How many players actually care about turn count?

[RJWalker]

For examples, look at the Rate the Unit threads one of which specifically allows adding or deducting a point for the character's personality even though the thread is suppposed to be about usefulness alone. Notice how characters considered 'good' generally get +1 personality bias whereas characters considered 'bad' get -1 personality bias.

Now there's no bashing in that thread but I never said it happened here specifically.

[a.f.k.a. Howard Hughes]

people who care of turns tend to use "good characters" more than the other type. Its natural they tend to like those units more. I sure as hell like Jagen lot more after he has saved my ass million times in H5 than before it. I also dislike Amelia for being awful by my stantards that one time I did use her, causing me to like her less. Of course it makes sense for me to give Jagen positive and Amelia negative bias. This example is honestly completely unreleated.

[RJWalker]

No, some of them clearly assign bias points based on personality. You can like a character even if they aren't any good. But whatever, I don't have any problem with them as they are not the ones doing the needless bashing.

Although you did bring up one of my other complaints. Playing for turns means I'm pretty much forced to use certain handfull of characters. I find this playstyle severely restricting and thus I would never play in such a way.

[Might Gaine]

Going by that, then, it makes sense for me to give the opposite bias since on the occasions I've used Marcus he's turned out crap, where every time I use Amelia she ends up being one of my best units.

Also, I got Raven up to 20/20 once. He was even more broken than Seth, somehow.

Edited October 9, 2012 by Might Gaine

[a.f.k.a. Howard Hughes]

well if you like or dislike character's personality you rather obviously take that into account with bias points. Thats what bias is you know.

also I am the type of guy who dislikes grinding, so 9 times out of 10 I wouldn't want to use the character I don't use for the sake of turns anyway. (that 1/10 usually being exeptions like Minerva where its recruitting etc. the unit, not the actual use that is turn costly)

@Gaine each of us rolls their own way

[Refa]

Although you did bring up one of my other complaints. Playing for turns means I'm pretty much forced to use certain handfull of characters. I find this playstyle severely restricting and thus I would never play in such a way.

You can do an efficiency playthrough with any characters. Your statement is a lie.

[RJWalker]

No, if I want to get the lowest possible turn count, there are only a handful of characters that I can use. I could do an efficiency run with underleveled and late joining characters. Sure it could be efficient for those specific characters but is it really efficient as a whole? No.

My statement is not a lie and you know it.

[Shin]

Efficiency is doing the best with what you have, even if that means you're using weaker characters. You've made the mistake of assuming all people who go for LTC are elitist jerks who spit upon every other playstyle. Whilst a few of those individuals exist, most of us accept that certain characters are statistically better than others but will use characters we like for fun. Don't assume that LTC'ers laugh at the "fools" who use Amelia and Nino. It's not the fastest way to clear, and they might not like them because of that, but most people use units they like.

I recently did a "losers run" of FE3 book 1. I didn't dawdle, but I was using the likes of Biraku and Caesar. I was efficient with what I had, despite maybe not getting a stellar TC. If you want to get the absolute lowest turncount, you're pretty limited in your unit choice, but it's possible to a LTC run even with losers. You won't get the absolute minimum for the game, but you've done the best you can with what you had.

We all know Ardan and Ronan are chumps, but that doesn't stop us from using them.

[Constable Reggie]

We all know Ardan and Ronan are chumps, but that doesn't stop us from using them.

People are actually able to use Ardan past ch1? I tried to use him once, honestly, but he was bleh in the arena and couldn't keep up/hold his own/be at least somewhat decent at combat at all. At least Azel has 1-2 range/excellent player phase offense + horse on promotion, and Aideen has staff utility. I don't think Ardan has anything redeemable past chapter 1. He doesn't really get any better either, unlike difficult growth units.

Ronan is definitely useable though.

Edited October 9, 2012 by Davinatorman

[Florete]

No, if I want to get the lowest possible turn count, there are only a handful of characters that I can use. I could do an efficiency run with underleveled and late joining characters. Sure it could be efficient for those specific characters but is it really efficient as a whole? No.

My statement is not a lie and you know it.

Even in tier list discussions we never assume the "best team" is all that is being used. Bad characters can be ranked at all because we consider deployment free, thus any unit can be in play.

You're stuck in this mindset you've developed for yourself about "efficiency" players and are not actually looking at things from another perspective.

If you want to get the absolute lowest possible turn count, yes, there is generally going to be a very specific team you need to use. However, discussions on that subject are very rare and really have no direct effect on who we consider good or bad.

[Paperblade]

Why is anyone complaining about tier lists when they've all been dead for like two years?

[Might Gaine]

Well, I'm a massive grind freak, so more than anything else I judge characters by how well they do at high levels - usually, 20/20.

In that context, and in my personal experience, FE6 Marcus, Zealot, and to a MUCH lesser extent FE7 Marcus tend to do very poorly (okay, FE7 Marcus is more average, but still vastly overshadowed by a crapton of other units), whereas the likes of Nino and Amelia tend to do very well, to the point that I worship General Amelia as Magvel's Goddess of Destruction, and Sage Nino is almost more an Angel of Death than Jaffar himself!

On top of that, in my experience, GBA Paladins in general tend to not turn out as well as they could, to the point that unless I get one that was being exceptionally awesome unpromoted - Sain and Kyle come to mind - I won't use Cavs/Paladins once I have enough foot soldiers. And in Kyle's case, I almost always make him a Great Knight for Axes and - IIRC - better stat caps.

Edited October 9, 2012 by Might Gaine

[RJWalker]

Why must I repeat myself? I never said everyone who plays for turns is an elitist douchebag.

Also, I confused LTC with Efficiency. My mistake. One that I'll try not to make again.

But my complaint about the former being too restrictive still stands. It is not my idea of fun. I have no problem with people who do have fun with LTC. Only with the elitists. They may be a minority but they're still a lot of them on the web.

Edited October 9, 2012 by Ranger Jack Walker

[a.f.k.a. Howard Hughes]

It pisses me off when people claim 20/20/20 general Amelia is superior 20/20 General Gilliam

@Ranger, LTC is challenge. Do not try to rationalize people playing FF7 with no materias or Nuzlocking pkmn. Its restriktive but god dammit I WILL BEAT IT

Edited October 9, 2012 by Sho.M.the.Tits

[Loki Laufeyson]

Although you did bring up one of my other complaints. Playing for turns means I'm pretty much forced to use certain handfull of characters. I find this playstyle severely restricting and thus I would never play in such a way.

No one is forcing anyone else to play LTC. No one. I havent seen anyone say "YOU MUST PLAY LTC OR ELSE YOU SUCK! OMG!" in a very long time. Some Hard Mode players on the other hand... Also on tier lists, they usually assume hard mode is being played. There are often separate tier lists for separate modes.

@Gaine, Most people around here seem to rate a unit based on how they perform on average.

[RJWalker]

No one is forcing anyone. I know that. I never said that was problem. However, the elitists do ruin discussions and are generally a pain to deal with.

Also the elitists are generally more passive aggresive and mocking in behaviour but that's a separate issue.

[Axie]

I've never seen a single LTC/efficiency elitist ever. Not here, not on GameFAQs, not ever. Not even a Hard Mode elitist. LTC/efficiency/HM players only get mad when other people meddle in a subject they know nothing about, such as people defending Lilina in FE6 tier lists without having played Hard Mode to know how difficult it is to train her there, or when people get in a tier list thread and say "well this list sucks because _______ destroys everything at 20/20 s/he's not bottom tier at all". If you respect the playstyle people are discussing in said thread, people will respect your right of not wanting to play that way. And to be honest, this is what happens most of the time - people try to defend their playstyle in a thread where people are talking about a completely different one and get grilled and somehow act like they didn't do anything wrong.

Yes, by default when people discuss gameplay here, it's implicit they are probably talking about LTC/efficiency, and on Hard Mode if applicable. That doesn't mean you're not allowed to talk about how, for example, Est is actually really worth it when you grind her... but do it in an appropriate thread. There's a place for everything.

Edited October 9, 2012 by Axie

[dondon151]

In that context, and in my personal experience, FE6 Marcus, Zealot, and to a MUCH lesser extent FE7 Marcus tend to do very poorly (okay, FE7 Marcus is more average, but still vastly overshadowed by a crapton of other units),

i'm strongly inclined to believe that you haven't used any of these units because FE6 marcus destroys at least half of FE6 and FE7 marcus close to 100% of FE7

see, the main problem is that your frame of reference is off and thus it makes it difficult for some of us to take your statements seriously: it does not matter how well units do relative to each other, only how they do relative to the enemies. the other problem is that even in your skewed frame of reference, your assertions are factually incorrect. for example:

- in FE7, 20/20 nino beats 20/20 erk in mag, skl, and luk, but erk has a substantial HP lead. they are objectively not all that different, but erk doesn't get praise for being oh so awesome when grinded to 20/20.

- in FE8, 10/20/20 amelia beats 20/20 franz in luk and res, but franz also has a substantial HP lead. again, not all that different, but for some reason she is so much better...

Edited October 9, 2012 by dondon151

[Loki Laufeyson]

Not even a Hard Mode elitist.

Ive seen a couple. Not in some months, but ive seen them. There was a guy that got on (i think it was NinjaMonkey who was jumped on.) a member's case because he plays easy mode or normal mode only. Another guy (i really wish i could remember usernames of these people) jumped Anacybele's shit for only playing easy mode. They happen. I myself have never played hard modes in any of the FEs. But i do understand the differences between the modes and who could or could not perform well in such. Like using Fiona is impossible in Hard Mode FE10. And Nino in FE7 would be ridiculous in most cases, to use in Hector Hard Mode, etc. While i havent personally been attacked for playing easier modes, ive seen other people being so.

Edited October 9, 2012 by Florina Stark

[Baldrick]

I only know of one LTC elitist, and he mostly keeps his terrible opinions in threads concerning efficiency.

The reason most of the discussion is from an efficiency standpoint is that there's simply not much to say about casual gameplay. It's the nature of the casual fanbase; most of them don't care enough about the series to join a fan forum, and the ones that do either adapt to the community, hang around the general forums, leave quietly when they realise the discussion doesn't interest them, or start a flamewar by criticising the playstyle. So when casual-oriented threads come around, they tend to die due to lack of interest.

The people who like LTC include some elitists, but no more than any arbitary segment of humanity. People who play casually are harder to deal with, if only because most of the reasonable people either don't make an impact or are better known for doing other stuff.

[Chiki]

What's the point of posting on an internet forum? What's the point of learning? What's the point of eating? What's the point of breathing?

Basically, fuck nihilism.

There isn't any empirically verifiable "point" to any of those. So there is no genuine meaning to anything.

The only thing we can do, as thinking beings, is to give meaning to things.

[a.f.k.a. Howard Hughes]

Another guy (i really wish i could remember usernames of these people) jumped Anacybele's shit for only playing easy mode

If you are refering to me, I was merely mindblown by her claim to not being able to beat first map of NM FE10 (lets face it, this map is nobrainer). I was not attacking her choise of difficulty setting, but merely her opinions of Laura's demand for exp somehow making Sacrifice useless.

[-Cynthia-]

I think part of the problem is that casual players (hi Snowy) often go into tier lists and expect their opinions to be valid, when their personal experiences aren't relevant to the standards of the tier list at all. There's nothing wrong with playing casually, but the FE tier lists we have aren't about casual play.

[Loki Laufeyson]

[/size]If you are refering to me, I was merely mindblown by her claim to not being able to beat first map of NM FE10 (lets face it, this map is nobrainer). I was not attacking her choise of difficulty setting, but merely her opinions of Laura's demand for exp somehow making Sacrifice useless.

I dont think it was you actually. (although it may have been...but i dont think so...) I wish i could remember the thread too.

Anyway ive seen it before and i do not like that. Ive made a small point that not everyone plays hard mode or would even enjoy it. It seems that a lot of people understand that (now) and are like "ok cool..anyway...HARD MODE!" Certainly an improvement from a lot of the "wtf! You suck at this series!" type attitude i used to see.

[Baldrick]

As an afterthought, anyone who values Nino for her 20/20 stats, even on a casual playthrough, is a bit soft in the head. Nino's best time is around 20/1 to 20/10, when her power isn't overkill and she isn't capramming speed. She can reach that point in a couple of chapter with babying, and because she's underlevelled she's not competing for kills. And seeing such improvement obscures the fact she's basically Pent without staff utility or A Louise.