Limit Break is a terrible skill

[shadykid]

Well actually limit break itself can't break the game. Grinding to the point at which you can utilize Limit Break pretty much puts you in a position where stat and skill-wise you'd steamroll almost all the content even without it(especially if it's the extent of say maxing Vaike's Resistance with Limit Break).

I guess at the very least it allows the player to use 1st class units and the Villager classes to be usable in some of the late game or post game content if you like the class (or the personal models some characters in those classes) compared to the promoted alternatives. That's something atleast.

go back to Lunatic+ endgame

beat with all unpromoted characters

maybe?

also, if anything, Limit Break helps balance the game for postgame stuff because characters with limited skill pools are closer to units like Morgan, relatively

Edited April 10, 2013 by shadykid

[BrightBow]

It just for those who strive for ultimate power.

I am really disappointed that there is nothing like a competitive or co-op multiplayer. Something like the DS multiplayer would work really well in a game where you don't have to money grind in an arena for countless hours, hoping that no one dies...

But since it just so happens that this doesn't exist here, I don't see a problem. The game is effectively over and DLC is so separated from the main game that they can go nuts for all I care.

Edited April 10, 2013 by BrightBow

[Redwall]

What I find is really funny is that people are saying that Limit break, breaks the game, yet Pair up already does that on it's own, and it's not DLC, in fact it's encouraged by the developers.

No one in this thread has said that Limit Break is gamebreaking, only that it's necessary to beat Wave 2 of the ultimate DLC.

[Chiki]

Say FE had an optional porn DLC. That would decrease your opinion of it. That is a really lame excuse, to say that something doesn't decrease the value of the game just because it's optional.

[BrightBow]

Say FE had an optional porn DLC. That would decrease your opinion of it. That is a really lame excuse, to say that something doesn't decrease the value of the game just because it's optional.

Personally, since I have no problem with porn, I probably wouldn't care.

I did react allergic to the swimmsuit DLC and stuff. But only because I think that they drove stuff like that way to far in the actual game and the release of stuff that indicates that if anything changes, they will be even worse about it. That kinda hit a sore spot.

Of course, thanks to the slow localization, I had plenty of time to get over that.

Saying that it decreases the value of a game just kinda sounds to me like a game becomes worse because somebody out there made a bad mod or hack for that game.

As long as it looks like that they effectively make you buy the full game that way, I say anything goes. Gamebreaking or not.

[Integrity]

Say FE had an optional porn DLC. That would decrease your opinion of it.

Except that it wouldn't. :(

[Zerker]

Say FE had an optional porn DLC. That would decrease your opinion of it. That is a really lame excuse, to say that something doesn't decrease the value of the game just because it's optional.

That...

That is really low.

[Chiki]

Lol, make it something even more objectionable then. Like a picture of a dead person or something that was optional content.

The argument that "just ignore optional things" is just plain lame. It doesn't change the fact that it's a part of a complete game.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Olwen

[arvilino]

Lol, make it something even more objectionable then. Like a picture of a dead person or something that was optional content.

The argument that "just ignore optional things" is just plain lame. It doesn't change the fact that it's a part of a complete game.

I don't think that mindset is "pretend the optional things don't exist" it's just that they really shouldn't be considered as important or nearly relevant as the main game content.

To the point that only really the Ultimate Extreme's like a Dead person or animal, Hate speeches and propaganda or anything illegal are the few cases where yes there's a problem. The extra content doesn't matter nearly as much as the main game content unless it's intentionally malicious.

Edited April 10, 2013 by arvilino

[BrightBow]

Lol, make it something even more objectionable then. Like a picture of a dead person or something that was optional content.

The argument that "just ignore optional things" is just plain lame. It doesn't change the fact that it's a part of a complete game.

Yes, there could be theoretically content that is relevant from the perspective of the criminal law or a mere moral perspective.

But comparing stuff like this to a badly designed gameplay additions is absurd. That doesn't show anything other that my statement wasn't 100% perfectly literal.

[Chiki]

Yes, there could be theoretically content that is relevant from the perspective of the criminal law or a mere moral perspective.

But comparing stuff like this to a badly designed gameplay additions is absurd. That doesn't show anything other that my statement wasn't 100% perfectly literal.

No, it isn't absurd. Here is the argument some of you guys have:

1. Ignore optional content.

I could replace that with anything I like.

Your counter-argument is that comparing something illegal to badly designed gameplay additions is absurd. But here's the issue: that's just a plain ad hoc argument. At which arbitrary limit should we start caring about the optional content, according to you?

[Integrity]

I can't think of any strictly optional content that has ruined a game for me.

Like, at all, ever.

[BrightBow]

No, it isn't absurd. Here is the argument some of you guys have:

1. Ignore optional content.

I could replace that with anything I like.

Your counter-argument is that comparing something illegal to badly designed gameplay additions is absurd. But here's the issue: that's just a plain ad hoc argument. At which arbitrary limit should we start caring about the optional content, according to you?

You can care about what you want. I do care about the DLC. (Well, technically "did care" since I am not getting Awakening, but that's besides he point.)

The more DLC would pander to me personally, the happier I would be obviously.

But just because it doesn't do that, it doesn't "decrease the value of the game". Which was your initial statement. Just to recall that back into memory.

If you mean, when I might want to get rid of DLC they did? Or when I would certain DLC not to exist period?

It's what you quoted from me: Criminal law- and moral relevance and stuff.

Edited April 10, 2013 by BrightBow

[arvilino]

No, it isn't absurd. Here is the argument some of you guys have:

1. Ignore optional content.

I could replace that with anything I like.

Your counter-argument is that comparing something illegal to badly designed gameplay additions is absurd. But here's the issue: that's just a plain ad hoc argument. At which arbitrary limit should we start caring about the optional content, according to you?

Probably the same point that an optional after dinner mint at a restaurant would significantly decrease my overall opinion of the meal. They'd have to do something pretty foul for it to lower my opinion of them.

Edited April 10, 2013 by arvilino

[Only My Unit]

Why is this an argument? For gosh sakes...

Also, random two cents on whose opinon I agree with: Blah blah, FE's been broken in tiers since the NES, the trivialization tools (namely, Nosferatu and the like) can still be crushed with decent strategy, and self imposed challenges have been the core of the FE community, from what I understand. Limit break helps fight Lunatic and Lunatic+. If you complain about using it on lower difficulties, it's kinda sad since this game is rather easy. Normal basically stands for "normally this would be easy" and Hard stands for "Not so hard." Plus the carefree casual mode just makes it all laughable.

[Constable Reggie]

I can't think of any strictly optional content that has ruined a game for me.

Like, at all, ever.

Saints Row 3 says hi.

[Renne]

Why is this an argument? For gosh sakes...

Also, random two cents on whose opinon I agree with: Blah blah, FE's been broken in tiers since the NES, the trivialization tools (namely, Nosferatu and the like) can still be crushed with decent strategy, and self imposed challenges have been the core of the FE community, from what I understand. Limit break helps fight Lunatic and Lunatic+. If you complain about using it on lower difficulties, it's kinda sad since this game is rather easy. Normal basically stands for "normally this would be easy" and Hard stands for "Not so hard." Plus the carefree casual mode just makes it all laughable.

Quoted this for truth, lol... I hope the OP is playing in a mode like Lunatic or Lunatic+ to be complaining about the skill. While I don't have it yet, but you don't really have to get it anyway. Or you don't have to get it for everyone. For point #1, can't that be said for the game prior to Limit Break? If you've been grinding already, what's the complaint about some more grinding? You were gonna do it anyway, weren't you? If you wanna really play this game and make superheroes, you have to grind anyway.

Also, not to the OP but not really sad that this game is easy. That's why you have the option for Lunatic and Lunatic+ if you think Hard isn't that hard. Granted it's scary (to me) of the drastic change in difficulty level between Hard and Lunatic, but that's just me. I'm not the best strategist.

To OP's point #4, I still think that complaint can be said for the game prior to Limit Break. If you reclass your units a lot, then you're bound to end up with 4+ skills... and that again is a lot of grinding.

And besides, it won't break the game cause you can just unequip the skill for chapters that you feel the skill will break the game for you. Granted I think it will break the game for you either way if you're not playing on like Lunatic or above.

But hey, I'm not here to argue either. I'm not saying to ignore the bonus content either, but just the complaints listed in the OP is... I dunno.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Cordelia

[Folt]

As far as Limit Break goes, I say that any skill that is just as useful for any unit is a good skill at best, and a decent skill at worst, and if you don't want to use it then I'm not stopping you.

[Iridium]

By the time you're able to get Limit Break, you should be done with the main story unless you've been grinding so much that the rest of the game has already been trivialized.

[Rhaegar Targaryen]

As promised, the (sorta) full reply:

Do you like the skill Paragon?

I love it for the ease in grinding it brings. However, Paragon gets dropped like a hot potato the moment a unit has reached their destination. Also, it's useless in Double Duel and StreetPass, both of which I frequently use.

You could say the same about Galeforce, except that it's even worse since only a handful of characters can even learn it. Hell, you might as well complain about how almost all gen 1 characters are useless compared to the gen 2 ones.

True, but Galeforce opens up new tactics, making battles more dynamic. Also, it cannot be learned by everyone. Of course, I did breed it onto 10/13 children...

Worst argument I've ever heard. Same could be said about any skill. Remove it and then you get a free slot! I would rather have +10 caps on everything than most other skills.

Please read my post more carefully before denouncing my argument with such an implausible first sentence. The inclusion of Limit Break effectively removes a skill slot because the skill is undeniably the best in the game. Therefore, not using it would be handicapping oneself. If one wishes to optimize one's team, all units must have the skill. If all have it, and it negatively impacts the number of viable skill combinations, none should have it. Since I don't wish to handicap myself, I am compelled to equip the skill on every unit I intend to use in TSON.

Don't skills factor pair up bonuses for their activation rates? Limit Breaker isn't even necessary for infinite Armsthrift if they do - just a base Maribelle or osmethne and you're golden.

They do. However, most classes don't give +Lck during Pair Up, meaning that any unit with at least 30 Lck will grant the lead unit only +3 Lck. Too bad Armsthrift has such poor distribution.

>Ayn Rand

>good

pick one.

I'm not overly fond of her writing or philosophy, as a matter of fact. However, BioShock both embodied Ayn Rand's Objectivism in the form of Andrew Ryan (and totally didn't make their names similar at all) and was a good game. So, I simultaneously pick both of your options and only the second one.

I think you guys misunderstand the OP. When he says terrible skill I don't think he means that it's literally a bad skill, just a bad decision on the part of Intelligent Systems. Regardless of whether that's true or not, it's incredibly immature of you all to gang up on him like a pack of vultures.

Thank you for both your reading comprehension and your unnecessary, if well-intended defense. It's heartening to see someone who will stick up for whom they perceive as an underdog. Bravo.

The OP's main point is: to increase variety in skillsets. Coordinating four skills has less viable arrangements than using five. Especially on more specialized units. And everyone can have access Limit Break.

I don't critique IS for releasing great skills as DLC. It's possible they excluded certain skills during development while planning to release them as DLC. They're still a business and want to make money. Personally, I prefer to buy maps for skills I'll use over story and dialogue.

However, I do think that Limit Break is too good. Limit Break would still encourage sales for being a great choice for a skill if it increased caps by 3-6 instead of 10.

Right now, it's difficult to not justify using it for the final DLC or a Streetpass team as one of your five skills if you have access to it. Deciding to use Limit Break is an easy choice to make, whereas the other skills are easier to debate between which ones to use. If Limit Break was +4 to caps, it'd still be a top tier skill, but it would have to compete with the other skills for one of your slots much more often than now.

Bingo. Variety is the spice of life and Limit Break removes a significant amount of that.

Allowing fewer skill slots isn't a terrible thing, and doesn't even necessarily make for less variety. In postgame conditions where you can toss Limit Breaker onto everyone and get full use of it, your characters each have access to a lot of skills, and there isn't a huge number that really stand out. Restricting other skills to four instead of five makes your characters have to specialize more, rather than all grabbing a larger scoop from the limited pool of meaningful skills and therefore overlapping more without Limit Breaker than with it.

Your argument has merit. This, then becomes a matter of how many skills one would prefer their units to have. I think 6 would be too many, and 4 are too few. 5 just feels right, y'know? Of course, that's mainly because the game caused me to grow accustomed to running 5 skills on everyone. Being stripped of 1 slot and given a passive buff in its place doesn't sit well with me. If it matters to have stats that average around 50 instead of 40, IS should've made those the original caps.

Here's a fun old adage about DLC: If you don't like it, don't buy it.

No one is forcing you to use something you don't like. It's not "needed" at all. If you think it lessens your FE experience, then don't give up your wallet. There's some free market knowledge for ya, Ayn Rand.

This thread is the equivalent of a vegetarian complaining about meat tasting TOO good, and those darn restaurants force feeding you delicious barbeque. JUST DON'T BUY IT YOU TREE-HUGGER.

Bringing up Ayn Rand was a thinly veiled way of comparing the inclusion of Limit Break to communism. Since the comparison only narrowly applies, I chose to mention someone who was famously opposed to communism. After all, if we're all equal, there can be no disparity. I don't want to derail the discussion (yes, I know that paying to level the playing field doesn't resemble communism), so I'll leave it at that.

I don't like it but I must (ab)use it to optimize my team. How could I justify willfully handicapping myself? I'd much prefer the game to be balanced without Limit Break. Either program stat caps to be at their Limit Break levels from the get-go or reduce enemy stats.

Also, thanks for reminding me how hungry I am for the processed flesh of deceased mammals. Curse you, smoked ham!

Well, tbh, pretty much every FE game is imbalanced in one way or another - FE4 has holy blood, FE6 has Nosferatu (which got nerfed in FE7 through FE9 by making it heavy enough to be impractical), FE7 has Luna (nerfed in FE8 by nerfing its accuracy and crit rate), FE8 has Seth, the Tellius games have BEXP...

Still, perfect (im)balance should always be sought. If everything were perfectly balanced, everything would be identical to everything else. That would be boring. What is needed is a state where there is a tremendous amount of variety, with a system of checks and balances. The number of viable combinations of characters, classes, and skills is wonderfully high in this game and it's a darned shame to see that negatively affected.

boo hoo no one is sad that you have C(n,4) skillsets available instead of C(n,5)

Haha, thanks. It would be most unexpected to find my fellow forum members in a state of grief over my soon-to-be reduced number of skillsets. It's unsurprising to see a fellow mathematician in this forum, given how prominent a role the optimization of skills, stats, and items plays in Fire Emblem.

What I find is really funny is that people are saying that Limit break, breaks the game, yet Pair up already does that on it's own, and it's not DLC, in fact it's encouraged by the developers.

Oh, how I wish enemies could Pair Up. Imagine the fantastic battles we could have! Instead of facing enemies who were just stronger than us, we could face enemies who were using intelligent Pair Up combinations! I dearly hope the next FE includes Pair Up for allies and enemies alike.

[arvilino]

Please read my post more carefully before denouncing my argument with such an implausible first sentence. The inclusion of Limit Break effectively removes a skill slot because the skill is undeniably the best in the game. Therefore, not using it would be handicapping oneself. If one wishes to optimize one's team, all units must have the skill. If all have it, and it negatively impacts the number of viable skill combinations, none should have it. Since I don't wish to handicap myself, I am compelled to equip the skill on every unit I intend to use in TSON.

That would still be handicapping yourself. Do you intend to put it on characters with Rally Skills instead of 5 Rallies? Or what about purely support characters with a skill set like: Solidatory,Dual Guard+,Demoiselle/Deliverer,Dual Support+,Anathema ?

I find most 5 skill builds, even 4 build skills that are usable in TSON can still have filler skills(like I use Armsthrift on characters if they have access to it) or are just going to have a fixed buff anyway(-Faire Skills).

Edited April 11, 2013 by arvilino

[Jakkun]

This is all I have to say, seeing as how this thread has gone to hell in a handbasket...

OP has some good points, and some I don't particularily agree with. Does that mean I'm gonna bash him for the part I dont agree with?

As my good friends Basilio & Sully say: "HELL NO!"

Limit Break "breaks" the game, yeah, and I don't like how R&R3 & TSON are practically unbeatable without it, but so what?

That's my opinion. Minus the controversy.

[HijackThis]

As someone who doesn't care about balance in this game, only the ludicrous bullshit that can and does occur in combat, I approve of this skill. As if paired Lucina and FeMorgan A rank'd with Aether and Galeforce both wielding Ragnells wasn't lulzy enough.

[someonewhodied]

That chapter is second hardest in the game!

It'd be foolish to challenge it without proper preparations.

Why not just have that along with Limitbreaker to make it more inevitable?

Everyone I use has:

Armsthrift

Allstats+2

Offensive units fill the remaining slots with:

Sol

Galeforce

___Faire, ___Breaker, Astra, Luna, or Agressor

Support Units fill in the remaining slots with 3 of the following:

Dual Strike+

Dual Guard+

Dual Support+

Charm

Anathema

Res+10 (For that dual guard +2.5% against magic)

Focus

Wrath

or Zeal

Don't got enough room for both allstats+2 and LB.

[#based]

I'm not overly fond of her writing or philosophy, as a matter of fact. However, BioShock both embodied Ayn Rand's Objectivism in the form of Andrew Ryan (and totally didn't make their names similar at all) and was a good game. So, I simultaneously pick both of your options and only the second one.

I can dig it since it's only because of Bioshock. But damn her writing and philosophy is awful (you can't pick both, but in my mind, you picked good)

And I totally agree that the inclusion of Limit Break is annoying in that it must be slapped onto every unit available to be decent in Streetpass. On one hand it's badass to see your stats exceeding the cap by that much (although why can't they just start with the higher caps instead) but that's only for a brief moment because obviously there were other ways to handle it and in the end, the game would be better off either not needing it or starting with higher caps.