|
I enjoy them, Keep Showing Losses.
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 11:52 |
|
|
More death.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 22:57
|
|
|
I really love the rate of the failure updates because it's just often enough to be a thing that could happen, not necessarily something you'd expect so as to be dull, or something that never happened. Really adds to the tension of the hack honestly. So keep it as is is what I'm saying I suppose. Gee, I wonder why this question came up at this specific point 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
Showing losses is good. If you don't want to slow the pace too much, you could probably just merge losses into the same update as the win (assuming you didn't change your strategy/setup, and it was mostly a matter of bad luck). As in, continue on from the midpoint of the battle with the winning resolution after showing the loss. I guess we would miss some of the ups and downs of seeing one uninterrupted battle, but it would save on giving a complete rundown of the same stage multiple times.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
Continue showing losses. The frequency you do it now is pretty good, as it happens rarely enough that the game over screen catches me a little off guard every time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 23:38
|
|
|
I like they way you've been doing it so far. Occasionally showing a loss helps to highlight just how hard this hack is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 00:46
|
|
|
yrF posted:I dunno about anyone else but I enjoy seeing the game over screen at the end of an update This guy has the right idea. They're sobering and remind people like myself to NOT ATTEMPT THIS GAME WHAT ARE YOU DOING?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
Schwartzcough posted:Showing losses is good. If you don't want to slow the pace too much, you could probably just merge losses into the same update as the win (assuming you didn't change your strategy/setup, and it was mostly a matter of bad luck). As in, continue on from the midpoint of the battle with the winning resolution after showing the loss. I guess we would miss some of the ups and downs of seeing one uninterrupted battle, but it would save on giving a complete rundown of the same stage multiple times. This is probably the best way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 00:49
|
|
|
Hey Prufrock, did you show off the Dragoneer fight? Or were you planning on showing it off at the end of Chapter 3? I just ran into it at Bariaus Valley during Chapter 2 and  The worst part about it is: I have a thief and he has a Dragon Rod, but there's no way I can steal it because goddamn Immortal flag 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
UmbreonMessiah posted:Hey Prufrock, did you show off the Dragoneer fight? Or were you planning on showing it off at the end of Chapter 3? I just ran into it at Bariaus Valley during Chapter 2 and Immortal doesn't make a unit immune to stealing. You mean godamn innate Maintenance
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 01:32
|
|
|
Both are kind of a kick in the junk.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 01:39
|
|
|
J. Alfred Prufrock posted:Before we head into Riovanes and Chapter 4, I'd like to take a minute to ask your opinion, dear readers. Oh I would definitely love to see more losses. It's nice to be able for people that want to play this mod to witness and learn from your mistakes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
Archael posted:reactions like Counter Flood, Counter Throw
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 03:05
|
|
|
Davzz posted:What's the damage formula for Counter Throw anyway? Same as Throw Stone: Damage = (Random Value between 1 ... 4) * PA 100% Knockback I think the Wiki picture lists it as 1...3 but I believe that's old data.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 03:48
|
|
|
Counter Throw sounds really bad by the way, but it's actually surprisingly versatile as its range appears to be unaffected by much of anything, which is nice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
You know Archael, I've been meaning to ask: why is it that you eventually decided to make Swordskills both cost MP and be affected by physical evasion? I've been using Agrias in my 1.3 run and having experienced all of the other changes to her swordskills, I've been pondering over the mechanical hows and whys of this decision. I'm not saying it's the wrong one, I'm just curious as to what brought you to it, specifically. Lord knows there have been times where I wish they either didn't cost MP or weren't subject to PEv, but hey 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 06:30
|
|
|
UmbreonMessiah posted:You know Archael, I've been meaning to ask: why is it that you eventually decided to make Swordskills both cost MP and be affected by physical evasion? I've been using Agrias in my 1.3 run and having experienced all of the other changes to her swordskills, I've been pondering over the mechanical hows and whys of this decision. I'm not saying it's the wrong one, I'm just curious as to what brought you to it, specifically. Lord knows there have been times where I wish they either didn't cost MP or weren't subject to PEv, but hey Swordskills in vanilla are stupid broken in every way. Let's look at the weakest of them, Stasis Sword. Its damage formula is (PA * (WP + 2)), thus doing better damage than Attack. It has a range of 2 with an AOE of 2v0, thus letting you hit up to three tiles away and/or anywhere from one to five targets. It doesn't allow for evasion, and executes instantly, thus being a reliable move every turn. On top of that, it consumes no resources: the most is that it needs a sword to use, but swords are good weapons so it's not a bad thing. That one move alone is better than the Attack command in every way, and would be a serious contender for an ability slot if it were the only ability in Holy Sword-after all, Jump and Elemental are only one ability and they're considered good to excellent equips. But, it's not. It also comes with Split Punch, Crush Punch, Lightning Stab, and Holy Explosion, each equal to or better than the last. Having an ability be strictly better than Attack is a bad thing. Attack is subject to evasion, so Holy Sword gets to be as well. This has the additional benefit of subjecting Agrias and Orlandu to the same choice every other shield using physical attacker gets, Attack Up versus Concentrate. The MP cost makes you have to evaluate the value of a sword skill now versus the potential to use it later, thus adding another challenging decision to be made with that character. This is in line with Archael's goal of making 1.3 challenging in every way (alternative answer: this is in line with 1.3 hating its players).
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 07:18
|
|
|
Trasson posted:Swordskills in vanilla are stupid broken in every way. Let's look at the weakest of them, Stasis Sword. Its damage formula is (PA * (WP + 2)), thus doing better damage than Attack. It has a range of 2 with an AOE of 2v0, thus letting you hit up to three tiles away and/or anywhere from one to five targets. It doesn't allow for evasion, and executes instantly, thus being a reliable move every turn. On top of that, it consumes no resources: the most is that it needs a sword to use, but swords are good weapons so it's not a bad thing. Aye. The only other skill that has zero cost, 100% hit rate, greater than melee range, and is instant is Elemental. Elemental has downsides, though, in that it is harder to maximize (and usually does less damage than Swordskills), and has limited to very limited choice of elements per map. FFT 1.3's modifications do make Swordskills rather weak in the early game but damage ramps up more quickly than magic and Swordskills eventually mostly overtake magic in the late game, even with nerfed Knight Sword weapon power. MP costs do matter early on but also eventually become only an occasional limitation, especially in WotL 1.3 where anyone can get the HP/MP draining Dark Knight skills. Corvinus fucked around with this message at 08:36 on Feb 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 08:33
|
|
|
UmbreonMessiah posted:You know Archael, I've been meaning to ask: why is it that you eventually decided to make Swordskills both cost MP and be affected by physical evasion? I've been using Agrias in my 1.3 run and having experienced all of the other changes to her swordskills, I've been pondering over the mechanical hows and whys of this decision. I'm not saying it's the wrong one, I'm just curious as to what brought you to it, specifically. Lord knows there have been times where I wish they either didn't cost MP or weren't subject to PEv, but hey
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 10:56
|
|
|
J. Alfred Prufrock posted:Before we head into Riovanes and Chapter 4, I'd like to take a minute to ask your opinion, dear readers. I like the way you've been doing it. I don't mind seeing the failure screens, as long as they're interesting. That said, in order to give the full v1.3 experience, if you fail and don't show it, maybe you could just note it. "So that's this episode. Also, I didn't show it but I lost this battle twice when Mustadio the Petrifying Asskicker  got hit with ill-timed criticals".George posted:What's the deal with those, anyway? The item name makes sense given two units in the game, but not for anything else. Is it something you plan on preventing other units from using in the future, or is this another compensation for the AI's limitations?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 13:44
|
|
|
Don't forget the status chance with Holy Sword! Stasis Sword procing Stop is a hell of a thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
J. Alfred Prufrock posted:So tell me, please, would you like me to keep showing losses and if so would you like to see more failure episodes or fewer failure episodes? Keep failure episodes, along with a Number of Game Overs per fight at the end of a successful post. Also for "bad" maps, combine multiple losses into one failure episode where appropriate (aka first round crits just put you too far behind; bad AI decisions create unwinnable scenarios, etc). I find your commentary during failure reels insightful and only showing successful fights doesn't put in perspective how cruel 1.3 can be. They add a lot! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
I'm gonna have to vote against failure vids, at least for this next stretch. Just realized I hadn't voted
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
Keep doing death episodes at the same rate. I think it'll get old fast if we have too many.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
Keep it the same. Failure is funny, but only when it's countered by the string of success beforehand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
Yeah, definitely don't change what you're doing. I like the little failures, because they're rare, and when it happens, it's a surprise. It really helps us realize that this is hard as gently caress without also being boring and bogging down the LP.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:Don't forget the status chance with Holy Sword! Stasis Sword procing Stop is a hell of a thing. So yes that's some food for thought, obviously. Swordskills get a lot better with elemental combos or Knight Swords, neither of which are easy (or in some cases possible) to get before Chapter 4. Agrias starts whipping utter rear end with Concentrate and a Defender.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
MagusofStars posted:I like the way you've been doing it. I don't mind seeing the failure screens, as long as they're interesting. If the failure is interesting enough, keep it! I mean, it's nice to see HOW things went bad and what did wrong or the computer did way too right. But more might just make it tedious and boring to have to slog through "Riovanes Castle pt. 9! I get critical'd on the first turn, and am unable to do much more than run with my tail between my legs," but seeing a battle lost because you almost had it...but Steal Heart took over Fluellen who proceeded to beat the poo poo out of your entire team would be fun to see!
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 05:25
|
|
|
I'll throw in a vote for doing whatever is easiest on you. Good LP so far, had a friend obsessed with this game when we were kids, never played it myself though. Interesting to see how much thought and challenge can be applied to the system.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 08:12
|
|
|
Things have been pretty good so far so I vote for keeping it the same.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
Is there an option to vote for what you feel like doing? Like, if you're feeling burned out and don't want to go to the trouble to screen-shot and write up a failure episode, I don't think you need to feel obligated to do so. If you have one you really like, I will probably like it too. Is that the same as voting keep it the same?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
Young Hegelian posted:Is there an option to vote for what you feel like doing? Like, if you're feeling burned out and don't want to go to the trouble to screen-shot and write up a failure episode, I don't think you need to feel obligated to do so. If you have one you really like, I will probably like it too. Is that the same as voting keep it the same? I agree with this. If it grates, don't go crazy. You don't have to write up a "fake-out" full post for failed attempts, you can just show the highlights of how it went wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
Seeing all the failed reports is pretty interesting and amusing, but I wouldn't want to see too many of those - unless they're interesting (AKA "Wow, I never knew that could happen to you!") or funny (AKA "Haha, that's just hilarious how you died!!"). So my vote is keep going the way you are, but I'd like to see more interesting and funny gameovers if there are any.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
PFlats posted:I agree with this. If it grates, don't go crazy. You don't have to write up a "fake-out" full post for failed attempts, you can just show the highlights of how it went wrong. What he said.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
This thread made me go and get 1.3 Content. I am enjoying the increased but not ludicrous difficulty, and it's refreshing to see classes I normally never use. Archael, I'm sure you know a few of these, but there are definately still tooltip errors in the game. Many of them (like the discrepancy between the CT and MP of Oracle spells between the skill learning page and the advanced tooltip) are minor, but one that really threw me off is Mediator's Warn ability. The tooltip in battle and in the skill learning page both claim that Warn adds Defend, Protect, and Shell to the target, but in battle it only adds Defend. I thought perhaps it added Protect and Shell only while defend was up, but those buffs never showed up when I examined the character. Those dirty Mediators, lying to me about their abilities! Also of note, I went back to look through the character roster in game and Teta was a cactuar! And yes I have the most recent version, 1.3.0.6, and it patched correctly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 04:34
|
|
|
Runic Edge posted:Also of note, I went back to look through the character roster in game and Teta was a cactuar! And yes I have the most recent version, 1.3.0.6, and it patched correctly. If you play Zeakden on that file, do you get a happy ending Brave% of the time? Blade Grasp works on arrows.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 05:09
|
|
|
Einander posted:If you play Zeakden on that file, do you get a happy ending Brave% of the time? Blade Grasp works on arrows. What if Algus has Concentrate? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
U-DO Burger posted:Keep doing death episodes at the same rate. I think it'll get old fast if we have too many. I pretty much feel the same way. A failure update can serve to subvert expectations while reminding us normal people how much 1.3 actively hates you and will exploit even the most minute fracture in your execution. Even if you feel you had no control over said fracture. NextTime000 fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Feb 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 05:22
|
|
|
Archael posted:Nope. I made CM and CF work on a ton of new things in 1.3. This does make the game more difficult in that you'd have to start planning around unintended CM, but I feel it's a a smidge on the "bullshit" side of difficulty when Counter Magic triggers on purely support spells (Like Protect, Shell, Haste, Quick, etc). It can be used in favor of the player, (counter-magic an ally's Quick spell for example), but I'd gladly trade that for a Reaction ability that won't literally backfire in my face. As it is described (triggering on MP-use, magic damage, magic effect), it's ye olde double-edged sword, and I'd choose many other Reaction abilities before it. Limited before due to not triggering on enough things, now the opposite; it triggers on too many things. If this was intentional, I'd much rather it weren't, or at least changed in such a way that it triggers only on offensive/negative status spells. yay i finally got to Murond!
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 06:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 11:52 |
|
|
Seiren posted:I'm not quite sure I enjoy that change. Counter Flood is fine (I enjoy the added triggers for it), but I very distinctly recall either this (1.3) or LFT Counter Magic doing some very bad things, like my allies counter-magic'ing beneficial, supportive spells at the initial caster I don't think this was actually changed from Vanilla at all. I don't think either patch touched the reflectable flag for beneficial spells. For me I actually think it's an advantage since I can do stuff like "double up" on my chances of hasting or curing myself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 08:33
|
|