Curse of the Emblem

[Tangerine]

If you don't have anything constructive to say then there isn't much point in chipping in, is there ?

In any case, back on topic! If you're gonna post from now on then have something to say about the hack or advice/suggestions for the author. Arguing about who argued what is not very constructive :P.

[Klokinator]

So, to get back on topic, my offer for the text refinements still stands. If you send me the text you have now, I'll fix it up for you. It'll probably only take an hour or so out of my day anyway and, you might learn a lot about formatting text properly when I send it back to you.

[C7K]

Why is everyone saying that letting the enemy have a higher critical chance is a bad idea? If you don't like the hack, just don't play it! Stop filling the thread with stupid posts saying that he should change it!

[Crimson Red]

Sharing the hack doesn't mean it's being made for others

That's like having an idea to make cookies, making them, then putting them out in the open so any one else in the house can eat them if they so choose. It's not like the cookies were made for them, but they still might like it anyway, so they have the option to eat them if they want. The rest of the family in the house* doesn't really have a right to complain that the cookies were bad and should be redone because it wasn't to their liking, though if they want to constructively criticize to make the cookies better, there's no harm in that as long as they aren't constantly like "you need to make the cookies this way, or else they're going to suck and no one will eat them", because that's overemphasizing one's own importance; again, the cookies weren't meant for you, they just happened to be available to you if you so choose, and you're just going to end up hurting people's own feelings when you constantly and infallibly put down something they made and like.

now apply analogy to hack -> maybe the thinking will make more sense?

*the rest of the people on the forum, as opposed to a house. making cookies is like making the hack

tl;dr

There's a line between constructive criticism and stubbornness that you guys quickly cross and even quicklier attribute to other people's own stubbornness; the people who things are made for have a right (or at least better reasoning) to be stubborn more-so than the people who are simply trying something out of curiosity. at the very least I think this logic applies to this hack but it probably applies to other things at all, or else the logic is totally flawed, I'm an idiot, and it doesn't apply to anything (which is totally a possibility, though my own ego wants to say "no it isn't").

[Dark Sage]

Why is everyone saying that letting the enemy have a higher critical chance is a bad idea? If you don't like the hack, just don't play it! Stop filling the thread with stupid posts saying that he should change it!

If felover3 wants to make stuff purely for himself, then he has every right to do it. However when you put things up on the internet for other people to enjoy, then those people have the right to criticize you and you'd be stupid for thinking otherwise. To an extent, I think felover3 does care about what other people think of his hack and so he should listen to criticism. Constructive criticism is invaluable in any sort of creative endeavor, as it is taken to heart, it can often improve an existing work.

Now for the Don't Like Don't Play argument, I'm sorry but I cannot fathom why you, Jubby, and Luffy like to stick by it. It is by far the worst defense for something ever. It's basically a way of telling somebody to shut up, that their opinion is not wanted, and that criticism is never valid. To a lesser extent it's also saying that nothing is ever really objectively bad. Anybody who has worked on anything should tell you that none of the stuff the statement is implying is true.

P.S Tang is this post considered contributing to the thread now? Can I have a cookie ?

[Jubby]

Blazer and I have both worked on something I think we'd consider it fitting in the "anything" category...

I think I may have given a wrongful impression. I think that fans' crit should definitely be taken into account when making a game. It should be given some major thought, and maybe even tried out to see if the creator likes it better. But ultimately, it is up to the hack's creator, and when they've made a decision (as FElover3 has NOW) I'd use the don't like don't play "excuse".

If he's decided 100% that he doesn't want to change it, then you guys can't really change his mind. I actually AGREE with you guys; I hate when enemies crit me in vanilla FE. I just think if we continue to argue we're just kicking the dead horse, seeing as he's made a decision~

Anyway, again I don't want to be involved in any huge arguments or anything, and since felover's made it clear he doesn't want this discussion to continue and/or turn into a flame war, this is the last thing I'm going to say on the subject :3

tl;dr

I agree with this:

Constructive criticism is invaluable in any sort of creative endeavor, as it is taken to heart, it can often improve an existing work.

but anything we say on the topic after he's thought about it and made a decision is silly. He DID comprmoise, too :3

Also, I wasn't trying to invalidate the arguments presented before felover made the compromise, and I also took Sage's post to say "Just change it"; I didn't really think you were necessarily agreeing with Tang and dondon. So sorry for that XP

Edited April 14, 2012 by Jubby

[Celice]

The only thing wrong about this criticism is that regardless of how efficient it is in regards to the project, it's still originating from an infinitesimally-small, select, non-representative group. You are, literally, speaking only for yourself. So don't try and represent yourself as more than yourself--you're not, and you won't be.

One should consider sound advice, but only so far as it does not please the minority who spoke--ostracizing the majority who have not.

[The Spanish Inquisition]

So what I've seen in actually trying the hack:

1st Chapter's Fog of War: Why? Frustrated the hell out of me since the goal is listed as defeat all enemies, but you win by seizing the throne.

I ran out of vulneraries before I reached the boss in the 1st chapter (even with terrain usage), so either the enemies need to be toned down, or a healer is needed by this point.

(the boss was still beatable thanks to ranged attack/rescue shenanigans, but still a pain since the boss had the vulnerary)

Also, I'm really annoyed that the enemy had poison weapons when I have no restore staff or antidotes/ ways of curing the poison.

How do you throw a wyvern in a dungeon?

You should probably give a little more detail on the lord's background, so players won't be pissed off when only 2 of their 6 units from the prologue are available for the rest of the game.

This also goes for the prologue's goal. If the player knows the lord and the boss were friendly before the chapter began, players wouldn't be as likely to accidentally cause game overs.

Now, as for the argument raging above. The issue is that everyone who assumes the hack is a bad idea is assuming that a crit=a unit's death. Felover3 has taken steps to ensure that this does not happen. (Enemies with higher crit% had low str, those with higher str had low skill, meaning less hit and crit) Your units in chapter 1 start off with enough health and defense to survive a crit, and chapter 1's chokepoints allow your units to only be attacked once, maybe twice per round. The main reason I ever had to restart was I ran out of vulneraries. In summary, the enemy can crit, but Felover3 has ensured that lethal crits are very unlikely (use your vulneraries, and you'll survive).

Also, I notice that the people who were arguing with Felover3 in said debate didn't bother to attempt the game for themselves. Don't knock it 'til you've tried it, the game shows a great deal of promise.

[Klokinator]

You should probably give a little more detail on the lord's background, so players won't be pissed off when only 2 of their 6 units from the prologue are available for the rest of the game.

I'm updating his text now, and I decided that was a thing I wanted to do too. I'm also adding text that makes it at least implied the main lord should talk to the wyvern girl too. Seems like a good idea.

Edited April 14, 2012 by Klokinator

[Celice]

Try not to make it too obvious though. Part of the hack seemed interesting because the player was genuinely fooled along with the characters of the story. Somethings wouldn't be harmed by dropping subtle hints here and there, but at the same measure, don't give away what the player can be surprised about. Especially if with-holding information doesn't necessarily mean the player will be any worse-off than with it.

[Klokinator]

He's also free to ignore any/all changes I make x]

I'm nearly done with the script anyway, shouldn't be much longer...

[dondon151]

also chapter 1 is just not fun

aside from the fact that every single brigand on this map has a 1% chance to OHKO anyone that you have, unless i'm missing some sort of very obvious AI manipulation here, the player is forced to stall at chokepoints when the objective of the map is to seize the throne. that doesn't sound like it allows for very much strategic space...

although the prologue was super easy to 2 turn

Edited April 14, 2012 by dondon151

[The Spanish Inquisition]

aside from the fact that every single brigand on this map has a 1% chance to OHKO anyone that you have

I don't know about your terrible stat gains, but my Jude was able to withstand any crit by any brigand (except maybe the steel axe guy, but that guy's hit % is terrible).

Perhaps if you tried to let Jude gain levels in the prologue...

You're also not factoring in hit %, which makes it more like .8%.

[dondon151]

Perhaps if you tried to let Jude gain levels in the prologue...

why would i waste my time with that

[Tangerine]

I thought this issue had already been resolved .

The only thing wrong about this criticism is that regardless of how efficient it is in regards to the project, it's still originating from an infinitesimally-small, select, non-representative group. You are, literally, speaking only for yourself. So don't try and represent yourself as more than yourself--you're not, and you won't be.

One should consider sound advice, but only so far as it does not please the minority who spoke--ostracizing the majority who have not.

This thread has proven that there are a significant amount of people who are not happy with every single enemy having crit chances on you. Not a single person has posted that they like having a random chance to die without warning. There just isn't anyone who likes being crit randomly at low %s, and it's a definite possibility when every enemy can do it.

Regardless, I never once claimed that my criticism represented the opinion of anyone but myself, so I have no idea where this is coming from.

Now, as for the argument raging above. The issue is that everyone who assumes the hack is a bad idea is assuming that a crit=a unit's death. Felover3 has taken steps to ensure that this does not happen. (Enemies with higher crit% had low str, those with higher str had low skill, meaning less hit and crit) Your units in chapter 1 start off with enough health and defense to survive a crit, and chapter 1's chokepoints allow your units to only be attacked once, maybe twice per round. The main reason I ever had to restart was I ran out of vulneraries. In summary, the enemy can crit, but Felover3 has ensured that lethal crits are very unlikely (use your vulneraries, and you'll survive).

Also, I notice that the people who were arguing with Felover3 in said debate didn't bother to attempt the game for themselves. Don't knock it 'til you've tried it, the game shows a great deal of promise.

Nobody said the hack was a bad idea, just that the idea implemented serves only to frustrate players.

That's all fine and dandy, but that does not ensure anything. If you've taken previous damage you can still die from a crit that under ordinary circumstances (you have luck) should not happen. Plus the other enemies still have crit. You basically just admitted that you have to vulnerary spam in early chapters to avoid getting critkilled from the enemies you can survive, and hope the other ones don't just kill you. That's not a good thing or balanced, all it does is prove how centralizing critical is without luck.

As I said before, early in the game it is reasonable for some enemies to have the odd crit chance on some units even with luck, because a low level characters' luck is their only cushion. The problem arises later on in the game if you keep your luck at 0. Your cavo has no realistic way to scale with enemies' crit chances.

Okay, I don't usually play hacks, but I decided to do this not only to illustrate my point but to attempt to help you out with other issues as well.

Of course, there is some issue even early on. My Jude got crit killed by the two archers in the very first chapter on my very first time through it, they were 2 of 6 crits landed in the whole chap. That's 16% and 1% chance. By the law of probability this is unlikely, but when every enemy has crit on every single unit you have, it is going to happen to a lot more people than just me at some point. A user earlier in this thread said he got crit multiple times per chapter even with low percentages. I could have done this chapter in 2 or 3 turns easy, but I wanted to fight the enemies to prove my point.

If the Iron Axe Bandits in chap 2 get lucky even ONCE, they can OHKO two of your three units with a crit. In a normal FE game this would not happen because everyone has at least 1 luck. Plus there are poison axe & sword bandits around, which makes keeping your HP topped up even more of an annoyance. Although it only really matters for Jude since he can take 1 crit if you just turtle up in the room in the top left. The worst part is that Lia and Ralph are worthless against most of the enemies here, so Jude is really your only significant offense, but at least Lia can take 2 hits before dying. The bandits get off a lot more attacks than you want if you're playing at even a reasonable pace, which makes their crit more of a threat. The only strategy that minimizes their chances for a crit is to hole up and just let them run into Jude. But that isn't a good thing.

On my 2nd try I had a good strategy going and was expecting it to be a pretty easy low turn. Until a Steel Sword Mercenary with 5 crit critkilled my 21 HP Lia (exactly 7 damage x 3). That's only 3 HP below her max, I shouldn't have needed to use one of my vulns to heal that. He could also double her since I had previously used her Javelin to avoid a counter and I didn't know he was there, but she died on the first hit. My third time through, this happened to Jude, except on the Iron Blade Merc with 5 crit, who just outright OHKOs Lia with one by the way. Jude was poisoned and could not heal to full on his previous turn. On my fourth time through, the game must have felt sorry for me, because Jude got crit on turn 1 but dodged the following 2 67% hits so he didn't die.

Remember when I mentioned those Iron Blade mercs being able to OHKO Lia if they crit?

Me too, Lia. Me too :(. Oh well, I almost did it there, it won't be hard ne-

It's not your fault, Lia. It's not. You're a good girl. You just need to proc HP 7 times in the next level to survive. Please have 700% HP growth. Rest, now..

*corrupt screenshot of Lia getting critkilled by boss with 2% crit* <Not sure what happened there.

I had gotten Lia 4* levels in this try too, and she proc'd speed every time. I was sad after that one.

Eventually I made it to the end, but I forget in how many turns because I stopped counting after a while. I don't have time for the next chapter right now, but I'll post it later if I have to.

^ Can already tell you you're gonna be hearing a lot about these guys. 5% crit and double all of my units? And there are like 6 of them bunched up in groups? Fun.

Anyway, some other things:

The script formatting could use some fixing, but since Klok appears to be doing that for you I shouldn't need to worry about pointing out specific parts. Just remember in the future not to put people so close together during text events.

Why are the goals in the chapters so messed up? The C1 goal I understand, but why does the C2 goal tell me to kill all enemies when I'm supposed to seize the throne? Hope C3 doesn't have this issue.

The C1 and C3 maps really need work. I suggest getting someone to help out. From what I know, feaw is usually open to requests and he's pretty good. C2's wasn't that bad. Certainly not enough to make it a priority or less enjoyable (what makes it less enjoyable has been outlined in this post...

In the end I do think this has potential. The first and third maps need a lot of work, but the story seems interesting enough to follow with the formatting fixed. I'll probably continue for real with this once the crit issue is fixed.

Overall I had fun with what I've played so far, but the crits really marred the experience. They were just frustrating, and no amount of strategy could circumvent their occurrence. I know how to play FE better than most, so when I tell you the crits are nothing but a frustration, I'm not exactly saying it out of ineptitude. The entire time I felt as though I was being punished for playing strategically instead of turtling up like I used to when I first started playing the series.

edit: uhh, count any time I say "C1" as the prologue, "C2" as your C1 etc. I just referred to them in whatever order I did them.

Edited April 15, 2012 by Tangerine

[Felover3]

Oh, about the whole confusion over chapter goals. To be honest I was so excited about finishing chapter 2 that I actually forgot to go in and change the chapter goal texts. Sorry about that. ALso, the Myrmidons are supposed to be incredibly threatening. Don't know how far you got into chapter 2, but you'll soon see why they don't become impossible.

To be honest, I think this whole debate tarnished this entire project more than I would have liked. Needless to say that I'm working out balance solutions that allow the lack of luck be counteracted by certain principles or other such mechanics. Additionally, there is a third option which while it doesn't help Ralph or a few other characters will alliviate the luck situation a very minute amount. What I can say is that the 30 cap LCK still won't be in there nor will something even as high as 20.

Even maybe make three editions. One with 0 luck for everyone. The possible solutions I'm theory testing. And the wimpy edition.

[Belf]

Sharing the hack doesn't mean it's being made for others

That's like having an idea to make cookies, making them, then putting them out in the open so any one else in the house can eat them if they so choose. It's not like the cookies were made for them, but they still might like it anyway, so they have the option to eat them if they want. The rest of the family in the house* doesn't really have a right to complain that the cookies were bad and should be redone because it wasn't to their liking, though if they want to constructively criticize to make the cookies better, there's no harm in that as long as they aren't constantly like "you need to make the cookies this way, or else they're going to suck and no one will eat them", because that's overemphasizing one's own importance; again, the cookies weren't meant for you, they just happened to be available to you if you so choose, and you're just going to end up hurting people's own feelings when you constantly and infallibly put down something they made and like.

Well said Blazer.

[Tangerine]

Oh, about the whole confusion over chapter goals. To be honest I was so excited about finishing chapter 2 that I actually forgot to go in and change the chapter goal texts. Sorry about that. ALso, the Myrmidons are supposed to be incredibly threatening. Don't know how far you got into chapter 2, but you'll soon see why they don't become impossible.

To be honest, I think this whole debate tarnished this entire project more than I would have liked. Needless to say that I'm working out balance solutions that allow the lack of luck be counteracted by certain principles or other such mechanics. Additionally, there is a third option which while it doesn't help Ralph or a few other characters will alliviate the luck situation a very minute amount. What I can say is that the 30 cap LCK still won't be in there nor will something even as high as 20.

Even maybe make three editions. One with 0 luck for everyone. The possible solutions I'm theory testing. And the wimpy edition.

I don't think you should let it "tarnish" the project . You have something good to work with, it's just one idea you had that has received a fair amount of criticism. I have no idea why it became an argument like this, it really should've ended after the first discussion between you, dondon and I.

In any case, it inspired me to play it at least, so you got one more player out of it .

[Celice]

I thought this issue had already been resolved .

Not a single person has posted that they like having a random chance to die without warning. There just isn't anyone who likes being crit randomly at low %s, and it's a definite possibility when every enemy can do it.

Really? At least three people have so far said they enjoy the project as-is, myself included. I only remember three people, including you, saying they don't like it. Unless you're reading for a specific word. . .

Nobody said the hack was a bad idea, just that the idea implemented serves only to frustrate players.

But it hasn't frustrated everyone who's played it, of those who've posted about the hack. I was never bothered by it. Others don't seem to mind it. It's cool that you think it's too much; and it's cool that we think it's fine. It's not impossibly-slanting the game, so it's hardly something necessitating a "fix."

[Klokinator]

Personally, I do enjoy the thrill of having something random happen. I don't think you're a good tactician until you can account for every possibility, and if there's a chance of being criticalled then so be it. Now, personally, I think the hack has far bigger issues than the criticalling, it needs a good mapper, or for FElover to take a look at some mapping tutorials and maybe improve his technique a good bit. The prologue (I call it chapter 1, because fuck that prologue shit) is extremely empty and there's not much terrain you can use to gain advantage. Also, so many sword units against so many axe units is a bit aggravating. I wouldn't mind the ugliness so much if there were more options strategically to use.

Who knows, I might even be inspired to help fix the other issues of this hack when I get some free time from writing reviews and making my next RF submission.

[Tangerine]

Really? At least three people have so far said they enjoy the project as-is, myself included. I only remember three people, including you, saying they don't like it. Unless you're reading for a specific word. . .

Not a single person has said they enjoy the idea of being crit randomly and killed by every enemy. Nobody enjoys the hack for that reason, but several do not enjoy how likely that is to happen. There isn't a single person here who will refuse to play the game if he makes enemies with displayed crit less common. That makes it an issue.

I said I liked what I played as well, it was only the crit problem that hurt it. I can like the hack without liking an idea implemented in it. Fancy right?

And for the record:

Me

Dondon

Dark Sage

Jubby

Furetchen

Have all voiced our complaints publicly with having every enemy with displayed crit. Klokinator also commented on being frustrated with how many times he got crit. But I don't even understand the purpose of his posts on the subject because he seems to be operating under the idea that he should not be crit that many times when it is a definitive possibility when all enemies have even a tiny amount of crit. So I dunno if he thinks it's a bug or in the mechanics or what, lol.

But it hasn't frustrated everyone who's played it, of those who've posted about the hack. I was never bothered by it. Others don't seem to mind it. It's cool that you think it's too much; and it's cool that we think it's fine. It's not impossibly-slanting the game, so it's hardly something necessitating a "fix."

Just as there are people who will be victimized by the russian roulette nature currently present, there are people who will not be. What is balanced is for that risk to not exist in its current form; make your enemies powerful and threatening without needing for that ridiculous luck factor to be present if you are going to force the player to fight them head on. It's okay if some enemies have the option of getting a crit on you, you can use strategy to circumvent that. There is nothing you can do to get around every single enemy being able to do it to all of your characters. Dondon and I both having issues with it while playing the game says all that needs to be said about it being imbalanced. Go find better players than us to tell us that it is balanced and I will accept it 100%. Because as it stands now, we've determined that the best way to beat the chapters in this game is to play the least strategically. When the hack creator says his goal with this idea was to add another element of strategy, then it is an issue. And evidently he agrees that it is an issue, because he is taking steps towards improving upon it based on our criticism. So what is your problem exactly?

It doesn't need to make the game impossible. It doesn't even make it difficult, because this is not difficulty. I don't feel like I made a strategic mistake any time I was forced to restart. I have not had to restart once in these chapters except for when I get crit and lose a unit.

Even if 3 people are okay with it and 3 refuse to play the game because of it, I'd say that makes it an issue that needs to be dealt with. And he has. So I don't get why you are pushing it so hard. I mean dondon is easily the best FE player in the community and he's saying it's annoying. You don't get a whole lot more credible than that.

Edited April 15, 2012 by Tangerine

[Celice]

So I don't get why you are pushing it so hard.

I'm not. I'm not the one coming back with tables of text, am I. I was just letting you realize that your experience isn't everyone's, contrary to what you were (and still are) saying.

[Tangerine]

I'm not. I'm not the one coming back with tables of text, am I. I was just letting you realize that your experience isn't everyone's, contrary to what you were (and still are) saying.

I am saying it is a balance issue. You are saying it is "my experience". That's not true, I have done nothing but state objective facts.

And again you tell me I am acting like I represent the masses. Am I not correct in saying that it has frustrated and will continue to frustrate "players"? Yes, yes I am. Did I ever say "everyone will hate this hack and everyone will be frustrated, and also I represent every person who ever existed"? No..don't think so. You're just putting words in my mouth, you even said multiple times that I don't like the hack when I have said otherwise even in my first post after having played it.

I am coming back with "tables of text" because I am attempting to help the hack creator improve upon an issue I and others have had playtesting his hack. I gave plenty of other suggestions in my posts and even sent him a PM. What've you done besides try to argue with me and the other people who had the same "experience"?

Edited April 15, 2012 by Tangerine

[Celice]

I'm not trying to argue with you. I wasn't. I was saying what I felt, yes, just as you are saying what you feel. But, I wasn't trying to say you were wrong--what I was saying was that if the hack was as frustrating as you tell it to be, everyone who's played it would have said so, but, we haven't. You've been the aggressor here, sorry :/

Where the hell did I say you don't like the hack? The "it" above in one of the posts is referring to the crit issue you're talking about, not the hack in its entirely (the statement before it was referring to the hack in its entirety, if that confused you).

[Anouleth]

Even maybe make three editions. One with 0 luck for everyone. The possible solutions I'm theory testing. And the wimpy edition.

It's absurd to suggest that people are "wimps" for not wanting to play a game where criticals can happen at any time and potentially force a reset. Perhaps it's the case that every enemy in this hack is weak enough such that it is usually possible to avoid a character death with a high probability of success, but it seems like the available space of reliable strategies is dramatically shortened. Want to expose a mage or a bow user or some other frail unit to an attack? Ever? Tough shit!

So I don't think that Fire Emblem games as they are are easy, or simple, or "wimpy".