Jump to content

Dark Holy Elf

Member
  • Content Count

    2466
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dark Holy Elf

  1. In early Pokemon games Normal had a pretty solid niche of getting STAB on some extremely powerful attacks - first Body Slam in RBY and then Return in GSC. Other than ground, no other physical types had good attacks like this (or at most, they'd be limited to one pokemon, like Hi Jump Kick in RBY and Megahorn in GSC). So in practice normal types tended to be extremely hard-hitting, with the downside that they could never hit a weakness. A fair balance. As time went on this niche was eroded as physical type after physical type gained actually good attacks, and I agree in the more recent games Normal types have started feeling increasingly underwhelming.
  2. To be clear, I'm not surprised that someone would lose the fight because of the dragon vein use - it obviously makes the fight harder. I certainly lost the fight in the later turns the first time I tried it. Just that I can't imagine losing instantly. But if you've put yourself in a bad position - and I'd argue that letting enemies pile up in a defence map is a bad position, even if you might get away with it in easier ones - then yeah it makes sense that you might have ended up in an extremely bad, even unwinnable position, later on. To a certain extent this is analogous to barely hanging on in a fight due to sub-optimal play then the appearance of a couple (non-ambush-spawn) reinforcements putting you over the top into a loss, which can happen in any FE game and isn't, IMO, a bad thing. On the plus side, if you weren't killing many enemies, hopefully you didn't lose too much real time?
  3. I'd say Conquest/Fates in general is one of the most fair FE games. Not perfectly fair, just closer than most. Is it possible to have losses which aren't the player's fault? Yeah. I'd agree with the chapter 9 example cited. However, this sort of thing can happen in every other FE game and is in many cases more likely in them. Obviously, the games with ambush spawns or fog of war are way more unfair. I consider the vast majority of surprises in Conquest to be fundamentally fair ones. The Takumi dragon vein changes the battle but it's virtually unimaginable to me that you aren't able to react to it; you'll never immediately lose the battle because of it. It'll make you change your overall strategy but that's fair. I'd consider it analogous to bosses who gain a (scary) new move in the second half of the fight in various action games and RPGs. Most Conquest reinforcements are similar in that you'll almost always be able to react to them, unless you were really in a bad position when they landed (at which point the fault is yours for being in such a bad position). I'm surprised anyone would doubt that Hinoka was going to use her dragon vein a second time. I thought it was obvious. Why would the game limit her dragon vein use to a single, easily nullifiable move at the very start of the fight if it wasn't a lead-in to a something larger? And I believe you can still see the dragon vein under her if you look carefully.
  4. But 3H shows you Hit and Avoid on the respective status screens. It's a pretty simple matter to just subtract them, which is exactly what you did in GBA as well. Though I do realize that I forgot about linked attacks, which can't be seen until you reach the projection screen. While they're not relevant for enemies attacking you (which is where I usually do manual hit calculations, to determine how safe my evasion game is), they are relevant for your own attacks, and yeah if you want to hand-calculate them that's a bit more annoying. (Granted, this is pretty similar to factoring in your support bonuses to hit/avoid in the GBA games.)
  5. Could you explain what you mean, then? You claimed (if I'm reading right) that 3H makes it more difficult to calculate evasion than the GBA games. If you meant something besides what I presumed in my reply, please let me know. (I have read the entire thread up to that point, but it's of course possible I'm misunderstanding something.)
  6. The biggest advice I have, in addition to the excellent points others have already raised, is this: At the start of any player phase, try to figure out which enemies you plan to eliminate this turn (or neutralize via don't-move effects), and which ones you can't. You can, if necessary, calculate all your damage in advance to see what's possible. Try to leave a little leeway in case some attacks miss, especially if you have to make numerous attacks below ~90 hit. Once you do that, make sure your squishier units avoid the threat ranges of any enemies you aren't planning to eliminate. It helps to develop a sense of how many hits your units can take (again, you can check numbers to figure this out precisely if needed), so you know how many enemies you can leave them in range of. Check unit threat ranges like a hawk, and make use of the ability to toggle individual ones on/off in the games which allow that. On enemy criticals: Be aware of enemies with significant crit rates (e.g. killer weaponry), as well as any PCs you have which take crit rates against normal enemies (usually just PCs with really low luck, like Arthur in Conquest). During combat watch the window which shows damage/hit/crit projections. If you see an enemy with non-zero crit against you, take note of it, even if they don't get a critical hit this time, and take steps to avoid that in the future (unless you can survive the 3x damage, i.e. your unit is very durable). Hm, what do you mean by this? FE3H still shows hit and avo in the status screen, just like GBA/etc., and still shows calculated hit chance in the combat prediction. In fact 3H is actually a bit nicer than earlier games because it will also show you hit chance of an enemy's planned attack on the enemy phase if you move the cursor over them. It also doesn't have a varied set of weapon triangle effects to keep track of the way the DS games and Awakening/Fates do. The actual hit and avo stats are a little harder to calculate ahead of time (due to prowess skills and the like), but I don't think that's a big deal, since they'll be calculated for you by the time you're making actual decisions (and you can see how they update as you change weapons, for instance).
  7. Definitely post-timeskip here. I really wasn't interested in the game from its early release information. School setting no thanks, and the mains looked like takes on anime teenagers with the most noteworthy thing being that one of them seemed to be a person of colour. It was definitely the timeskip reveal that got me interested in the game*, and a huge part of that was the re-designs of the lords. They looked like war leaders, and Edelgard in particular just looked powerful and intimidating in a way which female protagonists often aren't allowed to be, particularly in this series. *to be clear it's a new Fire Emblem and I was always gonna buy it, but this was when I started getting excited to do so
  8. I can't speak to NG+, but I can confirm that battalions don't reappear in the shop if you dismiss them. I've accidentally dismissed an important storebought battalion without thinking before and couldn't get it back.
  9. Loved KIU. Its controls are a bit tricky to figure out but I certainly found something that worked for me (supporting the 3DS with my right pinky while holding the stylus with my right hand and the D-Pad and L button with my left worked well), and I thought it was a pretty great game past that. Sunk lots of hours into it, beat it on super-high intensities, etc. Never really cared about the weapon fusion system that much. Though I gotta say, while I obviously respect criticism of any game, and certainly the controls of the game deserve to be talked about, you have to live in quite the bubble if you think that shitting on the game was or is in any way common...
  10. Yeah, fair enough, RD really didn't want to let tomes scale up much. The spear is the exact type of weapon I'm not inclined to let people have here. There's only one or two in the game (depending on mode), and Eliwood has no particular unique claim to one of them. In fact his claim is weaker than that of the natural lance users, since his promotion time ranges from late to extraordinarily late, and has to raise his lance rank by two in that short window. If Durandal's weight is a conern I'd suggest an option of a backup silver sword for him, since that doesn't weigh him down and you can buy as many as you need. Silver Sword with a finishing blow from Durandal is competent enough. But that's just my personal take, obviously I'm fine with whatever rules get decided on. Eh, compared to Rhys, Micaiah has several more maps of use (4 extra, if I'm counting right), and more significantly, for a majority of those maps she has no staff access so she's forced to use light magic if you want to contribute. "Efficient" play can mean different things but I'm certainly inclined to assume she is used enough to hit Level 20 in Part 1, which is lot of light tome use. So in practice, she tends to be quite a bit ahead of Rhys in light rank (and even if you want to use Rhys as "mostly" a light mage, she should still be a bit ahead of him). Sanaki's got more of a chance to be competitive, although a variety of factors make me consider that Nosferatu tome to be Micaiah's and not Sanaki's - the base conversation is the biggest, but also the fact that Nosferatu weighs down Sanaki a lot, and the fact that Micaiah is exclusively a light mage for offence while Sanaki is oriented toward fire.
  11. Oliver joins with his own Nosferatu tome. There are other characters who might reach S rank light magic, but all of them have to hustle more than Micaiah does - Rhys joins with C, Laura promotes to an E, and Sanaki joins with an A a mere chapter before Nosferatu is granted. So Micaiah's not only explicitly given the tome, but she's the most likely to naturally have the rank to use it. I agree that Thani is more iconic but it's also an earlygame weapon so it's a bit odd to have a mix of people with endgame weaponry and others with earlygame weaponry. That said I'd generally favour characters getting multiple weapons as long as each one is one that they have at least a decent claim to should it be limited in some way (e.g. I certainly wouldn't give Brave weapons to FE7 characters, when there's only one of each Brave weapon in the game).
  12. Yeah to be clear I wasn't actually being serious about Robin/Nosferatu, I agree with you of course. EDIT: Oh yeah, on the current match, does the (non-Awakening) Archanaea Falchion hit weakness on wyvern riders? I would imagine things hinge on that.
  13. Micaiah should have Nosferatu IMO. Not only is it a good weapon (better than Rexaura in this setting IMO), it's explicitly given to her in a base convo in Part 4. Mjollnir seems an odd choice for Robin; I've played Awakening multiple times and I didn't even know Mjollnir existed in the game. Apparently it's from a Xenologue? I'd suggest Valflame instead; it's stronger due to the +5 Magic and it's obtained as part of the main story where Robin is very prominent. Or Nosferatu again if you want the meta choice.
  14. I love RPG battle systems. Obviously including SRPGs, but this thread isn't about those. To go into some non-strategy RPGs: Probably my single favourite belongs to a relatively obscure Playstation 2 title, Wild Arms 4. The central conceit of the game is that battles take place on a 7-space hexagonal grid. Multiple characters can occupy the same space, but if so, they all get targeted by the same attacks, and receive the same positive effects and healing. So there's a bit of a choice of whether to cluster up or not, on top of the positioning elements of combat you'd expect. Additionally, all four playable characters are very distinct stat- and ability-wise, and each gets different ways to interact with the grid system. Extremely fun. Its sequel, Wild Arms 5 has another spin on the system, though it's not as compelling for a few reasons IMO (still good). The rest of the mainline Wild Arms games use a much more traditional battle system. Final Fantasy X has already been brought up and it's already been eloquently stated why that system is good, I won't repeat it here. I'll also mention Final Fantasy XIII; I feel that game had some great battle design which really make you use the paradigm system (mid-battle class changing for your entire party, essentially) to govern your party. One of the few non-action RPGs I've played where you can only control one person and this feels like a necessity given the pace of the battles, but with the paradigm system you're kinda secretly controlling everyone anyway. Still on the subject of Final Fantasy, I have to mention Final Fantasy 5 as well. The battle system is merely decent, the standard ATB fare of FF4 through FF9 - though I'll give a shout-out to the fact that each boss feels very individually designed to be vulnerable to a host of different tricks - but what really sets the game apart is the class system. It's not the first RPG with a class system, but it was, to my knowledge, the first that emphasized building skills from different classes and combining them in interesting ways. The core idea is so good that it's been ripped off wholesale from a whole gaggle of different RPGs: the three Bravely games, Blue Dragon, Final Fantasy Dimensions, and Octopath Traveler, not to mention several quality strategy RPGs. The Bravely games probably have the strongest overall battle systems of this set but I enjoy them all because of how fun the class systems are to play around with. The Grandia series and its spiritual successor Child of Light have already been mentioned. Definitely enjoyable, I like how the games emphasize watching what the enemies are doing so you can decide whether to interrupt them. Unfortunately the first two Grandia games suffer from being incredibly easy so I had trouble enjoying the system, but the third game is one of the all-time greats for RPG gameplay in my books. (Unfortunately I'm not a fan of the games for writing - very childish IMO - but them's the breaks.) Shadow Hearts: Covenent and From the New World are cool if you like some timed hits for your battle systems, and also like to set up elaborate combos. Covenant suffers from the early Grandia thing of the game largely being too easy to appreciate the system, but it actually has good writing so I'm forgiving of it. From the New World improves the combo system (you have to consider how your attacks will move your enemy so that the followups connect while racking up hit count) and also shows some teeth because the enemies start making use of the combo system too (and solo bosses will happily combo with themselves to make your life miserable), so you really need to stay on top of them. On the note of timed hits, the first two Paper Mario games are great too (I haven't played the rest). As others have already mentioned, I love the small numbers and lack of randomness, leading to combat which feels quite tactical. It's no surprise the games share some pedigree with Fire Emblem. I could list many more, really. Valkyrie Profile, Mega Man X Command Mission, Chrono Trigger, Xenosaga 2, Saga Frontier, Radiant Historia, Lunar, Breath of Fire, Zeboyd games, Legend of Dragoon, etc. But the ones above are my favourites where battle systems are concerned. I'm less a fan of action RPGs generally, since I find them an unhappy medium between pure action games which do that sort of combat very well, and proper RPGs which emphasize strategy and party dynamics. But I did quite like the recent remake of Trials of Mana which does the party dynamic quite well, has very snappy pacing, and is an enjoyable popcorn game.
  15. It's good obviously, just you give up a fair bit for it too - you lose a player phase action from your paired unit most obviously, but also it's a notable offensive hit in both accuracy and not being able to benefit from support attacks. I'm definitely struck by the fact that there are some challenges in the game (like the room full of sorcerers in Conquest 26) which are distinctly easier to overcome using unpaired units. Though, certainly, I'd still use it even without the dual guard for the crit avoid boost and enemy-support-attack immunity (not to mention stats), so point taken that dual guard might be a bit much.
  16. Agreed on dex (though it's rarely good) and ice magic, and obviously Pairup (I thought Fates' version was decently well-balanced myself, but still a game-changer in a way that adjutants just aren't). Wind magic... yeah it's often very good. I think this game's wind magic is comparable to that of Tellius in that it's less bad and more (a small lateral shift from fire/lightning), though of course it's largely moot because you don't choose what spells you get. In some ways I think wind suffers in this game not so much because of the spells themselves (which... do have higher hit/accuracy than their immediate competition), but because the game typically gives wind spells to the slowest and least offensively capable mage (Linhardt and Flayn in particular). I'm surprised the devs didn't make a mage with at least 9+50% (Ashe-level) speed and wind spells but they were probably wary of over-tuning them.
  17. Cool. Keep looking for harmless things to dislike about the game, I have no doubt you'll find 'em.
  18. Enough that you're able to make balanced* use of the Share a Meal option to recharge your motivation. I don't do much fishing in this game (I usually only do it if I'm <100 prof exp from a levelup, or when the game has a quest related to it), and I find I have enough. *balanced in the sense that you aren't just using the same exact set of meals each week; that is, you're balancing out which options you're choosing
  19. Meat, vegetables, and fish are all relatively trivial to obtain in modest numbers, enough to power plenty of meal-sharing. (Meat is storebought, veggies are restocked by gardening which takes little real time, and a small amount of fish is easily obtained. Additionally, all three are obtained in significant numbers just by doing the various quests in the game.) If you want to spam bullhead or teutates pike stat-boosting recipes every single week, then yeah, that's gonna take some grinding. If you want to sell hundreds of fish for a bit of extra cash, that's gonna take grinding. If you want to hit A+ professor rank in chapter 9, that's gonna take (a lot of) grinding. All of those are clearly above what the player is expected to do. This seems fair, and in line with general RPG design.
  20. I'm not sure what you're asking me to do, or what you didn't understand about my point. To re-state it again: real time matters. The devs clearly consider real time to be a balancer for some things, fishing included. Such is the nature of anything generally termed grinding.
  21. 1. Sacred Stones, Awakening, and Birthright all provide easy, unlimited options for the player to become more powerful, to a greater extent than Three Houses does (on non-Normal difficulties). 3H lies in the middle of the series as to how easy such things are to do. As you note, though, such methods are always possible, and indeed there's a section of the player-base that gravitates towards them. I got into the series with Blazing Blade; one of the earliest points of discussion I remember on the game was how to boss abuse and arena abuse to become more powerful. If Fire Emblem's goal was to limit grinding, it has repeatedly failed. 2. The scoreboard is absent from a majority of the games and ignored by the majority of players in games when it is present. As for arguing that "turns taken" is a scorecard (despite the fact that several games in the series, including 3H, do not even show you the total number of turns taken at the end)... I could just as easily argue that "time taken" is the actual scorecard, and thus excess fishing is ruining your score. (We'd both be wrong; the game clearly isn't using either as a scoring method.) 3. 3H is far from the first game to include grinding, and not the first game to put some sort of soft or even hard limits on it [Valkyrie Profile and Final Fantasy XIII for two prominent examples off the top of my head]. Fishing is very clearly a form of grinding and thus the developer intent is very clearly that you do as much or as little as you want - the fact that bait can only be finitely bought is, I suspect, either a point of flavour or a gentle prod to move on with the game, rather than a point of game balance. Now, I think the free day and explore action uses are a separate issue (since those are part of the game's main loop and thus there is more of an eye to balancing them) and if you think something is poorly balanced there that's a discussion worth having. Although it's worth emphasizing even before we start that the devs very clearly considered real time a balancer in those choices, too (e.g. Rest is an underpowered option if time is not considered, but a reasonable one if it is; same with seminars to a less extreme extent).
  22. Fire Emblem: Three Houses is a strategy RPG. As an RPG, there exist options of grinding: incredible time sinks that let the player become more powerful. Fishing in this game (particularly past a certain point) is one such. So is grinding off regenerating enemies in aux fights (and arguably aux fights in general). So is running around in a circle repeatedly triggering optional random encounters in your average Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, or Pokemon game. In all cases, you should not do those things after they stop being fun. As lenticular noted, it is completely unnecessary to grind in order to beat the game - even Maddening NG. The option exists because some people do find grinding enjoyable. Personally, I don't... so I don't do it. The fact that you're choosing to do it suggests you're just trying to dislike the game. I don't think such options mean the game is badly designed, unless you think all RPGs are inherently badly designed.
  23. I liked the use of it in the chapter 9 cutscene, but yeah, otherwise, agreed that it doesn't serve much purpose in the main narrative except to make Byleth feel very special, which I think is the real goal of it being in the plot and not just a pure gameplay tool.
  24. But that's the answer, isn't it? You figured it out, I figured it out. We're told from the very start that Byleth's uses of divine pulse are limited. Bad things need to be able to happen in the plot. So, if something bad happens, you have, as far as I can see it, two choices: either assume that Byleth is a complete moron for forgetting their rewind powers, or that said powers are exhausted. You should choose the second interpretation because it makes an order of magnitude more sense. I guess they could have added a line like "hey Byleth, you seem to be out of rewind powers!" but that would only clumsily foreshadow that something bad was about to happen, so I'm not convinced that would be a positive re-write.
  25. I think there are some bad looks for Seteth in some of the main story stuff (mostly Silver Snow) as well as his paralogue, but support!Seteth is generally a decent, thoughtful guy. And yeah Gronder 2 was so obviously intended to have fog. I'm of two minds about it: one, it's a good thing because 3H fog is an abomination*. Two, nah, they should have just implemented fog in a way that wasn't terrible (not having it be base sight range of 2 when every enemy archer has 3 range would be a good start) and made that map fog. It's really weird to me that fog implementation has if anything generally gotten worse as the series has gone on; Binding Blade had some maps where the base sight range was quite substantial AND gave thieves a minimum of 8 (letting you see all but the most mobile enemies), before considering torches, and it's generally gotten worse from there.
×
×
  • Create New...