MuteMousou

I think the easiest way I would put it is just a character with poor base stats and relatively high growth rates that joins probably within the last fourth of the game. Archetypes in FE are often subject to be stretched, but there are some exceptions I guess. I sometimes hear Sara from fe5 is an Est, though I don't really agree with this. Sara contradicts the majority of the characteristics of an Est, being she is available for around half the game, has base stats that are actually really good (above 10 skill and magic) and she doesn't need significant training to be good, she just gets 3 levels (that go fast because paragon) and then promotes and is basically set for the game there because of how ridiculous the promotion gains are. Not to mention her staff rank is B at base and automatically is A after promotion. Maybe Miranda fits the archetype better, though she joins in the same chapter as Sara, with worse base stats and mostly worse growth rates. Perhaps maybe it might not be fair to characterize the est archetype as the character having to be bad? This could be the case but I don't think every character that has low bases and high growths in the late game has to be bad, it could be really worth it to train them if they're exceptionally good, this usually isn't the case though.

I mean, you can just say no however much you want but if you can't give a reason for why then you might as well just be admitting that what I said fits your argument.

Next time I try thinking about how Turkey might be a better place for Kurdish people if using the Kurdish language wasn't illegal for instructors, I'll be sure to stop myself after realizing that it's not worth thinking about because that isn't currently reality and therefore not worth thinking about.

I think that the thought of 1RN being unforgiving is kind of funny on its own (I'm not saying you are saying this) consdering fe6 uses 2RN and for awhile has had a lot of people who unironically believed that the RNG in it is bugged despite it having the exact same rng system as all 7 games after it. The reality, obviously is that fe6 just has lower average hit rates than all those other games. Conversely, you will very rarely see player misses in FE3 despite the game using 1RN... because the game has really high hit rates. Another thing is that I think the 99 hit cap/1 minimum in fe5 is an incredible mind game on the part of the developers because many people make it out to be a much bigger deal than it actually is... all it means is that hits that could never hit now have a 1/100 chance to hit and hits that could always hit in other games now have a 1% chance of missing, meaning that this only matters for 1% of cases for either of these things. For example, how often do you even have 100 hit in gaiden/SoV or fe6? I would argue those games may actually have more misses on average than fe5 despite being games where 100 hit exists and/or use 2RN. The point here, I guess, is that I think it's really all up to the context of how the game presents it as far as if people see it as unforgiving.

You're becoming the satirical point I made to represent your stance earlier which is "you can't talk about a hypothetical because it's a hypothetical."

Eh, my point isn't necessarily that it wouldn't be lying because of that, moreso that I just think it's a bit more complicated than what I feel it's presented as. The comparison is moreso to some other games such as Shin Megami Tensei which never give you an actual hit rate for anything other than "low" "medium," or "high," while most different abilities do actually have more than 3 different hit amounts, you just can't see any of them. So obviously, the design philosophy is completely different from FE there because the game doesn't give you an approximated chance at all, but I'm just saying there are ways outside of the FE way that can be utilized, and the game doesn't really have to tell you how anything works. So I think if FE literally said that each number presented were a percentage chance to hit, this would change how people perceive and play the game. Likewise, the bars in FE1-2 also have their own purpose, I'm fairly certain if the devs wanted to, they could have just told you the specific 0-256 chance, so the presentation in specifically this manner likely had some purpose in controlling how you see the game, as far as I can guess.

Thinking purposely of a silly hypothetical that would tell you nothing to compare it to what we're talking about doesn't really change anything about what you're saying. This is like comparing what I'm saying to "what if all the bows in FE had 10 hit lmao" as if that's at all an accurate comparison or relevant to talk about in relation to saying what if the first game that had 2RN had 1RN like the game before it did, which is absolutely something to think about because it was the first game to use 2RN and it also has incredibly similar weapon hit stats compared to the game before.

I think that's a pretty good point to bring up is that video games tend to do this sort of thing a lot. I'm not really of the mind that the game needs to tell you literally everything about how things work, and I think in a lot of instances if it did it would be too convoluted or unnecessary for most players. For example, if the devs really wanted, they could also explain how the AI works at literally every point, but part of the fun is figuring this out on your own, and while that can lead to things going wrong sometimes, I feel as if the answer people are looking for at points is that they want the game to make it impossible for something to go wrong or for anything to ever be missed... which, I thought the fun of things a lot of the time was figuring out something on your own or learning something new..

My view on this is that the word "lie" here just sounds emotionally loaded, and I don't necessarily agree with the framing presented when most people use it, as if implying that the 1RN system is inherently better or something if 2RN is lying to you. I think there is some question as to whether it would fit the meaning of "lie" in the manner of literally telling you something and then later contradicting it, which I don't believe it does, the game never outright says that the hit numbers mean anything specifically, and partially I think they intentionally attempted to avoid using the word percentage in most games to avoid it being led this way, such as in japanese fe6 the game stats that accuracy is your "probability" to hit and not your percentage chance to hit. In fe7 English, it says that avoid "affects enemy hit %," I believe that this wording might have been in place due to not having enough space for the word "probability" or "chance," but it doesn't use the % in Japanese here. So, while I guess it still could be lying depending on how you interpret what the game provides you, it is not lying in a sense of, for instance, if the game told you outright that something worked one way but it actually worked another way such as some of the skill descriptions in fe10 lol, but the game does not ever tell you that it is 1RN, but maybe that should be the assumption? Either way it's definitely not malicious whatever you think of it. You mean like they don't even know what the thing on the forecast means? I find this hard to believe.

Saying "you are using a bad argument" hasn't really been substantiated at all because all you have said is just "you can't speculate on a hypothetical because the game would be different if it were different" and then restating it with slight variations.

Yeah I would agree with that, I think TearRing Saga did the idea better. For those who don't know, TRS basically uses a less exaggerated 2RN, where at most the actual hit can be about 7 points lower or higher than the displayed hit, and around 1-3 points of difference towards the middle. It also works for crit rates, though. For crit rates this is especially noticeable because all displayed values 7 or lower are always actually 1, meaning a 7% crit is actually 1. Good game, I'd recommend others try it.

Tbf it's not that hard to dodge tank in fe4 or 5 either The hit rates are like that in FE11/12 because they were already kind of like that in FE3, FE11 is much more a remake of FE3 book 1 than it is of FE1, because nobody ever really cared about FE1. Personally I wouldn't care if they ever returned to 1RN, I really don't have a preference but I guess 2RN generally makes you feel more at ease.

You could say "the devs could have made things different if things were different" to literally anything, so what is the point in ever speculating on anything? This is just, a vapid statement because it's not presenting anything concrete or something that can at all be discussed.

This is like saying "if everyone had higher growth rates then their base stats would be lower," this is like, a completely unverifiable statement. Either way, every game that uses 2RN has different average hit rates despite 2RN behaving the exact same in all of them.

I don't believe The GBA games display it with a percentage sign anywhere and I don't think any game does

The first 2 games display it as a bar, so unless you meant that the bar also = percentage, that's actually not true that the first 5 games display it as a percentage. Some JRPGs display hit chance as "low" "high" and so on, and never tell you an actual value of hit chance. there are definitely more ways of displaying it than just 0 to 100. You can argue that those methods are better or worse perhaps, but those exist and they exist for reasons that the devs believed to be appropriate for the context for whatever reason. I'm not sure what that has to do with the thing you quoted. What I was saying is that the displayed hit value you have is precisely based on a number found as a result of the avoid and hit values of the characters involved. It's impossible to have that value be the same as the actual hit value in 2RN because 2RN doesn't change in regular increments, and because the actual hit is based off of the displayed hit anyway. I mean, how is it lying though? I don't think I really agree with the framing that it's all about people like being lied to and so on, I think if the developers just decide that's better for the game balance then it's not necessarily about how people view chances of things happening and so on. Like, imagine FE6 without 2RN, the hit values are already complete ass in that game so 1RN would potentially make that game more of an RNG fest than gaiden.

So personally, I do not conceptually think that 1RN or 2RN is better than the other, they both are more appropriate for certain situations depending on what a specific game wants to do,. However, I've heard comments a few times saying that "2RN is lying to the player," and for the most part I don't think I really agree with this wording, though the meaning behind it may be subject to some interpretation, sure. I don't necessarily think that FE games ever make it evident that the hit amount is supposed to be a percentage from 0 to 100, nor does it tell you, if this was the case that 1 is actually 1, 2 is actually 2, and so on. It's simply a number that shows you accuracy, and the assumption is that a higher amount means a higher chance to hit, I don't believe you actually need to know the exact chance of each hit occurring in order to complete the game, in fact I would guess that most people who have ever played a 2RN FE game don't actually know how the RNG system works. However, there are some arguments against, this, I think that the fact that the numbers going from 0 to 100 are a good reason to possibly assume it is a percentage... because this is how people generally write percentages for other things, but in this case the game isn't using a percentage symbol. However, there are other reasons that the scale is from 0 to 100, or from 1 to 99 anyway. The displayed number is the exact hit calculation dependent on the hit and avoid values of the characters involved, and it is also the number, in 2RN, that the 2 RNs must average out at or below in order for a hit to occur. FE games on their own are built specifically on this scale and it would take some major changes for it to not be this way. It would be possible, potentially, for the game to display both the displayed hit and the actual hit, or for it to perhaps explain the 2RN system, but I imagine that they decided against this because it would be too confusing or convoluted to throw all this at the player, and either way I don't think the player needs to know exactly how it works anyway. I can't imagine it would be possible for actual hit values to match up with actual hit chance in 2RN, and doing a different scale, such as 1 to 500 or something, wouldn't really serve any purpose either, so even if the actual hit isn't equal to the displayed hit chance, 0 to 100 just kind of makes a lot of sense for a scale. So, I think that with using the 2RN system there aren't many feasible ways to get away from "lying" to the player, and I don't think there is anything wrong with the 2RN system in the first place, having a hit chance doesn't require the displayed chances be exactly from 0 to 100. Anyway, what does everyone else think about this?

Eh, I would say that the "any unit can be good" is applicable to any FE game, it's just easier in this game than most. If you count recruitments factoring into how "good" someone is, I would say Olwen's is more out of the way and tedious than almost any other character in the game, possibly more than Xavier, though I guess maybe you could say that also applies to B route depending on how you look at it? Olwen both requires you to go to an optional chapter and also requires you slowly walk the only character who can recruit her to recruit her (and he also joins away from your party, meaning you can't warp to make it faster) while messily fighting a bunch of soldiers in the way, during which time Olwen can just die if you're unlucky enough lol (also you save thunder sword uses if you don't recruit Olwen). Not to mention that her being alive also prevents using a better character later (you could just use Olwen and then have her die later, though).But, Miranda doesn't require a kind of annoying gaiden chapter requirement or an annoying recruitment. However, I'm not really sure who I would say is better out of Olwen and Miranda, neither of them really provide much of anything that can't be gotten more easily in a better character, so the only real reason to use either of them over Asbel, Homer, Linoan, Sara, Macha, Halvan, Ralph, Dean, Fred, and so on, is just because you want to. I do guess Miranda has wrath which can be helpful at killing things she otherwise couldn't, so maybe that balances out whatever the direthunder would give Olwen.

I mean, I literally just used the same argument as you.

Their merits being what? And how does the community judge it? I mean, it wouldn't take much for Miranda to have that also, and if not you can just pick her up with someone else afterward, I don't see this as being incredibly valuable. lol at you saying that direthunder makes her better when I already said it was bad. Direthunder is quite literally irrelevant.

My point is that she levels up much more easily, and also you'll have more scrolls at Miranda's join time also. She still has it though, it makes her a better combat unit than Sara who is easier to kill and has 0 PCC Being able to get any siege tome on its own is pretty good, meteor is much more common than blizzard and bolting also. Most characters who can use any siege tome ever take very long to get it unless you are Ilios, Olwen, or Ced. They are two different characters who join with pretty similar stats but one has more levels to gain and higher growth rates. Olwen's starting stats are god awful for a pre-promoted unit, so I would say the growth difference is significant here. Also, yeah of course, Sara is one of the best characters in the game, but not because combat but moreso for staves, regardless the point of this was to compare two characters who are not even close to being the best in the game. Miranda will still have about equal or better combat than Sara for having higher defensive stats and more than 0 PCC The point of this comparison is to show that if we're comparing a character to what is largely considered a trash heap and find that they're not really that different, then it's not necessarily about one or the other being better, more that they're both trash heaps.

And so, your conclusion instead is what? I'm aware she joins earlier and with a thing Miranda doesn't have initially. Joining before someone else doesn't make you automatically better, Galzus is probably one of the most useful characters in the entire game despite only being around for 3 chapters max. Either way, it doesn't take very much effort to give Miranda 5 levels which you will also have scrolls for at this point to make her better if you want, compared to Olwen who will take forever to level up at all and has only 18 levels max with worse growth rates She joins with the closest fire rank to meteor, she only needs 65 fire uses + promo to get it. Everyone else who uses fire needs about twice as much wexp to get there. She's also the only magic user who has wrath and a non-zero PCC, so she will always crit on enemy phase compared to Olwen who will never have more than 25 crit with dire thunder unless you somehow get her to double anything with it which requires at minimum 16 speed, and even then that would only double enemies with 0 AS who would be easily killed by basically anyone anyway. Olwen needs 25 magic to be able to ORKO gustav with dire thunder, unless she crits which can never be more than 25% (unless she has wrath which requires not using vantage). What utility does that even give that can't be done better by many other characters in the game for much less investment?

What I was talking about is connected to that because everyone assumes anime is a genre and thinks they are all Naruto or fanservice or something.

I feel like there is a common misconception from most people that anime is a genre or something because most people only know about naruto or Sword Art Online or whatever. There's plenty of things not like those, in fact there's anime for basically every demographic, you just never hear about most of these outside of Japan. (though I guess many of these things are niche in Japan also).

This discussion AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH I get how the definition of anime just being japanese animation is lame, but I blame that on the definition of the word deciding to just be "country + medium = thing" as if that really says anything about it at all, it's like if we made a specific word for German food instead of just calling it German food, implying that the word means literally anything other than the fact that it is just saying something came from somewhere. Animation being made in Japan doesn't make it special or anything, Japanese animation is just as diverse as animation is anywhere else on earth, so trying to genrify everthing just because it came from a certain place is, in my opinion, pretty stupid. However, I don't think there is any way you can define "anime style," anime has a diverse range of styles, and nobody would ever say any cartoon from japan is not anime, yet for some reason not-japanese things have the debate as to whether they can be anime or not. Something like Kaiba does not fit the colloquial meaning of the word "anime," yet by definition it is anime. So, I think the word is both kind of meaningless in its definition and also that the word outside of its technical definition doesn't mean anything other than what non-Japanese people just "feel" like is anime, I've yet to see anyone define what "anime style" is, because trying to condense things from an entire country as if it's a genre is just nonsensical. Overall, I think we should just call everything cartoons, that would make more sense and involve less pointless semantic discussions