Foot soldiers vs. Mounted knights

[Parrhesia]

Rutger's a myrm/swordmaster, who he was discounting along with heroes and (for whatever reason) thieves.

[Kngt_Of_Titania]

Rutger's a myrm/swordmaster, who he was discounting along with heroes and (for whatever reason) thieves.

I saw that after my initial post, and edited him out.

[Othin]

Gonzales is a Brigand, not a Pirate. Are you thinking of Geese?

[Aethereal]

Gonzales is a Brigand, not a Pirate. Are you thinking of Geese?

People generally consider Gonzales>Geese, so I think it's more likely he just made a typo, or didn't realize Gonzales was a brigand for whatever reason.

[Refa]

This is actually not even quite true in a lot of cases. There are a lot of ways to not break FE correctly; we've become very indoctrinated to the practices that optimize game completion, but these things are not that easy to simply figure out.

Fair enough. I'd say the same is true of FFT though, at least if you don't use some online FAQ to find out the exact requirements to unlock the classes. I certainly wouldn't have gotten Calculator my first time through.

Edited January 31, 2012 by Refa

[Kngt_Of_Titania]

People generally consider Gonzales>Geese, so I think it's more likely he just made a typo, or didn't realize Gonzales was a brigand for whatever reason.

It was a mixture of both; I accidentally mixed up his class with Geese's, mainly because FE6 is one of the few FEs I've yet to play in some form (at this point, it's FE4, FE6, and part of FE5 I've yet to do). It's on my to-do list.

Edited January 31, 2012 by Kngt_Of_Titania

[Frosty]

Well, I kinda use a few foot units, mainly mages though.

[Snowy_One]

Foot soldiers. I find them a lot more fun to use, a lot more distinct and better personallity-wise as characters, and I REALLY, REALLY, hate how people lord mounted units as the best in tier-lists.

[Narga_Rocks]

Foot soldiers. I find them a lot more fun to use, a lot more distinct and better personallity-wise as characters, and I REALLY, REALLY, hate how people lord mounted units as the best in tier-lists.

Yeah! Why should they reward characters that make maps go faster in efficiency tier lists? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever!

seriously, though, can you tell me why you hate how people acknowledge that more movement makes maps go faster?

Edited February 2, 2012 by Narga_Rocks

[Snowy_One]

Because the people who talk the most about how units with more movement make maps go faster seem to be incapable of dealing with people who don't play for such standards.

[Anouleth]

Because the people who talk the most about how units with more movement make maps go faster seem to be incapable of dealing with people who don't play for such standards.

Really? Because I don't see anyone in this thread saying that they really, really hate people who dislike mounted units. If anyone has a problem with dealing with other playstyles, it's you.

[I.M. Gei]

Because the people who talk the most about how units with more movement make maps go faster seem to be incapable of dealing with people who don't play for such standards.

You know the irony of this specific part of your post? This is something we see from you on a regular basis. You are the one who constantly bashes LTC play and has a problem with it (and this might just blow your mind, but most LTC players don't actually have a problem with how other people play the game). You seem like a butthurt fanboy who just can't come to terms with the LTC-based tier lists being completely out of touch with your biases.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Black★Rock Shooter

[Narga_Rocks]

Because the people who talk the most about how units with more movement make maps go faster seem to be incapable of dealing with people who don't play for such standards.

In what? An efficiency tier list? You can't have a tier list that does two different things at once. You can try, but it just goes badly. And it's not like they just say "too bad, so sad" or something, right? And if not, they are dealing with you just fine.

[Snowy_One]

You know the irony of this specific part of your post? This is something we see from you on a regular basis. You are the one who constantly bashes LTC play and has a problem with it (and this might just blow your mind, but most LTC players don't actually have a problem with how other people play the game). You seem like a butthurt fanboy who just can't come to terms with the LTC-based tier lists being completely out of touch with your biases.

I complain about it because a lot of tier-list people are such thick-headed dolts as to be incapable of thinking of the game as being played any other way than by the standards and ways listed out in the tier standards. The problem is that tier players are so single-minded in your 'tier lists are best' mindset that anyone who questions it is instantly a 'bad player'. Heck, many of the disagreements in the 'mechanics' topic in the new FE are being made largely by LTC players for reasons that pertain to LTC counts.

I also put forwards my own rating topic as proof against the rest. I have three different standards going, one of which is VERY largely LTC-focused (Speed), and... when people have come up and made points and suggestions, I weighed their suggestions and took their advise and adjusted ratings. So it seems clear here to me who is the 'butt-hurt fanboy' here and it's not me.

In what? An efficiency tier list? You can't have a tier list that does two different things at once. You can try, but it just goes badly. And it's not like they just say "too bad, so sad" or something, right? And if not, they are dealing with you just fine.

I'm currently working with three standards (Speed, flexibility across multiple styles of play, and customization) and it's going fine. It's not a tier-topic though, so that is probably why.

[Life]

I weighed their suggestions and took their advise and adjusted ratings

You mean like the time with Calill where you gave her a point and then took it away for an arbitrary reason?

[Aethereal]

I complain about it because a lot of tier-list people are such thick-headed dolts as to be incapable of thinking of the game as being played any other way than by the standards and ways listed out in the tier standards. The problem is that tier players are so single-minded in your 'tier lists are best' mindset that anyone who questions it is instantly a 'bad player'. Heck, many of the disagreements in the 'mechanics' topic in the new FE are being made largely by LTC players for reasons that pertain to LTC counts.

No, any disagreements in that topic come from posters who whine about how terrible LTC is. To explain the point where every one jumped on "don't cater to LTCsz!11!" in the topic a few pages back:

Kngt posted that healers get EXP too slow in LTC runs. He also completely acknowledged that it's hard to find a medium when trying to account for low turn count runs and casual runs.

Then two people(Surprise! You're included) responded him and said "LTC runs aren't what they should/do balance around". Note that none of these posts even attempts to find a balance for the two playstyles, they just say LTC playstyle shouldn't be catered to.

The only response to that that was even remotely against that notion was Kngt saying that healers need to have some sort of turncount defined to be balanced around, and that casual play is vague. In fact, on the next page Anouleth(Who I believe usually plays at a fast pace, or at least posts like he does.) agreed they shouldn't balance around a LTC standard. There was also a poster(Grafgarion, who I think I've seen post in tier-list threads. I dunno for sure.) who talked about a happy balance between the two from the DS formula.

Clearly, tier-list players are dolts,and are much too thick headed to think of any one else's standards. The fact that they discuss and rank units in the context of how they play the game is clear evidence that they are incapable of thinking of the game in any other way than their standards. Also, it shows that they are doo-doo heads.

[Anouleth]

No, any disagreements in that topic come from posters who whine about how terrible LTC is. To explain the point where every one jumped on "don't cater to LTCsz!11!" in the topic a few pages back:

Kngt posted that healers get EXP too slow in LTC runs. He also completely acknowledged that it's hard to find a medium when trying to account for low turn count runs and casual runs.

Then two people(Surprise! You're included) responded him and said "LTC runs aren't what they should/do balance around". Note that none of these posts even attempts to find a balance for the two playstyles, they just say LTC playstyle shouldn't be catered to.

The only response to that that was even remotely against that notion was Kngt saying that healers need to have some sort of turncount defined to be balanced around, and that casual play is vague. In fact, on the next page Anouleth(Who I believe usually plays at a fast pace, or at least posts like he does.)

It's been a while since I've actually played FE. Arguing about it endlessly is so much more interesting.

[MacLovin]

30% in str, skl, and spd?

Bases, 35% speed growth, and is bulky.

Also, Axes pack nice att.

[deranger]

Bases, 35% speed growth, and is bulky.

Also, Axes pack nice att.

You were listing good growth units. And 30, 30, 35 is still pretty abissmal

[MacLovin]

You were listing good growth units. And 30, 30, 35 is still pretty abissmal

That's not my point.

THe point is, that foot units that arrive early on, (Aside from the Ogma/Nabarl/Julian/Early Mage(s/Theives/Healers and the Fighter with good bases and adeqaute growths)

Mounts are generally better.

[Snowy_One]

No, any disagreements in that topic come from posters who whine about how terrible LTC is. To explain the point where every one jumped on "don't cater to LTCsz!11!" in the topic a few pages back:

Sure, if you ignore a lot of the stuff actually in the topic itself. For example, when people were talking about how to balance out throwing weapons and bows. Ideas were put forwards and the 'dissentors' were people like Anouleth who felt that it was too impactful on a LTC style of play.

Kngt posted that healers get EXP too slow in LTC runs. He also completely acknowledged that it's hard to find a medium when trying to account for low turn count runs and casual runs.

Then two people(Surprise! You're included) responded him and said "LTC runs aren't what they should/do balance around". Note that none of these posts even attempts to find a balance for the two playstyles, they just say LTC playstyle shouldn't be catered to.

If someone tells me I should break my legs, should I have to write out a detailed report as to why that's a bad idea? Here, let me summarize it in a nutshell.

Because there is no logical reason to assume that the average player will attempt for a LTC run, no reason to assume that the problem with any unit or character type is based in a LTC run, or that balancing a game in a LTC run means it will become more balanced and viable on the whole.

There is plenty of reason to assume that balancing it on a LTC run will deprive the game of enjoyment for people not attempting LTC runs, that mechanics that are balanced in a LTC run will be unbalanced in a non-LTC run, and plenty of other similar factors. Something which I pointed out in my post ("I agree though that the balance should not be on LTC. That means that the system is going to be focused almost entirely on people who come in at lower turncounts than normal. Something perfectly balanced in LTC can easily be overpowered in non-LTC focused gameplay, like increasing the EXP for staffs for example.") which you seem to have ignored.

The only response to that that was even remotely against that notion was Kngt saying that healers need to have some sort of turncount defined to be balanced around, and that casual play is vague. In fact, on the next page Anouleth(Who I believe usually plays at a fast pace, or at least posts like he does.) agreed they shouldn't balance around a LTC standard. There was also a poster(Grafgarion, who I think I've seen post in tier-list threads. I dunno for sure.) who talked about a happy balance between the two from the DS formula.

And this is the problem. 'Casual play is vague, so why should we even try to bother balancing with it'. This is why tier-list players receive so much ire from me. Casual play is not vague or difficult to define, it just lacks the solid formula that a LTC player has. I even recently listed several things which, in my eyes, define a casual player. Guess what? Only two responses, one of Anouleth saying he wasn't sure if I had IS's goals in design down right (what relationship does this have to a casual player?) and another saying that Gamefaqs is not a good place to find casuals (even though it's a well-known site where there are plenty of guides to help inexperienced players and a forum for such a thing, as opposed to SF which is mainly a lesser-known FE-dedicated site with less in the way of guides and easily accessible materials.

Clearly, tier-list players are dolts,and are much too thick headed to think of any one else's standards. The fact that they discuss and rank units in the context of how they play the game is clear evidence that they are incapable of thinking of the game in any other way than their standards. Also, it shows that they are doo-doo heads.

The fact that I've gotten several people posting to say I'm wrong for one factor of unknown importance as to how I prefer foot soldiers over mounted units tells me that they are.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Snowy_One

[deranger]

That's not my point.

THe point is, that foot units that arrive early on, (Aside from the Ogma/Nabarl/Julian/Early Mage(s/Theives/Healers and the Fighter with good bases and adeqaute growths)

Mounts are generally better.

You have an incompleted thought or two in there. What?

[Aethereal]

Because there is no logical reason to assume that the average player will attempt for a LTC run, no reason to assume that the problem with any unit or character type is based in a LTC run, or that balancing a game in a LTC run means it will become more balanced and viable on the whole.

There is plenty of reason to assume that balancing it on a LTC run will deprive the game of enjoyment for people not attempting LTC runs, that mechanics that are balanced in a LTC run will be unbalanced in a non-LTC run, and plenty of other similar factors. Something which I pointed out in my post ("I agree though that the balance should not be on LTC. That means that the system is going to be focused almost entirely on people who come in at lower turncounts than normal. Something perfectly balanced in LTC can easily be overpowered in non-LTC focused gameplay, like increasing the EXP for staffs for example.") which you seem to have ignored.

I ignored jack all. You dismiss LTC runs, as if they shouldn't be counted, which is exactly what you get mad at tier-list players for doing. There were plenty of suggestions that could have worked for both sides, and acknowledged the pros and cons for both sides. Unsurprisingly, you didn't. Unsurprisingly, you still don't. There's plenty of ways to balance things for LTC-runs and casual runs. Your quote is exactly my point. No one's ever suggested "ignore casual playerzs!11!" and you can't pull up a single quote showing that people do.

And this is the problem. 'Casual play is vague, so why should we even try to bother balancing with it'. This is why tier-list players receive so much ire from me. Casual play is not vague or difficult to define, it just lacks the solid formula that a LTC player has. I even recently listed several things which, in my eyes, define a casual player. Guess what? Only two responses, one of Anouleth saying he wasn't sure if I had IS's goals in design down right (what relationship does this have to a casual player?) and another saying that Gamefaqs is not a good place to find casuals (even though it's a well-known site where there are plenty of guides to help inexperienced players and a forum for such a thing, as opposed to SF which is mainly a lesser-known FE-dedicated site with less in the way of guides and easily accessible materials.

Your definition of casual is incredibly restrictive. I don't always do LTC-runs, and I don't fit in to most of your defined goals-Actually, the only one I do fit in to is #5. I'd call myself a casual player when I'm not pushing for a rank or LTC. Casual play, because it does not have specific goals except "Get through the game and have fun" is very difficult to define. You probably just described yourself or your friends.

The fact that I've gotten several people posting to say I'm wrong for one factor of unknown importance as to how I prefer foot soldiers over mounted units tells me that they are.

Every one responded calling you a hypocrite.. Which you are. No one said shit about how bad it is to prefer foot soldiers. Your problem is you're either lying in these posts to look less like a douche, lying to yourself that you're this poor persecuted player who every one hates because he doesn't do LTC runs and WAAAAAH, or some weird combination of both.

[Anouleth]

Sure, if you ignore a lot of the stuff actually in the topic itself. For example, when people were talking about how to balance out throwing weapons and bows. Ideas were put forwards and the 'dissentors' were people like Anouleth who felt that it was too impactful on a LTC style of play.

That doesn't sound like me. My position on throwing weapons is that as seen in FE11 and FE12, they're balanced, and my position on bows is that bows don't need any help aside from possibly the addition of better 2-3 range (which would also reduce the potency of throwing weapons). For all the complaining people do about the supposed "underpowered" status of bow users, there are numerous good bow users in the history of FE such as Midayle, Shin, Klein, Shinon, and Ryan.

I would like to see this post where I allegedly shoot down these suggestions.

And this is the problem. 'Casual play is vague, so why should we even try to bother balancing with it'. This is why tier-list players receive so much ire from me. Casual play is not vague or difficult to define, it just lacks the solid formula that a LTC player has. I even recently listed several things which, in my eyes, define a casual player. Guess what? Only two responses, one of Anouleth saying he wasn't sure if I had IS's goals in design down right (what relationship does this have to a casual player?)

This is because your definition is absolutely awful, and in general most of your posts are. Not only do you not understand and insult LTC players, you do not understand casual players and assume they play the same way that you do.

Intelligent Systems are not idiots. I do not think they are stupid, even though everyone else on this board seems to have nothing but scorn for the people who make Fire Emblem. If they say that the typical Fire Emblem player does not restart whenever a player dies, and if they say that the game is not designed with that in mind, I will take their word over the opinions of blowhards on message boards who assume that other people play the same way.

and another saying that Gamefaqs is not a good place to find casuals (even though it's a well-known site where there are plenty of guides to help inexperienced players and a forum for such a thing, as opposed to SF which is mainly a lesser-known FE-dedicated site with less in the way of guides and easily accessible materials.

While casual players might use GameFAQs, they are not the ones writing guides and posting on the boards.

The fact that I've gotten several people posting to say I'm wrong for one factor of unknown importance as to how I prefer foot soldiers over mounted units tells me that they are.

Nobody has said you are wrong to prefer foot soldiers over mounted units. People said that you were wrong to hate people who say that the best units are mounted units.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Anouleth

[Othin]

People said that you were wrong to hate people who say that the best units are mounted units.

Now, here's the issue. There's no legitimate basis for hating people who prefer mounted units. But saying the best units are mounted units - an objective term rather than subjective - is far more dismissive of opposing viewpoints, and is in fact highly provocative. And when a substantial part of your reasoning is based upon LTC, you are in effect treating LTC as the standard that all players should go by. And asserting that, intentionally or unintentionally, is asinine and warrants the harsh response it provokes.

Now, I'm not sure how entirely this applies to the current situation. But your current post is an example of the fact that indeed, at times regarding this subject you use objective standards to assert something without objective basis. And when that happens, response is warranted.