The end of the ranking system?

[Glitchy]

I don't really care about rankings, but my tactics score is always 1 star or 2 stars. Am I really that terrible of a tactician? My other scores are like 4 or 5.

[Florete]

But completing it the normal way and keep everyone alive would be more worthwile.

More worthwhile how? For whom?

It doesn't make it wrong just because it doesn't "feel right" to you.

[The Geek]

The ranking system does add a challenge for those who are interested in that sort of thing, but is ultimately superfluous as most players are just content to play their way. I don't really care if it stays or goes. Then again, I've only finished 3 FE games that have ranking systems, one of which (FE4) has a glitched ending.

[Tamanoir]

I don't really care about rankings, but my tactics score is always 1 star or 2 stars. Am I really that terrible of a tactician? My other scores are like 4 or 5.

No, it just means you take your time to complete every level.

Just because I'm curious are you Arena Abusing, since it's the typical profile of someone using them.

More worthwhile how? For whom?

It doesn't make it wrong just because it doesn't "feel right" to you.

I shouldn't have used this expression, I agree.

Warpskip is just totally opposed to my idea of fun.

I think it lack a sense of completion to me, and just sounds boring.

I think my question was more : Which shows the most "skill". LTCing the normal way shows lots of skill, but I still feel like LTCing with Warpskip is somewhat removing part of the challenge that LTC represented.

Implying there is a right and wrong way is obviously wrong.

For example, in a stealth game, is the better player the one who brute forced their way through the game with combat, or is it the one who was never seen?

No, but the example isn't quite fitting.

In a stealth game, the express goal is to never be seen.

Maybe a better comaprison would be between the one who just complete the level, and the one who discreetly kill all the ennemy in the scene. It would be more complete, but quite superficial.

In the end, it all depends of what you're expecting out of the game.

Fire Emblem is open enough that you may play it as you wish.

I guess I'm gonna change my answer to the topic actually.

Im being more and more persuaded with time passing than trying to create any kind of ranking for FE is pretty superficial.

So I guess I'm glad this one have disappeared but would have wished none would have replaced it (though thsi is a pretty normal thing to do.)

[Glitchy]

Well that explains it. I like to spend turns grinding supports. I don't arena abuse, I'm actually scared of even entering the arena.

[Quintessence]

Tamanoir, the discussion has been torn into personal taste rather than comparing the skill level of one player or another. On your ltc example, ltcing the normal way shows a lot of skill, that's ok, but warpskipping is a legit way of ltcing and imo shows a further level of skill than someone ltcing the 'normal way'.

Example of this is chapter (i don't remember) Valorous Roland in Eliwood Mode when Eliwood promotes and faces the Berserker boss. Player A might play the 'normal' way and rush through the enemies and chokepoints, getting more experience, items, weapon level, and spending 6, 7, 8 (?) turns. But Player B prefers having a rescue/warp magic unit and Rescue Eliwood in a specific tile, gettinf refreshed by Nils, Warp Eliwood near the boss and beat the chapter in 2 or 3 turns. Who shows more skill? Player B, because he came up with the optimal alternative. Both have skill but warpskipping is the better option in ltc context. Whether it feels right/cheating to people is another thing.

[Tamanoir]

Tamanoir, the discussion has been torn into personal taste rather than comparing the skill level of one player or another. On your ltc example, ltcing the normal way shows a lot of skill, that's ok, but warpskipping is a legit way of ltcing and imo shows a further level of skill than someone ltcing the 'normal way'.

Example of this is chapter (i don't remember) Valorous Roland in Eliwood Mode when Eliwood promotes and faces the Berserker boss. Player A might play the 'normal' way and rush through the enemies and chokepoints, getting more experience, items, weapon level, and spending 6, 7, 8 (?) turns. But Player B prefers having a rescue/warp magic unit and Rescue Eliwood in a specific tile, gettinf refreshed by Nils, Warp Eliwood near the boss and beat the chapter in 2 or 3 turns. Who shows more skill? Player B, because he came up with the optimal alternative. Both have skill but warpskipping is the better option in ltc context. Whether it feels right/cheating to people is another thing.

I realized the problem is that "Skill" is a term too ambiguous.

And yeah, I'm a little obsessed with full completion, instead of just finishing the chapter (which is the only truly important chapter, after all.)

Person B clearly have a better understanding how the game works, and know the best ways to optimize the chapter.

They are more clever than Person A. Their "Skill" is their "Smart".

Person A (considering both A and B have the same level of FE knowledge) will prefer to do it the "normal" way, because he sees an advantage on his Ranking, and thinks it's worth losing a few turn here (at least on the Exp Front. You can also get a few funds thanks to the drops.).

I won't say they have less skill, but a different knd of one that shows different priorities.

In the FE7 Ranking system, A and B would end with a quite similar note (while B have the best Tactics, while A will have a few point more in the others Ranks.)

If I let my personal taste asides, the ones knowing when to use A or B would be the best (Since I think in an efficient playthrough, you won't always use only one method, but decide wether it's best to Warpskip or takes the whole route.) .

And since neither could Warp before (so both played sensibly the same way), B would have the uper hand in this situation, since they have played well enough until now that they don't need to take the whole route here.