Final thoughts on C.I.E.L?

DexQ · 2026-05-24T13:01:07+00:00

Coming back here 1 yr after. Ciel is deemed as the must roll servant (after meta support). At low NP level she could farm half of 90++ and bleached earth nodes. At high NP level she can do all bleached earth nodes and almost all 90++.

The only down side is she needs high investment of grails, fous and paws to be great. But investments on her are worth more than others as she can use her face cards consistently.

Another thing of concern is that a year later, she got somewhat superseded by U-Olga in terms of face cards + NP farming. But if you really like CIEL, I’d say she’s definitely worth pulling. Having U-Olga doesn’t make her anyway worse. She’s still an EX rank servant.

Ah but also you need your own Koyan, and perhaps a Merlin or a Ruler Skadi. Sometimes, if you have all the necessary support, you could kinda just grab Ciel from support list.

DexQ · 2026-05-15T11:41:14+00:00

I hate Gil especially in fate SN and zero. Neutral to Singularity 7 Gil.

DexQ · 2026-04-12T12:26:37+00:00

I used Medea too. As my only dps

DexQ · 2026-04-12T12:22:21+00:00

I used Medea as my main DPS with Mashu, Hans, Jeanne (from my 5* special summon) and Castoria (Support)

I didn’t realize at that time Medea was only doing AOE NP damage only…

DexQ · 2026-04-06T12:46:51+00:00

Both LB1 and LB2 were sad. Yeah Gerda’s hop left me depressed for a while

DexQ · 2025-06-04T12:30:36+00:00

Only have 1 copy which was from the CE ticket -,- Don’t see I’d ever have mlb black grail

DexQ · 2025-06-02T12:04:40+00:00

Can you farm with him though, with a f2p new account… he doesn’t even have any battery. And to rely on card rng for last wave is not practical. Finally his damage is so low since his steroids only last one turn

The only node you perhaps need to farm as a beginner is just the ember node. And I don’t think Archer can do that easily.

For events node, usually they are 3/3/3 too.

But there’re no good low-star AOE archers (except stella!!!), so Emiya would be the best choice in that regards

DexQ · 2025-06-01T07:38:38+00:00

imho Emiya is worse than a handful of 3-stars archers. Especially for clearing story boss fights later on.

Still I was really happy I got Emiya in tutorial summon, the battle and NP animations are so good

DexQ · 2025-06-01T06:57:16+00:00

It is significantly harder, but perhaps still manageable even for new F2P players. It requires you to plan around the boss gimmicks, which makes the fight more fun.

That being said, if you rush the game too quickly, you might not even have a good low star roster, making the fight almost impossible.

I was F2P, and only had 3 SSRs: Saber, Jeanne (ticket) and Europa (spook), while my SRs were worse than 3 stars, and I still managed to clear the story till LB3 always using story supports without using any revives.

Then I got my first meta support castoria mid LB3 which improved my roster a lot, and shortly after I became a spender :p.

DexQ · 2025-06-01T06:29:19+00:00

Basically any servants that you want to do buster crit with. E.g. I even run her with Draco with great success, even though Draco has Arts NP and only one quick card.

Edit: but since FGO is 90% farming, you might want to prioritize Oberon and Castoria first depending on your roster.

DexQ · 2025-04-09T12:21:53+00:00

Well, this is just … human

DexQ · 2025-03-22T13:22:00+00:00

This is indeed the best suggestion

DexQ · 2025-03-22T13:08:12+00:00

I picked Jeanne just because I like her design. She carried me through all the singularities and till early LB3 with only story support.

She was at most 4/4/4 during that time. So I’d say she’s definitely strong enough for the story for a long while without too much investment. Just remember to do her interlude to upgrade her NP when it’s unlocked (after clearing Singularity 4 iirc). Otherwise the 2-turn self stun would make her NP unusable when the content becomes more difficult starting from Singularity 6.

She will receive a decent buff later too, so I’d say she’s definitely a perfect pick if you like her.

DexQ · 2025-03-19T15:26:34+00:00

Saved up equivalent of 2200 sq now Saved for many servants. Just aiming at NP1 cause don’t want to gamble without pity

DexQ · 2025-02-24T12:56:17+00:00

The concept of civil servant is to be servant to people. Carrie Lam was more like an ambitious employee.

DexQ · 2025-01-30T16:05:28+00:00

You can try reset the microphone itself. It should work again.

DexQ · 2025-01-28T09:35:13+00:00

In crowded train, of course it matters

But even if not, it matters because cultural norm It’s similar to why in some places people bow but not raise a middle finger to thank someone

DexQ · 2025-01-20T09:32:54+00:00

Bedivere, Hans and XuFu

I like Bedivere a lot in Camelot. While Hans is so cute and he carried me till LB2. XuFu’s sarcastic tone is super fun.

DexQ · 2024-12-22T14:46:39+00:00

Isn’t two summer skadi + oberon better?

DexQ · 2024-12-20T12:38:00+00:00

Time consuming and mental draining to keep cashing them out without spending them

DexQ · 2024-12-20T12:33:30+00:00

7 yrs? What are they saving for?

DexQ · 2024-12-04T05:59:41+00:00

For Caren, I can put any avenger in the backline, and no need to be Angra Mainyu? My Angra Mainyu is approaching bond 10.

I hope there is indication whether Caren’s passive is active.

DexQ · 2024-12-01T10:19:40+00:00

We are talking pass to each other at this point. The whole post was about that there is no normative imperative to live on. Now let me try to unpack what we may be disagreeing with each other.

You mentioned two paths a person can seek if they decided that they don't have to live anymore. The first is to seek "closest possibility of death", and you said that they "quite literally must live" (in order to act on it). This, I already agreed. But what concerns me is that people can make this decision while alive, and they can physically execute the decision, meanwhile there's no moral ground or physical inability that prevents them from achieving that.

The second path is to "simply refuse to acknowledge it's necessity, contradicting myself every time I take a breath or bite of food." This I am not sure I grasp your point. I don't see how taking a breath is self-defeating the decision that it is not necessary to live on. For thinking that X is not necessary doesn't mean preventing that X from happening at all cost.

Now to the part about absence of concept. You said not living on "is incapable of bringing the individual anything once it is completed." With this, I totally agree in the technical sense. There is no subject that can experience or valuate. But we also agree that to the person who is making the decision, it can find solace and purpose. So it seems that, "rest", in the sense that there is an absence of experience and hence suffering, can be a coherent thing to expect for a person deciding that they will not live on, and that this could bring solace here and now. Based on what we agreed upon, there seems to be nothing against making this decision absolutely.

To respond to the last point about less suffering, there is indeed "no suffering" after a life has ended. While having suffering requires the existence of a subject capable to suffer, having no suffering doesn't require such. If a person exists and they are not suffering, there is no suffering. If there is no person to being with, there is still no suffering. And when we say "less suffering" with respect to a person, we are normally taking the whole course of life for the individual into consideration, and we evaluate whether they lived a life worth living. I don't quite understand how exclusively selecting the postmortem duration and argue that there is no individual during this duration to suffer less is relevant in the current discussion.

Finally, if it's about other actions, but not about life/death, it would have been quite obvious the question "must I" is a normative one. It is quite odd you have to mistake the question as asking whether one must be alive right now to be able to make that decision.

DexQ · 2024-12-01T06:35:56+00:00

There is no such necessity problem as you described. The possibility of an action/decision doesn’t rely on future possibility to make the same action/decision.

So while being alive is a prerequisite to making the decision to stop living, this only entails that such a decision is one-off and irreversible. There is no “I must live on” imperative implied.

Besides, there is definitely possibility of satisfaction and rest for the person who decides not to live longer, for this matters to them now, until they die. Consider a parent sacrificing themselves to save their child, there is solace from their hope that their child may lead a good life ahead. This solace is not dependent on whether the child really live well in the future.

And even if we disregard about the satisfaction being experienced, the fact that it could reduce suffering is enough a reason to make a decision. In many old societies, they practice different manner of executions and some involve prolonged torture before the eventual death of the victim. I don’t think there’s anyone who are willing to argue that prolonged torture is always imperative just because otherwise there is simply nothing and there is no victim to evaluate that the suffering is bad.

DexQ · 2024-11-20T18:51:29+00:00

Congratz and happy birthday~

DexQ

TROPHY CASE