Aethereal
-
Posts
342 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Aethereal
-
-
We'll have pokemon grey&gray as remakes of 5th gen
Hey, give them some credit. I think by then they'll have stepped it up to 3 games, so we'll have light gray, regular gray, and dark gray.
-
This one seems pretty obvious to me;
Best: Rutger. Only reasonable competition is Shanan imo
Worst: Karla. Ugh@You, Karla.
-
In Gen 1, if you're lagging behind the mount troop, it doesn't matter how good your combat is; Sigurd will do your killing for you. I know you can slow down for foot units, but you don't need to, and can't always, so they just have much less opportunities to be useful.
Awesome combat when he does get to fight stuff though. 4/10
-
Iffy concrete durability, and the worst game ever to not have a mount. There are too many scenarios where that keeps her out of the combat while Sigurd Cuan and Lex take care of business. 6/10
-
The difference between abusing Seth and not using Seth at all only has the effect the debaters give it. It is only your opinion that the only way to use Seth is to have him break the game, or that his impact is so significant that it alters the way the game is played. It is, however, not an opinion that Sacae and Ilia alter the way the game is played.
No one's opinion is that the only way to use Seth is to have him break the game. The fact, not opinion, is that if Seth is used without holding him back for no reason outside of preference, then he breaks the game. Sometimes I wonder if people who are making these arguments have ever tried playing the game using Seth to his fullest and without using Seth. The differences throughout the game are so significant, that the only way to accurately argue a large portion of the casts' usefulness is to know how much you are using Seth. Using Seth to his fullest and not using Seth are two very clearly defined methods to judge units by.
Every different way of using Seth will drastically change units' position, because it drastically changes exp gain, items used, the pace at which we go through maps, how we go through maps, who can do useful things in those maps, and probably other stuff I'm forgetting. So if you try to account for all those different things, you would get a jumbled mess of misplaced units that doesn't actually inform any one of how good units are at the pace Seth can provide, or the pace you would go at without Seth.
So, forget rigidity, since it's such a terrible thing to have a standard. We can all agree that not every one who wants to use Seth will use him to break the game. Othin sorta used him in 2 chapters, and used him a lot in 2 other chapters by Chapter 9. That's a totally fine way to play. You can probably judge units by that standard. But why that standard? Why not when we use him for the first 6 chapters, and then not at all for the rest of the game? Or vice versa? Or every third chapter? Or only the most difficult chapters? Or only sorta kinda use him the whole way through? Or hold him back for emergencies for the first half, then use him completely for the rest of the game? How bout using him only as a rescue bot? Or a meatshield? What if we only use him as a bosskiller? Never use him as a bosskiller? Why not only use him to support other units? Or any of a million different ways? Would you rather have that discussion, or the discussions about which units are better than other units?
-
Maybe Franz and Vanessa will be LV10, maybe they'll be LV20, maybe they'll be somewhere in between. Maybe Seth or Titania or whoever is dead, or simply isn't being used constantly. Maybe we'll have to consider a number of uncertain priorities rather than being able to default to one cookie-cutter strategy. That's a good thing. That gives us options, looking at the whole world the game has to offer rather than this narrow sliver of it. It gives us things to think about that don't fit into just one mold, so we can understand the importance of characters that don't fit into that mold.
If Seth dies at a random time, or isn't used, it changes every other unit's value tremendously. Using Seth, Franz is an okay character. Not very good, in my opinion, but whatever. Seth-less, he's freakin' incredible. How do you reconcile these two different positions in a list that is supposed to take into account both possibilities? Do you put Franz in the middle? That doesn't reflect either scenario. You're right that a lot of situations should be looked at, but if you're going to judge units and don't have any sort of guideline, playstyle, or goal, you can't accurately judge units because their positions can be drastically different. Why multiple tier lists is a bad option to every one is beyond me, except that Smash is mad that people didn't agree with him, or that a particular list would be unpopular.
-
You constantly pull out links to support your argument that do not in any way. Do you just think every one is too dumb to read the links?
-
Yeah, by saying anyone who considers the non-ideal situation should bring it up on a separate tier list, implying that they will be making a tier list that is inferior to the one you adhere to.
Um. Wut? That's a nice big leap in logic you made to attempt to prove your point.
He's saying rating things by two separate and sometimes contradictory standards doesn't make sense, and doesn't reflect either standard particularly well. Which, by the way, is true. This is not an insult. There is no implication that one is superior to the other. If you want to have a topic where you don't assume ideal stuff, like the sethless tier list which I think I believe is pretty popular, cool beans bro. It just makes little to no sense to try to do that alongside assuming for ideal situations.
-
Here's what I don't understand. Most discussion of turn counts happens in tier lists specifically created for that discussion. Every one is upset about there not being much discussion other than turn count play. No one would be upset with these people creating topics or tier lists to discuss the playstyle they enjoy. Why don't you DO that? Why not go make a tier list about all these different ways of playing besides the hated Efficiency/LTC? If that kind of play is appealing enough to the forum members, then people will discuss it. If it's not appealing enough, it's not the LTC players fault. If LTC players came in and started bashing the tier lists on the basis that "Not LTC u r nub", I'm positive mods would step in, or the poster would just get bashed from the rest of the community. For all this talk of LTC players stifling discussion, I've never seen another discussion to begin with.
-
If you think the results of training can be entirely predictable, you're deluded. Stuff happens for plenty of reasons. Random injuries, major or minor, can disrupt the results of training or its ability to happen in the first place, as can a multitude of other factors. I don't know a ton about athletics, but I know enough to understand the existence of a multitude of relevant factors that we just can't track or control properly.
You say competitions are not random; I bring up baseball again. Or tennis, or anything else that involves a number of games against the same teams/players, all or some under what "should" be the same conditions. If the most skilled team would always win, there would be no need for multiple rounds; they would just win every time, or at least every comparable one. But they don't. They just rely on the larger number of games to try and balance it out.
I'm really not trying to be an ass, but it's obvious you don't know anything about personal training, or sports. If I want to run a mile at a certain speed, that is within my physical limitations with the body I was born with, there are things i need to do, and if I do those things I will be able to run a mile at that speed. The only exception is injury, which I acknowledged. If there are a multitude of other factors, can you name one? On the other hand, as it relates to Fire Emblem, if I want Micaiah to get speed on any level up, I can do jack all but hope she will when I train her enough to level up. If people want to make drafts more competitive and fair-and like I said it doesn't have to be that way-I can completely understand taking some random elements out of the equation.
Baseball and Tennis are not random, and are not made less random through multiple games. I can tell you why if you'd like to know, but I can tell you that you're just looking at why there are multiples rounds/sets/games wrong. I just don't think it's very prudent to the topic.
-
Let's say there's a race coming up. You need to improve your running skill by an arbitrary amount, let's call it 5. You have eight weeks to prepare. Maybe eight weeks is enough "levels" for you to gain five "points" in running. But maybe it turns out that it isn't. If it isn't, you don't get to do those weeks over; you'll just have to train for more weeks. You have to gain more "levels" instead of redoing the ones you already had, and maybe it won't be easy, maybe it'll cause problems, maybe you won't have enough "points" to do as well as you wanted in that particular race, and you just have to live with it.
Gains you get from exercising aren't entirely random. But that doesn't mean they're entirely under your control, either. Sometimes, things just go wrong. That's how all of life is.
I don't know if you've ever done any athletics seriously, but you improve athletic qualities through training, and they are not random in the slightest. If I want to run faster, I have to practice my technique, eat correctly, and do whatever appropriate weight training and exercises. There's no random element to it, if you don't improve whatever quality enough to win a race it's because some one else worked harder/smarter than you did. The only really random elements are injuries and being born with certain physical traits that aren't duplicable (Height, body proportions, and any kind of diseases or physical handicap) through training of some sort. Those things, however, are even worse comparisons to level ups, as I'm sure you're aware.
If drafts aren't supposed to be competitions, then that's fine, but most competitions have really minimal random variables and drafts have really prominent ones. I was only operating and speaking under the assumption "People want drafts to be as fair as possible", if they'd rather have them a little more luck dependent and be less for the sake of winning than doing them, that's totally cool too. It's also my mistake if so, that's fine.
-
Kngt: Olympic athletes don't roll dice, but it's absurd to suggest that there are no random variables that may impact their performance. But they don't get to run the race as many times as they want just because they weren't in their best condition for whatever reason, or something else went wrong. That is what RNG abuse is: it is asking for perhaps hundreds of attempts at the 100-meter dash and being able to count your best one. Sometimes, the more skilled Olympic athlete really will lose, and they just have to accept that, move on, and maybe try again another time.
These are bad comparisons RNG abuse; they're trying to relate athletes performing at their best to a complete and utter crap shoot. A runner can watch film and work on his form to have a better race, in order to better prepare for a race. You can not better prepare for a level up. The better comparison here would be towards resetting because you made a mistake. Obviously not every runner will perform to the most they are capable of every time they race, just like you won't always lose a key unit because you made a mistake in predicting what an enemy would do.
Comparisons for level ups are hard for sports, because there is literally never a time where something is so random as to not have any means to fix.
-
Incredibly durable, great skills (that help get rid of the less than perfect start), amazing offense with Hero Axe, mounted and one of the best dads. The only thing he's missing is a great start and his dad's axe, but that's not much to complain about. 9/10
-
Since FE is a PvE game and there is no hidden information, there is a theoretical point where there will be an absolute best turncount possible for any given combination of units. In other words, drafting will eventually reach a point where the only thing that matters is the RNG, as every draft pick will have been the absolute best it can be.
Edit: Technically you could require people to have exactly average stats (either via the use of a fixed growth patch or w/e) but that's kind of ehhhh
Yeah, RNG being a factor is a problem. But, I dunno. My point was just that, in my estimation at least, Micaiah's speed is hugely important to turncount, and I think enough so to create a very large difference in your team's capability. To me, that's important enough to want averaged out, while leaving (most of?) the rest of the game to chance. That said, this is an arbitrary line I'm drawing, and I'm not an expert on FE10 or drafts, so I could just be exaggerating it's impact.
-
As for the Micaiah thing; I don't RNG abuse, and I don't really like RNG abuse, but I can understand Micaiah in drafts. Micaiah's speed is way too central to low turns, so if the competition is for low turns, you either a) all abuse, or b) let the luckiest person get a huge advantage. I dunno, it's not the players' fault the game is really RNG dependant when they want a fair competition.
And as for the problem with LTC related stuff. I don't understand the hate on LTC play in regards to it seeping into the mind of every one. We just had a string of rating topics for FE7, and ranked runs had their place in the discussion. Non-LTC play also had it's place, and while it's called casual play (Which may actually be unfair, to Paperblade's point. I just don't have another term for it. Regular play? I haven't thought of it.) most people didn't just dismiss it.
My biggest problem with the mindset that LTC related discussion stifles other discussion is this: I've yet to see any topics even trying to discuss other playstyles, or rank them. Snowy has some personal list, that I guess sorta takes criticism and discussion. I dunno, I've skimmed a few posts, I haven't followed it at all. But that's the right way to handle it. If it's such a problem trying to house two discussions, why try to mix them? If there's enough interest in regular play, or no-reset runs, or whatever, then the topic/tier-list would get discussed. I doubt any one would get bashed at all. Just because there are more people who try to discuss things under their own criteria (LTC) than others does not mean any one is trying to stop you from discussing other methods of play.
-
The latter reason is precisely my feeling about it.
I find it amusing how much LTC insists itself to be "efficient" while ignoring the inherent inefficiency of unnecessary resetting, ever. Especially for players who, I believe, at least some of them have expressed a desire to not "waste" any more of their time playing the game than necessary. Perhaps they haven't noticed that time doesn't not pass just because the game forgets that it does?
Why is it that every one who doesn't play LTC has to be so fucking smug and condescending about it? Do you know how much of an ass you look like right now? This kind of post is crap, and you will never see an LTC player talking the same way about any other playstyle, despite the fact that every one-yourself most definitely included-gets so damn butthurt about LTC runs.
-
As Crash noted, I'm not talking about tier lists. They're the business of people who actually give a shit about them, and I am not among those people. Furthermore, as I explained, I neither know nor care to what extent this applies to Snowy's current raging.
Anouleth, I have no doubt that most of the time, you do not intend to be provocative or dismissive. That does not change the fact that what you and others say can be provocative, and that you need to take responsibility for it. It is not that I am easily provoked, but that many people are easily provoked on the internet. All the arguments over opinions that get started here and elsewhere are the result of that fact, because it is easy for people to take things personally. This, it seems to me, is especially true when the opinion is stated objectively. Tell me, would you not react differently to the following posts?
Serenes member x: "LTC is a bad way to play FE."
Serenes member y: "I don't like playing LTC."
Surely you've seen posts to the effect of both of those here, so a hypothetical situation is not even necessary, but simply a recollection and evaluation. Surely then you can understand why people would react differently to the following?
LTC player a: "Foot units don't tend to be effective the way I play."
LTC player b: "Foot units are useless."
Again, this may not be an entirely accurate depiction of what is going on here and now, but surely it can help to show why these misunderstandings keep happening.
I'm just gonna put this out here, even at the risk of looking like an ass. Most mounted units have better movement, and good to amazing WTC at the cost of nothing. In some games there are mounted units with less stats (Like, FE10 Pally caps are pretty bad iirc? I dunno.) than their foot-user counterparts, but that's rare. As far as stats go, the best units in FE4, most of 6, most of 7, 8, 9, and a lot of 10(I think Ike might be an exception to Haar, but Haar can promote much earlier than Ike. I dunno, I don't follow FE10 closely enough) are all mounted units, and they add in extra movement. And the only reason 10 is only "a lot of" is because of weird availability stuff. In any case, while extra move isn't as useful when not shooting for low turns, it's still a huge boost in their flexibility. They also get canto, and better aid. The only drawback is rare stuff that is effective against them, and in FE4's case, not having an amazing skill like Astra I guess.
Anyways, while there are obviously foot units with awesome combat-so you can't just say heywait that's not fair to, there's also a lot of mounted units-besides these top guys-with awesome combat. Kent, Sain, Fiora, a well-trained Florina, Alan, Lance, Percival, Franz, Forde, Kyle, Duessel, Tana, Vanessa, FE9!Kieran, FE9!Oscar, FE9!Astrid, FE9!Makalov, FE9!Tanith, FE9!Haar, FE9!Marcia, FE9!Jill, FE10!Jill, FE10!Oscar, FE10!Titania, FE10!Elincia, Oifaye, Lester, Midayle, Lex, Fin, Cuan. These are all really good units, regardless of turncount, and none of them are the best mounted unit in their game. I'm also not very knowledgeable about some of those games, so there could be mistakes or missing units on that list. Obviously, you can make a list with foot units that can match these guys' combat, or even better it. But the point is; in the current FE system, most mounted units are really really good in combat, and have a bunch of other advantages, with no real/big drawbacks. I don't want to derail this discussion, because it's not the right place, but I feel that the only way to really balance mounted vs. non-mounted is to give more utility and skills to non-mounted units, sorta like the Berwick Saga skills. Until then, mounted units are basically foot units with a bunch of extra stuff.
Being mounted>Not being mounted, objectively. At least for me, but it's completely possible I'm not thinking of a playstyle in which mounted units are worse. But, if we're just disregarding turncounts, i still think they're better.
PS. Sorry if any of this is hard to read, I've got a fever and I'm not exactly at the top of my game, so to speak.
-
It's funny and all but assuming you don't know anything about the series, what does it tell you that actually makes you want to buy the game? I think they really didn't do a good job with this one.
It shows you killing is fun, and people will laugh with you if you do, so you should get games where you kill people 'cause it's fun and people will laugh with you if you do.
-
Because there is no logical reason to assume that the average player will attempt for a LTC run, no reason to assume that the problem with any unit or character type is based in a LTC run, or that balancing a game in a LTC run means it will become more balanced and viable on the whole.
There is plenty of reason to assume that balancing it on a LTC run will deprive the game of enjoyment for people not attempting LTC runs, that mechanics that are balanced in a LTC run will be unbalanced in a non-LTC run, and plenty of other similar factors. Something which I pointed out in my post ("I agree though that the balance should not be on LTC. That means that the system is going to be focused almost entirely on people who come in at lower turncounts than normal. Something perfectly balanced in LTC can easily be overpowered in non-LTC focused gameplay, like increasing the EXP for staffs for example.") which you seem to have ignored.
I ignored jack all. You dismiss LTC runs, as if they shouldn't be counted, which is exactly what you get mad at tier-list players for doing. There were plenty of suggestions that could have worked for both sides, and acknowledged the pros and cons for both sides. Unsurprisingly, you didn't. Unsurprisingly, you still don't. There's plenty of ways to balance things for LTC-runs and casual runs. Your quote is exactly my point. No one's ever suggested "ignore casual playerzs!11!" and you can't pull up a single quote showing that people do.
And this is the problem. 'Casual play is vague, so why should we even try to bother balancing with it'. This is why tier-list players receive so much ire from me. Casual play is not vague or difficult to define, it just lacks the solid formula that a LTC player has. I even recently listed several things which, in my eyes, define a casual player. Guess what? Only two responses, one of Anouleth saying he wasn't sure if I had IS's goals in design down right (what relationship does this have to a casual player?) and another saying that Gamefaqs is not a good place to find casuals (even though it's a well-known site where there are plenty of guides to help inexperienced players and a forum for such a thing, as opposed to SF which is mainly a lesser-known FE-dedicated site with less in the way of guides and easily accessible materials.Your definition of casual is incredibly restrictive. I don't always do LTC-runs, and I don't fit in to most of your defined goals-Actually, the only one I do fit in to is #5. I'd call myself a casual player when I'm not pushing for a rank or LTC. Casual play, because it does not have specific goals except "Get through the game and have fun" is very difficult to define. You probably just described yourself or your friends.
The fact that I've gotten several people posting to say I'm wrong for one factor of unknown importance as to how I prefer foot soldiers over mounted units tells me that they are.
Every one responded calling you a hypocrite.. Which you are. No one said shit about how bad it is to prefer foot soldiers. Your problem is you're either lying in these posts to look less like a douche, lying to yourself that you're this poor persecuted player who every one hates because he doesn't do LTC runs and WAAAAAH, or some weird combination of both.
-
I complain about it because a lot of tier-list people are such thick-headed dolts as to be incapable of thinking of the game as being played any other way than by the standards and ways listed out in the tier standards. The problem is that tier players are so single-minded in your 'tier lists are best' mindset that anyone who questions it is instantly a 'bad player'. Heck, many of the disagreements in the 'mechanics' topic in the new FE are being made largely by LTC players for reasons that pertain to LTC counts.
No, any disagreements in that topic come from posters who whine about how terrible LTC is. To explain the point where every one jumped on "don't cater to LTCsz!11!" in the topic a few pages back:
Kngt posted that healers get EXP too slow in LTC runs. He also completely acknowledged that it's hard to find a medium when trying to account for low turn count runs and casual runs.
Then two people(Surprise! You're included) responded him and said "LTC runs aren't what they should/do balance around". Note that none of these posts even attempts to find a balance for the two playstyles, they just say LTC playstyle shouldn't be catered to.
The only response to that that was even remotely against that notion was Kngt saying that healers need to have some sort of turncount defined to be balanced around, and that casual play is vague. In fact, on the next page Anouleth(Who I believe usually plays at a fast pace, or at least posts like he does.) agreed they shouldn't balance around a LTC standard. There was also a poster(Grafgarion, who I think I've seen post in tier-list threads. I dunno for sure.) who talked about a happy balance between the two from the DS formula.
Clearly, tier-list players are dolts,and are much too thick headed to think of any one else's standards. The fact that they discuss and rank units in the context of how they play the game is clear evidence that they are incapable of thinking of the game in any other way than their standards. Also, it shows that they are doo-doo heads.
-
No one's assuming that.
The expected requirements, which you said you assume, are 3000 EXP.
Also, if you've been "keeping up" with the EXP rank throughout the game, then 32x provides a ridiculous buffer, and a much better opportunity to train than in Light. I don't remember exactly how many levels I got, but I had Guy and Legault basically push me over the EXP rank and then some in the chapter on my recent run. That's a much easier task to accomplish then wasting funds and combat using mediocre units instead of Athos.
For my money, give me Athos as a 9/10 if we're still not factoring availability, and a 3/10 if we are.
-
while the LTCs are a freak group of mutations; a minority hardly even worth mentioning.
Wow. And everybody seems to be under the impression LTC players are condescending about others' playstyle.
-
Not too on-topic but wrth mentioning I think: Another example of balancing thigns for LTC play overpowering the casual player would be if you REALLY pumped up the stat differences between infantry and mounted units. It would seem to be try to get LTC players to use some more unmounted units but it would push casual players far far away from ever using anyone on a horse. That or it would end potentially end up handing the player unmounted unit who would be completely overpowered in casual play but not very useful in LTC play (i.e. General!Sedgar, Sety and Ayra).
I don't think that's true. Mounted units are always useful, even when their stats are inferior, and even outside of LTC play. While it's true that a casual player may not be able to see that they are useful, that's not the game design's fault, it's the players. It's like if some one thought dancers weren't good. While dancers are probably utilized a lot more in LTC play, they're still good in casual stuff because, well, dancing is always awesome. Not every one may realize that, or see a need for a dancer, so they may dismiss them. That doesn't change how good they are.
-
Gonzales is a Brigand, not a Pirate. Are you thinking of Geese?
People generally consider Gonzales>Geese, so I think it's more likely he just made a typo, or didn't realize Gonzales was a brigand for whatever reason.
Best/Worst in the Series: Round 130
in General Fire Emblem
Posted
Recruiting Karla sucks massively for an underleveled, frail, weak unit. :/ I guess I could see how she'd suck a little less in a run where you could level her a ton though.