Alondite vs Wyrmslayer

[Integrity]

Hey, you guys do know that Mist CAN use SS swords, right..?

...and? Her STR cap, may I remind you, is twenty-five. She's tink!ing every except Spirits. It's sad to say, but she's a healbot past blessing even if you had her trained as a s00per combat unit before then.

[Loki Laufeyson]

^Doesnt make it any less funny when Mist uses Alondite.

[Just call me AL]

Hey, you guys do know that Mist CAN use SS swords, right..?

...and? Her STR cap, may I remind you, is twenty-five. She's tink!ing every except Spirits. It's sad to say, but she's a healbot past blessing even if you had her trained as a s00per combat unit before then.

Exactly.

Mist just isn't that suitable for combat utility, let alone for toting Alondite late in the game. If you want a healbot using an SS rank sword like Alondite, you're better off using Elincia for that purpose. But then again, I doubt Elincia will need Alondite when she's got Amiti. Just saying.

[Yuglyoshi]

^Doesnt make it any less funny when Mist uses Alondite.

"LOLLLLL hey Jerry come look at this! Mist tinked an enemy again!"

[Ether]

It may be too late, but I would suggest blessing VK over Alondite for Mia. She can still use alondite for spirits, but against Lehran/Ashera VK is better since they don't move.

[Integrity]

@Yoshi: Florina meant funny from a logic perspective. Mist isn't a large woman.

@Elmer: Actually, Alonditex2 might do more damage in some instances than Amitix4. I don't think Amiti has the MT to let Elincia damage Auras and shit. Vague Katti would almost definitely push her into actually-damaging range, though.

Of course, the +3 MT from Alondite means that she'd probably do a whopping 2 damage twice, but c'est la vie. It's better than tink!x4 :P

Edited July 3, 2011 by Integrity

[Loki Laufeyson]

@Yoshi: Florina meant funny from a logic perspective. Mist isn't a large woman.

Arr. I wouldnt expect anyone to do that unless its for the lulz. I did it once for the lulz and i did get them. Oddly enough, Mist was able to own some Red Dragon ass once or twice. Double lulz.

[Revoked]

I was just saying, since it seems that some people don't know that Mist reaches SS.

[Saber]

Alondite mainly because the defense bonuses :)

[Othin]

What "lots" of dragons are we fighting in the entire course of the game that we need infinite Wyrmslayers? Last I checked most clears of 4-E-3 either consist of a half dozen or ten kills tops. Or, if you're obsessive and clearing the map, you're not doing it all from 1-range with one character.

Yeah?

There's something disturbing, even sickening about this perspective.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Othin

[Anouleth]

@Yoshi: Florina meant funny from a logic perspective. Mist isn't a large woman.

@Elmer: Actually, Alonditex2 might do more damage in some instances than Amitix4. I don't think Amiti has the MT to let Elincia damage Auras and shit. Vague Katti would almost definitely push her into actually-damaging range, though.

You can "think" whatever you want: Elincia's 15x2 damage is definitely better than the 18x1 damage that Alondite provides and also better than what Vague Katti is providing. Moreover, the fact that she attacks multiple times multiplies the effect of Blood Tide, turning the comparison into 20x2 or 25x2 against 23x1 or 28x1. In fact, Elincia with both Blood Tides and White Pool can ORKO Wardwood Auras.

Admittedly, it's not so great against Cover Auras, but even on Cover Auras it's more like 5x2 against 8x1. Unless Elincia doesn't have capped strength, but to be honest, it doesn't make a big difference if Elincia is dealing 2x2 or 5x1, you probably don't care.

Here's the deal: Wyrmslayer is 1-frakkin'-range. This means that Mia is getting no more than 1 kill per turn with it (two if you're saucy and position her precisely right).

Since you only need to kill one enemy in 4-E-3 in the first place, one kill per turn seems like enough to me.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Anouleth

[Radiant Dragon]

Since you only need to kill one enemy in 4-E-3 in the first place, one kill per turn seems like enough to me.

To be fair, you're also going to need to kill an enemy or two in the way as well.

[Junkhead]

Mainly the Dragon on the ramp. He sucks.

[Othin]

Do any of you even still understand what it means to play an FE game without being constrained by the deathgrasp of minimum turns?

[Anouleth]

Do any of you even still understand what it means to play an FE game without being constrained by the deathgrasp of minimum turns?

I don't see what pointing out the perfectly obvious (that you need to kill Deghinsea) has anything to do with low turn counts.

[Junkhead]

Yes. Alot of us do it, I we just don't go out of our way to do unnecessary stuff.

[Radiant Dragon]

Do any of you even still understand what it means to play an FE game without being constrained by the deathgrasp of minimum turns?

Deathgrip? Pish. I have a lot of fun with my casually efficient playthoughs when I'm not playing a draft. If I don't achieve the 'absolute lowest' turncount, I'm not particularly fussed. Often, I don't even try.

[Othin]

Yes. Alot of us do it, I we just don't go out of our way to do unnecessary stuff.

What's disturbing is that what's now dismissed here as "unnecessary", treated almost as a sort of deviant behavior, is stuff that's normally just considered a part of the game. And sometimes some of the best parts of the games; often a fun chapter can be warp-skipped, but that doesn't mean it should be, that there's anything "wrong" with doing it normally; it doesn't mean there's anything "wrong" with actually playing the damn game.

This applies to playthroughs both for absolute efficiency and not-so-absolute efficiency. Ranks exist to show how much more there is to a game. On an actual ranked run of a game like FE7, you have to get items to fill Funds, train your characters to fill Exp, and sometimes that's at the expense of Tactics. Because the gameplay is defined by doing stuff, not just the few things that lead you directly to the stated objective.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Othin

[Aethereal]

What's disturbing is that what's now dismissed here as "unnecessary", treated almost as a sort of deviant behavior, is stuff that's normally just considered a part of the game. And sometimes some of the best parts of the games; often a fun chapter can be warp-skipped, but that doesn't mean it should be, that there's anything "wrong" with doing it normally; it doesn't mean there's anything "wrong" with actually playing the damn game.

This applies to playthroughs both for absolute efficiency and not-so-absolute efficiency. Ranks exist to show how much more there is to a game. On an actual ranked run of a game like FE7, you have to get items to fill Funds, train your characters to fill Exp, and sometimes that's at the expense of Tactics. Because the gameplay is defined by doing stuff, not just the few things that lead you directly to the stated objective.

Did any one in here say there was anything wrong with clearing the entire map? The only thing that any one said was that using 20 uses of Wyrmslayer in one chapter with one character seemed unrealistic. In fact, when the OP said he was going to clear everything, no one said anything bad to him. People should play the game however they best enjoy, and personally, when I've finished leisurely playing something, I like to challenge myself, see how well I can do at something. I'm not obsessive with Fire Emblem, and I don't always get the lowest turncounts possible, but I really enjoy playing at a decent efficiency, at least by my own standards. There's nothing "disturbing" about that. No one's said anything bad to any one else, I don't see why this became a problem for you.

Edit: i should add that there's no reason to think that ranks are somehow a "better" run than an efficiency run, because the value of a playthrough of a game is pretty much defined by how much the player enjoys it. A lot of people enjoy efficiency runs over ranked runs. So what?

Edited September 14, 2011 by Aethereal

[Anouleth]

What's disturbing is that what's now dismissed here as "unnecessary", treated almost as a sort of deviant behavior, is stuff that's normally just considered a part of the game. And sometimes some of the best parts of the games; often a fun chapter can be warp-skipped, but that doesn't mean it should be, that there's anything "wrong" with doing it normally; it doesn't mean there's anything "wrong" with actually playing the damn game.

This applies to playthroughs both for absolute efficiency and not-so-absolute efficiency. Ranks exist to show how much more there is to a game. On an actual ranked run of a game like FE7, you have to get items to fill Funds, train your characters to fill Exp, and sometimes that's at the expense of Tactics. Because the gameplay is defined by doing stuff, not just the few things that lead you directly to the stated objective.

I think it's perfectly acceptable to fight all the enemies in 4-E-3 if you think it's more fun. Yet I am not a mind-reader. I do not know what is going to be fun for the person who started this thread. I would imagine that he does not expect us to look into our palantirs and determine what playstyle would be most fun for him, that he instead expects us to recommend strategies that will cause him the least amount of grief in 4-E-3. So I think that it's perfectly reasonable, given that he's stated that he has difficulty on 4-E-3, to suggest that he cut out all the goldbricking and layabouting and use a simple, reliable strategy to beat the chapter quickly.

And besides, it's not even like there are any items to collect in 4-E-3. A lot of exp, I guess, but your characters should be pretty much done gaining exp by this point. And even if you want to sit around and gain exp, you can always do that for a few turns and then use the 1-turn strategy so you don't need to mess around with all those people standing around Deghinsea.

[Othin]

Did any one in here say there was anything wrong with clearing the entire map? The only thing that any one said was that using 20 uses of Wyrmslayer in one chapter with one character seemed unrealistic. In fact, when the OP said he was going to clear everything, no one said anything bad to him. People should play the game however they best enjoy, and personally, when I've finished leisurely playing something, I like to challenge myself, see how well I can do at something. I'm not obsessive with Fire Emblem, and I don't always get the lowest turncounts possible, but I really enjoy playing at a decent efficiency, at least by my own standards. There's nothing "disturbing" about that. No one's said anything bad to any one else, I don't see why this became a problem for you.

Edit: i should add that there's no reason to think that ranks are somehow a "better" run than an efficiency run, because the value of a playthrough of a game is pretty much defined by how much the player enjoys it. A lot of people enjoy efficiency runs over ranked runs. So what?

No one may have explicitly said there was anything wrong with it, but it was certainly treated as if it was some foreign concept. What I think you and others here have really somehow managed to forget is that for 99+% of FE players, playing while killing most if not all enemies, getting most if not all items, is not just a way to play the game; it's the way to play the game. If you want to take a guess as to what mindset people will be using when they play an FE game, keep that in mind. It used to be common knowledge.

I didn't say ranked runs are better than efficiency runs; I said they simply show something important. Certainly, comparing the amount of options and therefore replayability of a rank-efficient run vs. a turn-efficient run, a rank-efficient run is quite clearly what almost anyone outside of this site would define as "better gameplay". This wasn't the point I intended to make, but it's worth keeping in mind.

I think it's perfectly acceptable to fight all the enemies in 4-E-3 if you think it's more fun. Yet I am not a mind-reader. I do not know what is going to be fun for the person who started this thread. I would imagine that he does not expect us to look into our palantirs and determine what playstyle would be most fun for him, that he instead expects us to recommend strategies that will cause him the least amount of grief in 4-E-3. So I think that it's perfectly reasonable, given that he's stated that he has difficulty on 4-E-3, to suggest that he cut out all the goldbricking and layabouting and use a simple, reliable strategy to beat the chapter quickly.

And besides, it's not even like there are any items to collect in 4-E-3. A lot of exp, I guess, but your characters should be pretty much done gaining exp by this point. And even if you want to sit around and gain exp, you can always do that for a few turns and then use the 1-turn strategy so you don't need to mess around with all those people standing around Deghinsea.

You're thinking only about the practical purposes, when there is so much more to a video game than that. Again, the problem here isn't that people would suggest practical solutions if a player was having trouble with the game. It's that you no longer seem to be able to comprehend that there are alternatives to those purely practical solutions - that a player might want to use their favorite characters that they've trained throughout the game rather than the laguz royals, that they might want to have those characters fight Dheginsea and all the dragons rather than just the ones nearby, that they might want to "mess around with all those people standing around Dheginsea" just because they find it more fun. You don't even appear to acknowledge the possibility of such mindsets, despite them having prevalence many times greater than your tiny group that can only think about turn-efficiency playthroughs, to the point that they can't even comprehend any other possible meaning to the word "efficiency".

[Aethereal]

He never told any one about any of the characters he wanted to bring besides Mia and Mist, characters he didn't want to use, or ways that he enjoys playing. It's not really unreasonable to answer in the way relevant to you. I suppose he could have specified more, or people could have asked for him to specify. But really, is that enough reason to get upset? No one's shitting on any one else's way of playing except you, and I don't really understand why. This is a non-issue.

[Othin]

I'm simply suggesting options that are being ignored - options that may or may not be the case, but that very often are. I know no one's been actively opposing those options, but the alternative here is even worse: people aren't even realizing that the options exist, or that people actually use them. That's what I find disturbing - that general mindset, not particular actions.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Othin

[Anouleth]

You're thinking only about the practical purposes, when there is so much more to a video game than that. Again, the problem here isn't that people would suggest practical solutions if a player was having trouble with the game. It's that you no longer seem to be able to comprehend that there are alternatives to those purely practical solutions - that a player might want to use their favorite characters that they've trained throughout the game rather than the laguz royals, that they might want to have those characters fight Dheginsea and all the dragons rather than just the ones nearby, that they might want to "mess around with all those people standing around Dheginsea" just because they find it more fun.

As I have said, I am not a mind-reader. I cannot tell other people how to have fun. If someone asks for advice, I am going to assume that he is asking for advice on "how to beat 4-E-3", not "how to have a great time", and I will tell him how to beat 4-E-3 using a reliable, painless strategy that can be executed without Royals providing you have some good beorc (Ike, Mia, and a Marksman could do it if they're well-trained). I assume that he doesn't want to mess around with the enemies near Deghinsea because he is asking for help. It's one thing to presume that a player is looking for an efficient way of beating the map when they ask for help on beating the map. It's quite another to do as you do and assume that they're not looking for an efficient way of beating the map when they ask for help on beating the map.

You don't even appear to acknowledge the possibility of such mindsets, despite them having prevalence many times greater than your tiny group that can only think about turn-efficiency playthroughs, to the point that they can't even comprehend any other possible meaning to the word "efficiency".

Really?

I think it's perfectly acceptable to fight all the enemies in 4-E-3 if you think it's more fun.

I think that playstyles outside of LTC are perfectly fine, and of course they're possible.

I'm simply suggesting options that are being ignored - options that may or may not be the case, but that very often are. I know no one's been actively opposing those options, but the alternative here is even worse: people aren't even realizing that the options exist, or that people actually use them. That's what I find disturbing - that general mindset, not particular actions.

Are you talking about having Kurthnaga and Ena solo 4-E-3?

Edited September 14, 2011 by Anouleth

[Aethereal]

I'm simply suggesting options that are being ignored - options that may or may not be the case, but that very often are. I know no one's been actively opposing those options, but the alternative here is even worse: people aren't even realizing that the options exist, or that people actually use them. That's what I find disturbing - that general mindset, not particular actions.

In the first 13 posts, there are 3 posts that discuss the strategy, or even touch on it, and the rest all talk about the difference in the weapon or characters. Of those 3 posts:

this isn't LTC probably

Or, if you're obsessive and clearing the map, you're not doing it all from 1-range with one character

The other is a 1 sentence post that says "1 turn it". Is that really disturbing? And worth having this conversation? That one person suggested an easy way of just getting past the level?

On the second page there's a 3 sentence conversation mixed that says,

Since you only need to kill one enemy in 4-E-3 in the first place

To be fair, you're also going to need to kill an enemy or two in the way as well.

Mainly the Dragon on the ramp. He sucks.

None of those 3 posts acknowledge a clear that isn't LTC I guess, but they don't imply that they don't think any one will ever try to kill more than the 1-3 dragons that they're talking about. It doesn't imply that it's worse to clear out a lot or all of the enemies. It's just stating: There's an option to do this quick and painless. This is all you need to do. Not should, need. And it's true. Should they have said you "need" to kill everything? Or said they "should" kill everything?

I still don't know why we're having this conversation, so I'm stopping. I'm not mad, or upset, just really confused on why this bothered you so much.