How to screw up the plans of LTC players

[Espinosa]

Basically, the past FE titles have offered the ground that allowed LTC / LTC-related efficiency to be possible and thrive among players who cared about it. However, choosing to take the LTC approach seems to fail when applied to other turn-based titles. I quite solemnly started an LTC series in a Disgaea game once and let's just say that didn't go so well. Besides that, there were times playing other LTC runs where something was a big obstacle or stood in the way otherwise, so this inspired me to start a topic dedicated to this problem:

If Intelligent Systems wanted to render all further attempts at LTCing pointless, how would they go about it?

Some ideas:

- LTC players generally like employing strats that involve ORKOing enemies and units tough enough to do it consistently. Having such an overwhelming enemy density + enemy power that the player would be encouraged to stop would be one way of hurting perfectionist(-ish) LTC runs. An example of this in-game would be chapter 4 in FE6's Hard Mode. If you intend to recruit Rutger, the whole map is pretty much a breeze, growths or no growths. If you're not recruiting Rutger however, you're suddenly forced to bumrush into a crowd of enemies whom absolutely nobody is capable of one-rounding (not sure if it's possible to rig the cavs to all be doublable by Marcus w/ Silver Lance before the beginning of the chapter), leaving them alive and ready to gang up on weak units such as Roy, and the bosskill is also a much bigger problem when you're doing it quickly.

- A good LTC player invests into specific units and concentrates a lot of work (including quality level-ups with a certain goal in mind) into it. If it's a run without growths, it's basically about prepromotes and giving them boosters/building their weapon rank accordingly. How to discourage this or make this ineffective? Technically, there's no way a player would willingly choose to abstain from using these units and building them from the get-go, so I can think of two ways here: either make every character Orson (bizarre) or integrate a harsher version of FE5's fatigue system, forcing the capable units to sit out the map following the one where they performed really well, or extending the period of missing chapters to more than one each time, for instance reliant on the combat achievements in the previous maps.

- LTC runs are usually defined by the abbreviation 'LTC' with few options available, so a player beginning a run will add something like "I will allow no deaths, recruit everyone and use the X route, and I'm comfortable with this or that amount of RNG manipulation". By making the options endlessly freeform, an LTC player can have no adequate framework to start an LTC run whose ruleset isn't so large to end up arbitrary. Awakening did something of this kind and I have a feeling Fates went even further there - of the items that you can obtain based on your progress in a previous file, which ones do you borrow, the Second Seal, nothing, everything, something in-between? Fates probably goes even further because of the whole weapon durability / production from ingredients system. If there are endless possibilities to get overpowered weapons, will the LTCer make use of all of them? Let's imagine the LTC run is otherwise impossible or extremely inconvenient without doing any of that.

- And an easy one, do a lot of chapters with defence objectives that can't be ended prematurely like FE7's. If the defence maps accounted for the lion's share of the game's total turn count, would it be fun to LTC knowing you shaved off 2 turns of another run of 300 turns for example? I know I hate LTCing FE7 because of the defence chapters alone (there are many things to enjoy about it if you're willing to forget that blunder).

[ZemZem]

FE7's defense chapters are so boring. :(

[Espinosa]

And I guess another (really extreme) way of making LTCing void would be removing turns? Simply make characters act as frequently as their speed stats allow, no doubling like in FF Tactics. It's an awful idea with permadeath and many other FE features, but you have to mention it anyway.

[X-Naut]

-If there are no enemies on targetable terrain, enemies that normally aggro will congregate around the seize point or boss.

-Damage calculation is based on percentages (HP damage/max HP) rather than raw damage numbers.

-Have enemy AI push targets that they can't hurt or would one-round them to the bottom of their priority.

-Implement dismounting in tandem with an infantry-only movement bonus for indoor maps.

-On higher difficulties, enemies will go for a kill whenever a target is in range regardless of AI. Yes, even the normally immobile boss with an ordinarily inconsequential Brave weapon.

-Similarly, allow bosses on seize maps to chase you down but still require you to kill them before seizing. If you want to make this really tedious, make them a cowardly flier or warp spammer.

[Gradivus.]

Set all base stats to 0 and give enemies 80 HP in the first chapter. Allow the Jeigan to have base stats. He's a General that can only wield Iron weapons.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Gradivus.

[Lord Raven]

I think Berwick Saga addresses some of these, because it's not really an LTC friendly game or a game easily breakable by LTC. Sound tactics are what get you through it, not extremely powerful characters with high growths, especially due to limited funds, limited character deployment, pretty decent character balance, randomness, and growth bracketing. It's a pretty good middle ground.

I may also just be saying that because Berwick Saga appears to have many more different possibilities than FE games on top of being a game that the majority of the community just isn't familiar with.

[Jedi]

And I guess another (really extreme) way of making LTCing void would be removing turns? Simply make characters act as frequently as their speed stats allow, no doubling like in FF Tactics. It's an awful idea with permadeath and many other FE features, but you have to mention it anyway.

Well FFT does have a perma death system, its just alot easier to avoid.

[Shrouded In Myth]

Why would LTC be a problem?

I think Berwick Saga addresses some of these, because it's not really an LTC friendly game or a game easily breakable by LTC. Sound tactics are what get you through it, not extremely powerful characters with high growths, especially due to limited funds, limited character deployment, pretty decent character balance, randomness, and growth bracketing. It's a pretty good middle ground.

I may also just be saying that because Berwick Saga appears to have many more different possibilities than FE games on top of being a game that the majority of the community just isn't familiar with.

The only way that Berwick Saga discourages LTC is that it doesn't remember turn counts and some important items are on reinforcements that happen late.

I find this to be one of the flaws of Berwick Saga, becuase if you play well and finish objectives quickly, you're often doing nothing until reinforcements arrive. Thankfully it doesn't happen to much.

People do speeedrun the game though, which is the cousin to LTC. It's quite interesting to watch speedrunners blitz through the game making difficult chapters look easy.

[Anouleth]

I think Berwick Saga addresses some of these, because it's not really an LTC friendly game or a game easily breakable by LTC. Sound tactics are what get you through it, not extremely powerful characters with high growths, especially due to limited funds, limited character deployment, pretty decent character balance, randomness, and growth bracketing. It's a pretty good middle ground.

I may also just be saying that because Berwick Saga appears to have many more different possibilities than FE games on top of being a game that the majority of the community just isn't familiar with.

People LTC Thracia 776, even though it has many of those qualities. Dondon LTCs even with the constraint of playing with no growths, so I really question this assertion that you need lots of strong characters with high growths to get low turn counts. In fact, low growths make LTCing more appealing, because generally low turn count strategies achieve those low turn counts by skipping as much combat as possible. Not only is the loss of exp less punishing (because your units have bad growths anyway), but if your units are weak, you also can't really afford to engage in too much combat.

[dondon151]

honestly the best way to fuck over LTC is to implement substantial luck-based components into the game. turn everything into a coinflip.

[Lord Raven]

People LTC Thracia 776, even though it has many of those qualities. Dondon LTCs even with the constraint of playing with no growths, so I really question this assertion that you need lots of strong characters with high growths to get low turn counts. In fact, low growths make LTCing more appealing, because generally low turn count strategies achieve those low turn counts by skipping as much combat as possible. Not only is the loss of exp less punishing (because your units have bad growths anyway), but if your units are weak, you also can't really afford to engage in too much combat.

I guess I worded myself poorly, but the sheer # of luck based components in Berwick Saga, which also ends up combining with growth bracketing and your units being nothing close to overpowered in any way possible, makes it difficult to deal with.

It was a really halfassed post, but the primary issue does go back to the fact that Berwick Saga has a hex grid (making it weirder), a different turn queue (so no distinct enemy/player phases, only enemy move/player move), a bunch of percentage based skills and relatively mediocre hit rates, etc. There's a skill in this game that doubles your hit rate if you don't move a tile, for instance.

Another thing about Berwick Saga is the fact that most characters can't counter if they get hit. If they dodge then they can counter attack, but not if they take a hit.

etc etc Basically there are tons of variables to account for, and the growth bracketing almost ensures you can't get too blessed to minimize these. Not many of the characters are as strong as like FE6 Miledy/Percival, at least not without their drawbacks (see: Sherpa).

Granted, I still believe Berwick Saga is more strategy based than other FE games can get, although that has more to do with the fact that you play a lot of risk/reward and you have more room to improvise when things don't go right. You don't really lose if you get an inopportune hit like in most FE games, you tend to lose when your tactics are very fundamentally unsound.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Lord Raven

[Nobody]

To be honest, all those strategies to make LTC inviable look like they'd make the games worse. Why would you even want it?

Edited August 14, 2015 by Nobody

[Shrouded In Myth]

I guess I worded myself poorly, but the sheer # of luck based components in Berwick Saga, which also ends up combining with growth bracketing and your units being nothing close to overpowered in any way possible, makes it difficult to deal with.

It was a really halfassed post, but the primary issue does go back to the fact that Berwick Saga has a hex grid (making it weirder), a different turn queue (so no distinct enemy/player phases, only enemy move/player move), a bunch of percentage based skills and relatively mediocre hit rates, etc. There's a skill in this game that doubles your hit rate if you don't move a tile, for instance.

Another thing about Berwick Saga is the fact that most characters can't counter if they get hit. If they dodge then they can counter attack, but not if they take a hit.

etc etc Basically there are tons of variables to account for, and the growth bracketing almost ensures you can't get too blessed to minimize these. Not many of the characters are as strong as like FE6 Miledy/Percival, at least not without their drawbacks (see: Sherpa).

Granted, I still believe Berwick Saga is more strategy based than other FE games can get, although that has more to do with the fact that you play a lot of risk/reward and you have more room to improvise when things don't go right. You don't really lose if you get an inopportune hit like in most FE games, you tend to lose when your tactics are very fundamentally unsound.

Most of the percentage-based skills are defensive, so they can be thought of just adjusting the enemies hit rate under different conditions.

The turn structure still keeps track of overall turns for the chapter, even if it doesn't remember it after the chapter is done. It does allow to recover from bad luck quite easily and when playing I often think "If this happens I do this, otherwise I do that." Game also gives you a bunch of tools to make strategies more reliable, especially when it come to attacks connecting. The fact that many of these skills are before moving just means the pace of the game is slower, it doesn't ruin LTC strategies.

The only things I can see that would really require RNG-abuse would be generating good food in the Kingfisher Pavilion and good horses at the stables, but both of these are a controlled randomness, there are rules to the generation. Trying to capture an enemy would require use of the 5-turn battle saves to RNG abuse an Injury and a Cripple, but like hit there are ways to make it more reliable.

[Lord Raven]

Wait, but wouldn't slowing down the game be the cause of most of the LTC nonsense to die down? You're still listing a *ton* of luck based elements though.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Lord Raven

[Shrouded In Myth]

No, it wouldn't. What would cause LTC to die would be if there is no room for improvement, or getting the lowest turn count is luck-based. As long as people can find a reliable way to lower their turn counts, people will LTC.

You have a lot of control of the luck-based variables in Berwick Saga, and I think that is the key.

In order to stop LTC you would have to take away control from the player. This is why I find ideas to eliminate LTC to be misguided, since nearly all of them will make the game worse. I find it to be a good thing that FE LTC is engaging, because it shows there is a high skill ceiling compared to similar games. It makes you want to improve.

To give an example from Berwick Saga, I completed the first chapter in 8-turns. I noticed that Reese can reach the mansion in 7-turns if he took the shallow river path instead of the bridge path. I also noticed that Dean's Desperation skill allows him to counter slower enemies and clear a path for Reese with good play. So now I want to try again to see if I can reliably seize the mansion within 7-turns.

Another example from the same game is defeating Chaos in Chapter 3. Totally luck-based right? Well, maybe but you have lots of tools to make it more reliable. Dean's Wrath skill has an 86% against Chaos and can do 22 damage at base with Power Band and the Battle Axe. Saharin can then heal him for 12 HP so with a potion you can get full health back to try for another Wrath proc. Then you have to find a way to deal the final 12 damage to Chaos. This has a 74% chance of happening so now I'm looking over the food list to see if anything can help there, and I did, either making it more reliable or doing more damage. This is why I say Berwick-Saga that while has many luck-based elements, the game and LTC strategies are not luck-based, because you can influence these variables to make it reliable with good strategy. Most things are only a coin-flip if you have bad strategies.

Edit: I messed up the calculations, Dean only does 12 damage on Wrath proc. This is going to be tricky.

Edited August 15, 2015 by Shrouded In Myth

[Baldrick]

LTC is simply measuring how good your strategy is or how co-operative the RNG is using turns as a metric.

You could make turns not a metric by having a FFT-style turn queue, or making all chapters defend (though it'd have to be thoughtfully designed so that the player still cares about gaining territory).

To makes turns alone a bad metric, you'd need to "balance" it with other metrics such as experience or funds, so that the game becomes much more arduous if you focus on just optimising turncount.

For example, Yggdra Union. If you persist in trying to win battles as quickly as possible, you'll hit the wall. Due to the mechanics, there's a turn limit (i.e. win in X turns or lose) and grinding isn't very effective.

[Refa]

Hey man, you could always do a Low Clock Ticks (LCT) Run for Final Fantasy Tactics.

[XeKr]

that requires too much counting though

It's possible to ltc any game with turns like it's possible to speedrun any game.

Speaking from the viewpoint of highly reliable and quick clears, however, the main issue with luck based mechanics is if the variance of the “low” turncount is high, and outside the player control. It’s usually possible to play slightly slower and more reliably (which is still efficient, in a sense), but it’s just lame if sometimes randomly you have to play a lot slower (or reset) and sometimes not. There’s not really any (fun) optimization to brute-force resetting or trivially waiting for something to proc/whiff.

[Irysa]

For example, Yggdra Union. If you persist in trying to win battles as quickly as possible, you'll hit the wall. Due to the mechanics, there's a turn limit (i.e. win in X turns or lose) and grinding isn't very effective.

Eh? YU incentivises fast clears because of the MVP+ bonus. One can rig the MVP bonuses in combination with items in order to have enough of a statistical lead to stay consistent for pretty much all the game. Gulcasa is the only real asshole and you can just hypothetically Rosary cheese him, although I'm not sure how good her Atk would have to be to consistently not get owned by Genocide (I've theoried this a little if you couldn't tell).

The least LTC friendly thing about YU is charges. Too random.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Irysa

[Baldrick]

You still get the MVP bonus no matter how long you take. It's doubled if you go fast, but it's random so it's not much incentive for casual playthroughs.

An LTC run would necessarily be a Milanor (or maybe Durant) solo, since moving more units takes more turns. You'd also miss out on a lot of the items that make your life easier. It's probably doable, but it doesn't sound like much fun.

[Irysa]

You still get the MVP bonus no matter how long you take. It's doubled if you go fast, but it's random so it's not much incentive for casual playthroughs.

Actually you can miss the MVP bonus if you take a REALLY long time. The difference between +2 small stars and +1 is pretty massive especially early on. It's also pathetically easy to rig even on a casual playthrough on the PSP version at least, due to the suspend feature.

An LTC run would necessarily be a Milanor (or maybe Durant) solo, since moving more units takes more turns. You'd also miss out on a lot of the items that make your life easier. It's probably doable, but it doesn't sound like much fun.

I dunno, training multiple units is easier than not training multiple units in YU due to the nature of Unions, and Card activations can pretty much trivialise a lot of enemies even if you're statistically lacking. Additionally, most on the ground items should be reasonably attainable since you don't have to commit a whole turn to getting them, just need to stand on the appropriate tile.

Durant would be the best for soloing though if you did do that since he only loses a unit every second battle, and he's notably stronger in PSP because of this (his unit total went up to 4 in line with everyone else going to 8 but the rules for losing them are the same as GBA, and throw that in line with chariot or genocide...)

durant is op

Edited August 17, 2015 by Irysa

[Baldrick]

I haven't played the PSP version, so I'll take your word for it.

In order to use unions, you move two units half as far. If the map or enemy density is such that this isn't a big deal, you'd want to use Durant to phase through enemies so you wouldn't get to use unions anyway. Most of the best ground items are off the beaten track, so if you grab them, you're losing turns.

[Irysa]

In order to use unions, you move two units half as far. If the map or enemy density is such that this isn't a big deal, you'd want to use Durant to phase through enemies so you wouldn't get to use unions anyway. Most of the best ground items are off the beaten track, so if you grab them, you're losing turns.

Yeah but theres plenty of maps where you simply cant rout or reach the end of the map in an extremely quick span of time even if you fullmoved Durant every turn, or else theres an excess of mov in reaching the target zone with all your highest mov cards. It seems more sensible to attempt to do the maximum Morale damage by assaulting priority targets with teams of units, or else moving a couple of other units to do other tasks to make sure you dont end up "wasting" mov. Fundamentally, YU's one battle per turn encourages making large unions or engaging large enemy unions in order to do more damage quickly.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Irysa

[Baldrick]

In my experience, the AI is good at forming large unions against you, and supporting boss units so you can't gang up on them. A 1v4 skirmish gives the same amount of chances to inflict damage as a 4v4 skirmish, and the loss of some surviving unit bonuses is fairly negligible if you're strong enough.

[Irysa]

The loss of surviving unit bonuses affect morale damage, which is the biggest issue. I didn't actually mean you could easily gang up on non unionified enemies, more that the fact that you'll have difficulty doing substantial morale damage exactly BECAUSE the enemies group together. Even if you win every battle in that chain, if you keep losing units due to repeated battle penalties in 1v4 battles your morale damage will suffer a lot. Being able to stack a few extra units into the end of your union to force the bosses to have to repeatedly fight can translate into faster kills than wailing away at the boss solo.

This is another reason Durant would probably be most effective in a solo run since he'll always do higher morale damage than other characters by merit of how the game calculates his units.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Irysa