Do you feel like casual mode is unnecessary with the addition of time-rewinding mechanics like Divine Pulse and Mila's Turnwheel?

[Alastor15243]

28 minutes ago, Glennstavos said:

Fire Emblem may be a numbers game, but perfect strategies will always be fallible because of the dice rolls, hence why the turnwheel is so vital to keeping things moving.

Keep in mind you're saying this to someone who managed to use Arthur throughout a blind ironman Conquest run all the way to the endgame without him dying. And it wasn't due to luck. I managed to use him without ever putting him in a situation where he was in danger of death if the enemy got too lucky, because I planned for the worst and still managed to find uses for him.

If taking extremely dangerous gambles is really the optimal strategy, no matter your resources, that means something is very wrong with the game's design.

Edited July 14, 2020 by Alastor15243

[Zapp Branniglenn]

18 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

Keep in mind you're saying this to someone who managed to use Arthur throughout a blind ironman Conquest run all the way to the endgame without him dying. And it wasn't due to luck. I managed to use him without ever putting him in a situation where he was in danger of death if the enemy got too lucky, because I planned for the worst and still managed to find uses for him.

Is Arthur...a bad unit? I remember berserkers being very busted in Fates, but there's no gold star for using units people on the internet say is bad. Even if he's the worst unit in the series, your experience definitely doesn't refute my point. You played cautiously, and came out on top.

Quote

If taking extremely dangerous gambles is really the optimal strategy, no matter your resources, that means something is very wrong with the game's desigh.

Yeah, we get it, Three Houses Bad Game. I'm not saying every game in the future needs to be that game down to the balancing decisions. And I never said I was playing optimally either. I would never profess that I calculated the odds of everything and made backup plans for my backup plans. I look at the information the game gives me, I weigh the risk/reward ratios of my best ideas for that moment, and I play what sounds good. Especially if I'm working against the clock and trying to stop reinforcement spawns or complete other objectives. In Maddening Mode, your units are outmatched by the enemy for pretty much the entire playthrough (there's a small lull around chapters 9-11 if you've been unlocking and doing every paralogue. Suddenly your levels and stats somewhat compare to the enemies and you're swimming in cash and good weapons to burn that will auto repair at the time skip). The 30% risk I'm taking is usually straight up better than the 50 or 60% risk I'd run by baiting with another unit. My playstyle also got exremely player phase focused with war masters and snipers who can obliterate enemies before they can counterattack at all. Three Houses is a game where you need to carve out good enemy phases on player phase, rather than sit in a corner and turtle the onslaught.

Edited July 14, 2020 by Glennstavos

[Alastor15243]

2 minutes ago, Glennstavos said:

Is Arthur...a bad unit? I remember berserkers being very busted in Fates, but there's no gold star for using units people on the internet say is bad. Even if he's the worst unit in the series, your experience definitely doesn't refute my point. You played cautiously, and came out on top.

He wasn't an example of me using a bad unit, he was an example of me using a unit that was extremely vulnerable to bad RNG. It's basically impossible to make him immune to enemy crits due to his insanely low dodge stat. And yet even with him, you don't have to take any gambles to use him properly.

[Hanes]

I understand the turnwheel existing in Echoes because a lot of Echoes design was pretty bad (coming from someone who really likes echoes) and that a lot of maps just have bullcrap, I understand it there.

But in TH it's simply used to justify bad game design, so I really don't like it, it did help me through simple mistakes but many times in previous FEs even when I accidentally make an input it's not the end of the world. If anything it's just midly annoying and if a unit does die because of it well... depends on if the map is long or not if it is then I wouldn't reset there.

I would just rather casual mode didn't exist tbh, perma-death being an elitist and hardcore feature is such an overrated opinion. Just play the game man lol, I think accepting to lose units is part of FE, during my first FE7 HHM run I let Bartre and some others stay dead because I valued their usability lower than my time wasted, sounds harsh but I still won the game anyways so it's not a big deal.

Anyways to the original question: Yes, the turnwheel basically turns classic mode into casual mode but with limited uses. And even in casual mode you'll usually rewind a unit's death anyways because you don't want them to lose exp or maybe because they were integral to your strategy so really it is redundant on casual and trivializing on classic.

P.D This is coming from a noob, who struggled through FE7 HHM.

[Samz707]

1 hour ago, Glennstavos said:

 

The rest of my turnwheel uses are typically the same as the gambit situation, but it's me getting two shotted by two 25-50% attacks, so the turnwheel just lets me bait with somebody else and reroll the dice. Fire Emblem may be a numbers game, but perfect strategies will always be fallible because of the dice rolls, hence why the turnwheel is so vital to keeping things moving. Or you can remove accuracy checks and critical rates in their entirety. Or just have a game that's not challenging in the first place and the player resets because they got too bored to check enemy ranges/weapons/skills. 

I guess but in my experience with FE7 and Echoes (Aside from Thabe's Labyrinth which can buzz off.), your units are generally tanky enough and with good enough hit-rates that you'd need a serious run of bad luck to actually lose with a solid strategy, you can deploy enough units to have a few guys on standby if your plan goes wrong, everyone can usually take an hit or two and they don't tend to miss as long as you pay attention to the weapon triangle. (and if they do, well they can A: usually survive another hit and the map design/amount of units means that having someone else help out/heal them is usually an option.), you'd need a serious run of bad luck for a good strategy to fail in my experience on Normal mode in FE7/Hard mode on Echoes.

The only game where it's felt like luck is a serious factor outside of hoping for a crit if my plans already are going wrong is Awakening, since everyone has much worse stats and the lower unit cap (Further lowered by pair-up, which you need to do since most of the cast are kinda absolute trash at the start.). (In addition to the map design.)

 

Edited July 14, 2020 by Samz707

[Zapp Branniglenn]

3 hours ago, Samz707 said:

you'd need a serious run of bad luck for a good strategy to fail in my experience on Normal mode in FE7/Hard mode on Echoes.

I was asked about my experiences with a totally different game and difficulty than those two games.

[Michelaar]

Honestly, why not just have both for the people who like it? I like playing on Casual when I first play through a FE game, and I don't think divine pulse is redundant with the addition of the turnwheel. If you're really that bothered by it, you don't have to play casual mode or use the turnwheel. They should give us an option to turn the turnwheel on or off perhaps. 

Contraversial opinion though Permadeath is really worthless now.

[whase]

I played both Echoes and Three Houses about a dozen times. I have mostly played on classic, but also tried casual on both games. I'm also the kind of guy who always resets when an ally dies in a game before Echoes (Except once with Ellen dying in FE6 at the end of a map and I still feel bad for not resetting).

I'm not very smart, I often miscalculate or completely overlook an enemy. Sometimes I don't even calculate because I trust my units can handle it, and get surprised by killing edges and horseslayers. Rewinding such mistakes has saved me a lot of frustration in the recent games.

I have actually noticed my playstyle completely changes in casual mode, I take a lot more risks. Especially against the final boss each chapter there is no reason to be careful anymore. I don't really like this style of playing, but I do know friends who don't care for strategy yet love playing FE for story and characters. I'm really glad the newer games have casual mode because it gives me more people to talk with about FE, even if I enjoy the mode less myself.

In short, the 2 mechanics or made for different types of players, so yes I believe both have their separate value.

[Samz707]

9 hours ago, Glennstavos said:

I was asked about my experiences with a totally different game and difficulty than those two games.

oh sorry.

[Fabulously Olivier]

I don't think any form of difficulty customization is ever "unnecessary."

 

FE should have as many ways to tailor the player experience as possible.

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

I don´t think that turnwheel mechanics and casual make each other obsolete. Turnwheel allows you to still use a unit in a map, perhaps a unit that has other uses than just deleting enemies, such as visiting villages, recruiting other units, etc. Say, not worrying over your thief getting in an all too spicy situation.

Though i would add that RNG manipulation via turnwheel mechanics should be avoided and be made impossible.

2 hours ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

I don't think any form of difficulty customization is ever "unnecessary."

FE should have as many ways to tailor the player experience as possible.

Having a customizable difficulty would be very interesting. I´m thinking of having a menu of sliders, that basically allow you to control the quality of enemy weaponry, increasing or decreasing their stats, perhaps take influence on the skills they may possess (detracting from a fixed set of skills they may have) and whatever else I´m currently not thinking of.

Basically, what Shadow Dragon had with it´s what, 6 difficulties, but instead of the whole package you may pick what you want?

[lenticular]

2 hours ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

I don't think any form of difficulty customization is ever "unnecessary."

 

FE should have as many ways to tailor the player experience as possible.

In theory, yes. In practice, every single customisation option in a game has a cost. They take time to implement that could be spent on other things, they make the UI more cluttered and less user friendly, they make it way less likely that the game will be well-balanced across all different choices of settings, and so on. The question isn't whether there is a benefit to having more options, because there almost always is. The question is whether or not the benefits of adding/keeping an option outweigh the costs.

[Fabulously Olivier]

1 hour ago, Imuabicus said:

I don´t think that turnwheel mechanics and casual make each other obsolete. Turnwheel allows you to still use a unit in a map, perhaps a unit that has other uses than just deleting enemies, such as visiting villages, recruiting other units, etc. Say, not worrying over your thief getting in an all too spicy situation.

Though i would add that RNG manipulation via turnwheel mechanics should be avoided and be made impossible.

Having a customizable difficulty would be very interesting. I´m thinking of having a menu of sliders, that basically allow you to control the quality of enemy weaponry, increasing or decreasing their stats, perhaps take influence on the skills they may possess (detracting from a fixed set of skills they may have) and whatever else I´m currently not thinking of.

Basically, what Shadow Dragon had with it´s what, 6 difficulties, but instead of the whole package you may pick what you want?

I'm interested in custom toggles.

 

IE:

Experience sliders

Gold sliders

Bonus xp on/off

Enemy Reinforcements appear on Player Turn/Enemy Turn

Bonus growth rates

[starburst]

On 7/14/2020 at 7:17 PM, This boi uses Nino said:

I understand the turnwheel existing in Echoes because a lot of Echoes design was pretty bad (coming from someone who really likes echoes) and that a lot of maps just have bullcrap, I understand it there.

But in TH it's simply used to justify bad game design [...]

I would just rather casual mode didn't exist tbh, perma-death being an elitist and hardcore feature is such an overrated opinion.

I wholeheartedly agree, mate. The Turn Wheel makes Casual redundant, and I prefer a limited mechanic. As long as the game is not "balanced" with it in mind, like they did in Four Houses.

I still prefer to play on Classic. Yes, I may get angry from time to time when I lose a unit because of some stupid move, but I want to believe that repeating maps has helped me become a better player. And even if it did not, I enjoy replaying maps. 🙃
Most of the time I simply laugh when I lose a unit at the very last moment, specially if the enemy connected an highly improbably hit. Luck is fair.

On very specific moves, a couple of times in the entire campaign, I would have liked to use the Turn Wheel, like after pressing the incorrect menu command. I play the game in two or three different languages, and I thus choose many commands from memory and not by reading, but certain units change the menu order and screw the fluidity.

I also believe that the Turn Wheel should never alter the RNG of your misses. This is, if your unit missed a hit, it should always miss it, no matter how many times you rewind time. Your successful hits and all enemy hits should re-roll the numbers. This way, one would not abuse it to force successful hits.
Moreover, let us go even further and reduce Hit (or Hit and Avoid) upon using the Turn Wheel, effectively making your entire party worse at every re-try. The more you rewind time, the higher the penalty. It could be justified as an effect of messing with a power beyond our control.

 

On 7/15/2020 at 11:47 AM, Fabulously Olivier said:

I don't think any form of difficulty customization is ever "unnecessary."

FE should have as many ways to tailor the player experience as possible.

Why?
I am not teasing you, it is an honest question.
Why should a game be suitable for everyone? Why should it include options to tailor the experience as much as possible? Does it still have a personality afterwards? Whose?
What about the concept that the developers tried to express, the experience that they tried to transmit? Does a game wherein you are unkillable cause the same effect as a challenging game? Can a game be actually balanced if it must cater five, six, eight different difficulty levels?

Edited July 17, 2020 by starburst
Merged replies.

[Alastor15243]

32 minutes ago, starburst said:

I wholeheartedly agree, mate. The Turn Wheel makes Casual redundant, and I prefer the limited mechanic. As long as the game is not "balanced" with it in mind, like they did in Four Houses.

I still prefer to play on Classic. Yes, I may get angry from time to time when I lose a units because of some stupid move, but I want to believe that repeating maps has helped me become a better player. And even if it did not, I enjoy replaying maps. 🙃
Most of the time I simply laugh when I lose a unit at the very last moment, specially if the enemy connected an highly improbably hit. Luck is fair.

On very specific moves, say a couple of times in the entire campaign, I would have liked to use the Turn Wheel, like after pressing the incorrect menu command (I play the game in two or three different languages, and I thus choose many commands from memory and not by reading, but certain units change the menu order by adding/ removing commands, and screw the fluidity.)

I also believe that the Turn Wheel should never alter the RNG of your misses. This is, if your unit missed a hit, it will always miss it, no matter how many times you rewind time. Your successful hits and all enemy hits should re-roll the numbers. This way, one would not abuse it to force a successful hit.
Moreover, I would go even further and reduce Hit (and probably also Avoid) upon using the Turn Wheel, effectively making your entire party worse at every re-try. The more you rewind time, the higher the penalty. It could be justified as an effect of messing with a power beyond our control.

Yeah, whoever created the turnwheel apparently was completely ignorant of the fanbase's proud history of RN manipulation tactics. I saw this video of a guy using the turnwheel and RN manipulation to brute force through the infamous 13 maddening. It's hilarious how much it works.

Edited July 17, 2020 by Alastor15243

[whase]

6 hours ago, starburst said:

Why?

I am not teasing you, it is an honest question.
Why should a game be suitable for everyone? Why should it include options to tailor the experience as much as possible? Does it still have a personality afterwards? Whose?
What about the concept that the developers tried to express, the experience that they tried to transmit? Does a game wherein you are unkillable cause the same effect as a challenging game? Can a game be actually balanced if it must cater five, six, eight different difficulty levels?

I guess that's where the question lies. Yes it is best if there are as many options to play as possible, so the game can be played by as many people as possible. But, only if every possible option can be "balanced".

That does raise the question of what balance actually means though. Many seem to call FE6 unbalanced, but what they call "unbalanced" I actually find what makes for fun gameplay. Different people means different opinions on what makes for a fun gaming experience.

If a game takes thousands of hours to make, and only 5 people enjoy playing it, I don't think you can call it a successful game. More options means more people get to play it, which makes for a higher chance of the series surviving. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Also, are you saying a game with more options has less personality? I'm not following your logic, could you explain?

[starburst]

18 hours ago, whase said:

Yes it is best if there are as many options to play as possible, so the game can be played by as many people as possible. But, only if every possible option can be "balanced".

An economic argument, then. I get it. The last sentence complicates things: If the game must be balanced, equally appealing, interesting at every setting, then either the settings will be similar or the developers need to set allocate resources to design and test every setting and try to make them all as compelling. The costs, economic and in time and in workforce, of designing equally interesting settings might surpass the production budget by a large margin, or may delay the game for a long time or may be simply impossible for the studio. In theory, it is great. In practice, it is could be cost prohibitive or simply implausible.

 

18 hours ago, whase said:

Also, are you saying a game with more options has less personality? I'm not following your logic, could you explain?

The developers of Cuphead and Celeste thought that the difficulty setting of their games reflected their vision. I respect that, even if I am terrible at Celeste.
And it is not only about challenge, in today's political hyper correctness we may want to play "Mario Odyssey" as black Mario, gay Mario, Asian Mario, Muslim Mario, Maria, black Maria, gay Maria, Asian Maria, Muslim Maria... all of them with different abilities and personalised storylines to reflect their diverse backgrounds. Nintendo has the money to do it, does it not?
It would be great if everyone could play as the character they want, but it is also great when a single character is compelling enough to a wide audience, even if you and I are not part of this audience.

Edited July 18, 2020 by starburst

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

On 7/14/2020 at 2:36 PM, Glennstavos said:

Yeah, I do. I think the turnwheel solved my greatest issue with casual mode - that the player isn't expected to learn from their mistakes. With turnwheel, you manually correct what you did wrong, and the player becomes better at the game without having to suffer such harsh consequences or thinking they need to stop and grind for more stats. My ideal Fire Emblem game would still have a casual/classic mode split. Casual would have unlimited turnwheel uses, and killed units would just be gravely injured for a chapter rather than dead completely. Classic would have permadeath and a number of turnwheel charges equal to half (rounded up) the amount of units you deploy in that map. 

Thank you for pointing out the key difference between Casual mode and rewind-able Classic Mode. On Casual Mode, you can let someone die, finish the map, and they'll come back. On Classic Mode, you need to figure out a way through the map where they don't die, if you want them to come back. Personally, I think both modes should keep existing.

As for how many charges you get, that's probably a fair number. Although, I'm half-tempted to just give the player infinite pulses, but disincentive their use via something we've been missing - a Ranking system. To get a perfect rank (say, S) on a chapter, you have to beat it deathless, pulseless, and within a certain turn count. To beat the playthrough perfectly (say, S^S), you have to S-rank every chapter. That way, "hardcore" players going for high marks will have to play without mistakes, or else reset the whole map. While more "relaxed" players can use as many pulses as they need, without fear of having to start iver.

Edited July 18, 2020 by Shanty Pete's 1st Mate
Typo.

[Alastor15243]

One thing that frustrates me about uses of the turnwheel being assumed is that so far the games seem to think that they have to make the turnwheel canon for some reason. It's always something my character could have used, in every situation, on every difficulty.

Which in addition to royally screwing with the logic of both stories the mechanic has so far touched, means that in every ironman run, my character is canonically a sociopath who willingly lets his soldiers die. I have to do that if I wanna ironman Echoes or 3H, yet again adding to my feeling that one of the core mechanics and unique appeals of the series, permadeath, is now being treated by the developers as this crazy thing that only psychos actually want to put up with. Like they're not even entertaining the idea that ironmanners even exist.

Edited July 18, 2020 by Alastor15243

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

6 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

One thing that frustrates me about uses of the turnwheel being assumed is that so far the games seem to think that they have to make the turnwheel canon for some reason. It's always something my character could have used, in every situation, on every difficulty.

Which in addition to royally screwing with the logic of both stories the mechanic has so far touched, means that in every ironman run, my character is canonically a sociopath who willingly lets his soldiers die. I have to do that if I wanna ironman Echoes or 3H, yet again adding to my feeling that one of the core mechanics and unique appeals of the series, permadeath, is now being treated by the developers as this crazy thing that only psychos actually want to put up with. Like they're not even entertaining the idea that ironmanners even exist.

Maybe in the next game, they should disconnect the rewind-power from any given character, and just make it something that you (the player) can use. In the same way that they don't need to explain "Aha, Avatar-kun has the ability to see the extent of an enemy's attacking range!" It can just be a part of the UI.

And not to toot my own horn, but with a ranking system like I proposed, while your Survival rankimg may suffer in an Ironman playthrough, your "Preserving the Space-Time Continuum" ranking will be a free-and-consistent S. Thus providing a positive testament to your decision not to Pulse.

[Alastor15243]

7 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

And not to toot my own horn, but with a ranking system like I proposed, while your Survival rankimg may suffer in an Ironman playthrough, your "Preserving the Space-Time Continuum" ranking will be a free-and-consistent S. Thus providing a positive testament to your decision not to Pulse.

I'm not really a fan of Fire Emblem ranking systems. They nearly always tend to have at least one arbitrary rule that makes playing the game significantly less fun than it could be, and also I prefer it when I don't need to handicap myself for street cred in order to he challenged by the game.

Like, again, I find it very difficult to conceive of a Fire Emblem game that could ever satisfyingly demand 6 rewinds per chapter from me while still feeling like Fire Emblem, and I feel it is vitally important to the series' game design that they at bare minimum stop assuming rewinds are something everyone is using. There really needs to be an in-game game mode that disables them entirely. That alone would stop them from pulling the utter nonsense they tried pulling in Three Houses that only the turnwheel could possibly make them think was okay.

Edited July 18, 2020 by Alastor15243

[Zapp Branniglenn]

1 hour ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

As for how many charges you get, that's probably a fair number. Although, I'm half-tempted to just give the player infinite pulses, but disincentive their use via something we've been missing - a Ranking system.

Now we're talking. But that's also worthy of its own thread.

[Samz707]

15 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Maybe in the next game, they should disconnect the rewind-power from any given character, and just make it something that you (the player) can use. In the same way that they don't need to explain "Aha, Avatar-kun has the ability to see the extent of an enemy's attacking range!" It can just be a part of the UI.

And not to toot my own horn, but with a ranking system like I proposed, while your Survival rankimg may suffer in an Ironman playthrough, your "Preserving the Space-Time Continuum" ranking will be a free-and-consistent S. Thus providing a positive testament to your decision not to Pulse.

 

While I would like a ranking system, I wouldn't want it as something the player actually sees (at least, not on a first time playthrough.), rather if we must have yet another Avatar (And assuming they actually want them to be more than just a way to have 90 percent of the cast want to bone/praise the player constantly.), I'd rather have any after-battle praise be related to it.

So you'd only get praised if your in-game ranking was good and actively told to get  your stuff together if you've started doing consistently poorly.

I've never really been a fan of "In your face" ranking systems since it always feels like I'm getting punished for not playing perfectly.

Edited July 18, 2020 by Samz707

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

21 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

I'm not really a fan of Fire Emblem ranking systems. They nearly always tend to have at least one arbitrary rule that makes playing the game significantly less fun than it could be, and also I prefer it when I don't need to handicap myself for street cred in order to he challenged by the game.

Like, again, I find it very difficult to conceive of a Fire Emblem game that could ever satisfyingly demand 6 rewinds per chapter from me while still feeling like Fire Emblem, and I feel it is vitally important to the series' game design that they at bare minimum stop assuming rewinds are something everyone is using. There really needs to be an in-game game mode that disables them entirely. That alone would stop them from pulling the utter nonsense they tried pulling in Three Houses that only the turnwheel could possibly make them think was okay.

I'd be fine with making the turnwheel an optional tool that can be turned off. Still, I'm not sure I agree that the "B.S." components of Maddening difficulty are only there because of the Turnwheel. Same-turn reinforcements date back to FE6, while low-percentage crits are nothing new. And the 2RN Hit rate formula is generally more forgiving than Fates-RN (I shudder to imagine gambits in Fates-RN).

6 hours ago, Samz707 said:

 

While I would like a ranking system, I wouldn't want it as something the player actually sees (at least, not on a first time playthrough.), rather if we must have yet another Avatar (And assuming they actually want them to be more than just a way to have 90 percent of the cast want to bone/praise the player constantly.), I'd rather have any after-battle praise be related to it.

So you'd only get praised if your in-game ranking was good and actively told to get  your stuff together if you've started doing consistently poorly.

I've never really been a fan of "In your face" ranking systems since it always feels like I'm getting punished for not playing perfectly.

Different strokes, I guess. I'm used to games like Sonic Adventure 2, where you get an explicit grade at the end of the course. But you could do it like previous FE games, where it shows up in a pre-chapter menu (FE6/7). Or like in Path of Radiance, where Soren gives Ike a report on gow they did in the last battle. If we do a "Monastery" or "My Castle" again, maybe we could have an NPC who recounts your overall and per-battle rankings.

[Alastor15243]

8 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

I'd be fine with making the turnwheel an optional tool that can be turned off. Still, I'm not sure I agree that the "B.S." components of Maddening difficulty are only there because of the Turnwheel. Same-turn reinforcements date back to FE6, while low-percentage crits are nothing new. And the 2RN Hit rate formula is generally more forgiving than Fates-RN (I shudder to imagine gambits in Fates-RN).

They actually date back to FE1 but have been phased in and out. But it's not ambush spawns I'm talking about, or Maddening. A lot of 3H's design was clearly done without a single thought to how the game would play without divine pulse. Not only is it extremely difficult to recover from character death due to the near total lack of second-half recruitment, not only are there several tricks in the game that would get you thrown out the window for proposing them if you couldn't rewind time (like outright lying about how to win and then all but killing you for trying to trigger the fake win condition), but most damningly, unlike in Echoes, when you lose, the game prompts you to rewind time before sending you to the game over screen, not after.

The rewind system has, since its creation, been treated more like an upgradeable special attack they're assuming everyone's making full use of, rather than an optional accessability feature they're assuming only some people will use. It doesn't disable Echoes achievements (in fact, there isn't a single achievement for not using it and one achievement you have to use it to get), it can be upgraded even further beyond its already broken starting power level through collectibles or upgrading minigames, and it can't be disabled in any way, all of which point to this being a thing they're just assuming everyone, even the most hardcore of the hardcore, is using. Which frankly disturbs me, because with the exception of the broken madness that is maddening mode, the idea that the dev team actually thinks that these games could still be hard when you get 12 mulligans per chapter, when Echoes doesn't even have a third difficulty level, makes me feel like they've completely lost the plot.

Edited July 19, 2020 by Alastor15243