安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
This means that, not only do I have a better survivability, I also kill the boss quicker, since I’m not dying so much (and so, not losing turns unnecessarily due to the KO status – which costs at least one turn, but often more, with or without auto-phoenix).
I’ll post some videos after I’m done with my grinding, as I think it needs to be shown how effective this build is, since most are saying (inaccurately) that it isn’t.
(e.g. I just defeated Yojimbo all 5 times, without a single KO or heal during or in between the battles, despite him doing Wakizashi several times.)
BHPL isn't ineffective - it works, you can do all the fights with it.
But BHPL is very much INEFFICIENT - it takes a lot more time and effort to do the very same thing you could do faster and more easily without it.
Even where this is true (and it's by no means universally the case), you are gaining a few turns saved in a fight at the cost of MASSIVELY more time invested to get your HP up and set up BHPL. If you're saving 2 minutes in a boss fight (and that's probably very generous) but need 2 more hours (this, too, is generous) to get ready, that's really, really inefficient.
So then, we agree that bhpl is a stronger build, BUT it take a lot more time to get. Is that what you all meant? (Perhaps you meant this, but clearly others didn't :)
I can't think of many instances in which it isn't true (in fact, none comes in mind). In the worse case scenario (i.e. when the boss isn't doing enough damage to kill you even without bhpl), then you'd still defeat it just as fast. Is that what you meant?
Penance for example is a fight where BHPL does nothing for you, and you never die without BHPL if you do it right.
On other fights, you'd have to square lost turns due to Auto-Phoenix with lost turns due to healing back up your massive HP pool.
But this is just a detail to quibble over, it changes zero about the larger issue.
Like I said, I agree that BHPL take more time to get, and so that is not what I'm arguing about. We agree here.
What you seem to misunderstand is that, once you've got it, it indeed becomes the stronger build, where "stronger" means it gives you more survivability (except perhaps for some very rare unimportant circumstances), as well as allowing you to end fights quicker or at least as fast as a build based on Auto-phoenix.
If you disagree with this, then I'll provide a video showing this later.
I disagree. Simply use Full-life on Penance (though, it's unnecessary, since you don't need to die when you have bhpl). For healing, have two characters use Quick pockets+Megalixir - you loose much less time than getting KOed and then getting revived by Auto-phoenix (since you then at least loose a full turn).
I'll post a video of this as well in the future.
Again: I don't disagree that BHPL may let you finish some fights faster. BUT WHY DOES THAT MATTER, if it's at the cost of a lot MORE time you LOSE by having to grind longer. The only thing that would make that worth it is if it let you win fights you otherwise couldn't - but that's not the case here.
Again, this doesn't really matter. Could well be, could be that it's not the case, I don't really know for sure and don't care - unless you can prove that using BHPL somehow lets you finish fights so quickly you save more time than the time you spent grinding up your BHPL stats. Which I'm sure you will easily agree will never ever be the case.
I can fully understand this approach. However, when I play these games, one of my major motivations for playing them is to eventually get the strongest possible characters is the game. I only consider the game complete when I’ve achieved this. Do you really find this that strange? :)
It only works for you because you're systematically excluding preparation time, and I think that's a gross misrepresentation of performance.
Subjective preference is sacrosanct. You can like whatever you like, and nobody can tell you otherwise. However, using words like "stronger" implies at least SOME kind of objectivity, and as outlined above I think you are misrepresenting something there.
It's part of why I avoid such terminology and use words like "efficient" instead - or, when it's subjective, I simply explain what I mean and say things like "I like to have maximum stats in everything" - whether that is objectively the most efficient way or not then becomes irrelevant, because it's not what I'm talking about.
I do care about preparation time, but not as much as you do.
In fact, I wouldn't have brought up this discussion if people didn't suggest that the BHPL build was ineffective (you've now clarify that this isn't your position, but that is certainly the position of others on this thread).
The metric I use is the effectiveness of the build IN BATTLE. A more effective build is then called a stronger build. It's as simple as that.
For example, you can defeat an opponent with only one character standing that has only 1 hp left. That still counts as a defeat. However, if a build/gameplay allows you to defeat the same boss, with the same battle time, but with more HP left (and this, most of the time, i.e. if you didn't just get lucky), then we ought to agree that the latter build/gameplay is more effective IN BATTLE.
The effectiveness of a build/gameplay in battle is my main priority.
Anyhow, I don't think that we actually disagree anymore, it's just that we don't prioritize the same things!
YOU don't know what I'm talking about, as usually what I mean by these terms is quite clear. I gave an example in my previous post of what I mean by effective build/gameplay. I.e. you can define “more effective/stronger” as “less time consuming in battle and/or with a better survivability in battle”, or anything else along those lines, really – it need not be anything mysterious.
Now, you claim that your prioritizing of overall time (i.e. preparation+battle time) taken to defeat the boss is OBJECTIVE, but why is that? I disagree, I think it is just as subjective as my prioritizing the TIME SPENT in battle and the STATE OF THE PARTY during that battle.
There’s nothing wrong with either preference, but none is truly objective. This is why I think there isn’t any disagreement anymore, but merely preferences.
I'm not saying you can't use whatever criteria you want - you can. But don't be surprised if people are confused about what you mean.
Because it's just time, period. Not prep time, not combat time, just time. No qualifiers. No special exclusions. Just the time you spent in the game. The end. It doesn't get more objective than a single, universally accessible metric.
You can qualify any which way you want, as long as you make it clear, and phrase it in a way that people know what you mean. Saying "survivability" as you do, for example, is NOT clear - what do you mean by that, if it's not about winning the fight? How many are left standing at the end? Just the end? At what HP level? Against what enemy? Nothing about that is objective.
Where did I say that my “metric” was objective? I explicitly wrote that neither yours nor mine were...
All you’ve done here is “declare” that “overall time” is an objective metric. But, of course, your declaring this doesn’t simply make it so. Anyhow, I’ve said all I had to say, so no point in dragging this further. Thanks for your contribution.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not all opinions are on equal footing.
If you give me a clear definition of what YOU mean by objective, then I might. Do you see the problem here? :-) Eventually, we have to make a subjective assumption, and there's nothing wrong with that -- except, when you then claim that your subjective assumption is in fact objective. This is in fact the root of a lot (if not most!) of arguments in general.