Pineapple
-
Posts
38 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Pineapple
-
-
There is no reason to celebrate for a game with high-profile budget and marketing until it outsells a Super Nintendo game from 18 years ago.
There really isn't.
That's a somewhat silly way to view things. Plenty of Nintendo titles never beat their SNES counterparts in sales in Japan. Even Mario Kart Wii, the third best selling game of all time, isn't managing to sell better than its SNES counterpart in Japan, although it is close.
The same holds true for Zelda, Donkey Kong and Metroid, none of which are doing as well in Japan as they did in their SNES hey-day. If you go to other developers, nor is Street Fighter or Final Fantasy.
Awakening saw a far higher opening than the series has in over a decade and a half. That certainly is something to be happy about.
-
Shadow Dragon did the best in Europe.
Pardon? Do you have any source for this? It's contradictory to all the data I've seen
-
Fire Emblem doesn't seem like a system selling title. I was under the impression it was pretty obscure, even in Japan.
It's a low-cost high quality game. Fire Emblem is the kind of series that has a very vocal following. If you see lists of the greatest GBA games, how often are one of two of the GBA Fire Emblem games on the list? The FE games make towards the fans feelings that the machine has great games, even if they don't like some of them. Having those vocal long-term fans gives you free advertising and great word of mouth.
So essentially, Fire Emblem is an indirect system seller. It doesn't yield immediate system sales, but it yields the fans that help yield system sales.
Additionally, the Fire Emblem series actually has a pretty good work-to-payoff ratio. Look at it this way.
Intelligent Systems has 123 employees. The team working on Skyward Sword (the next Zelda) has been averaging around 100 people for the last 2 years, and been in development for 2-3 more before that. Skyward Sword has kept 40 people working on the game for 4-5 years, and another 60 for 2. For one game. In comparison, Intelligent Systems will have dished out
4 Fire Emblem games (Radiant Dawn, the 2 remakes, then this one)
4 Warioware games
2 Advance Wars games
2 Paper Mario games
And some other minor games that never left Japan
The FE games look to be totalling around 1.75-2.00 million (if we assume equal sales for FE13 as RD/SD had, numbers courtesy of VGChartz.com). That's nearly 2 million for less than a third of the company's work (The Paper Mario games definitely have a longer development period than Fire Emblem. Warioware and Advance Wars have similar development periods).
So, you have 30% of the sum of the workforce dishing out 2 million. Meanwhile, Zelda has 100% of a slightly smaller, but more skilled workforce making one Zelda game, that's likely to sell 5-7 million (based on The Windwaker, the least popular 3D Zelda, selling 4.5 million and Ocarina of Time, the most popular one, selling 7.5 million).
Looking at that, making Fire Emblem games is just a little bit less efficient than making Zelda, judging by a work to sales ratio.
(I ended up not fully replying to what you actually said there, sorry about that)
-
So far, it looks like Radiant Dawn has a chance of being both the most balanced FE and the least balanced. I don't think anything like that has happened in these before. Save Lyon being evil coming in third for both best and worst plot twist, but that's not really the same, as there are far fewer proper plot twists.
My vote:
Most balanced: FE10
Least balanced: FE5
-
There is a bunch of extra dialogue in 4-E as well.
On a separate note, why does the word 'dialogue' give me a squiggly red line under it? I'm fairly sure it's spelled correctly.
You're using a browser that corrects to the new version of spelling English (occasionally used in America), whereas you yourself use the old method (generally used in England).
Essentially, your browser likes the American way* of eliminating the silent letters, making it "dialog".
Either is correct, really. I prefer the old-fashioned way myself.
*Not all Americans use it, they're just the only ones who really do.
-
I'm a pacifist, which rules out pretty much anything. As such, my #1 spot will be a Priest.
1) Priest
There's a possibility that I would be a mage. After all, magic has a lot of non-violence purposes, and it's the closest thing in the Fire Emblem worlds to science. If someone threatened me, there's of course a chance I'd stop being a pacifist, and thus fight. So #2 is mage, I suppose.
2) Mage
Pretty much everything else is out of the question. Pegasus knight would be the most likely, but that's female only (those sexist bastards). Lord is the only logical thing remaining. I'd be fighting to protect my peers, even though I was really opposed to it.
3) Lord
-
Surely making Nergal Ne and finding someone to fit N is easier.
Like... Nergal for Ne, Nanna for N.
-
Anyone know what Geoffrey's name was in Japanese?
According to the Fire Emblem Wikia: "Geoffrey (ジョフレ Jofure)"
By fireemblem.neoseeker: ジョフレ, Jefure
Google Translate makes it "Joffre"
-
A hit of 38 gives you a truehit of roughly 30%
An enemy hit of 88% gives him a truehit of 97%
You needed to hit 4 times in a row, and he needed to miss one of 4 hits.
There's a chance of 11-12% of the enemy missing one or more hits.
There's a 0.81% chance of all your attacks hitting.
In other words, your chances of winning that fight are pretty damn slim. You only had a 2.7% chance of hitting him three times, though, so that's nice. Your outcome would have happened over 1/50 times, though.
-
By VGChartz data, FE12 sold 5,637 copies for the week ending the 29th. That's not too bad. A drop of 500 copies means an 8% drop. Bad news is... The drop is that small because last week's poor sales were in fact even poorer. It didn't sell 6950 copies last week, but rather 6150. It's also had around 2000 subtracted from the previous weeks.
Not only that, but the numbers for the past Fire Emblems have been updated too. Well, something has happened there at any rate, because the numbers have changed a bit. The major chance is Shadow Dragon, which has gone from being credited nearly 30,000 copies after week 20 (for some reason, VGChartz stops counting the FE games after 20 weeks) to just 8,000. It's almost definitely closer to correct now.
So after 7 weeks, the standings are (I'm not going to bother updating Path of Radiance and Radiant Dawn anymore, as they're ages behind in Japan and not really relevant anymore)
Blazing Sword: 247,800
Sacred Stones: 254,600
Shadow Dragon: 240,500
New Mystery of the Emblem: 239,700
The amount sold in the 7th week:
FE7: 9,602
FE8: 4,711
FE11: 6,667
FE12: 5,637
From week 7 and out, the games sold this much
FE7: 45,000
FE8: 54,000 (note that FE8 was launched in Octobre. It received a christmas boost later on that FE12 won't get)
FE11: 33,000
FE7 saw a dropoff of roughly a third from week 7 to week 8, and from there it drops from 6,000 to 2,000 in 6 weeks. That's an average of a nearly 20% dropoff.
FE8 did, as mentioned, have a christmas coming up around week 12, so it boosted up to 8,500 copies again then, but then died off nearly instantly, selling around 5,000 copies from week 16 and out. The christmas didn't boost its sales a lot, they just came sooner.
FE11 dropped from 6600 to 2000 in just 5 weeks. That's an average dropoff per week of over 20%.
Any week for FE12 that's under 10% lower than its previous week seems quite decent. A 10% dropoff per week would lead to around 50,000 more copies sold. That's quite nice, all things considered.
So this week's dropoff is fine. My guess now is that FE12 will end below FE7 and FE8 in Japan, but above FE5, FE9, FE10 and FE11 there.
-
My friend kind of started hating me for lending him my Shadow Dragon copy. She play loads of chess, and is on Norway's national team for people < the age of 21 (I think that's the age, not sure). I told him that she should probably try Hard * or Hard **, as she was likely to be pretty good at it.
She's completely without a chance on normal. I really can't fathom how she's as bad at it as she is. So I lent her The Sacred Stones in the hope that she might manage that. She can't come past chapter 16 or something on easy.
It's clearly gotten to her, and she somehow sees this as me calling her an idiot by lending her the games.
She insists on playing Radiant Dawn on normal sometime soon now. I fear that's not going to go too well.
-
I'd actually be quite happy with anything right now.
A new Tellius game would be awesome. It would of course need to be headed for another continent, or something ala that. But the two games are my favourite ones of the series (although FE4 is close to FE9), so I definitely wouldn't mind seeing another one.
A completely new setting would be excellent too. I would definitely prefer a console one to a handheld one, though.
A remake would be quite nice too. I haven't played FE2, so that would be okay to be remade. I wouldn't mind FE4 or FE5, although I've played the former a few times and quite dislike the latter.
Essentially, anything on a console > anything on a handheld, but other than that I'm pretty much equally interested in everything. (With a Tellius remake probably topping it).
-
Ooof, that's not good!
Data for the week ending the 22nd August puts New Mystery of the Emblem at 18th place with 7000 sold. From the 12,700 last week, that's a far, far too large drop for my liking.
Here's the week 6 sales of the localised Fire Emblem games.
FE7: 14,500
FE8: 6,200
FE9: 2,800
FE10: 4,300
FE11: 9,200
FE12: 6,950
The running total after 6 weeks is thus
Blazing Sword: 247,500
Sacred Stones: 249,200
Path of Radiance: 146,800
Radiant Dawn: 128,300
Shadow Dragon: 210,200
New Mystery of the Emblem: 237,000
From week 6 and on, Shadow Dragon sold 63,000. Now, Shadow Dragon seems to have legged slightly better than New Mystery of the Emblem. We're definitely looking at FE12 ending in the 285,000-310,000 sold in Japan, but now the lower-end seems more likely. It's going to end right on par with FE7, FE8 and FE11 in Japan. Probably slightly below FE8, and possibly below FE7.
Still, with drops like this, it could end even lower than 285,000.
-
I definitely use her. I always tend to use the underleveled units rather than the actually most powerful ones. (Which makes stuff such as Radiant Dawn hard mode incredibly hard). It's generally just because I like their personalities better, but now it has sort of grown into my style.
And I don't really like most of the Dawn Brigade at all. I don't like using Sothe, Leo, Nolan, Meg, Zihark, Tormod, Nailah, Muarim, Tauroneo nor Volug too much (some due to being overleveled, some due to me not liking them). So I pretty much always use something ala Micaiah-Edward-Jill-Fiona-Rafiel team. Of course, that team can't clear part 1 on hard, so I use the other units, but in part 3 those 5 end up being my entire team.
So I give Jill paragon in the laguz chapter in part 3, in which she disposes of all the enemies herself (I unequip the Black Knight :3). I also never kill the laguz untransformed, as that gives a lot less exp. As a result she's now a level 5-10 (ish) tier 3.
Next Dawn brigade chapters, Fiona gets the paragon, and pretty much ends up soloing those chapters. As a result, she too becomes a ~lv 5 tier 3.
Now, one might think that could probably have been done nearly as well, or better, by most other units, but Fiona can have both Imbue and Paragon in mid-tier 2. Thus healing over 10 health pr turn, while becoming powerful enough to easily manage the part 3 dawn brigade chapters (which are some of the very hardest in the game).
So she gets chunked into Tibarn's team for part 4, and is mainly just used as to tank opponents to level up the weaker units (I always put my weak lot in Tibarn's team, due to the immense level-gains of chapter 5) in the first chapter. In the second of the Tibarn chapters, she's the most important of the defensive units. (Tibarn is in untransformed mode to gain more exp. I do that mainly just for the fun of it. )
She's made the endgame twice, and has made quite decent performances there too. Generally as a tank, as I don't bring any of the laguz royals except Tibarn and Skrimir, and I also don't use any generals. I really should be less picky about personalities.
As a result, she's one of my most used units. Ike, Soren, Rolf, Nephenee, Mia and Jill are the only ones who gained more kills than her last playthrough, I believe.
So yes, Fiona supporter. :)
-
I wouldn't be too worried, Shadowjam. By VGChartz data, it ranked 15th this week with 12,700 copies sold. The rest of that data also fits in perfectly with the Media Create numbers.
Which means that FE12's sales so far are (again, VGChartz numbers)
Week 1: 142,000
Week 2: 37,500
Week 3: 21,000
Week 4: 16,400
Week 5: 12,700
5 week total: 230,000
Let's do a comparison to the other Fire Emblems that released in the west.
Here are the first 5 week totals.
Blazing Sword: 233,000
Sacred Stones: 243,000
Path of Radiance: 144,000
Radiant Dawn: 122,000
Shadow Dragon: 208,000
Light and Shadow: 230,000
In other words, the total is pretty much in line with the other handheld versions. (The console versions did worse in Japan, but far better than the handheld ones outside of it. I doubt FE12 will reach Radiant Dawn's 300,000 + outside of Japan).
As for the legs (that's how well the game holds up over time, essentially), the week 5 of the other titles:
Blazing Sword: 14,500
Sacred Stones: 12,800
Path of Radiance: 3,600
Radiant Dawn: 7,300
Shadow Dragon: 16,000 (but this one acted very strangely, just 2 weeks later it was down to 6,600. Essentially, it's holding up on par with Light and Shadow)
Light and Shadow: 12,700
All in all, FE12 is pretty much keeping up just as well as the other handheld ones that released in the rest of the world did. There's no reason to worry. An Americas release is dead on certain.
A Europe release isn't completely certain. None of the Fire Emblem games have done very well in Europe (only Radiant Dawn might have reached 50,000 +), and the financial crisis has made the software sales drop by over 1/3rd. Europeans also have less of a history of buying games for an "outdated" machine, as the DS soon will be.
Realistically, over half of any future Fire Emblem's sales will be from outside of Japan. There's no way they're not going to translate it to English.
-
To all you guys who talk about how much the install base matters, you do realize that it's the games that sell a console and not the other way around?
No, I don't "realize that", as it's not in any way that simple at all.
Indeed, Fire Emblem has always been an extremely front-loaded series.
This is the first time a FE game is showing potential to be an 'evergreen' title.
No it isn't. I hate to be pessimistic, but FE12 has practically no chance of becoming anything alike an evergreen title. It's pretty much decreasing at the same pace as FE6 and FE7 did in Japan. (FE8 was more front loaded, FE9 and FE10 sold less in Japan), FE11 behaved rather strangely with 5,000 in its 3rd week, then 21,000 in week 4).
It's looking to sustain its sales slightly better than Shadow Dragon, and that's great, but it's nowhere near being an evergreen title. Quite simply, it's going to sell around 40% of its sales in the first week. That's far from being a well legged title.
I'd say FE12 is prone to become the 4th best selling FE in Japan, beating FE7-FE11. (It's currently at 220,000. FE8 is the best selling of FE7-11 and sold 300,000. FE6 sits at 390,000, and I'd say it's unlikely to reach that.
-
1. Please don't capitalize any part of my name (I'm really anal about this).
2. I was suggesting that if you wanted to compare the results of the formula to the tier list, you should probably select a pair of units that don't have some other determining factor such as a movement or movement type advantage.
1. Fair enough, I'll try not to capitalise any part of your name again. Capitalising just goes natural to me, so I might slip up once or twice in the future. Sorry about that, in advance.
2. Ah, right. Well, the problem with this is that we have to have two characters that
- Have the same availability
- Have the same move and movement type advantage
- Aren't pretty much identical on the tier list (ala most of the starter social knight duos)
Such a duo quite simply doesn't exist. Thus, we'll have to choose some characters that are close to that, but not quite that.
-
FE3 DS aside, bases are always more important than growths.
I already brought up the fact that this formula doesn't account for movement at all, which is by far the most important stat in FE.
Really, you find bases more important than growths? I suppose that makes sense. I just ran out of time (had to do something else), so I realised I only had time for either bases or growths. Of course we'll need both for the full picture.
As for movement, I'm perfectly aware you brought that up. I have absolutely no idea how we would put that into something like this, though, so we'll have to just ignore that for the moment. The only other realistic option is to give up the project entirely, and that would be dull.
Unless you have some sort of determining the value of movement accurately, Dondon, I think we'll just have to ignore it for the tier list vs OP stats for now, and then consider it after the comparison. Not a perfect way at all, but I don't see any better.
-
Thanks haha. I went through a few revisions before I got to these values. I wouldn't have bothered posting them if I didn't think they were at least close.
I'm going to reply to this thread rather than the active one (which has over 10 times as many replies as this one), as that one turned into a bit of a crap-fest from both sides.
The general complaint about your numbers are that they don't fit into games. Correct? Well, here's a suggestion: let's use tier lists. Tier lists should, essentially, tell which units are better than each other. Of course, we can only use units that have the same amount of availability.
I'm not expecting your formula to be correct every time, as it's based of averages. But if we see the same mistake repeaten multiple times, then clearly something has to be changed.
For doing this properly, though, we'd kind of need to establish some sort of value for axes vs lances vs swords in the games. There's clearly fewer sword users than both axe and lance users in nearly all of the games.
So let's go with comparing Brom and Nephenee in FE9. They come in the same chapter. Brom uses axes, Nephenee uses lances. Brom has 1 less move than Nephenee.
According to the tier list, Nephenee tops "upper-middle" whereas Brom is above average in "middle".
I'm sticking to growth rates, I guess. They determine the characters most of all (well, as long as their level is less than 20/1, at least). Calculating the bases into it might be a good idea too, though.
Name / Hp / Str / Mag / Skl / Spd / Lck / Def / Res
Brom 75 45 10 50 25 20 55 25
Nephenee 55 40 20 55 55 25 35 25
Using your numbers from the OP, that turns into (I'm discounting magic completely by the way, as it's irrelevant to their fighting abilities). I'm just multiplying the hp above with the percentage below, doing the similar for Strength, and adding them up.
HP Str/Mag Skill Speed Luck Defense Resistance
10.94% 52.50% 21.50% 23.90% 7.09% 52.50% 10.50%
Brom - 8145.5
Nephenee - 7648.7
Now, this quite clearly contradict the tier list. The supposedly inferior Brom gets 6% more points on your list, despite being far lower on the tier list. (The tier list isn't perfect, but it's a good estimate, so let us assume it is for now).
Nephenee does have 1 more move in her arsenal, though, so that might be what's giving her the edge. I'd however say that axes are better than lances (because of the enemies in game), and thus debate that this evidence suggests you're overestimating heavy units. Of course, this isn't nearly enough evidence to conclude that.
Edit: Oh, and Nephenee has wrath. Blasted, I forgot that.
-
You are the one and only person who has comprehended what I'm trying to do here. I'll answer your questions instead of responding to your entire post.
My calculations are based on the average damage increase/decrease from adding one point in any stat. Yours differs in that yours is based on the percentage increase in damage, while mine is actual points of damage.
For example, 1 point of strength, on average, translates into .525 (52.5%) additional damage. I used strength values of 5-30, and hit percentages of 0-100 on a table and average all the values.
You basically noted why speed is so low, but using my calculations for points of damage, it ranks as about half as important for strength. Only a 4 point speed difference gives you a damage boost. The multiplier from a difference of 3 speed to 4 is 2 (double damage) but from 0-3 and 4-5 and 5-30 you gain no additional damage. Let's look at two characters who do 1 damage. Let's say they have 5 in each stat. We'll add 25 points of each in increments of 1 point and record damage. We'll also assume they have 100 hit and that the enemy also has 5 speed. Also note that this is just a small snapshot of all the calculations I did. It's purely for example. To get my results you would have to do this for base 6,7,8,9....all the way to 30 for each. I had help from Excel.
Str|Spd
1 |1
2 |1
3 |1
4 |1
5 |2
6 |2
7 |2
8 |2
9 |2
10|2
11|2
12|2
13|2
14|2
15|2
16|2
17|2
18|2
19|2
20|2
21|2
22|2
23|2
24|2
25|2
The average damage increase per point for strength is 1.00, but for speed it's only 0.04. Now obviously there is way more math to be done to find the actual values, but that's basically what I did. I would copy/paste my table here, but it's absolutely massive.
Now you're probably saying "Well when you do more base damage the increase the double attack is more than just one point." I'm aware of that, but the MULTIPLIER is still the same. it's still x1 if you don't double, and x2 if you do. It still comes out to the same averaged increase in damage. Now when you consider hit percentage for strength and higher base speed for both you and your opponent for speed, they eventually average out to .525 damage per point for strength (52.5%) and .239 (23.9%) for speed. Note than the value for speed is its combined offensive and defensive value. Though you did point out an oversight I believe I forgot (I don't remember), and that's defense against double attacks. I doubt though that including that will push the overall value above even 30%. Thanks for pointing that out though.
My total of 179% is just the added value of all the percents. Strength is 52.5%, which translates to .525 damage per point of strength. The other stats are the same.
Now take a character with the following stats
str-30, ski-30, spd-30, luck-30. We are just looking at damage here so we'll ignore defense for now.
How much damage would they do against an opponent with 0 in every stat (to find the 0-30 absolute average)? We will ignore their weapon for now.
65.25 damage. Now if you multiply that damage by each of my factors for str, ski, spd, and luck (the offensive stats that we are using, to find out how much each one is attributing to the total damage) you get 34.26, 14, 15.59, and 4.63 respectively. Add them together and you get 68.51. That's awfully close to to our actual damage of 65.25. Why is it higher? Because my speed and strength values also include their defensive value, so naturally they are going to artificially inflate the calculated value. If you use the purely offensive values (which I can't seem to find :\) for each I'm sure you will get very, very close to our actual damage value.
Ooh, I see you put a lot of thought into this. That's some mighty nice work you've done here.
Well done, Alondite. I don't really have anything to say beyond that.
-
I posted this in General FE, but I thought it would be useful here too, so I'm posting it here.
Ok, so I was trying to make a balanced edit of Blazing Sword and I ran into a roadblock when I came to the conclusion that all stats are not equal. Luck is not as important as Strength, there's just no way. So when trying to decide how to balance character stats/growths I decided to do this:
Find out exactly how much each stat effects the amount of damage done or reduced (or in the case of luck and speed, both) in a round of battle. HP calculation was a little bit different (and it took me even longer to get it where it seemed right), and Resistance was based on the percentage of magic users compared to non-magic users.
This is what I came up with:
*note* I'm not claiming this to be perfect. Most of the calculations I did were fairly simple, and I'm decent with math, but certainly no math whiz. This is only my first set of calculations that I'm using for the first build of my game.
*note* The actual numbers don't matter. What matters is how they are proportionally to the other stats.
*note* HP is an average. It effects the percentage of total health taken as damage more at lower levels, and less at higher.
*note* Calculating the Magic is dependent on the stats of the characters/enemies in the game, so for the purpose of this post I just left it equal to Strength. Resistance is less important because there are far fewer magic users.
*note* Just because some stats are more important than others doesn't mean that a theoretical character with nothing but Strength and Defense is going to be better. All values are above zero, so all stats are important.
HP Str/Mag Skill Speed Luck Defense Resistance
10.94% 52.50% 21.50% 23.90% 7.09% 52.50% 10.50%
To calculate character overall power, just multiply their stats by the corresponding values, and add them together. Again, I'm sure it's not perfect, but it should be close. This could also be useful in tier debates.
I have a bit of trouble understanding your calculations. How did you get these numbers?
A quick one by me gives this:
(note that this was done very quickly. I may have missed a lot of stuff, or done some miscalculations, so I added all the stuff I thought here)
Strength: Adds 1 damage. Well, potentially a bit more than that in Path of Radiance and Radiant Dawn, as higher Strength means you can use heavier weapons without a speed slowdown. Still, let's put it at a simple 1.00 damage added. Now, we have to consider how powerful the unit already is. A unit who, on average, normally deals 10 damage gets a 10% bonus. One who deals more gets less of a bonus.
Essentially, it has a 5%-15% damage bonus the majority of the time.
Magic: Ends up for the same as Strength
Skill:
-Adds a 2% displayed hit chance. This will generally mean a bit more than 2% truehit, so I'd guesstimate a 2-3% added damage from this for FE6 and out, and a 2% addition for the ones prior to FE6.
-Adds a 0.5% crit chance. A crit adds 2x the regular damage (totalling up to 3x), so a 1% addition.
- In Path of Radiance and Radiant Dawn (and FE4? I don't quite remember), it increases the chance of a skill occuring. It's generally a 0.5% to 1% addition, and the skills usually tie or outdo a crit. I'd say it gives a 2-3% addition.
So for FE1-FE5 (possibly save FE4), it gives a mere 3% bonus, in FE6-FE8 and FE11, it gives a 4-5% bonus, and in FE9 and FE10 it gives a 6-8% bonus.
Speed:
This is a tricky one.
- Can make your unit double. If so, it's a 100% damage dealt increase to certain units.
- Can make your unit avoid being doubled, if so, it's a 50% damage taken decrease.
- Gives you +2% evasion.
For a unit that already doubles everything, speed is a mere 2% addition evasion addition, and nothing else. For a unit that neither doubles nor gets doubled, it can be incredibly valuable. As in, a 30% damage increase and a 10% damage decrease.
It goes from a 2% evasion to 12% evasion, and 0% damage increase to 30% damage increase in most scenarios. It's ludicrously hard to place this stat somewhere, as it's the stat whose importance differs most from unit to unit.
For a relatively slow unit, one point could make you double 10-20% of the enemies, thus giving you a damage increase in that area.
For a very fast unit, it might merely make you double very fast opponents, giving you a 3-5% bonus, or something, as few units are that quick.
Luck:
- Adds 1% hit rate. Generally means 1% damage dealt addition.
- Adds 1% evasion. Generally means 1% damage taken reduction.
- Adds 1% dodge. Generally means 2% damage taken reduction, but a bit less in cases where the opposing unit already has 0% crit, so say 1.5%.
Total: Roughly 2.5% damage taken reduction and 1% damage dealt addition.
Defence:
- Reduces physical damage taken by 1. Generally, you take less damage than you deal. Most opponents deal damage within the 3-7 range, or something like that. This effectively means that a point of defence gives you a 20% damage taken reduction. This stat actually increases in usefullness the more you get of it, unlike any of the above.
I'd give it around 20% worthiness of damage reduction from physical units. Of course, it has no use on the ~ 1/4th of all units that are magical, so say 15% damage reduction.
Resistance:
- Reduces magical damage taken by 1. Generally, mages deal more damage to you than physical units do. Thus, the decrease in damage from 1 resistance is lower, ala 10-15%. It also works solely on 1/4th of enemy units, so it's in the 3-4% damage reduction area. It's worth a bit more for mages, and it is more valuable the more you get of it.
This gives us the following
Damage done additions:
Speed (slow unit): 10-20%
Strength: 5-15%
Skill: (Tellius): ~ 7%
Skill: (Handhelds): 4-5%
Speed (fast unit): 3-5%
Skill (FE1-FE5): 3%
Luck: 1%
Defence: 0%
Resistance: 0%
Damage taken reductions:
Defence: 15%
Speed: (slow unit): ~ 10%
Resistance: 3-5%
Luck: 2.5%
Speed: (fast unit): 2%
Skill: 0%
Strength: 0%
Magic: 0%
So if I were to put them out of a total of 179 (which you did, not sure about why you picked that number), I'd get
(I'm making averages for the speeds and skills. That's quite silly, so don't trust anything from here on out too much)
For offence:
Strength: 40-100% (70%)
Speed: 20-70% (45%)
Skill: 35%
Luck: 10%
For defence:
Defence: 97%
Speed: 32%
Resistance: 32%
Luck: 15%
If we now chose to put defence and offence as equally important (this too is quite silly), we'd get this:
Silly overall estimation:
Defence: 50%
Speed: 25-50% (38%)
Strength: 20-50% (35%)
Skill: 18%
Resistance: 16%
Luck: 13%
(This totals to 170, and I figured that the last 10% or so would go to hp, as I don't really know how to calculate that. Actually, 10% seems way too much for hp.)
My final numbers became incredibly estimate-y here. They actually do make a fair bit of sense in my head, though, so I'd really love to see your calculations for why Strength more than doubles speed in importance.
-
The fact that Shadow Dragon sold that many copies is surprising. I mean, I knew the DS was popular, but I didn't realize just how popular until now, I suppose. You also made a typo with FE 5's sales. Just pointing out that there's a hefty difference between 1.7 million and 17 million.
Personally, I liked the Tellius games the most, so it stings a little that Radiant Dawn had such trouble. To get off topic, I'm guessing if we get another console Fire Emblem it'll be one or two years after the new console releases, so long as it's popular. (if it has the Wii name, it'll be an instant sell-out considering the Wii is the fastest selling console in history or something like that)
To get back on topic, the game certainly seems to be on it's way to outselling Shadow Dragon, which will be very impressive, especially considering the 3ds has been announced and people may start saving up money for games coming out on that. Ok, stupid reasoning maybe as it's going to be backwards compatible, but still. You never know with some people.
I don't see my typo. FE5's installbase was 17 million. The installbase in that post was the amount of machines that have been sold at the time the games launched. As FE5 was on the SNES, and the SNES had sold 17 million, the installbase is that large.
Unless I'm looking in the wrong place.
Oh, and the Tellius games didn't really have that big troubles overall. Radiant Dawn sold 250,000 in Americas (and somewhere around 30,000-50,000 in Europe), which is far more than any of the GBA games did. In fact, none of the GBA games made 100,000 combined for Europe and Americas, if I recall correctly.
The outside-of-Japan-sales are something ala
FE7: ~ 30,000 (this could be a large bit off)
FE8: ~ 60,000 (this could also be a large bit off)
FE9: ~ 100,000 (this could also be a good 20,000 off in either direction)
FE10: ~ 290,000 (this one's pretty precise)
FE11: ~ 260,000 (as is this one)
So for the series total sales (worldwide) it's actually something ala
FE3: 700,000 (100% japan)
FE4: 580,000 (100% japan)
FE5: 260,000 (100% japan)
FE6: 392,000 (100% japan)
FE7: 320,000 (~90% japan)
FE8: 360,000 (~80% japan)
FE9: 260,000 (~62% japan)
FE10: 460,000 (~37% japan)
FE11: 520,000 (~ 50% japan)
In terms of worldwide sales, the Tellius saga did quite well. In Japan, it performed quite poorly.
-
That doesn't surprise me. Consider the penetration that both systems had at the time; the Gamecube was failing, and the Wii was pretty new.
Indeed. Have a look at the installed bases of the machines when the Fire Emblem games launched. As Fire Emblem games are as short legged as they are, pretty much only the launch installbase is relevant. (The total of how large it becomes years later is irrelevant)
FE3 - ~ 11 million
FE4 - ~ 15.5 million
FE5 - ~ 17 million (but it launched on a dead system, so this one is pretty much a complete exception from everything)
FE6 - ~ 5.4 million
FE7 - ~ 10 million
FE8 - ~ 13 million
FE9 - ~ 3.8 million
FE10 - ~ 1.7 million
FE11 - 23.1 million
The fact that FE9 and FE10 sold as well as they did is really quite impressive.
Another way to look at it:
FE3: 54th best selling on SNES
FE4: 48th best selling on SNES
FE5: 135th best selling on SNES
FE6: 33rd best selling on GBA
FE7: 48th best selling on GBA
FE8: 44th best selling on GBA
FE9: 38th best selling GC game
FE10: 44th best selling Wii game
FE11: 107th best selling DS game
Of course, certain systems had less competition on them than others (the GC, for instance, had notably less competition), but it still shows the picture that the Tellius games didn't sell less because people didn't want to buy them, but because the machines they were on were notably smaller.
FE10 launched at an even bigger disadvantage than it might seem too, as it launched early in the system's lifespan.
-
For the second week, FE12 sold another 36,000 copies!
It's gonna be a hit!
(hopefully this will encourage nintendo to send the game our way sooner :D )
That's pretty much to be expected.
FE3: 341,000 first week, 84,000 second week = 75% drop
FE4: 297,000 first week, 71,000 second week = 76% drop
FE5: 49,000 first week, 62,000 second week = 26% increase
FE6: 138,000 first week, 52,000 second week = 62% drop
FE7: 120,000 first week, 45,000 second week = 62% drop
FE8: 172,000 first week, 32,000 second week = 81% drop
FE9: 101,000 first week, 21,000 second week = 79% drop
FE10: 76,000 first week, 20,000 second week = 73% drop
FE11: 147,000 first week, 34,000 second week = 76% drop
FE12: 149,000 first week, 38,000 second week = 74% drop
How FE12 holds up next week will be very interesting. Anything above 25,000 is good, and means it's going to outsell Shadow Dragon for sure.
So, how do you think Jugdral and Tellius are doing nowadays? (SPOILERS)
in Fire Emblem: Awakening
Posted
I think that's a nice hypothesis. It's not impossible that all the continents apart from Tellius (and whatever is east of the hadar desert) was submerged, but then returned later. Several times during our own history has continents been submerged under water, to then come back over water and be resided again later. Granted, it usually takes a long time, but there are scenarios in our own history of continents (or at least countries) ending up completely under water, and then reappearing a few thousand years later. It's happened due to tectonic plates, and due to ice ages.
I don't see why this is a problem, really. While the Tellius Laguz aren't stronger than the manaketes (but not really noticeably weaker either), the dragon tribe could easily be explained as "incredibly powerful dragons". They'll always be compared to their own time period, and the Tellius Dragons were "incredibly powerful dragons", to the extent that their king could nearly challenge the goddess herself. Additionally, it's entirely possible that the Laguz continued to grow in power before the ending winter happened.
The "old" Manakete explanation and the "Laguz evolved to Manaketes" fit with each other relatively well. The only real change is that the "incredibly powerful dragons" are instead Laguz. Which, while far from certain, is a pretty good hypothesis if you ask me.