feplus

With text/cursor turned to fast and animations off, Mystery has a nice quick pace. I see no reason to turn animations on. Look to dondon's LTC videos: animations are off, battle forecasts are quickly passed over, and any relevant odds of success are added via annotations. Managing warp uses properly will be key. Because you're going for full recruitment, you'll have turns to kill, so training up units (mainly fliers) should be worthwhile. Divine!Chiki has flight and should be useful in some situations. I wouldn't worry about Medeus. A power ring and two speed rings are picked up without going out of the way, the Falchion will take a turn extra investment at most, and you should be grinding for favorable RNG anyway.

If you've played through FE3 or watched a playthrough somewhere, you'll know that the game ends on a still image of Marth followed by the word Fin. So I was surprised when I stumbled across this video. Here, text scrolls across an ominous background with the Falchion surrounded by flames, the Fin screen only coming afterwards. What's the deal? What does the text say, and why doesn't it seem to be in patched versions of the game? --- EDIT: Disregard, found the answer. Apparently this is called the "Perfect Ending chronology" and is unlocked by "playing from the start of Book 1 to the end of Book 2, with all characters recruited and alive." This thread's pretty useless now, so if you're a mod feel free to lock, but I do have one question: what counts as "start of B1 to end of B2"? Do you need to play through both on the same file, do you need to play through both consecutively, or something else?

Depends on the mode. On ENM/EHM, Kishuna will only leave when attacked. On HNM, Kishuna will leave after fifteen turns. On HHM, Kishuna will leave after twelve turns. If you kill Aion before the turn limits, Kishuna stays around until he's attacked.

IIRC, EHM gives generic promoted enemies ten extra levels, and then HHM adds five levels to all enemies on top of this.

Dismount nerfs otherwise dominant characters, the cut content is mostly bad content and improves the overall experience by subtraction, UI is much improved over the original, some nice balance changes (eg. javelins crippling AS). Shadow Dragon is probably better, but there are good reasons for preferring Book 1. In addition to the above, some players dislike reclassing and SD's art style. The original is borderline unplayable and greatly inferior to its remakes.

Kenneth's map is much better in my experience. Easy to complete the map with all requirements and turns to spare, less tedious, don't need to bring multiple thieves (or invest in chest keys, 500G a pop) to get all the valuables. Jerme's map has seven more turns to work with, but it's larger, the snow is overall more inhibiting, and it's a rout objective.

Thanks Gryz, that's super interesting info. So if a hacker wanted to give Hugh/Ray/Douglas HM bonuses, all they'd have to do is "load" them after the map begins?

"Impractical" appears to be this thread's operative word. In normal play, granted, triangle attacks are cumbersome and rarely worth it. But they really shine in challenge runs. Triangle attacks are the primary kill option in lategame Blazing Sword no-promoted-units runs, for example, and I've heard they're handy in some FE11/12 runs too.

I have not ignored any points. I have disagreed with many, yes, but this is not ignoring them.

This thread's very first response argues that showing growth rates undermines the challenge of Fire Emblem. This is the sentiment I am responding to since it's a weak claim.

I'm stating my views in a calm manner and taking both sides into account. I have never forced views onto anyone. What some people take issue with is my conclusion, not how I argue towards that conclusion.

This has always bothered me, since IIRC they are the only two enemy recruits without HM buffs. I'm wondering whether this was an oversight, intended, or a programming bug. I'm hoping this was discussed in developer interviews or if any of the game code indicates they were intended to receive buffs. Any information is appreciated.

There is no good reason to keep growth rates hidden. If you're relying on providing players with imperfect information to keep your game challenging, your game needs serious work.

Not quite FE13. Lunatic comes close, but DLC grinding should've been removed until postgame. Casual rewards bad play because bad play is quicker and more efficient. For example, using weak units as bait to clear a path, or blitzing enemy forces all at once.

Null hypothesis is that "a minor transient debuff to a non-random stat as a penalty for casual mode death would not have killed the series."

Killing any enemy (including the clerics) prevents the silver card thief from spawning. Fire Emblem will never see an "edgy" protagonist, but it's plausible that it implements a proper moral choice system. This concept would be a natural fit and it's shocking the series has yet to try it. Imagine something like this: Ch.1-5: tutorial, only forced on a first playthrough Ch.6: moral choice is made, three branching paths Ch.7-20: rest of the game That would leave us with 48 unique chapters (par for the course), a more focused campaign length, and would allow experienced players to jump right to the good stuff. Intelligent Systems can have its Nintendo-friendly good guy lord along with an edgy and neutral protagonist depending on the choice made. Fates gets really close to pulling this off, but the choice made isn't a properly moral one and Kamui's a Mary Sue on any path.

Some ideas: Emphasis on battle saves. Lyn Mode-style temporary casual. Large range of difficulty options (all with permadeath). Return of Aum staff (available early and more uses on easier difficulties). Difficulty-specific grinding opportunities.

That argument requires the claim that casual mode brought in enough players to save the series, players who would otherwise not have purchased the game were casual mode excluded. Awakening sold well in large part because of its advertising budget, high production value, large 3DS install base, and positive word-of-mouth. It almost certainly would've met its modest targets without casual mode. Neither here nor there. Again, there are ways to make Fire Emblem more accessible without coddling players and rewarding bad play.

The real-world counterpoint to this argument is how Fire Emblem survived for eleven games without casual mode.

Fire Emblem would've survived without casual mode. The "feel" of losing units for a few turns is unimportant. What matters is whether casual mode makes players better. It does not. In fact, it makes them worse. This is a weak analogy. Here's a better one: imagine every time somebody burns food while cooking, s/he is scolded for the mistake. Would this create better cooks? Yes. Some would-be chefs might be discouraged and abandon the hobby, but those who stick around will improve. I want better players, not merely more players. Fire Emblem can become more accessible without instilling bad strategic habits.

Fire Emblem has a history of encouraging better play through manipulating player psychology. Most pre-Awakening Western fans started with Blazing Sword. Lyn Mode is a protoype of casual, where units who reach zero hit points are wounded for the rest of the campaign but available later. Players are taught that making critical mistakes will cost them units short-term. When the main story begins, players are taught that making critical mistakes will lose them units who also die (usually) and will not return, so there's natural progression here. The stakes become higher. Peramdeath itself is in large part psychological. Rarely will a player lose critical units, since core members of a team tend to have better stats and lower chance of death. Killed units are typically superfluous and plenty of replacement prepromotes are available. But virtually all players reset when any fighter is lost because they feel guilty. That character has a name and a face and a death quote. His/her death is entirely on you. Don't you feel bad? Why did you make that mistake? So even though it's rarely necessary, players reset and play the map better. They improve. They improve because the game guilted them into making fewer mistakes. Casual mode lacks this psychological component. No wonder so many new players struggle to transition from Awakening to earlier titles: they were not given incentive to improve! Casual also reinforces bad habits regarding unit placement and lack of attention to detail, since unit death is of little consequence. I'd prefer casual and phoenix were cut entirely, and I don't care if that means the player base becomes smaller. Games can't be for everyone. If such modes must be included, psychological manipulation is important. dondon's idea of a token statistical penalty is a start. I also wouldn't mind locking content behind classic.

Blazing Sword's normal modes are worth playing ranked. Easier but encourage different playstyles. Eliwood modes have more turns to work with. Hector modes have more funds and experience to work with. Normal modes have more lenient experience but less funds and stricter turn requirements. Hard modes have more lenient funds but less experience and more generous turn requirements. If you'd like to play normal ranked with additional challenge, consider a no-arena run. Arenas are very powerful options in ranked play.

12, 13, 13x, 14, 15.

I'm talking about the four maps listed at the bottom of this list. Grizel execution court J-shaped map V-shaped map Defeat Bandits I find it difficult to believe that only this scanty bit of information exists. I'd expect the map data to be located within the rom itself. If the content isn't located in the data, I'd expect some players to have produced images or video. But Google doesn't turn up much information either. Any more info floating around, or is this the best we have more than a decade later?

1. Most arguments in this thread have assumed no Lyn Mode. Sain/Kent are better with LM included. 2. Lowen has a five chapter lead on both modes and he's doing more in Ch.15/16. Also a +3 support with 20 innate points. Marcus/Lowen is one of the better supports for reasons dondon has outlined.