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

[Othin]

Huh, alright then.

Money wasn't really an issue for me. I just used it to buy a bunch of Door Keys and S Drinks in Ch14; I don't think I actually needed the Door Keys and I never used a single one of the S Drinks. (I used a few I got other places, but I finished the game with the exact same amount as I had bought.)

So you didn't use movement stars? How'd that work out?

Edited February 8, 2012 by Othin

[Kngt_Of_Titania]

You can't get in a second round of combat with Eyvel, but you can finish him off with Fin. You generally are forced to pass up an Iron Bow this way (which sell for a decent amount).

^ Basically what I ended up doing.

[Paperblade]

First off, it's hard to train ANY growth unit in just about any LTC run (although BEXP or base arena helps in what games they exist in). I'd imagine it has less to do with her SPD than her relatively mediocre MOV and crap durability, both of which combine to give her limited kill opportunities when you complete chapters in just a few turns. Her doubling might help slightly by ensuring ORKO's, but you can still easily set up occasions where she can finish off an opponent with chip damage, especially considering Thani and high MAG.

Uh, if you are doing things properly Sothe will be ORKOing basically everything. Micaiah needs to be able to double FAST or she's a liability.

But NM isn't that hard at all. Like who would NEED to RNG abuse extensively in that mode? I mean, I thought you meant emulators in a mode that basically castrates BEXP and where enemies in part 1 have really respectable AS, not one where you get a glutton of it (espcially considering LTC tends to near-maximize BEXP gain for MOST maps) and where Battle Saving is just SO easy and SO convenient. Much ado about nothing.

Stop ignoring the point--in a draft setting average stats vs. above average stats sometimes have a significant difference.

For the third time:

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=30440&view=findpost&p=1843895

You are making statements when all facts directly contradict you.

1) I'm not patronizing you; I've seen your run, and even referred to it at some points to observe enemy AI and map layouts. Seriously, stop interpreting every damn statement as an insult towards you. No wonder you felt unwelcome in tier list discussions -- you twist everything people say to make damn sure you feel unwelcome.

I have been directly insulted in tier lists.

2) Growths, as high as they are, are STILL not high enough for LTC Lunatic...not nearly so. Like I'm talking about having a Draco!MU in C5 rocking like 25 DEF to make a strat work or Linde rocking 24 SPD in C15 when you can, if you're intelligent, usually reach no higher than around 17/1 (that's her @ 17 SPD on average, btw). For lower diffculties (which is why I SPECIFICALLY mention higher difficulties like H3 and H4, and likely H2 as well), this isn't as much of an issue, but when you need to survive a ton of hits or ORKO really durable units on a regular basis, average isn't cutting it.

I'd like to remind you we are only discussing which game is a bigger luck shithole because I said FE6 in a draft setting

Me: I don't like the current state of drafts because people remove all variance from the game via abuse when the only game where such a thing has an overly large influence is FE6.

You: No FE12 is more luck based than FE6.

Me: wut

3) You can't set up bonds as easily on LTC as on playthroughs with higher turn counts, because you have to have units all over the place to rush for certain important items or complete different objectives or clear the way for Marth.

"Well the MINIMUM requires a lot of luck!"

Well fuck maybe setting the absolute minimum as your standard MO is a bad idea then?

4) In the example where you have 100% hit on Hardin, you have an item that nullifies the 20 AVO the throne gives, a unit with high SKL, a weapon rank that grants +Hit, and probably bonds. I'm not saying 60-70% is super common, but you see it when you have WTD, or with the C11-12 bosses which high SPD. I've SEEN those hit rates, so it's pointless to tell me they don't exist. Most of the time, you see 75-90% hit rates, creeping up to 95% with myrms/mercs.

Catria's skill was actually remarkably average (or unremarkably, since a benefit of having absurdly high growths means you have an over 50% chance to hit caps) She has a personal base of 3, the General's base is 3, meaning she gained a total of 18 from levels. She had gained a total of 23 levels (from level 6 to 10/20). Now, Catria has an 80% skill growth in basically every class she can be in (except Cavalier/Paladin at 85% which she was in sometimes and some magic class she was never in at 75%).

In fact, a slightly lazy calculation of her averages (base of 6, cap of 25, 80% growth the whole time, and 23 levels) gives her an average of about 23.92--less than a tenth of a point off of what I had.

Moving on, she had an unforged Silver Lance, which is worth 90 hit, and A lances for +5 (note that every weapon type except Swords gives that at B or higher rank, and Swords have innately higher hit anyway), bringing us to uh, 119. Now, she had 24 Luck or so, which is actually somewhat above average, bringing us to 131 hit before supports. And fancy that, the Lightsphere drops Hardin's Avoid to 30, giving us 100 hit before outside boosts (even if her Luck had been average she would have only lost 2 hit, giving us 99 hit which is pretty good I'd say).

As for WT... Dude, that is something completely within the player's control. You are not allowed to complain about "Well I tried to kill the big mean Berserker with a Lance but I missed!!!" when an Axe or Sword or Bow were all viable weapon choices.

Anyway, the Chapter 11 boss actually has LESS avoid than a majority of bosses, since, you know, he's a Flying Dragon and thus doesn't get terrain bonuses. The Ch. 12 boss has a fair bit of Avoid but tbh effective weapons aren't that accurate (relative to other weapons in FE12, anyway) and dragons are pretty fast so I don't see a reason not to forge a good deal of hit on them.

Um...do you know what a straw man argument is? Because casual isn't a derogatory term like nigger or porchmonkey or fag (sorry, RFoF, making a point). It's a simple name given to a group of runs that has NO REAL (NOT IMAGINED) NEGATIVE CONNOTATION whatsoever.

Did you hear that noise overhead? That was the point flying. Of course what I said was hyperbole, similar to how I don't actually think Othin intends to perform genocide when he called LTC a disease that needs to be cured (although if it makes you feel better, his post was a lot higher on the loony scale than uh... pretty much anything anyone has ever said in the FE section of these forums). The point was that if you don't want people to misinterpret your words, you should choose them more carefully. Language is complex, and connotations mean a lot. Calling something casual, especially on an internet message boards about video games (man this sounds ridiculous) where the evil casuals ruining our vidya gaems is a hot topic. Plus, you implied multiple times that other playstyles are too difficult to measure because their "only purpose is to beat the game."

1-6-2? GO JILL GO AND DESTROY THE BOSS

1-7? Again, Micky can trash the boss regardless, and you can probably trash him before Micky even comes close with Jill.

1-8? Sothe reaches boss first, IIRC. Again, WHY is a blessed Micky so valuable if her MOV isn't anything special? She's not killing much because she can't reach many enemies.

1-9? Fine, but you have the BK, and I've had average Micky do very well taking care of the right path with reasonable chances of success *on NM* (in HM, the hit rates of enemies become too high for it to work, and her frailty means she basically dies most of the time).

1-E? If Nailah isn't banned, guess who has this chapter as her bitch?

3-6? Why aren't you having Nolan and Sothe and Jill (who can take a hit better and have anti-laguz weapons/skills, respectively; they're probably even higher levels than Micky here because of not having to wait until the end of part 1 to promote) take care of the laguz on NM?

3-12? Maybe? Any offense helps here -- she's still probably too fragile to take advantage of enemy phase that much.

wrt the bolded bit... You do understand how drafts work, right? I don't think I've ever seen anyone get a team with Nolan AND Jill on it.

Anyway, in 1-7 Micaiah has to actually reach the spot to seize, and obviously being able to move her full move whether or not enemies are all dead... by this point Sothe may not ORKO everything ever and your DB dude is not necessarily invincible and kills everything at 1-2 range. In fact, I believe only Nolan/Jill fit that criteria even arguably.

1-8, in case you have forgotten, is a rout chapter. And if you have Jill like you assumed earlier you are in even more trouble here because Sothe has to go east and you're stuck either taking a ton of penalties from Nailah/LEA or having a competent Micaiah (which you sort of need anyway to kill the bloody wyvern).

1-E... again, Nailah isn't free. Only 1 person in 7 has her. You can't just assume an optimal team for every chapter. That's... not how drafting works.

3-6: You have Micaiah, Sothe, a competent DB maybe (since there are Edward/Nolan/Jill/Zihark/Aran as non-durdles which leaves 2 people stuck having fun with Laura and Meg or some shit). Since this is a pseudo-rout, it is obviously more effective to be able to split up across the 2 paths. Sothe is not quiiiiite invincible.

3-12: Dude, by this point Micaiah can be like 20/10 with 25 Speed and 35+ Luck, which gives her ~110 Avoid with Resolve (and 85ish without), not counting any supports. She is *plenty* durable.

I don't draft often at all, and never FE10. Maybe I'm missing something here. Like I said, better case for somebody who can take advantage of enemy phase better, like Nolan or (with patience) a highly DEF blessed Edward.

Okay, you know how drafting in sports works, right? Or MtG? It works like that. Every player takes turns selecting units until all the units are gone. You can't assume you have any unit other than the handful of free ones

So you're saying dondon reset when one of his units died (this is what I'm getting from "RNG mishaps"...like rogue enemy crits or vital attacks that missed or stuff liek that), and that ONE chapter in a game with weird RNG in general is somewhat luck reliant?

The horror. THE HORROR!

Well, typically, when your strategies require noticeable amounts of luck to succeed in the way that you intended, it is either indicative that you are bad at strategy or that maybe what you or endeavoring is not worthwhile.

Seriously, I don't even know what your point is. Here, let me ask you this: Why is there such a thing as a vital attack? When I did my FE4 ranked run (or any other non-draft playthrough, for that matter), there was no such thing as a vital attack unless I had fucked up enough that I was backed into a corner (for the record there were like two occasions where this happened). See, there's these neat ideas called backup plans and insurance. The problem I have with LTC as is is that it takes all the resources that could be allocated towards a backup plan in case something goes wrong, and expends it on the main plan with the backup plan of "just reset."

dondon, as he's stated himself, tends to have an aversion to tons of RNG in his strats. Basically he said most resets that he does are mostly for show (since he tapes them), and that he would probably range from 0-4 resets on average, depending on the chapter at hand. That's not ridiculous.

You realize that resetting 4 times for a chapter means that, on average, a strategy with a 20% chance of success will work, correct? Also keep in mind he resets a bit to make sure enemy stats are right, although I'm not sure if he actually includes that (I would think so but idk). Here, let's look through the FE10 playthrough, not even watching it and going through a deep analysis, just the things he points out

1-P: 63.4% chance of success from the wrath crits alone, discounting the prereq of enemy base stats.

1-2: Nolan has 74.4% real on a Myrm at one point

1-4: 64% chance of success just from Sothe searching for items, lower if you include the coin

1-6-2: 85.4% chance of Zihark ORKOing an enemy he needs to kill

1-8: 83.2% chance of success on the first turn

2-1:

KOing Yeardley is the most RNG reliant segment of the chapter. Neph must first be hit into Wrath range (i.e. Yeardley must not miss), then she has 2 attacks, both of which must hit and one of which must proc a Wrath crit. That's still 2 HP short of a KO, so Brom has to chip in with an attack. The calculations are a bit tedious if I wanted to take into account all possibilities for KOing Yeardley, but assuming that Yeardley and Brom both don't miss their attacks, Neph has a 69.0% chance of hitting Yeardley twice and Wrath critting once.

If you want to do the calcs yourself, Yeardley has 77 hit (89.7 true) on his first attack and 82 hit (93.7 true) on his potential second attack. Neph has 69 hit (81.1 true) on her first attack, 64 hit (74.4 true) on her second attack, 7 crit without Wrath, and 57 crit with Wrath. Brom has 86 hit (96.2 true) on his only attack. The 2 likely possible scenarios are:

- EP 7, Yeardley hits, Neph has Wrath activated on counter

- PP 8, Brom hits

- PP 8, Neph has Wrath activated

- EP 7, Yeardley misses, Neph hits

- PP 8, Brom hits

- EP 8, Yeardley hits, Neph has Wrath activated on counter

Neph must crit once.

3-1: 64% chance of success for a Shinon crit, then a 59.4% chance of success for Mia to ORKO an enemy, giving us a cumulative 38% chance of success within a 10 second timeframe. Ouch.

3-2: 67% chance for Shinon to ORKO the boss

3-6: Zihark has to not crit at some point (~80% chance of success) and Fiona has to land a 73 hit if Leo doesn't crit something, so we're probably again looking at some iffy RNG (I don't know if it's 73 real or displayed)

3-9: no #s but he opens with

There are a lot of variables in this chapter, and numerous permutations of things going horribly wrong. I originally had a 6 turn clear planned on the test playthrough, but I entertained the idea of a 5 turn clear because the CRKs are definitely capable, movement wise, of reaching the boss and nabbing the KO in that time frame.

4-2:

I was disappointed that Lucia got hit with 31 displayed hit, because she had a high chance on enemy phase to take 2 attacks and die.

4-E-1:

This strategy requires a lot of reliance on skill activations, because Tibarn, Naesala, and Nailah cannot naturally 2HKO most generals.[...]

Nailah (best biorhythm): 56% savage, 48% adept - 94.8% chance of ORKO

Naesala (good biorhythm): 47% tear, 47% adept - 92.1% chance of ORKO

Naesala (neutral biorhythm): 42% tear, 42% adept - 88.7% chance of ORKO, 74.0% chance or ORKO (cover)

Tibarn (worst biorhythm): 30% tear, 30% adept - 76% chance of ORKO, 61.6% chance of ORKO (cover)

The 4 turn strategy has around a 45.2% chance of success

There are also about half a dozen to a dozen times where he points out that a unit had somewhere between a 3-10% chance of death

Coin flips: not RNG

[Anouleth]

If dondon wants to reset on a playthrough that he's doing just for his own enjoyment, that's really his business. I remember resetting quite a lot on my FE10 playthrough, but usually because I'm an idiot who constantly makes mistakes. As I recall, the most RNG-y things I had to do was force a Killing Edge Critical with Edward in 1-8 (since I erroneously deployed Laura instead of Ilyana), rigging the Sleep staff to miss in 4-4, and my 4-P strategy. But I still had fun in constructing those strategies, which is what is important!

But I think drafts are a bit different. If one person is resetting and getting "lucky" all the time, that will encourage the others to play in that way too. In addition, I wouldn't play Radiant Dawn in the same way with the same characters again. Whereas there are loads of drafts that just seem to rehash the same strategies over and over again.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Anouleth

[Duff Ostrich]

In my day we put Thany in low tier and we liked it!

It's been a significant amount of time since I've been involved with tier debating and so I am somewhat estranged from it, but I can see myself willing to adapt to any new set of rules that people come up with. Of course, I don't even know what a draft is so maybe I have no business in this thread.

[Progenitus]

The serenesforest debaters having only one major playstyle - abuse the fuck out of the overpowered units - is what is killing tiering. This style just achieves the low turn counts. What happens with this style is that the merits of low tier characters - and even mid tiers - are ignored, and what these debaters instead care about is what scraps these units can pick up while the top tiers rampage through the maps. This style limits what there is to talk about the game, and personally it's not fun to debate, and given how many of the old vets hate that style too, I'm not the only one.

The other thing about LTC is that the turns are not equal. 1 turn spent in FE10 1-P is not the same as 1 turn spent in 4-4. I have brought this point up multiple times, and while the serenesforest debaters have agreed that indeed not every turn is equal, they never elaborate anything further and prefer to flame me instead.

I would add more, but anything I could say at this point is something paperblade or othin already said.

Edited February 10, 2012 by IMPrime

[Narga_Rocks]

The serenesforest debaters having only one major playstyle - abuse the fuck out of the overpowered units - is what is killing tiering. This style just achieves the low turn counts. What happens with this style is that the merits of low tier characters - and even mid tiers - are ignored, and what these debaters instead care about is what scraps these units can pick up while the top tiers rampage through the maps. This style limits what there is to talk about the game, and personally it's not fun to debate, and given how many of the old vets hate that style too, I'm not the only one.

Sorry, but it's hard to envision playing FE8 while you place handcuffs on Seth. If he's going to be fielded and used, take off his chains and let him go to work. It has the unfortunate consequence of many growth units becoming utter trash, but that's just the reality of the game. Either make a list where he is assumed to not be used at all (Sethless, it is there) or make a list where he is used fully (Sethskip). I question the meaning of a "Cuffed Seth" tier list.

Even in fe10, if Haar can reliably end a map in half the time it takes anybody else to do so, how is it in any way "efficient" to not do so?

[Othin]

Even in fe10, if Haar can reliably end a map in half the time it takes anybody else to do so, how is it in any way "efficient" to not do so?

And this is the precisely the problem with focusing so much on LTC, especially absolute LTC.

There are so many ways to play FE, but LTC only accepts a tiny handful. In order to do anything but the "best" strategies, it needs to make specific rules against them and in turn go with the next handful down. That is not necessarily the mark of a bad playstyle, but it is the mark of a niche playstyle that should not be focused on to the exclusion of other playstyles.

[Narga_Rocks]

And this is the precisely the problem with focusing so much on LTC, especially absolute LTC.

There are so many ways to play FE, but LTC only accepts a tiny handful. In order to do anything but the "best" strategies, it needs to make specific rules against them and in turn go with the next handful down. That is not necessarily the mark of a bad playstyle, but it is the mark of a niche playstyle that should not be focused on to the exclusion of other playstyles.

Who is focusing on it to the exclusion of all others? I never Haar-rush maps, nor would I ever want to, but in an efficiency tier list, I'm not going to pretend that having Haar end a map quickly is not possible. Oh, and mine was not an example of LTC, so I take great offence at that comment, btw. I said reliably. If you knew me at all, you'd know I want 98% or better reliability. All this LTC crap that some of the people are arguing for has lovely stuff like 80% being okay because 4 turns with 80% reliability is "better" than 6 turns with 100% because they don't assign a reset penalty (4/.8 = 5 turns expected but that's only if you don't treat each reset with an extra penalty).

Also, this sentence

"In order to do anything but the "best" strategies, it needs to make specific rules against them and in turn go with the next handful down."

doesn't make sense to me. What are you saying? What are these specific rules? I see only one rule, and that is "how fast can you go?" And why does it seem like your sentence is saying that we are making specific rules to allow non-optimal strategies?

And also I ask you, how do you make an efficiency tier list without focusing on efficiency to the exclusion of all others? I mean, duh. As long as the efficiency or LTC type people aren't acting like it's the only way to play, which they aren't and you people never seem to understand that, then what's the harm in making our beloved tier lists the way we want?

I have to ask, what is your problem with me saying "when making an efficiency tier list, if Haar can do something reliably that is very efficient, how is it ever efficient to not do this thing"? I don't understand your problem.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Narga_Rocks

[Kngt_Of_Titania]

Who is focusing on it to the exclusion of all others? I never Haar-rush maps, nor would I ever want to, but in an efficiency tier list, I'm not going to pretend that having Haar end a map quickly is not possible. Oh, and mine was not an example of LTC, so I take great offence at that comment, btw. I said reliably. If you knew me at all, you'd know I want 98% or better reliability. All this LTC crap that some of the people are arguing for has lovely stuff like 80% being okay because 4 turns with 80% reliability is "better" than 6 turns with 100% because they don't assign a reset penalty (4/.8 = 5 turns expected but that's only if you don't treat each reset with an extra penalty).

Btw, I just want to point out that this would probably be the big difference (that I notice) between the two playstyles:

Efficiency - Lowest turn count possible with high reliability.

LTC - Lowest turn count possible, reliability be damned (as long as it's not stupidly low).

Edited February 10, 2012 by Kngt_Of_Titania

[Othin]

The problem is that you're assuming a need for an LTC tier list in the first place. And yes, it is LTC, not "efficiency". You may not be going for absolute LTC, but efficiency in terms of low turn counts is not the only definition of "efficiency". Efficiency can be used to describe playing well to any standard, and I will not participate in the abuse of that word to act like LTC is the only relevant standard.

Whether or not you say it LTC should exclude other playstyles is entirely irrelevant. All that matters here is that that is the result: With the influence LTC holds over Serenes, there is little room for discussion of standard playstyles.

My comment about "rules" was a response to your remark about the need for a "Sethless" standard in order to consider playing without Seth.

Relevant story: A few years ago, I recall watching a debate on FEFF. I don't remember who was involved, but I know it was Oscar vs. Boyd. One of the debaters pointed out in his opening statement that his intent was not to prove that the other character was terrible, but rather that if a player, for whatever reason, had filled every other slot on their team and was choosing between those two for the last slot, then the player would get more of an advantage from picking his chosen character. There was an agreement that those two were two of the best characters in the game, and that an ideal team would include both of them. But the situation being considered was not an ideal situation. It didn't have to be. This is an idea much of the current Serenes community appears to have lost, whether discussing LTC or not.

[Duff Ostrich]

It's not like the old ways of tiering didn't have huge problems. Shin, despite being a fantastic unit, wasn't used because he sent you to Sacae and that was really difficult on the combat rank. Or Dart being at the very bottom because his promotion item wrecked funds. I remember a structured debate I had where I insisted with some sincerity that Ashtol was going to see Ch21 so he could steal Murdoch's promotion item, all for the sake of rank.

There are tons of examples like that: dumb quirky things we used to do to abide by whatever rules we currently were using. Efficiency was a huge improvement over that. LTC might not be ideal for tiers but it certainly seems like a sort of logical extreme of the efficiency system, if I understand it correctly.

[Narga_Rocks]

The problem is that you're assuming a need for an LTC tier list in the first place. And yes, it is LTC, not "efficiency". You may not be going for absolute LTC, but efficiency in terms of low turn counts is not the only definition of "efficiency". Efficiency can be used to describe playing well to any standard, and I will not participate in the abuse of that word to act like LTC is the only relevant standard.

abuse? Do you even know what the word means? There's a reason we adopted it

efficiency-

1 the state or quality of being efficient;

2 accomplishment of or ability to accomplish a job with a minimum expenditure of time and effort: The assembly line increased industry's efficiency.

3 the ratio of the work done or energy developed by a machine, engine, etc., to the energy supplied to it, usually expressed as a percentage.

So, number 2 is pretty obvious. How do you judge time in a game with turns when everyone plays at different speeds? Simple, turns.

Even number 3 works perfectly well with turns, as you complete the game (work done) based on the energy supplied (turns)

Number 1 is one of those annoying definitions that requires you to look up another word

efficient-

1 performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort; having and using requisite knowledge, skill, and industry; competent; capable: a reliable, efficient secretary.

2 satisfactory and economical to use: Our new air conditioner is more efficient than our old one.

3 producing an effect, as a cause; causative.

4 utilizing a particular commodity or product with maximum efficiency (usually used in combination): a fuel-efficient engine.

3 doesn't seem to apply at all, 4 is circular since we go back to efficiency, so look at 1 and 2. Economical could perhaps be used for efficient use of funds or even efficient use of battles (kinda like the combat rank where it judges the number of kills per battle, only in this case it would be number of battles simply to win). Now number 1 is again time and effort.

Frankly, I wouldn't call this abuse. Did we make a choice over which definition of efficiency to go with? Sure, there are multiple definitions here and we chose one. But we chose basically 2.5 out of 3 of the definitions of efficiency, and frankly that's not a bad use of the word. 2.5 out of 3 is better than any other definition of the word.

Whether or not you say it LTC should exclude other playstyles is entirely irrelevant. All that matters here is that that is the result: With the influence LTC holds over Serenes, there is little room for discussion of standard playstyles.

Wrong. There is plenty of room for discussion of standard playstyles. Now, don't go walking into an efficiency tier list and expect to be able to spout arena abuse, but are you delusional?

Exhibit A:

Has ANYBODY walked into this thread

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=30489&pid=1848368&st=0entry1848368

and said "oh no, arena abuse is for amateurs, you should be playing LTC"????

How often do you see stuff like that. I'll bet not all that often. Sure, it happens here and there, but I don't see any LTC-sentiments pervading all threads and discussions here. There are dozens of people who don't play LTC and are regular posters and they are rarely mocked for it. I'd say it's more the other way: there are more complaints from people liek you about us doing things how we want.

Exhibit B:

The problem is that you're assuming a need for an LTC tier list in the first place.

So basically, you don't even think we should have these things, whereas we are perfectly happy with you lot existing. So, who is trying to prevent which types of discussions, I ask you?

My comment about "rules" was a response to your remark about the need for a "Sethless" standard in order to consider playing without Seth.

Okay, makes sense now. Still don't see the problem. If you take a look at the two lists, they are so incredibly different. How would you make a combined list out of those two? Average out the positions and make a new list based on the average positions? That just seems like a bad idea to me.

Relevant story: A few years ago, I recall watching a debate on FEFF. I don't remember who was involved, but I know it was Oscar vs. Boyd. One of the debaters pointed out in his opening statement that his intent was not to prove that the other character was terrible, but rather that if a player, for whatever reason, had filled every other slot on their team and was choosing between those two for the last slot, then the player would get more of an advantage from picking his chosen character. There was an agreement that those two were two of the best characters in the game, and that an ideal team would include both of them. But the situation being considered was not an ideal situation. It didn't have to be. This is an idea much of the current Serenes community appears to have lost, whether discussing LTC or not.

What's your point? Are you saying that we are not considering non-ideal situations anymore?

Edited February 10, 2012 by Narga_Rocks

[Othin]

Standards with quirks that decrease matters to consider are an improvement over standards with quirks to increase matters to consider? That hardly sounds accurate. You're equating being able to consider using Astohl to not being able to not consider using Seth? Rankings have some problems, like Dart as you brought up, but those weren't huge problems. They resulted in a few extra characters having substantial baggage to deal with, and yet those characters still managed to not be ignored. These issues we face today? These add more than just a bit of restriction to a few characters; these add massive restrictions to many characters. These are huge problems.

And I'm not saying rankings are ideal. My example was from FE9, which doesn't even have rankings. My point is the ideas of options that were floating around, options beyond the "best" strategy, options that no longer seem to exist. Maybe rankings are one way of bringing out those options. Maybe there's a better solution. But LTC is not such a solution. We need something that frees the discussions from their current limits.

Edit: Don't have time to respond to the new response right now; I've already been spending time I don't have. I'll get back to this when I don't have anything better to do, which is hopefully never.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Othin

[Kngt_Of_Titania]

Well, looking back at this thread, I think Othin and Paperblade have shown us that you can indeed fight a war that doesn't exist.

[Narga_Rocks]

You're equating being able to consider using Astohl to not being able to not consider using Seth? ... These add more than just a bit of restriction to a few characters; these add massive restrictions to many characters. These are huge problems.

When we are talking such a huge difference as Seth, I see two lists as a superior option to asking the question: "What % of the time are we using Seth fully, what % of the time are we using cuffed Seth, what % of the time are we not using Seth?"

That's a sucky question to answer, and answering that question is literally the only way you could ever make a tier list that combines all 3 playstyles. First, make 3 lists, second, determine the %s, third, weighted average out the positions of each character on each list and then make a master list. Now, in all the other games it's not so bad. It's not like Marcus or Titania kill growth units to the same extent as Seth does. In FE11 there is warpskip and non-warpskip, but again have you ever compared the lists? These aren't small changes, and I question the meaning of a list that averages out the two playstyles. It would reflect neither playstyle. Well, beyond Shiida's epicness in both. And then you'd have the fun question "What % of the time are you warpskipping, what % of the time are you not?"

Unfortunately, it's just the nature of the beast.

Well, looking back at this thread, I think Othin and Paperblade have shown us that you can indeed fight a war that doesn't exist.

No kidding. He's apparently fighting this war against "the influence LTC holds over Serenes, there is little room for discussion of standard playstyles." Despite the fact that no such hold exists. What a trooper.

Hey, guess what Othin, LTC does not have any such hold now. I guess that means you won the war?

Edited February 10, 2012 by Narga_Rocks

[Aethereal]

Here's what I don't understand. Most discussion of turn counts happens in tier lists specifically created for that discussion. Every one is upset about there not being much discussion other than turn count play. No one would be upset with these people creating topics or tier lists to discuss the playstyle they enjoy. Why don't you DO that? Why not go make a tier list about all these different ways of playing besides the hated Efficiency/LTC? If that kind of play is appealing enough to the forum members, then people will discuss it. If it's not appealing enough, it's not the LTC players fault. If LTC players came in and started bashing the tier lists on the basis that "Not LTC u r nub", I'm positive mods would step in, or the poster would just get bashed from the rest of the community. For all this talk of LTC players stifling discussion, I've never seen another discussion to begin with.

[General Banzai]

I made a thread analyzing FE7's plot and certain people specifically targeted the thread with spam to get it closed. There is an adverse notion against discussion outside of the norm here.

[Sunwoo]

I read through that thread (it was sometime before I had registered onto this site). I actually enjoyed it. Thought it was interesting to have someone give their opinions on how they felt about the story of FE7. Because while I do like FE7, there were some things in the story that didn't always make sense.

[Paperblade]

did kot ignore me and strawman me in with Othin

I think he did

[Refa]

Exhibit A:

Has ANYBODY walked into this thread

http://serenesforest...0

and said "oh no, arena abuse is for amateurs, you should be playing LTC"????

YES.

I am part of the LTC ubermensche.

[General Banzai]

I read through that thread (it was sometime before I had registered onto this site). I actually enjoyed it. Thought it was interesting to have someone give their opinions on how they felt about the story of FE7. Because while I do like FE7, there were some things in the story that didn't always make sense.

Thanks, but many other people didn't feel the same way. I have personal message transcripts of a guy who thought the thread was so awful that it deserved to be deleted, and that he was willing to take a ban as long as the thread went down with it.

[Sunwoo]

I do seem to recall that someone got banned over that topic ... :\

[Narga_Rocks]

I made a thread analyzing FE7's plot and certain people specifically targeted the thread with spam to get it closed. There is an adverse notion against discussion outside of the norm here.

Wait, are you blaming LTC-love for people spamming your analysis of FE7 plot thread?

[Paperblade]

I believe his point is that people here are not very friendly towards people with differing opinions/ideas