Fire Emblem: Three Houses was a big step in the right direction story-wise, and sold really well, so the series is looking good right now. Astral Chain was great and sold well, so Platinum's still in business. Sega brought back Sakura Wars (FINALLY) and that looks like it'll be good. Kingdom Hearts 3 was a lot of fun gameplay wise, whatever else you can say about it. Capcom has continued its major renaissance by constantly putting out better triple AAA games that completely avoid a lot of the BS that other companies have fallen into. Resident Evil 2 Remake, Devil May Cry 5, and Monster Hunter World: Iceborne, have all been fantastic, and it seems that trend will continue. On the European side of things, Cyberpunk and Horizon Zero Dawn 2 are still cranking away, and are probably going to be fantastic. The Sinking City and Blasphemous did well, so hopefully those guys will continue to do good work. And in America, we've got Last of Us Part 2, which is probably going to be great. Blizzard seems to have learned their lesson from last year, and in spite of the major controversy, seems to be moving in the right direction for their games, though time will tell for the company as a whole. Ubisoft got taught a huge lesson by breakpoint's failure, and will likely make some major positive changes. EA is putting out Fallen Order instead of another Battlefront, so that's good. Insomniac's doing Spider-man 2, which will probably also be great.

I'll admit, you do make a really good point here. I mean, it's a bit off topic, but the way we treat our veterans these days is ridiculous, and I feel like no one's addressing that. Or rather, the candidates who are addressing that for either party are not actually in a position to win elections. That said, Excellen is not wrong to say that when you sign up to be a soldier, you are signing up for a job you know might get you killed. I think the main problem with your arguement is two fold: 1.) There are no draft dodgers these days, so you really can't say "that's why draft dodgers exist". There were draft dodgers fifty years ago, but we won't know if there are any now until push comes to shove. You can't judge today's youth by the standards of the 70s. You'll only really know what they'll do when the time actually comes. 2.) Patriotism is not the problem, and you even pointed out why. The army gets more than enough applicants. The problem is, the quality of the applicants has dropped ridiculously. There was a great TED talk by that one general, who was like, "The biggest problem isn't the number of people applying, it's the number of people actually making it through training". And honestly... that's a situation that will take some real work to figure out. I mean, that's basically like asking "how do you stop obesity" plus "how do you make kids smarter?"

Dude. We do this. All the time. Like, seriously, this is what our country does. Literally, our navy spends the majority of its resources patrolling unstable areas. I mean, can you take a second to plan out your argument a bit? I honestly can't tell what your objection is. I mean, your first question is "how long do we have to stay there?" Well, dude, we've maintained an active military base in the UK for 76 years, one in Germany for 42 years, one in FREAKING CUBA for 116 YEARS!! So, in all seriousness, what's objectionable about maintaining one more base for another decade or so? Are you objecting to cost? Number of troops deployed? Why is having a military base in another country a bad thing? That's the first thing I'd like you to answer. What exactly is objectionable about the garrison? Second point: You then go off on the "what if we're protecting the wrong people?" tangent. If you'd like, I can provide you with a thorough explanation of why they're the "right" people, why it's beneficial to protect that specific group, so let me know if you want that. But the basic summary of why we help people is NOT because "we're good people." We help them because they help us. That's what an alliance means. If we don't help our allies, they will not help us. On the other side, if we do help our allies, they will help us. I know this is basic stuff, but I just want to make sure we're clear on that. So, my second question is: if someone is actively helping us, why would we want them to stop? If we are in a relationship where we get more out of them than we put in, why would we stop that? Third point: "By your logic since it is the morally right thing to do, do you just help people in your neighborhood?" Uh, yeah. Do you not? If you're wondering why your neighbors hate you, I think found the reason. Also, please never move into my neighborhood.

I'm... not clear if you're intentionally misunderstanding what I'm saying, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt to try to explain again. The purpose of keeping the troops in Syria was not so that the US troops would fight against soldiers from Turkey, nor was it to defend against Syria. The purpose of the US troops was so that Turkey would not attack the Kurds, as that would involve attacking the US troops as well. Turkey cannot simply "go around" the US troops, the troops were actively garrisoned with the Kurdish forces. There are a few things you seem to be not grasping about this situation: 1. Turkey is not invading Syria, they are attacking the Kurds. Turkey does not intend to occupy the country of Syria, nor do they intend to engage in the mess that is currently going on there. 2. Leaving the US troops that were withdrawn where they were would not have meant involving them in combat. There is no outcome of this situation which would involve an active engagement between the US and any of the parties involved. 3. Trump's promise, as you pointed out, was about US involvement in wars, which the troops in question were not engaged in. The US has many, many troops deployed that are not actively involved in conflict but are purely there for the purposes of either keeping the peace or furthering US interests. Withdrawing them would be extremely foolish. I don't think that needs further explanation, but please let me know if you think otherwise.

Really? What happened?

To be honest, it wouldn't be a "military confrontation" with Turkey, which is part of the reason why people are mad. Turkey would never openly attack or even "confront" US troops. As we've already agreed, Turkey is a US ally, and they won't do anything to jeopardize that. Really, all the US needs to do is just keep its troops in front of the Kurds, and the problem is immediately solved. This is what makes people mad, because even though the US is within their rights to withdraw troops, for the price of just keeping 100 soldiers garrisoned with the Kurds, a full-scale war can be prevented, which most people see as being worth it (myself included).

Thanks, that's really helpful. It'd be really nice if xseed could do a retranslation of them, but unless there's a re-release, that seems unlikely. I have a psp, but getting a hold of them would be difficult. It's possible to emulate, but that would be time consuming (ie, I'd have to use my computer, rather than a portable device I could play anywhere). I might just watch a Let's play on youtube, but that's not really as good as experiencing them yourself.

Yeah, they did. It's still a betrayal of the Kurds, who were also our allies and are being attacked by them. The reason people are upset is A) Turkey is the aggressor and B) Turkey is way more powerful. The fast explanation of the situation is: Both of them are our allies, but Turkey wants to be the US's only ally so that the US will be forced to help them in the future. They are also suffering economic troubles and the president wants something to distract them.

@Dr. C I mean, I belong to a Christian Denomination that supports gay marriage so... I agree with you, I guess? I'm just a little lost on what your point is.