MarkyJoe1990

Heeeey everyone. Guess who has a new playthrough?

Lucky for you, I happen to have that information. Player: Starts at 0202BD50 in FE7 Starts at 0202BE4C in FE8 Enemy: Starts at 0202CEC0 in FE7 Starts at 0202CFBC in FE8

.... God dammit. I'm a hypocrite. I never finished reading her supports because I completely dismissed her after learning about the whole guinea pig thing, and yet here I am defending Severa, and telling people to look more into her before judging her. Right... so... I guess I'll have to take a look at more supports before I toss judgement on any other characters. I apologize for stepping on the toes of Tharja fans.

Welp. I predicted people would really dislike Severa. I took a deep breath and checked this thread, and my predictions were right. I normally dislike tsunderes, but Severa turned out to be my favorite character in the game. I haven't seen too much of her supports, but I have seen the ones with Cordelia, The Avatar (As a father), and Morgan (As a sister). She came off as whiney and manipulative, but... honestly, she seems to only do it if the person she's talking to allows her to, and both of those traits seem to be a product of her upbringing rather than her being genuinely mean-spirited. Like... I dunno why I feel this way, but she seems willing to work with people on their terms if her way doesn't work, and if she upsets someone, she seems to feel sorry for it. I dunno... I'm really sensitive when it comes to Severa, or any character I feel affection towards for that matter, so I'm a bit afraid of defending her and being criticized for it, but I kind of feel that she's a good character who just needs to be analyzed beyond her attitude to understand her appeal. The same goes for a lot of characters, such as Sumia; bad first impression that makes her seem cliche, but then she transcends her stereotype soon after. I face palmed when she tripped in the beginning of the game, thinking "Christ, this game is blatantly catering it's characters to stereotypes". But then she showed her more capable side, what with being a great cook, being good with animals, and a pretty competent soldier. As such, I... don't feel it's right for me to judge any of the characters, besides Tharja. Most of them don't actually commit any crime that makes them worth loathing on personality alone except for Tharja, whom, if you know Noire, would probably understand what I'm talking about. I didn't even dislike Tharja at first, because she didn't seem all that bad, but... well... you can't recover from using your own child as a guinea pig. That's pretty much an automatic douchebag label. Heck, even Vaike shows his other dimensions in some of the supports, like his ones with Cherche. He admits he's a dumbass in that one. I think deep inside, Vaike's more aware of his flaws than he lets on. I hope I don't start some debate over this. >_<

Yeah. Not gonna lie. I feel this is the best cast of characters the series has ever had, period. There's always at least one character a person will really like, and they're all very amusing.

Basically, the ASM sets the health of the first three units to 1, making it low enough that the sage will use fortify every time it's activated, given those three enemy units are within her healing range. I think the ASM also refills her fortify to full, allowing infinite uses.

I use DevKitPro.

Go to Gamefaqs and look at the codebreaker stuff. Hopefully you can figure it out from there, but I'll explain more if you still have trouble.

Alright. I'm satisfied with the answers I've received. Thanks everyone!

I got my child units and... their stats are really really good for their level, as are their skills, but relative to my other units, they're a little behind. I also hate grinding unless I'm doing it through a paralogue. Would training them still be reasonable? I know they become gods of reckoning when they're trained up, but... I kind of wanna know if they can become good under their own merits quickly enough.

I'm gonna dabble around with the all 2-3 bows idea a bit more before I try other ideas. So far I'm liking the results. Marina proved very valuable in Chapter 3 because she was the only unit who could safely attack the boss without counter-attack AND stay out of the range of other enemy units, and since the chapter is intentionally trying to make a good case for archers, that's a plus. She has great stats to further up her usefulness, so I think the current plan does a good job softening the blow of enemy phase irrelevance. As for their competitiveness with nomadic troopers, I... think I might just go and remove the trooper's access to swords. Alternatively, I could have archers promote into Lyn's lord class instead of sniper, so they can use swords as well, while having superior stats to nomadic troopers as another counter to the trooper's better movement. There's also the +15 crit bonus option (Warriors can serve the role of non-crit snipers to reduce frustration). So yeah... I'll dabble in this further and if I don't like the results, I'll experiment more. This won't be the only experimenting I do either. I've been exploring a lot of ideas I'd consider to be pretty unconventional. Hopefully my experiments will lead to a creative and entertaining experience for the player.

Nah, I got your message... not sure why you didn't just post it here, but I suppose I received your ideas anyway. Anyway, as much as your ideas are nice, some of them can't be implemented with my current abilities as a hacker, and the others... while nice, aren't ideas I want to go with. However, with all things said, I think I've decided that instead of giving Archers melee range, I'm going to instead emphasize their versatility to hopefully overshadow their faults... by making every bow 2-3 range. Since that extra space of range is normally exclusive to rarities like non-occupied ballistas and long-range magic (The former of which I want to increase the appearance of), this will give archers a new niche AND allow them to have a fair fight against mages (each of them has a way to prevent the other from countering). Not only that, but the extra range allows them more options for spots to attack from, such as terrain that is 3 blocks away from the foe. There's also the benefit of being able to attack enemies with three units in a one-tile wide hallway instead of just two. With this in mind, I can design some maps so that having an archer can be a major boon. So... yeah, it doesn't fix their enemy phase relevance (Or lack thereof), which will still hurt very bad, but I'd be lying if I said I thought making them like physical mages would keep or improve their uniqueness. This? This increases the support role of the Archer. ... Though... that does bring up the issue with Nomadic troopers and their blatant advantages over archers. I'll have to think more deeply into that.

So far, my game plan is: Archers/Snipers have exclusive access to 1-2 range bows that lack effectiveness Vs. Fliers For all bow users, they still have bows with only 2-range. Feel free to pitch more ideas. Archers seriously need a way to overcome their major weakness.

Hm... Maybe I should make archer/sniper-restricted bows with 1-2 range, and all the other bows that are only 2 range will be usable by both archers and other bow users. The 1-2 range bows would be like the archer equivalent to javelins and hand-axes in that they're 1-2 range, and they wouldn't have effectiveness to fliers. That way, Archers will still retain their anti-flier role with the normal bows, but also be able to fight melee if necessary. Naturally the 1-2 range bows will not be as effective as the normal bows, but being able to defend up close will greatly soften the blow of enemy phase irrelevance.

It's not something I've neglected. I'm considering removing their weakness to bows and instead giving them weakness to longsword/halberds/horsekillers/etc. That way, there's still a "check" for pegasus riders when you don't want them flying across the map, but they're still useful.

CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENT TIME I decided to give all bows 1-2 range... "BUT MARC!! YOU SAID THAT RUINS THE POINT OF ARCHERS!! YOU'RE A HYPOCRITE!!" Yes yes, I've said this before, and acted like it was the absolute way things had to go, but... hear me out. I've been testing out Chapter 3, which is the chapter where you get your first Archer, Marina, and I've been trying my damndest to make her able to hold her own. I even upped her stats really high, but... it doesn't change the fact that she'll only be killing one unit each turn because no enemy is going to attack archers from a distance on enemy phase. The things is, in order to make an archer good despite their major flaw, you have to very heavily cater the game to them. Throw fliers everywhere, give them ballistas as often as possible, etc. Archers are just way too polarizing. So with this in mind, I had to rethink my stance on Archers, because there's no way you can make an archer good without extreme catering... and then, I just decided to do the very thing I've always been against. It DOES turn Archers into physical mages, but honestly I think I'm just gonna have to live with that. Lots of enemies are physically defensive, so archers will be dealing less damage than mages, but at the same time, they'll have enough defense themselves to be able to hold their own, unlike mages who typically need high speed and luck to do the same. So... yeah. I think this decision is a good one. In other news, I'm considering releasing the first "demo" of the hack once the first four chapters are completely finished.

I spoke with Cam on skype and he told me he didn't intend for it to be read the way I interpreted it as. S'all just a misunderstanding. My apologies for calling you out like that, Cam, and my apologies to the serenes public as well.

Alright, let's see how you back up this point... Key word here is "option". When the game gives you no way of seeing certain elements coming beforehand and causing you to fail because of such, then it's not an option, it's an obligation that only becomes an option after you find out everything the chapter pitches at you. Because it's intuitive, and doesn't make the player feel cheated when they fail. Proof please. How many times did you lose because of something in the game you had no way of seeing beforehand? Are you saying you "didn't have trouble" because once you failed solely off of some dues ex machina, then proceeded to make a working strategy around it afterwards? Because that still means you failed because of a cheap design decision that does nothing but pad your gameplay experience, not enhance it. Or... perhaps you're masochistic and like feeling cheated and didn't have "trouble" because you enjoyed the feeling of having to redo the entire chapter over something you had no way of foreseeing? This one actually caught me for a bit. I was actually sitting in my chair thinking maybe I was wrong for a short while, but then I remembered something. When you word it that way, it makes your argument sound more valid, but here's the thing... this has nothing to do with Dondon's sense of intuitive design. You can argue that LTCEmblem is about getting as low a turn count as possible, and that part of the fun of restarting is that now you have new information, but that says absolutely nothing about Dondon's design. Thinking about it closely, I do agree that part of the satisfaction of LTC is restarting each attempt with new information, but it's an emotion that should be naturally induced. The player should be able to say "Well, my turn count wasn't as low as it could be, because my strategy wasn't good enough", not "Well, my turn count was high because the game decided to throw an element at me that I had no way of preparing for". See where the separation exists? One gives player the feeling that they can improve, and makes them want to achieve it, while the other makes the player feel like it's the game's fault that they failed, and that they don't need to improve their skills and methods, but instead just remember one extra detail that isn't immediately apparent, and prepare for it this time. I'm sorry, but this just sounds like a sore loser trying to dismiss his opponent just so he doesn't feel like he lost. Just because people like something doesn't mean it can't be improved on. Take a look at Michael Jackson's album "Thriller". It's the best-selling album of all time, and it's very clear why. It's music is great. However, a few critics complained that it's title song breaks the momentum of the album. Sure, it's still a great album, but the flaw still exists. Additionally, just because someone finds something fun doesn't mean they think it's flawless, or without it's faults. Many people love The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, but many of those same people also dislike certain elements, like the Water Temple. If you want to call me out on something, don't try to dismiss me when I'm trying to be reasonable with you. I think my complaints are quite valid, yet your own arguments have mainly been "That's just the way it is!" or "That's how it's supposed to be!". Why are you settling for the status quo when you could be going beyond?

"Because that's kind of how puzzleFE works" "It's good because... that's just how it is!" That's not an endearing argument. What makes puzzles fun is that everything you need to know is laid out in front of you, except for the solution, which you need to contemplate on your own. The only thing that makes you fail is when you make a mistake, or have a flawed plan. When you fail because the game didn't tell you something, or give you any reason to anticipate it, it's the game's fault, not yours, which is a bad design. Tetris makes it clear what your next piece is going to be, so it's just a matter of planning where it's going to go. The Adventures of Lolo is a well received action-puzzle game that lays out all the factors of the levels before you. All you need is to think of how you will solve it. All puzzle games provoke thought and reward well thought out strategies with victory. Dondon's project does that, but only after you've learned all of it's tricks, which you only learn by restarting over and over again after these tricks are inconveniently introduced when you can't recover from them.

Trial and error isn't a good thing. Dondon's game would be better if you didn't pretty much fail everytime a new element was introduced. The last time I played it, I didn't realize Hector was the only one who could recruit the NPCs when it seemed just as sensible to recruit Serra with someone else, like Matthew, a character who has worked with her before, yet for some reason they have taken a vow of silence towards each other, with absolutely no hint that this is the case. If Dondon's game laid out it's factors before you so that you could focus entirely on making an optimal strategy, it would be a lot better, because then there would be nothing to rudely interrupt the enjoyment of testing out your strategies and watching how they play out. The game's goal is to challenge LTCers while making casual players strain their mind for solutions. If it didn't have these frustrating trial and error factors, it would be a lot more approachable by both factions.

Hm... I'm... I kind of see where you're coming from. You're meaning to say "If I'm playing well, I don't want the game to punish me for it". The example you provided kind of sounds like that, at least, since it's a design that punishes the player for beating the chapter too quickly, which is, by proxy, playing well. =X I don't have much to say in reply to this, since it sounds pretty sensible to me. I guess in a way, it makes me think like this; "If you don't have X unit, this part isn't impossible, but it's more difficult". Which makes sense to me because it doesn't restrict/punish the player's unit choices so much as provide them with an obstacle they need to deal with as a result of their choice.

Well here's the thing. Villages aren't typically required to beat a level. You COULD choose to use a safer strategy, and lose out on the village prize, or you could be risky and go after it for the prize. Each strategy has their pros and cons, and each one still means you can beat the chapter, so there are still multiple ways to win. Looking back, I think it depends on the level. I didn't mind LTCing the first part of my Ragefest submission, in fact that's pretty much how I designed the first part. I actually found it fun, and it probably would've been more so if I didn't design it in such a tedious manner. But then came the second part and... ugh... it's so restrictive, annoying and tedious. It reeks of laziness, like if it's trying to force difficulty down the player's throat by trial and error bullshit, and by clusterfucking them with needlessly powerful enemy units. It was really, really frustrating. Because of this and Dondon's project, I think my previous stance on LTC is flawed; it's not so much the concept that I should be taking issue with, it's the way the level is designed. If doing things efficiently and quickly doesn't get me any rewards that I'd miss out on otherwise, it feels pointless.

After being disappointed with Dream of Five, I've come to realize that there's a consistent trait what I don't like in level design. Before now, I was sure the only two uninteresting strategies were bait 'n switch, and turtling, but now I'm starting to realize that I also hate dog piling; a strategy where you group all your units together, using them solely to overpower the enemy forces by the shear density of your firepower. When I played Dondon's hack - which was a while ago - I found it's trial and error gameplay to be frustrating. However, one thing it did magnificently well in it's first level was that I was forced to distribute my fire power in order to achieve success. Every unit's existence mattered, because they had to be somewhere at a certain time, and their unique skills would determine where you'd want to place them. I think that's why the map works so well. It's simplistic, but everytime I restarted the chapter, I thought about where I placed my units and how I could further optimize my strategy. I think what turned me off so much about Dream of Five is that there was almost never a reason to split up my troops. Chapter 2 had two villages and one unit to save, but because the villages weren't in any danger, I just needed to recruit Chester and then dog pile the rest of the enemy squad. Meanwhile, in my restricted playthrough, I enjoyed chapter 6 because every unit I used had a specific purpose; Amelia needed to wipe out the enemy forces at the bottom and fight the boss, Ilanice had to ferry her there, and Renair, having no second pegasus rider to ferry her, had to outlast the enemy troops while she waited for Ilanice so she could seize the castle. I think that's when I'm enjoying Fire Emblem most, when it's asking me to split up my units and asign them separate roles in order to achieve a common goal.

Welp. I decided to . Even when playing without the restrictions bestowed in the playthrough, I don't enjoy the game.In it's place, I'm going to be doing the Z Project hack by The Emblem Brigade community. I don't have high hopes for it's level design, but if it at least nets some laughs, it'll make for an amusing playthrough. I might also ask Dondon151 for permission to record his hack as well since I feel it's a good demonstration of how I feel level design should be done. Well... minus the lack of intuitiveness, the memorization, and some really terrible design decisions... On second thought, maybe I should just record it to show that it at least has level design with identity and purpose, and a clear thought process behind it, and simply discourage the bad stuff like a certain element in the second level. Though, it's been a while since I last played it so maybe my complaints have been fixed. Dondon took my critiques pretty gracefully.