Jump to content

Aethereal

Member
  • Posts

    342
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Aethereal

  1. This statement shows me something: You're fucking terrible. Being a racist is being actively ignorant. If you honestly believe there's something about being a specific race that inclines you towards negative attributes, you should actually try to find some sort of evidence that there is. Basing opinions like this off of your "lifestyle" and "popular media" is the worst form of reasoning I could possibly think of.
  2. Resetting doesn't count against survival, no worries there. EXP is the tough rank, but I don't honestly know about ENM compared to HHM. I didn't promote either lord in my S-Rank, and I would imagine promoting Hector would be kind of a waste. I'll have to check again, but I think I promoted like, 6 units? Sounds about right. Lean on your pre-promotes for combat and tactics, and feed kills to unpromoted units as often as possible. Pent, Marcus, and Harken are basically your best friends. I think I used an angelic robe for a specific purpose, and otherwise didn't see a good reason to blow a ton of funds for minor boosts. Stat boosters are meh. I wouldn't stress over effective weaponry. There's not a lot of situations where it'll be worth it , since it can usually be duplicated by Mani Katti. Keep 'em with Merlinus. You probably are worrying too much, but it doesn't hurt to be prepared with something like this. Anyways, good luck.
  3. No horsie in the worst game to be a foot unit, and isn't even a good combat unit to make up for it. Hero Axe only goes so far. 2.5/10
  4. The conversation contributes in the form of Shin doing things later on in the game. Shin does not exist in a vacuum, but I don't see why what he does counts as a positive for both characters. If we say that Shin is good because he's good at killing dracoknights, and Sue is good for recruiting Shin, Shin's contributions are being counted twice. Furthermore, there's much more ridiculous examples. Roy recruits Clarine, who recruits Rutger and Klein, and Klein recruits Tate. So Roy gets credit for 4 other units' contributions, based on one conversation? Tate's contributions would be given credit four times over, once to herself, Klein, Clarine, and Roy. You're not seeing what's wrong with that? And you would make these weightings based on the contributions in the actual chapter? Because that sounds like you're just evaluating the contributions anyways. Except in a very roundabout, and unnecessary way. How does this work when the amount of unit slots available relative to the amount of units you have changes? This system gives characters much more credit for being available when there are high amounts of deployment slots than normal, and punishes you for being around with a low amount. The biggest flaw with this is that more likely to be deployed in those chapters=/=more likely to contribute substantially. Especially when there will be more competition to contribute in those chapters. Again, we don't need to quantify value with likelihood of being deployed, because the contributions are what help you complete the game. Therefore what should be evaluated is the contributions, not the act of being deployed. I said this before, and you ignored it, but w/e. You've failed to demonstrate how likelihood of being deployed is more important consideration than actual contributions.
  5. I guess I can spell out the point: I don't see how Sue can possibly be the most valuable person in a chapter, when other units trivialize it, and Sue does not necessarily contribute anything. Furthermore, this method implies that since we want to recruit Shin, Sue is the best unit for this chapter. If Sue is unlikely to do anything else, Sue is being given some credit for Shin's future contributions. That seems silly, after all we can just give Shin credit for Shin's future contributions. Your method determines that because a unit is more likely to be deployed they are more valuable. However, we don't need to try to quantify value with likelihood of being deployed, because each units' contributions are what help you finish the game in the first place, and not the deployment of the unit. The contributions are, therefore, what should be evaluated in order to demonstrate the worth of a unit. Also, your method gives equal weight to contributions in each chapter, and I'm sure you can see why that's a problem. Unless you think all chapters have the exact same difficulty.
  6. Marcus, Zealot, Lance, or Alan all have a less than 100% chance of being deployed on that chapter, and Sue would get deployed every time, just because of Shin. Despite Sue sitting in the back and not doing crap, and one of those 4 potentially dominating the chapter, your system would have Sue being more valuable in that chapter. Anouleth's right, but you're putting the cart before the horse.
  7. ... The 2 turn clear of FE8 prologue. REALLY? Okay, even if we agree that people copy the strategy for that very miniscule and inconsequential (3 enemies, 2 player controlled characters) chapter, it does not follow that people follow each others' strategy enough to determine that Fire Emblem takes "no skill". No one follows turn by turn guides when playing the game. I'll gladly agree that if people did, they wouldn't be exhibiting the skills needed to strategize, but I seriously doubt there are people who do this beyond some rare and extreme examples. "Burn 1 RN, move forward" is hardly an adequate justification for the stance that Fire Emblem takes no skill because every one copies each other I wanna start with saying I don't mean to disrespect you either. At all. Anyways. Definition of Skill: 1. The ability to do something well; expertise. 2. A particular ability. The ability to weigh and measure your options in Fire Emblem is a skill. The ability to determine the correct actions that will lead to your desired goal is an example of having skill in Fire Emblem. If you can do it better than some one else, that makes you more skilled at Fire Emblem than them. To your hypothetical, people could just as well say "You have great math skills". "You have the skill to recall formulas and equations and execute them properly" is wordy, and not something people would normally say, but is also true. You could also say "You are more skilled at math than most people".
  8. You're right, every one in the world, wether having played the game or not, plays Fire Emblem as well as every one else.
  9. If you want a guide so bad, then make a guide, instead of telling others to.
  10. I love Geese, but you guys who are rating him highly are nuts. The guy has mediocre offense with okay accuracy, doesn't double much, and starts with meh durability. If you promoted him the second he joined(fat chance) he'd still have worse ATK, SPD, and HP than base Gonzo, and Gonzo got a 5. 3/10.
  11. Minor Season 1 spoiler alert ahead. Not to hate or anything, but these two paragraphs show a serious misunderstanding of the characters, and the motivations that are presented. I might be biased, since I've read the first couple books and what not, but this misses everything about Varys and Littlefinger that makes them compelling. Varys, for instance. He's very "stable", it's just difficult to see who he believes to be in the right. He isn't chaotic. They just need to be looked at with more nuance than a typical show with characters that are "Honorable, therefore will fight and die with you, cuz they're a good guy". Varys is on whoever's side he thinks is best for the realm, but he's not a man of "honor", as defined by the show. While he doesn't help Ned when he's in need, it's because he thinks he would die, pointlessly. I think he even says that himself, but I could be wrong. The fact he supports Ned, tries to have his life spared, and brings him food, drink, and advice are all indicators of this. I mean, with characters like him you can never be completely sure of their motivations, but the path he's walking down makes sense. Littlefinger is motivated by power. He's much less loyal than Varys, and his motivations and intentions are very unclear in the first season. That said, he doesn't need to be completely explained at this time. He becomes a much bigger player later in the series, and his character until then is meant to be more of a mystery. In my opinion, one of the best things about ASoIaF is the character depth, political aspect, and the break off from your prototypical story. I'm a damn big fan of the twists, and characters, and I like not knowing everything about Varys and Littlefinger. I'd rather I didn't, it keeps me unaware of what's coming next.
  12. Gonzales is very hit or miss (harharhar) No, but seriously, this whole accuracy thing is incredibly overblown. When he's on peaks he wrecks wyvern lords better than any one. And they're one of the most important enemies to deal with. They're also most definitely not the only lance users. Every one in the Fir topic was like "Oh, well, there's so much lances after the Isles!" but conveniently don't mention that now. Anyways, he's incredibly durable, with really awesome attack, and good speed. Missing sucks, but it's not the end of the world. 6/10
  13. Besides what every one else said, this also ignores every scenario in which canto, rescuing, and moving farther makes things easier. People like to act like mounted units just make things faster, when they actually make things easier and faster. Sure, you can turtle through a lot of maps, but there's also a fair amount where you are better off, and more likely to survive, because of all those nice and fancy things mounts do for you. Combat stats are not the only aspect of a strategy game, people.
  14. Default internet response to points you have no actual rebuttal for. Don't worry, you looked cool, and witty with this response. I think guides and walkthroughs should be guides for new players. Tier lists aren't made for new players, because guides and walkthroughs already exist. This explains the concept, not why the concept should replace efficiency tier lists, or why you couldn't just make a separate thread devoted to the concept. Which, if you're interested, you can do. People make threads evaluating characters based on their own opinion. And we have a ton of threads going around evaluating units ranked from 1 to 10. This whole concept already exists. Non-issue.
  15. It's like every response in the last few pages just went over your head. Obviously the goal in a list aimed at going faster is to have lower turncounts. This does not imply that tier list debaters assume any specific strategies. You're being an ass, this isn't even a debate any more, it's just you venting your misguided frustrations.
  16. "Who's better X or Y?" "Depends on context" "WRONG X, YOU GUYS ARE STUPID STUPIDHEADS THAT ARE STUPID" "You should make tier lists my way, and not your stupid way." "Your version doesn't work for a lot of people. You don't like ours because it's not the your personal style, and every other reason is fake." "No, my way is more popular!" "Seth 1 vs Seth 2. Seth 2 has less move. Why is Seth 2 lower?" "Because they're exactly the same, except unit 2 has less move." "WOW! I can't believe you'd assume he's worse!" "That's how tiering works." "No No no! You changed the topic of dicussion to some random units with no information except one has less move than another" Seven Deadly Sins never changed the topic off of Seth1&Seth2. Using the terms unit 1 and unit 2, he was talking about the same hypothetical you brought up, and you're very well aware of that fact. You're just being difficult, and an ass. Please stop. We get it, you don't like LTC. You should probably go deal with that somewhere else, because nothing you ever bring up would make the community here think that LTC is a bad metric. Maybe there's some evidence or thought process that makes sense, but yours doesn't. Edit: LOL, I missed the part where you said this; Yes. Killing things faster could never "save turns", unless you use a specific strategy! Especially not on a route map! And, let's just be perfectly clear. Anouleth said that even when you do not have an optimized run, Ike still kills shit better than some other units, and thus saves more turns than those units, and should be ranked higher. Since he brought up how turn counts work as a metric, when discussing turn counts as a metric, he is contradicting himself? No, Snowy. He's contradicting your statement, and his example is completely accurate.
  17. I was about to do the same until I read it. Seriously though. There is literally nothing she can contribute. 4 STR/3 Spd, 19 HP/8 Def in chapter 8. When i first played hard mode through on FE6, I thought that I was missing something. Maybe Wendy had some crazy growths. Maybe she did something awesome for you. Maybe for some plot reason she got an awesome item no one else could use. It was just unfathomable to me that they would give you such a shittastic character at that point in the game. But, yknow, they did. 0/10. Plus she's all pink, which is some annoying shit too.
  18. Terrible start, and while axe-land is coming up, being another sword user without a mount isn't exactly special. Especially when you're the worst of them. I guess his combat will be better than Chad's for the isles, so that's something. Oh, and it might be better than Roy's. That's impressive! 3/10.
  19. Sports and SSBB are poor choices for analogies. I'm not even interested in comparing them, and I doubt any one else is. If you think about it for two seconds, you'll realize why. .... Um: So, again, you just don't like how much people care about movement. All I'm getting is that the metric doesn't fit your personal playstyle. I'm sure your vague "all encompassing" ideology doesn't work for a ton of people. I'm sure this seemed like a "HAHA GOTCHA" type of question, but it's not. A statistical advantage overcomes a mount in the case that the statistics contribute more towards efficiency than the mounted movement+rescuing+canto'ing does. This isn't that difficult to understand. Characters don't exist in a vacuum, where a certain amount of other stats makes up for movement. If a flier is constantly moving people over mountains and shit, and the general's combat is overkill, or he can't get rescue dropped, maybe the flier's higher. If the flier doesn't have great opportunities to fly people around, the general would definitely be higher. I feel like you're just asking these questions to be difficult, because you (should) know the answer to them.
×
×
  • Create New...