dragonlordsd
-
Posts
1,240 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by dragonlordsd
-
-
On 3/27/2018 at 9:00 PM, Armagon said:
We don't know who the DLC Blades could be. Could be Shulk, could be original Blades. Hell, some people are even hoping for Elly from Xenogears but that requires Square Enix to cooperate. As for the Story DLC, it's very likely gonna be about the Aegis War. It can't be a post-game story as Takahashi said that you'll be able to play it before the main story, if you wish.
I don't see Square Enix playing nice, but if Xenosaga's on the table, I could see main cast making it in or T-elos. But I think xenoblade's more likely. In fact, I'm a bit surprised none made it in originally.
Fun fact, I did the math and with 999 luck and justice at 9, you have a 0.59% chance of summoning kos mos off a legendary.
Increasing justice to 14 gives you .69%, interesting.
Assuming the datamines are right.
-
10 hours ago, Armagon said:
Regarding Arduran, his tombstone will be there so you can revive him and fight him again quickly. Funnily enough, the baby Arduran is also there and somehow, even if it's not in range, killing Arduran while his baby form is also there counts as killing the baby. So you don't have to feed it up again but the game will act as if you killed the baby Arduran. Not that it matters though, because Arduran's tombstone will be there regardless.
Interesting... I had no idea.
I'm still a bit nervous to try it, but that's really weird.......
I'm most curious about what they're going to do for DLC. Are the dlc blades going to be new characters or cameos? What on earth is there to make a story dlc about?
-
1 hour ago, Bubba Jones said:
Where it gets frustrating is where the encounter rate becomes abnormally high as a bunch of chump monsters go out of their way to chase you and traveling will get annoying as the game constantly loads from combat to map and back again for encounters that contribute largely nothing to character growth.
Yeah, this is the most annoying thing. Enemies can ambush you, but as far as I know, there's no way for you to ambush them. They also can always outrun you until you get way late game upgrades.
As bubba said, the combat system itself is actually really good, it's just the game isn't balanced very well, so you don't ever really need to use it.
-
My quick review:
The good:
Combat is actually better than I expected. Most reviewers have been claiming it's too easy, which I haven't found to be super true. It's about as hard as Kingdom Hearts on normal mode, so not too terrible. Would have liked a hard mode, but it's still pretty fun.
The locations are really well designed, and look really good, even compared to the previous game. Part of this has to do with how battles flow more naturally in dungeons (again, think kingdom hearts, you don't have break away encounters), which makes the dungeons feel a lot smoother. Towns are also a lot bigger, which is nice.
Kingdom building is very addictive. Although I miss familiars, your city in this game is freaking massive. At level 2, you have 44 buildings you can construct, and it just keeps getting bigger.
The bad:
Chibi mode in your kingdom. This is the most frustrating thing for me. I want to be able to explore my town and see it close up, but you're stuck in chibi mode way zoomed out, so a lot of the details in your buildings are lost. It grates on me a lot, though I'm still enjoying it.
Higgledies are just weird. The higgledies just don't work like familiars did. Idk. Maybe it's just me, but I really don't like them. Fortunately, you don't have to put any effort into them if you don't want to.
The neutral:
Army battles are incredibly simple. I don't actually mind this that much, since they do a reasonably good job of letting you apply your armies and showing off how good all your upgrades are, so I'll let it slide. It's not frustrating, but it's also not exactly fun, you just kind of blow through it without much thought.
Overall:
8.5/10
A quirky fun, great visuals. My main complaints aren't that anything was done badly, but rather that some simple changes could have made it a lot better.
-
On 3/24/2018 at 9:11 PM, Armagon said:
Why don't you just start New Game+ now. When i did it, i was still missing Electra and KOS-MOS and i pulled Electra as i was trying to get the Torna Blades. Adding 6 new Rare Blades to the summon pull actually helps.
Of course, i have everyone except KOS-MOS now.
Not a bad idea. Though, if I do, I'd have to settle for
a) not being able to grind legendary cores until I can get arduran back up
and b) not getting extra copies the two exclusive aux cores
Still might be worth it though. I'll think about it.
-
5 hours ago, Flee Fleet! said:
I want to watch the Legend of Korra, but...I dunno, is it as good and interesting as Airbender was?
Legend of Korra isn't as good as Airbender, but that's like saying that getting silver in the olympics isn't as good as getting gold. I'd still recommend it over most other shows out right now.
Now that we're several years out from it, my quick summary:
Season 1 is great, though a little rushed. Looking back, I actually think it's my favorite, though it still has pacing issues.
Season 2 starts strong, but then totally dips off course, but has amazing animation.
Season 3 fixes most of the problems the other seasons had.
Season 4 has a lot of great ideas that they don't commit enough to and end up ruining.
So, watch season 1 (it's pretty short) and if you like it, at least stick through season 3.
-
On 3/22/2018 at 6:07 PM, DisobeyedCargo said:
Man I still haven't even gotten my last two rare blades Pre NG+. I need to step up my game.
Same here. I've spent over 500 cores (~100 legendary, ~400 rare) trying to get a Kos Mos on a 999 luck zeke... with justice as his highest idea (level 10).
I love this game a ton, but I just want to fricking get to ng+ and start getting the torna blades.
-
I still am floored by how outright lies by the white house are just considered normal now.
Sarah Sanders can literally say "they have a good working relationship and there are no changes" only for him to be fired hours later and no one bats an eye.
Like, seriously, I know politicians lying has always been a thing, but this is just getting ridiculous.
-
Just want to point out that they've never put any of the final bosses of games as a GHB yet, so I don't expect to see guys like Nergal or Medeus (though, technically Fire Dragon is the final boss, so I guess Nergal's possible)
That said, here's my list.
- Limstella
- Ephidel
- Jahn (seriously, male dragon when?)
- Sonia
- Morzah
- Selena (the real one, not the stupid one with twintails)
- Glenn
- Fargus
- Dheginsea
- Kurthnaga
- Rajaion
- Petrine
- Zelgius
- Sephiran
- Oliver
- Hetzel
- Seven Heroes (Bramimond, Athos, etc)
- Linus (please don't screw up his art)
- Leila
- Ismare
- Carlyle
- Uhai
- Uther
- Young Zephiel
- Guinnevere
- Gale
- Areone
- Cyas
- Orson (dude would be so creepy)
I guess that's a good start.
-
2 hours ago, SoulWeaver said:
…While you make a decent point, I'm actually not interested in arguing about it - as I mentioned in my first post on here, I don't actually want to sit and argue things out, particularly not for something I have very little control over like this. I only originally posted because I wanted to make sure people were actually trying to have a definition of Net Neutrality because if nobody understands what exactly they're arguing about there's literally 0% chance of anyone coming to an understanding of anything other than the fact that they don't understand, and someone asked me a question about why I hold my position, so I clarified. I will, however, thank you all for remaining civil, as I sometimes forget there are still people who know how to do that on the internet and it's nice to be reminded every once in a while. Hopefully I'll run into you all again in a discussion I am interested in discussing at length.
Thanks! I'm also glad we could keep this civil.
I think we all want what's best for this country, we just disagree about how to get there.
-
Just now, Lord Raven said:
I’d like to point out that a lot of issues with the US are not having to do with capitalism but corporatism. If we get rid of corporatism and corporation benefiting legislation and tax plans then a regulation like NN isn’t necessary.
I also think if the US were a lot smaller in population and more densely concentrated and uniform it would be easier. But “just switch providers” does not work for the internet or healthcare or any utility/service you can name. That kind of local competition literally doesn’t exist here. An anecdote is that my only two choices at my apartment complex are Cox (good internet, 60/month, high speed but outages once a month, 300 gig data cap) vs CenturyLink (30/month, very low speed, no effective data cap) and if I wanted a power price I have to move to significantly lower quality. It’s a choice between good and bad internet, except the good internet isn’t great and hasn’t made an effort to get better because at least they’re not centurylink!
I think you are absolutely right, but the two lead into each other. It's the cycle of capitalism, like how the economy crashes every 30 or so years.
There is already plenty of competition in the ISP sphere, so I see no need to open it up further. And much as people argue that this is a business issue, I'm way more worried about censorship. If companies are allowed to shut off websites, even if that's not unconstitutional, it's still not a good thing.
-
6 minutes ago, SoulWeaver said:
I mentioned why I think this in that same post. Let me pull it up...
As a business decision, it would be an extremely smart move to announce your company is remaining Net Neutral when everyone around you is blocking sites behind paywalls because then you're the good guy who's going to do the best for the people while "all those moneygrubbers are busy trying to line their own pockets". Barring a mass collusion where all the ISPs decide to screw everyone over at once, I believe the chances of this NOT happening are rather small because contrary to popular belief the market itself eventually punishes those who choose to discriminate against just about anything for just about any reason WITHOUT the government needing to step in. Maybe it doesn't immediately punish them, perhaps it doesn't punish them as much as we'd like when we'd like it, but the market system is perfectly capable of checking, balancing, and governing itself. Companies are mainly driven by the desire for profit and business, and their competition with one another inspires them to do just about everything they financially can to draw in consumers, including, among other things, lowering prices. Therefore, if we as a people say we're only going to support ISPs who are Net Neutral and more importantly follow through with that statement, then the natural process of the market will weed out those who refuse to listen to their customers, who, I'll point out, are where they get their money from - if we don't pay them for stuff, they take losses, and if they don't learn from their mistakes, they eventually crash and burn.
There are a few problems with this rationale:
First, collusion has happened multiple times in the past. While there's always a chance that it won't happen, that's only a chance.
The thing about the market is it's not self correcting. This is largely due to the fact that companies, by definition, seek to maximize their profits, and will eliminate competition by any means necessary. This isn't an inherently good or bad thing, it's just how business works. If someone makes a better product than you, you can either a. make a better product or b. eliminate that company. The only distinction between these two options is which is cheaper.
Sure you could lower your prices. But it's sometimes cheaper to just buy the other company.
But the biggest thing is that I see absolutely no upside to revoking net neutrality. I mean seriously, what's the point?
-
1 hour ago, B.Leu said:
What I find beautiful is that people worked for Net Neutrality, worked for good and fair rules for everyone. And all of that work, turned to nothing thanks to a few idiots of non-importance that came out of nowhere.
It's like when we go from Obama as president, a guy who became pretty much a symbol, (Like Net Neutrality, golly) to Trump, the drop of level is large. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯But yeah, I think people should talk more about it, that's how things should work, I was really surprised when I saw... not many people talk about it.
Well, we're probably going to have a few months of litigation at the very least.
I mean, they're already being sued by New York (the state, I think? Maybe just the city), so it hasn't really happened yet.
-
Just now, Cute Chao said:
Still annoyed Chrom and Lissa are axe armours, though. Even if months in advance, they should've realised that we need those least out of all the armours.
Heartily Agreed.
-
1 minute ago, Cute Chao said:
...But flying units have flying steeds and cavalry units have ground steeds in their sprites, so they are still visible somewhere. Tharja just has a bikini and a cloak...
Oh well. I'm staying as far away from her as I did Nowi from the Halloween banner. It's not really a surprise she's wearing next to nothing. Would be nice to see her wearing clothes for once, though, especially for a winter banner. At least the other three look nice and warm xD
Something you have to remember is that this art is from a year and a half ago, before the game actually launched. None of these units were supposed to be armored originally, but it didn't make sense to reorder the artwork.
A thing people get wrong about mobile games is how releases work. Art has to be commissioned months in advance (especially if they want to get high profile artists, which some games do these days.) Plus a lot of variations will get rejected, and so on.
We already know that Robin and Tharja's arts date back to before the game was launched, back when it was supposed to release last october. They were probably going to be completely different units altogether.
-
6 minutes ago, CatManThree said:
I have seen people around in various places in the fandom complaining about them being armors. Honestly I really couldn't care less about it or the banner as a whole to begin with aside from the hilarious fact that Tharja being an armor makes no sense at all for that outfit.
Regardless, it is quite peculiar how IS decided to go with mostly armors again even though they literally just did that in the last holiday event. In my opinion it seams like they are trying to get people to use them more, which I can honestly respect. But again, I still really don't care much bout this banner. I'm just gonna save up my orbs for somethin that, at least to me personally, is bigger or more...important if that makes sense.
Hilariously, I'd argue that if that bikini is made of metal, technically she is more armored than her base version, lol.
But I think that she was switched to be an armor recently. I don't think that was the original plan when she was commissioned, which was over a year and a half ago, remember.
-
19 hours ago, Hardin said:
Did you check on VGChartz?
I did check on VGChartz, although now people are saying it's not as credible a resource.
VGChartz gave Path of Radiance as badly outselling Radiant Dawn, with Shadow Dragon a bit higher.
I believe it was
POR: .58 mil
RD: .49 mil
SD: .61 mil
SMNN... never mind: .35
I think. If someone wants to double check, they can.
I'd like for everyone who posts claims to this thread trying to contradict me to post a source for their numbers.
That includes you @Azure Sen
I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, just if you're going to say something is "patently untrue", I want to see the numbers.
Also, @Slumber is also right, most of the time. There are a few exceptions (like Sega) but Nintendo isn't one of them.
-
I am 99% sure it's Lissa, Chrom, Robin, and Tharja.
The one on the left looks a ton like Lissa, which, if true, makes it very likely that they're going to go back to their "original" Christmas roster, which had Robin and Tharja. That's 3/4 out of awakening, and the character the one on the right looks most like is Chrom.
Of course, if it's not actually Lissa, my speculation completely falls through.
But I'm pretty sure it is.
Also, @Jonahtron
I think you're absolutely right, but what else would they do? It seems less likely they'd not do a tempest trial, so what else is there?
-
17 hours ago, Hardin said:
How do you then explain that those three games sold more than Path of Radiance which had supports?
Failure isn't determined by sales numbers, it's determined by sales vs. expectations.
Even if a game sold more than it's predecessor, it can still be a failure if it didn't sell enough to cover it's budget, or didn't sell enough to cover it's stock (number produced/number sold, remember, this was the physical media era), or didn't sell as well as their projections.
Edit: Also, what are you talking about? I just checked, and Path of Radiance outsold each of those!!
Edit 2: Well, Shadow Dragon did a little better. But still.
-
15 hours ago, SoulWeaver said:
While that is the simplest definition, I think it's too complicated an issue for really simple definitions. At its truest, Net Neutrality is something no one actually wants, because the truest definition of Net Neutrality I've seen is that all data packets are given equal bandwidth priority across all channels of access. This means, among other things, that 911 calls placed over WiFi would have equal bandwidth priority to, say, one of us downloading a rom hack, or checking our email, when really such calls should have higher priority. Obviously, that's not the main method of sending a 911 call, but it does happen.
Also, if Verizon wants to say nobody can use Netflix, the obvious answer is to switch away from Verizon. I mean, I don't want to sound rude here, but duh. All a company has to do is wait for Net Neutrality to be repealed, then come out and make an official statement that they will be holding themselves to the rules of Net Neutrality of their own accord, they don't have to make any sort of major changes to the system they already had in place, they build goodwill with the people, they get all the business from the customers who are leaving their previous provider because their previous provider decided to be moronic, other companies see that and follow suit, and presto, the only real change that happened was the government deregulated itself. This is actually how Switzerland did this, seeing as how you're bringing up countries that don't have government-run Net Neutrality.
EDIT: …Sorry - I wasn't trying to start an argument or anything like that, I just really hate seeing people toss around terms with very simple, if any, definitions behind them. Thanks for at least having a definition you're using.
No problem. Yeah, I also hate it when people just throw out buzzwords without actually explaining them.
That said, one minor correction: that's not how 911 systems work. They actual have a separate system for processing those that is created by an entirely different subset of service providers than those publicly available. This can be confusing, largely due to the fact that most of the providers are splinters of existing providers. Motorola Solutions, for example, is a completely different company from Motorola, even though they were once the same company, and have almost the same name.
-
6 minutes ago, edgelordweeaboo said:
the origin of the name comes from when i made my osu account and i thought "everyone who plays this game is an edgelord weeaboo and i kinda like anime and metal music so i'll name myself edgelordweeb and it stuck. not sure how my name makes me any of the things you listed except for maybe a troll. that or you saw the weeb part and just thought "yup special needs" because i could definitely see that one too
Yup, that's where the mind naturally jumps from a name like that. I mean, it's a little rude to make assumptions, but still, the name is "edgelordweeaboo" I legit can't think of a more troll-y name than that. (other than mabye "IHateFireEmblem666")
-
17 hours ago, SoulWeaver said:
Has anyone actually bothered to figure out what definition of Net Neutrality is being used here? I have yet to see anyone attempting to either promote this or shut it down use anything remotely resembling a definition for Net Neutrality. Am I the only one who recognizes the issues of throwing terms around without even attempting to define them? What exactly are you guys assuming Net Neutrality means?
Basically, Net Neutrality means that Internet Service Providers must provide equal access to all websites.
That's the simplest definition. Internet is treated like electricity: you pay your bill, and you get access. They can't specify what you do with that access.
If it gets repealed, Internet Service Providers will be allowed to either throttle (reduce access speed) or even simply turn off any website they don't like.
For example, if the repeal gets passed, Verizon can just disable access to Netflix for all of their customers. Not even "you have to pay more for access" just, boom. Gone. Shut off. And if this sounds ridiculous, it's not. This is actually something Verizon did 3 years ago, to force people to subscribe to their own streaming service. This case led to the initial implementation of Net Neutrality rules.
If you want to see how ridiculous things can get, check out the service in countries that don't have Net Neutrality. In some countries you have to pay for each individual website you want to have access to (like how cable TV works). $5 for Google, $7 for Google and Facebook, etc.
-
17 hours ago, Tryhard said:
Then again, are we really surprised that Roy Moore can't take 'no' for an answer?
Lol.
I have to wonder what people like him do when faced with reality. Like, he can keep saying, "the media is lying" till the sun goes down, but it's not going to change anything. Like, seriously. It's over. He has to know this.
-
On 12/4/2017 at 11:29 AM, Otts486 said:
Okay so recently I’ve wondering about the reason for fire emblem’s decline a few years back and how awakening obtained it’s success. I know the obvious answer is they actually decided to market the game this time but was it really just a matter of marketing. I mean yeah the lack of marketing was certainly true for western countries but what about japan? I mean awakening was going to be the last game period. Not just in the west but of all time. I dunno It’s just something on my mind.
I think other people have pointed it out, but there are three reasons for series nearly got cancelled:
1. Radiant Dawn
2. Shadow Dragon
3. Shin Monsou no Nazo.... you know. 12. I'm not going to try to get that one right.
There are multiple reasons these three failed, but one reason stand above all others: The removal of support conversations.
This is the single biggest factor. In the history of the series, no Fire Emblem game that had traditional C,B,A unique support conversations has ever scored lower than 85 on metacritic. And no Fire Emblem game without them has scored higher than 84 (including Shadows of Valentia and Warriors)
General US Politics
in Serious Discussion
Posted
http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/07/media/sinclair-broadcasting-promos-media-bashing/index.html
So, this is happening.
I mean, I know crying "nazi" on the internet is kind of redundant at this point, but this is insane.