General Banzai Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 I've suggested before that a "minimum-restart" run would be an interesting and new way to judge a tier list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Othin Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 I've suggested before that a "minimum-restart" run would be an interesting and new way to judge a tier list. Indeed. Any thoughts on this, anyone? Secondary goals along the lines of a ranked run also seem compatible, without set-in-stone standards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashGordon94 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 It would be pretty interesting, I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anouleth Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Most people (me included) lack the patience for crunching binomial distributions in order to determine the exact chance of failure of a given strategy. Whereas determining the number of turns that a given strategy takes is extremely easy. Moreover, it's an extremely narrow definition. What it would probably produce is something like this tier list, with Franz moved to low (because of his bad luck and reliance on growing stats), and other growth units moved down (such as Artur, Kyle, Garcia and so on). If you notice, this tier list produced only 4 pages of discussion, so you are probably in the minority for thinking this kind of thing is "interesting". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowy_One Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 I would tend to agree. Putting the focus on no-restarts is not a good idea. Narrow definition, easy to screw up, too many variables, and screws growth units horribly. I would say that it's probably best ignored or, at most, given a mode specifically designed to cope with it, but not a whole game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashGordon94 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Well, that's all reasonable stuff too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Othin Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 (edited) Most people (me included) lack the patience for crunching binomial distributions in order to determine the exact chance of failure of a given strategy. Whereas determining the number of turns that a given strategy takes is extremely easy. You really don't get it, do you? The point is not to pick a given strategy and hope that the number of times you'll have to reset for it to work will be as low as possible. The point is that you do what works and live with stat screwage, character deaths, etc. rather than having only one strategy to begin with. In other words, ACTUALLY PLAYING THE FUCKING GAME. The thing any pre-planned LTC playthrough is not even doing. Edited February 5, 2012 by Othin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 I find it amusing how much LTC insists itself to be "efficient" while ignoring the inherent inefficiency of unnecessary resetting, ever. Especially for players who, I believe, at least some of them have expressed a desire to not "waste" any more of their time playing the game than necessary. Perhaps they haven't noticed that time doesn't not pass just because the game forgets that it does? I know for sure that this particular statement is intended to snub me. I don't reset as much as you think I do. Furthermore, I know that once I've done a strategy once, that I'll never have to think about doing it again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Othin Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 I know for sure that this particular statement is intended to snub me. I don't reset as much as you think I do. Furthermore, I know that once I've done a strategy once, that I'll never have to think about doing it again. In that case, how much do you reset? That is, for a specific LTC playthrough you've done, what's your estimate for how many times you reset throughout the course of the run? I'm confused by what your third sentence means. Are you saying you never use the same strategy twice, or that once you've done it, you can repeat it robotically, without thinking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anouleth Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 You really don't get it, do you? The point is not to pick a given strategy and hope that the number of times you'll have to reset for it to work will be as low as possible. I assumed that Banzai meant a tier list based on the reliability of characters. After all, your initial complaint was that LTC strategies often use unreliable strategies. The point is that you do what works and live with stat screwage, character deaths, etc. rather than having only one strategy to begin with. How is that any different to current tier lists where the possibility of stat screwage is usually taken (or at least it should be taken) into account? Admittedly, most tier lists don't consider the possibility of other characters being dead, which would be relevant for stuff like resource distribution, supports, and weird fringe cases like Pent/Louise. However, in general, for many good reasons, tier lists also assume a high standard of play and it wouldn't change anything anyway. Sure, Mia might be dead and therefore not competing for Adept, but there was the possibility beforethat Mia might not be in use. So I don't think this "suggestion" really affects anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aku chi Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 You really don't get it, do you? The point is not to pick a given strategy and hope that the number of times you'll have to reset for it to work will be as low as possible. The point is that you do what works and live with stat screwage, character deaths, etc. rather than having only one strategy to begin with. In other words, ACTUALLY PLAYING THE FUCKING GAME. The thing any pre-planned LTC playthrough is not even doing. I've done no-reset runs before. I think they're good for second or third playthroughs. Adapting to mistakes and using other units out of necessity can be enjoyable. I don't think these types of runs lend themselves well to tiering units, though. If you wanted to optimize such runs to the tier list aims, you'd end up deriving and executing high-reliability strategies that best accomplish the aims of the tier list - which you seem to want to avoid. You might expect frail units like Herons to be penalized by a no-restart tier list, but if I have sufficient mastery of the game's strategies, I can use them to their full potential while minimizing the risk of their demise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 (edited) In that case, how much do you reset? That is, for a specific LTC playthrough you've done, what's your estimate for how many times you reset throughout the course of the run? I do reset a lot - maybe an average of 8 times per chapter - but a majority of my runs are recorded, and I reset often for minor cosmetic improvements, e.g. rearranging the order of unit actions so that I can maximize L-switching, eliminating superfluous unit actions entirely, and satisfying my OCD with even numbers. Other times I lack detailed information about the game and need to poke my head out a little bit to figure out how the AI works in certain maps. If you want to consider only the resets that can be attributed to poor planning or something going wrong, that can range any where from 0 times per chapter (for the really easy ones) to 4 times per chapter (for the really hard ones). Getting a low turn clear on maps is more than just about wanting to clear in the lowest possible time. If I really wanted to do that, I wouldn't do 0% growths, and I wouldn't aim for the lowest turncount possible. As much as I hate wasting time playing video games, I still enjoy a challenge, and the experience wouldn't really be the same otherwise. I'm confused by what your third sentence means. Are you saying you never use the same strategy twice, or that once you've done it, you can repeat it robotically, without thinking? The latter. I have detailed notes for every chapter. Edited February 5, 2012 by dondon151 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florete Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Take the LTC stuff to a new topic. For the last time, this isn't the topic for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Othin Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 (edited) Part of my initial complaint was that LTC strategies are often unreliable. The other part was that they are largely or entirely planned out as cookie cutter strategies. They do not make an attempt to respond to undesired or unexpected situations that might force them to change their strategy. When that happens, they are not playing the game; they are simply acting out a pre-planned performance. You say the possibility of characters being dead would affect only minor matters, such as resource distribution. On my (ongoing) minimal resets FE8 run, I had Seth fight Gheb in Ch9. Gheb attacked with his Killer Axe on his own turn, scored a critical hit, and killed Seth. I would say that had a substantial impact on how I had to adapt to using my other characters throughout the rest of the game, and surely that sort of thing would do the same for you in any game. The result is a need to come up with new strategies and adapt to new situations while playing the game - which is precisely what playing the game entails. Edit: Seems I took a while to post. But yes, let's take this elsewhere. Does the General FE board sound good? Edited February 5, 2012 by Othin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewjeo Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 1) Not all variety is good. 2) One single fucking change that would easily fix a problem! So it definitely outweighs your precious freaking variety! Wait, so we have had suggestions to make armors move as fast as regular infantry and for mounted units to only move as fast as regular infantry... If we're doing this, why bother having anything other than regular infantry? At least only have ordinary foot units would make more sense than Gilliam moving as fast as a galloping horse. Also, yes not all variety is good, but would you care to explain how having some units on horses and some not is bad? The problem is with how they're balanced. If you look to quite a few RTS games, cavalry are quite balanced. The problem is that in FE cavalry are just faster infantry. If they play a different but still helpful role, they'll be more balanced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashGordon94 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 I didn't support the idea about mounted units having infantry MOV, I dismissed it as a stupid strawman of my suggestion to give Armor Knights ordinary infantry MOV (because it is). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paperblade Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 I've suggested before that a "minimum-restart" run would be an interesting and new way to judge a tier list. Tier lists used to assume no restarting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashGordon94 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Well, I guess that settles it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bottlegnomes Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 (edited) I didn't support the idea about mounted units having infantry MOV, I dismissed it as a stupid strawman of my suggestion to give Armor Knights ordinary infantry MOV (because it is). Yours wasn't any better. If your idea is a "simple and elegant" idea to balance armors, what exactly is the difference between that and giving mounted and unmounted units the same move to balance them? Edited February 5, 2012 by bottlegnomes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kngt_Of_Titania Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 (edited) To be honest, armors can have the same move as "slower" (i.e. not thieves) foot units and still not mess up the variety of the game, simply because armors still have the crappier terrain penalties, IIRC. I am not, however, saying that it's the best way to go about it (it is almost unarguably better than keeping knights at the lowest MOV in the game bar ballisticians), just that it's not going to screw over the variety in the game single-handedly, if it affects it at all; it's really a tempest in a teapot. Edited February 5, 2012 by Kngt_Of_Titania Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 ...Hmmmm~ :3 Path of Radiance's support system was nice. Having three ranged weapons for swords/lances/axes was nice in 9/10. Crossbows and iron/steel/silver longbows... Radiant Dawn-style skills would be neat. I'd prefer Occult skills to be more like FE9, though... using an item instead of automatic... I would love for there to be three tiers of classes... that could mean bringing back E-SS weapon ranks too. Not to mention, Sacred Stones' multiple promotions... that would be great. Another My Unit...? And... dismounting from the old games would be awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowy_One Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 I think FE9's decision to make supports based on chapters was a really good one and I hope they use it here as well. Reduced the need to keep two characters together for support building, removed the point to just standing around for 30-something turns to build up a support, and in general, was a good idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashGordon94 Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Definitely was... The way all Supports should work IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Refa Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Of course, you could get screwed out of supports if you didn't deploy some characters together for the same map for like 5 chapters, which was....annoying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anouleth Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Since IS has brought it (or at least a version of it) back in every Fire Emblem since, I would guess we'll see it return in this one again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.