Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Fire Emblem Game
    Binding Blade

Member Badge

  • Members

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Also who is this man in the orange shirt (next to Astrid)?
  2. Mark their ranges, have archers. Don't overextend into their range. You're correct that their stats are very powerful and that fighting them toe-to-toe is difficult. When it comes to using bows vs fliers, the damage bonus you get is that you triple the base damage of the bow. So if you're going to use bows against them you really are favored by using the biggest ones you have. Steel+ and silver are good, and if you have bows like Failnaught or the Inexhaustible those are also going to benefit the most from bonus damage.
  3. This isn't what RD displayed between each of their parts, right? I'm pretty sure it just shows a cutscene with "to be continued" overlayed.
  4. I've been playing a lot of fe7 hnm draft race lately and let me tell you: I would sacrifice my firstborn to make the cavalier reinforcements on chapter 25 ambush spawns. That chapter is made so so so so much more difficult by the fact that those cavaliers on the forts don't move right away. I'm over here trying to low man and I get literally stonewalled for 6 turns straight :( I guess this is my way of saying I disagree. I think ambush spawns are fine in the circumstances where they appear, and end-of-turn ambush spawns are fine when they appear.
  5. That specific example was as an objection to the "people think that 80 is basically 100" line. Just because you think of a probability as a completely different probability doesn't mean that your expectation is well-founded. I agree there needs to be a comfort area where I would call it reliable. The "comfort" area is 100% success. Anything less than 100% means that I either have a backup plan in case of failure or I'm comfortable with the consequences of failure (a reset, losing a competition, etc.) It is unreasonable to believe that you will hit because you have a 10% chance to miss. Crossing the street without looking both ways probably has a >90% chance of getting you to the other side safely but I don't see people going out and doing it because they know that they need to take chance of failure seriously. Literally how can seeing the true probability give you a more unreasonable expectation of the result? In the situation you presented, your expectation of the result being "90% chance to hit, 10% chance to miss" is actually the unreasonable expection, because the reality of the situation is that you actually have a 92% (90 displayed hit is actually 98 true hit under 2rn but you conceded you didn't know the probabilities so I don't mind) chance of success and 8% chance of failure. The best way to have a true and reasonable expectation of the true hit is to be shown the true hit.
  6. If people somehow think that a 90 is basically a 100 then they're wrong. Plain and simple. If I earn a salary of $2000/mo for my work and then I go to my boss and say "in my mind, 2000 is basically 3000 so you should be paying me $3000/mo" should they then change my salary according to that logic? Of course not, that's ridiculous. Maybe the reason people are so bad at understanding probability is because so often when they encounter it there's some hidden force like 2RN making the results actually more favorable. I can buy the angle that "it advantages the player and makes it more fun" because yes at the end of the day the point of a video game is to be fun but the crux of your argument is that "people have literally unreasonable expectations and are wrong so let's just make this game fit the misconception rather than present them with the actual reality of the situation" then that's a dumb argument in favor of 2rn.
  7. To be honest I think the whole argument that "it's not presented as a percentage so it's not actually lying" is a really irrelevant semantic argument. Even without the percent sign present, it's still a binary outcome (only a hit or a miss) with a chance communicated from 0 to 100. How else are you supposed to interpret that besides a percentage? Even if you say "probability" instead of "percentage" as the japanese version does it's still mathematically equivalent to a percentage, except you just divide by 100 to get the proper representation. Any random event with a binary outcome has a probability of success between 0 and 1. Whether you choose to represent this probability with a number from 0 to 100 or a number from 0 to 1 or even a bar which is filled in only part of the way is pretty much irrelevant. At the end of the day, the only information regarding the success chance of their attack is some kind of proportional representation. If the filled in part of the fe1 bar occupies 75% of the space, it's only reasonable that the player would conclude the hit chance is close to 75%. If there was literally any way that the player could derive from the information presented in the UI that a "75 hit" is expected to hit the enemy about 87.5% of the time then sure I could buy that the information represented isn't actually being dishonest. But as far as I can tell the only way for a player to discover that the chance to hit is not 75% is for them to take matters into their own hands, ignore all the information presented, and empirically measure the success chance after some experimentation. All the clues that could possibly lead you to believe that 2RN is modifying the hit rates are all completely absent from the UI. I understand this is your objection which is why I qualified my post in its first paragraph. I totally agree that saying "2RN is lying to the player" carries an implication that 2RN is a bad design choice, which I completely disagree with. You and I are on the same page in this matter.
  8. The game says that the probability of an event happening is X while the actual probability of an event happening is not X and could in fact be far from X. To call this something other than lying would require the biggest leap of logic in the history of the world, so 2RN is lying to the player. That said, I understand that your objection to the statement "2RN is lying to the player" comes more from a question of designer motivation and what is the best way for the designer to communicate information to the player. In essence, what you are asking is "Did the developers communicate this information to the players in a way that is harmful to the player's ability to play the game" which is obviously more nuanced. I'll present my point before making a separate post responding to everyone else because I'd rather lay my own cards on the table before going after everyone else :) Yes, 2-RN is lying to the player. That said, I do not blame the developers for lying to the player in this way because adding the necessary UI to help the player understand 2RN hitrates would be far too cumbersome for an average casual player and would just bloat the information provided and confuse the audience. I'm making a few assumptions here. The first is that the game developers have already decided that they want to implement 2-RN (or some other advantageous RNG mechanic) into their game and that this decision is non-negotiable. I don't really care why any group of devs would decide to favor the player under the hood, but let's just assume that they are. For my second assumption, I'm going to have really low standards for the ability of the average player to read the UI. This may seem pessimistic and elitist but remember that, for any video game, 90% of players will pick up the game, play it through onceish without looking up anything online, have a good time, and put it down without once telling anyone on the internet about their experience. Hell for a lot of games this number may actually be closer to 95 or 98 or 99% who really knows. Don't forget that literal children also play video games and a lot of FE games were rated E or E-10 and therefore have to be appropriate for younger demographics. People like the lot of us on SF are a tiny minority. Furthermore, of that small 10ish% of people who ever talk about FE online, most of them (that I've met) don't even know what the stats do or how to read a battle UI. I know this evidence is anecdotal but I see all the time players will run into a combat and be surprised when their unit dies in the combat or have no idea that an attack they're giving will fail to kill an enemy or other really simple mistakes that just seem completely beneath the experience of anyone in this thread. If I were leading the game design under those two assumptions (which I think are fair to make) I would probably have made the exact same decision that every 2RN FE game has ever made: present the hit rates on an integer scale of 0-100 (before true hit calculation) then hide it under the hood, and here's why. It is highly likely that if anyone actually learns about the 2RN hit system, they first learned about the regular hit calculation (the whole 2xskill + 1/2 luck + so on and so on) and have already gotten a grasp on that. I'd say understanding how the "hit rate" before 2RN is calculated is an absolute prerequisite for understanding that 2RN exists and how it functions. Therefore it is even more useless to the player to only show 2RN hit. You're presenting them a piece of information without giving them any of the tools needed to motivate or understand that information for themselves. It's the same reason why we teach kids the alphabet before we teach them how to write a sentence. There's no way to use your sentence-writing knowledge if you can't even articulate a single letter. If someone cares enough about the hit rates that they want to be reading it, you have to give them the ability to understand how the stats feed into it so that they can learn information at an appropriate pace. Maybe your objection to the above point is "if it's bad to only show the 2RN hitrate, Why not show both?" This would be absolutely more confusing for a player trying to learn the game and especially for the 99%. Why the hell are two different hit rates being displayed? Which one do I actually use? How is one derived from the other? Honestly the only place I can think to show the hitrate is on the battle forecast and because this is such a compact and important part of the UI then cluttering it up with an additional difficult-to-motivate number only makes the most commonly misunderstood part of FE even easier to misunderstand. So am I bothered by it lying to the player? These days, if someone cares enough about their video game to learn how the stats work into the calculation AND they derive the hit rate calculation (before 2RN) AND they somehow figure out that the true hit rates are different than what they appear to be (through a series of highly nerdy empirical measurements and statistical analysis) then they're probably smart enough to discover the internet and learn about 2RN hit way before they need to take any of those steps. The chances that someone is actually intentioned enough to understand probability AND the calculations in the game AND use them in the plans while also not having the resources to look up these kinds of things are small. Therefore no, I am not bothered by the way that FE games present 2RN hit (or rather, that they don't present 2RN hit) to the player.
  9. Vanessa, personally. A good candidate for energy rings is whomever you're using a lot and who tends to double. Vanessa often fits both of those categories. I assume as well you're on ch 13 or 14 in which case you probably know what your team is looking like and can just use it on whomever. Using an energy ring on Moulder for extra damage with light tomes is a bit wasteful imo. Just buy shines and you'll 1round most monsters with 11 magic.
  10. I was incorrect then, all blue assassins can proc silencer. Jaffar can also proc it while a green unit, I'll have to set the record straight.
  11. Almost 100% certain they can't proc it. I have no actual evidence for the claim it's just hearsay from the time I've spent around people who would probably know this sort of thing.
  12. He can't proc it in ch 25/27 and he has a light brand equipped in that map, which can crit. Also I'm not sure whether or not Runesword can crit in melee.
  13. One trick I use is to run away from Uhai at the start. Even though you have units in range, it's unlikely that a single one of your units will be able to oneround. If, however, you run out of his range, he'll move his full move to approach you and then you can gang up on him with more units. Also, it might seem strange to do so but if you can open a door early (only if you know you can handle it) then the turn where that door would normally be open will instead skip to the next door. If part of your issue is that facing a new room of enemies is too much for you, you can open a door early to buy yourself an extra turn later. I usually do this with either Darin's door or Brendan's door. Jerme actually can't proc silencer. Silencer is completely unique to Jaffar in fe7.
  14. That's evidence that FE7's tutorial is good, which by my post above (In reference to Lyn mode) I actually agree with. But it doesn't answer my question. My question was: It's certainly different than the fe7 tutorial, which is good, but also different people may like different tutorials. I do not wish to put words in AnonymousSpeed's mouth, but this comment leads me to believe there is a nonzero number of people who don't like the Lyn mode tutorial and will prefer a tutorial like FE6's
  • Create New...