I like Fates more than Three Houses

[Gregster101]

3 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

I've played and completed all three routes of Fates. I have only completed one route of Three Houses so far, so I cannot really compare them in terms of quality. 

However, I will say about Fates, it is very much a product of the 3DS era. It came right after Awakening: the game that saved the franchise through good marketing and being a 3DS game in 2012/2013, and playing Fates felt less like playing a game, and more like playing through an experiment: one in which, whatever gameplay mechanic came to mind, they just threw it in to see what worked and what didn't, and what would resonate with their customers most after the huge influx of new fans.

I hear a lot of people say that Conquest has some of the best gameplay in FE, but I don't see it; for me, the gameplay in all three routes of Fates is bogged down by a heavy reliance on experimental gimmicks, all placed on top of Awakening's foundation. There's a reason it was marketed gameplay-wise as Birthright being like Awakening and Conquest being like the old FE games. And yet, because Conquest is built on top of Awakening, I don't think it succeeds in that regard. It also leans heavily on thrown-in gimmicks and it mistakes complexity for depth. Every aspect of Fates' gameplay, except maybe for shuriken, feels ill-considered and thrown-in, and it's hard for me to enjoy a game that doesn't feel like it's following a clear purpose/intention. 

 

Playing Three Houses so far has been a lot like playing through Breath of the Wild for me: the game does not feel great overall when playing through it for a large stretch of time, but every now and then, there's those moments of almost-perfection where everything works together and the game feels utterly fantastic to play through. The gameplay feels completely overhauled, as if sitting on a brand new foundation. It's isn't "like Awakening", nor is it "like the old FE games", and everything within it feels likes it's there as part of a particular goal, rather than just thrown in; even the unnecessary fishing mini-game, which I would normally dismiss as thrown in because it's in every RPG, does feel like it has a reason for existing in Three Houses. Nothing feels thrown in, except maybe for the adjutant system.  Like with Breath of the Wild, I think that what Three Houses does best, is lay the foundation for new FE games to come; I could see a sequel building on top of what's been set with Three Houses and making a truly great game. 

 

Does that make sense? 

Yeah, that sounds about right. Kind of makes me excited about how future FE games build upon Three Houses' foundation. Likewise with Breath of the Wild 2

[vanguard333]

1 minute ago, Gregster101 said:

Yeah, that sounds about right. Kind of makes me excited about how future FE games build upon Three Houses' foundation. Likewise with Breath of the Wild 2

Yeah; I look forward to seeing what they do with Three Houses' foundation. I'm personally hoping for something that leans more heavily into the war aspect of FE; that way, they can keep some of the academy stuff by reworking it under a military context. 

I agree as well about Breath of the Wild 2. We may only have gotten the one reveal trailer, but it certainly looks like the game's going to be to BOTW what Majora's Mask was to Ocarina of Time. 

What did you think of my points about Fates?

[Florete]

3 hours ago, ciphertul said:

This whole thread is about enjoyment

Maybe, but it's definitely not about whining about hit rates and being nicer to the game that you were luckier in, especially when (to my knowledge) we don't fully know how the RNG actually works in either game.

If you dislike Fates because you had a bad experience with it, regardless of how it happened, fine. But if you act like it is specifically the fault of Fates that you got unlucky with supposedly high hit rates, that's dishonest, and that's why people are going against you on that.

[Gregster101]

1 hour ago, vanguard333 said:

Yeah; I look forward to seeing what they do with Three Houses' foundation. I'm personally hoping for something that leans more heavily into the war aspect of FE; that way, they can keep some of the academy stuff by reworking it under a military context. 

I agree as well about Breath of the Wild 2. We may only have gotten the one reveal trailer, but it certainly looks like the game's going to be to BOTW what Majora's Mask was to Ocarina of Time. 

What did you think of my points about Fates?

Your points about Fates were very accurate. I can't find it in me to enjoy even Conquest cuz it's bogged down by stupid map gimmicks in the second half.

[ciphertul]

28 minutes ago, Florete said:

Maybe, but it's definitely not about whining about hit rates and being nicer to the game that you were luckier in, especially when (to my knowledge) we don't fully know how the RNG actually works in either game.

If you dislike Fates because you had a bad experience with it, regardless of how it happened, fine. But if you act like it is specifically the fault of Fates that you got unlucky with supposedly high hit rates, that's dishonest, and that's why people are going against you on that.

No other FE has had the same frequency of those failures. How is stating my honest opinion dishonest? If people think this is just whining then why do they keep trying to argue me? Like I told Sid(in a PM) while Fates isn’t my favorite FE I’m not shittalking it for fun. Do you find constantly failing enjoyable or fun? I find zero issue with judging Fates on my experience of Fates. If the same thing happened to me on the other, maybe, this would be less of a problem. However I do not find failing over and over, a dishonest or unreasonable reason to lower my feeling of a game.

[Ottservia]

13 minutes ago, ciphertul said:

No other FE has had the same frequency of those failures. How is stating my honest opinion dishonest? If people think this is just whining then why do they keep trying to argue me? Like I told Sid(in a PM) while Fates isn’t my favorite FE I’m not shittalking it for fun. Do you find constantly failing enjoyable or fun? I find zero issue with judging Fates on my experience of Fates. If the same thing happened to me on the other, maybe, this would be less of a problem. However I do not find failing over and over, a dishonest or unreasonable reason to lower my feeling of a game.

Yeah but that’s not the game’s fault. It’s not right to objectively criticize a game based on very personal experiences like that

[ciphertul]

Just now, Ottservia said:

Yeah but that’s not the game’s fault. It’s not right to objectively criticize a game based on very personal experiences like that

Then how am I supposed to have views on it? If my own gameplay experience isn’t right to go off of. Then what do I use your experience? Maybe the OPs?

[Florete]

14 minutes ago, ciphertul said:

No other FE has had the same frequency of those failures. How is stating my honest opinion dishonest? If people think this is just whining then why do they keep trying to argue me? Like I told Sid(in a PM) while Fates isn’t my favorite FE I’m not shittalking it for fun. Do you find constantly failing enjoyable or fun? I find zero issue with judging Fates on my experience of Fates. If the same thing happened to me on the other, maybe, this would be less of a problem. However I do not find failing over and over, a dishonest or unreasonable reason to lower my feeling of a game.

Did you read what I said? Let me quote a relevant part for you:

"If you dislike Fates because you had a bad experience with it, regardless of how it happened, fine."

You can dislike it because of what happened to you in it, but that's not where you're stopping. You're trying to make an objective criticism based on a subjective experience, and when people call you out on it, you hide behind "opinion."

18 minutes ago, ciphertul said:

No other FE has had the same frequency of those failures.

Clearly you've never played Thracia, or pre-GBA at all.

[ciphertul]

8 minutes ago, Florete said:

You can dislike it because of what happened to you in it, but that's not where you're stopping. You're trying to make an objective criticism based on a subjective experience, and when people call you out on it, you hide behind "opinion."

I’m not stopping because people keep trying to change my mind, after my apologies I truly meant to go no farther on this. But then the “you’re  wrong” sent at me and when people are attacking(this is how I see this) me, would you just give up on your opinions like you never really believed them anyways? If you or anyone else thinks my thoughts are unwarranted or unjust then they can simply ignore them.

 

8 minutes ago, Florete said:

Clearly you've never played Thracia, or pre-GBA at all.

 No I haven’t played any Non-official released FEs

Edited February 21, 2020 by ciphertul

[Florete]

4 minutes ago, ciphertul said:

I’m not stopping because people keep trying to change my mind, after my apologies I truly meant to go no farther on this. But then the “you’re  wrong” sent at me and when people are attacking(this is how I see this) me, would you just give up on your opinions like you never really believed them anyways? If you or anyone else thinks my thoughts are unwarranted or unjust then they can simply ignore them.

Multiple people had issues with the way you went about what you said, something that largely didn't happen with anyone else in this topic. Maybe you could attempt to understand why.

5 minutes ago, ciphertul said:

No I haven’t played any Non-official released FEs

Then you shouldn't make such a claim.

Also, it's extremely likely that Awakening, Fates, and Echoes all use the same RNG. They're all in the same engine and it's unlikely the devs would have gone in to change how the RNG works.

[ciphertul]

4 minutes ago, Florete said:

Maybe you could attempt to understand why.

Pot meet kettle.while you might have read my post, did you actually understand what I meant?

 

5 minutes ago, Florete said:

Then you shouldn't make such a claim.

Okay, again so I can’t have opinions on the things I do know... great to know!

You know, really, I’m so happy that everyone can come together to tell me my opinions are wrong and don’t matter. So let me recap... my views are wrong, my experience with the games don’t matter and they can’t be used as reasoning to dislike them, and finally stating my feeling and having strong enough feels to defend them makes me an issue... did I forget anything?

[Flere210]

1 hour ago, vanguard333 said:

I've played and completed all three routes of Fates. I have only completed one route of Three Houses so far, so I cannot really compare them in terms of quality. 

However, I will say about Fates, it is very much a product of the 3DS era. It came right after Awakening: the game that saved the franchise through good marketing and being a 3DS game in 2012/2013, and playing Fates felt less like playing a game, and more like playing through an experiment: one in which, whatever gameplay mechanic came to mind, they just threw it in to see what worked and what didn't, and what would resonate with their customers most after the huge influx of new fans.

I hear a lot of people say that Conquest has some of the best gameplay in FE, but I don't see it; for me, the gameplay in all three routes of Fates is bogged down by a heavy reliance on experimental gimmicks, all placed on top of Awakening's foundation. There's a reason it was marketed gameplay-wise as Birthright being like Awakening and Conquest being like the old FE games. And yet, because Conquest is built on top of Awakening, I don't think it succeeds in that regard. It also leans heavily on thrown-in gimmicks and it mistakes complexity for depth. Every aspect of Fates' gameplay, except maybe for shuriken, feels ill-considered and thrown-in, and it's hard for me to enjoy a game that doesn't feel like it's following a clear purpose/intention. 

 

Playing Three Houses so far has been a lot like playing through Breath of the Wild for me: the game does not feel great overall when playing through it for a large stretch of time, but every now and then, there's those moments of almost-perfection where everything works together and the game feels utterly fantastic to play through. The gameplay feels completely overhauled, as if sitting on a brand new foundation. It's isn't "like Awakening", nor is it "like the old FE games", and everything within it feels likes it's there as part of a particular goal, rather than just thrown in; even the unnecessary fishing mini-game, which I would normally dismiss as thrown in because it's in every RPG, does feel like it has a reason for existing in Three Houses. Nothing feels thrown in, except maybe for the adjutant system.  Like with Breath of the Wild, I think that what Three Houses does best, is lay the foundation for new FE games to come; I could see a sequel building on top of what's been set with Three Houses and making a truly great game. 

 

Does that make sense? 

To me is the complete opposite: 

For starter, i think the worst thing that can happen in a strategy game is a surefire strategy that can be executed regardless of the map. If that exist, the game failed as a strategy game. For example, FFT games may be fun as rpg but utterly fails at strategy games because eventually devolve into exploiting broken skills to autowin any fight. 

For example, many BL map can be beaten by doing stride-warp-dance-warp-atrocity on the boss, wich mean you don't have to interact whit the map and the enemies at all(you lose exp, but BL maddening has been done at 0% growth, so it's not a tragedy). Gimmicks are cheap ways to make you interact whit a map but at least you have to do that, wich put even the worst of them one step above maps that can be beaten whit a surefire strat. 

I would say that conquest does not feel like an older game because it overcome what brought down those games. There is no Sigurd/Titania/Seth. There are not warp staves that allow you to skip the harder fights, there is a solitary op 1-2 weapon, and even whit that things like ninja make sure you can't just Juggernaut in enemy phase. Knights and archers where not shit. Stats where more fixable but rarely to the point you can make a god by feeding enought resources on them.  While not all characters were equal, there was no one that ended up being worthless.

Conquest stroke at some core problems of the series and tried to do something about it. Imo mostly succeding, but also pushing older player in a new, uncomfortable territory. Most of the traditionally good strategies just does not work in Conquest, you either adapt or ragequit. And adapt or ragequit for me is the base of a good strategy game.

Three houses is a true successor of Awakening, in that it brought back a broken, FFTesque, design philosophy. You went from having 12 warps in a game to have 4 per map. They addressed the power of WL by making it even stronger and allowing everyone to be one. They massively overcompensated from bow weaknesses ti the point is the unquestionably best weapon in the game. They brought back a map design mostly made of kill boss maps wich open up so many ways to clear those in an instant. And in general they made the actual fighting to be a relatively small part in a game that is mostly about doing SoL stuff in the castle.

Yes it has a clear direction, but that direction is to emphasize the RPG elements so much that the game is more about minmaxing stats than about tactical moves.

[vanguard333]

25 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

To me is the complete opposite: 

For starter, i think the worst thing that can happen in a strategy game is a surefire strategy that can be executed regardless of the map. If that exist, the game failed as a strategy game. For example, FFT games may be fun as rpg but utterly fails at strategy games because eventually devolve into exploiting broken skills to autowin any fight. 

For example, many BL map can be beaten by doing stride-warp-dance-warp-atrocity on the boss, wich mean you don't have to interact whit the map and the enemies at all(you lose exp, but BL maddening has been done at 0% growth, so it's not a tragedy). Gimmicks are cheap ways to make you interact whit a map but at least you have to do that, wich put even the worst of them one step above maps that can be beaten whit a surefire strat. 

I would say that conquest does not feel like an older game because it overcome what brought down those games. There is no Sigurd/Titania/Seth. There are not warp staves that allow you to skip the harder fights, there is a solitary op 1-2 weapon, and even whit that things like ninja make sure you can't just Juggernaut in enemy phase. Knights and archers where not shit. Stats where more fixable but rarely to the point you can make a god by feeding enought resources on them.  While not all characters were equal, there was no one that ended up being worthless.

Conquest stroke at some core problems of the series and tried to do something about it. Imo mostly succeding, but also pushing older player in a new, uncomfortable territory. Most of the traditionally good strategies just does not work in Conquest, you either adapt or ragequit. And adapt or ragequit for me is the base of a good strategy game.

Three houses is a true successor of Awakening, in that it brought back a broken, FFTesque, design philosophy. You went from having 12 warps in a game to have 4 per map. They addressed the power of WL by making it even stronger and allowing everyone to be one. They massively overcompensated from bow weaknesses ti the point is the unquestionably best weapon in the game. They brought back a map design mostly made of kill boss maps wich open up so many ways to clear those in an instant. And in general they made the actual fighting to be a relatively small part in a game that is mostly about doing SoL stuff in the castle.

Yes it has a clear direction, but that direction is to emphasize the RPG elements so much that the game is more about minmaxing stats than about tactical moves.

Okay. Just wondering; you say, "To me, it is the complete opposite", yet, as far as I can tell, none of your points seem to be in response to any of my points. How exactly is your view "the complete opposite" of what I said? Could you please clarify? Your points are clear, but how they're the opposite of mine isn't. 

[Flere210]

24 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

Okay. Just wondering; you say, "To me, it is the complete opposite", yet, as far as I can tell, none of your points seem to be in response to any of my points. How exactly is your view "the complete opposite" of what I said? Could you please clarify? Your points are clear, but how they're the opposite of mine isn't. 

That Fates tried to go past the traditional problem of the series while Three houses was built upon the concepts introduced on awakening(in particular, a grester focus on reclassing and character building over strategy). A similar engine can produce wildly different games. It's like how Fallout 3 is closer to Fallout 4 than fallout NV, wich in turn try to build upon FO2. And this despite FO 4 having a completely different engine than FO3 and NV recycling a lot from it.

[starburst]

1 hour ago, vanguard333 said:

I've played and completed all three routes of Fates. I have only completed one route of Three Houses so far, so I cannot really compare them in terms of quality. 

Why not? Why would you need to play every route to be able to express a valid opinion? This is not against you, you simply brought it up. I am against those who say that he who only played, say, twenty hours of a game cannot express a valid opinion because it takes eighty hours to complete a campaign. Come on! If I invested ten, twenty hours on a game and I did not like it, my opinion is not going to change just by keeping on playing it. My time, everybody's time, is worth something.

For example, while I cannot properly assess Birthright or Revelation's stories because I only played like fifteen or so chapters, I can surely tell you why I disliked their gameplay and why Conquest is way more engaging in that department. I can also assess their soundtracks, their character designs, their overall presentation... This would not change if I kept on playing till the end.
I have only played Blue Lions, and I have no intention of playing the other routes, ever. One, because the gameplay is equal and most maps are reused; two, because I dislike various characters in other houses. Granted, I will never be able to properly asses the overall history of Three Houses, but I can surely tell you that its gameplay bored me.
I might try the new DLC maps, though, for I liked Constance's design and Hapi's supports and voice acting.

 

1 hour ago, vanguard333 said:

I hear a lot of people say that Conquest has some of the best gameplay in FE, but I don't see it; for me, the gameplay in all three routes of Fates is bogged down by a heavy reliance on experimental gimmicks, all placed on top of Awakening's foundation. There's a reason it was marketed gameplay-wise as Birthright being like Awakening and Conquest being like the old FE games. And yet, because Conquest is built on top of Awakening, I don't think it succeeds in that regard. It also leans heavily on thrown-in gimmicks and it mistakes complexity for depth. Every aspect of Fates' gameplay, except maybe for shuriken, feels ill-considered and thrown-in, and it's hard for me to enjoy a game that doesn't feel like it's following a clear purpose/intention.

I would like to know these "experimental gimmicks" that you mention in Conquest. On many instances, Conquest plays like a puzzle, but it is not complex just because. If Fire Emblem is a tactical game, Conquest is easily more accomplished than Awakening or Birthright or Three Houses. It may be a worse game overall, but its gameplay is more polished.
Anyway, we should probably continue this conversation on the Fates board, for I do not want to clog this thread.

[vanguard333]

Just now, starburst said:

Why not? Why would you need to play every route to be able to express a valid opinion? This is not against you, you simply brought it up. I am against those who say that he who only played, say, twenty hours of a game cannot express a valid opinion because it takes eighty hours to complete a campaign. Come on! If I invested ten, twenty hours on a game and I did not like it, my opinion is not going to change just by keeping on playing it. My time, everybody's time, is worth something.

I guess it's not so much that I can't, so much as I do not think it would be fair of me to directly compare Fates as a whole with Three Houses as a whole when I have played through all of Fates but not all of Three Houses, especially when I do fully intend to play through all of Three Houses. If I were to directly compare them in terms of quality, I could, but only with caveats. 

 

36 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

That Fates tried to go past the traditional problem of the series while Three houses was built upon the concepts introduced on awakening(in particular, a greater focus on reclassing and character building over strategy). A similar engine can produce wildly different games. It's like how Fallout 3 is closer to Fallout 4 than fallout NV, which in turn try to build upon FO2. And this despite FO 4 having a completely different engine than FO3 and NV recycling a lot from it.

1. I never said anything about engines. I said that Fates was a product of when it was made; not what engine was used to make it. 
2. Using Fallout as an example falls apart because Fallout 4 was not built with a new engine; Bethesda has been using the exact same engine for all their games for the last 20 years and it is massively out-of-date. They copy-paste from their old games all the time, and so lazily that parts of their code refers to assets from past games.

[Flere210]

1 minute ago, vanguard333 said:

I guess it's not so much that I can't, so much as I do not think it would be fair of me to directly compare Fates as a whole with Three Houses as a whole when I have played through all of Fates but not all of Three Houses, especially when I do fully intend to play through all of Three Houses. If I were to directly compare them in terms of quality, I could, but only with caveats. 

 

1. I never said anything about engines. I said that Fates was a product of when it was made; not what engine was used to make it. 
2. Using Fallout as an example falls apart because Fallout 4 was not built with a new engine; Bethesda has been using the exact same engine for all their games for the last 20 years and it is massively out-of-date. They copy-paste from their old games all the time, and so lazily that parts of their code refers to assets from past games.

1) i admit i was using engine improperly. What i mean is that fates clearly reuse many things from awakening and it's clear that they were cut from the same cloth. But in conquest those things where used in a very different way.

2) again improper use. Still, at first glance is clear that FO 4 changed the gameplay more compared to NV, whit things like removing skills and reputstion, changing the gunplay significantly and so on. 

 

I am sorry for the misconception.

[NekoKnight]

TH's overall quality is hard to pin down because while it's head and shoulders above Fates in the character and (the complete) story department, it's full of tedious gameplay and story pacing decisions that make it much more of a drag to play. With that said, Fates (barring Revelation which is a hot mess in both gameplay and story) could be called a better "game" but TH is hands down a better story.

On 2/19/2020 at 10:38 PM, Etrurian emperor said:

In the end I don't respect Fates nearly as much as I do Three Houses and I'm a lot harsher on its flaws. The reason for this is that so much of what went wrong with Fates doesn't seem to be mistakes but deliberate acts of bad faith. In Fates I often feel that the developers know exactly what they should have done artistically but that they also refuses to do it because other factors took preference.

While I agree with every Fates criticism you wrote, I'd accuse Three Houses as having deliberate acts of bad faith in the way they gut important characterization and story developments in each route to make the other routes more enticing to play. Of the routes I finished (CF and AM), they don't care at all about developing the main characters you aren't backing. They absolutely could have developed them but they chose not to. It's so bad in Azure Moon that one of the bosses who holds a ton of answers about a dropped plotline says "You don't deserve to know about this plotline" when he dies.

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

@ciphertul

Due to there being several mistakes in my first math-attempt, this is an updated version. Since I can´t edit the original post I will ask a mod to delete it.

Since you didn´t specify anything I will assume a max stats SM, on a Gate, with Hagakure Blade equipped. Alternatively, a Sunrise Katana could be assumed, because it too gives 20 Avoid, but much less Might.

Formulas, stat caps, items, weapons etc. can be looked up at the fewiki.org, as well as SF. Units stats are calculated using Fates Average Stats Calculator (easy search through Google)

 

The Max Stats Swordmaster would look like this:

55 HP / 30 STR / 28 MAG / 32 SKL / 35 SPD / 33 LCK / 27 DEF / 31 RES

Paired up with a Master Ninja we get 2 Skill, +4 Def, +1 Mov. Wielding the Hagakure Blade also gives + 1 Spd, -1 Def/Res.

Our SM looks like this:

55 HP / 30 STR / 28 MAG / 34 SKL / 40 SPD / 33 LCK / 26 DEF / 29 RES / 7 MOV

Additional Effects:

Hagakure Blade gives +20 Avoid, and the SM stands on a Conquest chapter 22 style Gate which gives +3Def/+30Avo/20%HP

In total, unless I made some math mistake, his Avoid by stat would be 77 (76.5). Adding Gate and Hagakure that makes for a final 127 Avoid.

The SM has the following skills: Duelist Blow, Vantage, Astra, Swordfaire. When attacking he would therefore have 157 Avoid (that may however imply an aggressive AI, which would allow us to lure him from his Gates which would result in -30 Avoid).

 

I assume a Lv. 20 Benny with average stat growths, reclassed at Lv. 11-15 Wyvern Lord to pick up some skills. His S-Rank with Beruka allows him this and we reclass Beruka for pair-up purposes to Berserker. We will use an Iron Lance, as well as a Brave Lance. 7Might, 80/65 Hit, 0Crit.

Benny’s stats, with all available buffs. (Explanations where does what come from are below)

	HP	STR	MAG	SKL	SPD	LCK	DEF	RES
	51	32	0	32	9	24	41	24
Tonics	/	2	/	2	/	4	2	/
Rallies	/	4	/	4	/	/	4	/
Meal	/	1	/	/	/	/	1	/
Pair-Up	/	5	/	2	3	1	2	/
Skills	/	2	/	/	/	/	2	/
	51	46	0	40	12	29	52	24

 

What the tonics do is self-explanatory. Cooking stats come from a simple +1/+1 STR/DEF Meal, cooked by Benny, therefore it does not add or subtract any stats. Pair up skills are from Beruka: offering +5STR/+3SPD through Berserker and +2SKL/+1LCK/+2DEF from her S-Rank. The rallies we can get from any Lv 5 Berserker, Lv 5 Wyvern Lord and Lv 5 Bow Knight. STR/DEF can also be brought about by Rallyman, at the very least on Lunatic. The skills Benny has are as follows: DEF +2, Natural Cover, Wary Fighter, Pavise, STR +2, Lunge, Rally DEF, Swordbreaker. Underlined Skills will be equipped, the rest is unneeded.

 

Benny´s hitrates are as follows: Weapon Hit + SKL*1.5 + LCK*0.5 + Weapon Rank (A) + WTA

Iron Lance: 80 + 75 (74.5) + 5 +15 = 175 + 50 (Sword Breaker) = 225

Brave Lance: 65 + 75 (74.5) +5 + 15 = 160 + 50 (Sword Breaker) = 210

Assuming we attack the SM on his Gate, we have, due to Bennys PS Fierce Mien, reducing enemy Avoid by -10 within 2 tiles:

225-(127-10) = 108 Hit (100% Hitrate)

210-(127-10) = 93 Hit (93% Hitrate)

and smash him for 46 STR + 7 WPN Might + 2 WPN Rank + 1 WTA = 56 – 29 = 27 DMG with both Iron Lance and Brave Lance (54 DMG).

However, we don´t kill the enemy with either weapon and our Brave Lance isn´t 100% as well, so we must take further measures.

 We therefore put Elise or Camilla right next to the position from where Benny will attack, thereby giving him either +1/-3 or +3/-1 DMG dealt/taken, which lets us 2HKO/1RKO the enemy.

In order for our Brave Lance to succeed 100% of the time, we now put any unit with Heartseeker (any Darkmage above Lv 5: Odin, Nyx, Leo, Ophelia) adjacent to the SM, which drops his Avoid from (127 – 10) - 20 to 97. That makes for the following calculation for the Brave Lance: 210 – 97 = 113 (100%). We can now guarantee a kill on this SM 100% of the time, without fear of retaliation.

Not that the SM would be able to deal much damage to Benny, as Benny has 52 Def, the SM loses 2 DMG from WTD, Weapon Ranks are invalidated due to facing WTD. The DMG the SM can deal would look like this:

52 DEF – (30 STR + 18 WPN Might + 5 Swordfaire -2 DMG WTD) = 1 DMG times two. Keep in mind we didn´t equip Wary Fighter and Hagakure Blade halves you STR after Battle until after the next battle.

 

 

Edited February 22, 2020 by Imuabicus

[vanguard333]

@Flere210 I do agree with your statement that it is bad for a strategy game if the same strategy works regardless of the map, and that it was bad on Awakening to focus more on units and min/maxing than on incentivising good strategies. But I disagree on how that applies to Conquest:

"There's no Sigurd/Titania/Seth" There's Camilla, and she can end up being pretty much a necessity. 

Similarly, when it comes to units and min/maxing, Fates, including Conquest, brought back the Awakening-Style Second Generation Units even though it made no sense. 

And, as far as the maps go, I never felt like any of them prevented conventional strategies; more often they were just an annoyance. I find that a good map gimmick seems like a problem at first, but with some creativity can be turned into an advantage. That's not the only requirement, but it generally is a requirement. The gimmicks in Conquest were far more of a nuisance than anything else, with no way to turn it into an advantage and the "challenge" being how to mitigate the gimmick's effects. 

For one example, the Kitsune chapter, or as I like to call it, "Green light, Red light" because that's what it is, and I've often found that any gimmick that devolves a fight from something strategic into a "green light, red light" scenario is a bad design. The Kitsune having pass and necessitating that you turtle-up to protect your more vulnerable units was a decent idea, but the stupid invulnerability absolutely wasn't. "Green light, Red light" is not strategy; it's poor design. 

[starburst]

5 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

"There's no Sigurd/Titania/Seth" There's Camilla, and she can end up being pretty much a necessity. 

It is perfectly possible to complete Conquest without Camilla, Xander or any other pre-promote for that matter. I am not bragging, I am only saying this because Camilla and Xander are not required, the game is balanced without them in mind (as in, no chapter expects you to have them in your party), and the game allows the player to advance just as fast with other units. I have completed over a dozen campaigns without them (and using only ten units.)

 

5 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

Similarly, when it comes to units and min/maxing, Fates, including Conquest, brought back the Awakening-Style Second Generation Units even though it made no sense. 

In Conquest one can recruit children at Level 10, without inheriting relevant skills. Ophelia, Nina, Sophie, Percy can all be recruited by Chapter 12, all at L10-11, and without inheriting any particularly special skill from their parents (Aptitude and Dragon Fang would be the best of the lot.) There is very little min/ maxing involved here. (Sure, I would choose Effie, Mozu or Cornflakes to bear Sophie instead of Elise, but Sophie would be recruited at L10-11 and be her own unit for the following fifteen chapters.)

 

5 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

The gimmicks in Conquest were far more of a nuisance than anything else, with no way to turn it into an advantage and the "challenge" being how to mitigate the gimmick's effects.

The Wind Map, Chapter 20, which almost everyone complains about, can be completed in six or so turns thanks to the winds. It is precisely because the winds only go north during the first turns that one can reach the boss incredibly fast, just by going with the current. I complete the map because I want the treasures and the Experience Points, but all those who complain about it are given a clean and clear chance to finish it fast and move on. This is 100 % reproducible, there is no randomness involved.

The Faceless Map, Chapter 21, is infinitely easier when one uses the Dragon Veins than when one does not.

The Pots Map, Chapter 12, benefits the player way more than the enemy. It is only the player who can break the pots and every pot tells you whether it contains medicine or poison. The pots are never shuffled (only the Dragon Vein's position differs from Hard to Lunatic), and on Hard the poison does not even hit the player, not once, during the entire map.

The Flyers Map, Chapter 24, may surprise you the first time, but there is no need to memorise anything, just march in a compact formation and be ready to pair-up. It is longer than it is difficult, I give you that.

 

5 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

For one example, the Kitsune chapter, or as I like to call it, "Green light, Red light" because that's what it is, and I've often found that any gimmick that devolves a fight from something strategic into a "green light, red light" scenario is a bad design. The Kitsune having pass and necessitating that you turtle-up to protect your more vulnerable units was a decent idea, but the stupid invulnerability absolutely wasn't. "Green light, Red light" is not strategy; it's poor design.

The map may kill you once because the mechanics are new, but any further failure is on the player. The foxes repeat the exact same patter, it is not random.
Group, hold an Enemy Phase, kill, heal, regroup and march. Every section bar the bridge plays exactly the same. And the bridge section is even easier since all foxes uses the Statue effect (or whatever it is called) at the same time. Thus, either they are all static or they all be bait and let themselves exposed at the same time. A party of ten units kills them all in one phase every single time.

The defensive threshold is rather low on this map, so that even Wolfskin and mounted units can endure an Enemy Phase. And by "mounted units" I mean Paladin Sophie, Paladin Silas, Great Knight Effie, Dark Knight +Magic Cornflakes... I do not even use Xander. Nohr Noble +Magic Cornflakes can hold the lines too, and so do whatever Silas, whatever Effie, whatever Velouria... even squishier units like Sniper Mozu, Dark Knight Ophelia (Cornflakes's), Dark Knight Nina (Elise's), Mechanist Anna can all endure an Enemy Phase. It is more about Tonics and positioning than raw defence.
And I always field my ten units and do not cheese this map by fielding only two Generals or only two Wyvern Lords or only Xander and Camilla or such.

[Gregster101]

4 minutes ago, starburst said:

It is perfectly possible to complete Conquest without Camilla, Xander or any other pre-promote for that matter. I am not bragging, I am only saying this because Camilla and Xander are not required, the game is balanced without them in mind (as in, no chapter expects you to have them in your party), and the game allows the player to advance just as fast with other units. I have completed over a dozen campaigns without them (and using only ten units.)

 

In Conquest one can recruit children at Level 10, without inheriting relevant skills. Ophelia, Nina, Sophie, Percy can all be recruited by Chapter 12, all at L10-11, and without inheriting any particularly special skill from their parents (Aptitude and Dragon Fang would be the best of the lot.) There is very little min/ maxing involved here. (Sure, I would choose Effie, Mozu or Cornflakes to bear Sophie instead of Elise, but Sophie would be recruited at L10-11 and be her own unit for the following fifteen chapters.)

 

The Wind Map, Chapter 20, which almost everyone complains about, can be completed in six or so turns thanks to the winds. It is precisely because the winds only go north during the first turns that one can reach the boss incredibly fast, just by going with the current. I complete the map because I want the treasures and the Experience Points, but all those who complain about it are given a clean and clear chance to finish it fast and move on. This is 100 % reproducible, there is no randomness involved.

The Faceless Map, Chapter 21, is infinitely easier when one uses the Dragon Veins than when one does not.

The Pots Map, Chapter 12, benefits the player way more than the enemy. It is only the player who can break the pots and every pot tells you whether it contains medicine or poison. The pots are never shuffled (only the Dragon Vein's position differs from Hard to Lunatic), and on Hard the poison does not even hit the player, not once, during the entire map.

The Flyers Map, Chapter 24, may surprise you the first time, but there is no need to memorise anything, just march in a compact formation and be ready to pair-up. It is longer than it is difficult, I give you that.

 

The map may kill you once because the mechanics are new, but any further failure is on the player. The foxes repeat the exact same patter, it is not random.
Group, hold an Enemy Phase, kill, heal, regroup and march. Every section bar the bridge plays exactly the same. And the bridge section is even easier since all foxes uses the Statue effect (or whatever it is called) at the same time. Thus, either they are all static or they all be bait and let themselves exposed at the same time. A party of ten units kills them all in one phase every single time.

The defensive threshold is rather low on this map, so that even Wolfskin and mounted units can endure an Enemy Phase. And by "mounted units" I mean Paladin Sophie, Paladin Silas, Great Knight Effie, Dark Knight +Magic Cornflakes... I do not even use Xander. Nohr Noble +Magic Cornflakes can hold the lines too, and so do whatever Silas, whatever Effie, whatever Velouria... even squishier units like Sniper Mozu, Dark Knight Ophelia (Cornflakes's), Dark Knight Nina (Elise's), Mechanist Anna can all endure an Enemy Phase. It is more about Tonics and positioning than raw defence.
And I always field my ten units and do not cheese this map by fielding only two Generals or only two Wyvern Lords or only Xander and Camilla or such.

Defend Iago and Hans' shitfest, I dare you

[vanguard333]

5 minutes ago, starburst said:

The map may kill you once because the mechanics are new, but any further failure is on the player. The foxes repeat the exact same patter, it is not random.

Group, hold an Enemy Phase, kill, heal, regroup and march. Every section bar the bridge plays exactly the same. And the bridge section is even easier since all foxes uses the Statue effect (or whatever it is called) at the same time. Thus, either they are all static or they all be bait and let themselves exposed at the same time. A party of ten units kills them all in one phase every single time.

The defensive threshold is rather low on this map, so that even Wolfskin and mounted units can endure an Enemy Phase. And by "mounted units" I mean Paladin Sophie, Paladin Silas, Great Knight Effie, Dark Knight +Magic Cornflakes... I do not even use Xander. Nohr Noble +Magic Cornflakes can hold the lines too, and so do whatever Silas, whatever Effie, whatever Velouria... even squishier units like Sniper Mozu, Dark Knight Ophelia (Cornflakes's), Dark Knight Nina (Elise's), Mechanist Anna can all endure an Enemy Phase. It is more about Tonics and positioning than raw defence.
And I always field my ten units and do not cheese this map by fielding only two Generals or only two Wyvern Lords or only Xander and Camilla or such.

I never said that there wasn't a pattern. But noticing the pattern only mitigates the tedium of the "red light, green light"; it doesn't feel rewarding at all. 

 

7 minutes ago, starburst said:

It is perfectly possible to complete Conquest without Camilla, Xander or any other pre-promote for that matter. I am not bragging, I am only saying this because Camilla and Xander are not required, the game is balanced without them in mind (as in, no chapter expects you to have them in your party), and the game allows the player to advance just as fast with other units. I have completed over a dozen campaigns without them (and using only ten units.)

Camilla is about as optional as Titania, which is exactly the comparison that was being made. Either both are necessary, or both are unnecessary, and I would say that Camilla is more necessary because she's the only unit outside of dragonstone-Corrin for a long time who has both high defence and high res. 

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

May I chime in for a sec?

2 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

Camilla is about as optional as Titania, which is exactly the comparison that was being made. Either both are necessary, or both are unnecessary, and I would say that Camilla is more necessary because she's the only unit outside of dragonstone-Corrin for a long time who has both high defence and high res.

I cannot make the comparison Titania/Camilla as I have never played FE 9/10 but,

High Def Units:

Silas, Effie, Beruka, Bennie, Keaton

High Res Units:

Felicia 1 (kinda?), Elise, Niles, Kaze

[starburst]

21 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

I never said that there wasn't a pattern. But noticing the pattern only mitigates the tedium of the "red light, green light"; it doesn't feel rewarding at all. 

How is this mechanic tedious when the whole map (bar that single phase used to kill the foxes on the bridge) takes place on Enemy Phase? Either they attack you or they do not, you just hold the position and advance once the foxes are gone. It is very simple. I wish I could show you a video, mate.

 

21 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

and I would say that Camilla is more necessary because she's the only unit outside of dragonstone-Corrin for a long time who has both high defence and high res. 

Again, (unintentionally) you put me in a difficult position, for it is my experience of several campaigns without using Camilla or Xander against your beliefs. I know for a fact that Camilla is not required on any map, but the only way to prove it to you involves recreating a scenario with exact numbers and calculations. And even if I did all the simulation, you could simply argue that you do not play like that or that you use different units or so (not in bath faith, just because you truly play differently.) It is infinitely easier to doubt something than to prove it.
I can give you all the details, but it would require us both to follow a campaign, so that the results are relevant and satisfactory for both parts.

Edition: If anyone wants to continue talking about Conquest in the Fates section or through Private Message, let me know. I often focus on what interests me, but the original topic was about Three Houses and Fates.

Edited February 22, 2020 by starburst