[FE5 PM 0% growths, SSS rank with commentary (complete)]

It's better to have one ruleset for both capturing and rescuing instead of two, which makes the game more complicated without necessarily adding interesting gameplay.

[General US Politics]

Math seems to be that Bernie needs to start winning with an overwhelming advantage, and the only way I see it happening is for him to completely crush Hillary on a debate to the point of irrecuperability. The thing is, I don't see Bernie completely destroying Clinton the same way Trump has done with Jeb, or Christie with Rubio.

There's also the possibility that Clinton gets indicted over the email scandal, which I don't think is very likely but could still happen.

[Fates RN Regression Project]

How did we find dynamic growths in Shadow Dragon anyway? I've looked for the credited author on the main SF page (Nitrodon) and that person has been inactive since 2011. If there's something that needs to be tracked in order to be sure I want to be keeping tabs on it.

Edit: Thinking it over, and I don't think a dynamic system is likely. Unlike growth rates, which can be fixed in an array and modified easily, the function that calls the RN never "knows" what it's getting. It would have to make modifications to RNs as they came in because a 99 value array would be a big waste of space. That would mean that a result at 41 could affect the result at 99 after enough trials, and that would spell all kinds of disaster.

Dota 2 uses Pseudo-random distribution where certain attack procs have their probability modified based on previous misses and hits. The net effect is that you're less likely to get two bashes in a row (for example) but also less likely to go 15 attacks without getting a single bash.

[FE15: Pitch the Plot!]

The great nation of X has been divided. After the death of the king with no clear heir, his relations now fight to secure their claim to the throne by force. Eventually foreign nations try to interfere in the conflict to further their own interests. However, a more sinister threat lurks in the shadows, plotting to take advantage of the chaos for their own nefarious ends. Rather than the main character being a prince, you play as a noble who must take sides in the conflict.

Definitely no steampunk or magitech.

[[From hack to indie] Path of the Midnight Sun]

Fa clearly states you don't have to approach her.

I don't know if you've ever heard of Etrian Odyssey, but I wanted to recreate some sort of F.O.E. feeling.

Yeah but multiple other people in this topic have said that Menmus can recruit her by talking to her. I don't really care that much either way but I'd like to have a straight answer because it's not clear whether this is a bug or not.

[[From hack to indie] Path of the Midnight Sun]

I can't recruit Cattleya by talking to her with Menmus in Chapter 2. She still joins at the end of the chapter but it's quite annoying to have an enemy Myrmidon running around that I can't do anything about.

[FE5 PM 0% growths, SSS rank with commentary (complete)]

So what I'm taking away from this is that Dalshin is less valuable than one Physic staff. Harder to transport, as well.

[General US Politics]

I might get torn to shreds for this but..

http://projects.newsday.com/politics/2016-siena-college-poll/

A recent poll shows Donald Trump leading Hillary Clinton among voters in Long Island, NY, which is ironic considering New York is highly liberal. Margin of error is +3 , so there are reasons to be skeptical. I do not know if the poll includes Brooklyn and Queens.

New York is also Trump's home turf. New York isn't a particularly conventional Democrat stronghold; I can see New Yorkers being willing to side with Trump in the same way that Boris Johnson enjoys high popularity among Londoners (despite London leaning towards Labour in general elections).

(I'm aware that Hillary Clinton was Senator for New York but she's not really seen as a "native" in the same way as Trump.)

[Make a Fun Chapter 3: It's over!]

One down, 3 to go.

If anyone wants to play through my submission themselves, here's the patch.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9myg1xrtnu77zjc/Ciraxis_MAFC_Submission.ups?dl=0

I'm enjoying the chapter, but is Keith female on purpose?

[Crown v. Jian Ghomeshi]

Honestly, if he's found to be not guilty, I'd like to see all of the accusing party trialed for false accusations. The entire case has more than likely destroyed Ghomesi's public reputation, and honestly it doesn't help real rape victims at all.

It's very hard to convict someone of false accusations, because you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Ghomeshi didn't rape them, something that is likely not possible.

[Unpopular opinions that you have for Fire Emblem]

This, Awakening and Fates imo, have the best version of the support system mechanically speaking. Writing quality is obviously up to personal taste, but a large majority of my favorite supports in FE do come from Awakening so for me it works.

Awakening actually has the worst system mechanically. The problem being that supports are so ridiculously strong that you always end up stapling Robin and Robin's S-support together and just having them duo the entire game. There's almost no reason to ever do anything else. Even the total absence of a support system would have been preferable, because at least that wouldn't massively incentivize one strategy over everything.

[Minimum Wage: Helpful or Harmful?]

why is that at all reasonable?

the fact that research is inconclusive doesn't mean we assume basic principles are correct. it's a failure on the study of economics and its predictive power as a soft science. more often than not, min. wage appears to have no effect on the economy. are they simply statistical fluctuations, then?

these studies are all over the place, i agree.

No, it's not a failure on the study of economics; all soft sciences have problems replicating their findings and the fact that the minimum wage is heavily politicized (by people like you) doesn't help.

More often than not, minimum wage increases are small scale. I would have absolutely no problem with a small increase in the minimum wage, or even chaining it to inflation as should have been done many years ago.

And if the studies are all over the place, why did you say "decades of data supported by literally hundreds of top experts in the field"?

when did we assume that 4% of the workforce would lose their jobs?

are you trolling

I'm not assuming that. But even it's only only 1% or 0.5%, it's still contractionary (meaning that it will have effects on aggregate demand and the economy as a whole) and it's still affecting people on the scale of hundreds of thousands, if not millions. That's the gamble you're making with people's lives. 4% seems like a worst-case disaster that I don't think is very likely. But way more than 4% are going to be affected by this, and not all for the better.

(not to mention that the effects of min. wage increases aren't necessarily immediate; it may be that some employers can indeed afford higher wages in the short term but that if the economy were to go into recession again, they'd have to lay off more employees than they would otherwise.)

[Minimum Wage: Helpful or Harmful?]

i feel like you took my post as a charged attack--it was just a question. i suggest reading the link smug posted, as it may interest you. in fact, similar links were posted in the blog. there are decades of data that suggest adverse effects on employment don't arise due to increasing the minimum wage modestly.

Except here, and here. I could probably find more; we could spend all day firing studies at each other since there are probably hundreds out there for each of our particular viewpoints. Given that the evidence is not helping us, I think it's completely reasonable to conclude that basic demand curves hold and that increasing the price of something will cause people to buy less of it.

there is no data in the case where min. wage is increased by an arbitrarily large amount, but as you've pointed out, that would probably be silly.

so the question is, is a factor of 2 increase in the min. wage too large? will it destroy the economy as we know it? it's a bit difficult (ie, would take more time but the point will end up the same) to find just how many people make minimum wage in the united states--including but not limited to the federal minimum wage. i'm talking about in places where min. wage is higher, like in california, or particular cities like seattle. but anyway, this 2014 estimate assumes around 3 million workers make 7.25 or less, accounting for merely 4% of the united states workforce.

let's posit that a workweek is 40hrs, all of these workers are full-time, and they keep the entirety of their paycheck. no money taken from them by any party. i claim that this person will make $10,440 in one year. if we double it, that's $20,880. times that by the amount of people that would be earning the wage (actually more than 3 million but whatever),

2.1x10⁴ * 3x10⁶ = 6x10¹⁰ dollars. think of whatever effect 30bn dollars has on the economy as a whole (not very much, bn vs. trn is very small) and merely double it. it still doesn't have a big effect. the numbers aren't large enough. if the laws are set up such that only corporations or "large businesses" have to increase min. wage (or something more complex than that), it's simply not going to impact the economy in any notable way, and this is supported by decades of data. increasing the minimum wage won't cause the economy to collapse. maybe if you increase it to $100, or $1000 it may, but 7 --> 15 won't do it. i claim that the min. wage is about being able to live somewhat comfortably off of your job, and it's very difficult to do that with current laws. it is so crazy to me that measures that attempt to close the gap between rich and poor in this nation are not only opposed in this nation by its rich (near the bottom), but also by its relatively poor.

If 4% of the US workforce loses their jobs, that's an unmitigated disaster. We're talking about millions of people being fired and families having to go hungry. The effect is more than 30bn, because aggregate demand will also fall and cause more job losses. That's not even accounting for the many people who work above the minimum wage and for less than $15.

It seems crazy to me that you can be so unconcerned about the prospect of millions of people, most of whom are below the poverty line to begin with, losing their jobs.

[Minimum Wage: Helpful or Harmful?]

why isn't it clear?

Absolutely everything we know about economics suggests that when you make something more expensive, people will buy less of it. The evidence is not 100% clear but minimum wages probably have a negative impact on employment, it's just that historically minimum wages have been set low enough to not have a large disemployment effect. Stumbling and Mumbling has a good post on it.

Plus, I might well ask you; if apparently raising the minimum wage to 15 dollars will have no negative impacts whatsoever and you think there's zero chance of anyone losing their job as a result, why stop there? Why not raise the minimum wage to $100? Or a thousand dollars? Since apparently it's just free money that appears out of the ether and will have no effect on employment or prices.

(Note that I am in general in favor of a minimum wage, preferably chained to inflation. But we should not underestimate the danger of disemployment effects which disproportionately effect the poor.)

[What if Fire Emblem IN SPACE happened?]

Why not? It's literally just move units, choose an option and attack. Nothing about the core gameplay demands it be medievil. You could replace the units with spaceships or mermaids and it would still be the same.

Fire Emblem is focused around melee combat with swords, axes and lances, which haven't been used for over a hundred years in any kinds of war. Fire Emblem is focused around individual characters and relationships, which are irrelevant in a mechanistic future dominated by clones and AIs. Fire Emblem has a strong element of magic which doesn't make sense in a universe that has embraced a scientific view of the world. Fire Emblem works on a two dimensional grid. Space is three dimensional. And so on. Fire Emblem just makes more sense in the context of a medieval low-magic fantasy universe than soft-sci-fi grand opera.

And to be honest, if you don't like Fire Emblem, why don't you just leave? I'm sick of people who hate Fire Emblem trying to change it into something it's not. Go play any of the countless soft-sci-fi JRPGs out there. There isn't exactly a shortage.

[Minimum Wage: Helpful or Harmful?]

The reason minimum wage needs to be raised is because you can't raise a family on it. You can't say a person who works 3 minimum wage jobs to feed their family without any luxuries like cellphones and internet, isn't working as hard as billionaire like Donald Trump because no matter how you look at it, it's just not true. Also studies show that poor children generally (Not always) do worse in school. So low minimum wage hurts the future of our country badly.

None of that explains why minimum wage needs to be raised. If a minimum wage rise causes workers currently working at the minimum wage to lose their jobs, then they will be much worse off. As difficult as it is to raise a family on minimum wage it's even harder to raise a family on nothing.

Everything else comes down to this; whether or not a minimum wage increase will have a disemployment effect. And it's not really clear what the answer is.

[What if Fire Emblem IN SPACE happened?]

The gameplay of Fire Emblem doesn't translate well to a futuristic theme, I think.

[General US Politics]

I'm not sure what mathematics you are using, but statistically, a flat tax is the most fair and balanced tax there is for many reasons.

First: The rich would be hurt the MOST by the flat tax. On the surface, yes, the highest brackets are taxed at a greater percentage than the lower tax brackets, this much is fact. However, with our convoluted tax code, people who make the most money also abuse tax loopholes, deductions, and the like to lower their tax obligation. This was a big issue a few years ago when left-winged liberal business owner and economic "guru" Warren Buffet claimed that many rich individuals and businesses were abusing tax laws to the point that they actually paid, percentage-wise, LESS than the middle class. This is because there are so many ways to reduce tax responsibility that are available to the super-rich that the lesser income people have no access to. A flat tax would actually harm these people more than help, because they would officially have no loopholes or deductions to hide from. Ergo, logically, it is fair to say that compared to the current tax code, a flat tax IS more fair.

I agree that reducing the various loopholes and deductions in the tax code would be desirable (with maybe leaving in the charitable donation exception), but I would like to see it be at least somewhat progressive.

Also even according to a right-wing author that likes the tax plan overall, it's not really flat (since the big deductions for health insurance and mortgages are still in there), it will benefit the rich more than the poor, and it will cost billions.

Grocery stores can and SHOULD have every right to discriminate in any way they want. This applies to any business that is not government service. They are not public sector; they are private sector. If you do not agree with the business's practice, simply do not patronize the business and go somewhere else. I disagree with a company's businesses practice, but I respect a company's choice to run a business how they wish. I do not condone the ethics that Wal-Mart employs in treating their employees; therefore, I never shop at Wal-Mart and do my business elsewhere.

A famous example that happened would be Geno's cheesesteaks in Philadelphia (famous in the area and to a lesser degree in the rest of the country for having an eternal rivalry with Pat's Cheesesteaks for having the best cheesesteak in Philadelphia). After 9/11, Geno's refused service to Muslim customers in retaliation for the attack on the Twin Towers. This controversial practice made national headlines and many people condemned the business for their xenophobic actions. The result? Many people who went to patronize Philly for their cheesesteaks went to their big competition across the street, Pat's Cheesesteaks. Geno's lost a great deal of business over their unpopular business practice. This type of free market philosophy in allowing the consumer to choose where to go and naturally let the bad businesses flounder and potentially die is a prime example of why a business should be allowed to perform whatever practice they wish.

Relying on public opinion to punish private businesses for discriminating is as effective as relying on public opinion to punish politicians for governing badly. Sometimes discriminatory practices become publicized and customers vote with their feet in a way that corrects discrimination. Other times, the public aren't informed or don't care. And sometimes the public is misinformed and will punish the wrong business! A restaurant is a good example of when it's easy to discriminate against a business whose practices you disapprove of; eating out is a luxury and a social activity meaning it can be used to signal, restaurant-goers have a lot of choice and flexibility, and restaurants rely mainly on their reputation and image to do well. It's a lot rarer that consumers will punish a bank or a chemical manufacturer.

Secondly while I appreciate the right of businesses to discriminate, I think there's also a danger when businesses collude in order to discriminate (for example as businesses in the Jim Crow South colluded to discriminate against blacks). It's one thing for a business to refuse to serve you when you can go elsewhere, but if many businesses refuse to serve or hire you, it's quite another thing.

[General US Politics]

When was the last time a US intervention has actually improved the situation in a country? Contrary to what people in this thread have said Obama's current middle eastern policies are quite reasonable and far better than what every other candidate except maybe Rand Paul have to offer. Beyond not taking too much action in Syria and Iraq this also includes the very pragmatic new approach towards Iran which will be very an important factor for the longterm stability of the region.

People need to realize that Daesh is mostly the result of the failed foreign policies of the USA and the EU as well as their problematic relationships with Saudi-Arabia. It's no surprise that a majority of people in Iraq and Syria believe that Daesh is a western invention - after all, it is ... in a certain way. If there actually were interest from the western side in wiping out Daesh they could've done so during the last 5 years. Obama, Paul and everybody else who claims it's better for the US to stay out of the conflict [this includes Sanders I believe?] are a lot more truthful and trustworthy than those that call for a military intervention. Leave that up to the russians. They're doing a better job at it.

I personally blame the Lords Appellant. Basically everything bad that happened after 1400 was probably their fault.

[Archers: do they really suck?]

True. Imagine FE9 for example; Rolf would be even more useless than he already is if Shinon didn't leave for half the game.

Firstly, Rolf is already as useless as a character can be. He is Peak Useless.

Secondly, the presence of another useless archer wouldn't make Rolf any more or less useless, any more than the presence of Barth is the reason why Wendy sucks.

[Archers: do they really suck?]

Oh. That's... actually pretty cool honestly. At the very least it lowers the arbitrary advantage that lances and axes have been given over swords in nearly every Fire Emblem game but 10 and 4. Seriously, why did they decide swords couldn't have readily available 2-range weapons?

Because it would be boring if every weapon type worked the same way?

[General US Politics]

one should probably note that when chococoke's daddy was growing up and in his 20s, the minimum wage was likely close to $10 adjusted for inflation (and well above the current federal minimum of $7.25/hr)

also a lot of jobs lost under a minimum wage increase may well be shit like "hey, i don't have to work two or three mcjobs just to pay rent/buy food anymore!"

Generally when jobs are lost, that results in higher unemployment; and higher unemployment always disproportionately affects the poor and minorities. While I think the minimum wage is a good thing I really don't think that the possibility of minimum-wage workers becoming unemployed is something that can just be casually dismissed.

I think that $15 is way too high, for instance. I think the best thing to do would be to make it $10, chain it to core inflation, and come back in five years and see if it's safe to raise it again.

[Do you prefer Wyvern Riders starting off with lances or axes?]

Well, that's true but not really indicative of a main purpose before that anyway, aside from aesthetics.

Other RPGs tend to have different weapon types do completely different things so that's not really a good point to make. Games like Disgaea make swords standard but with powerful unique skills, lances have 1-2 range. Axes reduce DEF on every hit. So beyond stats they are used differently. Other RPGS are similar these days. Old school DND can often have this as well.

While with FE, WTA is the only interesting thing as a way to separate weapons. Otherwise you're looking at 1 MT and 5 HIT differences in raw stats. Which isn't meaningful at all. Magic has the same problem too and could be better (strictly 1 range or 2-3 range magic to separate types would be something great, or just more types of magic with unique properties like dark magic). But effectiveness like WInd > Flying at least separates the anima trio to some extent. Although with Fates they have now removed magic types altogether so may not even be relevant going forward.

Yeah, but different positions on the weapon triangle isn't really justification for giving Wyverns Axes instead of Lances. WTA itself is only worth 1MT and 10HIT, which by your own admission isn't meaningful at all.

I would personally like to see the weapon types better differentiated. But as long as they remain in their current state it doesn't really matter which one you use, except that Axes are slightly stronger in most situations. In that light, I don't see how the switch "increases diversity" (as it was claimed earlier). If anything it decreases diversity because part of what made axes unique was that not a lot of units used them, and that they had WTA against Lances which were very common.

To be honest, I think that switching Wyverns to Axes is the worst possible move they could have made. It ended up making Wyverns even stronger in FE9/10/11/12/13. It didn't meaningfully distinguish Pegasus Knights and Wyverns. It made Axes less special and interesting. It would have been better to switch one of the flying classes to Swords or even Bows, which would have helped balance out the whole "flying units are usually ridiculous" thing.

[Do you prefer Wyvern Riders starting off with lances or axes?]

Because weapon triangle and player's control surrounding making the most of it? (which is the whole entire point of having 3 standard melee types to begin with). When only fighters exist in tier 1 that use them and there are an abundant amount of lance users instead it makes sword wielding enemies less of the threat to you as a whole. Having variety in weapon users in general is a good thing.

No it isn't. We had three weapon types before we had the weapon triangle. Many SRPGs and RPGs and even Roguelikes that don't have a weapon triangle still have different weapon types. The idea is that different types of physical fighters should have different capabilities.

Nothing dictates that different weapon types should have perfectly identical availability. If anything, I think that's a bad thing; it makes different weapon types more homogeneous and interchangeable. It's cool to have units like DS Minerva and Lex that use weapons that aren't easily accessible otherwise.

Lol axes are not too good

If anything, Swords are the best weapons in the series. They have none of the accuracy issues Axes/Lances can have. In FE6 especially, Axes were near useless.

Lances suffer from insane amount of overuse in the series. I don't favor lances so I don't need ten thousand Lance classes.

I'd much rather see Wyverns with Axes. It's more fun that way, and I want Griffons to be their own thing with Swords as a counterpart to Axe Wyverns and Lance Pegasi. Pegasi are fast and weak, but Wyverns are slow and strong? Make them a mix of both statswise.

I'm referring specifically to those games in which Wyverns got Axes (rather than Swords + Lances). That is to say, FE9, 10, 11, 12, and 13. And there's little doubt that Axes were better than Lances in most of those games (FE11 excepted, because the game gives you far more good lance-users than axe-users).

While I wouldn't object to a sword-using flying class, I think three flying classes is too many. I'd rather either Wyverns or Pegasi be retired, or even both of them.

[Who Else Thinks]

Personally, I wish all unmounted units had shove and mounted units had canto. Judgral!Capture sounds neat but I'd prefer a more toned down version of it.

While I used it on occasion, I don't think the old rescue was a very good system. It left the rescuer vulnerable because of the stat reductions, so you had one unit who couldn't fight at all and another that was fighting sub-optimally. Additionally, rescuing was limited by the characters' con (some units couldn't be rescued at all) so it was even more hamstrung as a mechanic. The new system actually makes the rescuer stronger and is the perfect skill for the cavalier class. It also works in conjunction with pair-up. It's a pretty logical evolution of the mechanic.

That's incorrect. Rescue was good precisely because it had downsides and tradeoffs associated with it.

I don't see how blatant power creep and stat inflation are good for the series, nor do I see any value in mechanics that don't involve real decision-making. And there's almost no decision-making associated with Pair Up.