Ragefest IV: Trolls & Tribulations

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

IIRC it was just under-tested. Perhaps fdrstar meant to try to beat it in under 3, but due to the deadline, never ended up doing so. As such, there's no known author-sanctioned way of actually beating the submission. Presumably that's the important part, so if someone didn't test their game to exactly 3 savestates, as long as they have tested and confirmed non-luck-based strategies to beating it, they should be fine?

Actually come to think of it, I don't know if you ever did, but I think you said Orange beat your game in 3, so that probably works too?

what the author could've done is give your units higher skill so they wouldn't miss needed hits for starters, i bet that would've cut down on save states for starters, and that doesn't even require testing.

this project was just flat out rushed and tossed together without ragefest rules in mind, like what Lord Wolfram said.

[Baldrick]

I've beaten it with no more than 3 savestates, it just takes a long time because you'll lose a lot of progress on a restart. But even 14463 savestates won't help you unless you know the submission inside out.

[47948201]

Honestly I don't like the savestate rule, because it gives the impression that savestates just make things easier rather than less tedious. I get that there has to be something so people didn't make a game that so wants savestate abuse(which I hear is unfortunately the method fdrstar used during testing), but using 3-4 savestates every turn for 3 turns is very different than using 1 savestate every few turns over the course of a map that takes 30. While the total number of savestates used is the same, the former is cheesing the game, but the latter is just making the player not have to replay several turns because they messed up or got RNG screwed.

But eh.

[Baldrick]

Perhaps a better implementation of that rule to ensure a tough but fair submission is "the creator/playtester should be able to beat the submission without savestates, max 3 attempts."

[MrNight48]

eh, I always took the 3 savestate rule as a way to measure places where the player would like to save their progress the most so if they meet a gameover, the restart is more bearable/reasonable. i.e right after solving a very difficult/annoying puzzle, beating a hard sub boss, endgame where the player is getting ready to fight the final boss, dealing with difficult/annoying wave of enemies, things of those nature. Basically have up to 3 good and well defined checkpoints for the player.

The best thing about Fire Emblem is, even with savestate abuse, if the player did not play the chapter right, savestates can turn against the player in a nasty way. RN cheesing somewhat takes away from this but there are still ways to counter this and make it hard.

[47948201]

Perhaps a better implementation of that rule to ensure a tough but fair submission is "the creator/playtester should be able to beat the submission without savestates, max 3 attempts."

Gosh lol IMHO that sounds like all the bad of that system with none of the good, but maybe I'm just reading this wrong.

I do agree with that about it encouraging people to design with what are basically checkpoints in mind. And I think it was also put in place partly to prevent submissions from being extremely long, which is fair enough.

[Baldrick]

Well, if the submission is to have a consistent strategy, the creator should know what to do and so have no need for savestates as checkpoints. If they still get a game over three times in a row, that would suggest it's too luck-based (or just too long).

Edited January 27, 2016 by Baldrick

[Maritisa]

I disagree. Most submissions end up quite long these days, they basically require checkpoints. Asking someone to play that in one sitting is absolute madness.

[Mr. Mister]

Yep, this simply needed checkpoints. Even one single checkpoint at before opening the door would've improved it a lot.

I've beaten it with no more than 3 savestates, it just takes a long time because you'll lose a lot of progress on a restart. But even 14463 savestates won't help you unless you know the submission inside out.

Mind sharing some critically important part of the strategy?

[MrNight48]

Well, if the submission is to have a consistent strategy, the creator should know what to do and so have no need for savestates as checkpoints. If they still get a game over three times in a row, that would suggest it's too luck-based (or just too long).

The checkpoint idea is more of a fail safe for the people who haven't played your submission. I know as a creator it can be very difficult to tell what is reasonable for the player to figure out on their own.

Edit: That being said, keeping play session in mind is a factor I have learned over the years that is very important.

Edited January 27, 2016 by MrNight48

[MarkyJoe1990]

Something that I want to see more and more is people getting creative and ambitious with their submissions. I originally instated the three save state rule so they can make longer submissions and provide designated check points so I don't have to redo the entire thing every time I make a mistake.

The reoccurring theme here that I've noticed however is that many of these submissions seem designed to screw over people who use save states, usually by making a later segment impossible unless you did some critical action near the very beginning that you didn't know about until you already save stated long past it. It's not so bad when the submission is short like Moneyfest, but then you have Trapped In Painful Places, where being spawned in the wrong spot in part 2 royally messes you up, or Marc's Precious, where you need a million bloody turns of set up and preparation just to stand a chance in the castle segment... Wait, that sounds familiar. Oh yeah, the Corruption of Roy.

... Ah yes, the memories are flooding back. I deliberately designed certain segments of that submission to screw you over several turns down the line so you'd have to replay it even if you save scummed. A lot of these submissions have been taking pages from that damn thing, which means...

God dammit, this is all my fault.

Joking aside...

I think Ragefest has been going the wrong direction with difficulty. People are designing their submissions with the intent of there being one combination of movements that can beat it. It's become really tiring and unfun trying to figure these out, and you can never predict when the RNG will decide that this one thing that had to happen will fail. I'm beginning to believe that it's better that the challenges instead be more loosely designed, where the game doesn't care HOW you win, just that you did. Something that allows far more leeway for error, either on the player's end or the RNG. Something that allows me to breath and appreciate the submission instead of seeing it like a chore.

I think there's exceptions to this rule. For example, if the submission is short like MrNight's, I don't think it's much to ask for me to get bullshitted a couple times, get mad, and still beat the submission within just an hour or so. And even then, his still manages to have significantly more leeway and elbow room than some of these submissions, especially with the well placed save states.

I feel like we should be going more in the direction of Ephraim225's Rondo Of Madness, where it's difficult and bullshit, but more often than not, it's a vague set of challenges with many solutions and plenty of tools to deal with them.

I also want the Money Man to go the fuck away. I'm tired of him. Come up with new ideas, people.

Another idea I have is to instate a new rule where submissions must design themselves in such a way that if you reach a check point, you should never have to redo the segment before it ever again. I guess adding onto that... people either have to have 0%/100%/200% growth rates for RNG proofness, OR be able to beat their submissions without growth rates at all, and simply put growth rates in later as a failsafe, or to make things more tolerable.

Just... yeah, we really need to start planning around worst possible scenarios. That's how the original games did it.

Edited January 27, 2016 by MarkyJoe1990

[Avraxas]

Normally I don't like to push people while they're down, but this is too much of an opening.

He lives on forever in our hearts

[Maritisa]

Another idea I have is to instate a new rule where submissions must design themselves in such a way that if you reach a check point, you should never have to redo the segment before it ever again.

What about optional objectives that aren't required to beat the submission but are required to get the best ending? Well, as long as they're clearly defined.

For example, in order to get the best ending for my game, you need to collect 3 sets of items a-la Star Shards. The first set consists of a droppable in Part 1, a stealable in Part 2, and two droppables in Part 4. The second set is all from visits, and the third are all stealables exclusively in Part 4. In FEXNA you can see the items a unit has on their status panel on the map, and if they're droppable they'll flash green. So you don't have to go skimming everyone's inventories. It's rather hard to miss them as long as you're actively trying to do everything, but if you miss one it's not like the game is unbeatable or anything.

I think that as long as the game makes it clear "Hey, you should do this or you're gonna have a bad time." it's fine. In that case it's your fault for not paying attention to it. But when the game pulls unexpected bullshit on you like "Hey, if you didn't open this one chest out of the five you can't even see unless you break this wall to open this room that usually looks like it's irrelevant and is totally out of the way, four of which gameover you, you can't beat the submission."

The former leaves the game still beatable, although sub-optimally, the latter is just dickish level design which punishes the player for things that are unreasonable.

Edited January 27, 2016 by Ritisa

[MarkyJoe1990]

If it's clear, and it's not required, I'm okay with it. I just hate having to use up extra time redoing stuff pointlessly.

I think I'm just sorta done with unfair design in general, really. More and more, I've realized that it just gets in the way of things. It makes me rage, but it's not the only way, and it's certainly not the best way.

[SilverHairedFreak25]

I feel like we should be going more in the direction of Ephraim225's Rondo Of Madness, where it's difficult and bullshit, but more often than not, it's a vague set of challenges with many solutions and plenty of tools to deal with them.

I always thought of RoM as the "ideal" RF submission. Clear checkpoints, difficult gameplay(but not too difficult) that allows you to easily recover even after you walk into a trap, and good humor. Only thing missing is good artwork. Good thing I decided to model my RFV submission after it.

[47948201]

I think I'm just sorta done with unfair design in general, really. More and more, I've realized that it just gets in the way of things. It makes me rage, but it's not the only way, and it's certainly not the best way.

So while it's obviously too late for this contest, for future reference, what are some better ways?

[RandomSwordmaster]

So while it's obviously too late for this contest, for future reference, what are some better ways?

So long as there is a clear and discernable way of things that you can do, as well as being a LITTLE forgiving, it should be fine. Marc's Precious is just haphazard stuff, with huge reliance on RNG, and no necessarily clear strategy.

[MarkyJoe1990]

So while it's obviously too late for this contest, for future reference, what are some better ways?

I'm not telling, cause then you'll use every single one of them >_>

[MrNight48]

For me, my main factor when it comes to any game design is have very clear rules for the player and the consequences. Rules are what make a game a game, if you are always changing the rules of the game, it quickly becomes the most unfair thing to play and makes people quit with good reason.

[Baldrick]

Mind sharing some critically important part of the strategy?

The first few turns of setup are vital. Because reinforcements show up around turn 9, and IIRC the enemies above the shop also start charging, it's imperative you clear as much of the map as possible before then.

Turn 1, kill the merc over the east bridge with Vlad from the right, and Mark from the top. Put Lilian below Mark, and have Camille block the western mercs. If she doubles the first, she should be able to sit on the

Turn 2, kill the bandit in the north with Mark, have Lilian retreat and rescue Mark, Vlad equip the Axereaver, retreat and take-drop Mark onto the fort. Ramis heals Vlad.

Turn 3, if everything went right, the cavs should be dead, and the fighter nearly dead on Mark, and archers to the south and to the east.

Mark kill the fighter, Lilian attacks the south archer, Vlad the east archer. Camille kills the south archer if Lilian didn't and Ramis moves below Mark.

Turn 4, finish off the archer with Mark. Vlad moves down and equips the Steel Lance, Ramis heals him if he needs it, and Lilian and Camille ferry Vlad to the forest 2 north, 1 east of the fort.

Turn 5, Vlad finish one merc and bring Mark forward. Keep only Vlad, Mark or Camille in range of the merc.

Turn 6, finish the archer with units other than Vlad, and kill the Shaman with Vlad. If possible, have Lilian move towards Vlad.

Turn 7, hopefully the cavs ran towards Vlad, in which case have Lilian /Vlad finish them, and Mark/Camille the monks.

When the reinforcements appear, intercept them with units that have WTA and try not to let them group up.

This isn't really a consistent strategy, even one miss can mess the timing up.

But if it works, the worst of the submission is over.

If anyone's interested, I'll talk about the rest of it.

[SilverHairedFreak25]

The first few turns of setup are vital. Because reinforcements show up around turn 9, and IIRC the enemies above the shop also start charging, it's imperative you clear as much of the map as possible before then.

Turn 1, kill the merc over the east bridge with Vlad from the right, and Mark from the top. Put Lilian below Mark, and have Camille block the western mercs. If she doubles the first, she should be able to sit on theTurn 2, kill the bandit in the north with Mark, have Lilian retreat and rescue Mark, Vlad equip the Axereaver, retreat and take-drop Mark onto the fort. Ramis heals Vlad.Turn 3, if everything went right, the cavs should be dead, and the fighter nearly dead on Mark, and archers to the south and to the east.Mark kill the fighter, Lilian attacks the south archer, Vlad the east archer. Camille kills the south archer if Lilian didn't and Ramis moves below Mark.Turn 4, finish off the archer with Mark. Vlad moves down and equips the Steel Lance, Ramis heals him if he needs it, and Lilian and Camille ferry Vlad to the forest 2 north, 1 east of the fort.Turn 5, Vlad finish one merc and bring Mark forward. Keep only Vlad, Mark or Camille in range of the merc.Turn 6, finish the archer with units other than Vlad, and kill the Shaman with Vlad. If possible, have Lilian move towards Vlad.Turn 7, hopefully the cavs ran towards Vlad, in which case have Lilian /Vlad finish them, and Mark/Camille the monks.When the reinforcements appear, intercept them with units that have WTA and try not to let them group up.

This isn't really a consistent strategy, even one miss can mess the timing up.But if it works, the worst of the submission is over.If anyone's interested, I'll talk about the rest of it.

Can you block the LTCer spawn?

[FdRstar]

Well... I can't say I'm not disappointed.

I guess that's the kind of result you get when someone who is not very good at FE tries to do a hard chapter and finish too late to have enough playtesting done.

I tried to make it difficult but fair (frankly, there's only one thing you could really consider a trap, I think) but the enemies were too strong on average which made it a bit too reliant on RNG. Oh, and I thought Markyjoe would have more time to play it too.

Frankly, it was too hard for me but my (few) playtesters said it was fine so I didn't change much.

And now I sound like I blame them (and I do !), sorry^^

Here's the link if you want to try : http://www.mediafire.com/download/33dghag3dtpykbp/Marc%27s+Precious.exe

[Augestein]

Well... I can't say I'm not disappointed.

I guess that's the kind of result you get when someone who is not very good at FE tries to do a hard chapter and finish too late to have enough playtesting done.

I tried to make it difficult but fair (frankly, there's only one thing you could really consider a trap, I think) but the enemies were too strong on average which made it a bit too reliant on RNG. Oh, and I thought Markyjoe would have more time to play it too.

Frankly, it was too hard for me but my (few) playtesters said it was fine so I didn't change much.

And now I sound like I blame them (and I do !), sorry^^

Here's the link if you want to try : http://www.mediafire.com/download/33dghag3dtpykbp/Marc%27s+Precious.exe

Don't worry about it, you tried and did your best, and that's what matters more. I'll play through it, and see if I can help you find some tweaks for it for future reference. Designing things is not easy.

[Nintales]

Kay, First Try : Lost to shit RNG hitting Bunny with 34 hitrate.

Though I got saved a gazillion times by the RNG rofl.

This looks pretty harsh. You're reliant sometimes on hitrates ~69% (notably Lilian's) and don't really have the time to stay somewhere since the LTCer might be coming.

Unless you can block their spawn location? I just don't know and am curious.

As for the units, seems Vlad and Ramis are the most useful. Vlad can deal damage and tank reliably, while Ramis can soak a few hits due to the AI.

Regarding the others, Lilian is unreliable as hell with 69% hitrates, Mark can hit and dodge-tank but will die quite fast, Camille is just plain bad due to the army of archers -even if she can double mercs-, the mage -forgot the name- is okay but is really squishy too, and finally Horace is Horace and is either useful blocking the LTCer's spawn if it can or just being LTCer bait.

To Ghast or Baldrick, if they're still at trying to find a reliable strategy : Don't put the Archer with the Door Key at 7 HP in your turn by firing on him. If this happens, he'll run and either you manage to catch him or you can't progress.

I think I have found an easier strat than Bald for the early part. I'll post it later on.

Edit : I just hate how hard we're screwed if Marc's level up doesn't proc speed. Makes fighting archers way harder.

Edited January 28, 2016 by Nintales

[47948201]

(yeah maybe just speaking for myself but I wouldn't be surprised if other people took the previous contests as a sign Marc would have more time to try and beat these, but it makes sense that with his job and the enormous number of submissions he can't spend weeks and weeks on every game)

(separate strikethrough)

you should do what I did and remake it