MarkyJoe1990

It's the only commentary we've ever done together, so... yeah. I think it's a mix of Camtech's submission and ESPECIALLY Hithere1's that convinced me that I had to set some limitations to fog of war. Having to deal with only one range of vision has got to be one of the most horrible designs I've ever seen, and it makes submissions virtually unplayable. I think a lot of people give Ragefest 1 a bit too much credit. In terms of submissions, it was probably the worst on-average Ragefest to date, with Matthew's Nightmare being the diamond in the rough. I feel the real reason why Ragefest 1 is more appreciated than the later ones is because my commentary was a lot more enthusiastic, especially compared to Ragefest 3 where I was just too worn out by the length of the submissions to really do them justice. Maybe someday, I should revisit the ragefests and give each of them a sort of retrospective review.

I haven't officially announced it, but if you look at the votes on the , FELover3's submission has an enormous string of votes. by 24fitz.

Due to popular request, I've decided to revitalize Ragefest as an ongoing series rather than a contest. Submissions Submission 1: A Hobbit's Tale by Lifestorm - , Submission 2: Tower Defense by Jay007 - FAQ Q: What is Ragefest? A: Before now, it was a contest series I started to encourage productivity in the Fire Emblem Hacking Community. The goal was to make a creative and funny, but sadistically hard chapter in one of the GBA Fire Emblems (Or FEXP) to submit to me. Once sent, I would record myself playing the submission, blind, with commentary, allowing viewers to witness my rage and amusement organically. This became the most popular series on my youtube channel. After a while, I started to feel the contest was getting stagnant, and my enthusiasm for it was waning, so I announced the postponement of Ragefest 4 and ax'd the series from then on. However, because so many people wanted me to bring it back, I decided to grant them their wish, and thus Ragefest continues as an ongoing series. Q: Can I submit a hack to this series? A: Yes you may. But it must fit the following requirements. - The chapter must have a brand new custom map, and custom events - It must be reasonably beatable without the help of a guide, grinding, Arena abuse, or excessive luck - For Fog of War maps, you must provide a unit with thief vision (A unit who can see far in the fog) It doesn't matter if it's an actual hack, or a Fire Emblem game made with FEXP or something else. So long as it's Fire Emblem in some way, it's fair game. It's also worth noting that I'm not obligated to play your submission if I don't want to. However, unless you're completely incompetent at being funny, creative, or sadistic, the chances of me denying your submission are slim. Q: I want to learn Fire Emblem Hacking! A: That's not a question, but here. Q: What do you look for in submissions? A: For me, the ideal submission is concise, funny, incredibly dickish, challenging, and has a story that motivates me to continue playing despite the horrors I undergo. Q: Have any submissions met your standards? A: Most people would probably agree that is the realization of my ideal Ragefest Submission. However, while it is probably overall the best submission ever submitted to the contest, there are a few other submissions that come pretty close to it's glory, and even do certain aspects better.Examples: - The most challenging submission in the contest is probably . It's designed with no RNG, and the entire level is tailored to revolve around this idea. On top of that, the enemies are very carefully placed, requiring precise actions in order to avoid losing anyone.- The Funniest submission is probably . It's notorious for the "Manphia" mug, which made me laugh for nearly an entire minute.- The most sadistic submission... is debatable. Matthew's Nightmare made me extremely paranoid because it was riddled with traps EVERYWHERE, but Marc's Special Day made me feel angry, distressed, and exhausted nearly the entire way through. Q: What are your favorite submissions? A: Matthew's Nightmare Rondo of Madness F. EXE Q: Any advice on how NOT to design a Ragefest submission? A: - Watch . This submission gets nothing right. Besides the beginning, none of the enemies will move unless you get into their range, allowing you to easily bait & switch your way through the entire chapter (Which is tedious). It's dialogue is embarrassingly wishy washy. There's hardly any jokes, and the few that are there aren't funny. Worst of all, you have to Arena Abuse to beat the boss.- has maps that are awful looking, tedious, and devoid of challenge. However, the reason why it won Ragefest 3 is because it was just so god damn hilarious. It's self aware of it's own terribleness, and uses that as the foundation for most of it's jokes. Not only that, but it's characters are clearly defined (They have goals, personalities, and they're funny), it's depiction of my cynical, whiney nature is quite spot on, and it plays up it's own stupidity to maximum comedic effect. It was clearly designed to extract as many reactions out of me as possible. Let's not forget. Manphia. Just. Manphia. on the other hand, attempts to do the same "self aware bad hack" schtick, and fails miserably. The fourth wall is abused recklessly, the characters are paper thin, and it uses a slew of references that completely flew over my head. Also, ALL CAPS and internet speak aren't funny. If you're gonna make a "self aware bad hack", do it the FELover3 way, not the way this hack did it.Q: Why are you such an asshole in your videos? A: Some of the submissions I get are... well... terrible. There's nothing that upsets me quite as much as feeling like the creator just half assed a submission together just to get attention, or see something they made get played. Other times the creator hypes their submission up to be fantastic, and then when I play it and realize it's not as good as they made it out to be and... well... hype backlash. I get angry and annoyed at the creator's arrogance. Sometimes it's my fault though. I either go into a submission while in a bad mood, or I played the wrong, inferior version of the submission, and end up ragging on it undeservingly. Or I'm just a douche in general. Plenty of people can confirm that last one. Q: Could you go easy on my submission? I'm a bit sensitive. A: I'm not very good at restraining what comes out of my mouth, so while I'll try to go easy on your submission, I can't guarantee that I'll make it through the whole thing without saying at least one mean thing. Q: I want to send you hate mail. A: markyjoe1990@gmail.com

I'm using FE8's 6C006D6E tileset. It doesn't appear to have any beach tiles.

They can, but for the sake of making more visual sense, I made the water look more shallow.

Added deep water tiles and made the "pirate crossing" spot look shallow compare to the rest of the water so it makes more sense. I also lowered the might of brave weapons significantly.

Until now, I didn't even know there were deep water tiles. Gonna fix that soon. I did that so pirates can get to the village. If it's a big problem, I'll find some other way to give them access. I might do that.

Defense mission attempt number 2... *sigh*

50 units per alliance, meaning 50 enemies max, 50 allies max, and 50 NPCs max.

And now it's time for a rant because I'm extremely pissed off. Today's rant is Defense missions. Let's take a look at the defense map I created. I have no god damn idea how to make an effective defense mission, so I've been relying on what MageKnight404 has said in his LPs, and what my friend JadeWyvernRider says. One of the things Jade told me is that I should create a "boundary" that the player should never EVER cross. The result? I placed a ton of super dangerous units outside the castle, positioned so that if you step a square past the staircases leading out of the castle, you will get attacked by at least 6 units in a single enemy phase, guaranteeing that you will lose a unit. Naturally I want the player to be able to reach the villages, so I lowered the enemy densities in the paths leading to the villages, making the player able to reasonably fight their way through to get the villages. Then I realized I have way too many units in the map. 43 to be exact, and the max is 50 per alliance. Meaning I can only spawn 7 units each turn. So I decide that I'm going to lower the density of enemy units starting with the top left corner of the map, which - prior to the change - had three berserkers, two falcoknights, a swordmaster and two generals. To compensate for the lowered enemy count, I gave them better equipment to ensure a kill. I didn't want to give them brave weapons since brave weapons are way too overpowered as they are right now (I'll likely lower their hit to compensate), so I give them stuff like killer and mythril weapons. Problem is that when I put Shigeid (A fast warrior) in their range to test, he didn't die. More equipment changes, and then finally he dies. Then I test it with Jonsin (A paladin) and he lives because he managed to dodge enough hits. This pisses me off so I switch the classes over to ones with high skill, then change their weapons to stuff with high hit. Then I realize that I don't have enough units to make more than 3 attack at the same time. More repositioning until I realize the mountain is preventing me from appropriately placing units, so I move it. Minutes later, I have to remove the entire mountain, then I lose my temper and ragequit after I realize how butchered the map looks aethetically. Not only that, but now the player has a very clear path to the left village because the castle's walls and the river don't reach far enough to create a "wall" that forces the player to exit through the south. I don't even know if I'm doing this shit right, but it's pissing me the hell off. I might have to redesign the entire map just so it can function the way I want it to.

Right. I'll just drop the thread from here then.

No clue.

I believe it was back when Shrine of Seals was still Fire Emblem Universe. I think the story went like this. Assuming BuringPenitentEngine used it first, it was probably in one of his playthroughs of one of my Fire Emblem hacks. I must've heard him use it, so I started using it myself and I spread it across the FEU forums where it stuck. If I coined it, then... it's the same story minus the first part.

Are you sure? Cause "reskin" was coined by either me or BuringPenitentEngine, and that seems to be commonly used as well. What's FESS?

Don't you think adding in characters that aren't your own and making them significant to the plot will look bad for your project?

Me. That's why I made the thread in the first place.

Yeah, but who coined the term?

I had a discussion with AstraLunaSol about ambush spawning not too long ago, and it occurred to me that I have no idea where the term came from. The earliest reference to Ambush Spawning that I can remember is in Tale 3 of my Elibean Nights playthrough. It was either in the video itself or I said it in the comments, so it makes me wonder if I was the one who coined the term.

What he described didn't sound like ambush spawning to me... Actually, who coined that term anyway?

Yeah, I had a feeling it was something like that. The game needs to remember your other ally units afterall. Hopefully this new update of the ASM will work.

I know the RAM offset that shows which player unit is currently active, but not the offset that shows which enemy is being attacked. If I ever learn it, I'll either go with your idea, or with my own idea (Attacked enemy copies all of your stats after the battle sequence).

I'll figure something out. Actually. mind sending me your ROM + SAV + ASM Location so I can debug the problem? EDIT: I tossed a guess out and assumed that sometimes undeployed units are checked before deployed ones, and remade the code. Here Hopefully that fixes the problem.

The fuck? Wow. I didn't even test it to make sure it works. You're welcome. =S Lemme know when you need other ASMy stuff.

I wasn't clear. Trigger an event with AFEV or TURN, and make the event call the condition. Though, I guess you already did that. Okay that's weird, because I don't have a prep screen in my testing chapter. Are there ally units you haven't deployed? Also, I edited my previous post to have a download to new ASM. Have you tried it? If you can, could you talk to me on skype about this? I wanna get to the bottom of this.

Alright, tested the "All Units Dead" code... It works fine for me. I checked it in the debugger and confirmed this. You said you were running the check before your units are fielded, right? Meaning, no ally units on the screen? The code is supposed to be used either as an AFEV code, or a TURN code, and called in an event with IFAF. If you use it before the prep screen, it probably won't work as intended. If it still isn't working, my best guess is that you might be doing something wrong. EDIT: Apparently it doesn't work when you have a prep screen. I'll look into this. EDIT2: Try this one.