Concerning Reseting in Draft Playthroughs

[aku chi]

Not to throw things off-topic, but having a low turns competition and telling people they are not even allowed to reset to figure out a good strategy completely defeats the purpose.

That all depends on the purpose of the draft. If the purpose is to determine the lowest possible turn counts for different unit configurations, then reseting should be encouraged. If, instead, the purpose of the draft is to determine which set of units as played by a particular drafter is most efficient, resetting should be heavily discouraged.

While reseting to discover new strategies is unambiguously good, reseting to undermine randomness is unambiguously bad. Randomness is an integral part of the Fire Emblem games. Both combat (hits, misses, crits, and skill activations) and progression (level-up gains) are all determined by chance. Taken to its extreme, reseting causes durability and growths to be completely worthless because one can simply reset until the unit dodges and levels perfectly (this also applies to reseting for skill activation and/or crits). A draft run with no reset penalties (explicit or otherwise) becomes a competition of patience with the reset button as opposed to a competition of efficient strategy.

There is a solution, I think, that allows only the good kind of reseting and not the bad. When you want to experiment with strategies for a given chapter, make a copy of your current save. Test out strategies for as long as you want on this duplicate save, but do not save any of your progress. When satisfied, delete the copy and play the chapter once however you like from the main save. If something catastrophic happens in your main save and you need to restart, take a restart penalty of about 4 turns and try again.

Thoughts?

[Florete]

While reseting to discover new strategies is unambiguously good, reseting to undermine randomness is unambiguously bad. Randomness is an integral part of the Fire Emblem games. Both combat (hits, misses, crits, and skill activations) and progression (level-up gains) are all determined by chance. Taken to its extreme, reseting causes durability and growths to be completely worthless because one can simply reset until the unit dodges and levels perfectly (this also applies to reseting for skill activation and/or crits). A draft run with no reset penalties (explicit or otherwise) becomes a competition of patience with the reset button as opposed to a competition of efficient strategy.

I disagree. Too much randomness can skew a competition too much, and a winner being determined by luck as opposed to legitimate skill is discouraging to those who might want to enter, to say the least. What happens when the legitimately good player gets screwed over by shitty level one after another and constant misses on high hit rates? Throw in bad luck on dodging and crits if you need to. Then the player who is not so good, alternatively, gets completely opposite luck and just steamrolls the game.

What was the point?

Eliminating luck to a certain extent doesn't undermine the point of a draft, either. I've said it before and I'll say it again; even without resetting for good levels, chances are your units will be good enough later on, especially in a game like RD with its BEXP, that you'll be looking for strategies more on how you can expose units to as many enemies as possible rather than worrying about how to kill them. Even with God units running around, it still takes clever tactics to beat the competition, but luck is no longer a factor that can hold you back (at least not as much).

There is a solution, I think, that allows only the good kind of reseting and not the bad. When you want to experiment with strategies for a given chapter, make a copy of your current save. Test out strategies for as long as you want on this duplicate save, but do not save any of your progress. When satisfied, delete the copy and play the chapter once however you like from the main save. If something catastrophic happens in your main save and you need to restart, take a restart penalty of about 4 turns and try again.

...How is this any different than just resetting to find a good strategy on the "main" file?

Lastly, I know I let it slide in the Haar Draft (and there were reasons for that), but I don't think just any abuse should be allowed to roll. For example, I don't like the idea of people completing 1-P in 4 turns because they rigged a crit from Micaiah on the first Bandit with the, like, 4% crit she has there. I think there could be a reasonable cutoff, where any "abuse" needs to have a chance of at least, say, 25% to let slide. It still leaves some luck but, hey, this is FE. We can't eliminate luck completely, even if some people think it's a useless stat. A low enough luck factor should do no more than act as a tie-breaker between players of relatively equal ability.

tl;dr I am of the opinion that the Luck-Based Mission should be avoided at all costs.

P.S. As much as I don't really like playing it anymore, PoR probably has the best setup as far as eliminating luck and abuse goes: fixed level ups based on growths and no Battle Save/save states (for most people).

[aku chi]

I disagree. Too much randomness can skew a competition too much, and a winner being determined by luck as opposed to legitimate skill is discouraging to those who might want to enter, to say the least. What happens when the legitimately good player gets screwed over by shitty level one after another and constant misses on high hit rates? Throw in bad luck on dodging and crits if you need to. Then the player who is not so good, alternatively, gets completely opposite luck and just steamrolls the game.

Play another draft. The more you play, the less likely you are to get uniformly lucky/unlucky. In fact, it's almost unfathomable to be uniformly lucky/unlucky in a single playthrough.

My turn. What happens when a "not so good" patient player reset-abuses so that they complete risky, unreliable strategies and the "legitimately good player" limits themselves to a single playthrough with much more reliable, but occasionally lengthier strategies? What was the point?

Even with God units running around, it still takes clever tactics to beat the competition, but luck is no longer a factor that can hold you back (at least not as much).

Exactly. That's why the god units are better. But if you can reset as many times as you want with no penalties, all but the very worst units can perform like gods (by dodging and crit-killing everything). That minimizes the importance of everything that isn't availability and movement (and enough offense to crit-kill).

...How is this any different than just resetting to find a good strategy on the "main" file?

Theoretically, it's identical. But by allowing reseting on the main file, you allow much more than reseting "to find a good strategy". Because if somebody finds a good strategy and executes it flawlessly, they save. If they get unlucky, they can retry the exact same strategy. Or they can just reset if they didn't like their level-ups. So practically, it's very different.

Lastly, I know I let it slide in the Haar Draft (and there were reasons for that), but I don't think just any abuse should be allowed to roll. For example, I don't like the idea of people completing 1-P in 4 turns because they rigged a crit from Micaiah on the first Bandit with the, like, 4% crit she has there. I think there could be a reasonable cutoff, where any "abuse" needs to have a chance of at least, say, 25% to let slide. It still leaves some luck but, hey, this is FE. We can't eliminate luck completely, even if some people think it's a useless stat. A low enough luck factor should do no more than act as a tie-breaker between players of relatively equal ability.

That's not nearly good enough, in my opinion. Play the game. If you get unlucky, deal with it. Everyone else will do the same. If you don't like randomness, play a different game.

[Florete]

Play another draft. The more you play, the less likely you are to get uniformly lucky/unlucky. In fact, it's almost unfathomable to be uniformly lucky/unlucky in a single playthrough.

As long as chances of success are not 100%, it can and will happen somewhere.

My turn. What happens when a "not so good" patient player reset-abuses so that they complete risky, unreliable strategies and the "legitimately good player" limits themselves to a single playthrough with much more reliable, but occasionally lengthier strategies? What was the point?

Patience is a virtue, and it was rewarded. It's the skilled player's fault that she or he decided not to be as competitive. Thing here is that the outcome was determined more by player choice rather than luck.

Exactly. That's why the god units are better. But if you can reset as many times as you want with no penalties, all but the very worst units can perform like gods (by dodging and crit-killing everything). That minimizes the importance of everything that isn't availability and movement (and enough offense to crit-kill).

In a draft, all but the very worst units will likely end up performing like Gods either way. That was my point. And if availability and movement are what make characters better, so be it. Those are valuable things for a unit to have and a good reason to draft them. Why do you think units like Generals are not often picked so fast, even when they have good bases and growths? Bad mobility is possibly the worst thing to have when a player is going for a low turn count, regardless of stats. Why do you think Tibarn, who has killer offense and the best mobility in the game, is generally more of a mid-round draft? Because he's not around long enough.

Theoretically, it's identical. But by allowing reseting on the main file, you allow much more than reseting "to find a good strategy". Because if somebody finds a good strategy and executes it flawlessly, they save. If they get unlucky, they can retry the exact same strategy. Or they can just reset if they didn't like their level-ups. So practically, it's very different.

I can see the difference, but there's still problems. Worst case is when it seems like the game is laughing at you. What happens when a plan is executed flawlessly until the end, maybe even with some good luck on levels, and then a character misses a necessary 99% Hit and the Lord dies, forcing a reset? Why should the player be penalized with any more than needing to redo the chapter because the RN Gods decided to be spiteful?

That's not nearly good enough, in my opinion. Play the game. If you get unlucky, deal with it. Everyone else will do the same. If you don't like randomness, play a different game.

Give me a way to play my favorite FE games competitively that doesn't rely on luck to win, then.

Please, don't use the "play a different game" response. That's always been a cheap way to avoid addressing legitimate flaws.

[Paperblade]

There is a difference between resetting because you missed a 99% hit or figured out a better strategy/made a mistake, and savescumming so your strategy with a .1% chance of success succeeds

[Florete]

There is a difference between resetting because you missed a 99% hit or figured out a better strategy/made a mistake, and savescumming so your strategy with a .1% chance of success succeeds

If I can assume you mean to address me, first I'll make sure you've read this:

Lastly, I know I let it slide in the Haar Draft (and there were reasons for that), but I don't think just any abuse should be allowed to roll. For example, I don't like the idea of people completing 1-P in 4 turns because they rigged a crit from Micaiah on the first Bandit with the, like, 4% crit she has there. I think there could be a reasonable cutoff, where any "abuse" needs to have a chance of at least, say, 25% to let slide. It still leaves some luck but, hey, this is FE. We can't eliminate luck completely, even if some people think it's a useless stat. A low enough luck factor should do no more than act as a tie-breaker between players of relatively equal ability.

Meanwhile aku chi is, from how it looks, arguing that any resetting should be banned/penalized, as this quote is evidence of:

There is a solution, I think, that allows only the good kind of reseting and not the bad. When you want to experiment with strategies for a given chapter, make a copy of your current save. Test out strategies for as long as you want on this duplicate save, but do not save any of your progress. When satisfied, delete the copy and play the chapter once however you like from the main save. If something catastrophic happens in your main save and you need to restart, take a restart penalty of about 4 turns and try again.

[aku chi]

As long as chances of success are not 100%, it can and will happen somewhere.

Obviously. If there is a 99% chance of happening, you only need concern yourself with it not happening 1/100 times ex post.

Patience is a virtue, and it was rewarded. It's the skilled player's fault that she or he decided not to be as competitive. Thing here is that the outcome was determined more by player choice rather than luck.

Playing the game as intended and taking life as it comes are also virtues. Virtues I tend to value a whole lot more than the patience to repeat the same tedium until fortune favors me.

In a draft, all but the very worst units will likely end up performing like Gods either way. That was my point. And if availability and movement are what make characters better, so be it. Those are valuable things for a unit to have and a good reason to draft them. Why do you think units like Generals are not often picked so fast, even when they have good bases and growths? Bad mobility is possibly the worst thing to have when a player is going for a low turn count, regardless of stats. Why do you think Tibarn, who has killer offense and the best mobility in the game, is generally more of a mid-round draft? Because he's not around long enough.

You say you like Fire Emblem games, but you don't seem to like them as designed. If you're going to play as if every unit has perfect durability, you're rejecting the game design decision that your units can actually be killed. Availability and movement are extremely valuable without needing to trivialize durability and accuracy artificially by encouraging reset abuse.

I can see the difference, but there's still problems. Worst case is when it seems like the game is laughing at you. What happens when a plan is executed flawlessly until the end, maybe even with some good luck on levels, and then a character misses a necessary 99% Hit and the Lord dies, forcing a reset? Why should the player be penalized with any more than needing to redo the chapter because the RN Gods decided to be spiteful?

Everyone executing the same strategy faces the same odds. Your options a priori: execute that strategy under the full understanding and acceptance that you may need to take a restart penalty if the worst happens, or choose a less risky strategy (if possible) to employ.

Give me a way to play my favorite FE games competitively that doesn't rely on luck to win, then.

Please, don't use the "play a different game" response. That's always been a cheap way to avoid addressing legitimate flaws.

I don't believe it's a flaw for a strategy game to have random elements. Randomness is built into the fabric of the FE games at so many levels. Accept it or don't play.

[Kaoz]

There is a solution, I think, that allows only the good kind of reseting and not the bad. When you want to experiment with strategies for a given chapter, make a copy of your current save. Test out strategies for as long as you want on this duplicate save, but do not save any of your progress. When satisfied, delete the copy and play the chapter once however you like from the main save. If something catastrophic happens in your main save and you need to restart, take a restart penalty of about 4 turns and try again.

Impossible to enforce. How do you want to know whether someone actually reset or not

As for "playing the game as intended", I don't see the game penalizing you for restarting, other than that you have to play the chapter again from the beginning. Given that SD actually has permanent save points, and RD has permant battle saves, I would say it's more encouraged than discouraged.

[General Spoon]

Impossible to enforce. How do you want to know whether someone actually reset or not

Because it is an honor system a person will presumably be so distraught over lying about resetting that they will forfeit out of shame. At least, I assume that's how the train found its way to Bad Unenforceable Ideas Station.

Edited August 23, 2011 by Cher Ami

[aku chi]

Impossible to enforce. How do you want to know whether someone actually reset or not

You take a person at their word, just like every other draft rule...

As for "playing the game as intended", I don't see the game penalizing you for restarting, other than that you have to play the chapter again from the beginning. Given that SD actually has permanent save points, and RD has permant battle saves, I would say it's more encouraged than discouraged.

I'd say that needing to restart the chapter from the beginning is indeed a penalty. This could be incorporated into the restart penalty where any time you restart you're penalized by the number of turns you had just played (perhaps plus an additional turn penalty for extra-chapter inefficiency). I admit that Fire Emblem games that allow saving mid-battle do encourage reset abuse. There is still a penalty for restarting, it's just minimized (occasionally to triviality).

Am I really the only person who detests draft runs rewarding risky low-turn strategies and patience with the reset button as opposed to more reliable, efficient strategies? Am I the only person who actually considers risk mangement an essential skill of the proficient Fire Emblem player? (A skill that is not tested when reseting is not penalized.) Am I the only person that respects the design decision that occasionally player-controlled units miss and occasionally enemies hit and even crit?

[Kaoz]

You take a person at their word, just like every other draft rule...

I'm sure most people feel there is a difference between being penalized for an unlucky crit (which isn't in your control) and for using a unit you aren't supposed to use. Not to mention that it's easier to catch someone lying when they used other units or reported a wrong turncount (for example X team cannot complete Y chapter in less than Z turns). It's impossible to tell how often someone reset.

I'd say that needing to restart the chapter from the beginning is indeed a penalty. This could be incorporated into the restart penalty where any time you restart you're penalized by the number of turns you had just played (perhaps plus an additional turn penalty for extra-chapter inefficiency). I admit that Fire Emblem games that allow saving mid-battle do encourage reset abuse. There is still a penalty for restarting, it's just minimized (occasionally to triviality).

That penalty is that it takes you more time to complete the chapter, that's it. Also, assuming that penalty, you would punish someone more for trying something risky later during the chapter as opposed to the beginning, which doesn't make any sense. Furthermore, the longer a chapter takes, the more likely it is for a necessary 80-90% attack to miss, forcing a restart. Yet those people would be penalized more than someone who reset for a crit on turn 1.

Am I really the only person who detests draft runs rewarding risky low-turn strategies and patience with the reset button as opposed to more reliable, efficient strategies? Am I the only person who actually considers risk mangement an essential skill of the proficient Fire Emblem player? (A skill that is not tested when reseting is not penalized.) Am I the only person that respects the design decision that occasionally player-controlled units miss and occasionally enemies hit and even crit?

Sakurai

Speaking for yourself, would you rather have the players progress through the storyline even if that means the allies are falling left and right?

Narihiro

No no, when I have to push the reset button I push it. (laugh) Just recently, I got a little careless, dropped my guard and Caeda took a thrashing.

From the Iwata Asks interview for Shadow Dragon. The developers don't mind if you reset, they don't think you should be penalized for it.

Fact of the matter is, a draft is not an efficiency playthrough, but a LTC run, so more risky strategies will be used.

[CrashGordon94]

I don't know a whole lot about Drafts but I'm gonna have to agree with the Pro-Reset people.

Though admittedly if it's so controversial we could just have different drafts hae different rules about it.

[Florete]

Playing the game as intended and taking life as it comes are also virtues. Virtues I tend to value a whole lot more than the patience to repeat the same tedium until fortune favors me.

How was the game intended to be played and what qualifies you to determine such a thing?

You say you like Fire Emblem games, but you don't seem to like them as designed. If you're going to play as if every unit has perfect durability, you're rejecting the game design decision that your units can actually be killed. Availability and movement are extremely valuable without needing to trivialize durability and accuracy artificially by encouraging reset abuse.

Again, you missed my point. I said either way. In the games I've played, unless you get highly unlucky, the majority of the game's cast will become good enough later on in that strategies are more an exercise in unit placement to be exposed to as many enemies as possible rather than actually worrying about how to kill the enemies. Units who start strong and durable will no doubt be valued first because they are already doing that rather than needing help to get there.

I'm beginning to wonder if you actually have the right experience with drafts to even be making these arguments.

Everyone executing the same strategy faces the same odds. Your options a priori: execute that strategy under the full understanding and acceptance that you may need to take a restart penalty if the worst happens, or choose a less risky strategy (if possible) to employ.

A 100% chance of success strategy rarely exists, which is just about the only thing better than the example I gave with which you used this to respond. Do not tell me that if I get unlucky on a strategy that had 99% chance of success that I should have gone for something "less risky."

I don't believe it's a flaw for a strategy game to have random elements. Randomness is built into the fabric of the FE games at so many levels. Accept it or don't play.

I don't, either, and if you think I do, you missed early parts of my argument.

Am I really the only person who detests draft runs rewarding risky low-turn strategies and patience with the reset button as opposed to more reliable, efficient strategies? Am I the only person who actually considers risk mangement an essential skill of the proficient Fire Emblem player? (A skill that is not tested when reseting is not penalized.) Am I the only person that respects the design decision that occasionally player-controlled units miss and occasionally enemies hit and even crit?

Again, re-read my first few posts in this topic. Plus, I think you're overstating the apparent problem here; it's not common at all for people to force extremely unlikely-to-succeed strategies in drafts. People may rig crits and skill procs here and there, but usually those have a chance of at least 10% anyway, and most players won't be using strategies that rely on those one after another, especially when enemy phase becomes so important in drafts (the place where you can't save every desirable action). Most of the time that just isn't fun, and people play drafts for fun.

Resets are mostly going to be used to find a desirable low turn strategy that doesn't require insane amounts of luck because then it is easier to pull off. Luck manipulation will occur, but, as stated, it is an LTC run before an efficiency run.

[aku chi]

How was the game intended to be played and what qualifies you to determine such a thing?

I thought it self-evident that a game which heavily features randomness is meant to be played with acceptance of that randomness. After all, if IS wanted you to be able to crit bosses every time, they would simply design it such that you could crit bosses every time (unless they're sadistic, which can't be ruled out...).

Again, you missed my point. I said either way. In the games I've played, unless you get highly unlucky, the majority of the game's cast will become good enough later on in that strategies are more an exercise in unit placement to be exposed to as many enemies as possible rather than actually worrying about how to kill the enemies.

I was under the impression that the early portions of the game were at least as important as "enough later on" when it comes to draft performance.

Units who start strong and durable will no doubt be valued first because they are already doing that rather than needing help to get there.

Not if you possess sufficient patience. Then you can just reset until your less durable units dodge all of the attacks they need to survive.

I'm beginning to wonder if you actually have the right experience with drafts to even be making these arguments.

"You speak of knowledge, Judicator? You speak of experience? I have journeyed through the darkness between the most distant stars. I have beheld the births of negative-suns and borne witness to the entropy of entire realities... Unto my experience, Aldaris, all that you've built here on Aiur is but a fleeting dream. A dream from which your precious Conclave shall awaken, finding themselves drowned in a greater nightmare."

A 100% chance of success strategy rarely exists, which is just about the only thing better than the example I gave with which you used this to respond. Do not tell me that if I get unlucky on a strategy that had 99% chance of success that I should have gone for something "less risky."

I didn't. You should measure the riskiness of all relevant strategies and make the choice with the lowest expected turn count (factoring in the reset penalty). If you make the correct risk-neutral choice, you have have optimized your expected turncounts. If you get unlucky in a particular instance, so be it. Everybody else in the same situation faces the same risk. It is fair.

Give me a way to play my favorite FE games competitively that doesn't rely on luck to win, then.

Please, don't use the "play a different game" response. That's always been a cheap way to avoid addressing legitimate flaws.

I don't believe it's a flaw for a strategy game to have random elements. Randomness is built into the fabric of the FE games at so many levels. Accept it or don't play.

I don't, either, and if you think I do, you missed early parts of my argument.

What flaw were you referring to, then?

Again, re-read my first few posts in this topic. Plus, I think you're overstating the apparent problem here; it's not common at all for people to force extremely unlikely-to-succeed strategies in drafts. People may rig crits and skill procs here and there, but usually those have a chance of at least 10% anyway, and most players won't be using strategies that rely on those one after another, especially when enemy phase becomes so important in drafts (the place where you can't save every desirable action). Most of the time that just isn't fun, and people play drafts for fun.

To expose the absurdity of something, it is often best to take it to its logical extreme. When you do so with reset abuse, you get perfect level-ups, perfect durability, and 100% crit and skill activation rates. Drafts most certainly should be played for fun. I don't find it fun to employ reset-abuse. If somebody else does, then they gain a comparative advantage over me.

Resets are mostly going to be used to find a desirable low turn strategy that doesn't require insane amounts of luck because then it is easier to pull off. Luck manipulation will occur, but, as stated, it is an LTC run before an efficiency run.

Why must that be? Can't we have both LTC draft runs which tolerate reseting and efficiency draft runs which use my proscribed rule concerning reseting?

[Florete]

I was under the impression that the early portions of the game were at least as important as "enough later on" when it comes to draft performance.

They are. What do you think was the point of me mentioning that units who start stronger are valued for such a thing?

Not if you possess sufficient patience. Then you can just reset until your less durable units dodge all of the attacks they need to survive.

Problem here is that dodging is not generally sufficient for clearing maps. Enemies need to be killed. Weaker units often won't have a chance of killing opponents in one round, or two, etc. no matter what. The only game that arguably ever avoids this is RD because of Pass, but by the time you can really use it well your units should be pretty strong anyway and rout maps still exist (lol part 4).

I didn't. You should measure the riskiness of all relevant strategies and make the choice with the lowest expected turn count (factoring in the reset penalty). If you make the correct risk-neutral choice, you have have optimized your expected turncounts. If you get unlucky in a particular instance, so be it. Everybody else in the same situation faces the same risk. It is fair.

It's the Luck-Based Mission. No. Luck should not be such a determining factor.

What flaw were you referring to, then?

Luck being as important as or even more important than player ability.

To expose the absurdity of something, it is often best to take it to its logical extreme. When you do so with reset abuse, you get perfect level-ups, perfect durability, and 100% crit and skill activation rates. Drafts most certainly should be played for fun. I don't find it fun to employ reset-abuse. If somebody else does, then they gain a comparative advantage over me.

Yes, as we've seen. However, I've been arguing for more of a middle ground because I disagree with the extremes, both ways. I have specifically mentioned this. If people actually were going to such an extreme (they haven't), you'd have a point and we would probably be on the same side of this argument for the most part.

Why must that be? Can't we have both LTC draft runs which tolerate reseting and efficiency draft runs which use my proscribed rule concerning reseting?

Sure. Start one like that. But if that's your solution, need this topic continue?