Anouleth

It seems to me that being complex in the sense of adding more options is a completely empty and pointless attribute, then, and I didn't really expect anyone to interpret my statements about chess being more complex than Fire Emblem as referring to that kind of complexity.

You could consider the possibility of playing chess against a computer. But even the best AIs in the game do not play the game perfectly. Suppose that I added a button to Fire Emblem, that when you press it, you instantly win the chapter. Superficially, I have made the game more complex because I have added another option for the player. There are more possible movements, counting pressing that button as a move. But in actuality, the game is less complex because this one move is so much superior to the other moves, that we do not need to consider them. Regardless, the whole point was that someone claimed that removing luck would make the game "like chess". Since chess is universally popular, easy to learn, impossible to master, has been played for hundreds of years and is considered to be one of the greatest games ever devised, while offering far more strategic depth than any Fire Emblem, I don't see how it's a bad thing to be "like chess".

Adding more complexity to rules doesn't necessarily make the way the game is played more complex. Chess strategy is more complicated than the strategy that goes into playing Fire Emblem, just as how Go strategy is just as complicated as chess, even though the rules are a lot simpler.

punishment for gay marriage

Getting hit by criticals in Fire Emblem is frustrating enough when the critical chance is low, but if you're going to dramatically increase the chance of criticals, you need to reduce their power so your units aren't constantly getting killed.

That's not a good thing.

Chess isn't simple, though, it's one of the most fantastically complex games ever created, with thousands of potential strategies, despite having simple rules. It's worth noting that Advance Wars still has luck elements, but much smaller in potential impact. Perhaps something similar could be implemented, where luck still makes a difference, just not the difference between dealing 0%, 100%, and 300% damage.

A Fire Emblem game where enemies don't attack you on enemy phase would be very different, but I'm not convinced it would be better. It's an interesting novelty for optional chapters, that's all, but it's not something very fun.

Yeah, and when you throw your opinion out like that, you should expect people to rip it apart unless it's actually well-thought out and backed up by real evidence. Placing the word "arbitrary" in front of it is not going to stop people, especially when you show that it isn't arbitrary by giving some evidence. And people weren't ripping into your "80%". They were ripping into the part where you said that it was very likely that Martin attacked Zimmerman because he smoked weed.

Uh, actually, the point of the poll is to show that the opinion of people on this kind of surveillance changes depending on whether their party controls the white house. That is to say, that Democrats are more likely to be okay with this kind of surveillance program because it's being controlled by other Democrats.

I don't really think that figuring out how best to hide units in a corner is particularly interesting. I'm not sure why it has to be a defense map either. What makes it harder to hide units in the corner in a defense map than in a rout map? If anything, it would be harder in a rout map because rout maps actually have win conditions. And you can always just... let them die. Like FE11, where letting your units die is actually pretty efficient because it gets you another Warp staff. No. There's already plenty of stuff in the game to discourage efficient play. The problem is that low-manning is the most efficient way to play the game. That's what needs to be changed. In a similar vein, turning Sumia and Cordelia into ugly hambeasts would probably discourage players from using them, but that doesn't stop them from being game-breaking, which is the real problem. So basically, a defense chapter with no chokepoints and multiple places to defend? I admit, I didn't actually know that enemies came from behind in Chapter 16. What turn does that happen on? But the game is set up to punish you for using multiple units. That's the problem. Using lots of units is bad play. It is worse for almost everything. That's what needs to be changed.

Speculation is one thing, but you basically rolled in here and declared that there was at least an 80% chance that Martin attacked Zimmerman first. Based on what? The fact that Martin smokes weed and has an interest in guns, and has a history of violence? Clearly, Zimmerman also has an interest in guns (he was carrying one with him, after all!) and he also has a history of violence. Guns and weed are not exactly rare pasttimes among Americans.

Depending on how it's laid out, you could just enemy phase slaughter them before they're in range to seize. Unless the enemies come from enough directions that you're forced to either block their path or kill them on player phase, killing them on enemy phase is the best solution. I'll give you 9 and 14. Chapter 15 has water, sand, and absolutely no flying enemies, so you can hide in the lower right corner. Chapter 16 has water and only a few flying enemies. In 18, you can still hide at the back with a vulnerary. Players will just look for loopholes. Trying to push the player into playing badly doesn't work.

I don't think it's necessarily a case of deflating player stats as it is deflating player growths specifically, because that is after all, rather the point of overlevelling, that you get stat growth. And it's not even about deflating player growths overall as much as it is deflating player growths in certain areas to give them weak points. That is to say, Sumia needs nerfs to her strength and defense, not her speed. I could just as easily have taken an example from FE10 rather than FE6; Micaiah has some of the most polarised growths in the game. Also, FE12 Lunatic has very inflated stats, which ironically ends up making low-man teams very weak because you need a larger team of capped units in order to deal with lategame chapters (or at least that's the impression I get). So there is one example of stat inflation working in the favour of larger teams. It's not even a "growth unit" problem, though. Many of the classic low-man teams do not use growth units by any rigorous definition of the term. Jill is no more a growth unit than Edward is. Seth is much less of a growth unit than Lute. Marcus is the complete antithesis of a growth unit. Also, "growth unit syndrome" is usually used to describe the underpowered nature of growth units, like Nino, Lute, Edward, Nephenee, or (hahaha) Wolf and Sedgar.

I think it's ok.

Precisely. Marijuana smokers are notoriously violent and unpredictable, unlike peaceful, law-abiding alcohol drinkers. And he's interested in guns too! Probably a crazy republican gun nut. Man, the government needs to do more to crack down on marijuana smokers and gun aficionados. That's only like, what, 95% of the population of America anyway. Basically, you think that people's right to free speech is not unlimited, and should be restricted in cases where the subject matter is controversial and might incite people to violence... such as, to take a TOTALLY RANDOM example, a pastor publicly burning religious holy texts.

Any of: -Take out weapon ranks, replace with skill -Change the way that skills proc off skill -Increase the crit bonus for each point of skill to 1:1 and reduce critical damage from 3x to 2x (or make criticals simply ignore defense rather than increase damage) -Increase the hit bonus for each point of skill to 3:1, reduce weapon hit rates to compensate

Pretty sure you don't need to use more than 3 units in chapter 15. Pretty sure you can solo it just by leaving Marcus on the throne and hiding Hector in a corner somewhere (or even just putting Hector on the throne, if you've concentrated a lot of resources into him). Pretty sure this is not just possible, but easier than bringing 7 units who all need to be protected. Pretty sure that Marcus could rout the map singlehandedly. Pretty sure there's no need to block chokepoints in a low man run because your units are overlevelled and can take on and 1-round infinite numbers of enemies on enemy phase. Yeah, but just because those extra units are deployed doesn't mean you have to train them. Most FE13 maps make it possible to shove extraneous units out of harm's way in a corner somewhere, so being forced to put say, 6 units on the field in Chapter 17 isn't going to really hamper the player. But players like to use lots of units anyway. I like using a range of units. I'd imagine most other players do too. You don't have to force the player to deploy extra units. The problem is that using extra units is a bad idea. It is provably less efficient than focusing on a small team. Players should not be punished for using a wider range of units. That's true in other games. Many units in FE10 are very helpful in the short term even if you don't want to use them long-term. But that isn't a good antidote to low man runs. The fact that Vika is very helpful in her few Part 1 chapters doesn't make it any less of a good idea to dump all BEXP and statboosters into Jill and have her solo all of Part 3. So I don't understand your point at all. How would putting a minimum deployment limit on 1-E make life harder for Jill? How would it solve any of these problems?

I think that's the case. Basically, Prop. 8 was removed because the state of California refused to defend it in the Supreme Court after it was struck down in district court. The group of people who originally supported it tried to defend it but it was ruled that they didn't have standing to do so. We don't know what would happen if a different state with a similar constitutional amendment against recognising gay marriage were to actually defend it in front of the Supreme Court.

How would it? If your team of three super-units has no problem with clearing out a rout map in two turns, they should have no trouble with a defense map. "Killing all the enemies as quickly as possible" beats every chapter in every Fire Emblem ever, and low-man teams are typically the best at doing that. Until low-man teams are not the best way to rout maps, they will dominate. Even in games that have a big focus on low-manning, deployment slots are usually filled in some way, even if it's just for shovebots, so I don't see minimum deployment limits being a constraint.

I don't see subobjectives as making a big difference. Technically, the biggest subobjective is Rout, because it means that every enemy on the map is an objective. The reality is that subobjectives are not really a problem for low-man teams, and definitely not a problem if turn count isn't a concern. Since inflating enemy stats and deflating player stats have the exact same effects, what's the basis for claiming that one encourages low-manning and the other doesn't? I think Tables covered this pretty well. The problem is the EXP formula. If even a 20/15 unit still gains 8 exp per kill compared to a level 15 unit gaining 30 exp per kill, then you can have one 20/15 unit for every three level 15 units. And a 20/15 unit is always going to be way more useful than three level 15s. One interesting case in a ROMhack is Dream of Five. In order to prevent player levels from spiraling out of control in a game with so many enemies, enemies are almost universally level 1 unpromoted units. As a presumably unintended result, level gain slows down pretty hard and training a well-balanced team is more important. Another issue is resources. Resources like BEXP, statboosters, or forges were probably intended as being ways to get weaker units up to par with stronger units. The reality is that dumping lots of BEXP and boosters into one unit was a way more effective strategy. Also, one possible solution is unbalanced stat spreads. The reason why low-manning is effective is because we have access to units with good stats in everything. Well-balanced units, with enough STR to 2HKO, enough SPD to double, enough DEF to survive waves of enemies on enemy phase, and enough MOV to go places, are the dangerous ones. After all, we're not worried about the results of overlevelling a Thany or a Wade; even overlevelled, these units still have serious issues because they have awful growths in certain areas and wouldn't be able to solo anything. And I think, this is part of the problem with FE13. Units don't have serious flaws, or at least, no flaws that can't be corrected with more levels and pair-up, except for swordlock and movement. Every unit can be balanced across all important stats. Unlike FE6 where certain units will always be bad at certain things.

News media report on issues that people feel passionately about? What a scandal! Obviously we can't allow the news media to ever report on anything controversial!

So... apparently Double Fine are making a turn-based strategy game, billed as a mix of turn based strategy games like Fire Emblem or XCOM and multigenerational grand strategy games like Crusader Kings, with roguelike elements. The Kickstarter is here.

Sacred Stones also gave full weapon triangle control to Generals, though. With only swords and lances, Great Knights would have been even more inferior to Paladins, even if it made Generals less inferior to Great Knights, so it's hard to claim that Sacred Stones "messed it up" when faced with the impossible task of balancing out Great Knights with Generals and Paladins simultaneously.

When he says that the law is being used in a way he didn't intend, he means by the other side. The Patriot Act was meant to give sweeping powers to a Republican president, not a Democrat! Some cynics might also point out that the fact that the Patriot Act gives the government far greater power than originally intended points to massive incompetence on the part of the people who wrote it and voted for it without actually understanding it. While the 4th amendment does prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures, it's not clear at all whether the government knowing that you sent an email or made a phone call counts as an unreasonable search. I don't see how it's relevant at all that you can deduce personal information about a person from that metadata. If it's legal for the government to acquire that metadata, it shouldn't be illegal for the government to use that data to make deductions.