Kngt_Of_Titania
-
Posts
837 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Kngt_Of_Titania
-
-
Personal weapons can't be used all the time.
And yeah, it's a highly significant advantage. Meanwhile, other characters would of course have other advantages of their own, often in the form of their own personal weapons or tactical skills. So, there's no issue.
IS isn't exactly known for throwing personal weapons on a lot of characters, and it would be weird to balance a limited use item with long-term tactical skills. 1-2 range weapons in a game where all other 1-2 range options have been removed would almost guarantee that person a slot in your party for a fair portion of the game (as long as the weapon lasts), provided there's no huge flaw with the character. I mean, it *might* work if you have it attached to a lord or an Est melee archetype (to make training them feasible rather than almost impossible)...but it's more the exception than the rule.
Also, having a fixed MT on a weapon with no STR scaling was probably one of the stupidest things I've ever seen implemented in a FE game. If you really strive so much for realism, we can do one of two things:
1) Have crossbows scale from SKL instead of STR...more skilled archers would have more precise aim, piercing vital areas at close range more often (less preferred).
2) Redesign the short bow from FE7 to be the 1-2 range weapon. Think about it -- it's small, compact, wieldy, and easy to use, and would be the bow you could most likely fire quickly at close range (more preferred).
-
Hand Axes and Javelins are unsalvageable, I'd say. Best to remove them completely, and leave physical 1-2 range to extremely rare weapons like Spears and Tomahawks, and maybe a couple of personal weapons.
Removing them to all but a couple of personal weapons will tend to make whomever gets stuck with said weapons extremely powerful in comparison to everybody else unless they suck statistically or in availability (the latter of which would make a personal weapon semi-pointless).
So I honestly think you'd either keep them and notably weaken them, expanding them so every physical weapon type has them...or remove them all. Period. I think that whatever weapon types don't have 1-2 range (as opposed to those that do) will always suck hind tit in some way unless you can find some balanced way to properly compensate the ----blocked users of that weapon type.
-
So what I'm getting here is that the best options would be to either:
1) Give bows a 1-2 option, similar to javelins, and then make 1-2 range slightly less potent in general (lowering to about 2-4 MT would be my suggestion). Make sure archers have a niche over mages by giving them decent DEF/HP compared to casters (as opposed to RES), giving non 1-2 bows nice MT/crit ratings, and offering a somewhat expensive longbow option within the first 4-5 chapters of the game.
2) As Lumi suggested, nerf the living crap out of 1-2 range weapons (0-2 MT, high WT w/ a CON system would be my quick idea), don't give bows a 1-2 range option, and possibly have more longbows available in-game than, say, in FE7. Attempt to add a couple of maps that favor good 2 range.
As for FE12, I haven't played it since I can't read Japanese worth a crap. Is there a partial or total English patch for it?
-
And, those differences might not even matter! Think of the games where lances and axes >>> swords because swords had no good 1-2 range and lances and axes had good 1-2 range (FE7-10). Subtle differences in hit, MT, crit do not matter when 80% of the time you're relying on a 1-2 range fallback.
What I don't get is that you're talking about swords being <<<< than lances and axes because swords have no 1-2 range option whereas lances and axes did, but then try to use that as an argument to support lances, axes, and swords having 1-2 range but keeping bows only at 2 range. I'm actually not sure where you stand on this issue, tbh, so it's hard to try to argue a point.
Back when FE7 was new, you could have just have easily said that swords not having a 1-2 range was a "niche" thing as well, similar to what people were saying with bows not having a 1-2 range. After all, people don't tend to throw swords like one might a tomahawk or a javelin, and such differences technically made each weapon type more "unique". But that "every weapon type is special" ideal didn't work out too well when swordlocked characters could take a hit on tier rankings because 1-2 range options weren't available to them.
As for the possible point you might be making, you don't really need to differentiate this new 1-2 range bow too much from hand axes/javelins/wind swords, simply because many bow users don't usually commonly use one of the three "trifecta" weapons (nomads get swords after promotion, but still use bows often; warriors get bows after promotion, but still rely much on axes). Equal MT to the javelin with lower (with a CON system) or equal (with no CON system) WT will suffice for the 1-2 bow. All 1-2 range weapons should have lower MT (2-4 as opposed to 6+) in general; they're most likely too good as it stands now.
Bow users should just stay bow users. They are not magic users. The not-so-easy way to balance bow users would be to give them more opportunities to be useful. Not making 1-2 range weapons so strong or enemies so weak as to be consistently ORKO'd is a good start. Next is to create situations where 2-range countering is a far superior option to 1-range option. Think FE6 chapter 12 with the enemies across the walls or FE12 chapter 11 with the 1-2 range flying dragons.
Under my idea, archers would have:
- Worse 1 range than mages
- Better 2 range with killers and silvers and braves and...etc.
- Attack DEF instead of RES
- Have slightly different stat distributions; archers (decent to good STR, high SKL, medium DEF, high SPD) compared to mages (good to great MAG, medium SKL, low DEF, high SPD)
Having archers have more opportunities to manipulate good 2 range would be awesome, but then you'd have to design the game around hyping the good features of archers whilst ignoring the bad ones; honestly, balancing a game is difficult enough, and I don't trust IS (or almost anybody) to pull that off successfully. Most likely you'd end up with some maps where archers are OP and others where they just plain suck.
...And I totally agree on the whole making 1-2 range weapons weaker (mentioned above) and the "stronger but fewer enemies" philosophy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``
EDIT:
@Anouleth: Since I didn't want to ignore your point, I'll quickly address it now with a few bullet points.'
- Adding Wolt into the equation is probably a bad idea. I actually honestly haven't played FE6 more than a few maps in NM yet (just got VBA a couple weeks ago and have been occupied with a HHM run, so I've been pushing off unlocking HM). He's realistically probably the worst archer in the GBA FEs off the top of my head.
- I generally count "growth characters" as ones you either get really early in the game or ones that happen to be slightly underleveled when you get them, and have good, well-focused growth rates. Typically, most "growth units" have too good of availability and/or level to be considered Ests (who also tend to have even better growths). So basically, the better late-game units in Chapter 12-14 HHM (and those in Noble Lady of Caelin), as well as Heath would fit under that definition. It's probably a bit too broad of a category, honestly.
- Heath (maybe Geitz, I didn't really check) beats Wil, but only because HHM bonuses for your own units are retarded and basically add 5 free levels to base stats without affecting base level (and because Heath has good growths in all the right stats).
-
By the way, KoT's idea is terrible. We don't need to make every weapon type in the game functionally the same.
Um...dondon, bows would still be way different than lances/swords/axes are from one another, even if this were implemented; while the original trifecta differ in Hit/MT/Crit and participate in WTA, bows differ in their optimal range (2 range as opposed to 1 range), have their own unique attributes (bonus damage against at least fliers), and the possibility of a 3 range, as situational as it is; never mind the fact they work outside the WTA.
Bows would be more homoginized and stupidly powerful if I simply said "All bows have 1-2 range", simply because you'd have to make archer stats suck balls to prevent them from becoming like a swordmaster (assuming snipers are getting a crit bonus for being weapon locked, here) who isn't restricted by WTA and can counterattack technically any attack in the game.
What? Castors don't generally suffer from low speed, and are generally preferable to archers in most, if not all situations.While the GBA games and POR tended to make casters quick, RD and I think FE11 have notably slowed them down compared to their old iterations. I'm merely assuming the trend will continue, as IS seems hell-bent in "balancing" casters even if it means undertuning them at times.
Cute, but even if Rebecca, Wil, Wolt, and Dorothy had enemy phase, they'd still blow due to their terrible base stats. After all, Klein is considered to be a good character despite being a Sniper simply because he has the stats to compete. And Igrene is considered to be "okay", or at least an order of magnitude better than the other failures that populate her class, possibly because her stats are just as good, but without the need to be trained.Base stats and good growths. In stats that matter (namely, STR and SPD). And 2 range so you can train them relatively easily without fear of killing them, since they won't be counterattacked. I never said their base stats aren't poor (actually, I'm pretty sure I said just the opposite, that their base stats are hardly anything to write home about, esp. in the case of Rebecca), but they do have good end-games when trained -- all four of them are designed to be "growth characters", as I take it.
Plus, I'm merely parroting what you said earlier (except you talked about a nomad, Shin, but the point was the same). An archer will probably never be in the top tier until they get an EP, just because of the way tier rankings work.
-
SEVEN DEFENSE? As a 6/-- mage? Holy crap. RAWR! ERK SMASH!
-
I actually despised FFO on EHM FE7, simply because I was trying to S rank EHM and was stupid/stubborn enough to field really low level units to pad experience rank in a chapter known for coughing out tons of it. Two ballistae, a bolting sage, and wyverns that all OHKO'd my low level units made me die inside.
As for HHM, C15 without Marcus/Oswin while getting the Dracoshield and both chests. OH. MY. ****ING. GOD. Nothing else on this mode compares to that, at all, ever. Or probably any chapter of any FE I've played to date.
-
Well, they DO do 2-range combat well. That's not their problem though. You nailed it as to what their problem is though. So the question is 'do we enhance their long-range combat' or 'give them short-range combat'? By tiering standards, I doubt they will ever be top with the former option due to lacking a EP, but that may not be the best way to 'fix' them.
*Cracks knuckles*
Well, well...archer mechanics. I'm going to dive into this one. It happens to be my favorite FE class.
As you may or may not be aware, I tend to find the unique strengths of archers (in FE7, which I'm working on now, it's double damage to all fliers, probably the best 2 range in the game with killers/silvers, and 3 range with longbow) nice enough to field one or maybe two, depending on the map. I honestly think they're undervalued; that doesn't mean, however, that they don't have mechanical issues.
In particular, I refer to the lack of an enemy phase, that dreaded mechanic where an archer can't have the option of counterattacking (most of the time -- I've found ways for archers to kill 2-3 enemies on EP on 19x HHM in my recent S rank run by manipulating enemy AI, for example). It's usually the key factor in keeping archers from being top tier in tier lists, despite units like Rebecca, Wolt, Wil, and Dorothy all having good to great growths (although Beccy and Wil's bases are kind of anemic, at least; I'm also not mentioning nomads, although FE6/FE7 ones have nice growths too) and being solid units statistically by mid- to late-game.
Because of their 2 range, archers are realistically one of the best classes in player phase in the game...they can double without fear of being countered, their 2 range isn't bound to heavy and weak javelins or rare/expensive alternatives (I'm looking at you, 9k gold value spear from FE7), and every single one of their weapons acts functionally like an Armorslayer/Wyrmslayer/etc. against fliers while being able to enjoy the high MT of silver or the high crit of killers. Only casters can compare, and suffer from low speed, low health, low defense, or all of the above, depending on the FE in question. So just throwing a great 1-2 range bow (*cough* FE10 *cough*) at an archer and saying "LOOK MAN U CAN COUNTER NAOUGH" is probably going to lead to archers being far and away the best class in the game.
You also can't just give archers 10 million range and be done with it. You can trivialize way too many maps with that kind of power, and 3 range is plenty for archers to have, tbh (it gives a party better chokepoint killing power by allowing for notably more damage to go out during player phase). If you ever needed a game that proved this point without a doubt, I'd point you to Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together...perhaps one of the best games ever made on the PSP, and an amazing remake of a classic, but one that is plagued by archers who can completely dominate from half a map away, to the point where the game makes Hello Kitty Island Adventure look hard if you stack enough of the class.
So what do you do? The best solution I've decided on is to make a bow that functions similar to a javelin -- a heavier, lower MT, slightly more expensive bow available in early-game shops that allows an archer to counter on enemy phase, but at a cost; he (or she) is going to be less likely to double, (s)he will have to suffer a weaker player phase, and (s)he won't be *quite* as adept as, say, a cavalier or a myrmidon or a mercenary at enemy phase. However, the archer will still retain the characteristic amazing 2 range that they've had since just about the beginning of FE, and still have a 3 range option. You can always add one or two bows throughout the game that function similarly to short spears or spears in FE7 for extra oomph in difficult chapters.
And then we can continue to differentiate nomads and archers by making horseslaying weapons more than extremely rare overall (or at least among enemies), expand horseslaying weapons to more weapon types (perhaps a bow that trades flier advantage for horse advantage, HINT HINT), and limiting longbow use to archers only. This way, nomads have their own advantages (swords on promotion and MOVE), but so do archers.
-
^^' most of the arguments against Meg is based on turn count play. If we take longer to train her Meg will not be much hindrance, but trying to get low turn counts and trying to raise her is difficult because she lacks in a lot of departments making her not worth raising by tier list potential. If you're playing at a slower pace Meg can be good, especially on other modes in NM she can be very good.
Hmm...I'm going from the perspective of a medium efficiency playthrough (as FE10 is one of my least played FEs), as in I meet all turn counts (except when I had Meg solo that one chapter in NM), but normally didn't GREATLY exceed them.
P.S. I obviously meant AFTER promotion in p4. The gains Meg gets from third promotion are crazy (large increase in SPD cap, access to Luna, most notably). I usually field Meg in the team going to 4-5, so she starts doubling tigers/dragons at 20/20/1 (24 AS baseline doubles the 20 AS tigers, she'll quickly level to the point where she'll double them all), and levels fast enough in that chapter that she's doubling slower cats by the end (in NM for the cats, but not in HM). Meg's fielded in one chapter before she'll hit third tier IIRC, so she'll spend more time than not as third tier in p4 if she goes in that team.
-
Meg wins for combat, but both her and Fiona are both pretty tragic units(in terms of the sort of chapters they appear in), but Fiona provides canto rescues which only her and Jill can do for the Dawn Brigade, considering the deployment slots in part 3 are large enough that a couple untrained units are also going to be deployed Fiona has that advantage over Meg.
I just see it really being somewhat hard (Read: Not impossible) to rescue units with Fiona since she'd have to avoid units like the plague straight from 1-7, and its only going to get worse from there (especially from part 3). But considering that Fiona can canto rescue and Meg cannot, she technically wins in the utility department. I've never denied this.
Fiona has more utility than Meg with or without investment whereas Meg requires high investment in every chapter she's in before end-game in order to survive the next chapters and at the end her advantage over Fiona is being able to OHKO Red Dragons in 4-E-3 about 30% of the time.
Couple things.
1) Having used Meg in a HM run, she's pretty good by 1-E and I can see her faring relatively well (as far as t1 DB units go) by 3-6. Most numbers I see crunching out puts her similar in combat to Aran (defensively and offensively; usually slightly worse due to level differences), forges included but Brave Sword omitted. She's pretty much in "auto-level" mode past 20/20/1 provided you put her in the proper team in part 4. It's seriously hard to overhype how good Luna is -- like I said, OHKOs on Red Dragons (and thus, pretty much everything in the game) at 20/20/1. Thus, I'd say "high investment in part 1", "average investment in part 3", and "deploy her and she levels herself unless you're 2 turning chapters in part 4". If I ever manage to level Fiona in HM (don't hold your breath), I'll talk about how she fares mid- and late-game.
2) Meg doubles, so it's up to a 33% percent per attack, or a 55% chance per round; Sol, is on average, 15.5% chance per attack, or 28.6% chance overall. Throw in a brave sword for Meg (this won't work for Fiona, since it puts her out of ORKO range at capped STR), and it becomes ~80% (1-(.67^4)) chance to ORKO a Red Dragon. That's pretty nice.
P.S. RFoF, I was just noticing that she'd just barely ORKO with Sol at capped STR after crunching out the numbers (and by barely, I mean TO THE SINGLE HP; one DEF or HP extra, and she doesn't ORKO at capped STR with Sol with a Wishblade). I didn't mean to imply that it's impossible for her to cap STR, since she averages 1 below the cap at 20/20/20 -- I'm not sure (as in, I literally don't know) if she'd hit the level necessary to cap STR by 4-E-3 without severe favoritism, even with BEXP use. She could in NM. Meg could theoretically walk in there at 20/20/1 and have an 68.4% chance to ORKO them with a Brave Sword (going up to 80% at 20/20/20).
P.S.S. I mainly pointed out 4-E-3 because Meg works best with slow, high DEF units due to the mechanics of how she ORKO's crap others could not (Luna). 4-E-3 is the sheer epitome of these types of enemies.
-
Came back to this due to boredom with HNM playing to get to HHM on my cart.
Had to do the same thing to unlock HHM on my cart recently too. I S ranked it to try to get some difficulty, and it was just like BLAAAHHHH....SO....EASY....Except 19xx. 19xx HNM was actually pretty difficult w/o Marcus. Trudge through it, and it'll be done soon enough.
-
For the funds, don't sell too much shit, and make sure you loot the stat boosters in The Berserker, getting the extra Wolf Beil would be very nice as well; it's a zero req chapter with a lot of stuff in it.
I mean, I recruited Farina, and was fine, and didn't pay a ton of attention to funds.
Also note that in my ending screenshot, the gold is kind of incorrect, I promoted Raven, Canas, and Bartre before final, but I forgot to mention it. If you're smart with the silver card, you'll be fine.
Only things I ever sold in any of my playthroughs were the gems this time around, and since I basically spent all of the gold on weapons with the silver card, I basically broke even on assets. But yeah, if you managed to do that, I should be fine -- although I will make a save file before I get Farina/assassin just to be safe.
-
Chapter 23: Living Legend (...And If There's One Thing In This World That Will Drive Me To the Madhouse, It'll Be FE Desert Maps...)
Turn Limit: 9
Turns Taken: 9
Aggravation Level: You wake up one night, and for some reason you're nervous...you're not sure why, but you just know something's....wrong, not done. So, after double and triple checking, you realize that the essay you were assigned three months ago and completely forgot about is due the next morning. You burst out into the computer room, turn Word on, and drink about as much caffine as you possibly can without your heart literally exploding in your chest. You type out what might possibly be a legible 10 page paper on the emotional development of Frankenstein's monster as dawn breaks, and then the power goes out. It is only then you forgot that, in all of this time, you had forgotten to save your work.
Characters Used: Serra, Ninian, Erk, Lucius, Heath, Legault, Florina, Hector; Hawkeye joins on turn 2.
Analysis:
This chapter was hard...but it wasn't, when I finally admitted to myself that I was probably going to need Hawkeye to kill the bosses (I mean, technically Hector could do it, but Hawkeye's getting 75 experience a kill and Hector would get...well, none). It was more trying to get as much swag in 9 turns as possible, which I actually did by turning to General_Horace's video, at least a little bit. While I already figured out that I needed to use a flier to move Legault across the map (in this case, it was Florina), I used G_H's clever "pick up, Ninian, drop off by guiding ring mage" technique he used in turn 1 in order to save a torch use and get the guiding ring stolen by turn 2 (on a side note, that guiding ring/Elfire mage packs a goddamn punch!).
My biggest issue was surviving the onslaught of turn 1 (and to a lesser exten, turn 2) and still setting it up perfectly for a low turn playthrough. Basically, both of the initial wyvern knights had to die without killing somebody in turn -- Lucius was out (as he got OHKO'd barely by them), and Canas was out (since he couldn't double and thus ORKO them on enemy phase, AND he got doubled with Nosferatu, I tried that), so Erk was left. Erk only managed to pull it off by critting the first wyvern knight and gaining a +MAG, +SPD level up, which allowed him to barely double and then barely ORKO the second wyvern knight. It was the first of only two strokes of luck that I needed to pull it off, the second being the godly Elfire mage missing my 1 HP Florina on turn 2 enemy phase. I also happened to have good luck with digging up the Body Ring with a non-thief, possibly saving me a turn.
It wasn't all good luck, though. While my Hawkeye got a 5 stat level up (which, considering his at best anemic growths, is pretty insane), my Lucius got a 1 stat level up in MAG and my Heath got a 1 stat level up in DEF (so that makes his only 2 level ups 1-staters...I think, barring amazing luck, he's ****ed for this playthrough). Erk had a couple close calls while pushing left on the bottom of the map...I miscalculated when the spawns would turn into shaman, so Erk dipped to 1 or 2 health a couple of times. THANK ME FOR BEING SMART ENOUGH TO BUY PURE WATERS ON NEW RESOLVE! Erk, Florina, Legault, and Heath all really benefited from it, and they definitely saved my ass.
Serra was basically spamming physic and torch as necessary, often given second actions by Ninian; it was pretty much necessary to keep up with the healing needed. The only time Ninian gave Hawkeye a second action was when he refused to crit the second boss after a good 3-4 swings. Guess what? He refused to crit again (it actually took Hawkeye until turn 7 or 8 to land the kill and about 2 mend uses)!
I tried to keep Hector's kills to a minimum, but I had to use his hand axe to deal with a couple of problem archers. Even if he was like 17/-- or 18/--, he probably only would've gotten like 15-21 experience from them anyways (total), so I'm not too worried. Lucius and Heath spent most of their time killing most of the enemies on the right-hand edge of the map (as in, the only non-desert portion of the map) and sucking at level ups. Overall, I might've possibly done a 8 turn clear (1 in 4 chance), but I didn't know there was a cav that refused to move from the very top-right corner. I managed to get everything but the Light Brand, which isn't THAT good, and is only worth like 1250G (which I can make up with 2 arena wins).
P.S. Did anybody else notice that I've fielded Florina for like 40% of the maps, yet she's still like 7/--? It's not like she's had bad level ups, it's just that it's hard to fight and not die when your speed is halved and you take a 4 CON loss with an iron lance and your STR is anemic. Poor Florina -- I'm trying! I really am!
P.S.S. G_H (or anybody else with S rank HHM experience), since I've gotten EVERYTHING of significant value in this run besides that one guiding ring from Zolam, I shouldn't have a huge problem funds-wise if I get Farina/an assassin, right? I did in EHM, but HHM has lighter funds reqs and more loot to steal.
P.S.S.S. Yeah, this is getting much more reasonable than early-game. It's becoming more of a S rank HHM run than a Marcus-less S rank HHM run, which is notably easier. Btw, I promised Eclipse I'm promoting Nino by the end of Cogs of Destiny. Watch as I fail to do it.
Experience Gained: 1213/1200
Wait, physic and torch spam, fielding level 7-10 fliers/mages, and I barely make the rank? What do I have to do to pass it with flying colors, be able to beat it blindfolded, with one arm behind my back, while playing a tuba with my asshole on the mouthpiece?
Overall Ranking:
Tactics: 5 (141/148)
Funds: 5
Experience: 5 (17956/15500) -- roughly a 24.6 level lead.
Survival: 5
Combat: 5
[spoiler=Stats]
UNIT LEVEL HP ST SK SP LK DF RS WEP LEVEL SUPPORT Hector 20.00 36 16 17 16 08 15 03 A Axe C Eliwood Eliwood 12.86 26 10 13 13 14 10 06 A Sword C Hector Lyn 14.02 34 10 14 17 10 06 04 A Sword Marcus 21.23 Base Rebecca 11.63 24 10 12 14 11 04 04 B Bow Lowen 13.37 34 11 06 13 09 11 03 B Lance D Sword Bartre 09.31 35 14 10 05 04 08 02 C Axe Oswin 10.23 29 13 09 05 04 13 04 B Lance Guy 15.17 34 12 20 20 11 07 04 A Sword Dorcas 06.26 33 08 08 08 06 04 00 C Axe Serra 17.84 26 10 12 14 18 05 16 A Staff Matthew 15.09 25 06 09 20 06 05 02 B Sword Erk 13.17 25 11 10 15 08 06 06 B Anima Priscilla 06.55 19 06 08 10 10 04 09 B Staff Sain 18.12 33 20 10 15 09 13 04 A Lance D Sword Kent 20.00 37 16 13 17 07 13 10 A Lance C Sword Florina 07.34 20 08 12 14 09 04 06 C Lance Wil 15.80 31 12 14 14 12 11 02 A Bow Raven 12.94 36 13 16 17 06 09 03 B Sword Lucius 09.85 21 12 09 12 03 01 10 C Light Canas 10.23 21 11 10 09 07 05 09 B Dark Fiora 07.99 Base Legault 15.77 31 11 15 18 13 09 05 C Sword Ninian 09.42 21 01 00 19 18 07 11 Rath 08.18 26 09 10 10 06 07 02 C Bow Isadora 21.26 28 13 12 16 10 08 06 A Sword B Lance D Axe Heath 09.48 32 13 09 08 07 13 01 B Lance Hawkeye 05.80 50 18 15 11 13 14 11 A Axe
-
Why are we talking about Meg versus Fiona on 4-E-3 when obviously Laura can trash every single non-Dheginsea dragon on the map?
Silly kids.
QFT.
P.S.: First, when Fiona is 20/20/20, Sol does not one-shot the red dragons in 4-E-3 but rather does 18x3=54 damage, leaving them with about 22 health (meaning the second attack won't quite kill them either). It also procs roughly half as often as Luna, which will do (34x3)+18=120 damage when Meg is 20/20/20. In fact, Meg can one-shot the dragons with Luna as far back as 20/20/1, provided her weapon has 2 MT or more (i.e. always). From 20/20/1 to 20/20/20, the proc chance of Luna goes from 24-32% on average. So Meg will always OHKO the dragons as long as she's third tier, Fiona will never ORKO the dragons at 20/20/20 average (and just barely if she caps STR). Second, dondon's right in basically saying nobody ever tends to bother arguing low tier anyways. Third, I think Integrity already showed Meg isn't ORKO'd by just about anything in 1-4 provided she dings 1 SPD at level 4 beforehand, while it's definitely harder to get Fiona to that status without WAY more BEXP pumped her way.
P.P.S. Basically what this says is that Fiona probably wins because nobody in SF likes fielding either of the two for combat, and at least Fiona has a horse, but if combat ever did come into play, at all, ever, Meg would probably win.
-
@ Bold I think thats because Tier Lists aren't always concrete ^^' they always change. I think that Fiona should go above Meg just because of utility, she can be recognizeably helpful because of the horse in part 3 (and 1-7).
True enough, but I'm trying to say to Dark Sage that a Meg v. Fiona debate isn't ridiculously lopsided on its face, which I think he's trying to argue. The only problem I'd see with Fiona rescuing in 1-7 and 1-E is that I'm pretty sure almost everything in the game doubles and ORKO's (or very close to it) her after she's recruited, and doing that means one less combat unit deployed.
EDIT: 3 users are reading this topic. Shit, it begins! Must...distract...them...
WENDY > SOPHIA, DISCUSS!
-
If you are using Meg and Fiona seriously as combat units, you are Doing It Wrong. Fiona is most likely a better unit than Meg not because of her combat but because she has a horse. Fiona can help ferry around certain units and can aid in a quicker clear for 1-7 and 1-E. Having used Fiona in both maps, I can say it is very easy to keep her alive if you're not retarded.
The argument specifically addressed in my post (unless I'm misunderstanding Queen's post) is "if both are trained, Fiona's worse in part 1, but maybe better in part 4," which I was disputing (Fiona is obviously harder to train, so she loses part 1, and it's hardly obvious she wins part 4). So OBVIOUSLY I'd address combat, since that's a major reason why'd you bother to (or be able to) level them up in the first place. We're not even going into the whole "I'm assuming Fiona is better because at least she can rescue shit in 1-7 and 1-E before I ditch her." So don't facepalm me.
Here's a protip that'll help you in real life. Don't go spouting off bullshit, say you're right, then back down before springing up again to spread your bullshit again while saying DON'T ARGUE WITH ME! I can guarantee you that it'll get you nowhere in life and that everyone will hate you.Arguing "Meg v. Fiona" is hardly bullshit. I mean, Meg is higher than Fiona on the 500 page tier list (and they're both roughly in the same space) everybody's always arguing in! I'm just pointing out that I don't want to start another 7 pages of heated debate over two low tier units, which seems stupid. What, are we going to go put knives to each other's throats in a Sophia v. Wendy debate next?
Pro tip: Don't come off as an asshole when you post.
P.S. @ RFoF: Meg also has nearly as high of a MAG stat as Fiona, so she could use Imbue to nearly the same effect (although it takes up capacity), with more HP/DEF/RES to boot. Meg's higher durability also means she's less likely to be gibbed by the dragons between conconction uses (which I'm assuming will probably have to be used), and her Luna basically adds 37 ATK (since Red dragons have roughly 37 DEF) before damage is tripled, essentially ensuring OHKOs. Plus, you could always bless brave sword if mastery skills don't proc on 2 range attacks (I honestly don't remember if they do). I specifically mentioned 4-5 and 4-E-3 mainly because Luna is most effective against high DEF, low SPD units.
-
in HM Meg lags alot especially in Part 4 and Endgame, Fiona can be reasonable helpful by then. Idk i'm not good at comparing but Meg seemed alot easier to train in Part 1 while Fiona seemed a lot easier to use in Part 3+
Meg could probably solo 4-5 and the Dragon tower chapter way easier than Fiona because of Meg's better durability and the fact that Luna essentially nullifes a Dragon's usually enormous DEF stat.
Never mind that Meg is about 100x easier to train than Fiona...and has about the same bases, except at an earlier level and earlier in part 1.
-
Take a guess.
(Hint: It's obvious.)
-
Ah. Welcome to Serenes Forest, in that case.
Heh, I think my first or second thread was the whole "Why U Hatin' On Meg?" fiasco. That was probably almost as "good" of a welcome anybody could get to SF, as it quickly introduced me to the board's vets (and gave you a sig).
-
This is almost as bad as Snowy's point, KoT.
Forget everyone else for a moment. We're talking about JUST Nephenee. What does Neph have? Overkill Spd and sufficient parameters across the rest of the board. That "fundamental question" only gets asked in Tier lists since that's comparing Nephenee's performance to everyone else's. Not here.
Title of thread: "Finally making my own, personal, tier list."
My apologies if I took it out of context (I'm being sincere here, not sarcastic). I thought Snowy was using rankings to justify each character's position in said list.
-
It's like KOT trying to prove that Nino is better than Pent because she doubles more endgame bosses (and I'm talking last chapter bosses). He forgot the fact that 1x2 hits is still only 2 damage. Same thing with you.
Hey, I said that (or meant to say) unless Nino is doing something like 3 or less damage per hit on bosses (and I was honestly too lazy to include a RES analysis), she ends up beating Pent in offense (because Pent has like a 2 MAG lead on her, mainly due to him being 4 levels above her most playthroughs). And for the characters who don't have something stupid like 30 RES (Ursula/Kenneth), she usually does beat him in combat. A more valid complaint (which I can't dispute at all) is the fact that Athos + Luna rocks combat so hard that it basically relegates Nino + Hector to killing Darin in low turning Final, but she still ends up doing like 11x2 damage to him at 20/7 whereas Pent does like 13x1 at 20/11 or maybe 15x1 with Elfire (which will tank his avoid, esp. compared to Nino).
And notice I never said she was BETTER than Pent, I said she was about equal on S rank clears when trained because she nets you padding on experience rank (guestimating around 800-1k XP) for training her and her combat, when trained, tends to be slightly better, as opposed to Pent's staff ultility (specifically talking about Final here), which one could argue may even be possibly done by a healer with A rank in staves, depending on the range of Warp/Rescue necessary to pull it off (and I'm not sure what range would be necessary, but Final isn't a massive map).
I then went on to point out that you'd probably be better off training Nino (if possible/feasible...I'm going to try it/test it out on my S rank HHM run) and replacing Serra with Pent for end-game, as the experience gain from training Nino will beat out the extra combat experience Serra will gain, and Pent is essentially Serra with a better magic type (anima versus light), vastly better combat for the levels you'll expect Serra to hit in a HM run, and with better CON to boot. And by the time of the game where you'd want to replace Serra with Pent (past CoD), she's at a high enough level that you could always field her in Light for an extra staff user if necessary without problems. She should be promoted by then.
...I'm not going to hijack this thread with a discussion that's run its course; I just felt like defending myself here. If you have problems with any of my logic (and I'm sure somebody does), just yell at me on the topic in which this unholy argument began.
As for the whole Boyd discussion, I think I understand what Snowy meant, and I'm not sure it's completely fair to yell at him over stupid/faulty wording...although I think you meant he'd have 30 ATK before weapon MT is taken into account by 20/20 (not 35, which I think you said, unless I'm forgetting something here, because he caps STR @ 30). My big problem with Nasir is more that he comes is so damn late that it's hard to use him extensively, and while he's a defensive beast, PoR isn't hard enough that he can really take advantage of it too much. Still, it's very hard to rank Nasir THAT low...Ena may come close to that, but she's frankly a suckier version of Nasir that the game throws at you to put salt on the wound of not killing the Black Knight.
EDIT: Ah, you included supports in the 35 ATK. Makes more sense, I guess.
EDIT2: As for Neph's speed, while you can argue that she's rocking nice avoid, PoR enemies, like FE7 enemies, are not exactly known for being blindingly fast, except a select few in endgame (who have a decent 19-23 AS). Neph's big issue is when you start asking that fundamental question: If I can double everything with Neph or double almost everything with somebody with lower speed but noticeably more ATK (I'm thinking Boyd here), why choose Neph? It's not so much Neph is bad statistically, it's more that her stat profile doesn't mesh with the enemies in-game. Neph's later jointime basically means your party's probably to the point where many people are doubling already. Neph doesn't suck, and she's fun to use, but she isn't top tier material for a variety of reasons.
EDIT3: Forgive me if I'm missing the proper context of this thread. I haven't been in SF long enough to know Snowy.
EDIT4: I keep on worrying something small and insigificant I'm going to say will blow up into a 7 page argument.
Hopefully I can salvage not being relegated to "crazy uncle" status. -
Is that really a bad thing? Whether you can or can't pass a skill like you can a Silver Lance involves 2 different kinds of resource management. I'd think being able to shuffle skills is a much more accessible system to most players because things that you can't undo tend to go unused for them (think of all those players who hoard stat boosters, unique weapons, etc.). I don't personally mind either way.
I agree. It's not like adding customizable, flexible skillsets somehow makes all characters the same. You still have movement type (and associated weaknesses, like arrows/thunder with fliers), base stats, growths, possibly available supports (at least support type), and availability to work with. Never mind that under the FE10 system, IIRC, the "base" skills a character had were free capacity-wise, meaning that a Cord-archetype fighter who came with Adept might be able to do Adept + Vantage + Resolve + Wrath, whereas his Bord counterpart might not due to capacity limits.
EDIT: Holy crap, I actually agreed with dondon on something. I'll wake up tomorrow to find rapture and peace in the Middle East occurring.
-
You -always- want to ferry people. At all points in this game. This is dondon rule number 1.
Considering that you like 0% growth runs where your lord probably dies to a stiff breeze and efficiency runs where ferrying is probably the best chance at the lowest turn count in any seize chapter, I can see why you made that rule.
-
I usually would discourage giving the Body Ring to Pegasi, as it takes away their advantage (well, Florina's) of rescuing the heftier units like Hector. Although with Heath being able to carry Hector, I don't see why you would have Florina do it in the first place.
I guess that's true, and I forgot to think about the AID stat decreasing with the use of a body ring. Most of the times where Florina ferries Hector tend to be early-game, though (Noble Lady of Caelin comes to mind).
19xx Gaiden
in Fire Emblem
Posted · Edited by Kngt_Of_Titania
You do realize that a variation on Mekkah's technique is the only known way to S-rank, 7-Nils LHM, right? Nils camps on a forest tile in front of chapter 10's first bridge, and has like 3 enemies wail on him for a good 25 turns. You need to severely low turn LHM (like 20 turns below 5* ranking going into chapter 10), but it allows you to barely make the 85 turn count needed for S rank while getting a 40.5-42% W/B ratio, enough to 5* combat. Credit goes to General_Horace for finding out this trick on chapter 10, I just replicated the results.
Not exactly relevent for a LTC runthrough, though, unless you put in the caveat that you're getting 19xx. You'd have to exclude chapter 10 from your final turn count or LHM totally.