Jump to content

Cysx

Member
  • Content Count

    1623
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Cysx

  • Rank
    Away but not really
  • Birthday 04/22/1989

Profile Information

  • Location
    France

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Fire Emblem Game
    Radiant Dawn

Member Badge

  • Members
    Jill

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'd probably be laughing uncontrollably for a good hour, before begging you to make this a yearly tradition from that point on. Long as the dog is fine, of course. ... I'm helping.
  2. It's definitely more of a curve, although specific skills aside(having just enough HP that certain skills will trigger in one hit, for example), I think Fatigue can kinda work as that? Aka you only need has much max HP as the amount of fatigue you'll spend until the end of the game. It's specific, though.
  3. Do we have any reason to think it would be any different for FE, though? I brought up flying to fit the plane analogy, I wasn't thinking of fliers in particular. Horses can ferry as well, but not with low MOV. I'm saying that the fact that combat is divided in so many stats limits the value of each of them to an extent. One could say there are two big poles to Fire Emblem, combat and movement(and then add support as a lesser third). Picture an FE game where your HP is also your STR, your SPD, your DEF and your SKL, and is just called WIN. WIN would be an incredibly pivotal stat. Well that's basically what MOV is, for mobility. Thus, your argument inevitably becomes analogous to "Mobility doesn't matter", which is not a statement you'll get too many to agree with. The one thing that goes your way is that how fast you win is irrelevant, only winning matters. You'll miss out on side objectives and every now and then you're actually timed but for the most part, nothing stops you from slowly getting a 1 MOV unit across most maps there are, disregarding terrain(though you'd need incredible combat to deal with being swarmed constantly). A lot of what makes movement good is arbitrary or optional. But, it still functions as a grading of how much one unit can accomplish in a single turn. It makes little sense to declare that one unit that can go ten spaces and see many more opportunities is just as good as one that can only move five, just because the player might choose not to capitalize on that difference. Also I don't even know if you'll agree with the above, so that's enough of that. A good half of your argumentation is MOV vs everything else at once, which can be its own debate, but it does little to prove that most stats are superior individually, which I believe is what your stance is?
  4. I ain't leaving though. ... but seriously, I didn't mean to antagonize you(my last message was misworded in that regard, it was more of a "see, neither of us are listening here" instead of the "gotcha you pleb" it probably came off as). I just think you're very obviously wrong, also your rebuttal ignored half of my response, and... idk, I'm just not feeling it man. Which is fine, again, there are other people.
  5. You pretty much just confirmed that we wouldn't get anywhere. I'm curious to see what others have to say about it, though.
  6. I honestly see this as you going at this backward. Yes, combat is important. So is movement. I really don't think you need my input to realize what is flawed about your logic if you're willing to think on it, and if you aren't, there's nothing for me to do either. So I'll stop there.
  7. While this series in particular doesn't dabble too much into that territory, s-rpg units with next to no move(1 or 2) will typically suck no matter how high everything else is. Similarly, having even as little as minus 2 move than average will seriously limit your opportunities to contribute and gain exp, while having two more, as FE teaches us, gives you a massive advantage. Then there are classes and roles that aren't focused around combat or stats. You even mentioned some of them, how useful are those roleplaying airplanes if they cannot fly? It's a different stat from most others, but it's critical to almost any type of performance. If anything, the fact that you need 3 to 4 stats to have good combat while you just need one to have good movement has predictable consequences. HP: 7/10 One of the hardest stats to rate. It doesn't match most others numerically, and it's almost always strictly defensive, in a series that often gives you the tools to eventually ignore that side of combat. Plus, it has noticeably diminishing returns. At the same time, it's incredibly important early on when the two previous statements don't apply, and while making HP pointless is possible, it's not always convenient or practical to do so. Plus, defensive stats also get bonus points because of permadeath. In many comparable games, having your HP depleted doesn't matter nearly as much as it does for most of the FE series. STR: 9/10 Straightforward, it's the primary combat stat in a majority of situations. It's arguably superior to speed but I like having those two tied. Not much to say here, really. MAG: 8/10 Considering the much more modest place magic damage has, this is this close to strength because it also affects other things, specifically staves, but also mixed combat, and it hits the usually much lower res. Plus it's still strength for a 4th to a 3rd or all FE characters, basically. SKL: 6/10 This is the stat that varies the most in value from game to game. In 3H, it's next to worthless, in FE5 and 6, it's pretty great. This shifts depending on how the RNG works, what the formulas are, how much avoid enemies usually have, how much innate accuracy weapons give... This is definitely just an average. SPD: 9/10 This could be controversial. Speed is the diminishing returns stat, in that once you can double, getting more loses 90% of its appeal in the moment. Still, not only is doubling obviously great, but so is not getting doubled, and dodgetanking, aka what is arguably the strongest form of survival in FE, is always largely based on speed. It's not a 9/10 in every game, unlike strength is, but I'd still say it fits. LCK: 3/10 I really like luck, it's such an interesting stat. I really wish it was better on average, and there are some games where formulas or skills make it good. But usually, having terrible luck is fine, and that's not a great sign is it. DEF: 7/10 Cf my HP rating about defense and permadeath. Unlike HP, it does nothing for magic damage, also unlike HP, getting more when you have none doesn't matter, and getting more when you have a lot is really, really good. Mitigating damage is always something devs have to keep in check because it's the quickest way to invincibility, and there's a reason this stat has historically lower growths than everything else. Also this one isn't really an unhelpful average like for HP and skill, I'd say it's roughly this good in every single game. RES: 4/10 Magic damage is too rare and too easily dealt with by HP on its own for this to get any higher. Still a mitigation stat, though, and having a ton of it instantly gives you a niche on most any team. CHA: 3/10 Another one I wish was better, unfortunately it suffers a very restrictive dynamic cap and influences battalion damage very little. It's still your primary accuracy source for one of the most overpowered tools 3H brings though, so I can't put it any lower. MOV: 10/10 I kinda said my piece already, didn't I. Movement is by far the most restricted stat around, and for very good reason.
  8. To me (disclaimer, I don't use them at all either, not in 3H anyway), their utility lies in either enabling key ORKOs(duh, I guess), or genuinely boosting the output of an unit that will see more than one encounter before the effect expires, which is why they work particularly well with enemy phase builds, and why dancers and dancing battalions bring said utility up a little. Another small quality they have is that they make things simpler, as you only have to worry about the performance of one unit instead of two. Rally strength can also make gauntlets much stronger during the early game.
  9. Ignatz has the best accuracy in the game, and we're talking about one of the classes that gets the most mileage out of the stat, since it extends its reliable range of attack. HV can hit at 4 range, but -50 Hit will often be a pretty big hurdle depending on target and build. He also does reach higher crit rates than the majority of other candidates with a 105% combined Dex&Lck growth, which is another stat HV Sniper favors(this also matters because there's a bit of a tradeoff between hit and crit when it comes to accessory and battalion, so even having too much hit can translate to more crit in that sense). That number is the 2nd best in the game behind Shamisen's 110%, tied with Claude(average is around 78%, though that's with every single character taken into account).
  10. From my understanding, it's used primarily for ltc, since when you can't be a flier to bypass obstacles, having pass is the next best thing. A stride'd dancer Bernie can cover a lot of ground no other dancer can on certain chapters especially, and relies less on having multiple competent warp users. She does have decently easy access to move +1 as well, as you said. I have zero experience with the build myself, though it seems pretty straightforward. Rescue would probably have way too low of a range to be worth using at all(2 for most of the game?), unless you certify for a magic class along the way I suppose. We're sending her on actual battlefields we've already sold our soul anyway
  11. See, beyond the fact that this doesn't help, I now also wonder if the root of this isn't you misunderstanding what this gambit can really pull off. I'll still assume that isn't the case, but why the obviously biased statement? Anyway, I do seem to have misread your argument to an extent, or rather it initially felt a bit more extreme. Though my reasoning on why it should be used early has little to do with ease and with both canto and strive on one's side, planning isn't required to make it work, our arguments do reach the same general place. Now as to whether it's useful if you don't do that, I'd still say yes. First, having one's entire deployment filled with indispensable units isn't likely, second it doesn't need to be fully optimized to make a big difference, all you really need to do is to have the user nearby your dancer, and your dancer nearby your most competent units, which you're probably doing regardless. If the question, like I think, is whether it can be useful when not used at its best or not, then we do disagree. ... But mostly I think the statement of yours I quoted in my previous message is interesting but flawed and that's why I posted Specific map design is yet another story, but either we're talking about an unoptimal context(which I thought we were doing) and bringing low turn counts doesn't really make sense, or we're talking about situations where usefulness beyond turn 3 or 4 doesn't even matter in the first place, because the map will have ended.
  12. This sounds fairly similar to the "why bring a dancer when you can bring another combat unit?" argument, to be honest, with more variables attached to it. Even playing casually, an excellent turn 1 or 2 can completely change the face of almost any map, and this gambit does make one of those almost trivial to achieve. FE maps are rarely designed to last more than 10 turns... or let's say 15 to be conservative, to begin with. I can agree that it's... overkill friendly, though. The debate of what strong tool is actually genuinely helpful is a very interesting one. Alas, as players who don't really need help in the first place, I don't know that we'd be amazing at determining this in particular.
  13. Probably because they cost no money.
  14. I'd say the player's interactions with said ensemble of spaces can be considered a space in and of themselves. We do not play as AI ideally would, and when faced with a puzzles complex enough, trial and error can generally be expected. This is of benefit to the enemy if we consider that its ultimate goal is to defeat the player(even though it is actually to entertain them); every mistake is a win, and most every attempt carries a risk. DP doesn't remove said risk, but it minimizes it as there is much less to lose, and in a more relevant fashion, it minimizes enemy victories as they get immediately overwritten. This interaction space can be simplified, as you did, but I'd argue it shouldn't be; time and nerves are a factor to the perception of difficulty and the satisfaction in overcoming challenges. You're not wrong though, in an rng-less, sterile scenario, structurally DP doesn't affect the puzzle itself. But if we accept that human perception is relevant here, which I'd say it is, suddenly it does, in a much more direct way than grinding and co do. You've made your point, I can admit that there's a difference. Yet functionally, I'd say it matters little, because games are primarily about the player, in one way or another(largely how do we entertain them vs how do we get them to give us more money), and the player's experience is a key point of game design as a whole. It is worth mentioning that DP is automatically used whenever a game over is triggered, which I'd say definitely pulls away from the "optional" aspect. As for rerolling rng having a recurrent presence throughout the series, while it did exist I'd disagree in spirit, aside from prep screens or the very few first turns of a chapter. Of course there's a difference in tedium much as described above, but most importantly it was never something the player was directly encouraged to do(and many are largely clueless to the concept I'd assume), unlike either forms of DP we've had thus far, which are 100% about such an incentive. It's not reality reminding you in so many ways that failing in a video game isn't an actual dead end, it's a bona fide game mechanic, with potentially growing presence in the plot to boot... though I digress again. I really don't think there's much of a resemblance.
×
×
  • Create New...