The Great LTC Debate Thread (Yay? Nay? Burn in Hell?)

[Lord Raven]

I should word that better. I'll use FE7.

Let's say my endgame team is Nino, Rath, Legault, Wallace, Erk, Serra, and Bartre (who was mysteriously Speed-blessed), and I beat the game using that. Does this kind of team make me less serious than someone who beat the game via LTC?

If you look at it from the perspective I've stated, no, but it should show by the amount of gold/exp/time/turns/battles/etc you needed that they aren't effective characters.

EDIT: I'd like to note, Gold tends to not be a big deal anyway (not relevant I know) considering the large amounts you get in most games.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Mercenary Raven

[eclipse]

You can beat the game with whatever team you want and be serious about it, but if you're only playing for fun, how can you call that "serious?" You need a specific goal in mind, a way to play that will test characters on how well they perform.

I want to beat the game. I don't really care how I beat it, as long as I see the credit roll at the end. If the best I can do is turtle my way through, it shouldn't mean I'm less serious than someone who's willing to charge through the game. FE is a strategy game, and it's hard to say what someone's "best" is.

[Othin]

You can beat the game with whatever team you want and be serious about it, but if you're only playing for fun, how can you call that "serious?" You need a specific goal in mind, a way to play that will test characters on how well they perform.

So playing a game "seriously" entails not enjoying it, just wanting to find out how good strategies are?

[Paperblade]

I don't think the game cares what I do with it since I already paid money for it (or not, you pirates). It does, however, scroll through my turn counts when I beat it.

I can check my liquid gold any time I want, FE4/6/12 show my ranks at the end (as do 5 and 7 iirc), battle:win:loss ratio also scrolls for each unit (or at least it does in 7 and 10). In FE7 I can check my ranks in any chapter with the battle prep screen... =/

"Turn counts scroll at the end!" is not really an argument. I'm not saying you are trying to argue that it is, but I am pretty sure that someone tried to argue that at some point (not in this thread).

EDIT: I'd like to note, Gold tends to not be a big deal anyway (not relevant I know) considering the large amounts you get in most games.

Turns are an infinite resource except in a select few chapters (I think it's like, 1-1 and 3-1 and a few chapters throughout the series but mostly exist in FE12 with soft limits where dicking around tends to get you killed).

[Lord Raven]

Looks like I opened a whole can of worms with that statement, shouldn't have edited it in >_>

That's not the only point I made, and that's not even that relevant anyway; lower gold expenditure is still better than high gold expenditure (if we're judging the quality of units) in the same vein time/turns are. I can't word an argument as to why it's not the same magnitude, so for now I'll concede on that.

[Paperblade]

Eh, I only repeated something that I've been saying. I don't think it opened a new can of worms or w/e

[Florete]

So playing a game "seriously" entails not enjoying it, just wanting to find out how good strategies are?

...Really? Is this a serious response?

I can check my liquid gold any time I want, FE4/6/12 show my ranks at the end (as do 5 and 7 iirc), battle:win:loss ratio also scrolls for each unit (or at least it does in 7 and 10). In FE7 I can check my ranks in any chapter with the battle prep screen... =/

"Turn counts scroll at the end!" is not really an argument. I'm not saying you are trying to argue that it is, but I am pretty sure that someone tried to argue that at some point (not in this thread).

You're right, it's not really an argument. However, it is what the game shows you when you beat the game, which is relevant to what eclipse was saying. In some cases other things are shown, too. And what do you know? We've seen ranked lists plenty of times.

I am pretty sure battle:win:loss doesn't scroll in FE7. Not that that is entirely relevant. I'm pretty sure kills as a whole didn't scroll until FE9.

Lastly, note that I also said: "If you can think of it, you can do it."

But this is getting tiresome. I'm starting to wonder if some of you are continuing just to challenge us. We've pointed out flaws in other forms of logic. What problem do any of you actually have with turn counts? Like, is there inconsistency, logical flaws, or a reason it can't/shouldn't be used to judge characters? I don't think I've seen that. I think all I've seen is stuff akin to "I don't like it/it's not how I play." Is there a better way to judge characters, or do you just not want to see tier lists at all?

And on that last point, do not give me the "I don't need to have a solution to point out a problem" bullshit. In this case I will not believe there even is a problem unless a solution to it can be discovered.

I bet if our tier lists were based on gold efficiency you'd all be asking why we can't use something like turn counts instead.

[Lord Raven]

Fox, Ranks also show up in FE4-7 and 12, but our tier lists don't judge by those either.

[Florete]

Fox, Ranks also show up in FE4-7 and 12, but our tier lists don't judge by those either.

Um, okay? We've seen tier lists for them before. The FE7 ranked list got a lot of attention. I don't think any of the "LTC community" is specifically opposed to ranks.

EDIT: I'd like to add that FE7, at least, does not show your ranks upon completion. If you beat your previous score it will show in the hall of fame or whatever. If you didn't, you never know.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Madam Red

[dondon151]

There are no bonus points in any PvP game for winning in less time (even if it is impressive)

Yes. That is a PvP game. The objective of a PvP game is to win much more than you lose.

Fire Emblem is not (mostly) a PvP game, so your argument doesn't hold. Winning in Fire Emblem is inevitable, so naturally, it's the method in which one wins that is under scrutiny.

The game does not care if I take 5 turns or 500 except in the cases of Rankings and achieving Sidequests. Neither of these are requirements for completing the game, but are either developer-defined challenges or bonus gameplay. To complete the game, the only thing you have to do is fulfill the objectives of each map. In some maps this is to spend under some amount of turns, but in a vast vast majority of them the game does not give a shit.

This argument is not helping your case. Your nihilistic attitude does not imply that any one system is good; merely that they are all arbitrarily bad.

Why are turns the only resource worth considering?

Why do speedruns focus on the lowest completion time?

Why does the sprinter with the lowest time win the 100m dash?

Why is it better to get a higher grade on a test?

Why do you score points when you throw a ball in a basket?

All mysterious questions, with answers strewn in the fabric of the universe. If only we knew the answers!

[Refa]

When you say playing video games is serious business, you know you've missed the point.

[eclipse]

But this is getting tiresome. I'm starting to wonder if some of you are continuing just to challenge us. We've pointed out flaws in other forms of logic. What problem do any of you actually have with turn counts? Like, is there inconsistency, logical flaws, or a reason it can't/shouldn't be used to judge characters? I don't think I've seen that. I think all I've seen is stuff akin to "I don't like it/it's not how I play." Is there a better way to judge characters, or do you just not want to see tier lists at all?

I'll address this.

1. I have a problem when the LTC gets to the point where hits/misses need to be carefully rigged. When calculated, the resulting odds look like the odds of a race between Rath's horse and a three-legged turtle. However, when I have my own opinion of what's good/bad, in the context of my own play style, I'm somehow mistaken? Not everyone strives for LTC, and thus, not everyone will have the same set of units that are good/bad.

2. I'm not going to pretend my opinion of characters is better than anyone else's. I'd kindly request you guys do the same, and let people fawn over who they like. Opinions of a video game character aren't a thesis, and thus, I don't feel I should have to defend it.

Perhaps a separate list based on growths? If the Rate A Unit topics are any indication, some people like raising units.

[Paperblade]

@Fox: I included the "I know you're not trying to argue" bit because I wasn't trying to start an argument with you. I responded only because people have tried to argue that point and I was trying to snip it in the bud. While you may be okay with other tier lists or what have you, there are people who are as I describe (seriously have you read dondon's posts).

Yes. That is a PvP game. The objective of a PvP game is to win much more than you lose.

Fire Emblem is not (mostly) a PvP game, so your argument doesn't hold. Winning in Fire Emblem is inevitable, so naturally, it's the method in which one wins that is under scrutiny.

Right, and I'm asking why your standard that ignores many of the things that go into a completed playthrough is better.

This argument is not helping your case. Your nihilistic attitude does not imply that any one system is good; merely that they are all arbitrarily bad.

You are misrepresenting my point. I did not say "LTC has no intrinsic value and since no other system has any either they all suck." I said "No system is intrinsically superior, and I am annoyed that people think otherwise and can't provide a sound reason to do so." Just because something is not perfect does not mean it is bad.

Also, as a reminder, I'm not the one that said that everyone who doesn't play the same way I do is a dirty casual. You need to provide a better argument than your own egocentrism.

Why do speedruns focus on the lowest completion time?

Why does the sprinter with the lowest time win the 100m dash?

Why is it better to get a higher grade on a test?

Why do you score points when you throw a ball in a basket?

All mysterious questions, with answers strewn in the fabric of the universe. If only we knew the answers!

Your sarcastic response makes me think that you are mad because your viewpoint has no real substance behind it, but since this is the internet you have the privilege of making inane comments until I get annoyed and stop responding.

Edited February 18, 2012 by Paperblade

[Florete]

I'll address this.

1. I have a problem when the LTC gets to the point where hits/misses need to be carefully rigged. When calculated, the resulting odds look like the odds of a race between Rath's horse and a three-legged turtle. However, when I have my own opinion of what's good/bad, in the context of my own play style, I'm somehow mistaken? Not everyone strives for LTC, and thus, not everyone will have the same set of units that are good/bad.

2. I'm not going to pretend my opinion of characters is better than anyone else's. I'd kindly request you guys do the same, and let people fawn over who they like. Opinions of a video game character aren't a thesis, and thus, I don't feel I should have to defend it.

Perhaps a separate list based on growths? If the Rate A Unit topics are any indication, some people like raising units.

1. This doesn't happen, not in our tier lists. Reliability is always important and random chance for such is taken into account.

2. Like who you like, but liking doesn't make the character good. Yes, there are various standards that can make certain characters better for someone than normal, but we don't attack someone who says "I like Fiona/use Fiona/find Fiona easy to use." We only step in when someone says something like "Fiona is a great unit/Fiona is better than other Paladins/etc" because that is definitely wrong. Fiona is not good, Seth is not bad, etc. Even for those who don't like our efficiency, there has to be some understood standard for judging units or you get people saying random shit, someone else disagrees, and mud is flung in every direction as a result.

And if you didn't mean that much, I hate to sound annoyed, but even in this topic we have mentioned more than once that we don't care who you use, you can like who you like, play how you want, etc. etc.

EDIT: That technically wasn't even what I was asking for since #2 at least falls more into the "I don't like it" category.

What people like to do isn't always for the best. I like raising units, too, but I'm not advocating that Astrid move up in FE10 for it. What do you mean "based on growths," anyway? Like, whoever has the highest total growth percentage wins? Because that's a little too easy to make and not very informative.

Edited February 18, 2012 by Madam Red

[Sunwoo]

I'll address this.

1. I have a problem when the LTC gets to the point where hits/misses need to be carefully rigged. When calculated, the resulting odds look like the odds of a race between Rath's horse and a three-legged turtle. However, when I have my own opinion of what's good/bad, in the context of my own play style, I'm somehow mistaken? Not everyone strives for LTC, and thus, not everyone will have the same set of units that are good/bad.

2. I'm not going to pretend my opinion of characters is better than anyone else's. I'd kindly request you guys do the same, and let people fawn over who they like. Opinions of a video game character aren't a thesis, and thus, I don't feel I should have to defend it.

Perhaps a separate list based on growths? If the Rate A Unit topics are any indication, some people like raising units.

Well put, eclipse. I agree with you on both points. I don't have a problem with LTC. I don't have a problem with people who do, and I don't have a problem with the fact that some that people strive for maximum LTC. What I don't like is when people consider everyone who doesn't play LTC to be "not serious". It's a freaking game. Different people enjoy different playing styles, and different people play for different reasons. I like playing FE on easier modes because it lets me relax and get away from IRL stresses and annoyances. I play how I like and I use whoever I like.

Like eclipse, I'm also not going to act like my opinion on fictional characters is better than anyone else's. I use who I want, and I have my reasons for using them. Which is why I never ask people for suggestions on what units I should use. But I'd also really hate it if someone acted like I was ridiculous for liking a certain character, or for putting in effort in training a certain character as well. I am very capable of admitting that the characters I like to use are not exactly keystones of efficiency of LTC. At the same time, I don't care because I'm not an LTC player.

Honestly, why can't we just agree to disagree? LTC is not superior to other gameplay styles, but neither is it inferior either. There's nothing wrong with turtling through maps and raising growth characters, if that's how you choose to play, and there's nothing wrong with rushing through maps for LTC either. I'm sure every FE fan is a "serious" player in some way, since we're all fans of the games, so why is it so difficult to just respect each other's differences?

Edited February 18, 2012 by Boron

[eclipse]

2. Like who you like, but liking doesn't make the character good. Yes, there are various standards that can make certain characters better for someone than normal, but we don't attack someone who says "I like Fiona/use Fiona/find Fiona easy to use." We only step in when someone says something like "Fiona is a great unit/Fiona is better than other Paladins/etc" because that is definitely wrong. Fiona is not good, Seth is not bad, etc. Even for those who don't like our efficiency, there has to be some understood standard for judging units or you get people saying random shit, someone else disagrees, and mud is flung in every direction as a result.

With Seth, his bases and growths indicate that the only time he's bad is if he's on a map full of HM Shadowshot Gorgons. Not sure about the converse, as I've never tried to raise Fiona - maybe she can turn out great if she gets everything, maybe she doesn't. I see no harm in a statement like "Fiona can be good, if you're willing to take the time to raise her, and the RNG doesn't flip you off".

And if you didn't mean that much, I hate to sound annoyed, but even in this topic we have mentioned more than once that we don't care who you use, you can like who you like, play how you want, etc. etc.

I'm totally pointing this out if anyone decides to get on my case for using certain units~!

EDIT: That technically wasn't even what I was asking for since #2 at least falls more into the "I don't like it" category.

What people like to do isn't always for the best. I like raising units, too, but I'm not advocating that Astrid move up in FE10 for it. What do you mean "based on growths," anyway? Like, whoever has the highest total growth percentage wins? Because that's a little too easy to make and not very informative.

And I don't advocate for anyone to move anywhere on a tier list, since I know I'm not the most efficient.

Growths indicate potential - the question is whether a play style will give a unit enough time to attempt to realize that potential. A slower one allows for the growths of a unit to kick in. A faster one relies on bases, as it's not aiming to kill as many enemies as possible. Neither way is wrong, but the difference should be made clear.

If there's demand for a tier list based off of growths, then maybe averages with a standard deviation, while taking into consideration join time and enemies? As a drafter, some units look good on paper, but then the RNG comes in, and I get things like a 19/9 Ephraim that's 5 points short on Strength or some nonsense like that.

[Florete]

I see no harm in a statement like "Fiona can be good, if you're willing to take the time to raise her, and the RNG doesn't flip you off".

That goes without saying, but it doesn't work generally, nor in a tier setting. Basically, it's not an all-encompassing statement to be able to call Fiona a good unit.

I'm totally pointing this out if anyone decides to get on my case for using certain units~!

Just don't mistake that for calling you out on characters that are bad that you called good. People make this mistake often.

Growths indicate potential - the question is whether a play style will give a unit enough time to attempt to realize that potential. A slower one allows for the growths of a unit to kick in. A faster one relies on bases, as it's not aiming to kill as many enemies as possible. Neither way is wrong, but the difference should be made clear.

If there's demand for a tier list based off of growths, then maybe averages with a standard deviation, while taking into consideration join time and enemies? As a drafter, some units look good on paper, but then the RNG comes in, and I get things like a 19/9 Ephraim that's 5 points short on Strength or some nonsense like that.

Tier lists used to be nicer to growth units, but as people get better and strategies improve, they become more obsolete because they are not worth training. It would be taking steps back to do that again and we'd probably just end up back where we are now eventually.

[Balcerzak]

I am pretty sure battle:win:loss doesn't scroll in FE7. Not that that is entirely relevant. I'm pretty sure kills as a whole didn't scroll until FE9.

Sure they do, check the top.

Kills and losses scrolled as early as FE4.

[RJWalker]

The only problem I have with LTC is using it as the sole basis of a unit's qualities.

Take the trainees from Sacred Stones. The are magnificent units and are Game Breakers. Their only problem is that they require grinding. In a game where there is unlimited EXP, grinding is not the problem. I see people here bashing them continuously and calling them useless, awful, horrible and all sorts of other insults.

In an LTC run, they are inefficient because grinding means more turns and whatnot. But are they bad units? Most definitely not. They are Game Breakers if you train them. Are they inefficient? Hell yes but calling them awful and horrible? Thats bullshit.

Edited February 18, 2012 by Ranger Jack Walker

[Florete]

Sure they do, check the top.

I completely forgot about that. Never mind.

The only problem I have with LTC is using it the sole basis of a unit's qualities.

Take the trainees from Sacred Stones. The are magnificent units and are Game Breakers. Their only problem is that they require grinding. In a game where there is unlimited EXP, grinding is not the problem. I see people here bashing them continuously and calling them useless, awful, horrible and all sorts of other insults.

In an LTC run, they are inefficient because grinding means more turns and whatnot. But are they bad units? Most definitely not. They are Game Breakers if you train them. Are the inefficient? Hell yes but calling them awful and horrible? Thats bullshit.

Almost any unit can be godly with grinding. This is terrible logic.

[dondon151]

They are Game Breakers if you train them. Are they inefficient? Hell yes but calling them awful and horrible? Thats bullshit.

Amelia: loses most important stats to Franz at 20/20

Ross: loses spd and def to Gerik at 20/20

Ewan: loses mag and spd to Lute at 20/20

Sounds pretty awful to me.

[RJWalker]

I completely forgot about that. Never mind.

Almost any unit can be godly with grinding. This is terrible logic.

They don't require too much grinding. Just getting them to level 10 to promote into a basic class is enough and maybe a few more levels (like 4-5). Considering their bonus exp, this requires getting them 11-12 kills to get to 10 and then just killing the boss Entombed in Floor 1 of Tower of Valni a couple of times. This much grinding hardly takes too much time. With Ross, thisis even easier since he joins early and catches up in no time and obsoletes Garcia quickly. And yet, the rate the unit threads have posts saying 'ross sucks' and 'Garcia is very good'.

Efficiency should play a part in deciding a unit's worth but from what I'm seeing, its the only thing that people seem to factor in while deciding tiers and I don't like that one bit.

[Florete]

They don't require too much grinding. Just getting them to level 10 to promote into a basic class is enough and maybe a few more levels (like 4-5). Considering their bonus exp, this requires getting them 11-12 kills to get to 10 and then just killing the boss Entombed in Floor 1 of Tower of Valni a couple of times. This much grinding hardly takes too much time. With Ross, thisis even easier since he joins early and catches up in no time and obsoletes Garcia quickly. And yet, the rate the unit threads have posts saying 'ross sucks' and 'Garcia is very good'.

Efficiency should play a part in deciding a unit's worth but from what I'm seeing, its the only thing that people seem to factor in while deciding tiers and I don't like that one bit.

Or I can spend the same time grinding them on grinding someone better and make them even better. Or spend it beating the game with units already good enough to do that.

[RJWalker]

Amelia: loses most important stats to Franz at 20/20

Ross: loses spd and def to Gerik at 20/20

Ewan: loses mag and spd to Lute at 20/20

Sounds pretty awful to me.

Franz as Paladin

52.4

23.2

21.2

24

17.2

17.5

9.6

Amelia as Paladin

46.2

21.45

24.8

25

29.5

17.1

14.05

Amelia as Recruit 2 -> Paladin

47.2

22.45

23.8

25

29.5

19.1

13.05

Amelia as General

49.2

23.45

25.8

25

29.5

21.1

13.05

Sure looks she loses important stats.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gerik as Hero

60

25

26.6

23.7

16.7

22.15

13.25

Ross as Hero

53.9

25

21.45

19.1

26.8

16.75

12.4

So Ross is not as good as Gerik as Hero

Ross as Beserker

53.9

30

19.45

19.1

26.8

17.75

11.4

Sure looks completely outclassed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lute as Sage

37.1

30

18.4

24.1

25.1

11.7

23.2

Lute as Mage Knight

37.1

25

18.4

24.1

25.1

10.7

22.2

Ewan as Sage

43.5

25.15

21.8

23.45

28.5

11.05

25

Ewan as Mage Knight

43.5

24

21.8

23.45

28.5

10.05

25

Ewan as Druid

43.5

26.15

20.8

25.45

28.5

10.05

25.8

Yep, completely outclassed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yep, I'm convinced. Oh wait, no I'm not.

I'm gonna assume that you mean Magic and Speed as 'important stats'

Amelia has better stats period. Ross has better strength but lags behind in the rest. Ewan has less Magic but better everything else. So I'm not seeing how you can say the trainees are 'awful'.

If these average stats are wrong, then someone might want to go correct them on the Sacred Stones page of this very site.

Edited February 18, 2012 by Ranger Jack Walker

[Blasied]

Pulling up the 20/20 stats is a very bad argument as is saying that grinding makes the trainees good. As has been stated before anyone becomes good with sufficient grinding. The truly good units are the ones that DO NOT need it in the first place. I'm sure the argument of "LTC isn't fun" has been brought up before and I will agree. LTC isn't my cup of tea. You know what else isn't fun? Grinding. It is incredibly boring to play Valni floor 1 multiple times just to get a few scrubs up to scratch so that they can stop being deadweight, or building your powerhouses (eg Seth and Franz) up so that you can trivialise an already easy game.

As for stats, FE8 is an incredibly short game. Nobody is reaching 20/20 in that main story, especially not Amelia or Ewan, unless we decide to drain all challenge that was in the game with the unlimited exp pool. And yes, Str/Mag and Spd ARE the most important stats. Luck is a largely superfluous stat and resistance is only important for a very small number of endgame chapters (ie Ch 18 and maybe 20) so leads there mean almost nothing. Offense and evasion are very important to any FE game and take a guess at which stats help the most in achieving high quantities of those.

Some advice. Study your environment before you make a post. Spouting bullshit is generally generally frowned upon here.