Deltre

Interesting to know. I have played 1.3 before years and years ago, but I mostly just like Agrias because Agrias. I seem to remember a certain other swordskiller being much much worse, because he didn't even have the good sense to be female. There are a few things I could think of that might make Agrias usable, but you're probably right in that it might take some work. My main issue with her is the same one that I have in vanilla, in that she has almost no JP for this point in the game, and specials cannot go on propositions for whatever reason. And I haven't been showing it, but I have slowly been working towards Dancer/Bard with propositions

Three more? Sure, why not. Part 11, in which we don't stay away from the summoner. Part 12, in which Ramza kills EVERYTHING. Part 13, in which Ramza makes me upset that I named the last part after him. But we also get the best girl so it balances out.

Literally me on my practice try of that stage. I feel for ya dude. Also I'm bad and didn't read the instructions correctly so it should be 34/36 not 35/36 for me, since I cleared the 8 Mavericks before going back for Spark Mandrills E-Tank and forgetting about Sting Chameleons Heart Tank. My apologies.

I was watching this while my own run uploaded, and I have to say it's really weird to me that there's like this "unofficial" order to do all the stages in. We go through them in the exact same order even though it's not weakness order haha. Well, I say exact same order, but I make a pretty ridiculous mistake later on in my own run, but that is the order I was going for. It's funny, we both missed the arm cannon on the first pass too. That jump is horrible, no? Anyways, there's my submission for the challenge. Pretty happy overall, except for one glaring mistake I make which only became apparent after I finished haha.

Hmm I was debating on posting this or not, but instead I think I'll preface my post with so that said, if you feel the need to disagree with me (totally fine), but feel like maybe you're getting a little heated please just PM me instead. Final Fantasy 7 is the second worst Final Fantasy, second only to 13 and not counting Mystic Quest. I could honestly go on for hours about this one, and nitpick all the things I don't like, but trying to keep in the confines of the rules laid out here I will keep it as simple and clean (heh) as possible. 1. Every character is the same in battle, discounting limit breaks and the fact that some can attack from the back row without materia. It started with 6, but 7 makes this fact really obvious, and at least 6 had characters with special abilities unique to them. 2. Objectively speaking Sephiroth accomplishes less as a villain than every single villain before and most that come after him, and I do mean nearly every single one. [spoiler=Spoilers FF 1-13]Chaos had the Time Loop. Palpantine had the Pandemonium and after you kill him he literally conquers Hell to come back to spite you. If you count the bonus content then he conquers Heaven too. The Dark Cloud threw the entire world into ruin, save for one small plot of land where your adventure begins. Zemus mind controls your brother, who controls your jealous best friend, resurrects an ancient doomsday weapon, and has hatred so strong it's nearly impossible to actually eradicate him. By the way, he does so from the freaking moon while half asleep. Ex-Death successfully merges two universes together, in addition to already having all but conquered Galuf's world to begin with. Kefka destroys the world as you know it and literally becomes God. Ultimecia achieves her Time Kompression nonsense, even though I admit I don't totally get it, we can at the very least agree that she accomplishes her goals. Kuja destroys Terra, masterminds a war that eventually gets Brahne killed right in front of Garnet's eyes, and destroys existence, or at least destroys the crystal causing the creature who would destroy existence if not for your party. Again, the game isn't really clear at the end. Yu Yevon, while a lame fight indeed, is certainly more successful in his overall goals than Sephy-boy, and if we're bringing in gameplay, then Yu Yevon isn't really any less pathetic in terms of difficulty than the final duel with Sephiroth. Never played 11, so I'll have to skip that one. Vayne has his goons on your ass the entire game, and it's hilarious that he has next to no idea who any of you are except for maybe Ashe when you do fight him, but I admit I'm struggling to think of much that he himself is directly responsible for. So I think I'll give this one to Sephiroth. Sadly, I think even Barthandelus is more successful than Sephiroth, as much as I hate to say it. The way he goes about his plan is much, much more stupid, but in the end you do become Ragnarok, technically, so I dunno how to place this one. I'll say, tie. 3. I find the soundtrack to be just okay. Not bad, mind you, but not the highest point in the series either. I will say that I like Those Who Fight Further and One Winged Angel. 4. I don't like most of the characters. Subjective, I know, but sue me. I have reasons, but this is probably the most sensitive area for most people, so I'll just leave it at that. 5&6. Tifa's boobs. Boobs don't work like that. Stop it. Of course, I don't have a problem with people liking the game, particularly you PAL gamers, who from what I understand didn't see an FF before 7 besides Mystic Quest of all things. But, it wasn't my first FF, so I guess it just doesn't do anything for me. Blasphemy I know.

I'm surprised you found a version of the Nightmare pack without the Terrain Editor! I don't have a copy on hand but it's one of the newest modules so maybe just search for "new nightmare module FE8" or something like that. The Staff EXP Constant is located at 2C676, however.

Well, I looked into it, and I think you are correct. You have to grab the Heart Containers in the Dark World in order to beat the dungeons. Go figure. As for length, I dunno, it would certainly be a lot longer than say this week for example. It would need tweaking, but since it's not possible without codes to my knowledge, I withdraw that one anyways.

This is visibly false. Nintendo is really one of the only companies to consistently change up the formula with every generation since the Gamecube. Hell, it's one of the main points of contention against Ninty really, especially since they do the same thing with their IPs from time to time as well (looking at you, Paper Mario). Also, since the OP brought up difficulty, let's not pretend that the older generation of Nintendo games weren't infinitely harder than they are now. This is partially true though and shouldn't be overlooked either. Especially since Nintendo does keep changing things up, it's harder to stay invested in things that once held your interest, especially in cases where the new games change up so much they may as well be a new series or spin-off. That said I'm fairly optimistic about the future of Nintendo. There are still some titles that at the very least catch my eye, from time to time. That's honestly more than I can say for my PS4, which is just a really expensive paperweight at this stage. I'd like to get AA6 and possibly Bravely Second at some point. Paper Mario might be okay, but still not the Paper Mario I wanted (give me TYD 2 damn it). Fates...well there's new Pokemon just around the corner. Pokken is cool, Breath of the Wild looks great, and A Link Between Worlds from a few years back was pretty good, if admittedly played up for the nostalgia factor. Zero Time Dilemma, although multi-platform had its best version on 3DS. Honestly, if they would just remember that Mario and Zelda aren't their only IPs they'd be in pretty good shape as far as first party titles too. The Wii U is hardly a smash hit, to be sure, but the 3DS is going strong, and I don't see it stopping any time soon. Even then there are plenty of games previously released on the system worth checking out like Sm4sh, Bayo 2, Splatoon, Xenoblade Chronicles X, etc. At the end of the day though, I can't really say they've gotten any worse really. The fact of the matter is, most games suck. Most games have always sucked. For every Super Mario Bros. there are 30+ Ikari Warriors or some other trash. We just remember the good ones. It's just a little more obvious on the Wii U, since it has barely any games to begin with.

Oooh I'm definitely getting in on this weeks action. I really like the idea of this thread too. I'm not suggesting this for the very next challenge or anything, but what about an X-Buster only run of one of these games, with the same 1 Life Only rule? Or even classic Mega Man, even though I suck at those haha. I'll definitely have to scheme up some more of these ideas, challenge runs were really all you had when you grew up with maybe one, two new games a year if you were lucky lol. EDIT: Thought of a few more(non-system intesive) challenges . Punch-Out!: No continues, determined by who lasts the longest, then by score. (Super) Contra: No Konami Code, determined by who lasts the longest, then by score. Pokemon (GBA): Nuzlocke run, determined by who lasts the longest, then by in game time. Sonic 1/2/3&K: No deaths, more emeralds = more points. Ties determined by in game point total. Comix Zone: Beat the damn game >_> (the actual challenge is no continue, but it's not much harder tbh) Zelda: A Link to the Past: 3 Heart Run, though I can't remember if the game keeps track of continues or not so I don't know how to determine a winner. # of practice runs would be determined on a game to game basis.

Part 10 is now up! Final Fantasy is a series that never fails to give me a healthy fear of teenage girls who can solo entire armies by themselves. Also, damn it Mustadio.

Part 9 is now up! Always remember to stock up on items before the battle kids! Luckily, Anna owes me one, especially after Part 8.

More FFT 1.3? Why certainly, coming right up! Part 6! In which Algus is terrible. Part 7! Three fights for the price of one! Part 8! In which my chemical composition can be represented entirely by the formula "NaCl"

Have a two for one update with Part 4 and Part 5. Sweegy was easy peasy. Dorter was...slightly less so. A lot less so. Okay Dorter was hard. Doesn't help that they've since released versions with the proper names either :p on Nintendo consoles no less.

Part 3 is now up, in which we meet the best character in the world! Also, I'm using a different set-up for this one and probably every subsequent video since it's just outright better. I found an old mic laying around so the sound quality should be a bit better, and more importantly, I'm not hunched up over a horrible laptop mic making it both difficult to play and speak clearly. Seriously, the way I had things before were so ridiculous you'd wonder why I even bothered trying to record. Also I'd like an opinion on the editing style I used for this one. I've gotten more used to recording so the commentary isn't nearly as cringey now that I'm feeling a bit more comfortable. I stand by some of it, but hey, I'm not so self indulgent that I can't admit nerves definitely hurt the quality here. Mostly I want to know if people mind my cutting out repetitive actions/grindy bits once the fight is for all intents and purposes over, as well as long periods where I'm just thinking. I feel that what I did improves the watchability a ton, especially when I'm just waiting around for crystals and such. Don't worry, all boss fights will be bigger, longer, and completely uncircumcised; there's no save scumming here. Hell, not even any fast forwarding (on my end, I may or may not speed through gameplay post recording if it gets ridiculous). But I just can't see making people watch me bash my own units over the head for 15 minutes straight or whatever. Even if SOME units deserve it more so than others. Ouch, my condolences. I get where you're coming from. I've played just about every FF under the sun by this point, so I know the official numbering, but when I was playing FF4 at 3-4 years old it was FF2. Habits die hard lol.

Part 2 is up! I'd like to put these out faster but no joke, I spent a total of 6 hours between rendering and uploading/processing so it's definitely a work in progress to say the least. At least in the time it took I threw together the most appropriate title card I could think of. It's the little things, really. Fair enough. I don't mind Shakespearean writing necessarily, but I remember this game a certain way. It wouldn't be the same game to me without l i t t l e m o n e y and stuff like that. I can admit that the translation probably could have used a touch up, but it's almost unrecognizable. If you've never played the original it probably doesn't matter though, and I'm sure the PSP/IOS version is just as good when it gets down to it. My heart goes out to you for the whole PAL gamer thing. You guys get screwed pretty badly, from what I understand. Lmfao I don't know why, but that & knuckles bit killed me dude. That's good to know, very cheap for sure. I'm not exactly terrible or great at fighting games but there's something novel about these compilation fighting games I like. And Final Fantasy II/IV was one of my first games ever so yeah, I love me some Final Fantasy.

You know, I WOTL was a game I really wanted back in the day when I had a PSP. If you can live with the slowdown it's still great, and I did always want to try those new battles they added. What killed it for me is the re-translation. Maybe I'm just getting old (22 is the new 60 don't you know) but there's just something weird about the whole "Wherefore art thou Alma" style writing that just rubbed me the wrong way. Also Algus's new name is Argus Thadofolus which is somehow, impossibly, makes me hate him even more. And yeah, calculator is out completely. I never really used it back in the day because like you said, and I can't believe I can say this, math is way too OP. Never played Dissidia but always really wanted to. Is it PS Vita? I may pick it up if it's not, or see if I can snag a PStv at some point. Partially my fault for hyping it up so much (and it really is as hard as I'm saying here) but I know of several people over on the website where I found this that played through FFT 1.3 as their first experience with the game. If you do your research on the mechanics it's probably not impossible, even if you've never played it. I totally understand wanting to play vanilla first too though! Any time Correct! I am unsure if there are still enemy calculators though. I did make it to the final battle on a previous version (we're talking 6 or 7 years ago mind you), but never did the Deep Dungeon. Also I could never beat the final boss so I have a bit of a vendetta against this game haha. Anyways I decided to do a basic rundown of the mechanics anyways. I'll probably do one more like it that covers more 1.3 specific details, but I'd prefer to keep these separate from the main videos to save on time, as well as for those who would rather see the changes as they happen. Also I'll have a real update tomorrow for anyone who cares! I'll be up front, I can probably do the next 3 battles in my sleep, but from the fourth on things should get more interesting. You know the battle I'm talking about and then from what I can remember it pretty much never stops.

is up, where we meet an old friend and kill our second Zodiac Demon. My editor also decided to really mess up the sound of my voice, as well as drop about 5 seconds of video, but that's life. [spoiler=Videos] Chapter 1 Part 1- Part 2 - Part 3 - Part 4 - Part 5 - Part 6 - Part 7 - Part 8 - Chapter 2 Part 9 - Part 10 - Part 11 - Part 12 - Part 13 - Part 14 - Part 15 - Chapter 3 Part 16 - Part 17 - Part 18 - Extra 1 - Part 19 - [spoiler=OP] What's going on guys, I wanted to share with you guys over on the FE side of things a playthrough of what is in all honesty my favorite game of all time. FE is my current lover, but at heart, I know she'll never be as good to me as my first. Which brings us to this game. Masterful gameplay, masterful storytelling, and a masterful soundtrack all blended together to form the closest thing to a perfect game as it gets in my eyes. But some hardcore fans over at the Insane Difficulty forums added an extra ingredient to this concoction; Insane...dificulty. . .it sounded better in my head. Here are some before and after images to illustrate my point. [spoiler=Before] Nothing out of the ordinary. Now if we apply the patch: [spoiler=After] It's subtle, but upon careful observation the differences become apparent. So if strategy games are your thing, but FE isn't quite doing it for you or you just want something different, I highly encourage you to check this out! But be warned, this game makes Conquest Lunatic look like a lil' bitch. It eats Thracia for breakfast and Lunatic Reverse calls 1.3 its daddy. If you're a fan of the FFT series and you consider yourself an expert then you owe to yourself to give this a go. But as it says in the description for the mod, you'd better check your ego at the door. I attempted this patch many years ago, but was never able to finish it to completion. Now, many years and several versions later my pride has finally healed and I'm ready to get back on that horse again. And fear not! If you have no clue about Final Fantasy Tactics and how it works, I can answer any questions you may have. Although I totally skipped out on this during part one. If it's requested though I can throw together a video on the mechanics, because it's absolutely essential if you're going to play along or on your own. For the vets, I'll throw a list of notable changes in the spoilers tag below, as well as a link to the mod. EDIT: There is also a version of the mod that strictly adds in the modified content without the overpowering difficulty. It's called FFT 1.3 Content. Can't believe I forgot to mention that. I imagine it's still a good bit harder thanks to the rebalancing, but should be good in case you want something in between Vanilla and controller-through-screen rage inducing. [spoiler=Changes + Patch Download]Download Here Dark Knight & Onion Knight playable without WOTL Marche from FFTA is playable 200+ New Random Battles 50+ Arena 5 VS 5 VS 5 Free For All battles 40+ New Deep Dungeon Battles Rebalanced / nerfed overpowered elements that trivialized the game Completely redesigned storyline battles, boss encounters, and sidequests Thousands of individual balance changes White Chocobos and Green Chocobos Archaic Demon event Vormav 1 vs 1 duel event Cactuars Tonberries Sage Job Marksman Job JP Scroll / Level Up / Down / Degenerator Glitches removed from the game Jobs rebalanced Items and Poaching rebalanced Brave and Faith are no longer alterable All storyline enemies are now the player's level in strength or higher Enemies now use every single item the player can use except rares Enemies now have alot more JP to learn strong abilities with Anyways, without further ado, here's . Nothing too spectacular, it's the intro battle, what did you expect? The quality will be better in the next part as well, I'm pretty sure I've sorted out my emulator issues. Also, I was thinking about making this a one off, but since I'm actually going to play through this I'll attempt to slow down for the story next time, promise I stand by my version though. Can't very well skip through everything if I'm calling it masterful though, can I?

While I personally agree with almost everything put forth by more moderate feminists (ideas that I've personally encountered or people I've personally spoken with), I could never see myself actually identify myself as a feminist in this day and age because the fact of the matter is that most feminist figures in the public eye would fall under the umbrella of 'radical feminism.' I understand that many moderate feminists dislike these people as much as the rest of us, and that there are indeed less extreme examples out there of perfectly reasonable feminist figures, even mainstream ones. I understand that stance is a bit unfair, but ultimately I think it's the best decision for me personally. If I identify as feminist and then try to have a conversation about some of the issues that the moderates have up on the chopping block, I'm less likely to be taken seriously. No two ways about it really, labels carry certain connotations and the first thing that most people think of when they here 'Feminism' are not the more reasonable voices out there under the feminist umbrella. It's your Lena Dunham's and your Anita Sarkesians that come to mind first, unfortunately. And ultimately, I find that people are far more receptive to moderate feminism if you present the ideas without the label. As an aside, although I understand the need for a label as a name under which to unify, I really feel that radical feminists have somewhat hijacked the term. A lot of what I consider 'real feminism' (as if there is such a thing in this year) is great! In fact, a lot of it you'd think would be so obvious (a big one that gets me as the hilariously disproportionate rates of sexual harassment) that it's strange to think we're still debating over it. But I'd argue staying under one all encompassing label like this really, really hurts in the eye of the average man (or woman), who is probably not educated on the subject at all. Personally I'd like to see the rise of 'People for the Advancement of Common Sense' or 'Genitalia Be Damned - We're All Going to Die' but I know that's mostly just a pipe dream. I've seen a few people bring up the term 'rape culture' a few times but I'd honestly like to see a dedicated explanation as to what exactly this is. Based on the things I see whenever this is brought up I feel like it's a huge misnomer and harmful to what I always thought was the intended point. Because the reality is, most men can in fact control themselves around women. Well, that may not be entirely accurate, but we're certainly capable of controlling ourselves to the point that we wouldn't insert ourselves into an unwilling participant. I just can't see an argument any other way. Where I do see problem, a huge one even, is in how people who are privileged and those in power look at these situations. Bonus points to ignorance if you're part of an older generation. Also, I'd like to remove police handling of rapes from this equation for the time being, because there's clearly something wrong there as well. I believe this is likely a (lack of) training issue in combination with the inherent power imbalance in any interaction with an officer, but I admit this is just a gut feeling, and inexcusable regardless. The only thing that ultimately matters is whether or not consent was 1. capable of being given and 2. actually was or was not given at the time of the crime. Back to the point I was trying to make however, I say we look no further than the case of one Brock Turner - Former Harvard Rapist turned symbol of everything wrong with this nation's attitude with sexual assault. I'm sure many of us have at least passing knowledge of this farce of a case, but I'll try to explain it anyways. Brock Turner - Privileged Rapist was found sexually assaulting an unconscious woman by two other male classmates who did the sensible thing of detaining him and contacting the authorities. Fast-forward to a time when the media (perhaps the most powerful group of corporations in our country) gets wind of the story, and we see Brock Turner - Rapist being hailed as Brock Turner - Former Harvard Swimmer (who, more importantly, is a god damned rapist, but good luck finding that in the headlines). And then of course is the complete utter failure of a 'trial' where ultimately Rapist Brock Turner was sentenced to 6 months in jail by old, privileged, judge (again, a person in a position of power) Aaron Persky. And then Brock Turner The Rapist got out in three for good behavior, which I assume means he managed to put his dick down for the duration of the stay or not fondle any of the female guards like a rational human being capable of rubbing what are likely his only two bits of grey matter together to form a thought. Also, it's clear from interviews that his privileged father never took the time to sit down with him and talk to him about anything in the same stratosphere of proper sexuality. He can be quoted as saying (and God how I wish this were made up) "It's a shame to thing that he [brock Turner The Rapist] might have his future ruined for what amounts to 20 minutes of action." Clearly, the rapist doesn't fall far from the tree in terms of critical thinking ability. But as much as this case would seem to validate the idea of rape culture, it's very important to note a few things. The first is that on the day of his release, the Turner residence was all but surrounded by protesters. This suggests to me that by and large, the public does not conform to the idea of rape culture and that it's mostly an issue of privileged men whose terrible parents never set any boundaries. You know, the type of kid who likely got away with absolutely everything growing up, and because daddy was a prominent figure somewhere they likely didn't have anyone else tell them that their current existence amounts to a conglomeration of human refuse. This applies to a lot of the people you'd be likely to see in a fraternity as well, many of whom probably come from similar backgrounds where they never really had to do much of anything for their success. These kind of upbringings are absolutely terrifying because they foster the idea that the world owes you something. But, the thing is this is such a small portion of the population it seems downright unfair to call it a problem of the culture at large when that is demonstrably false. And, honestly I'd like to double down here and say that the most accurate term I can think of is Powerful White Privileged Rape Culture. As an African American male, let me be clear when I say I have tons of white friends I don't care what race or gender you are; cool is cool is cool. If you're cool with me, I'm probably cool with you too. But the final nail in the 'rape culture is a poor name for a real issue' coffin for me is another recent case that garnered mass attention. I'm of course referring to the Bill Cosby case, and let me start by saying yes, I believe he probably did it. If you haven't heard of this case, the short version is that prominent African American comedian, TV idol, and unfortunately probable rapist Bill Cosby had recently been accused by no less than 50 different women of committing sexual assault in one form or another. Ultimately he was exonerated due to lack of conclusive evidence, though as much as I would like the allegations to be untrue I can't think of any reason 50+ people with no known affiliation and nothing to gain would come forward without drifting hard into conspiracy theory territory. But the main thing to take away from this is that the media covered this story in a very different way than the Brock 'rapes unconscious women in an alleyway' Turner case. Now I know that the media has a tendency do whatever they can to draw attention to celebrities in the news, and bad news gets far more attention than good, but I can't help but feel that headlines surrounding this were far more to the point. While yes, I'm sure you could find examples of headlines such as 'Comedy Superstar Accused of Sexual Assault' and other examples of what I call 'soft language', it's hard to argue that their treatment of Cosby was far more brutal and by extension arguably more fair considering the circumstances. Hell, even in the case of said soft language, it at least makes SOME sense to mention Cosby's history (at least in terms of running the media as a business, which it is first and foremost) because it's part of what made him so beloved by all. Meanwhile I cannot think of one solitary reason that the Stanford Rapist, who is so painfully average in every facet of his being that there's an entire god damned mathematical function devoted to the guy, is still being reported as a 'former swimmer'. And that doesn't even touch on the fact that despite receiving a 'not guilty' verdict, the public has all but crucified the man. Again, this suggests to me that there's a very specific subset of people that the term 'rape culture' describes most aptly, but the nomenclature itself is so broad that it's misleading. In short, I do believe that the ideas put forth by the term 'rape culture' have a lot of merit, but I find the term itself to be pretty bad at summarizing the idea it really stands for. America doesn't have a rape culture problem, it has a powerful privileged white male problem as our own history has shown us time and time again.

I wouldn't necessarily call it presumptuous to infer, not assume, what the writers intended. If we accept that the purpose of the second amendment is to protect ourselves from government, and we accept that what they had at the time would not in any way fly in today's times, coupled with the intentional vagueness of the original writing, it's not a stretch at all to come to the conclusion that they wanted us as citizens to have the ability to fight an oppressive government regardless of time period or technology available. Without going too much into the technicalities of a war, I will say this: if a war ever were to be fought again on American soil with the American people vs. the American government, the war would be almost entirely decided on the ground. The tactics employed in foreign wars would not apply here. They could not and would not airstrike/drone strike/nuke us into the submission because it would completely defeat the purpose. Even if they did, they'd essentially be fighting for dominance over a smoldering crater at that stage. In other words: pointless. All that said, I completely agree with you in that many people engage in firearms collecting as a form of hobby, or hunt for sport. I too have my grievances with some of this, but still doesn't invalidate the fact that we have these rights because the government does shady things and that fact isn't going anywhere. It doesn't change the fact that we have that right as American citizens to own a firearm because of the very real threat of a government overstepping its bounds. Now for that last point I admit that it's an interesting stance. I suppose the best way I can put it is that depending on exactly what you're suggesting be changed it could be relatively harmless to the ideological principles behind the original. The problem is that making guns strictly harder to obtain, without logical reason, goes against that thought entirely. One such thing that I would be indifferent to or possibly even supportive of would be holding gun shows to the same standards as any other firearms retailer. Anything further than that, including a large number of proposed changes that don't even mention this, I'm pretty against. Carlin was an absolute genius far ahead of his time in my eyes. One thing he was really great at was encouraging really profound, critical thinking delivered to you in a humorous way. So when he said "Rights aren't rights if they can be taken away." I immediately draw the conclusion that we're supposed to make some noise when someone tries to do just that. I understand that it's a comedy routine and therefore somewhat subjective but that was my take away. In my eyes, however, we didn't have our rights taken away with the NSA debacle. We gave them away. I believe that you mentioned you were an outsider looking in on the situation, which far from invalidates your opinion. It's interesting to know that on the whole people actually supported this crap when it was initially conceptualized, on the grounds that it would "protect our borders" or whatever meaningless platitudes they put forth at the time. Again, with Japanese internment camps it was much of the same. The population at large willingly relinquished the rights of a subset of a smaller subset of the people. The government didn't take anything that we ourselves weren't willing to give. And in the case of internment camps, it really screwed a portion of American that had done nothing wrong because the population as a whole decided that the government could have their rights. I ended up writing way more than I intended and feel that we've strayed a little from the topic so I'll just say this. I respect your opinion but firmly disagree some key points. As much as I dislike a lot of things about gun culture, the one thing I can honestly respect is their outright refusal to give up their rights for a temporary feeling of safety. As much as it truly may not seem it, and as great as those in power are at putting a spin on things, at the end of the day the people are what give the government power. When we as a whole choose to remain silent or stand with the sometimes outright terrifying decisions of the government is when we get horrible things like slavery, internment camps, or the worldwide joke that is the NSA. When we adamantly refuse to let them get away with their BS we get things like the Civil Rights movement and more recently LGBT rights. Ben Franklin said it best when he said, "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." Giving up guns entirely in order to "feel safe" goes against everything the country was founded on, and feels like such a cop-out to me. A gun is a tool, nothing more. If anything, we need to put more emphasis on when and how to use said tool, and focus on proper training.

I agree that at its inception the writers could not have possibly foreseen the circumstances surrounding the issues today. Which is exactly why its so vague to begin with. That said, none of that invalidates the fact that the reasoning behind its creation is still very much a presence in today's world, and as such, should not be completely discarded in favor of something else. If we lived in a society where there was no chance of a government becoming so omnipotent that it posed a legitimate threat to the safety of its own citizens, then I would say it might be worth looking at. Until such a time, I'm firm that we shouldn't do anything to touch it. As for the 'well-regulated milita' bit, again, it's intentionally non-descriptive. Think about it: if they had specifically cited whatever firearms and standards were available at the time of creation, then the whole point of this amendment would be completely pointless. It would only be inclusive of muskets or whatever they were using at the time, defeating the purpose of creating an armed populace that could oppose tyranny, should the need arise. Because it's so vague, and considering the intent, it's reasonable to infer that the founding fathers intended the firearms of the population to equal that of the firearms wielded by the government. By refusing to give specific examples of technology that could reasonably be outdated before some of the original writers had died, they ensure that the principles it puts forth remain timeless. It's nothing short of genius really. We can not fight off a tyrannical government in the 21st century with the tools of the 18th century, no matter how you look at it. Whether or not this scenario will ever come to pass, well, who's really to say? In the event of such a scenario it's pretty clear what was intended if you look at the history surrounding it in conjunction with the actual product itself. I don't really understand your second point, to be honest. The government making horrible decisions during the WW2 era doesn't have anything at all to do with the second amendment. If anything, it just proves that the government is capable of making terrible, oppressive decisions that would necessitate second amendment rights. Now, the reason outcry didn't happen in the 40's is more of a case of bystander effect, but its not relevant to this discussion. As for the 14th amendment, that's textbook fair play. Slavery was and is an archaic idea at the time, something obvious to you and I that was not so commonly accepted at the time. That's why the constitution has provisions for the amendment process. The idea of a tyrannical government is not, has never been, and I'd go as far as to say never will be an archaic idea. And that doesn't even touch on the fact that abolishing slavery adds rights instead of removing rights.

My stance on this whole thing is a pretty simple one, which I'd like to preface by saying I've only ever shot a few rounds off at a buddy's place with no other real claim to a horse in this race. Don't ban guns, It's really that simple. Even these micro-bans and baby-steps towards discouraging and demonizing what is no more than a tool are getting ridiculous in my opinion. The tool is not, and never will be to blame even if a handful of microphallused criminals feel emboldened by this particular tools' ease of use. Why do I believe this? Because whether or not I or anyone else ever finds themselves in a situation where they need a gun is irrelevant. The Bill of Rights is not subjective to me. That would make it a Bill of Wants or Bill of Needs, but it is a Bill of Rights. As such, Whether I will ever own a firearm is irrelevant to me. Just as I have the right to be an irredeemable ass if I so choose with no legal penalty (within reason), so to do I have the right to own a firearm so long as I am a mentally competent individual. And even then, I think some of the restricting factors are pretty stupid, as someone else pointed out, but that's neither here nor there. It's also worth mentioning that this right does not in fact come from a need to hunt or defend oneself on a personal level, but in case a tyrannical government ever decides to oppress the people at large a la 1776 Great Britain. Whether I can find my food at the grocery store or learn other methods of self-defense does not matter because that was never the implication to begin with. Is gun control effective at reducing crimes? Depends on what you mean really. It goes without saying that banning guns would eventually see a reduction in gun crime, and I don't really see any other outcome in the long term. If you're looking to ask "would less deaths be attributed to violent crime" I'd also answer that with a yes. That said, I'm dubious at best to think that banning guns would result in a sharp dropoff of all crime. I won't go in too deep on this one because I don't have any sources lined up and can't be bothered to grab a few at the minute, but I will say the following; if you took a place like Chicago and removed all traces of legally owned firearms you would not see a satisfactory decline in overall crimes committed. While the average Joe probably won't feel as confident without a firearm, you can bet that the feeling of empowerment would find its way to all of those with illegally purchased firearms in a heartbeat, some of whom would think twice previously in fear of retaliation. Excluding gangs/cartels/mobsters though, most gun related deaths are just symptoms of an underlying issue. The effect instead of the cause, if you will. In my eyes, trying to treat urban crime by removing legal firearms is like trying to treat a broken leg with band-aids and mommy's kisses. Now as for my solution, I'd say two things really need to happen here (USA) for anything significant to happen. 1. Mental illness first and foremost needs to be de-stigmatized as this damning all-encompassing form of bonafide crazy. Are there people with mental illness who might fit that description by ordinary standards? Sure, a very, VERY small subset I suppose. But 99.5% of individuals who suffer from any form of mental illness are just normal people, put plainly. If taking a trip to a qualified expert were seen as no more abnormal than a medical check-up I'd bet anything you would see not only a sharp decrease in ALL crime, but a large increase in the happiness in the population at large and all the benefits that would entail that are largely irrelevant to this discussion. 2. Said treatment should be damn near, if not free. For the record I mean government funded, not volunteer based. The people that need this treatment the most are the people least likely to be able to afford it. It's no secret that with high rates of poverty come higher rates of crime. This pattern can be seen in almost any example. That said, it makes no sense at all to bar the people most susceptible to falling into crime from taking preventative measures with an absurd cost barrier. Mental health is every bit as important, if not more important than physical health, and not just in relation to crime.

The numbers may not be exact here because I can't find the exact post, but to my knowledge Primefusion is mostly correct. I don't really understand what he means by "base level", because to my knowledge the game always calculates from level 1, at least for non-promotes. Promotes are a little bit weird. Basically, on easy and normal modes units in FE8 get a level penalty applied to their stats. I think (don't quote me here, numbers may vary) that on normal a level 10 unit has received roughly the same amount of levels as a level 5 in any other game, for example. On hard they get a bonus, as you would expect, of about 5 levels IIRC. Basically the discrepancy in stats comes from the fact that enemies are penalized below hard mode so a meager 5 level bonus seems huge in comparison to their neutered normal mode counterparts. Promotes are a little weird, and admittedly my memory of how this works is a little hazy on the details. As best I can remember, there are actually 2 different leveling algorithms used here depending on the level of the promoted enemy. The direct consequence of this is that from level 1 to level 5 or so promoted enemies get a hell of a lot more bonus levels than that same unit would otherwise get at level 6+. It's a large part of the reason that lower-level promoted enemies are comparatively strong, but don't scale very well at higher levels. I think that the lower-level promotes actually take into account unpromoted levels as well, but my memory on this detail is very unclear so take it with a grain of salt. Again the numbers may not be exact but I'm sure you could find exactly where this occurs with some testing. I'm sure there's more to it than that, but that's the gist of it, anyways. Only other thing I'd add is that in FE8 the bonuses are determined solely by mode, not chapter. The reason you might see wildly different stats between same level units of the same class in two different chapter is that most generic class IDs have built in bonuses, much like player units with their different bases. For example, the Fighter's in the prologue are programmed to be crap no matter how well they roll because of a built in base stat, not level, penalty that is assigned to that character ID. A few more examples are character ID 7F which can turn even a generic into a bonafide badass with it's very generous bonuses, as well as most Grado character classes receiving a modest 3 skill bonus.

Yep, sounds like you should be good to go. If you want to name your new entries for convenience you can just add them to the Class List.txt file. Glad it's working. And just you know, there's FFFF Indicies version of FEditor floating around somewhere. You'll basically never run out of space with that haha. FYI, this is due to a slight Nightmare/FEditor compatibility issue where saving the ROM in Nightmare causes it to become unrecognizable in FEditor. As you said, you can fix this simply by saving again in FEditor. I don't think you did anything wrong, to be honest. The trainee classes are a little bit weird. You can change their promotion options, but if you change the "Trainee" option into something else you just get a black/glitchy screen for a moment and then they're promoted. It's not perfect, but the only way I know of to get around this it to change the trainee class itself into the new class. So if I want Ross to become a Mercenary, for example, I change the Journeyman (2) slot into what is basically a Mercenary. The animation should play correctly if you do that. It probably has a lot to do with the fact that Trainee classes are coded the way that they are, but interestingly enough, adding a third promotion to other units doesn't cause this problem so your guess is as good as mine. Glad I could help!

Okay, so admittedly I haven't messed around with this stuff in a few months, and I completely mis-remembered the process for editing the nightmare module manually. My bad man. So actually, you should be good just by changing the first number to the desired number of classes. DO NOT change the second number, it needs to be 84. Again, my bad, I realized as soon as I opened the nmm file for myself. I do have to ask, are you expanding the ROM or the table? Those are two totally different things. One will actually increase the overall size of the ROM (you don't want this) where as the other just moves the data to an area with more room. If you do actually expand the ROM you'll probably run into compatibility issues with Nightmare/FEditor and honestly you'd have to add an incredible amount of content on top of the existing content in order to really justify ROM expansion. Even worse, you'll break literally everything that comes after the spot you paste to in the ROM, so make sure you always Ctrl+B, not Ctrl+V. Now for actually getting the editor to work, I'm 99% sure that your problem is the line that says 0x807110. That looks like the default class table position, whereas it should be pointing to wherever you moved the class table to. That said there's good news and bad news. The good news is that it's really easy to move a table to free space. This is where everything I described in my second bullet point comes into play. Open up your ROM in a hex editor of your choice (I like HxD but it really doesn't matter that much) and search for offset 807110. Then take the default 128 (80 in hex) and multiply by 84 (54 in hex). This will give you a total of 2A00 (again, in hex). Starting from 807110, select 2A00 bytes of space (most editors should have a feature like this, HxD will do this with the 'select block' command) and copy. This is your class table. Ctrl+B (NOT Ctrl+V) this into free space somewhere. I moved mine to B35670, for example, although anywhere with free space (look for long strings of FF) will do. Now in the text file, change the line where it says 0x807110 into wherever you pasted the class table. In my case, it would say 0xB35670. From there you can add classes to your liking, no problem. The bad news is that if you already added a new class chances are you overwrote something else. In the default position there's not really any room for another class, so the game would be reading a combination of your new parameters as well as whatever data was already there. That's most likely what's causing the glitches you're describing. If your ROM starts acting strange even after you move the class table, it may be time to start on a backup ROM. The only other thing that could affect this is how you replaced the pointers. This is pretty simple. So we know that the default pointer is 0x807110 based on the nmm. You have to reverse the order of the bytes (not the numbers themselves) so that 80 71 10 becomes 10 71 80. Then, slap an 08 on the end, giving you 10 71 80 08 as the hex string you're replacing. Then take whatever offset you pasted the table to and do the same. In my case, I pasted to B35670, so my new hex-string should be 70 56 B3 08. I would run a find-replace command for 10 71 80 08 and replace all instances with 70 56 B3 08. Assuming I've done everything else correctly, it should work. I don't really art so I have no idea about the battle palette question. I might be able to help you with the animation issue but I'm having a little trouble understanding what you're asking.

1. I'm a little confused as to whether you were trying to re-point the item table or the class table, but the process would be the same either way. For this response, I'm assuming you did the class table. Don't quote me, but I would assume that the "84" comes from the fact that there are 84 entries in this particular table. The 6 pointers that you replaced are all the instances in the ENTIRE ROM that direct the game to said table. By replacing these pointers, the game will look to the newly specified location for all class related things in place of the default location. This is important, because adding to the table in its default location carries a high risk of overwriting other important data. Once you've copied the original data to the new location (defined by whatever free space you're pointing to), you can add/change classes to your heart's content. 2. No, you should still be able to change all the original classes just fine after repointing the module. However, in order for new classes to be reflected in the module you have to change a few more things. At the top of the file there should be a few more numbers, one that defines the number of entries in the table and another that defines the amount of space that the table occupies. In this case, it should be 84, followed by another number defined by Number of Entries x Amount of Space per Entry. So if I wanted to have say, 100 classes, and I know that each class occupies "8" for space (might not be exact, it varies from table to table) I would change 84/672 into 100/800. This is terrible advice don't do any of this. 3. Not the most in depth answer, but think of a patch like an "update" sort of. Essentially, it replaces existing data within a ROM with new data defined within the patch itself.