Othin

Straight from the unmodified Japanese game. I've only taken half a year of Japanese so far, but I believe this is indeed what is known as "Romaji". So, where is this problem? Surely you're not getting all upset over a typo. Fun fact: Later on, Brave Warrior gets a sword to "concur" evil. This stuff may be in characters we recognize, but it was not necessarily made by people who know how to translate.

Part of my initial complaint was that LTC strategies are often unreliable. The other part was that they are largely or entirely planned out as cookie cutter strategies. They do not make an attempt to respond to undesired or unexpected situations that might force them to change their strategy. When that happens, they are not playing the game; they are simply acting out a pre-planned performance. You say the possibility of characters being dead would affect only minor matters, such as resource distribution. On my (ongoing) minimal resets FE8 run, I had Seth fight Gheb in Ch9. Gheb attacked with his Killer Axe on his own turn, scored a critical hit, and killed Seth. I would say that had a substantial impact on how I had to adapt to using my other characters throughout the rest of the game, and surely that sort of thing would do the same for you in any game. The result is a need to come up with new strategies and adapt to new situations while playing the game - which is precisely what playing the game entails. Edit: Seems I took a while to post. But yes, let's take this elsewhere. Does the General FE board sound good?

In that case, how much do you reset? That is, for a specific LTC playthrough you've done, what's your estimate for how many times you reset throughout the course of the run? I'm confused by what your third sentence means. Are you saying you never use the same strategy twice, or that once you've done it, you can repeat it robotically, without thinking?

You really don't get it, do you? The point is not to pick a given strategy and hope that the number of times you'll have to reset for it to work will be as low as possible. The point is that you do what works and live with stat screwage, character deaths, etc. rather than having only one strategy to begin with. In other words, ACTUALLY PLAYING THE FUCKING GAME. The thing any pre-planned LTC playthrough is not even doing.

Indeed. Any thoughts on this, anyone? Secondary goals along the lines of a ranked run also seem compatible, without set-in-stone standards.

33. No surprise, no complaints.

I don't think anything about LTC tier lists, because I don't care about them. I pay no attention to them and make no criticisms of them. You know this.

The Pursuit Ring is probably the most valuable inanimate, unrestricted commodity in FE4.

That means you don't try to kill 7-10 enemies with two characters in one enemy phase. There's your way around it: stop going for minimum turns. I'm not talking about speedruns; those require resetting as well. But yes, that's exactly the point: I'm talking about not doing LTC.

I did a substitute run once. It was an unintentional part of my Sigurd/Celice solo. Really, it doesn't take much more than that. Technically, Sylvia had kids, but I didn't recruit either of them anyway so it pretty much counts.

The latter reason is precisely my feeling about it. I find it amusing how much LTC insists itself to be "efficient" while ignoring the inherent inefficiency of unnecessary resetting, ever. Especially for players who, I believe, at least some of them have expressed a desire to not "waste" any more of their time playing the game than necessary. Perhaps they haven't noticed that time doesn't not pass just because the game forgets that it does? The amount of variety is pitiful as it is. It needs to be expanded, not reduced.

Seems to me Noish's advantages as a father are more than Alec's advantages in combat. 5.5/10

Indeed, FE8's localization team chose to make that change from the literal translation. If this is intended to be a professional-level translation, aiming for the translations to be meaningful in English, this project should be willing to do the same thing. Which it sounds like it is, so there's nothing more to discuss.

Differences are what make character choices matter. Giving all characters identical parameters in everything would be an even simpler way to get rid of all balance issues whatsoever... and make the game become utterly worthless.

All other things equal, a character with any advantage will always be better than a character without. This is why other things should not be equal. It's true that Speed's ability to double a character's offense makes it rather ridiculous, though, so if that's an issue, just do what FE4 and BS did and make it so that Speed on its own only determines Avoid and doubling is instead primarily dependent on skills and weapons.

I certainly think doubling is far too common as it is, but making characters and classes all have stats so similar that it's rare to have even a four point difference doesn't sound good, either. This I think is another thing TRS handled well. Just like Kngt's suggestion, the difference required to double was increased to 5 AS, with stats tending to be low enough for that to really be a substantial difference. Meanwhile, Wt reverted to the pre-FE5 system, subtracting the weapon's entire Wt from the character's AS, and differences in Wt between and within weapon types are substantial. As a result, doubling is often more about choosing the right weapon, with faster characters having more flexibility in that area. The lightest weapons tend to be very weak otherwise, but can be valuable nonetheless when you need those extra points of AS.

Now that's just boring.

TRS and BS addressed armors in interesting ways. In TRS, I haven't used actual Armor Knights much so far or had great experiences with them, but it adds an odd class: Wood Shooter, pretty much a Bow Armor. They have the expected fantastic Defense and poor Move, but their other stats don't really suffer for it; their Speed is quite okay when using light bows. Meanwhile, their Defense is high enough that when they use some of the fantastic heavy bows, the increased risk of getting hit or doubled isn't much of a threat. There might be something here to work with - do armors really need to have big weaknesses other than movement? In BS, armors can use the best shields for absolutely ridiculous defenses; they usually have like 15 Defense on their own and another +15 or so from their shields, meaning that killing them usually requires using magic or special attacks, or just hitting them several times to break through their shields - their Defense is enough of an advantage to actually make a substantial difference in what fighting them entails. Unfortunately, this effectiveness doesn't carry over so well to the playable Armors, mostly because good large shields are uncommon and won't last long when using them to soak up a lot of hits. But I think it goes to show where options exist to improve armors.

Indeed. No matter what sort of playthrough you do, unless it's a challenge run with specific provisions to limit the use of mega-Jagens, they're going to be the best. This is the sort of situation where there is objective basis for an objective statement. I'm not feeling well at the moment and don't have the energy to respond to the other posts right now, but I'll see about getting back to them soon.

Choose whichever would be cooler in each case. Being effective is overrated.

As Crash noted, I'm not talking about tier lists. They're the business of people who actually give a shit about them, and I am not among those people. Furthermore, as I explained, I neither know nor care to what extent this applies to Snowy's current raging. Anouleth, I have no doubt that most of the time, you do not intend to be provocative or dismissive. That does not change the fact that what you and others say can be provocative, and that you need to take responsibility for it. It is not that I am easily provoked, but that many people are easily provoked on the internet. All the arguments over opinions that get started here and elsewhere are the result of that fact, because it is easy for people to take things personally. This, it seems to me, is especially true when the opinion is stated objectively. Tell me, would you not react differently to the following posts? Serenes member x: "LTC is a bad way to play FE." Serenes member y: "I don't like playing LTC." Surely you've seen posts to the effect of both of those here, so a hypothetical situation is not even necessary, but simply a recollection and evaluation. Surely then you can understand why people would react differently to the following? LTC player a: "Foot units don't tend to be effective the way I play." LTC player b: "Foot units are useless." Again, this may not be an entirely accurate depiction of what is going on here and now, but surely it can help to show why these misunderstandings keep happening.

Now, here's the issue. There's no legitimate basis for hating people who prefer mounted units. But saying the best units are mounted units - an objective term rather than subjective - is far more dismissive of opposing viewpoints, and is in fact highly provocative. And when a substantial part of your reasoning is based upon LTC, you are in effect treating LTC as the standard that all players should go by. And asserting that, intentionally or unintentionally, is asinine and warrants the harsh response it provokes. Now, I'm not sure how entirely this applies to the current situation. But your current post is an example of the fact that indeed, at times regarding this subject you use objective standards to assert something without objective basis. And when that happens, response is warranted.

Duel and Critical, rather. Noish doesn't get Continue, but Fee learns it on her own, and Sety always has it. But yes, great father, decent performance. 6/10

Well, I'll just have to not let that happen. I know what I'm doing. Just leave it to me and I'll find a way to work things out.

Perhaps. Banzai and I are working on things right now, but it's a slow process, especially since neither of us know much Japanese. Or hacking, for that matter. Shields are interesting in both TRS and BS in that character durability is lower; they tend to not last long without them. In TRS, they're just a resource to be used by any character, while in BS, they become their own equipment types for specific characters, varying in effectiveness with the characters' skill with them. Increased variation in weapon access and the effects of those weapons, a wide variety of tactical skills, and more personal weapons all help to increase variation between characters, making them all unique and distinct from each other - from what I've found, much more so than in the other games, which has been a big part of why I found myself getting attached to it so quickly. (It's actually been just over six months since I started playing it.) Only certain personal weapons auto-repair: Reese's second, ultimate sword, Succeed, and the four ultimate spells used by certain mages. They disappear entirely if their durability runs out, which isn't so likely to happen when left alone on the enemy phase in BS. Physical personal weapons (except Succeed for some reason) remain if broken to be repaired by a Repair Stone, but won't repair on their own.