Aethereal
-
Posts
342 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Aethereal
-
-
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.
-
[spoiler=FE13 Stuff]Apparently Mark is the son of FE13's My Unit, recruited in-game. Tactician's Tale where Mark's origins get explained? Hahah. We could do all that whack dimension travel shit. Infest Elibian Nights with this tomfoolery.
We should just have a dragon's gate tale where characters from different games in the series show up and ally themselves together to defeat all of the villains who also all allied together to make an ultimate organization of fire emblem bad guys, and and they all got there through time travel, but they also got way stronger because of magic and time travel. WAIT, FUCK, I JUST GOT THE BEST FAN FICTION IDEA.
-
Fucker, I wanted those.
-
No positive qualities, at all. 0/10.
-
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
-
If you want Shin so much that you'd be more likely to deploy Sue just for his sake than you would be to deploy Alan or Lance for their insane combat, then the one conversation of recruiting Shin is a valuable contribution. Sue doesn't need to take credit for the things Shin might do later, but if you want Shin, Sue makes that possible. If Sue helps you complete the game by making Shin available, that is a contribution that must be evaluated, if only in the context of that one chapter. Shin's actions do not exist in a vacuum: they are only possible because of Sue's brief use.
You appear to be stuck with this notion that conversations cannot be a contribution. Unfortunately for you, that notion is completely wrong. It's like having a Thief open a chest and get a Brave Lance. The Thief doesn't have to get credit for every enemy to die from that Brave Lance, but he gets credit for making it possible.
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?
You're right that equal weight may not be the best method. But that is not an inherent part of my method; the weighting can be adjusted as appropriate.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.
-
You're correct to observe that Sue may well be the most valuable unit for that one chapter. I already took that into account and explained (and mathematically demonstrated) how that alone would not change her rating enough for her to be considered better than those other units. Where's the problem? You've failed to show any basis for the assertion that Anouleth is in the right on this matter.
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.
-
Okay so here's the thing with Sue. For one chapter, sure, let's say Shin is super-necessary and so she gets a deployment rating of 1.00 (100%). Then for the rest of the game, she's not so good, so she gets a rating of, I dunno, 0.30. Now, let's look at her availability. I'm not going to count up how many chapters she's around for; fuck if I care about the exact number. Le's call it 25. So what's her overall rating? Well, she's got a rating of 1.00 for one chapter and a rating of 0.30 for the other 24. So let's take the average.
(1.00 x 1 + 0.30 x 24) / 25 = 0.328
So, ultimately, how much is that one deployment going to change her tier rating? Going from 0.30 to 0.328 (because fuck consistent decimals) might bump her up a spot or two, but no more. If she would be in Low Tier without the recruitment, it's not going to make her jump to High Tier. If she's in Upper Mid, maybe it would. I don't know her current tier position and I don't care to check, but I'm guessing it's not so great if a jump to High Tier would be such a bizarre occurrence.
And does this not make sense? After all, if you want Shin that much, then of course you want to deploy Sue to recruit him. So using her means you can bring her for that one chapter without having to give up the space of a unit you're using for combat for one you aren't. So it makes sense that she could get a small bonus, just not something huge.
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.
-
^ What about the 2 turn clear of the Prologue in FE8 drafts? People DO copy and follow other people's strategies.
... 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
Look, im not trying to disrespect anyone here. FE happens to be my favorite videogame series, and it really doesnt involve any skill. Coming up with good strategies and figuring out how much damage a given character might take on an enemy phase isnt skill. It is called INTELLIGENCE. If you got a 100% on a Math test people arent going to say, "Wow, youre really skilled!" They will say, "Wow, youre really S.M.A.R.T."
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".
-
@skill: You can use skill to play FE, yes. But just as easily, you can copy any LTC strategy perfectly with no skill necessary. This is where strategy not requiring timing falls short at the highest levels of play, and therefore why FE cannot be assumed to be at the highest levels of play, because making such an assumption can entail such strategy copying.
This is not what people do.
-
After reading the last couple pages I just want to say that Fire Emblem does NOT require skill.
It requires strategy, and strategy is not the same as skill. Strategy is thinking and planning and doing research (being smart). Skill is timing and reflexes. FE does not require timing or reflexes. Games that require skill are side-scrolling/top-down shooters, action games, and fighters.
Skill does not mean what you think it means.
-
Arcade games may be a different case due to requiring actual skill.
You're right, every one in the world, wether having played the game or not, plays Fire Emblem as well as every one else.
-
Maybe instead of tiers we should put our energy into making guides. We constantly complain about the assery of the GameFAQs guides and yet we never do anything about it? Instead we plod on endlessly about tier lists which serve no one other than the cheap entertainment one gets from arguing.
Rather than complaining about the semantics that a tier list can't be a guide, what I was hoping to point out was that we make a guide instead of a tier list, first by pointing out the stupidity of a tier list for a noncompetitive game and then by offering that tiers be used for draft settings.
If you want a guide so bad, then make a guide, instead of telling others to.
-
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.
-
Minor Season 1 spoiler alert ahead.
Nobody has any sort of stable personality, it's literally chaos. I don't expect the characters to be one dimensional, but the characters have literally zero stability. For example, the bald eunuch is unsure of whether he's a good guy, or maybe he wants to be a bad guy, or maybe he's a backstabber, or maybe he's a man of loyalty and honor... who knows? At least the little girl loves her dad, she's saddened by his death, she matures and gets stronger by killing one boy and then threatening another... her actions make sense, they are explained properly. She has a backstory, a reason for why she acts the way she does. Same for the dragon girl, she betrays her brother because he's always been a self-righteous loathing prick to her, and she falls in love with a seemingly violent man who in actuality loves her far more than her brother ever would. She too, goes from weak to strong, and the reasons for that change are explained clearly.
And then we go back to the eunuch. He changes allegiances for... no real reason. Hell, he even says there's no reason. And that's fine, some characters may have no real reason for why they do what they do. But then you take the guy who runs whorehouses yet aims for the throne (You know, old "What'shisname") and he too doesn't have the most clearly explained reasons, but he does have some reasons. Like, he loves mom character (Ol' What'shername) and so he's happy to see King's Hand guy get killed because that clears a path for himself. There are many characters though who have seemingly no real motives for their actions, and that is why I am hoping season two brings in a little kerpow and kablam to the mix, showing more backstories and explaining why the characters exist and what their motives are.
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.
-
I typically make the following assuptions when debating a tier list and just let the people argue it out. I prefer characters that are flexible and malleable enough to be effective across multiple styles of play. Ergo, FE9 Mia is REALLY powerful when paired with Wrath, so when she has it she will be a VERY good unit, but that's dependent on a player being willing to let her drop down that low, so it won't always take place, making her mid/mid-high at best.
Anyways, the things I assume.
1) The player will play up to a reasonable limit of turns. In FE9/10, he will play up to the BEXP limit, in other games he will try for a reasonable ranking as far as turn counts go. He won't try for 'A', but he won't throw the notion of a fast completion out the window either (B maybe). However, he will play up to the turn limit and use what extra time he has to gather resources. So while beating a 10 turn chapter in 5 turns doesn't help out a paladin, the 5 turns that he can gather resources (as opposed to the 2 or 3 for a non-paladin) do. How much these extra turns are worth depends on the chapter and what can be obtained.
2) The player will try to keep all units of a roughly equal level. Ergo, a unit who 'struggles' to get EXP will not actually fall behind in levels, but will cost extra resources to keep 'on-par' with other units.
3) Resources DO have an ideal place where they can be spent and that place is where the unit using them gets the most out of them. Unit X may suck, but preform a lot better with skill Z than unit Y, who is really good, but only preforms slightly better with Skill Z. So when X is fielded, they will be getting skill Z. However, taking a resource is NOT a negative regardless of what could otherwise be obtained, just less likely to happen.
4) Every unit has an equal right to resources. This does not mean that resources will be distributed equally though. What it means is, that, if there are two units and 1000 Bexp, both units can get up to 500 Bexp without any complaints. Any more than that needs justification. If one unit gets only 100 Bexp and the other 900 is not 'unfair' if proper justification can be made for the latter to get that Bexp (not for the former to get so little).
5) The player will always take the most rewarding option available unless he specifically plans to do otherwise. Ex: They will always heal the most wounded/in-danger unit when given the chance unless proven otherwise.
6) The player is capable of keeping at least four units out of combat at all time without negative repercussions unless designated otherwise.
7) The player knows the lay-out of the maps, but makes mistakes from time to time. He may know that two chests only have vulneraries and a third has a silver weapon, and he will pick the silver given the choice, but he will forget which chest it is in from time to time.
With those assumptions in place, I then try to see which characters remain the best across multiple styles and playthroughs. One runthrough Zihark gets a Muarim, the other he doesn't. One playthrough Seth is used to bash, on another he just functions like any other unit and so forth. Yes, it isn't a clear-cut 'well this unit takes X turns', but that's not why people debate and discuss tier lists in the first place. Different ideas, different notions, different arguments, all come together to make a list what it is.
Also, am I the only one laughing that both me and smash are against this notion at the same time? Enemy mine indeed.
Esas suposiciones son terribles.
-
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
-
This. And it happens that Fire Emblem would be really easy to beat if you had a General with 5 move and 25 in all other stats (including con). However, that unit would be mid tier at best because you're not just beating the game, you're also trying to get low turn counts. Whereas most other players would consider that General a game breaker because he trivializes simply beating the game.
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.
-
umad
Default internet response to points you have no actual rebuttal for. Don't worry, you looked cool, and witty with this response.
Tier lists should be guides for new players, that's what I think.
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.
The same way a number from 1 to 10 can.
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.
-
There were more things, but I only needed to go up to three to find the counter to your claim. Turncounts are, indeed, not only mentioned but considered as part of the tiering standard. Since the only way to utilize turncounts is to follow specific strategies there is the second part (because otherwise you would get wildly divergent turncounts making it impossible to use as a standard. Additionally, you had to make it a rule that the goal was not a flat-out LTC, which implies that this has been a problem in the past when making lists. Not to mention that the character with the lower TC's are the ones who will be ranked higher, so even though it is not a 'flat-out lowest', LTC is still the goal of the tier list.
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.
-
"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;
How could you know how many turns Ike saves over Mia or Gatrie without this planning or a focus on LTC? You might have gotten away with it if you had omitted the 'saves turns' bit, I would probably have even agreed with you, but then you went and contradicted yourself for me.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.
-
...
Okay, nobody else is allowed to pull this shit, but that was well-played. You can have the -0.5.
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.
-
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.
-
*facepalm* In sports you can predict which team will win based on a multitude of factors, but when the actual game day comes, it's anyones ball. In SSBB you can predict which characters will likely win or lose, but in the end, it comes down to personal skill. In FE... neither are true so long as you are assuming average stats. Strategies are cut and dry for tier lists, little variation is present, and so long as horrible screwing/immense blessing (which typically doesn't happen in a FE tier list), the game will likely be the same each and every time through. There is no human element in the FE tiers. Just strategy.
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.
That is not what I said. Let's assume we have two units, Seth and Seth2. Seth2 is similar to Seth in every way (same supports and such) except that Seth2 has foot-soldier movement. Now, I'm not complaining that Seth > Seth2. However, because of his lower movement, Seth2 would probably end up noticeably lower in the tiers despite otherwise statistical identity to Seth (I'd wager he'd end up in high) due to the LTC focus of the lists..... Um:
You say this like we should be rewarding bad starts and low movement. The fact of the matter is that you just don't like how much it penalizes them, which is fine. But understand that all the metric does is penalize things that are bad, and reward things are good, like every other metric.
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.
Also, what sort of statistical advantage is needed to overcome a movement lead anyways? I'm sure you wouldn't say that a level 1 flier with less than 10 in every stat is better than a level 20/20 general with at least 25 points in every stat in the final map of the game after all. So where is the line drawn, according to you?
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.
How sexist and racist are you?
in General
Posted
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.