hi guys what is going on in here

[Dat Nick]

TWO MEN ENTER

ONE MAN LEAVES

TWO MEN ENTER

ONE MAN LEAVES

TWO MEN ENTER

ONE MAN LEAVES

TWO MEN ENTER

ONE MAN LEAVES

TWO MEN ENTER

ONE MAN LEAVES

TWO MEN ENTER

ONE MAN LEAVES

TWO MEN ENTER

ONE MAN LEAVES

TWO MEN ENTER

ONE MAN LEAVES

[sandmanccl]

Sorry everyone, but I couldn't resist.

How so? Having uber units sounds easier than formulating a strategy to me. If anything, it makes formulating a good strategy easier, or even unnecessary altogether.

Because the majority of the games have a difficult end-game chapter or two where even your uber units are going to be in genuine danger if you don't have strategy behind your movements and army formations. Not all of them, certainly, but most of them. It's entirely possible to use nothing but, swordmasters end-game for Radiant Dawn, but I sorta kinda really like having a couple marksman and mages along for the help that they bring.

Do you really have fun using Caineghis, Tibarn, Naesalla and Nailah every playthrough?

Stat boosters are a shaky argument for a reason. It's one-use and a lot of characters might want it. They aren't disregarded entirely, but there used more as a "Oh, and if he gets this booster he can do this as well" thing. Although it's much more detailed and thought-out than that.

Of course a lot of characters "might want it," hence the reason for there being multiple units in a game where you only need a handful to actual do anything serious. Saying a unit is bad but having the option to fix those units in a way that is constructive and powerful makes them a viable option for beating the game.

I rather enjoy beating the game focusing on different units every time. It adds to the depth of the game, for me. I get more out of discussing how to make an at-first-glance bad unit into something powerful than taking say FE9's Titania into every stage and letting her wreck things without it ever being a challenge.

And I know you agree that it's satisfying to take an otherwise weak unit into godhood and have them rupture faces. Claiming otherwise means you've changed your opinion on that or you're just playing devil's advocate.

The term "PEMN" applies to the RNG only. If you beat the game using Meg, no one will shout PEMN! in your face, only say "cool story, bro" and move on. It's when you say "Meg caps every stat at 20/20/10 because it just happened" that people say PEMN to you.

But if that guy went through the game a few times and that unit turns out awesome for them every time, then you know what? I bet they're going to like that unit, and suggest using that unit to other people in an attempt for other people to get the same fun and satisfaction they did while going through the game.

"Fun" is entirely subjective. We enjoy discussing Fire Emblem the way we do. It's our opinion that it's fun. If it's not yours, then, well, that sucks for you, doesn't it?

Are you really going to drop in another topic to argue on because I didn't include the words "for me" after fun? Seriously? I figured it went unsaid.

Ah, c'mon, stick around a bit longer!

EDIT: One last thing. We're on the internet. No one really cares how old you are.

No. Yet again, I only bothered to check this thread while I was here because Lyle left a comment on my page and I was curious to see what else had been said.

And it's not "HURR HURR I AM OLDER THAN YOU AND THEREFORE MORE WISE", it's more I'm just ever so slightly in a different age group so my interests tend to be just that much different from the general population. It's purely on my end and one of the reasons, for me, that I feel out of place. I'm not saying there aren't younger people that I still get along with and quite enjoy talking to; it is purely a general ideology difference that I have with the people here.

I don't give a shit if it matters to you. Your collective opinions don't matter to me when it comes to something tangible that I see and feel, even if I'm unable to eloquently describe it.

Maybe another issue I have with Fire Emblem fanboys in general is that the community isn't constructive towards each other. No one submits their ideas on "the best strategy" in an attempt to genuinely help someone; its mostly to poke at another guy who likes and values different units than them. I'm as guilty of that as anyone in the past. Time away has let me see that a little more clearly, so I don't want to be that guy anymore.

So are we done here now or are more people going to continue to throw insults at me like that's a reason for me to want to stay?

[Rodykitty]

I put a lot of heart into this post and you choose to ignore it?

Please give me some love too. I deserve it just as much as Red Fox.

[Rodykitty]

Aww, my post gets ignored.

Does this mean I'm better at winning arguments than Red Fox?

[Florete]

Because the majority of the games have a difficult end-game chapter or two where even your uber units are going to be in genuine danger if you don't have strategy behind your movements and army formations. Not all of them, certainly, but most of them. It's entirely possible to use nothing but, swordmasters end-game for Radiant Dawn, but I sorta kinda really like having a couple marksman and mages along for the help that they bring.

Okay, that's fine that you like to do that. So do I. I don't really see what an Endgame chapter or two has to do with the original point. If even your uber units will be in genuine "danger" then your weaker units will have it worse, thus the uber units are still making it easier, so....

Do you really have fun using Caineghis, Tibarn, Naesalla and Nailah every playthrough?

I don't. I've only used them all once (leaving Naesala out, actually) and it was in Easy mode for the lols.

Of course a lot of characters "might want it," hence the reason for there being multiple units in a game where you only need a handful to actual do anything serious. Saying a unit is bad but having the option to fix those units in a way that is constructive and powerful makes them a viable option for beating the game.

Unit who needs nothing to be good > unit who needs something to be good. Isn't that self-explanatory? Obviously, there are exceptions to this rule in certain cases, but if I need to throw two stat boosters onto a unit to make them as good as another guy, how is that other guy not better in general?

Think of it this way. If I hadn't given that weaker unit the boosters, he'd still be just as weak, but my other guy would still be strong. I could take those boosters and put them on other characters to make them stronger. The weak unit is now still weak but the strong unit will always be strong.

I rather enjoy beating the game focusing on different units every time. It adds to the depth of the game, for me. I get more out of discussing how to make an at-first-glance bad unit into something powerful than taking say FE9's Titania into every stage and letting her wreck things without it ever being a challenge.

And I know you agree that it's satisfying to take an otherwise weak unit into godhood and have them rupture faces. Claiming otherwise means you've changed your opinion on that or you're just playing devil's advocate.

You're right, I do enjoy that. However, what I enjoy does not make a character good in general. I love using Astrid in Radiant Dawn, however, I'm well aware she's Bottom tier.

And hey, some people find it more enjoyable to bust through the game with the tough-from-the-start units.

But if that guy went through the game a few times and that unit turns out awesome for them every time, then you know what? I bet they're going to like that unit, and suggest using that unit to other people in an attempt for other people to get the same fun and satisfaction they did while going through the game.

That has nothing to do with anything. Whether they got lucky or that unit just is as good as they're saying it is, units don't turn out the same for everyone.

We play for fun, and we discuss/argue for fun, but the way we play it and the way we argue it can be, and often are, very different.

Are you really going to drop in another topic to argue on because I didn't include the words "for me" after fun? Seriously? I figured it went unsaid.

Just checking~

No. Yet again, I only bothered to check this thread while I was here because Lyle left a comment on my page and I was curious to see what else had been said.

I thought it was BLS.

I don't give a shit if it matters to you. Your collective opinions don't matter to me when it comes to something tangible that I see and feel, even if I'm unable to eloquently describe it.

Hey, no need to get aggressive.

Maybe another issue I have with Fire Emblem fanboys in general is that the community isn't constructive towards each other. No one submits their ideas on "the best strategy" in an attempt to genuinely help someone; its mostly to poke at another guy who likes and values different units than them. I'm as guilty of that as anyone in the past. Time away has let me see that a little more clearly, so I don't want to be that guy anymore.

What are you talking about? We do nothing of the sort. Just recently in this topic I gave someone good advice based on strategical reasons (supports). Whenever someone asks for help or advice, there are always experts around to give their good advice on how to do things best. We don't "poke" at people for having different likes.

So are we done here now or are more people going to continue to throw insults at me like that's a reason for me to want to stay?

As they say, what goes around comes around...

Aww, my post gets ignored.

Does this mean I'm better at winning arguments than Red Fox?

It could be.

[sandmanccl]

So I had this whole thing written up, and I just deleted it. Because why bother? The bottom line is nothing has changed here and so I am angry with myself for wasting my time.

[Defeatist Elitist]

So I had this whole thing written up, and I just deleted it. Because why bother? The bottom line is nothing has changed here and so I am angry with myself for wasting my time.

:D

[Florete]

So I had this whole thing written up, and I just deleted it. Because why bother? The bottom line is nothing has changed here and so I am angry with myself for wasting my time.

:(

[uguu]

It doesn't matter how strong your units are. It's how you use them. Because you can totally tier characters based on how retarded the player is. And better units totally aren't more useful.

[California Mountain Snake]

So I had this whole thing written up, and I just deleted it. Because why bother? The bottom line is nothing has changed here and so I am angry with myself for wasting my time.

Puss puss.

[book of life]

Everybody just has to be special.

[Defeatist Elitist]

It doesn't matter how strong your units are. It's how you use them. Because you can totally tier characters based on how retarded the player is. And better units totally aren't more useful.

:D

[Rehab]

I kind of thought tier list talk presumptions of what it means to be a detriment vs a boon to a team could get kind of half-assed, to be honest. Yeah they have to give how people interpret that the treatment they do if they want to have a consistent way to talk about it, but telling me archers are detriments because they are taking up space and being shitty by requiring protectors or something like that and not having an enemy phase etc, which I have heard before, doesn't take into account imo that the whole point of distance attacking strategizing in that way is meant to refuse to give the opponent an enemy phase. Stay safe, and support the reliable up front guys to take a little less chance out of the equation when the enemy is tired and fuck all annoyed and gets what's left of them pimp-slapped by my few upfront guys. Since ranks playing, which isn't the most solid way to play, forces people usually to go more ball to the wall vaggressive even when I'd rather not, they get pushed to the side. Or something. Didn't know where else to put this. Half-assed thought/paper conversion process. bff jill

[Rodykitty]

Rehab hasn't:

1) Read smash_fanatic's huge support for Snipers, which softens the overrating of enemy phase.

Though Archers still blow and no amount of argument that distance attacking is good will make Archers seem good. Not only is their move garbage, but their stats are as well, and will never be good offensive units until they promote.

2) Been watching the H5 tier list thread concerning bow usage and how most characters' enemy phases are limited anyway.

3) Figured out that ranked play is a very inefficient way of playing, and that tier lists stopped factoring them in.

Oh, and remember when you complained about how there wasn't a character like Wario in H5's tier list that suddenly shot up? Back then I used Cord as an example, but now we have freaking Draug too.

Edited July 19, 2009 by Chainey