Jump to content

The Great LTC Debate Thread (Yay? Nay? Burn in Hell?)


Kngt_Of_Titania
 Share

Recommended Posts

See people bashed on the "Minimum Resets" idea for rating characters, but I can see it contributing to much more interesting draft play than currently exists.

...

And if you think that's too easy, that everyone would simply turtle and nobody would ever restart, why not combine both restarts and turn counts into drafts? I know there are drafts that do this but in most drafts the emphasis is on turn counts, with restarts far less weighted. Why not make it the other way around, where the amount of restarts determines the winner, but in case of a tie turn counts are factored in?

As this thread evidences, I mostly agree with you on this point. But you are mistaken if you believe that there will be many resets in a draft competition where restarting is heavily penalized. There have been several draft competitions on GameFAQs' FE9 board that penalize restarting, but very few restarts have been reported. The good news: very little stat blessage or lucky RNG has been reported.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 650
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This should more be a debate about the RNG system in this game in general, not just specifically about LTC.

It is increasingly often, I notice, that when fans play games enough times, they start to notice things in their game that can be exploited, either glitches, tricks or techniques that can be applied. This is the case with the RNG in the Fire Emblem games. The cat is out of the bag, it is well known in these parts how the RNG works, and thus how to abuse it to a more favourable outcome. That's not a bad thing to make use of - speedruns make use of glitches or generally hidden or obscure things all the time, and whether intentional or not, that is the way the games are made.

The RNG in the Fire Emblem games is notably fixed, at least for the earlier games (pre-FE9). Repeat the same order of moves again, and the game plays out exactly the same. Change one move, and you change the outcome, and thus you can manipulate events to give you the outcomes you want. Hit rates, criticals, level ups and misses, all of these can be manipulated to the players favour. I see there is a certain reluctance to make use of this knowledge, as if it trivialises the game in some way to understand exactly how things work. A hidden truth has been revealed, and now the games have been seen in a different light, from that of a mere player, to a controller. People see the games in a different way - if we are not at the whims of randomness, and we can manipulate things to our favour, then we can do what we like? It becomes too easy - trivial, almost, to even play them.

From my perspective, I do not see that at all. There have been tool-assisted speedruns done of the Fire Emblem games, and I am working on one myself. The experience of TASing this game has taught me a lot, not just about the understanding of the RNG, how the game remembers things and so on, it has taught me the value of efficiency in gameplay. Even with the ability to manipulate the RNG, certain things are so unlikely to happen that they never will occur, and since TASing is all about lowest time taken overall, there needs to be a balance struck between an event occurring and the time taken to make that happen. Several times I've had to make compromises given the limits of the RNG (and yes there are limits, even 65536 possibilities cannot cover everything), and perform slower actions to make up for the time taken to perform them.

I think what's happening here is there is an ethical debate going on. We have the knowledge to do something, but is it right to do so? The games are supposedly balanced with the RNG in mind - swords are meant to be accurate but moderately damaging, axes are meant to be inaccurate but powerful, but none of that matters when you can just rig axes to hit all the time. Change the order of your actions on the turn, fiddle around with the cursor, send useless units into the arenas - all these things are ways of changing the game to our advantage. While intentional or not, this level of RNG manipulation IS part of the games - it is how they are programmed. I am somewhat confused by the constant reluctance for people to accept this. Computers are incredibly stupid - they do what they are told and no more. The fact that we understand how a computer thinks should mean nothing to us ethically. Yes, it does change the perspective we have on games, and yes it makes it less fun to others. But, given this knowledge, there's a new possibility that can arise from this.

LTC players, from where it currently stands is divided into two categories - those who choose to use the knowledge available to aid in their pursuit of lowest turn counts, and those who don't. Competition is derived from those who have the most sound strategies as well as those able to manipulate the games to their advantage, using dozens if not hundreds of resets, save states, battle saves, etc. Only the most persistent win, it seems; the old adage 'If you can't beat them, join them' rarely holds true, and people stick steadfast to their guns and refuse to take part in what is possible - or what is necessary - to win at a LTC or draft competition. People take some notion of a higher ground by refusing the knowledge available and sticking to the way they have learned how to play. Personally, I feel those people are stagnant.

Draft playthroughs have changed, from the days when people didn't know about the games or how to manipulate them, to the days when it is virtually common knowledge how it works. Change is always reluctant, but things are always changing. Those who refuse to adapt or evolve are doomed to fail. The lid cannot be put back on the Pandora's Box now - it is open, and we must learn to accept the fate that it has left.

Edited by Toothache
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, even with all my experience with FE, I feel perfectly able to play games in a fluid manner, responding to events rather than having things all planned out. And yet when I talk to players such as Anouleth, they seem to have no comprehension of how to get to where I am from where they are. Perhaps you're right: For some players, Pandora's Box has been opened, and there's no going back. But this is not an inherent disease of the series when played enough; it is merely the price of giving in to LTC, that when immersed deep enough within it, it can make it impossible to ever play the game as it once was again. (See the thread asking about what it would be like to be "blind" again.) This, if true, confirms LTC as the disease that can become impossible to cure, permanently draining the life from FE.

If this is the case, then for FE to live, LTC must be kept from spreading and from infecting anyone else. You tell us to adapt, but all there is left to "adapt" to would be this pitiful, empty shell of a series, its countless options all scorched down to so few for no reason at all.

Edited by Othin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blimey, all this talk of the opening Pandora's Box and the disease of LTCing is shocking. I didn't realize that LTC drafts were such serious business... When I play Fire Emblem, I prefer to have fun (whether it's a fluid playstyle or an objective-oriented, strategy-finding playthrough), but maybe that's just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This should more be a debate about the RNG system in this game in general, not just specifically about LTC.

It is increasingly often, I notice, that when fans play games enough times, they start to notice things in their game that can be exploited, either glitches, tricks or techniques that can be applied. This is the case with the RNG in the Fire Emblem games. The cat is out of the bag, it is well known in these parts how the RNG works, and thus how to abuse it to a more favourable outcome. That's not a bad thing to make use of - speedruns make use of glitches or generally hidden or obscure things all the time, and whether intentional or not, that is the way the games are made.

The RNG in the Fire Emblem games is notably fixed, at least for the earlier games (pre-FE9). Repeat the same order of moves again, and the game plays out exactly the same. Change one move, and you change the outcome, and thus you can manipulate events to give you the outcomes you want. Hit rates, criticals, level ups and misses, all of these can be manipulated to the players favour. I see there is a certain reluctance to make use of this knowledge, as if it trivialises the game in some way to understand exactly how things work. A hidden truth has been revealed, and now the games have been seen in a different light, from that of a mere player, to a controller. People see the games in a different way - if we are not at the whims of randomness, and we can manipulate things to our favour, then we can do what we like? It becomes too easy - trivial, almost, to even play them.

It's not that it's easy. It's that it's boring and predictable. Games like Diablo are interesting because they are unpredictable games. Not only are the maps randomised, but the monsters and the items are random too. And you can play with the most unpredictable creature of all: humans.

LTC players, from where it currently stands is divided into two categories - those who choose to use the knowledge available to aid in their pursuit of lowest turn counts, and those who don't. Competition is derived from those who have the most sound strategies as well as those able to manipulate the games to their advantage, using dozens if not hundreds of resets, save states, battle saves, etc. Only the most persistent win, it seems; the old adage 'If you can't beat them, join them' rarely holds true, and people stick steadfast to their guns and refuse to take part in what is possible - or what is necessary - to win at a LTC or draft competition. People take some notion of a higher ground by refusing the knowledge available and sticking to the way they have learned how to play. Personally, I feel those people are stagnant.

Toothache, this isn't about some sort of moral high ground here. The issue is that I, and it seems many others, feel that exercising control over the RNG makes the game less fun to play. It means that in many drafts, you simply see players using the same strategies over and over again, because control over the RNG has removed the unpredictable element from the game. That is not interesting. What is interesting is having to come up with new solutions to new problems.

Moreover, while it would be nice if everyone had access to lua scripts or whatever to have complete foresight of the RNG, a significant proportion of players prefer to play on carts, or without those things, or on platforms where such things are just impossible. This puts these people at a major disadvantage and might encourage them to play in the same way as their competitors to keep up. I don't think that's a good thing that RNG abuse has become so prevalent. If anything, it is the drafters who are stagnant because they insist on playing the game the same way rather than make a change and try something new.

Say there was a "perfect" TAS of FE6 that could not be improved upon. Would there be any satisfaction in merely copying it? Of course not. You would move on to a game that hadn't been exhaustively explored and construct a TAS of that. Or perhaps you would add some new limitation on and try to TAS around that limitation. Having found the solution to one "puzzle", you would not then just solve the same puzzle over and over again. You would go and find a new "puzzle".

Draft playthroughs have changed, from the days when people didn't know about the games or how to manipulate them, to the days when it is virtually common knowledge how it works. Change is always reluctant, but things are always changing. Those who refuse to adapt or evolve are doomed to fail. The lid cannot be put back on the Pandora's Box now - it is open, and we must learn to accept the fate that it has left.

So we must all learn to play in the exact same way? Fuck that. I am not going to go and copy PKL's strategies down to the letter because you think that it's somehow "progress".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blimey, all this talk of the opening Pandora's Box and the disease of LTCing is shocking. I didn't realize that LTC drafts were such serious business... When I play Fire Emblem, I prefer to have fun (whether it's a fluid playstyle or an objective-oriented, strategy-finding playthrough), but maybe that's just me.

Would it be shocking to learn that some people find taking LTC drafts seriously fun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it be shocking to learn that some people find taking LTC drafts seriously fun?

OH MY GOD WHAT IS THIS I DON'T EVEN

The truth is, people do these LTCs for fun. I find the concept of minimum turns per chapter very unfun. But PKL, Kopfjager, and others all treat it like its the funnest thing in the world.

Now that doesn't mean they have the right to complain about people who don't think so. But it also means the opposite. We cannot complain about them.

I have put it short and sweet for you people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it be shocking to learn that some people find taking LTC drafts seriously fun?

The current LTC drafts being discussed here? To me, yes, quite shocking.

OH MY GOD WHAT IS THIS I DON'T EVEN

The truth is, people do these LTCs for fun. I find the concept of minimum turns per chapter very unfun. But PKL, Kopfjager, and others all treat it like its the funnest thing in the world.

Now that doesn't mean they have the right to complain about people who don't think so. But it also means the opposite. We cannot complain about them.

I have put it short and sweet for you people.

I cannot complain about people liking LTC. But when LTC begins to stamp out all other FE discussion, I'd say that's within my right to complain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's ENTIRELY possible to train Micky in both NM and HM with average SPD, provided she isn't SPD screwed and doubled by everything like a boss. In HM, we have Edward (EDWARD, the myrm with crazy SPD growth) struggling to double unless he gets somewhat lucky with SPD growth, and even a 20 SPD Micky won't double too much in 1-E (the enemies hang around 17 AS there, IIRC), meaning 20 SPD Micky only has evasion over a Micky that has 14-15 SPD, which is essentially an average Micky with proper BEXP usage or with speedwings used on her.

As for 4-P, I've had an average Micky (as in, I never RNG abused at all in the playthrough, just BEXP'd her SPD up; it was a casual run) basically solo half of the map in NM while standing in a bush because her evasion was so freaking high -- nothing ever touched her. What was a RNG abused Micky really going to have over THAT?

It's possible to train an average/below average Micaiah, but it's not really that feasible under LTC.

See, what I'm saying is not that Micky and her 1-2 range Thani bombing is useless, but rather that the only thing you probably gain by doing it is reliability of strats, not shaved turns (although I did forget about HM 1-9, that MIGHT save turns there, but I'd have to try it), if not only because she's way too frail to ever handle enough enemies at once to make a significant difference. If you're going that route, pick like Nolan or Jill or some shit, draco them, and RNG abuse STR/DEF -- you'd have a way better case there.

I'm not talking about HM. RNG abusing on HM is much more difficult because almost no one emulates it and there are no battle saves. Also, you totally ignored the fact that like 20 posts ago, someone even said that if you don't RNG abuse Micaiah you are put in a huge hole. You are theorycrafting except you lack even numbers that would hint you are correct.

1) When Seth IS available, he's free (either the whole game or until a certain chapter), not an actual pick.

I worded that poorly--I meant that if Seth is not banned, it doesn't matter what you pick because either Seth is free and lolseth, Seth is picked (why) and you have him and win or don't and lose.

2) It's not hit rates! It's growths -- enemy stats are so fucking high that in order to get people to reliably ORKO enough of them while living, either you resort to getting STR/DEF up past the average or start relying on crits, which hit the 25-30% chance range (and FE6 hit rates are bad, but they're not always THAT bad). Plus, hit rates can drop into the 55-60% range when you get a boss with like 25 SPD + a Gate adding like 20-30% extra AVO. FE12 H3 wins here, for sure.

Don't patronize me--I was one of the first people to play through Lunatic.

Here's the thing: FE12 growths? Really fucking high. Most units' growths before class boosts are good enough to be a thing in pretty much any other game (sans maybe HP growth). Marth after class boosts has offensive growths that make Dart and Sain envious, and the only reason we raise him is to kill Medeus (although that's probably more a result of being locked to a shitty class that doesn't get promo boosts). Most units are looking at 70-100% HP growths and 60-80% growths in Str/Spd. You also have the Bonds from supports to catch you up, and on your second+ playthrough the lunatic statboosters.

Also, 60 hit on an FE12 boss? Between supports (keep in mind Marth and MU both support just about everyone and most good units have an inbred support chain). In fact, I went to check my FE12 playthrough, and Catria had a pitiful 100% hit rate on Hardin (who has 30 Speed, giving him the most avoid any boss will have in the game) with an unforged Silver Lance--due to the fact that the Lightsphere completely negates terrain bonuses. Checked the final and the lowest hit from a blue unit in the entire 2 turns was... 100%.

Really? I call it casual because THAT IS ITS NAME IN SF. Busting out a dictionary and picking out choice definitions to try to make me sound elitist when I'm far from it is silly -- saying casual is vague is not trashing it.

Really? I call them porchmonkeys because THAT IS THEIR NAME IN THE SOUTH.

That's what you sound like. Did you ever stop to consider the reason why that term is used? If you do not like the connotations that people take from the words you use, perhaps you should put a little more thought into your posts.

Casual is everything not included in another category, such as max gold, ranked, no restarts, LLR, speedruns...where the purpose is to beat the game only. Unfortunately, that can be done in numerous ways -- picking up all treasures, picking up none, using all knights because you feel like it, using no knights, spamming Marcus, using him rarely, spamming the crap out of paladins because you like using cavalry units; there are as many conditions as the player chooses to do. I would say that casual runs are where the player is looking to just have fun, but then that might imply (by your logic) that "challenge"-type runs where the player imposes additional restrictions are inherently NOT fun.

And this is where your actual logic takes a jump off a cliff, now in the form of a double standard. The point of any playthrough is to beat the game. Look:

Max Gold: Beat the game with the most gold

LTC: Beat the game in the lowest number of turns

Speedruns: Beat the game with low amount time on the clock

LLR: Beat the game with a low amount of EXP gained

etc. etc.

So again, why is beating the game in a low number of turns inherently more serious/better/devoted/whatever term you want to use, even though there are other playstyles that are also measurable?

Casual is a catch-all term because we need to describe the type of runs that fail to meet any other criteria;

Why?

I've never said that LTC is better than any other style of play or implied it in any shape or manner. I'm merely saying things like Speedruns, LTC, no restarts, ranked, etc. all have very rigid criteria where somebody else knows SPECIFICALLY what goals you're trying to reach, while casual does not (at least at this current time, as I've never seen anybody properly define it).

You have changed your stance from a binary switch between LTC-Everything Else to Things That Are Clearly Defined-Everything Else.

This just in...sometimes people like having their favorite unit be UBER-major-muscles-strong, even if it has no tangible consequence other than inherently increasing the reliability of strats. There are times where it may have a tangible turn count advanatage, yes, but mostly on rout maps and RNG abusing the crap out of the best units for that map (like Nolan or Jill or Beastfoe Sothe for 3-6, if you drafted either of them).

Again, PKL explicitly said that Micaiah being above average is a huge advantage, your theorycraft (again without numbers) means nothing. Jill/Nolan cannot be everywhere at once. In a draft, especially in rout (or rout-like) chapters such as most-chapters-Micaiah-is-in it is inherently more useful to have two combat units that can go to different parts of the map where enemies are, as basic logic dictates that this would make things go faster.

You are ignoring the point--stop it.

Furthermore, the game easily allows you to manipulate events and restart maps OR makes things so that it doesn't matter turn-count-wise if you do or don't. In FE9 & 10, you get BEXP which nullifies RNG abuse a bit by allowing units to ram stat caps much more easily (and FE10 NM has battle saves), and FE11 & FE12 have their in-game battle save tiles which are essentially meant for that purpose. FE7's min. turn counts can be reached with Marcus doing 90% of the work most of the game, and dondon's FE5 0% growths run had him lose a grand total of...4 turns total because of lacking stats, IIRC? The best FE where rigging stats would convert to shaved turns in FE8, and that's really only in drafts where Seth is banned, because then otherwise you just have Seth run around killing everything with ease unless he gets uber-cursed.

Yes I am well aware of this. In any playthrough (or game for that matter), I could restart until things went my way (well, you are supposed to in speedruns but they are kind of a different monster and I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on the subject), but I don't see what that proves. I could also stack the deck in Poker or whatever card game you prefer, but what good would that be?

Also, dondon had an entire video of RNG mishaps for FE5. RNG exists beyond level ups (I will agree FE5 was somewhat overboard in this regard but that does not mean we can just ignore it). For example, iirc he said the first couple turns of his 4x strategy was very luck reliant.

I haven't played HHM in a while but I distinctly remember Marcus not being actually invincible in the late game (and maybe even midgame idr for sure)

Would it be shocking to learn that some people find taking LTC drafts seriously fun?

Stop-liking-what-I-dont-like.jpg

Edited by Paperblade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it be shocking to learn that some people find taking LTC drafts seriously fun?

According to Toothache, that isn't relevant:

LTC players, from where it currently stands is divided into two categories - those who choose to use the knowledge available to aid in their pursuit of lowest turn counts, and those who don't. Competition is derived from those who have the most sound strategies as well as those able to manipulate the games to their advantage, using dozens if not hundreds of resets, save states, battle saves, etc. Only the most persistent win, it seems; the old adage 'If you can't beat them, join them' rarely holds true, and people stick steadfast to their guns and refuse to take part in what is possible - or what is necessary - to win at a LTC or draft competition. People take some notion of a higher ground by refusing the knowledge available and sticking to the way they have learned how to play. Personally, I feel those people are stagnant.

Draft playthroughs have changed, from the days when people didn't know about the games or how to manipulate them, to the days when it is virtually common knowledge how it works. Change is always reluctant, but things are always changing. Those who refuse to adapt or evolve are doomed to fail. The lid cannot be put back on the Pandora's Box now - it is open, and we must learn to accept the fate that it has left.

"Only the most persistent win." "Those who refuse to adapt or evolve are doomed to fail." The implication being: it doens't matter whether or not you find such activities fun. If people do find RNG-abuse enabled LTCing fun, that is just a happy accident, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good grief ... I just play FE to have fun and to relax when I'm stressed out with all my IRL activities. If I feel like getting LTC on a certain playthrough, then I'll do that. If I just feel like getting all the supports that I like in a certain playthrough and pair of as many people as possible, then I'll do that. If I want to play a runthrough using only my favorite for that game and the lord, then I'll do that. Does it really matter how we play FE, just as long as we're having fun? Why do we really have to argue about the most "efficient" or "best" or "right" way to play FE?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what people seem not tor realize is that the focus on LTCs above other playstyles was not only an organic process but it also is nothing new. In the older days of FE, ranked runs were assumed when discussing the game similarly to the way efficiency is now. Over time, people just stop being interested and moved on to efficiency. I'm not sure what was assumed before ranked runs were popular, I wasn't aware of any message boards discussing FE back then. I get the feeling though that a couple of people (like Snowy) who despise LTCs are mostly just buttdevastated because their style of play isn't as popular.

In any case, I don't think it's wrong for people to talk about something they like, which in this case is efficiency. On the other hand I do think more discussion on more playstyles would be interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sage, afaik the overlap between people who debated ranked tier lists and people who moved to LTC/efficiency tier lists is basically just Life and Mekkah, and their input is pretty questionable because they barely contribute anything if at all in recent lists. I would hesitate to call it an organic change when it is basically an entirely different community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't recall if RFoF ever debated ranked specifically. If she did it was either when Jaffar attempted to revive it in the form of the FE7 list here or under a name/at a place that I wouldn't recognize.

I actually completely forgot about BBlade, although he has since quit for a reason that I'm not 100% certain about other than that he said something most people disagreed with and started blowing points out of proportion. I could go into detail on my thoughts about this, but it would not necessarily pertain to his specific scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. People did not move on to efficiency; they were already there. Every discussion over character quality or effective strategies ever made discussed efficiency, even if they didn't call it that. But what they didn't discuss is LTC - the thing people like you have twisted the word "efficiency" to mean as if their playstyle is the only one that requires careful planning.

Efficiency is getting the most for what you put in. Ranked runs focus on efficiency in terms of ranks: for FE6/7, that means being efficient with regard to turns, funds, Exp, combat, and survival. The latter two are easy. The other three aren't so easy, and ranked run players have to get a balance between the three, making sure that none of the three are entirely sacrificed for the sake of any other. Granted, playing to the exact standard of each rank, there is a limit of how much efficiency can be measured, and past that point, it stops mattering. But that's not necessary; there are ways to expand how we look at it past what the ranks will say. In much the same way, the same standards that comprise the ranks can be applied to games without ranks themselves, or with more limited ranking systems.

LTC takes that same expanded view, looking at the exact number of turns taken rather than only going to a limit. But it dismisses the other standards. With LTC, no longer is there any meaning to actually getting items or recruiting or training characters unless they fit into this narrow standard of strategies, and the strategies are so precise that they can require ridiculous amounts of RNG abuse to work satisfactorily. Countless strategies are discarded in the process, and huge swaths of the game become irrelevant. Meanwhile, on a run attempting to balance multiple categories such as turns, funds, and Exp, anything can matter. No human can "solve" a run attempting to be efficient with regard to those three categories together to the extent that we would get strategies anywhere near as certain as LTC players have now. And that's a good thing; it means there's so much to think about on each new run as we play the game, responding to situations rather than simply acting out a pre-planned performance.

Edited by Othin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sage, afaik the overlap between people who debated ranked tier lists and people who moved to LTC/efficiency tier lists is basically just Life and Mekkah, and their input is pretty questionable because they barely contribute anything if at all in recent lists. I would hesitate to call it an organic change when it is basically an entirely different community.

Most of us debated on ranked tier lists before efficiency even came into consideration. Anyone that's been around here for more than 2 years or so started out debating ranked tier lists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's possible to train an average/below average Micaiah, but it's not really that feasible under LTC.

First off, it's hard to train ANY growth unit in just about any LTC run (although BEXP or base arena helps in what games they exist in). I'd imagine it has less to do with her SPD than her relatively mediocre MOV and crap durability, both of which combine to give her limited kill opportunities when you complete chapters in just a few turns. Her doubling might help slightly by ensuring ORKO's, but you can still easily set up occasions where she can finish off an opponent with chip damage, especially considering Thani and high MAG.

I'm not talking about HM. RNG abusing on HM is much more difficult because almost no one emulates it and there are no battle saves.

But NM isn't that hard at all. Like who would NEED to RNG abuse extensively in that mode? I mean, I thought you meant emulators in a mode that basically castrates BEXP and where enemies in part 1 have really respectable AS, not one where you get a glutton of it (espcially considering LTC tends to near-maximize BEXP gain for MOST maps) and where Battle Saving is just SO easy and SO convenient. Much ado about nothing.

Don't patronize me--I was one of the first people to play through Lunatic.

Here's the thing: FE12 growths? Really fucking high. Most units' growths before class boosts are good enough to be a thing in pretty much any other game (sans maybe HP growth). Marth after class boosts has offensive growths that make Dart and Sain envious, and the only reason we raise him is to kill Medeus (although that's probably more a result of being locked to a shitty class that doesn't get promo boosts). Most units are looking at 70-100% HP growths and 60-80% growths in Str/Spd. You also have the Bonds from supports to catch you up, and on your second+ playthrough the lunatic statboosters.

Also, 60 hit on an FE12 boss? Between supports (keep in mind Marth and MU both support just about everyone and most good units have an inbred support chain). In fact, I went to check my FE12 playthrough, and Catria had a pitiful 100% hit rate on Hardin (who has 30 Speed, giving him the most avoid any boss will have in the game) with an unforged Silver Lance--due to the fact that the Lightsphere completely negates terrain bonuses. Checked the final and the lowest hit from a blue unit in the entire 2 turns was... 100%.

1) I'm not patronizing you; I've seen your run, and even referred to it at some points to observe enemy AI and map layouts. Seriously, stop interpreting every damn statement as an insult towards you. No wonder you felt unwelcome in tier list discussions -- you twist everything people say to make damn sure you feel unwelcome.

2) Growths, as high as they are, are STILL not high enough for LTC Lunatic...not nearly so. Like I'm talking about having a Draco!MU in C5 rocking like 25 DEF to make a strat work or Linde rocking 24 SPD in C15 when you can, if you're intelligent, usually reach no higher than around 17/1 (that's her @ 17 SPD on average, btw). For lower diffculties (which is why I SPECIFICALLY mention higher difficulties like H3 and H4, and likely H2 as well), this isn't as much of an issue, but when you need to survive a ton of hits or ORKO really durable units on a regular basis, average isn't cutting it.

3) You can't set up bonds as easily on LTC as on playthroughs with higher turn counts, because you have to have units all over the place to rush for certain important items or complete different objectives or clear the way for Marth.

4) In the example where you have 100% hit on Hardin, you have an item that nullifies the 20 AVO the throne gives, a unit with high SKL, a weapon rank that grants +Hit, and probably bonds. I'm not saying 60-70% is super common, but you see it when you have WTD, or with the C11-12 bosses which high SPD. I've SEEN those hit rates, so it's pointless to tell me they don't exist. Most of the time, you see 75-90% hit rates, creeping up to 95% with myrms/mercs.

Really? I call them porchmonkeys because THAT IS THEIR NAME IN THE SOUTH

Um...do you know what a straw man argument is? Because casual isn't a derogatory term like nigger or porchmonkey or fag (sorry, RFoF, making a point). It's a simple name given to a group of runs that has NO REAL (NOT IMAGINED) NEGATIVE CONNOTATION whatsoever.

So again, why is beating the game in a low number of turns inherently more serious/better/devoted/whatever term you want to use, even though there are other playstyles that are also measurable?

OMFG HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY I DONT THINK THAT THIS IS TRUE BEFORE YOU GET IT?

You have changed your stance from a binary switch between LTC-Everything Else to Things That Are Clearly Defined-Everything Else.

Facepalm_emote_gif.gif

I give up...

Again, PKL explicitly said that Micaiah being above average is a huge advantage, your theorycraft (again without numbers) means nothing. Jill/Nolan cannot be everywhere at once. In a draft, especially in rout (or rout-like) chapters such as most-chapters-Micaiah-is-in it is inherently more useful to have two combat units that can go to different parts of the map where enemies are, as basic logic dictates that this would make things go faster.

You are ignoring the point--stop it.

I'm ignoring nothing. You're just picking a choice statement by PKL and treating it as gospel. I don't see Micky being super-mega-SPD-buffed (and you should probably speedwing her given the chance, so it's really only a few points of SPD we're talking about here) being a massive factor in cutting turn counts except maybe in 1-9. I just don't.

1-6-1? No.

1-6-2? GO JILL GO AND DESTROY THE BOSS

1-7? Again, Micky can trash the boss regardless, and you can probably trash him before Micky even comes close with Jill.

1-8? Sothe reaches boss first, IIRC. Again, WHY is a blessed Micky so valuable if her MOV isn't anything special? She's not killing much because she can't reach many enemies.

1-9? Fine, but you have the BK, and I've had average Micky do very well taking care of the right path with reasonable chances of success *on NM* (in HM, the hit rates of enemies become too high for it to work, and her frailty means she basically dies most of the time).

1-E? If Nailah isn't banned, guess who has this chapter as her bitch?

3-6? Why aren't you having Nolan and Sothe and Jill (who can take a hit better and have anti-laguz weapons/skills, respectively; they're probably even higher levels than Micky here because of not having to wait until the end of part 1 to promote) take care of the laguz on NM?

3-12? Maybe? Any offense helps here -- she's still probably too fragile to take advantage of enemy phase that much.

I don't draft often at all, and never FE10. Maybe I'm missing something here. Like I said, better case for somebody who can take advantage of enemy phase better, like Nolan or (with patience) a highly DEF blessed Edward.

Also, dondon had an entire video of RNG mishaps for FE5. RNG exists beyond level ups (I will agree FE5 was somewhat overboard in this regard but that does not mean we can just ignore it). For example, iirc he said the first couple turns of his 4x strategy was very luck reliant.

So you're saying dondon reset when one of his units died (this is what I'm getting from "RNG mishaps"...like rogue enemy crits or vital attacks that missed or stuff liek that), and that ONE chapter in a game with weird RNG in general is somewhat luck reliant?

The horror. THE HORROR!

dondon, as he's stated himself, tends to have an aversion to tons of RNG in his strats. Basically he said most resets that he does are mostly for show (since he tapes them), and that he would probably range from 0-4 resets on average, depending on the chapter at hand. That's not ridiculous.

Edited by Kngt_Of_Titania
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RNG affects more than dodging attacks, too. Almost every chapter on my FE5 SSS run, I had to RNG abuse for something or other: getting random double actions, getting staffs to hit, getting my staffs to miss, getting crits, getting Salem to not cast Sleep as an enemy, getting the chests in Ch4 in just the right configuration, getting Asvel to kill all the mages at the start of Ch5... the list goes on and on. I won't say all of these were necessary, but at many times throughout my run, I had a good reason to do one or more of them.

You're correct that FE5 is particularly luck dependent, but there are plenty more things along the lines of some of these that matter for the other games, as well.

Edited by Othin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of us debated on ranked tier lists before efficiency even came into consideration. Anyone that's been around here for more than 2 years or so started out debating ranked tier lists.

More like 3 1/2 - 4 years, actually. This place (SF) started tier lists by saying "we don't like ranked." We did eventually come around, though, when some people from GameFAQs migrated over.

And yes, I did debate ranked quite a bit here when it came over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, on a run attempting to balance multiple categories such as turns, funds, and Exp, anything can matter. No human can "solve" a run attempting to be efficient with regard to those three categories together to the extent that we would get strategies anywhere near as certain as LTC players have now.

Would you be so kind as to defend this assertion? It isn't self evident that optimizing for three explicit criteria is an insolvable problem.

I also see no reason why a "least turn counts" criteria would lend itself to reset and RNG abuse moreso than a combination of three criteria. I see reset and RNG abuse as a phenomenon independent of one's goal. Reseting repeatedly to find hidden items, for instance, is something that would be more relevant if obtaining all treasures was an objective of a playthrough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RNG affects more than dodging attacks, too. Almost every chapter on my FE5 SSS run, I had to RNG abuse for something or other: getting random double actions, getting staffs to hit, getting my staffs to miss, getting crits, getting Salem to not cast Sleep as an enemy, getting the chests in Ch4 in just the right configuration, getting Asvel to kill all the mages at the start of Ch5... the list goes on and on. I won't say all of these were necessary, but at many times throughout my run, I had a good reason to do one or more of them.

You're correct that FE5 is particularly luck dependent, but there are plenty more things along the lines of some of these that matter for the other games, as well.

I'm actually trying to SSS-rank FE5 as a side project now (I've never played the SNES FEs before -- it's been something I've wanted to do, but never have completed a run of FE4 or FE5...yet). On C4 now, if you care.

1) Getting staffs to miss...I assume you mean repair rigs? It's one chapter of annoying-ness, I think; I got Safy to A staves on C3 (or damn near it) by rigging a miss every turn.

2) I swore I read something dondon saying along the lines of not needing movement star procs ever to SSS rank.

3) As for the chests in C4, I hate that too! With it being my first run through the game, I thought it was based on what slot the item was on Leaf's inventory. As a side note, I'm somewhat at a loss of how to do this particular chapter -- what chests/people are you supposed to leave behind? I stripped Leaf's inventory to a bare minimum to make it easier. So far, I'm thinking of unlocking Lifis' cell and having him snatch back his lockpick with a chest key from the first chest he opens. Then the female thief goes left and frees Leaf, nabs anything she can and saves civs, while he takes right hand side. Am I doing that right?

4) Btw, you forgot "proc MOV on level up". I actually got lucky and got Leaf a MOV proc on his second level up (no RNG abuse), which came in handy in C3. :D

Edited by Kngt_Of_Titania
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...