Aethereal

I'm confused by this. Only players who sign in China won't be returning for the season if the lockout ends. I thought Kobe only has rumors (right now) to sign in Italy. Am I wrong, or is it something else?

But this could be problematic too. In this scenario are we still assuming the low amount of shops, with relatively weak weapons? Because if so, your axe users are screwed, or thieves become overpowered. Axe users are generally the units with the highest STR stat, so a thief would need to have a ridiculously high STR stat to steal them, or all our axe users would be stuck with iron weapons that cost us a fortune to replace, while our sword users, magic users, and bow users could be supplied for forever with no real cost.

To be fair, no one else was actually mentioning their personal political beliefs, just making a joke. At least until a few posts ago.

I kinda just assumed you were fucking with us with the elixirs. :D Edit: Hector's tale, the NPC Valkyrie is funny. It just stole a tonic, and it's been following Serra around healing her, but uhh, she's at full HP. It says no damage each time.

Fargus and Hector trading opens up the tutorial text for trading Sain a vulnerary, and you can't get out of it heh

K, so, a few more When Rath and Lyn talk after Rath's tale, Lyn is the one who says "Do you regret coming back?" to Lyn. In Rath's tale, there's a dragon knight with a silver axe, but his axe rank isn't high enough to use it, so he's just flying around disarmed. In Rath's tale I got trolled. Hard. This isn't a glitch, but I wanted you to know you suck</3 In Merlinus' tale, I killed the boss with Rebecca, and animations on, and his death quote had a different mug than his regular mug. I'll upload a screenshot later if you need. In Pent's tale on turn 1 Enemy Phase, the animation for Shaver was stuck on the sage's cape flapping, had to reset my emulator a few times. Turning off animations fixed this.

In the prologue, Arch says "Well, that shouldn't be a problem for us, Dane." twice, And then, even though I chose male, it says "Luckily for you, little girl" I'm really freakin' excited for this, and I'm glad you released a public beta. If I find any more errors, or actual bugs, I'll let ya know.

Yeah, I know, and that's what I assumed from its usage in the game. I think Swordsalmon was just kidding, and I was trying to clarify =X

Pretty sure Ensign is a term for a low ranked member of the Navy, but I could be thinking of something else.

I'm really late to this, but I just want to throw something in on the balance of FE10, especially since a rebuttal to something I said was quoted. I agree FE10 is actually very balanced by FE standards. TBH, each of the characters I listed, and some others have, only dominate a few chapters of the game. That was the point of what I was saying. Not that the entire game is poorly balanced, but that, for instance, Haar in 2-E, 3-4, Nailah in part 1, when she's there, and the royals in part 4, make some maps that could very well be really difficult, jokes. This happens in every FE game, at least to some degree, and that's one part of the game series I don't think is balanced. If even for a short amount of time, one or a handful of characters being head and shoulders better than every one else is really unbalanced. However, as a couple of people have said, almost every character is usable, which is a huge jump up from characters like Wendy, and you don't have singular units dominating everything, like Sigurd, whatever Gen 2 Holsety user you choose, Seth, and whoever else. Those are big steps forward on the balance front. I didn't mean it to sound like I hated FE10, or FE10's balance, just that there are some points that were much worse than the rest of the game. Blahblah, rant over. Most: FE7? I guess. Prolly 7. Least: FE8.

Is it bad I'm more excited for a new patch of this than I am for FE13? Inari's mug is incredibly well made, in my opinion, one of your best. And I love ship levels for whatever reason. This looks awesome.

Well, a lot of times people burn out on doing something they love too much, and having it overshadow other more important aspects of their lives. After some time away, it's not impossible to come back to that same thing, with a better perspective on how to manage their time, or their investment. I have absolutely 0 way of knowing if this is what happened to Kaga and creating games, but there is some hope, right?

I think it's still a positive that Marcia can use the boots so effectively. Wether she is the best candidate or not is meh, it's a 1 or 2 turn difference at most between her/jill/reyson. I think it's fair to say that she is not leagues ahead of every other boots candidate, (Including Oscar? There's been less discussion of him though) and while it's definitely good that she can use them, it's a minor point, especially when comparing her to Jill or Oscar.

Best: Sylvia. Refreshing Sigurd+Lex+I don't care who else really+Keeps moving+has enough move to keep up with the Leg Ring. Worst: .... Lalum maybe? Nils? I don't even know. And yeah, I don't get why Japanese games/shows shove really young girls down your throat who dress/behave really sexually. I stopped being interested in 14 year olds when I was around 15. That kinda makes my Sylvia pick seem backwards, but it was really just for the Hero Axe and Sigurd. I swear. <.< >.>

Archers I'm sure it hasn't totally been harped on to death, and I'm revealing some new and exciting information, but bows (Post SNES) are about useful as puppies are evil. Besides that, their personalities usually suck. A lot. Wil's personality is "I'm Wil!", Rebecca's personality is "I miss Dan and Wil." Wolt's is "Roy's my friend." Neimi's is "WHAA". None of the GBA archers provide anything remotely interesting despite all having INCREDIBLE amounts of time to be developed, or participate, or generally not be really dull. The GBA Snipers are somewhat better. Maybe I should delve into it some more, but I honestly don't remember anything about Igrene, except thinking it would suck to grow up in a desert with no friends. The her and Astol thing was at least interesting, if nothing else. I don't enjoy Innes at all as a character. I like Klein mainly just because I like Pent, and while his personality wasn't great, I'm glad he provided good backstory with Dieck. Louise made me laugh a few times though, which is cool. As far as Tellius goes, Rolf is a child, so I can't hold it too much against him that his personality sucks, but it does. And Shinon's a "racist". And a douche. Soooo, yeah. Edit: Realized something, I said all bows are useless, but they aren't completely. All the snipers at least have some use besides "Chip random bandit in early chapter for 5 damage."

Cuz they crazy! I have no idea if Sain's 20/20 stats are comparable to other unit's, but a lot of people only use those measurements to determine who's good. For whatever reason. So I guess that could be how they're measuring?

Magic users and paladins not have terrible caps. Magic actually performing something of use. Ridiculous differences in movement lowered. Less units who trivialize maps. Haar, Nailah, The Black Knight, Sothe, Tibarn, Giffca, and Caineghis are all units in particular who are basically invincible at some point in the game. And other than the BK, they all have ridiculous movement, and 2 have flight. You have to assume at some point IS said to themselves "Do you think this will be balanced? Awh, fuck it." An endgame that provides a real challenge, preferably with the laguz you get in part 4 having worse power. It's dumb to raise and train units all game, only to have Tibarn, Giffca, and Caineghis show up and dominate them, in both movement and combat, no matter what you do, particularly if they have bad caps.

Raven, the point that got to me is somewhat contradictory stances. I want to explain, and I don't want it to be me "twisting" words, or your intended meaning, or whatever, so I'll be really specific. I'm also not harping trying to harp on specific cases which you could be swayed on, but your overall stance, and showing you the conclusion of those stances. This quote is referring to Fir. I'm not completely positive on the first quote, because I feel like you either didn't finish the thought, or "without even scraping high tier" is meant to be the conclusion of the sentence. I'm kinda assuming you mean you're upset that Edward isn't high tier, but this could be wrong if you just didn't type out the rest of the sentence, I just have no way of knowing that. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here though. So, Edward and Wolt are your "Contribute something to the start, do nothing later" units. They contribute to pretty much any efficient playthrough (I'm sure you'd still get low turns without Wolt, but it's the principle.) Additionally, you say that Wolt has one turn in his favor, and Fir's use after C9 is more efficient. But, by the judgement that the most efficient strategy has a lot of meaning, or that "if some one contributes more to optimum strategies then they are obviously better", and understanding that Fir contributes to 0 optimum strategies, with the possible exception of her recruitment chapter, then Wolt is obviously better. Additionally she doesn't contribute If she happens to save 1 turn in that chapter, and Wolt's pre-C5 contributions only include saving 1 turn, then they would be the same, I guess, but that's still a pretty bold statement to make. I realize that that is NOT what you specifically said in your quote, but the idea that an optimum strategy indicates which unit is better, indicates that a unit who is used in optimum strategy's contributions>any unit who does not. You say that Wolt cannot be considered a hindrance past Chapter 5 because you have the option to not use him. I disagree, but then, later so did you? You said that Wolt is dead weight, and that it is more efficient to use Fir in Ch.9 Onward than Wolt in Ch.5 Onward. You also said that this shows that if Fir can get some kills or chip at some enemies, she does more than Wolt. I agree with that, but I can then say that this is contradictory to your stance that optimum strategies hold weight. It COSTS turns to use Fir over other units, or it is at least not saving us any turns. Since turncounts are what you wanted to compare by, she does not contribute "WAY more". She kills more, but I don't think that killing is the same contributing. I completely agree that units should be considered used, but this idea that there should be a time when Wolt is considered done, as in "Oh, we drop him here, and it doesn't hurt him or his placement that we do", yet he is considered bad because he is being compared to a unit who you think we should use after the 'optimum' time to drop her, is backwards. The optimum time to drop Fir is after C9. This is what I meant when I said it's arbitrary to decide who gets dropped when. You CAN do it, but it is not objective to do so, unless only considering optimum strategies. To summarize, here's what I mean: I agree that Wolt<Fir. I think Wolt<Fir, because I think that non-optimum playthroughs hold at least as much weight as optimum ones, and that turncounts, while important, should not be looked at through the lense of optimum playthroughs. It should be "What can each character contribute to a complete playthrough of this game?" I also think this because I believe that being unusable after a certain point is a point to be held against a unit, not that it is "not considered a hindrance, simply because you have the option not to use him". Obviously Optimum playthroughs have some importance to them. But there's no way that they should tell you who is "obviously better". At all.

How can being unusable/bad after a certain point not be considered a hindrance? It's arbitrary and subjective to decide to choose when to stop using Wolt, and not doing the same for every other character, which is what I meant to type, so I apologize for the misunderstanding. It should read "And not on each and every character in every game". By your standard of efficiency, which is a subjective standard, every character is only used at optimal times. That means that units who aren't 100% optimal would never be used unless they have forced chapters. So, to keep with the FE6 example, take Fir. Are you willing to say Fir<Wolt? Because, I'm at least relatively sure she isn't necessary for an optimal run, but can be a much better unit, for a much longer part of the game than Wolt. It's a limiting standard to make every character used only for a certain number of chapters to fit an optimal playthrough, not used at all, or used every chapter no matter what, and used in a very specific manner each time. I'm also saying it's impractical: Do you play the most optimal playthrough in each game? If not, what do you gain, hope to gain, or enjoy about discussing a playstyle that you don't personally engage in? Not only that, since most every one here doesn't play that way, what does any one have to gain? Why can't the subjective lists, by subjective standards, be used to gauge the usefulness of characters considering who does what is subjective? Every playthrough is not the same, going under the assumption that they are is limiting the conversation. Also, I'm not sure how I was being hostile or passive-aggressive. I don't think having conversation where I don't insult any one, think poorly of any one, or attack any one is being either. I don't think badly of you, or any one else in this topic for that matter, I was just stating my opinion. =/

You're putting a subjective and arbitrary ending to when Wolt is deployed, and on each and every character in every game? I'm sure there are chapters where Lethe or Gatrie, to use the previous example, are less of a liability, or somewhat helpful, if you only throw them in that chapter. The logical conclusion, not the logical extreme, would be that Lethe or Gatrie are only used for those chapters, so that the standard is the same for them as it is for Wolt. Tiering can either be done by a) Determining exactly who contributes exactly what to the singular most optimal playthrough, or b) a subjective list. Having a subjective list is by no means a bad thing, it encourages people to try to play the game in ways that are different from that optimal playthrough, one which I imagine very few people are actually interested in trying to do that optimal playthrough. "Defining" efficiency limits the conversation, and makes the conversation that is had less practical.

In the first 13 posts, there are 3 posts that discuss the strategy, or even touch on it, and the rest all talk about the difference in the weapon or characters. Of those 3 posts: The other is a 1 sentence post that says "1 turn it". Is that really disturbing? And worth having this conversation? That one person suggested an easy way of just getting past the level? On the second page there's a 3 sentence conversation mixed that says, None of those 3 posts acknowledge a clear that isn't LTC I guess, but they don't imply that they don't think any one will ever try to kill more than the 1-3 dragons that they're talking about. It doesn't imply that it's worse to clear out a lot or all of the enemies. It's just stating: There's an option to do this quick and painless. This is all you need to do. Not should, need. And it's true. Should they have said you "need" to kill everything? Or said they "should" kill everything? I still don't know why we're having this conversation, so I'm stopping. I'm not mad, or upset, just really confused on why this bothered you so much.

He never told any one about any of the characters he wanted to bring besides Mia and Mist, characters he didn't want to use, or ways that he enjoys playing. It's not really unreasonable to answer in the way relevant to you. I suppose he could have specified more, or people could have asked for him to specify. But really, is that enough reason to get upset? No one's shitting on any one else's way of playing except you, and I don't really understand why. This is a non-issue.

I don't agree that Matthis and Vyland's hair is very unrealistic, other than colour. I'd say they were more poorly done than unrealistic, but I'm not too concerned with FE3's sprite quality. I agree, Minerva's armor is crazy. I hated it personally, thought it was annoying and bad looking. Frederick's kinda looks like he should be in an anime with mechanical suits. I wanna say, I think they're really well-drawn, but it's a really ridiculous look to give characters. That's all. Also, do those armor knights only have legs 1/3 the height of their bodies, or is it just me? Each time I see them I giggle a little.

Did any one in here say there was anything wrong with clearing the entire map? The only thing that any one said was that using 20 uses of Wyrmslayer in one chapter with one character seemed unrealistic. In fact, when the OP said he was going to clear everything, no one said anything bad to him. People should play the game however they best enjoy, and personally, when I've finished leisurely playing something, I like to challenge myself, see how well I can do at something. I'm not obsessive with Fire Emblem, and I don't always get the lowest turncounts possible, but I really enjoy playing at a decent efficiency, at least by my own standards. There's nothing "disturbing" about that. No one's said anything bad to any one else, I don't see why this became a problem for you. Edit: i should add that there's no reason to think that ranks are somehow a "better" run than an efficiency run, because the value of a playthrough of a game is pretty much defined by how much the player enjoys it. A lot of people enjoy efficiency runs over ranked runs. So what?

Standing out doesn't have to mean incredibly unrealistic. The character with the blonde hair and the headband's hair is just insane looking, and one of the character's (Frederick's, I believe. I could be wrong.) armor is about a foot away from his neck on every side. Additionally, some of the armor, hairstyles, clothing, and whatever else looks overly intricate for no real reason. I think you can have characters stand out, and be more vibrant, while keeping realistic features. I like the artstyle, it's well drawn stuff, it's the character's designs that are problematic. Take Krom, if you took away some of his more intricate features to his clothes (Which are minor anyways) he's just another fire emblem character, drawn differently. The other two, however, are not. =/ I'll probably get used to it, but my initial reaction is ugh.