[Interventionism]

yes. its people are starving with their leader doing pretty much nothing about it. it's almost like i could parallel this with scar and the pridelands. it's fucked up enough that i could basically make their position analogous to a disney movie.

it is not our right as americans to decide what nations become totalitarian and what nations become democratic. in retrospect, we can see that our intervention helped, but at the time we had no right to intervene. i still think, as noted above, that we don't have the right to intervene in NK just because we want to; it's an endeavor to be taken up and voted on in the UN. the US is not the world's cop.

So, under what circumstances can Americans determine that intervention is necessary? Apparently, you do think that such circumstances do actually exist, because you support World War II and you support US intervention right now in North Korea and Africa, but you do not say what those circumstances are. It's not clear what you think on this issue, since after all, World War II was waged in response to the unjustified invasion of Poland by Germany in 1939, while the Korean War was waged in response to the unjustified invasion of South Korea by North Korea in 1950. What exactly was different between these two invasions that World War II was justified but the Korean was not unjustified?

Also, from what you say, you should think that the Korean War was justified, since it was the result of Security Council Resolution 83.

[Interventionism]

i think you are mistaken. i never mentioned the korean war anywhere. but, based on my post i believe one should have inferred the opposite about it; that is, i also disagree that the korean war was justified.

obvious that the korean war is good? i fail to see how such a view obvious.

So somehow, "we should intervene in North Korea" now, but apparently, it was not acceptable to intervene when North Korea actually invaded South Korea.

Also, the view is fairly obvious, I think. Without US intervention, it seems highly likely that South Korea would have ended up as a totalitarian hellhole like it's neighbour. Instead, it is now an advanced, peaceful, wealthy, and democratic nation.

[Changes to stats, growths, adding more stats, etc.]

I think we should introduce a Charisma stat. Naturally, it will be completely useless and have no impact on gameplay.

[So Mega Pokemon]

Well, if they're doing what I think they're doing, Mega Gyarados, Mega Charizard, and Mega Ampharos will all be Dragon type so there can be a trio of dragons for each "element".

[Would you mind sibling marriage?]

I think it would be pretty funny.

[Interventionism]

to give you an idea of how i feel:

i agree with our intervention during WWII

we should intervene in NK

we should intervene in Africa

we should not intervene in Egypt

we should not intervene in Libya

now, US only, as i'm an american:

we should not have intervened in Hawai'i

we should not have intervened in vietnam

we should not have intervened in Afghanistan

we should not have intervened in Iraq

so, basically, i feel that we shouldn't intervene in most cases, as i don't feel it's really any nation's right to do so. WWII Germany is a special case, as is NK. NK and many regions in Africa are suffering differently from the other places i've named (if my understanding of the basic facts of these places is correct).

edit: basically i hold takano's view

So, if you think that the Korean War was justified and the Vietnam War was not justified, what was the difference between the two wars? After all, part of the reason why the US got involved in Vietnam is because intervention in Korea had been successful. And of course, in retrospect, it seems obvious that the Vietnam War was bad and the Korean War good, but the difference might not have been so obvious in the early 1960s.

[Suggestions to balance FE]

if defense isn't based on magic, then how do gates and forts and forests and the Power of Friendship give more defense?

checkmate, atheists

[League of Legends]

Levelling is also a problem for Leona, she scales very well with levels but has few opportunities to gain exp in midgame and lategame.

[Suggestions to balance FE]

if defense reflects how tough your body is, why doesn't volug have 100% defense growth to represent his chiseled abs? or something.

I think how tough your body is is probably better reflected by HP... after all, warriors and berserkers (and volug) have amazing bodies (woof), but not a lot of armour, so we can better enjoy the view they have lots of HP but low defense.

[Content from playable character deaths.]

I fail to see the point of an iron man mode. It is literally is classic mode were you can't reset. Anyone who is going to reset for any circumstance won't use it and anyone who plays without ever resetting will probably not care since they'd just do what they've always done if it didn't exist. And if something stupid like a 1% crit or getting hit by 6 straight 20%s happens, that was not a flaw in your plan, it was you being unlucky. You should not have to deal with the consequences of being unlucky in a video game.

Also, why is Mia the main example character? There are characters more likely to die in FE games, an FE games have a shit ton of characters. That I like to keep alive.

And classic mode is casual mode where you can't units after they die. Anyone who wants to use units after they die won't use it and anyone who plays without using units who died once will probably not care since they'll just do what they've always done if it didn't exist. And if something stupid like a 1% crit or getting hit by 6 straight 20%s happens, that was not a flaw in your plan, it was you being unlucky. You should not have to deal with the consequences of being unlucky in a video game.

There's nothing that Classic Mode does that couldn't be replicated in Casual Mode by just refusing to use characters after they've died once. But that doesn't mean that Classic Mode is unnecessary, does it? Please, tell me why Ironman Mode is unnecessary, but Classic Mode isn't, and please don't say "because we've always done it that way".

[Suggestions to balance FE]

1. Dismounting would solve this problem to a very minor extent--it doesn't make much sense to bring your horse indoors anyway. Though most maps generally aren't indoors in most Fire Emblem games, if I recall correctly, so this wouldn't do much: mounts would still be overpowered as always in outdoor maps.

Another way to solve this problem would be to make mounts from dodging attacks whatsoever. I don't think it makes much sense for a horse to react so quickly (or even understand the situation at all) to someone stabbing them with a lance. Then someone could make Horseslayers more common in the game, which would make it difficult for mounts to do so well on outdoor maps, since they can never dodge Horseslayer attacks. They would still be pretty good, but their usefulness would be limited thanks to having no avoid whatsoever.

You shouldn't really be relying on avoid to keep yourself safe from horseslayers anyway. If that Horseslayer is going to deal 30 damage to your 40HP Paladin, then even if it's only a 40% chance to hit it's too high in my opinion... I think it depends as well on how high avoid in general is.

You could just give mounted units worse stats to begin with. Nobody thinks that Noah and Treck are overpowered.

2. Flight is maybe the biggest problem in the game, but I think it has the same solution as 1: dismounting and no avoid. I can't imagine arrows missing a huge target very much, so the same solution would apply here.

Or, you could just give flying units worse stats to begin with. Obviously Thany is still a strong unit, but she's far from being overpowered, because her combat is so objectively terrible.

3. I always never understood why archers couldn't attack from very far away--I mean, isn't that the point of archery? Why can't you attack from, say, 5 tiles away, but with much less accuracy?

No... it's hard enough to protect Thany/Natasha/Micaiah/whoever from being attacked without enemy archers having five range...

I'd try to solve this by introducing Crossbows like FE10 back into the game, and doing a similar thing FE10 did by giving Marksmen the way to attack from 3 tiles away, but further: I'd say making a limit around 5 tiles away would be good, but with highly compromised accuracy. No accuracy compromised when the opponent is right next to you (with a Crossbow), -10 from a tile away, -20 from 2 tiles away, -30 from 3 tiles away, -40 from 4 tiles away, and so on.

I don't like the idea of 5-range enemies or 5-range allies, especially if they come with big conditions like that. I don't see why Archers have to have range penalties, are we trying to make archers balanced with themselves or something?

4. This is easily solved, and I think there are two possible solutions. One could be to make Jeigans disappear from normal and the above modes entirely, leaving them only in easy mode.

I like this, but some people might not like the idea of certain characters only being available in certain difficulties, particularly if it's the easiest one. I think a better solution is just to have Jeigans join in midgame in higher difficulties rather than from the start of the game, so you still have the option to use them, they're just not around at the point where they're overpowering.

5. This is one of the most unbalanced things in the game--without them LTC playthroughs would have a hard time existing. But I never really understood how you could just throw your Wishblade over and over again at an opponent with no consequence whatsoever, and how Hand Axes just magically spin into the palm of your hand even when you're a level 1 Fighter. I think an easy solution to this is to make it so that there are no valuable weapons with 1-2 range, and also make it so that Javelins and Hand Axes have 1 use each. This is probably a very weird solution, but I can't really imagine a person carrying a bag of 25 Hand Axes or Javelins (the common number of use for Javelins and Hand Axes) and just throwing them over and over again at an opponent.

I think that's an easy suspension of disbelief to make. It's no more ridiculous than swords that instantly disintegrate into dust after 30 uses exactly every time, and of course are just as accurate and sharp at 29 uses as they are brand new from the forge. Or being able to combine two swords with 10 uses left to get a sword with 20 uses left. Or 5 knives taking the same room in your inventory as 5 giant battleaxes.

[Nerfing mounts.]

Tauroneo is not an example of balance.

Black Knight for most balanced unit in the game, 1-rounds every enemy and never dies, but only exists for three chapters and has horrible move.

[Content from playable character deaths.]

Final Fantasy (1) is also one of the greatest RPG's ever made (certainly one of the most important). It's characters never utter a word and are complete blank slates in every possible meaning of the word. Great RPG =/= A character who isn't a blank slate.

So, why did you mention that Diablo II had blank slate characters, if that's not actually a bad thing?

Sure. I just don't think that cracking down on resetters and putting in additional rewards/punishments for killing off characters is the way they should improve.

If I'm cracking down on resetters, it's because it's an unhealthy gameplay pattern that needs to be discouraged.

Every mode, no matter how minor, needs proper programming, testing, and balance and should only be included if it will draw players to the game. That's why you don't see things like a time mode in Pokemon. I'm sure some players would love it, but it simply isn't worth the time or effort to appeal to such a small fraction of fans.

That's a fair argument, but given all the resources they piss away on voice actors and artists to draw ten year old girls wearing bikinis and shitty writing, I would hope they could spare some resources to actually improve the game. This is Fire Emblem, balance doesn't exist.

Because 'no resets' also means punishing players for things they can do that might be interpreted as resets when they are not. Accidentally ejecting the cart on a DS game, for example, to avoid an upcoming death before it gets saved. Nothing can save a console from a plug-pull either. Pretty much the only way I can see this being avoided is if the game auto-saves before every move (which would be a huge slowdown) and erased any file upon loading. Even that isn't perfect (since lots of auto-saving will slow the turns down to a crawl) and even then I'm sure it's a matter of time until someone finds a way around it.

There is no way around the GBA auto-save feature, and it's done without any slowdown. While I'm no expert on the subject, I am pretty sure that this can be done again with more recent FEs. I'm fairly sure it is not possible to "game the system" either with XCOM.

Face it, the only way a 'no reset' mode could really work is to out and out put the player in a position in which multiple things could screw them over without them resetting. I'm sure most wouldn't, but some would and that fraction who does would instantly ruin such a mode.

I don't see how that's necessary at all.

Because otherwise arguments like this appear. 'Guys, I really like female characters in a game, so the next FE game should have NOTHING but female characters!' Or, more relevantly, 'I like perma-death, so we should have a game mode where it is outright enforced, BECAUSE I LOVE IT AND HATE RESETTERS!'

I actually really dislike permadeath. It's a mechanic that has driven so many players away from FE, it's annoying and frustrating having to constantly reset whenever you make a mistake, yet people go on and on about how it's the Most Important Part of FE, or say that it should be kept in because Otherwise It Just Wouldn't Be FE. Casual Mode was the best thing to ever happen to Fire Emblem, the problem remains Classic Mode which does not really offer any kind of interesting experience, unless you think that resetting the game is an interesting experience. If permadeath is going to stick around, it should at least offer a real Hardcore mode, because otherwise there's no point.

Because there are many ways for a 'reset' to happen or be accidentally triggered and if any of them happen, the player is punished by having his entire file erased instead of merely having to rerun a level.

Untrue. I never had the autosave feature in GBAFE fail on me.

[Content from playable character deaths.]

Unless I missed something, the player character in Diablo II was little more than a paper doll onto which equipment was stuck with almost no defining personality or traits.

If you don't think that Diablo II is one of the greatest RPGs ever created, I have nothing to say to you since you are so completely disconnected from what people actually want from video games.

You can. Just stop playing FE7+, and never talk about them again, and it will be to you like the series had just stopped there.

FE7 onwards are still good games, though, but they could be better.

And you think every player's instinctive reaction will be to reset as a result? Either A) You're wrong and not every player will reset or B) This is a sign people don't exactly like the notion of perma-death. At that point, why do you think including a mode that forces it will be well-received by the public?

I don't expect most, or a significant number at all, to play Hardcore mode. Hardcore mode is not for everyone. I never played Hardcore Mode in Diablo II. The game is too hard for me to try that. But I did play Ironman Mode in XCOM: Enemy Unknown, because I was reasonably sure I could still beat the game that way (although it was close in the end!), and I'm sure I had more fun because of it.

That's nice. I think you need to remember one of the key elements of tiering right now. PEMN. Just because you found yourself well attached doesn't mean everyone will (I'd personally hate such a thing due to 1/1 type crap) or that it should be a mode just because you found it interesting. Especially since you just stated that you would wish the series returned to it's older days instead of moving forwards.

I was talking in terms of plot and character development. There are many things that have been added to the series since then that should be kept, and entirely new things that should be introduced.

Sure, but there is a big difference between 'forcing a series of characters who are likely not optimal' and 'simply not resetting any time the game decides to bend you over'.

Yes, it's far more tempting to reset than it is to deploy Seth. There are more players who refuse to let the units they're using die than there are players who refuse to use units they think are strong, even though the costs of resetting (time) are higher than the costs of using Seth (nothing).

I think it's pretty clear you are out of touch with the series as a whole past the older FE games and are one of the old-school elitists simply trying to force his way about because 'that was what the good old days were like'.

But, like I said, that wasn't what the good old days were like. The "good old days" didn't have real permadeath, any more than the games now do.

The most content we should see from a player death is acknowledgement in conversations, not unlockable maps/characters/content or some mode that robs you of your ability to reset 'just because' especially considering how dickish such a mode would have to be to the player to ensure such a ruling.

"Dickish" is certainly a good word for it. However, I don't see how such a mode is really qualitatively different from something like Lunatic+ or Lunatic Reverse or Merciless or Maniac Mode, modes that are meant to be unfair and punishing and aggressively difficult. And to be honest, even a no-reset mode would in my opinion be kinder than something like Lunatic+, which is somewhat luck based. If IS are looking for a way to add modes or difficulty levels that offer an extreme challenge, I would much rather they followed my suggestion than have another Lunatic+ mode.

[Content from playable character deaths.]

thanks for the concern!

from what i can gather, you are in the minority here. games are evolving, man. change is occurring.

Evolving? Sounds to me like games are devolving. Modern games are trying more and more to be movies. Fire Emblem Awakening is trying to be an anime. Change is occurring, alright, but it's in the wrong direction.

[Content from playable character deaths.]

Guess why so few games have such modes? Because they aren't well-received usually and aren't terribly appealing.

Diablo II, not well received? Are you fucking with me?

Not to mention both those games don't focus on character development.

Fire Emblem didn't use to focus on character development either, back during the glory days of FE3-6. I would gladly like to see a return to such a time.

And who are you to claim the 'temptation is too great'? A mind-reader who knows exactly what each player desires to do when a character dies?

You don't have to be a mind-reader. Anyone who has ever played Fire Emblem understands instinctively how horrible it feels to lose a unit and suffer that kind of major, permanent setback.

Someone who can tell the difference between resetting because they loved the character and resetting because that character was a statistical brute who got 1/1ed?

Doesn't matter. People reset, they do it a lot.

Also, you're an idiot in regards to resetting. If a player resets a chapter it's because they value the character more than the chapter frustration, WHICH IS A GOOD THING FOR THE GAME! Maybe it doesn't make it 'harder' but good characters make people want to play the game more. I'd be more scared for the game if the characters were so bland or unlikable that people didn't reset the game upon the death ever.

Sure. It's perfectly natural behavior for people to reset the game when a unit dies. But that doesn't mean the behavior is healthy, or fun, or interesting enough to preserve. Why, specifically, do we want people to reset the game when their units die? To prove how much they care about a particular unit? Why do we want to force the player into an unpleasant decision?

Ironically, I find that I care about my units more when I know I can't reset. I was far more protective my soulless generics in XCOM and my adorable Nuzlocke run Jellicent far more than say, Jill, who I was happy to throw into the middle of huge hordes of enemies, in the knowledge that well, if she dies, I can just reset. Whereas I would never take such a risk in XCOM. I remember the last level of XCOM was particularly epic, because by the end, I was struggling through with just two wounded soldiers left of my initial six.

As for why it would be productive, it's a mode that could be legit-challenging by forcing players to use a variety of units in non-optimal set-ups.

Except, that a player could get the exact same experience by simply choosing to use a variety of units in non-optimal set-ups. The exact same argument applies to both my "Nuzlocke" mode and this hypothetical game mode of yours, that they don't impose any restrictions on the player that they can't impose upon themselves.

Compare that to 'unable to reset' and it's clear when is more productive for the game by being actually unique as opposed to merely killing a potential urge.

Yes, it is clear.

with alan and samson? lol that was at most a 30-second experience, wasn't it? plus neither of them mattered to the story. i'm asking for something that would actually serve as part of the plot.

Sorry that Alan and Samson didn't get a thirty page monologue each where we could Explore their Feelings and we could get some Character Development, like you would have preferred.

[Is it possible to make an Est that's a high tier character?]

This is just wrong. There are an infinite number of things that can fit into the definition of an Est and still make the unit high tier.

An Est could have Paragon and Warp and a very high staff rank and be a pretty good unit (I'm looking at you, Sara) in a game where there's no other practical Warp users (Sara would've been better had she been in a game without many staff users). An Est could have the highest move in the game and Paragon--with some babying they'd be the best option for shaving turns. And so on.

If an Est has high base staff rank or the highest base move or one of the best skills in the game at base, then they don't really have low bases, do they? The whole point of an Est is that when they first join, they're very weak and not useful. That's what makes them all so awful. Even Tormod, the closest to being good Ests have ever gotten, is not really a true Est because with BEXP he doesn't have a period of being very weak. He's just a unit that is expensive in terms of resources rather than a unit that is initially weak. By that definition, even FE10 Jill could be interpreted as an Est since she requires a massive stat dump to be useful.

[How should the series become harder?]

Doesn't Jagen also have like, a 2% chance of being critted or something...

[Is it possible to make an Est that's a high tier character?]

Like I said earlier, you can do this or just make him a staff bot, since if you some how didn't train Laura, Rhys, or Miccy his only competition for late game stave user is Loliver, which is well, bad since you're required to bring Miccy into the final chapter and there's only one rexaura.

Actually, there's also Bastian and Elincia who are both serviceable staffbots. And if you didn't train Micaiah, then she won't be able to use Rexaura anyway.

[What makes a country free?]

Why is everyone so concerned about nazis coming into power? Pretty much no one likes nazis and even in places where nazism is more tolerated, it still has a very weak (at best) effect on politics. I know it's an example but c'mon you guys.

If it's so unlikely that they'll actually win any kind of election, then surely it doesn't matter if we rig the election so they can't win?

Obviously Neo Nazis have the legal right to run for office.

Of course I think they have the legal right to run. That's why my compromise solution is so good. They can run for any office they like! They're just not allowed to win.

honestly, i think that you feel this way out of fear that such a party could actually win. parties containing blatant racists and neo-nazis won't win in a developed nation, probably ever. let them spend their money on failed campaigns.

Great! So you have no problem with rigging the election so they can't win, because you don't think it's possible anyway. Glad to see I have someone on my side.

[What makes a country free?]

Why are some of you guys so defensive? It gets hard to have a serious discussion that way.

I'm not being defensive. I'm being extremely aggressive, in fact.

[What makes a country free?]

Anouleth, you're starting to strike me as someone who's Anti-American. You hate America, son? Do ya?

No, I don't. But I do think that you shouldn't elect any Nazis to public office. if that means that I hate America, then so be it.

[Is it possible to make an Est that's a high tier character?]

Ests are by definition bad, so no.

[Fire Emblem: Dream of Five]

my guess is that renair and co get fed up of the main continent being such a shitheap and go to svanhild to make their own country

and it will be called Assholevania and renair will be crowned Queen of the Assholes

[Would it be bad if a later FE has lower growths? And tweaked caps?]

The problem with FE10 was just that the exp gain wasn't adjusted. If EXP gain was more like in FE13, it would have been more reasonable (you can easily get more than 40 levels for multiple characters in one playthrough).