Save states, yay or nay?

[BrightBow]

Tacticians always prepare for the unexpected. Fe is a strategy simulation. "bs" as you call it is simply that of an enemy ambush are you in real life going to know that oh I feel they have reserve troops! Let's leave some men over there.

I never got why reinforcements bugged people for this very reason.

To the topic at hand I'll use savestates in drafts and that's it

You are also not going to know what weapons and skills individual soldiers have and yet the game makes these informations available. Also, how come enemies never get the first turn even in ambush scenarios where they should have the initiative? "Real life" does not make for good gameplay. Especially when that means that the game is randomly killing you.

And that's exactly what this is. Warning or not, it always ends in a gamble since there are way too many unknown variables to deal with. You might as well put instant-kill tiles on the map. Just knowing that they exist won't help.

Because of this bullshit mechanic, it's good that FE12 had save points. Under these circumstances, I made extensive use of them. But save scumming to victory is no fun either, so I probably simply won't play that game again. It's a shame too since this game got the proper overhaul that Shadow Dragon was missing.

Edited July 4, 2014 by BrightBow

[Topazd]

Difficulty is always very subjective. What some individual might enjoy, others might not and vice versa.

Trial and error is, to a degree, present in most strategy games and RPGs in general. It might not be for everyone, but the absence of it would impact any given game massively (and for better of for worse is dictated by the preferences of the person playing).

Still, I find myself cringing massively when people encounter even the slightest bit of difficulty which they do not find "fun" or "entertaining" and deem it as outright bad gameplay design. It isn't always the game design, consider that the fault can be the player's.

[Chiki]

Nah, that guy is just a prat.

Let me remind you you're much more of a prat than I am:

Listen. NOW.

You are doing it again. Being really irritating and obstinate for no real reason other than it looking like you arent getting your way about something. Stop that. Okami talk in comparison to Zelda and what fans want from a new Zelda and how this new Zelda is advertised is perfectly relevant. Stop attempting to staunch discussion especially when it isnt off topic. You do not own the threads you create and you do not make the rules on how to discuss something perfectly on topic. By repeatedly saying "STOP TALKING ABOUT A GAME I NEVER PLAYED, ITS OFF TOPIC." You are going off topic.

Have i made myself clear?

I've never been that much of a prick to anyone.

ITT: Your way of having fun is wrong

We need some sensitive guy to come in and misinterpret everything someone says in every thread, right? No one said this. There's nothing wrong with having fun with the game, and being a bad player doesn't mean your fun is invalidated. However, if you can't prepare for the RNG, can't plan out a strategy for the entire map, and need save states to fix your mistakes, that means you're a bad player.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Chiki

[Irysa]

We need some sensitive guy to come in and misinterpret everything someone says in every thread, right? No one said this. There's nothing wrong with having fun with the game, and being a bad player doesn't mean your fun is invalidated. However, if you can't prepare for the RNG, can't plan out a strategy for the entire map, and need save states to fix your mistakes, that means you're a bad player.

This final part is the problem though. There is a stark difference to going "oh this char is kinda falling behind a bit on my casual run, I'll rig him a level up", or "I'm saving at the start of the third turn so I don't have to keep redoing the same things for the first two turns to figure out how I can get the enemy AI to run the other direction on a high difficulty". I would agree that if you can't beat a game's lower difficulties with some basic general strategy for the whole map without rigging, you're a weak player, but I wouldn't agree that the fact I savestated in chapter 3 of FE12 Lunatic to figure out how all the enemy dracoknight pull tables worked is a mark of being a bad player, I'm simply saving time. <_< (I already know I'm a bad player for entirely different reasons!)

Extreme abuse of savestates to the point where someone is saving every turn so that they can rewind if something bad happens is silly beacuse you undermine the importance of positioning, the strongest point about this series. But as a tool they function in many more ways than that.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Irysa

[Chiki]

This final part is the problem though. There is a stark difference to going "oh this char is kinda falling behind a bit on my casual run, I'll rig him a level up", or "I'm saving at the start of the third turn so I don't have to keep redoing the same things for the first two turns to figure out how I can get the enemy AI to run the other direction on a high difficulty". I would agree that if you can't beat a game's lower difficulties with some basic general strategy for the whole map without rigging, you're a weak player, but I wouldn't agree that the fact I savestated in chapter 3 of FE12 Lunatic to figure out how all the enemy dracoknight pull tables worked is a mark of being a bad player, I'm simply saving time. <_< (I already know I'm a bad player for entirely different reasons!)

Extreme abuse of savestates to the point where someone is saving every turn so that they can rewind if something bad happens is silly beacuse you undermine the importance of positioning, the strongest point about this series. But as a tool they function in many more ways than that.

I agree with the first example (rigging a level up is one of the exceptions I had in mind) but the second part not so much. You're not just saving time here. Like I said, I think a good FE player should be able to come up with a strategy for the whole chapter, not just the first two turns. Having a save state on turn 3 makes it too easy to come up with that sort of strategy.

Using save states to experiment something is also ok, as long as you use it to come up with a long-term strategy for the whole chapter.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Chiki

[Irysa]

The second part is exactly what the DSFE games allow you to do in many chapters though, so do you look down on anyone who resolves what to do in segments? My second example was actually one of experimenting anyway.

If I put Palla here, will the enemy hunter move south instead of north? Okay, here? How about here? - bearing in mind that if he goes north, then I have to restart beacuse that's basically a fail condition, and none of this has anything to do with being in range. That IS basically just a time saver because there isn't an inherant way to know what the magic tile is since some algorithms of the AI are not something privy to most players. This kind of problem only tends to appear on much higher difficulties though, or where you don't have leeway to modify what you're doing on reaction, which is why I think that it's less reasonable on the relatively tame level of the rest of the series on normal.

[Roivann]

The thing is, it really shouldn't matter to you how other people play the game. It's single player, and it's not hurting anyone, so live and let live.

[Nicolas]

The thing is, it really shouldn't matter to you how other people play the game. It's single player, and it's not hurting anyone, so live and let live.

Is it bad to discuss how to do something efficiently?

[Chiki]

The thing is, it really shouldn't matter to you how other people play the game. It's single player, and it's not hurting anyone, so live and let live.

You're doing it again. You're being overly sensitive and twisting what I say to make yourself look like a victim. I don't care how you play, and I know it doesn't hurt anyone. Doesn't mean I can't judge you as a bad player. I'm just being perfectly honest.

The second part is exactly what the DSFE games allow you to do in many chapters though, so do you look down on anyone who resolves what to do in segments?

Yup. It's an easy way out of strategizing.

My second example was actually one of experimenting anyway.

When I said experiment, I meant that the ultimate chapter attempt must not be segmented. You can experiment to discover the unsegmented chapter strategy.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Chiki

[Irysa]

Yup. It's an easy way out of strategizing.

I wouldn't say it's an "easy way out of strategizing", one still must employ strategy to succeed in DSFE with savepoints, unless you are just rigging misses. It certainly makes it easier and more conveient to play, but it's more than slightly arrogant to state that anyone who has used a map savepoint in FE11 or 12 clearly wasn't using good strategy.

When I said experiment, I meant that the ultimate chapter attempt must not be segmented. You can experiment to discover the unsegmented chapter strategy.

What difference does this REALLY make if the exact same actions are being preformed on the opening turns though? That's exactly why it is a time saver. At this point all we're giving credit to is your ability to either memorise what to do on each turn or your ability to read a list of actions off a sheet you wrote up. It looks nice and complete for recordings but otherwise that's a weird thing to hold up to a high standard whilst claiming it's more "strategic". This isn't really about rigging survival or anything either. If I experiment, and discover the magic tile that someone needs to be on to make the AI behave the way I want, and I restart the map, do all the same moves up till then, then place my unit on the magic tile again, and it is consistent, what has actually changed from doing it unsegmented?

I would concede that if you can actually plan everything out explictly in your head beacuse you know exactly how everything will play out without doing it that you are a far more knowledgable player and more skilled, but I would not say that one's strategy is inherantly "bad" because they have discovered it or executed it in a different manner.

Again, bear in mind I'm not advocating "let me just savestate in case I make a mistake" here.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Irysa

[Chiki]

It certainly makes it easier and more conveient to play, but it's more than slightly arrogant to state that anyone who has used a map savepoint in FE11 or 12 clearly wasn't using good strategy.

Not what I'm trying to say. We're talking about player skills, not strategy quality. There's a huge difference. See below:

I would concede that if you can actually plan everything out explictly in your head beacuse you know exactly how everything will play out without doing it that you are a far more knowledgable player and more skilled,

I think it's a proof of skill if someone can do the latter and not the former.

You can make a good strategy with save state abuse, or ingame saving, but that doesn't mean you're as good as players who can do so without. If you can make good strategies with ingame saving, then you can still be a good player, but not nearly as good as someone who can plan out an entire chapter in their head.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Chiki

[Beelzebub]

I might keep one to save me from my own idiocy. Like attacking the wrong enemy by accident. Truly there is no worse feeling.

[Irysa]

Not what I'm trying to say. We're talking about player skills, not strategy quality. There's a huge difference. See below:

I think it's a proof of skill if someone can do the latter and not the former.

You can make a good strategy with save state abuse, or ingame saving, but that doesn't mean you're as good as players who can do so without. If you can make good strategies with ingame saving, then you can still be a good player, but not nearly as good as someone who can plan out an entire chapter in their head.

Making a statement such as "I look down upon people who use save points beacuse I think they are an easy way out of strategising" heavily implies that you think that there is an inherant lack of strategy at hand if someone is using them, even if they aren't relying on rigging anything. Especially when you say things like

Most players admitting they abuse save states. What a sad day for strategy.

Which also implies you think that the two are mutually exclusive. But whatever, I'm not going to push it since we appear mostly in agreement with the fact that a strategy that is a good strategy is good, regardless of the methods used to reach that point; but that the less "help" needed, the more knowledgeable and skilled the player is.

However, this does not address what I was saying before about the comparison of time saving. Why do you think that it's okay to use them to experiment, yet insist the final run must be complete by itself? What ultimate difference does it make if someone figures out what has to be done on a particular turn via some trial and error through saving, attempting some ideas and coming to the correct conclusion, than doing the same thing, but then redoing it every single time up to that point before you achieve success? Your statements about this had nothing to do with player skill, and just seem to be some kind of arbitary clause you want to uphold.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Irysa

[Chiki]

Making a statement such as "I look down upon people who use save points beacuse I think they are an easy way out of strategising" heavily implies that you think that there is an inherant lack of strategy at hand if someone is using them

It absolutely doesn't logically imply that. It's an easier way of making a strategy (you use your brain a lot less). There's an inherent lack of brain power in that. That doesn't mean the strategy is any worse. In fact it's completely irrational to suggest so. Since it's easier to make strategies with save states, assuming I made a strategy with save states and a strategy without save states, my strategy with save states would be better than the strategy without save states. What I look down on is the process, not the result.

However, this does not address what I was saying before about the comparison of time saving. Why do you think that it's okay to use them to experiment, yet insist the final run must be complete by itself?

Because it doesn't take much brain power to come up with a segmented attempt, in which moves are not all planned for the whole chapter, but it takes a lot more to come up with a final, with every move planned, attempt.

[Irysa]

It absolutely doesn't logically imply that. It's an easier way of making a strategy (you use your brain a lot less). There's an inherent lack of brain power in that. That doesn't mean the strategy is any worse. In fact it's completely irrational to suggest so. Since it's easier to make strategies with save states, assuming I made a strategy with save states and a strategy without save states, my strategy with save states would be better than the strategy without save states. What I look down on is the process, not the result.

I don't have beef with that. In fact, I agree, the strategy that didn't use them required more skill. My issue was with your phrasing, and I'm not going to push on pedantry with words.

Because it doesn't take much brain power to come up with a segmented attempt, in which moves are not all planned for the whole chapter, but it takes a lot more to come up with a final, with every move planned, attempt.

So if I write down every move I did in the right order from a segmented run, then do the whole thing following the script I wrote, that's supposed to be "better"? Memorising all the moves isn't skill, it's just memorisation. Skill is applying knowledge, memorisation is just executing or regurgitating knowledge. Is that to say I don't think the musician who can play without his sheet music isn't impressive? Not at all, but I also don't see why you think that applying that to someone playing a single player strategy game is something that should be upheld.

I'm not debating the relative "value" of someone who successfully created a strategy for the entire chapter by themself without saves compared to someone who didn't. We're already in agreement. I'm asking why you seem to think that - given you agree that you can make a good strategy that way - if someone who is playing by themself saves after the opening turns to experiment with possible further moves whilst thinking about what to do, and then successfully achieves their goal, why you think they should restart the map and repeat all the same moves to get to where they were again? The entire point from the "time saving" angle is that the convenience of the save means you don't have to repeatedly restart in order to experiment, and once you have, what is the point in restarting when you already know exactly what you're going to do? Beyond "I want to record it" I don't really see why it matters.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Irysa

[Jedi]

I doubt you have the ability in real life to restart the battle either because you lost one unit.I think people have for a long time discussed their issues with ambush spawning.

I know other things in the series aren't "realistic" I'm just say in the moment something is more so, people tend to complain. People hate the fatigue mechanic too from what I've seen in more recent Thracia players.

Because the goal isn't to defeat the player.It's a game. To make it fun.There is a big difference between "strategy" and actual strategy that people find fun.Just take a look at Pokemon.

You bring up a very valid point I agree with. Maybe I've just played too many games where the games goal *was* to beat you into the ground. I.E Ninja Gaiden, Battletoads etc. (I love games of all difficulties but yeah I've played some mean ones)

Are we really going to argue about how accurate Fire Emblem is as a strategy game because there are plenty of things that don't make sense. For instance, why would we have some of our troops not fight, and not for resting reasons obviously. Maybe those unused troops could be the ones watching for these reinforcements we should be expecting?

I have no issues with how fe is. I was merely explaining how I see the ambush spawning

You are also not going to know what weapons and skills individual soldiers have and yet the game makes these informations available. Also, how come enemies never get the first turn even in ambush scenarios where they should have the initiative? "Real life" does not make for good gameplay. Especially when that means that the game is randomly killing you.

And that's exactly what this is. Warning or not, it always ends in a gamble since there are way too many unknown variables to deal with. You might as well put instant-kill tiles on the map. Just knowing that they exist won't help.

Because of this bullshit mechanic, it's good that FE12 had save points. Under these circumstances, I made extensive use of them. But save scumming to victory is no fun either, so I probably simply won't play that game again. It's a shame too since this game got the proper overhaul that Shadow Dragon was missing.

I could argue you had spys and scouting done in this case though, you usually also have a character who knows your new recruit able who in normal circumstances if they saw them would tell their commander what they were capable of and their traditional weapons. But this is fe and not real life. I wasn't trying to draw that much a parallel and cause an upset

I apologize to all of you.

Difficulty is always very subjective. What some individual might enjoy, others might not and vice versa.

Trial and error is, to a degree, present in most strategy games and RPGs in general. It might not be for everyone, but the absence of it would impact any given game massively (and for better of for worse is dictated by the preferences of the person playing).

Still, I find myself cringing massively when people encounter even the slightest bit of difficulty which they do not find "fun" or "entertaining" and deem it as outright bad gameplay design. It isn't always the game design, consider that the fault can be the player's.

This I feel the very same way with.

[Chiki]

My issue was with your phrasing, and I'm not going to push on pedantry with words.

There was no issue with my phrasing, though (I notice that people tend to mistakenly twist the things I say and victimize themselves or others and make me look like an ass. You're not doing the latter, but you are certainly misunderstanding what I'm trying to say). Logically, none of the things you alleged that I said followed from any of the things I said I explained why in previous posts.

Memorising all the moves isn't skill, it's just memorisation.

if someone who is playing by themself saves after the opening turns to experiment with possible further moves whilst thinking about what to do, and then successfully achieves their goal, why you think they should restart the map and repeat all the same moves to get to where they were again?

It's not just memorization. When you use save states, luck isn't nearly as big of an issue, so you can risk using certain moves that you otherwise could not have in a full chapter attempt. There's going to be more subtleties involved in a full chapter attempt which try to avoid the luck problem, which means that it takes more thinking, and depending on the chapter, it could take a lot more thinking.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Chiki

[Quintessence]

Chiki, I think what you're referring to is effort. A player that has its strategy well planned and excecutes it with savestates, is not necessarily a player improvising and just trying different moves in a segmented part of the whole chapter. And it doesn't give more merit to a player that did it without save states. The important part is effort, one excecutes it "cleanly" without saves and the other one excecutes it without the need of restarting the whole chapter. If the strategy is well done and is consistent enough to clear a chapter, then the only issue with it failing is the RNG aspect, while one of the players just needs to restart from the previous state, the other one needs to restart the entire chapter. This just means one needs to deal with the chapter with much more effort than the other. This has nothing to do with skill or whether who is a better player than other. Skill is better measured by the quality of a strategy and whether a player finds out different ways to clear a chapter, for example.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Quintessence

[Irysa]

That is different to the example I was proposing, but it is an effective one nonetheless.

It's not just memorization. When you use save states, luck isn't nearly as big of an issue, so you can risk using certain moves that you otherwise could not have in a full chapter attempt. There's going to be more subtleties involved in a full chapter attempt which try to avoid the luck problem, which means that it takes more thinking, and depending on the chapter, it could take a lot more thinking.

My argument has nothing to do with luck or any thought processes required at all. I'm asking why you think the execution part is important enough to the point that you should always restart and do the whole chapter in one sitting.

Given you think it's okay (but less skilled) to utilise saves to experiment with enemy behaviour in order to formulate a better strategy, why should someone who has experimented and successfully deduced a good plan of action promptly restart the map and simply do the exact same things that lead to the exact same scenario? You can argue that they may be less skilled because of how they reached their conclusion, but how can they be worse players for simply not spending an extra minute or two moving units around following a checklist?

Edited July 4, 2014 by Irysa

[Xander]

If the game has save states built in like RD NM I'll use them, but if I'm playing, say, Sacred Stones I won't.

[Knight]

No, because generally I play on physical copies and if the RNG's "screwed me over" I just blame myself for not accommodating for chances. I imagine if I was an LTC player, I would probably, but I'm not.

[Rehab]

Because the goal isn't to defeat the player.

It's a game. To make it fun.

There is a big difference between "strategy" and actual strategy that people find fun.

Just take a look at Pokemon.

There are a ton of games that beat the player down harshly enough for mistakes, or even acts of fate, that one could get the idea the game itself expects the player to fail at their goals sometimes. Where the attitude somehow feels to me like, "Yeah, maybe your pairing plans just got ruined, you have a weaker flank to take into account this chapter, and one of your friends just died. What are you gonna do about it, scrub?"

The solutions/preventive methods to deal with those situations might feel "gamey" sometimes, but maybe it's just the sort of game that actually wants you to play like that.

Not to say that's what all games should strive for, but I get a little wary when I hear people say something like "this is strategy, and this is just bullshit," when the challenge being presented by the game can still be met. It takes all kinds to create "fun."

[Ownagepuffs]

You can really only make a strategy for the entire map if you have intimate knowledge of the map. If you're doing a challenge run of sorts that requires you to have in depth knowledge of the game then yes that's when full map strategies are possible. By that point you know enemy spawns, enemy AI, enemy reinforcement locations, etc. But without prior knowledge of a map you are just playing it turn by turn until victory is achieved, so what exactly is the problem with planning out your strategy turn by turn?

[Loki Laufeyson]

Let me remind you you're much more of a prat than I am:

I've never been that much of a prick to anyone.

Ive also had enough stones to apologize to the person that was directed at in private. And ooohohoooh yes you have. You have never ever owned up to being an asshole. You never apologize for your behavior. You also think you are objectively correct when in truth, all im seeing is BS. Let me remind you that people on this forum barely tolerate you.

You're doing it again. You're being overly sensitive and twisting what I say to make yourself look like a victim. I don't care how you play, and I know it doesn't hurt anyone. Doesn't mean I can't judge you as a bad player. I'm just being perfectly honest.

The dickishness of this post is off the goddamn charts.

Calling people bad players for simply using an emulation option. Yeah im such a cunt compared to you...obviously.

The thing is, it really shouldn't matter to you how other people play the game. It's single player, and it's not hurting anyone, so live and let live.

Apparently its hurting Chiki because he has to make himself look oh so superior.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Loki Laufeyson

[Tryhard]

Whenever I press Shift + F1, Chiki slaps me across the internet. It's quite impressive, really.

It shouldn't even matter.

Edited July 5, 2014 by Tryhard