Othin

To answer your question: I was more concerned with the insistence on continuing to argue the examples and your attitude in doing so than in the actual content of this particular argument. I understand that I caused some confusion and irritation in bringing that up in that way, and for that, I, too, apologize. Edit: I also support that idea.

Malleability is precisely the thing that allows discussions like this one and the "Mechanics that you want" thread to function. Your standpoint has been that a suggestion would never work because recent games have had Battle Saves (which is largely a non sequitur, but that's hardly relevant to the current point), but what about a suggestion that Battle Saves be removed from future games, either in isolation or paired with the previous suggestion? Would you also dismiss that one, simply because Battle Saves were present in the recent games, even in spite of their absence from FE5-9? For that is what you are doing by dismissing the possibility without it being explicitly suggested. That would be as absurd as dismissing a suggestion for Rescuing to be brought back simply because 11 and 12 did not have any stat to correspond to Bld or Con. Thinking that the series can never change more than the tiniest increment is the mindset that has set the FE series in the death spiral it has been in ever since Kaga left.

Discussing the viability within a reasonably malleable setting is fun. Discussing it in one where everything else is set in stone is incredibly boring.

Yeah I don't even know why I should bother trying to reason with you anymore if you're only capable of obnoxious shit like this rather than civil debate.

Now that, I can agree with as a concern and uncertainty.

Dark Sage, surely you can think of other characters that fit the examples just as well and substitute them, then look at the bigger picture, rather than whining about the examples and ignoring the substance of an argument.

Perhaps it would be prudent to edit it out, then?

I have no objections to how you and a group of others choose to play the game and discuss your preferred tiers, but LTC cuts out far too much content from the games to be objectively considered the "best" way to do either one, particularly when rankings exist. This is particularly true for FE4, a game with ranks, offering several characteristics for which characters can be efficient while allowing more of the game to become relevant, rather than simply LTC. Indeed, LTC is just one of many efficiencies that can be used as a goal for a given playthrough and tier list, and efficiency should never be used as a synonym for LTC. Due to the risk of being misunderstood again, perhaps I should note that this sort of thing is all that I am suggesting:

Sety should normally have 40 HP base with base level Levin and Fury as his parents, but if what Mekkah did cut out even the automatic levels children characters are supposed to receive as part of their base stats, then yeah, it should wind up as 24. But as opposed to a 0% growths run starting characters at their base levels, that means the run is starting the children characters several levels below their base level (particularly Sety, Faval, and Altenna), which results in an added challenge, but it seems unnecessary to fulfill the point of a 0% growths run.

And we won't have any of the other changes anyone wants, either. No reason to constrain ourselves to some aspects of reality and not others.

It's good; it really combines the 3D-ness with the classic 2D Mario feel. However, I dislike how the level progression has jumped back to one-dimensional, and the levels seem disorganized; lacking themes and bosses, I'm not sure if I'll be able to view much of it as memorable. Maybe something will stand out more later, though; I'm only a few worlds in.

I've never seen the problem with just referring to the whole group as Jeigans, with some of them being older and some of them being younger.

Pegasi and wyverns do fine in harsh terrain while other things don't, meaning those places are where they can compete best for resources. Makes sense for them to be there.

Eyvel fills a Jeigan-like role in her first few chapters, but her long absence makes her not fit well overall. It's really between Fin and Dagda: Dagda is higher leveled, but Fin is a knight and his connection to Leaf is more typical of the archetype. So either one can fit depending on the weight given to the story aspect of the archetype.

Indeed. Berwick Saga has no simple go-to "strong" weapon, but many degrees of weapons of increasing effectiveness to use, depending on how rare of a weapon you're willing to expend on a specific situation. The emphasis of accuracy and other capabilities as opposed to just raw power and range also contribute, although range is less often considered in Berwick Saga due to the general lack of effective throwing weapons. The existence of two equipment slots also contributes; knights generally need to carry multiple shields due to the shields having low durability and archers have to carry a variety of arrows based on the kind of damage they want to do and occasionally other effects, since good arrows, just like good weapons, are limited in quantity, so it's unwise to waste better arrows when not necessary. And then there's the lack of an official storage, which seems like a needless change from the previous games, but it makes it important for characters to keep inventory space clear for dropped and captured items. Actually, that was the original reason I started using the bags after dismissing them (leaving them in the base as a makeshift storage), but that was early in the game. An example of those "other capabilities" I noted above: Elbert is a Sergeant Knight, using Swords, Spears, and S Shields - basically a Cavalier; I'm not really sure why that class was replaced with four identical classes, but whatever. For weapons, one would want to equip Elbert with good swords for the higher accuracy and sometimes higher base power, and spears for the higher damage on a charge. The accuracy difference isn't too big with the weapons themselves (typically 10 points, which is still substantial when you're not getting near 100% accuracy), but Berwick Saga has an interesting cross of weapon levels and the Skill stat. Elbert has higher Sword Skill than Spear Skill and continues to increase it much faster throughout the game even with equal use of the two weapon types, resulting in a much more notable accuracy difference. Meanwhile, he still needs to use Spears enough to raise his Spear Skill to 20 in order to promote, which with his low growth will take a while. So with all of those differences, he needs to have access to both common and rare swords and spears at any given time to use whatever will work best for the current situation and the long term... and shields, and healing, and inventory space. So it all adds up to well over 8 slots. But as you noted, this isn't really relevant to the other games, as they don't tend to place much emphasis on those kinds of decisions - an unfortunate loss from them, I feel, but oh well.

Precisely. Doesn't sound like most people are electing people who want that. Then all you have is guesswork to determine who would be impacted by it. In a situation where lives are at stake, that is not enough. The cost is eliminating countless peoples' lives, destroying countless peoples' happiness, and setting a precedent for further horrors that could just as easily be directed at other groups. What could possibly be "worth" this, what would make such a step into barbarism "better"? Many things cost money for the sake of bettering society. That's a good thing; that's what money is for, spending it on things that improve peoples' lives. "National defense" has no need for half the money it already has, let alone anything more. Except for the fact that it isn't the government's business. It's hilarious how much you're thinking from the perspective that everyone is fine with numerous liberal things: abortions, universal healthcare, letting the government know and decide every detail of peoples' lives. I mean, I consider myself quite liberal, and I'm very much fine with the first two (and when necessary, the third), but if you think this idea would ever get much acceptance in today's society, you're sorely mistaken. Killing two-year-old babies is very different from forced abortions. Certainly, there's much more of a question of self-awareness by that time, and yet even then whether or not you could conclusively determine anything is questionable. And then there's the human impact: You are not only ripping away the child growing in a mother's womb, but the child she has been raising for two years since then, that the whole family likely has an emotional attachment to. You're justifying murdering this human and traumatizing all of these people... for what? Money? Disgusting. A hypothetical situation: Say someone, under your proposed tyranny, is not found to be mentally disabled at the age of two, but instead some time later: maybe they're five, maybe they're 30. Maybe the disability was believed to be an underlying condition that did not manifest or was not apparent earlier, maybe it was due to some incident since then resulting in brain damage. In each of these situations, what would you propose doing? I can't imagine your system would allow for a good answer for any of them. Another thing to keep in mind: In order to test everyone, you would need to have the government hire many psychologists to develop a test to measure mental disability nearly perfectly at the age of two, then to administer the test to every human registered as being born in the United States. Parents would be unwilling to comply, so you would need to force them to do so. All of this would cost money, the same thing you intend to save, and certainly far more money than would be saved. So all you're doing is advocating murder for no purpose at all. With that, I believe I have said all I need to say on this matter.

Yeah, that's another bonus. Five item slots are definitely not enough. FE3 and FE9 allow characters to carry four weapons and four items; I'm really not sure why. FE2 allows characters to carry one item, period. Both seem excessively limited. See my comments earlier.

Now that you mention it, I agree. Thinking about it that way, I feel like what could make that work and go a long way to improving the strategy of the series without changing much is simply to limit standard double attacking to the initiator.

Most of my views about ideal directions for the FE series are heavily influenced by Berwick Saga, and at times such as this one, such views require explanation and examples. If you consider such explanations and examples to be fangirling, then sorry, but no.

I've found that Berwick Saga manages to encourage characters to work as a team without becoming tedious, and it certainly has as much emphasis on strategic positioning as the other games. Pulverize. I've mentioned it before, and I'm surely going to mention it many more times, because it's such a perfect example. It's a skill used by Axel and Daoud, as well as a number of enemies throughout the game. When initiating combat, it can be used to double the character's Mt (before applying enemy Def) on the first attack in exchange for negating the character's own defenses, but it can only be used when remaining stationary. It can OHKO most enemies, including many bosses, but it's player-phase only and cannot be used entirely freely due to the movement restriction, making it a method for one-rounding enemies that happens based on strategy rather than simply being the result of placing a character near an enemy. There are many more examples. Leon and Ouro can use Deathmatch to trigger five rounds of combat against an enemy able to counter and dispose of enemies quickly, but you'd better be damn sure your character can kill the enemy first. (Ouro usually can, which is why he's another expensive mercenary.) Indeed, the main thing keeping characters from killing enemies in one round is the rarity of Pursuit to hit an enemy twice, but certain weapons can grant them the extra attacks necessary to do so, being limited enough to make them a valuable commodity not to be wasted, but not so rare as to usually lack relevance as an option. To do it another way, Dean and Arthur can use Desperation to increase their own accuracy and hit twice in exchange for taking a 100% accurate counterattack that, as with Pulverize, ignores their own defenses. And then there's Sherlock and Faye, who can use different skills to gain several hits in one round of combat with no drawbacks other than having to wait a number of turns before using the skill again. One-rounding in Berwick Saga is not necessarily rare, but it does require thought and strategy that can vary greatly with different characters. It is typically limited to the player phase, and generally requires some notable cost or risk. These, I have found, yield much more in the way of strategy. I like that idea.

FE5's ranking system is good in that it pushes the player to do just about whatever they can do in terms of turns, but the requirement of recruiting characters adds an incentive to do more than the bare minimum of completing the game. I know some people here have said they find it hard to justify going beyond that bare minimum, and such ranks help with that. That said, I actually favor the Funds rank and more lenient Exp rank in FE6 and FE7 as they encourage doing even more than that minimum and ensuring that even less content is simply dismissed. This is why I tend to support ranked runs when possible (although the only game I've ever actually completed ranked is FE5).

I do agree that FE4's system has some issues, although I had some different ones in mind. FE4's ranks being such a hassle doesn't help the incentive to actually go for them, either. FE5's Fatigue system is particularly notable, I'd say, in more directly limiting the use of the best characters and not so much forcing use of every character. However, I think Berwick Saga works out at least as well even outside of ranked runs simply due to the limits on what characters can accomplish on their own. The mercenary system also contributes, having many of the best characters charge a hefty fee for each chapter they're hired until permanently recruited later in the game. Sherpa, for example, can shred enemies, particularly with his personal weapon Brimranger, but costs 2800 to recruit for an entire chapter (which only goes up as he gains levels). Brimranger furthermore eliminates his innate Avoid while in use, limiting his durability, and can only be used so many times in the first place.

Severe unbalance with weight only in one direction is boring. However, when both sides of the scale contain something substantially notable and unique, then it's okay for it to tip considerably in one direction as long as it's not too far. Too much balance, especially in a single player game is bad, and too little balance is bad in any game. It is between those two extremes where games can find situations where gameplay is at its most interesting. For an example: Right now, I'm playing Pokemon Rumble Blast. Being real-time and with free movement, combat has many differences, and the moves reflect that. For example, while Hyper Beam and Giga Impact are a bit slow to use, they don't require any recharge time afterwards and wind up as, for the most part, just ridiculously powerful moves. But those moves cannot simply be taught easily or at times when they may be needed, so when finding a Pokemon with one of those moves, that Pokemon becomes especially valuable while in use. Pokemon with those or other especially powerful abilities cannot dominate the game on their own. A boss battle will typically require use of 10-20 Pokemon or more at different points, and at a given time, you're not going to have 10 Pokemon available that have traits like that to make them ideal for the given situation. So you make use of the powerful Pokemon when you can, but not exclusively. That last bit is something FE games have trouble with, but it is not insurmountable. A main issue is that gameplay is utterly dominated by the incredibly easy access to such ridiculous capabilities as one-rounding enemies and fighting effectively at range 1-2. These are good things to have, but the ability to use what should be limited and valued capabilities with such ease allows decently powered characters to become one-man armies. With this, easy healing, and little reason not to use them from one battle to another, there is often a lack of incentive to rely on characters other than the strongest. Notable ways of dealing with it within the series include: The Exp rank in FE4/6/7 requiring use of weaker characters and a the maintaining of a larger team, the Fatigue system in FE5 requiring characters to be rotated out every few battle and yielding a similar result, and the Happiness rank in Berwick Saga, functioning much like the Exp rank in encouraging a larger team, in combination with individual characters being far less dominating, for reasons such as the restriction of the capabilities noted above.

Or we recognize that humanity cannot be reasonably defined in such terms and leave them as they are. Certainly, some people might say that something other than mind defines humanity. Many earlier societies thought gender and race defined it just as much, and if you reject objective good and evil so much, how could you maintain that they could not be right? After all, you still haven't even answered how a person would be conclusively determined to be entirely mentally disabled, such that they would be subject to different laws, and by whom. Without that,you have not even clearly defined the group of people who would be subject to this de-humanization, and indeed, I don't think you could never clearly define that group. So if you wish to maintain this standpoint, you must in your next response prove me wrong and explain how and by whom people could be conclusively determined to be mentally disabled or not. Particularly, before birth, as you suggest. You also repeatedly ignore the impact on the people around them. It's unfortunate that I can't persuade you to sympathize with the people you are demanding be killed by the state, but if not, then consider the families who would see this as the murder of their children. You would not be able to convince them otherwise, and any government that would attempt to implement this policy as a requirement over a free nation would be overthrown immediately. And I believe you just said that the losing side was the wrong side.

Sanaki You're as impudent and impatient as ever. Heed me, Ike. If you are to help lead the Crimean Liberation Army, you must be given a more appropriate title. Ike If you're talking about making me a noble, I'll decline, thanks. That's not my kind of thing. Sanaki You are not in a position to refuse. Giving some nameless mercenary control of Begnion's troops would be...problematic. And more importantly, it would affect the troops. You will resign yourself to this and receive peerage from Princess Elincia. Ike What? No, wait! This is absurd...Blast! Of all the foolish... Elincia I'm...sorry about this. If you're absolutely opposed to it, I won't force you. Ike No, I have to do what's necessary. What am I supposed to do now? Put on a funny hat or something? And then he gets rid of the title as soon as the war is over. I don't see the issue.