Wi-fi thread

[Tamara]

Swordmasters are strong, but there are not too hard to take down with other strong units. Swordsmasters, horsemen and berserkers are probably the strongest offensive classes. Sniper, paladins and falcoknights have other uses. And you want a mage to heal, warp and swarm. Ballisticians are an aquired taste, but you can make them work if you want to.

Generals are nothing to fear, because they are slow. Paladins have the same def cap and higher speed.

You can make a killer team with nothing but the strongest of the strongest, but most players prefer not to do that because it takes too much time. As things are now you can still make a decent team in one weekend.

[Rodykitty]

True, but he just said 50%+ crit is nothing special, so why settle for 10%?

Using brave weapons will effectively double the chance of getting a critical hit, while you only get one chance with a Killer Sword/Wo Dao, and also guarantees more damage output even if the critical hit doesn't happen.

Supports come into play after Skill / 2 to boost crit chance as well as class bonuses, furthering the existence of crit rates, and obsoleting Killer Weapons.

[Dat Nick]

nits that benefit most from braves are units with 7-8 move (berserkers, swordmasters). That's not ideal for a scout.

...And again, you totally misunderstood what the hell I just said.

Paladins can be played in junction with Horsemen/Swordmasters. Hell, Horsemen can even do fine as scouts. Even if you didn't, Paladins can still be played.

Nothing wrong with using a third unit to attack

This isn't what you said. You defied the basic laws of math and stated that 18+28 damage would kill a 60 HP unit. And now you're trying to cover it up.

Braves are useful, but it doesn't make a team unkillable.

no

Snake in Brawl isn't unkillable

but he's still the best in the game

Minion in Twisted Metal isn't unkillable

he's still forking broken

Hachi in Advance Wars isn't unkillable

he's still forking broken

Need I go on?

BTW unless a berserker has higher than base res, swarm could deal 29-36 damage

so go dark mage and refine res

that's still not enough to kill with an 18 dmg attack, btw

advantages are minor.

A minor advantage is still an advantage.

60% crit is still something to fear.

Not when it deals piss poor damage if it misses, and results in that unit getting raped on the counter. I'd like something a little more reliable than that, thx. Even if it is a 2 RN system.

Linde is a good WiFi unit. WiFi sages don't need def

Not getting one rounded and being able to counter with Forged Thoron>The opposite. It's circumstantial, but this could actually make the difference between winning and losing.

I and others have explained to you why you're wrong

A: That's not the point of my statement, the point of my statement was to mock you.

B: You, and OTHERS? Where? You're fighting a one woman battle here, darling.

Wouldn't 30 crit be kind of useless in your WiFi universe where every unit has 30 luck

it would be if braves weren't reliant on luck

Killers need to get lucky to do any significant damage and prevent to be raped on the counter. braves don't

why not check the online mode out and see what the difference between theory and practice is.

And why don't you go fuck yourself?

[Tamara]

And why don't you go fuck yourself?

Haha, is that a rebuttal? We're discussing a game, there is no need to be so aggressive. Why do you care so much about a game mode you don't even play?

You strike me as a science guy, you love your numbers in any case. Go see if you're right by putting your theory to practice. Showing how it is done is the best way to prove us wrong. Friend codes can be found here. Good luck!

Using brave weapons will effectively double the chance of getting a critical hit, while you only get one chance with a Killer Sword/Wo Dao, and also guarantees more damage output even if the critical hit doesn't happen.

Supports come into play after Skill / 2 to boost crit chance as well as class bonuses, furthering the existence of crit rates, and obsoleting Killer Weapons.

That is certainly true, but killer weapons are one of the reasons why one-weekend-teams are still able to compete. Nobody is saying brave weapons aren't useful, but you can make a decent team without having brave weapons for every member.

Edited February 27, 2009 by Tamara

[General Spoon]

Hachi in Advance Wars isn't unkillable

And Grit can just force a stalemate ;)

[dondon151]

That is certainly true, but killer weapons are one of the reasons why one-weekend-teams are still able to compete. Nobody is saying brave weapons aren't useful, but you can make a decent team without having brave weapons for every member.

A team with forged braves is better than a team without forged braves. Because a good player who doesn't use forged braves can beat some random scrub on wifi doesn't say anything about the effectiveness of forged braves.

You have to assume the maximum level of play here. Why does no one (except BB) understand this? A forged brave pretty much beats every other weapon in damage output, only losing to a couple of others in range. Why shouldn't it dominate the wifi arena? An alternate weapon being "viable" doesn't make a brave weapon any less overpowered than it already is.

[Rodykitty]

Why does no one (except BB) understand this?

I understand this.

[Wist]

And why don't you go fuck yourself?

Please refrain from personal attacks and blatantly unfriendly messages or suggestions.

[Tamara]

A team with forged braves is better than a team without forged braves. Because a good player who doesn't use forged braves can beat some random scrub on wifi doesn't say anything about the effectiveness of forged braves.

You have to assume the maximum level of play here. Why does no one (except BB) understand this? A forged brave pretty much beats every other weapon in damage output, only losing to a couple of others in range. Why shouldn't it dominate the wifi arena? An alternate weapon being "viable" doesn't make a brave weapon any less overpowered than it already is.

Maximum level of play is all theory at this point, not the standard. Right now there is no need to RNG abuse like crazy and forge brave weapons for every member of your party. You could put together a team in one weekend (preferable a sword or axe weekend) and still have a competitive team.

Fire Emblem WiFi shouldn't be looked at the same way people look at a competitive game like Smash. It's too limited and simply doesn't have the potentional to be a real competitive game. Why do people play it then? Because it's fun. What do you need to have fun? A decent team. Does a decent team need to be fully equiped with brave weapons? No. If fully RNG abused and brave equiped teams become the standard, most players will leave because it simply takes too much time to make a team; it won't be fun anymore.

I have a fully equiped team, but that doesn't mean braves are always the preferable weapon. Half of the maps have walls that can be used to hide behind. If my team can kill the enemy from behind a wall with ranged weapons, then I'll probably attack from behind the wall.

[Rodykitty]

Maximum level of play is all theory at this point, not the standard. Right now there is no need to RNG abuse like crazy and forge brave weapons for every member of your party. You could put together a team in one weekend (preferable a sword or axe weekend) and still have a competitive team.

What this tells me instead, is that a competent player with an RNG abused team is going to rape everyone online because he has both the tools and the strategy to do so.

[Tamara]

What this tells me instead, is that a competent player with an RNG abused team is going to rape everyone online because he has both the tools and the strategy to do so.

He will have the advantage, yes. I wouldn't mind losing to someone like that, though. If he is willing to spend craploads of time on building a team, then that's his choice. If his tactics are as good or better than mine, then he deserves to win.

Again, this WiFi mode should not be treated as fullfledged competitive game. It's just a fun extra. Instead of focusing on its faults I prefer enjoying for what it is.

Edited February 28, 2009 by Tamara

[dondon151]

Again, this WiFi mode should not be treated as fullfledged competitive game. It's just a fun extra. Instead of focusing on its faults I prefer enjoying for what it is.

Uh, no, everything can be treated as a competitive game so long as it has a hint of a competitive element. You're just using that as a copout. Even a poor competitive game has to be analyzed on the competitive level for it to be deemed such. Admitting that wifi has these faults that create an unbalanced playing ground suggests again that certain weapon types and units dominiate play by a very large margin.

A big hint: arguments attempting to define something as subjective as "fun" absolutely do not hold water. By the same logic, a player that finds winning (i.e. beating the shit out of opponents) fun needs to have the RNG abused team with full braves. And for the players that don't have those resources, the game won't be fun anymore.

[Tamara]

There was another word in that first sentence. Fire Emblem SD's WiFi is not and will never be on the level of SSBM, Warcraft II, Counter Strike or whatever other tournament spawning game you can think of. It's more on the level of that 2-player Mario Bros. game. It has its merits, but you shouldn't take it too seriously. Not that you should ever take gaming too seriously, mind you.

A big hint: arguments attempting to define something as subjective as "fun" absolutely do not hold water. By the same logic, a player that finds winning (i.e. beating the shit out of opponents) fun needs to have the RNG abused team with full braves. And for the players that don't have those resources, the game won't be fun anymore.

We're talking about games, aren't they supposed to be entertaining? As things are now the WiFi mode is fairly easy to get into, which is important. Yes, there will always be "that guy" who is better at it than everyone else because he doesn't have anything better to do and loves to kick the crap out of others at any game related social gathering. But hey, if he thinks it's fun to spend so much time on a single game, I'm not going to say he shouldn't. Complaining I'm not as good as someone puts a lot more effort in it is stupid and unreasonable.

Again, the standard you are talking about is just theoretical. At this points RNG/brave abused teams are not the norm. Perhaps it will change eventually now that the game is out in the US as well. I doubt it though, because WiFi doesn't have the qualities to promote that norm.

Edited February 28, 2009 by Tamara

[grandjackal]

I think you mean Starcraft, because Warcraft 2 is basically Orc = win and Warcraft 3 has...issues...

Either way, it isn't an excuse. Not everyone plays SSBM at pro level and people STILL find it fun. I can see they at least tried though. Just needs more polish, or more thoughts into what should be in multiplayer. Thing about a multiplayer game is that there's more than face value. What's important for it is people come back for more. As people get better, they'll see where the game gets to. The best teh game seems to have gotten to is rush with braves. A good multiplayer game requires it to not be mindless. If the game turns out the best method is mindless, or worse off tedious, it'll get boring quick. Fun is great, as long as it lasts. Otherwise it's less fun and more...gratifying. Great, but it gets boring real quick.

If they could develop it into a way where the strategy doesn't become so easily predictable (rush with braves), Fire Emblem could be an awesome multiplayer. Until then....

[Dat Nick]

Apparently I'm the one who's not listening to all these other people telling me I'm wrong, and look where the majority is.

...It's good to be the king. God bless Mel Brooks. Cleveland, I'll be here ALL night.

[Tamara]

I think you mean Starcraft, because Warcraft 2 is basically Orc = win and Warcraft 3 has...issues...

Either way, it isn't an excuse. Not everyone plays SSBM at pro level and people STILL find it fun. I can see they at least tried though. Just needs more polish, or more thoughts into what should be in multiplayer. Thing about a multiplayer game is that there's more than face value. What's important for it is people come back for more. As people get better, they'll see where the game gets to. The best teh game seems to have gotten to is rush with braves. A good multiplayer game requires it to not be mindless. If the game turns out the best method is mindless, or worse off tedious, it'll get boring quick. Fun is great, as long as it lasts. Otherwise it's less fun and more...gratifying. Great, but it gets boring real quick.

If they could develop it into a way where the strategy doesn't become so easily predictable (rush with braves), Fire Emblem could be an awesome multiplayer. Until then....

I don't play PC games myself, but I know Warcraft II had a very active online community. Heck, the game cost my boss his college education, so I figured it a lot to offer as a competitive game. But yeah, Starcraft is probably a better example.

You're right when you say casual isn't an excuse for being bad. Like I said before, it is too limited to be anything special. However, it's not an bad multiplayer mode, it just doesn't rise above being a nice extra. It's a good thing not many people bother with abusing the hell out of the RNG and brave weapons. Right now there is a nice amount of variety in the good teams you see online (I've seen everything from 3x pachyderm/swarm to super support chains with insane crit rates). As long as it stays like this it will be entertaining.

[grandjackal]

I don't play PC games myself, but I know Warcraft II had a very active online community. Heck, the game cost my boss his college education, so I figured it a lot to offer as a competitive game. But yeah, Starcraft is probably a better example.

You're right when you say casual isn't an excuse for being bad. Like I said before, it is too limited to be anything special. However, it's not an bad multiplayer mode, it just doesn't rise above being a nice extra. It's a good thing not many people bother with abusing the hell out of the RNG and brave weapons. Right now there is a nice amount of variety in the good teams you see online (I've seen everything from 3x pachyderm/swarm to super support chains with insane crit rates). As long as it stays like this it will be entertaining.

That's what we're saying, it won't. Why play something when we know the one best strategy that will always win if used properly?

[General Spoon]

Warcraft III isn't really that fun, what with the massivly inflated unit HP and all.

[Tamara]

That's what we're saying, it won't. Why play something when we know the one best strategy that will always win if used properly?

Because that strategy takes four weeks of preparations? And that's just buying the braves. RNG abuse would also take a considerable amount of time, more than the 15-20 hour playthrough you need to make a decent team by todays standards. Somehow I doubt many people will want to invest that much time in a simple online mode. Perhaps they would if WiFi had more to offer, but since that isn't the case...

I think the really competitive people, the types who would try to build the perfect team, don't feel attracted to FE WiFi because it isn't deep enough. And, if these people do find FE WiFi interesting enough to organise (small) competitions, it's very likely the number of brave weapons per team will be limited. It's not unusual to ban or limit the use of certain weapons/units/moves to protect the balance, so why not do the same with FE?

[dondon151]

There was another word in that first sentence. Fire Emblem SD's WiFi is not and will never be on the level of SSBM, Warcraft II, Counter Strike or whatever other tournament spawning game you can think of. It's more on the level of that 2-player Mario Bros. game. It has its merits, but you shouldn't take it too seriously.

Like I stated already, a game only needs a trace of a competitive element to warrant any level of serious discussion. This thread is a place for discussion about competitive wifi (what the hell else would we talk about?).

Not that you should ever take gaming too seriously, mind you.

Not that you've ever played a game seriously, mind you. Not only is there quite a bit of fun delving into the intricacies of games, but there's also potential monetary reward (not with FEDS, though). "lol games shouldn't be taking seriously" is a scrub's copout for losing.

We're talking about games, aren't they supposed to be entertaining? As things are now the WiFi mode is fairly easy to get into, which is important. Yes, there will always be "that guy" who is better at it than everyone else because he doesn't have anything better to do and loves to kick the crap out of others at any game related social gathering. But hey, if he thinks it's fun to spend so much time on a single game, I'm not going to say he shouldn't. Complaining I'm not as good as someone puts a lot more effort in it is stupid and unreasonable.

Play to win.

Again, the standard you are talking about is just theoretical. At this points RNG/brave abused teams are not the norm. Perhaps it will change eventually now that the game is out in the US as well. I doubt it though, because WiFi doesn't have the qualities to promote that norm.

What "qualities?" Wifi has people playing. People have access to braves, maybe not to RNG abuse. People also have access to cheat devices. People will want the best. That's not something that you can argue. There's a reason why, for example, ubers play in Pokemon consists of all of the normally banned uber tier and like 5 OU Pokemon. No one will use the other 45 OU Pokemon because they want the best for the most viable team.

Say that someone were to develop "Shoddybattle: FEDS." The wifi metagame will develop faster and the best class and weapon choices will become painfully obvious after a short span of time.

Edited February 28, 2009 by dondon151

[Cyrus]

What "qualities?" Wifi has people playing. People have access to braves, maybe not to RNG abuse. People also have access to cheat devices. People will want the best. That's not something that you can argue. There's a reason why, for example, ubers play in Pokemon consists of all of the normally banned uber tier and like 5 OU Pokemon. No one will use the other 45 OU Pokemon because they want the best for the most viable team.

The reason people will not be using those Pokemon is because those Pokemon would completely fail in the uber environment.

Yet, Pokemon from the OU tier, even though as seen as inferior, can still counter Pokemon in uber battles.

(Scizor, for example, counters a fair few popular uber pokémon)

You can also compare this with FESD wi-fi.

Braves are the better weapon, that has been made clear.

Yet, you can weapons and strategies seen as 'less broken' to stand up to those brave weapons to an extent.

I'm talking about ranged weapons, with your team based around the card Umbra.

You will still be able to stand up to the brave weapons, while you may only have 1 or 2 brave weapons yourself (since there probably has at least passed 1 weekend during the construction of your team), even when you didn't want to wait a month to get all brave weapons.

Edited February 28, 2009 by Cyrus

[grandjackal]

The reason people will not be using those Pokemon is because those Pokemon would completely fail in the uber environment.

Yet, Pokemon from the OU tier, even though as seen as inferior, can still counter Pokemon in uber battles.

(Scizor, for example, counters a fair few popular uber pokémon)

You can also compare this with FESD wi-fi.

Braves are the better weapon, that has been made clear.

Yet, you can weapons and strategies seen as 'less broken' to stand up to those brave weapons to an extent.

I'm talking about ranged weapons, with your team based around the card Umbra.

You will still be able to stand up to the brave weapons, while you may only have 1 or 2 brave weapons yourself (since there probably has at least passed 1 weekend during the construction of your team), even when you didn't want to wait a month to get all brave weapons.

Brave weapons are not just overpowered, they're broken. That strategy won't work and here's why.

Umbra Card

Enemy sends a scout to spot you

Enemy charges you with brave weapons, utterly destroying all units without being countered (bows), being weakly countered (handaxes, javelins) or have no chance of surviving the attack (mages).

Edited February 28, 2009 by Grandjackal

[dondon151]

The reason people will not be using those Pokemon is because those Pokemon would completely fail in the uber environment.

Yet, Pokemon from the OU tier, even though as seen as inferior, can still counter Pokemon in uber battles.

(Scizor, for example, counters a fair few popular uber pokémon)

Thanks for reading "and like 5 OU Pokemon." I'm well aware that Metagross, Scizor, Blissey, and Shedinja (and maybe a couple others) do moderately well in ubers because of how centralized it is, but that's 5 OU Pokemon versus the 50 normally viable OU Pokemon.

Mekkah can decide to build an ubers team around Altaria and play decently well with it, but by no means does that make Altaria any better than it already is.

You can also compare this with FESD wi-fi.

Braves are the better weapon, that has been made clear.

Yet, you can weapons and strategies seen as 'less broken' to stand up to those brave weapons to an extent.

I'm talking about ranged weapons, with your team based around the card Umbra.

A dominant strategy does not exclude every other strategy. Particularly in FEDS, where every melee unit can carry a brave weapon and every magic unit can carry/trade Swarm and forged Thoron. Furthermore, you're assuming that the opponent is strategically incompetent relative to the player, which is a biased assumption and reduces the validity of the argument.

You will still be able to stand up to the brave weapons, while you may only have 1 or 2 brave weapons yourself (since there probably has at least passed 1 weekend during the construction of your team), even when you didn't want to wait a month to get all brave weapons.

Except the opponent, with better resources, has the advantage, regardless of how your team can stand up to him.

Edited February 28, 2009 by dondon151

[Dat Nick]

Okay, the best option can be defeated.

this guy's still overpowered. He can be defeated in a fair match. But he's still overpowered. Fiendishly.

Also, you say players have devised tactics to stand up to braves. What do you think brave weapons, Minion, Hachi, or any other character defining Broken could do in the hands of these same players?

Edited February 28, 2009 by Sweet Tooth

[Cyrus]

Thanks for reading "and like 5 OU Pokemon." I'm well aware that Metagross, Scizor, Blissey, and Shedinja (and maybe a couple others) do moderately well in ubers because of how centralized it is, but that's 5 OU Pokemon versus the 50 normally viable OU Pokemon.

You forgot Tyranitar, Exeggutor, Ludicolo, and several other chlorophyllers and swift swimmers

A dominant strategy does not exclude every other strategy. Particularly in FEDS, where every melee unit can carry a brave weapon and every magic unit can carry/trade Swarm and forged Thoron. Furthermore, you're assuming that the opponent is strategically incompetent relative to the player, which is a biased assumption and reduces the validity of the argument.

I'm not assuming that the opponent is strategically worse than the player. How does how good the opponent is strategically prevent you from doing what I mentioned in my post?

Except the opponent, with better resources, has the advantage, regardless of how your team can stand up to him.

Yes, your opponent has an advantage. What I'm trying to point out, that you can make that advantage significantly smaller with inferior weapons.