| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 47: |
Line 47: |
| ::::Why? If we cover how to dodge all the techniques, why should we promote a strategy that is objectively less efficient? If this was a matter of requiring the player to grind for elixirs or something, I'd understand, but this is actually a much less grindy strategy -- the current one is actually strictly worse, since it requires the player to consume rare Elixirs, and even asks the player to have three Balloons anyway. It's just using them very inefficiently. We've discussed guidelines for strategies in the past, and we always agreed we should promote the strategies that are most efficient, not use riskier strategies unless they had some objective benefit by some metric. What makes the current strategy more useful for a player? {{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 04:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC) | | ::::Why? If we cover how to dodge all the techniques, why should we promote a strategy that is objectively less efficient? If this was a matter of requiring the player to grind for elixirs or something, I'd understand, but this is actually a much less grindy strategy -- the current one is actually strictly worse, since it requires the player to consume rare Elixirs, and even asks the player to have three Balloons anyway. It's just using them very inefficiently. We've discussed guidelines for strategies in the past, and we always agreed we should promote the strategies that are most efficient, not use riskier strategies unless they had some objective benefit by some metric. What makes the current strategy more useful for a player? {{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 04:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC) |
| :::::The current strategy is an inferior version of the Cure/Balloon combo so in this case it's useless but if there is a different strategy that gets the player to victory, I don't see why we can't have them both. Speaking in general terms, every strategy has a drawback whether it's time-consuming, dependant on rare items/commands, more difficult, or overpowered to the point where the player gains no satisfaction. As long as it doesn't begin to feel excessive, having multiple strategies with their cons provides a selection to choose from, catering to more types of players. Some people have no problem with using cheap methods to win but I'm sure there's others who'd appreciate a degree of challenge (like me for example). T{{User:TheFifteenthMember/Sig1}} 11:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC) | | :::::The current strategy is an inferior version of the Cure/Balloon combo so in this case it's useless but if there is a different strategy that gets the player to victory, I don't see why we can't have them both. Speaking in general terms, every strategy has a drawback whether it's time-consuming, dependant on rare items/commands, more difficult, or overpowered to the point where the player gains no satisfaction. As long as it doesn't begin to feel excessive, having multiple strategies with their cons provides a selection to choose from, catering to more types of players. Some people have no problem with using cheap methods to win but I'm sure there's others who'd appreciate a degree of challenge (like me for example). T{{User:TheFifteenthMember/Sig1}} 11:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC) |
| ::I can agree on providing alternate strategies to avoid having to grind, expend rare items/commands, or dealing with risk, and even for well-known challenges like "LV1" and "No changing equipment" (esp. since those are explicitly required in some of the games) but I can't get on board with "avoiding being too overpowered". Nearly all of our strategies for end-game bosses advise the player to use the best possible Keyblade, be a high level, etc. Where's the cutoff there? If someone would like to provide an alternate strategy for Julius that is equally reliable and requires no excessive grinding, that's great, but if we're comparing the ones we have now, one that all but guarantees you a win in five minutes, the other that maaaaaybe will net you a win if you practice, practice, practice for five straight hours...one of those really has no place in the article, neh?{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 14:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
| |
| :::There is a difference between "having the best stats" and "being overpowered". You said "''you can cheese him for virtually free by having a deck that alternates Cures and Ballonra/ga commands. You don't even have to move or dodge, just keep hitting X to win the battle even on Critical Mode.''" When you can beat a boss with just spamming a single attack, and you don't even have to move, the strategy is overpowered. {{User:TheSilentHero/Sig}} 17:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
| |
| ::::(1) So, we can't mention Strike Raid against KH Sephiroth, then? Or Tornado against Vanitas Remnant? (2) How is "overpowered" in any way a useful or objective term? We're not GameFAQs or NeoGAF, challenging our readers to showcase the most technique in how they defeat the opponent, by doing a LV1, no damage, Kingdom Key-only run where you're only allowed to use Guard and Keyblade strikes against the boss. We're an encyclopedia that is meant to provide information to the reader. Honestly, we should be focusing more on the "what are the attacks and how to counter/avoid them", and less on telling readers "this is what you ''have to do'' to beat this" when the strategies we're telling them are completely inefficient and laughable. I strongly feel that strategies should be much reduced to something like "here's the basic equipment and abilities you can get in a reasonable amount of effort that will allow you to beat the boss." If the question is "what's the best way to defeat this boss", well... (3) That being said, "no/minimum damage" is another perfectly objective, acceptable requirement for a "good strategy" that would minimize the usefulness of the Balloon strategy. It doesn't require us giving any heed to the completely arbitrary "overpowered" descriptor, and the strategy we have now still doesn't meet that requirement.{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 18:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
| |
| :::::I never said those types of strategies shouldn't be mentioned, I said other strategies shouldn't be mentioned just because other "overpowered" methods exist. The word "overpowered" is arbitrary but I think the difference between a normal battle and spamming a single command is quite clear. I agree that strategy sections should be primarily focussed on attacks but my point is that if there's a strong, valid, doable strategy that lets the player beat the boss, it shouldn't be ignored because there's an even easier method. For example, on Vanitas Remnant's page, Ventus' Tornado strategy is detailed but the use of Mine Square is still mentioned. In Julius' case, there's probably no alternative strategy but I'm generalising here. {{User:TheFifteenthMember/Sig1}} 20:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::If someone can provide a strategy that relies more on finesse in the combat system, deflecting attacks instead of merely throwing Elixirs at them, I'm totally for adding that strategy in -- that is absolutely a weakness of my strategy, which throws free Cures at them instead. I'm not against an alternate strategy in general, I'm against the one we have ''now'', which is weaksauce.{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 01:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
| |
