New Draft Parameters?

[The Spanish Inquisition]

Looking through all past drafts, I've found a total of 3 different ways by which we compare how well a player does in drafts.

By far, LTC is the most popular parameter, with good reason.

After all, it's easy to count and compare the number of turns taken, and encourages people to play quickly, which is generally more fun.

On the downside, LTC tends to encourage rescue shenanigans (IMO, rescue was designed to rescue units from dying, not ferry them to the boss to end the chapter quickly), Jeigan characters (which we all know are intended to be a crutch for beginning characters, not the backbone of your LTC team), and, worst of all, RNG abuse (since certain TCs require multiple crit kills, level ups, enemies missing, etc.).

This is no doubt why Elieson (if I'm wrong, correct me please) initiated the first EXP draft, which focused on leveling up your units, with a slight offset for TCs, so as to keep people from arena/boss abusing to the same score. Nevertheless, if we focus solely on the parameter of experience, we gain a little more insight as to what a good draft parameter would be.

Once again, experience/levels are easy to count up and compare, and encourages people to use units they normally would not deign to use in LTC (a la Nino, Marisa, Ewan, etc.), which is challenging in and of itself.

The obvious downside to experience is slow play (since players are far more likely to arena and boss abuse than they would in LTC). The fix for experience drafting appears to be to include an offset of LTC, but this still introduces the problem of rescue abuse.

Now General Banzai has recently added his own idea for a parameter, the Reset count. I recognize that there was at least one draft before Banzai's that included a reset parameter, but he was the first (once again, correct me if I'm incorrect) to suggest a reset count only draft, which appears to be very useful.

Now, the good side of the reset approach is that the parameter is somewhat easy to compare and completely eradicates the notion of RNG abuse. The problems that occur include keeping track of resets (which I don't believe is tracked by the game); slow, cautious play (which is of course fine for very difficult modes, but in general is clunky); and problems with scaling to non-hard difficulties (since in easier modes, it can be nearly trivial to finish the game with no resets [assuming experience with more difficult settings]).

Now onto the grit of this topic. What parameter (or combination) would best represent a "normal" FE run? (I recognize that normal is in itself nearly impossible to define, but stay with me.)

What about trying parameters based on what makes FE fun?

Well, it's a turn-based game, so we ought to fit turn count somewhere in there.

We of course can't ignore the RPG element of the game so levels/experience ought to be accounted for.

There is of course the conversational element (supports, recruitment) of fire emblem, which seems to be mostly ignored in drafts, yet remains a very unique quality of the FE series.

Finally, we approach the strategy portion of the game, which is assumed to occur, but is very difficult to gauge.

To make this simpler, we'll split up the counting into two parts: per (drafted) character and per chapter.

Character

Clearly, we need to account for the levels gained by our units, so we'll add this factor in.

To cover conversation, we'll add a factor to count unit supports.

Weapon experience ought to be rewarded in some way, since versatility of certain units makes the game rather interesting.

Finally, we need to account for strategy. I suggest a factor of battles won/total battles, which is normally recorded in the character description.

Chapter

Turn counts immediately step forward as a factor, since they are tracked per chapter, anyway.

To add a bit more of the conversational element, I propose a factor designated to characters recruited.

Finally, we add a bit more of the strategy element by keeping track of the enemies killed/total enemies.

To keep certain elements of the game from getting out of hand, we'll add a reset penalty as well as one for letting undrafted characters get killed. (to keep us from meatshielding and the like)

To keep the numbers relatively small, and easy to analyze how much each part is participating in the result, I let every factor (except the penalties and turn points) be held out of the total possible of that factor.

Then per character, we have (unit levels gained)/(possible levels gained)+(supports gained)/(possible supports the character can hold)+(weapon level)/(weapon level possible)+(wins)/(battles)

NOTE: Weapon level is kept track of by assigning E=0, D=1, C=2, etc. and adds all possible weapon types the character can use.

Per chapter, we have (turn points)+(recruited units)/(units possible to recruit)+(killed enemies)/(total enemies)-resets-(# undrafted characters died).

NOTE: turn points are assigned as follows, least TC for the chapter gets 3 points, next least gets 2, third gets 1, and the rest get zero. Ties result in average of points. Also, total enemies only counts the enemies that were on the map before you finished the chapter.

Now, we notice that the per character result has a lower maximum result than the per chapter maximal result, so we'll multiply the per character factors by 5/4.

From here, if we average the characters together and the chapters together, and add them together, we get a total maximal sum of 10 points.

If we want to see what factors dominate this result, we can find their fractional part of the sum, which tells us that

Turns=3/10 result

Conversations=9/40 result

Levels/Experience=1/4 result

Strategy=9/40 result.

This can easily be fixed to a strict 1/4,1/4,1/4,1/4 partition if we enter some multiplicative factors, which makes our resulting parameter

per character: 5/4[(unit levels gained)/(possible levels gained)+(supports gained)/(possible supports the character can hold)+(weapon level)/(weapon level possible)+(wins)/(battles)]

per chapter: 5/6(turn points)+5/4(recruited units)/(units possible to recruit)+5/4(killed enemies)/(total enemies)-resets-(# undrafted characters died).

Now, you may ask, when all is said and done with, what is the point to all this fiddling with math and fire emblem mechanics? Doesn't LTC work just fine?

Well, for most drafters, sure.

I simply wanted to try my own hand at composing a draft that tried to emphasize the "real" (relative to my FE experience, of course) fun of FE while keeping the experience competitive.

This topic didn't really fit anywhere else on serenesforest, so I stuck it here, where the people who'd (hopefully) experience it would be able to give feedback on the idea.

So, what do you think? Too complicated? Stupid? Is my view of drafting completely wrong? Reply here.

(don't answer TL;DR, I'm looking for actual opinions here)

[Ciarre]

That's a neat idea, but it sounds really complicated. Maybe you should start a draft to test it out.

[Sunwoo]

I agree with CR. The best way to test out new draft ideas is to start one with those parameters yourself. Which is why I initiated the no-staves draft. People value healing and staves like warp a lot, so I wanted to see how their performance would suffer, if at all, if I forbade staves completely. So far, only Refa's finished, so I can't draw any conclusions yet.

Edited March 19, 2012 by Boron

[Paperblade]

Well, it's a turn-based game, so we ought to fit turn count somewhere in there.

Does that mean we should also include roleplaying since it's an RPG?

[Othin]

I like my formula. Take the turn count, add 10 per reset, add 4 per character dead or not recruited, subtract 1 for every 1,000 gold you have, aim for lowest score.

I'll probably start a draft with these rules soon. Anyone think they'd be interested; if so, do you have a game in mind?

[Anouleth]

Looking through all past drafts, I've found a total of 3 different ways by which we compare how well a player does in drafts.

By far, LTC is the most popular parameter, with good reason.

After all, it's easy to count and compare the number of turns taken, and encourages people to play quickly, which is generally more fun.

On the downside, LTC tends to encourage rescue shenanigans (IMO, rescue was designed to rescue units from dying, not ferry them to the boss to end the chapter quickly),

There's no need for us to follow what the designers "intended" us to do. The designers probably "intended" us to play in whatever way we want, and if that means using mechanics creatively, so be it. Personally, I think that use of rescuing for offensive purposes rather than defensive is really interesting and fun and a creative use of what would otherwise be a not very useful mechanic.

Jeigan characters (which we all know are intended to be a crutch for beginning characters, not the backbone of your LTC team),

Again, we don't have to do what the creators "intended". Even if the developers intended us not to do X, Y, and Z, the game is not about the developers, the game is about the players and what the players want to do. If the developers did not "intend" for Fire Emblem to be used for drafting (and they likely didn't), would that mean we should stop drafting?

and, worst of all, RNG abuse (since certain TCs require multiple crit kills, level ups, enemies missing, etc.).

This is no doubt why Elieson (if I'm wrong, correct me please) initiated the first EXP draft, which focused on leveling up your units, with a slight offset for TCs, so as to keep people from arena/boss abusing to the same score. Nevertheless, if we focus solely on the parameter of experience, we gain a little more insight as to what a good draft parameter would be.

Once again, experience/levels are easy to count up and compare, and encourages people to use units they normally would not deign to use in LTC (a la Nino, Marisa, Ewan, etc.), which is challenging in and of itself.

The obvious downside to experience is slow play (since players are far more likely to arena and boss abuse than they would in LTC). The fix for experience drafting appears to be to include an offset of LTC, but this still introduces the problem of rescue abuse.

"rescue abuse" is a ridiculous term. Rescue, unlike arena abuse or RNG abuse, is not braindead grinding, nor does it trivialise the game. It's an element of positioning and repositioning. Moreover, use of rescue is a good thing because it permits otherwise slower units to catch up and be useful. Imagine trying to use Bors in Chapter 8 without rescuing him! or in Chapter 14!

The question I wanna ask is: why is "rescue abuse" so bad? It's not like boss abuse where you grind for ages and the rest of the game becomes trivial, or RNG abuse where you have to reset a lot and the game becomes trivial and predictable.

Now onto the grit of this topic. What parameter (or combination) would best represent a "normal" FE run? (I recognize that normal is in itself nearly impossible to define, but stay with me.)

Why should players be rewarded for being "normal"?

What about trying parameters based on what makes FE fun?

What makes FE fun is different for many different people. Some people liketo grind, others like

Well, it's a turn-based game, so we ought to fit turn count somewhere in there.

We of course can't ignore the RPG element of the game so levels/experience ought to be accounted for.

There is of course the conversational element (supports, recruitment) of fire emblem, which seems to be mostly ignored in drafts, yet remains a very unique quality of the FE series.

Some FEs lack support conversations; and in any case, since you have limited selection of units, it can be possible to be left with few feasible support conversations. Many support conversations need to be "grinded" for (like the 200 turn FE6 supports).

Finally, we approach the strategy portion of the game, which is assumed to occur, but is very difficult to gauge.

Turns, obviously.

Character

Clearly, we need to account for the levels gained by our units, so we'll add this factor in.

To cover conversation, we'll add a factor to count unit supports.

Weapon experience ought to be rewarded in some way, since versatility of certain units makes the game rather interesting.

Finally, we need to account for strategy. I suggest a factor of battles won/total battles, which is normally recorded in the character description.

Chapter

Turn counts immediately step forward as a factor, since they are tracked per chapter, anyway.

To add a bit more of the conversational element, I propose a factor designated to characters recruited.

Finally, we add a bit more of the strategy element by keeping track of the enemies killed/total enemies.

To keep certain elements of the game from getting out of hand, we'll add a reset penalty as well as one for letting undrafted characters get killed. (to keep us from meatshielding and the like)

To keep the numbers relatively small, and easy to analyze how much each part is participating in the result, I let every factor (except the penalties and turn points) be held out of the total possible of that factor.

Then per character, we have (unit levels gained)/(possible levels gained)+(supports gained)/(possible supports the character can hold)+(weapon level)/(weapon level possible)+(wins)/(battles)

NOTE: Weapon level is kept track of by assigning E=0, D=1, C=2, etc. and adds all possible weapon types the character can use.

Per chapter, we have (turn points)+(recruited units)/(units possible to recruit)+(killed enemies)/(total enemies)-resets-(# undrafted characters died).

NOTE: turn points are assigned as follows, least TC for the chapter gets 3 points, next least gets 2, third gets 1, and the rest get zero. Ties result in average of points. Also, total enemies only counts the enemies that were on the map before you finished the chapter.

Now, we notice that the per character result has a lower maximum result than the per chapter maximal result, so we'll multiply the per character factors by 5/4.

From here, if we average the characters together and the chapters together, and add them together, we get a total maximal sum of 10 points.

If we want to see what factors dominate this result, we can find their fractional part of the sum, which tells us that

Turns=3/10 result

Conversations=9/40 result

Levels/Experience=1/4 result

Strategy=9/40 result.

This can easily be fixed to a strict 1/4,1/4,1/4,1/4 partition if we enter some multiplicative factors, which makes our resulting parameter

per character: 5/4[(unit levels gained)/(possible levels gained)+(supports gained)/(possible supports the character can hold)+(weapon level)/(weapon level possible)+(wins)/(battles)]

per chapter: 5/6(turn points)+5/4(recruited units)/(units possible to recruit)+5/4(killed enemies)/(total enemies)-resets-(# undrafted characters died).

That seems like the most needlessly complicated load of bullshit ever.

I like my formula. Take the turn count, add 10 per reset, add 4 per character dead or not recruited, subtract 1 for every 1,000 gold you have, aim for lowest score.

I don't know if forcing players to recruit certain characters is a good thing; I'm thinking of Karla specifically here, because for the majority of players recruiting her is just impossible. For units such as Cormag, it would probably be better to have some sort of "par time" so that the player isn't penalised for hanging around for them.

You would also have to add a rule about what gaidens are assumed and not assumed.

I'll probably start a draft with these rules soon. Anyone think they'd be interested; if so, do you have a game in mind?

I might try if it were FE6 and you permitted 1 reset per chapter.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Anouleth

[Zanarkin]

I like my formula. Take the turn count, add 10 per reset, add 4 per character dead or not recruited, subtract 1 for every 1,000 gold you have, aim for lowest score.

That sounds like something that could work... You can add quite a few things for an FE10 draft.

[Quintessence]

I think it's a bit complicated but maybe applying it in a draft makes it less complicated (at least for me...). Besides shouldn't this be in Integ's thread counting as new draft ideas?

[Naglfar]

Okay, let's see here.

Looking through all past drafts, I've found a total of 3 different ways by which we compare how well a player does in drafts.

By far, LTC is the most popular parameter, with good reason.

After all, it's easy to count and compare the number of turns taken, and encourages people to play quickly, which is generally more fun.

It's also very easy to understand and familiar to most players, since efficiency is the most popular form of measured play. Actually, are there any others? Besides ranked, I guess.

On the downside, LTC tends to encourage rescue shenanigans (IMO, rescue was designed to rescue units from dying, not ferry them to the boss to end the chapter quickly), Jeigan characters (which we all know are intended to be a crutch for beginning characters, not the backbone of your LTC team),

Using the argument "X was designed for the purpose of Y, not Z" is a good way to make me lose my patience very quickly. What we assume the game designers were thinking when they put a mechanic in the game is relevant to approximately nothing.

and, worst of all, RNG abuse (since certain TCs require multiple crit kills, level ups, enemies missing, etc.).

Legitimate issue. Drafts really should include the extent to which RNG abuse is legal in the rules.

This is no doubt why Elieson (if I'm wrong, correct me please) initiated the first EXP draft, which focused on leveling up your units, with a slight offset for TCs, so as to keep people from arena/boss abusing to the same score. Nevertheless, if we focus solely on the parameter of experience, we gain a little more insight as to what a good draft parameter would be.

I never actually looked at any experience drafts, but I think I understand the concept. What's this about good draft parameters though? It's not hard to see if a ruleset is good or not.

Once again, experience/levels are easy to count up and compare, and encourages people to use units they normally would not deign to use in LTC (a la Nino, Marisa, Ewan, etc.), which is challenging in and of itself.

And fun. It's a similar kind of appeal to the lower tiers of pokemon.

The obvious downside to experience is slow play (since players are far more likely to arena and boss abuse than they would in LTC). The fix for experience drafting appears to be to include an offset of LTC, but this still introduces the problem of rescue abuse.

Rescue "abuse" isn't a problem. That's your own irrational bias.

Now General Banzai has recently added his own idea for a parameter, the Reset count. I recognize that there was at least one draft before Banzai's that included a reset parameter, but he was the first (once again, correct me if I'm incorrect) to suggest a reset count only draft, which appears to be very useful.

Now, the good side of the reset approach is that the parameter is somewhat easy to compare and completely eradicates the notion of RNG abuse. The problems that occur include keeping track of resets (which I don't believe is tracked by the game); slow, cautious play (which is of course fine for very difficult modes, but in general is clunky); and problems with scaling to non-hard difficulties (since in easier modes, it can be nearly trivial to finish the game with no resets [assuming experience with more difficult settings]).

I would have to imagine that in a draft like this would need multiple offsets and must-reset situations to make it challenging enough to not get a perfect score without being drunk off your tits. Maybe, but this idea needs to be developed before it's worth discussing.

Now onto the grit of this topic. What parameter (or combination) would best represent a "normal" FE run? (I recognize that normal is in itself nearly impossible to define, but stay with me.)

None. A "normal" FE run keeps track of no parameters, you just play the game.

What about trying parameters based on what makes FE fun?

Since "what makes FE fun" is highly subjective, this probably isn't the best line of thinking to use.

Well, it's a turn-based game, so we ought to fit turn count somewhere in there.

With infinite turns, you can do anything. I don't think any draft ruleset will work without turncount having at least significant influence.

We of course can't ignore the RPG element of the game so levels/experience ought to be accounted for.

They can be accounted for, and apparently it can be made to work, but it's going too far to say that they should.

There is of course the conversational element (supports, recruitment) of fire emblem, which seems to be mostly ignored in drafts, yet remains a very unique quality of the FE series.

A few drafts have given credit for support conversations. It works okay, but it's sort of complicated.

Finally, we approach the strategy portion of the game, which is assumed to occur, but is very difficult to gauge.

Unquantifiable and thus a bad idea.

To make this simpler, we'll split up the counting into two parts: per (drafted) character and per chapter.

Character

Clearly, we need to account for the levels gained by our units, so we'll add this factor in.

To cover conversation, we'll add a factor to count unit supports.

Weapon experience ought to be rewarded in some way, since versatility of certain units makes the game rather interesting.

Finally, we need to account for strategy. I suggest a factor of battles won/total battles, which is normally recorded in the character description.

Chapter

Turn counts immediately step forward as a factor, since they are tracked per chapter, anyway.

To add a bit more of the conversational element, I propose a factor designated to characters recruited.

Finally, we add a bit more of the strategy element by keeping track of the enemies killed/total enemies.

To keep certain elements of the game from getting out of hand, we'll add a reset penalty as well as one for letting undrafted characters get killed. (to keep us from meatshielding and the like)

Too many factors. I don't think I would want to keep track of all of this, nevermind plan for it.

To keep the numbers relatively small, and easy to analyze how much each part is participating in the result, I let every factor (except the penalties and turn points) be held out of the total possible of that factor.

Sorry, what?

Then per character, we have (unit levels gained)/(possible levels gained)+(supports gained)/(possible supports the character can hold)+(weapon level)/(weapon level possible)+(wins)/(battles)

NOTE: Weapon level is kept track of by assigning E=0, D=1, C=2, etc. and adds all possible weapon types the character can use.

Per chapter, we have (turn points)+(recruited units)/(units possible to recruit)+(killed enemies)/(total enemies)-resets-(# undrafted characters died).

NOTE: turn points are assigned as follows, least TC for the chapter gets 3 points, next least gets 2, third gets 1, and the rest get zero. Ties result in average of points. Also, total enemies only counts the enemies that were on the map before you finished the chapter.

Now, we notice that the per character result has a lower maximum result than the per chapter maximal result, so we'll multiply the per character factors by 5/4.

From here, if we average the characters together and the chapters together, and add them together, we get a total maximal sum of 10 points.

If we want to see what factors dominate this result, we can find their fractional part of the sum, which tells us that

Turns=3/10 result

Conversations=9/40 result

Levels/Experience=1/4 result

Strategy=9/40 result.

This can easily be fixed to a strict 1/4,1/4,1/4,1/4 partition if we enter some multiplicative factors, which makes our resulting parameter

per character: 5/4[(unit levels gained)/(possible levels gained)+(supports gained)/(possible supports the character can hold)+(weapon level)/(weapon level possible)+(wins)/(battles)]

per chapter: 5/6(turn points)+5/4(recruited units)/(units possible to recruit)+5/4(killed enemies)/(total enemies)-resets-(# undrafted characters died).

My brain completely switched off during this part. Drafting should never be a maths project.

Now, you may ask, when all is said and done with, what is the point to all this fiddling with math and fire emblem mechanics? Doesn't LTC work just fine?

It does!

Well, for most drafters, sure.

I simply wanted to try my own hand at composing a draft that tried to emphasize the "real" (relative to my FE experience, of course) fun of FE while keeping the experience competitive.

This topic didn't really fit anywhere else on serenesforest, so I stuck it here, where the people who'd (hopefully) experience it would be able to give feedback on the idea.

So, what do you think? Too complicated? Stupid? Is my view of drafting completely wrong? Reply here.

(don't answer TL;DR, I'm looking for actual opinions here)

There is no "real" fun of FE, as clearly demonstrated by the fact that we all play it in different ways. Join one of zahlman's drafts, those seem to be closest to what you're looking for.

[Thor Odinson]

If you don't like LTC-based drafts, there's no rules against you making your own draft with different parameters. Just don't expect all drafts to magically conform to your parameters because a lot of drafters do like the LTC premises.

[CT075]

i love how rescue is considered abuse

it's not abuse unless it takes away any challenge and can be done mindlessly

try making a rescue chain without an iota of thought

i dare you

[Thor Odinson]

And what's wrong with Jeigans anyway

they're characters too

[The Spanish Inquisition]

Wheeeeeee feedback!

After reading through the responses, I've decided to clarify my ideas as much as possible, so as to not be interpreted incorrectly.

First off, I will host a draft like this in the future, I'm just trying to keep my backlog to a minimum of one draft/FE game right now, which currently quite full given the games I'm familiar with. This thread was created more to generate interest and see if other people were interested in the concept of a draft that was not limited to LTC play.

Next, Grrrrrr nitpicking. Jeigans are typically fine characters in their own right, I'll admit that. It just annoys me to see the majority of drafts relying upon jeigan to speed through chapters while weaker characters are left behind to stagnate. Now as for the arguments against "what the creators intended," I agree that the argument is a poor one. Yet I (perhaps completely incorrectly) continue to see an unusual reliance upon jeigans in LTC drafting. That is one issue I wish to address.

Onto the rescues, a headache in itself. Yes, I concede it's not a mindless mechanic, but it still annoys me no end that you can use rescue as a transport mechanic to clear a chapter in three turns that would have taken 10-11 turns without rescuing. Granted, I'm probably just being nostalgic for blind playthroughs, but IMO rescue shouldn't be a subgame within each chapter, to figure out how to cart your lord across the map the most quickly, which is what LTC seems to demand. Rescuing then also gives an unfair bias towards cavaliers/fliers, which is definitely an issue. After all, there are only so many of said units, such that the people that are left without lag far behind.

Regarding strategy, I stand behind my choices for an attempt at quantifying strategy. Turns already have a place in our formula, so why not try to use efficiency (wins/battles, or enemies killed/total enemies) as a method for measuring strategy?

Now, the "needlessly complicated bullshit" with "too many factors". First, I'm doing this because LTC strategy is IMO "needlessly complicated bullshit," so to each his own. TBH, the game keeps track of a good amount of the stats for you, so you don't have to have to be diligent in tracking what stats your character has until the end. Basically, I'm trying to "even out" the weight of each factor for the total score while making an easy-to-gauge cap on score, so players can see how well they're doing as they go, if they so wish.

I also threw in two new ideas of keeping track of weapon level and comparison of turn counts instead of the turn counts themselves (which shouldn't be all that difficult to understand, just a lot of info at one time). Why did I throw them in? Weapon level seems to gauge the idea of a well-rounded character, so your social knight isn't just a mercenary on a horse. Also, the idea of turn count comparison would reduce the lead that seems to develop very early on between old and new drafters, who are forced to learn LTC as they go, yet receive no reward for demonstrating better technique later on in the draft.

Finally, Drafting should be a math project, just as it should be a creative or competitive project. One man's garbage is another's potpourri, so do be nice and appreciate the thought that went into developing a new draft.

I do not expect others to conform to my ideas, I just want to see whether drafters actually like LTC or put up with it because there's nothing better to gauge with.

[Refa]

Next, Grrrrrr nitpicking. Jeigans are typically fine characters in their own right, I'll admit that. It just annoys me to see the majority of drafts relying upon jeigan to speed through chapters while weaker characters are left behind to stagnate. Now as for the arguments against "what the creators intended," I agree that the argument is a poor one. Yet I (perhaps completely incorrectly) continue to see an unusual reliance upon jeigans in LTC drafting. That is one issue I wish to address.

Jeigans are good for LTC. Your starter is good in a Nuzlocke run of Pokemon. White mages are useless in FF1 if you know what you're doing. Why is this an issue?

Onto the rescues, a headache in itself. Yes, I concede it's not a mindless mechanic, but it still annoys me no end that you can use rescue as a transport mechanic to clear a chapter in three turns that would have taken 10-11 turns without rescuing. Granted, I'm probably just being nostalgic for blind playthroughs, but IMO rescue shouldn't be a subgame within each chapter, to figure out how to cart your lord across the map the most quickly, which is what LTC seems to demand. Rescuing then also gives an unfair bias towards cavaliers/fliers, which is definitely an issue. After all, there are only so many of said units, such that the people that are left without lag far behind.

Understand that rescuing is part of the appeal of FE for a lot of people.

Now, the "needlessly complicated bullshit" with "too many factors". First, I'm doing this because LTC strategy is IMO "needlessly complicated bullshit," so to each his own.

How is LTC complicated?

Finally, Drafting should be a math project, just as it should be a creative or competitive project. One man's garbage is another's potpourri, so do be nice and appreciate the thought that went into developing a new draft.

...Bullshit. I can gurantee you most if not all drafters do not draft for math.

I do not expect others to conform to my ideas, I just want to see whether drafters actually like LTC or put up with it because there's nothing better to gauge with.

Yes, no duh.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Refa

[Elieson]

Thanks for the cameo~

& yes. Just do what I did...just get a little feedback and start one. Amassing 4-6 ppl to try something unique (that isn't stupid) is pretty easy.

[Integrity]

Besides shouldn't this be in Integ's thread counting as new draft ideas?

Popping in for random shit here: no. If somebody's pondering something earthshaking like this, it needs its own thread. Proposals in DTE ought to be limited to things like - well, the no-staves idea or the infantry draft.

[MacLovin]

Next, Grrrrrr nitpicking. Jeigans are typically fine characters in their own right, I'll admit that. It just annoys me to see the majority of drafts relying upon jeigan to speed through chapters while weaker characters are left behind to stagnate. Now as for the arguments against "what the creators intended," I agree that the argument is a poor one. Yet I (perhaps completely incorrectly) continue to see an unusual reliance upon jeigans in LTC drafting. That is one issue I wish to address.

Onto the rescues, a headache in itself. Yes, I concede it's not a mindless mechanic, but it still annoys me no end that you can use rescue as a transport mechanic to clear a chapter in three turns that would have taken 10-11 turns without rescuing. Granted, I'm probably just being nostalgic for blind playthroughs, but IMO rescue shouldn't be a subgame within each chapter, to figure out how to cart your lord across the map the most quickly, which is what LTC seems to demand. Rescuing then also gives an unfair bias towards cavaliers/fliers, which is definitely an issue. After all, there are only so many of said units, such that the people that are left without lag far behind.

Regarding strategy, I stand behind my choices for an attempt at quantifying strategy. Turns already have a place in our formula, so why not try to use efficiency (wins/battles, or enemies killed/total enemies) as a method for measuring strategy?

Now, the "needlessly complicated bullshit" with "too many factors". First, I'm doing this because LTC strategy is IMO "needlessly complicated bullshit," so to each his own. TBH, the game keeps track of a good amount of the stats for you, so you don't have to have to be diligent in tracking what stats your character has until the end. Basically, I'm trying to "even out" the weight of each factor for the total score while making an easy-to-gauge cap on score, so players can see how well they're doing as they go, if they so wish.

Finally, Drafting should be a math project, just as it should be a creative or competitive project. One man's garbage is another's potpourri, so do be nice and appreciate the thought that went into developing a new draft.

I do not expect others to conform to my ideas, I just want to see whether drafters actually like LTC or put up with it because there's nothing better to gauge with.

1-Jeigans and prepromoted units are solid right outside of the box.

No harm in using them, when you only have like 1-2 good earlygame units and a bunch of scrubs and the lord.

fe6 Marcus for example, starts out just able to ORKO or leave enemies with slivers of HP.

2-Rescueing isn't always used, its a useful function, and it allows us to tranport infantry units further.

Like Armours.

3-Not all of us play for LTC, or exp, or LRC or ranked.

Not everyone joins a standard draft and aims for LTC.

4-No, no. Just no please.

That is something only a handful of people would do.

[PKL]

This seems like a complicated mess to me. I agree that drafting shouldnt be a math project. Btw, jeigans are there to be used. Intelligent systems have never stated what exactly jagens are there for, have they? dont assume anything. For all we know, they intended jagens to be used until endgame. Also, of course most drafters like LTC and if you dont like rescuing, play something like Fe11 or 12 where it doesnt exist. Oh but wait, cavaliers and peggies are still > other classes in those games without rescue :o. This is definetely an issue!...not.

Edited March 20, 2012 by PKL

[Refa]

This seems like a complicated mess to me. I agree that drafting shouldnt be a math project. Btw, jeigans are there to be used. Intelligent systems have never stated what exactly jagens are there for, have they? dont assume anything. For all we know, they intended jagens to be used until endgame. Also, of course most drafters like LTC and if you dont like rescuing, play something like Fe11 or 12 where it doesnt exist. Oh but wait, cavaliers and peggies are still > other classes in those games without rescue :o. This is definetely an issue!...not.

Well you know IS has been making characters like FE7 Marcus, Seth, and so on more powerful for a reason. So that if a newbie uses a Jeigan too much, they don't end up fucking themselves over like in say, FE1.

[13th]

This seems like a complicated mess to me. I agree that drafting shouldnt be a math project. Btw, jeigans are there to be used. Intelligent systems have never stated what exactly jagens are there for, have they? dont assume anything. For all we know, they intended jagens to be used until endgame. Also, of course most drafters like LTC and if you dont like rescuing, play something like Fe11 or 12 where it doesnt exist. Oh but wait, cavaliers and peggies are still > other classes in those games without rescue :o. This is definetely an issue!...not.

This, this, this, and a heaping helping of this.

This formula is full of complete bullcrap.

[Thor Odinson]

I don't see the issue with relying on Jeigans

They're good, and either they're free-for-all or they're banned, most of the time

And what's wrong with using a unit that's a free-for all and good at the same time

[Refa]

I don't see the issue with relying on Jeigans

They're good, and either they're free-for-all or they're banned, most of the time

And what's wrong with using a unit that's a free-for all and good at the same time

Because it's goes against peoples' preconceived notion that Jeigans are crap and because they like leveling up low level units.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Refa

[CT075]

i'm as much for promoting use of your starting team as the next guy but this is a bit extreme

Also - that formula may be slightly complex but it takes like thirty seconds to write an algorithm for in like python or java; i'm not saying that everyone who's complaining needs to do that (keep in mind that i am personally against this due to the fact that i hate keeping track of more than one or two numbers), but if this picks up it should be a simple task for someone to make a quick open-source calculator that does the shit for you.

[Refa]

i'm as much for promoting use of your starting team as the next guy but this is a bit extreme

Also - that formula may be slightly complex but it takes like thirty seconds to write an algorithm for in like python or java; i'm not saying that everyone who's complaining needs to do that (keep in mind that i am personally against this due to the fact that i hate keeping track of more than one or two numbers), but if this picks up it should be a simple task for someone to make a quick open-source calculator that does the shit for you.

It's not the calculations but actually doing the draft that'd be the problem for me. Keeping track of so damn many variables when I play the game would be a nightmare; ltc is complicated enough for me.

[CT075]

exactly why i am personally against it also, i can hardly be assed to check my turncount every chapter let alone everything else