The Great LTC Debate Thread (Yay? Nay? Burn in Hell?)

[BBM]

For what it's worth, I did read dondon's guide when he posted it, and found it interesting. I just chose not to post on it because the playstyle by which he was ranking characters was so alien to mine, and some of the stats (mainly expected levels) were so different from what I knew that I couldn't possibly have made any contribution. And since I was quite a bit less argumentative back then, I decided to just read and stay silent.

[Sunwoo]

First time on the internet or...?

But honestly, I don't think either side cares about hostility. Hell... I think being a little hostile emphasizes the point more. Even if it seen as unprofessional in actual debates, people like me love to break the mold and give the middle finger to the normal people.

Besides, the said normal people stay in their same rut because they won't change. It's the crazy people that get somewhere in life!

HAHAHA. No. I've been on the Internet since I was twelve, and I'm not younger than you either. But at this point, I don't even know what you guys are arguing over anymore, or how it relates to the original topic. And the last few posts I saw had a lot of unneeded hostility directed towards the person. Really, who bumped this back up and why? The truth is this: some people like LTC, and other people don't. FE is a game that you can get enjoyment out of multiple ways, playing LTC or playing to get all supports or playing to get max levels or what. Why do we really care how other people play the game? Play the game how you like. Enjoy life. End of story.

[Loki Laufeyson]

For anyone who cares, here's the FE7 character rating thread dondon was talking about.

Thats a good one but its more for (maximum) efficiency. Like, hes totally assuming LTC so hes taking into consideration the fact that treasures and junk are getting skipped. Its got good numbers though that a lot of guides dont have. (since most people looking at character guides are newer players who arent big on LTC.) It would be great to post on GameFAQs with the title "Low Turn Count/Efficiency Unit Guide."

:D

[Naglfar]

I would title it "Low Turns Character Guide" or something.

[Hawk King]

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.

[Toothache]

The real skill in Fire Emblem comes from risk assessment. LTC is by its very nature a high risk/high reward endeavour. Learning how to assess a given move in each turn and make it work safely is sometimes a judgement call. Of course, there can also be some negotiation with the RNG, given how many of the games have a fixed RNG, but that again has some risk assessment involved.

[Aethereal]

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.

[Espinosa]

Skill is something that makes you decide to drop Marcus with Florina as opposed to put Erk in places where he faces chances of death while the whole team is waiting, for example. Knowing what characters to use isn't the same as knowing what to do with them.

[Naglfar]

The real skill in Fire Emblem comes from risk assessment. LTC is by its very nature a high risk/high reward endeavour. Learning how to assess a given move in each turn and make it work safely is sometimes a judgement call. Of course, there can also be some negotiation with the RNG, given how many of the games have a fixed RNG, but that again has some risk assessment involved.

Yes, risk assessment is a skill.

Strategic capacity is also a skill.

That's about 100% of Fire Emblem so there you go.

[Anouleth]

dondon's point is that the linear ordering of units that is a tier list cannot possibly contain the depth of information one would need for a character guide. You would have to give each character their own tier, with a title that explains in detail what they do and how to best use them, for it to even approach the amount of information in a character guide, but in that case, it is basically the same as a character guide except that a unit's name appears below their description instead of above it.

but the whole list was a bunch of effort (shit, typing those posts took awhile, and looking up all of those stats and doing mental arithmetic adds up), and it seems like hardly anyone really cared.

I cared... I even refer back to it occasionally, because the information in it is good.

[Espinosa]

I've read all of it several times, and still go back to it whenever I play FE7, so I wouldn't say it's a wasted effort. Perhaps submit it as a FAQ if you are looking for a wider audience.

[Anouleth]

Whatever the list's goal is. Could be minimizing turns, could be going for ranks. I'd say ideally it's going for the minimum score on the criteria I posted earlier, with probably the addition of an Arena ban.

So basically, it's how we currently tier: only not as good because we're not tiering everyone and we're not considering forced chapters.

Please recall what I always say on this matter and tell me what I think of assuming unit use.

That you should never assume a unit is used? Therefore a character can be base level at the end of the game because you don't want to assume you're using them?

I do know what you usually say about assuming unit use. The problem is that it's nonsensical. When tiering Boyd, you have to assume that Boyd is being used. Nobody cares about how Boyd performs when he isn't being used, quite obviously. How is that relevant to how good he is as a unit?

Are the deployment slots low enough to use everyone? If so, then yeah, that's accurate, although it can impact whether or not you might want to use them earlier to train for those chapters.

Yes, the deployment slots are low enough to use everyone in Chapters 1-4 to 1-6-2 and for all DB Part 3 chapters. You also have 17 slots and 17 characters in 4-E-1 to 4-E-3.

Indeed, the only chapters in FE10 that it would be possible to tier meaningfully would be 1-7, 1-8 (although it should be noted that more than half your characters in this chapter are forced), 1-E, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 3-8, 3-10, 3-11, 3-E, and the part 4 chapters. Which is less than half the game.

[Othin]

So basically, it's how we currently tier: only not as good because we're not tiering everyone and we're not considering forced chapters.

That you should never assume a unit is used? Therefore a character can be base level at the end of the game because you don't want to assume you're using them?

I do know what you usually say about assuming unit use. The problem is that it's nonsensical. When tiering Boyd, you have to assume that Boyd is being used. Nobody cares about how Boyd performs when he isn't being used, quite obviously. How is that relevant to how good he is as a unit?

Yes, the deployment slots are low enough to use everyone in Chapters 1-4 to 1-6-2 and for all DB Part 3 chapters. You also have 17 slots and 17 characters in 4-E-1 to 4-E-3.

Indeed, the only chapters in FE10 that it would be possible to tier meaningfully would be 1-7, 1-8 (although it should be noted that more than half your characters in this chapter are forced), 1-E, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 3-8, 3-10, 3-11, 3-E, and the part 4 chapters. Which is less than half the game.

All that in exchange for rating units in a meaningful way.

If we're tiering Edward, then we must evaluate the benefit of using him and see how it compares to not using him. We must do this without looking at it as an all-or-nothing matter, to figure out how often you might actually want to deploy him.

Well, FE10 is weird. Certainly, the fact that such mechanics encourage you to use so many characters over that time as well as you can means that there's nothing to rate.

---

@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.

[Anouleth]

All that in exchange for rating units in a meaningful way.

What do you mean, "meaningful"? Are you suggesting that current tier lists do not "mean" anything? Currently, tier lists do not rank characters based on how worthwhile it is to deploy them, but on what they can do when they are deployed. That's pretty meaningful. So someone like Ike is pretty high up because he does a lot of useful stuff (like killing enemies).

And really, how would you decide which units are most worth deploying? By comparing what they DO when deployed. So really, current tier lists are like:

Character can do X, Y, Z => Character gets tier position M

whereas your suggestion is more like

Character is more likely to be deployed => Character gets tier position N

However, the problem with this concept is that the connection between a character being more likely to be deployed and them actually doing useful things is tenuous. For example, you have to deploy Lilina to recruit certain characters,some characters are forced, sometimes you can deploy as many characters as you want (such as in FE4). Sometimes, you just don't care about which characters you deploy. Is it really meaningful to say that we're more likely to deploy Sain than Kent in Battle Preparations? Is it as important as Sain being more likely to be deployed in Cog of Destiny?

If we're tiering Edward, then we must evaluate the benefit of using him and see how it compares to not using him. We must do this without looking at it as an all-or-nothing matter, to figure out how often you might actually want to deploy him.

You will want to deploy him in all those chapters in which he is effectively free.

Well, FE10 is weird. Certainly, the fact that such mechanics encourage you to use so many characters over that time as well as you can means that there's nothing to rate.

Well, call me crazy, but you could always rate these characters based on what they can do.

@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.

What about Pokemon which doesn't have any element of skill? or Advance Wars?

[Espinosa]

If anything, RPGs is the one genre that requires skill. Reflexes ≠ skills. People get better at genres like fighters and shooters by spending hours mindlessly repeating the same actions without giving it any critical thought. There's no skill here to even bring up, it's just mechanical masturbation systematically repeated, until you start reacting to certain stimuli like Pavlov's dog and all the possible patterns are engraved in your memory.

With RPGs, there's a lot of planning, management and optimisation of resources, a process you have to do each time anew because the details will be different. For example, in Fire Emblem, your decisions will to a large extent depend on what level-ups your units got on a particular run, which affects whether or not you go on training them and how aggressively you have them behave on the field. Your mind will be constantly counting steps, subtracting stats, imagining approximate true hit rates and chances of death, etc. The more you play, the more you understand. If

If that's not skill, then I don't know what is.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Espinosa

[Aethereal]

@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.

[Hawk King]

^ What about the 2 turn clear of the Prologue in FE8 drafts? People DO copy and follow other people's strategies.

So sports dont require skill either? Just mindless repetitions and reflexes?

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."

Idk though, i've been out of school for like 5 years now. Maybe things have changed...

[Aethereal]

^ 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".

[BBM]

Also, intelligence =/= being good at FE. I'm probably smarter than the average person here, by book smarts anyways, and probably worse than the average person here at FE.

[Naglfar]

Holy shit, your singular tiny case of cookie cutter strategy has totally convinced me that there's no skill in FE. The reason prologue strategies are copied is that there are rarely many ways of doing them with any acceptable turncount and they're so simple that most people have them committed to memory anyway.

SRPGs require strategic capacity, a skill. You learn this strategic capacity by playing the game. This should be obvious because we're clearly all better at FE now than we were when we started. Remember the first time you played, when blue units dropped like flies on easy mode? That wouldn't happen now, would it? Sure, you can copy someone else's strategies move for move and win flawlessly with no experience, but in that situation it's debatable that you're even playing the game. Nobody does this either, by the way. There are also drafts and whatnot, for which there won't be any strategies for you to copy in the first place.

Shmups and fighters are the same way. The knowledge of how to act in certain situations comes with time, practice, and research. The ability to deliver on this is a learned ability developed through experience, a concept known to most of us as skill.[/]

I think this is the second time I've had to explain the English language to you people? You're fucking welcome.

edit: Also, intelligence could be defined as a capacity for learning and creativity. Thus, an enabler of skill, not to be confused for it.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Naglfar

[Hawk King]

Good points.

I suppose it does take mental "skill". Although i personally wouldnt call it "skill", you are absolutely right that the strategy required to play FE well is "a skill".

I have been thinking of skill as something entirely different, I now understand the type of skill you mean. It is a mental skill as opposed to a physical skill. I have just never thought of it as such.

Well done Sir.

[PKL]

If anything, RPGs is the one genre that requires skill. Reflexes ≠ skills. People get better at genres like fighters and shooters by spending hours mindlessly repeating the same actions without giving it any critical thought. There's no skill here to even bring up, it's just mechanical masturbation systematically repeated, until you start reacting to certain stimuli like Pavlov's dog and all the possible patterns are engraved in your memory.

With RPGs, there's a lot of planning, management and optimisation of resources, a process you have to do each time anew because the details will be different. For example, in Fire Emblem, your decisions will to a large extent depend on what level-ups your units got on a particular run, which affects whether or not you go on training them and how aggressively you have them behave on the field. Your mind will be constantly counting steps, subtracting stats, imagining approximate true hit rates and chances of death, etc. The more you play, the more you understand. If

If that's not skill, then I don't know what is.

Haha, sorry but what? @ the bolded part. Trust me, it aint that easy to get good in fighers. Idk about shooters but playing fighters competitively is much more than memorizing inputs.

[Hawk King]

@PKL-

Haha, I know right? Fighters are definitely one of the most complex and skill required genres. Especially MvC, SF, BB, or GG.

[CT075]

i disagree with that statement ("fighters are one of the most complex...")

while I don't really play anything on a competitive level (except FE4 and that's like "fuck off horace" these days anyway) it's not an uncommon occurrence (for me, at least, maybe i just frequent the wrong circles) for me to go onto an online match, or against a stranger in an arcade who's been using the machine for hours and proceed to win with the following strategy -

a. pick the character that looks coolest

b. hit every button randomly and in as many combinations you can think off in the span of two seconds

c. proceed to press whichever button that does the move that seems to work (oh hey i can shoot a laser out of my hand SPAM IT UNTIL HE HITS YOU INTO THE AIR then spam the kick button until he moves away)

Mind you that this has happened in games that I have never heard of before (what the fuck is BB and GG). If it sounds familiar, that is because I tend to do what is known as "button mashing". This requires only the skill of memory ("this button makes my character transform into a dragon so i should use it a lot") and semi-quick reflexes and/or judgement calls ("oh fuck he's got a dragon-slaying sword ABORT ABORT ABORT"). Or, the skill that allows you to not get in trouble for playing super mario world on your computer during class while the teacher teaches a lesson that you technically read about for homework the previous night.

Now, there is some element of "skill" in a fighting game. Obviously my strategy is predictable after X matches and therefore if I were to keep playing I would obviously begin to lose; the judgement calls I mentioned earlier aren't as simple when you get into the nuances of it ("i can turn into a dragon and eat him or i could pull out a football and proceed to call in a tactical nuclear attack against him because i know his attacks are slower so the extra delay is acceptable). I am by no means saying it's easy to learn how that works. But that's beside the point; the mere fact that me, a complete nobody, has a semi-decent shot of winning at least two out of five (40%) games against a so-called "expert" by doing nothing but mashing my index finger against a red button kind of makes a bad case for the "complexity" of this.

In turn-based strategy games, on the other hand, there is a much smaller chance for a complete newbie to have a 40% case against a bunch of experts. I'd bet you something along the lines of $20 that someone unfamiliar with the series (hell, even just FE7) would get a lower ranking 10 times out of 10 against any 'veteran' (loose term) here (ranking meaning the ratings the game gives you), even if we tell him "tactics means how few turns you used, funds is how much money you have in both items and cash, (etc)". And you can't even just tell me "copy the strategies of youtube" because a lot of times luck plays a role. Sure, it plays a role in fighting games also, person X's finger slipping off the blue button for half a second could cost him/her the match. However, in FE, luck can make or break strategies. I'm not even saying "this person must hit their 60% to get the 2-turn" or "this character has to be 3.8 points above his speed average" or whatever, since that is a legitimate (in my eyes) argument against absolute LTC (although i do agree that "efficiency" at least attempts to avoid this). But things like Sigurd missing that 98% final attack against the boss, or the enemy landing a 1% critical that destroys your otherwise-flawless chokepoint - those can cost you a lot, and it's hard to predict.

and finally i don't play fighting games at any circle higher than "arcade" and "find random person online" and "with my friends" so don't call me out on "WELL THIS CHARACTER HAS A 0.02 SECOND DELAY ON HIS ATTACKS AND THAT COULD ALSO COST YOU THE MATCH" because i don't want to hear about it

[Naglfar]

40% where did you get this figure

what the fuck kind of experts are you playing against

and finally i don't play fighting games at any circle higher than "arcade" and "find random person online" and "with my friends"

oh