Dunal

Because all other stats are generally not nearly worth as much per stat. Skill could do with giving +4 HIT and +1 CRIT per point, with Luck counterbalancing that. Would help to make each stat per point far more relevant. As it stands, they do not do enough, and Speed provides the most AVO despite already being otherwise essential due to attack speed (doubling) anyway. Luck should be the main AVO stat. The fact that they nerfed LCK per point in Fates is completely mind-boggling, to say the least.

Chances are you're giving Meg about 4-5 levels on 1-4 alone just by chokepoint-ing a few Laguz (she gains about ~30 EXP from just hitting an enemy). It's pretty much the perfect map to train her on. Level 11-12 by 1-7 is about right. If we're comfortable giving Fiona like 5-7 levels per map she's on just so she can not completely suck in part 3, then I think it's entirely realistic for Meg to gain a lot of levels on a map that's extremely suited for it. I mean, if Meg actually joined in 1-5 instead then I'd probably consider Fiona better (since Meg would struggle to do much of anything and therefore wouldn't grow), that's how much of a saving grace 1-4 is for Meg. Put it this way, going out of your way to baby Fiona in 1-7 or 1-E is mandatory for her to be used. Therefore, the same treatment for Meg in 1-4 makes complete sense based on the map design and enemies you're fighting (making the struggle of training Meg far less of a pain than Fiona). "Blatant favouritism" applies far more to Fiona in this case since training Meg in certain maps like 1-4 is not that difficult compared to whatever you're doing with Fiona on 1-7 or 1-E. And it's already been pointed out that Fiona's still bad on 3-6 when she's 20/1, while Meg can actually be worked with.

Keep in mind that only B support is possible for Fiona by 3-6 since she only had 2 maps beforehand. Then loses out on 13 base AVO due to lower SPD/LCK. All the while Meg is able to get an A earth in a timely manner. No matter what, Meg has the higher avoid here. Fiona gets 16 AVO out of her own earth affinity but loses out on that 13 AVO + 8 AVO from the A support. So Meg has 5 AVO more altogether (double B earth is +32 AVO, while a single A earth + stat difference is +37 AVO). And in terms of durability, assuming both are 20/1, Meg is 5RKOed by the average cat with a robe. Fiona is 2RKOed with that same robe (due to having only 17 AS -- therefore doubled). Simply put, Fiona's stats are awful until tier 3, that much is obvious. That's even if Fiona can reach 20/1 in two whole maps (6 levels per map while Meg needs 2.5 levels). It's a shame she doesn't get 1-8. Admittedly though, the earth support does make Fiona rather strong lategame, since dodge tanking is the best thing to abuse where possible.

IMO Conquest >>>>> SoV >>> Awakening > Birthright >>>>> Rev. I consider gameplay to be the most important thing so Conquest definitely wins. SoV wins in everything but gameplay. Awakening technically has better/fun core gameplay then the former, just a lot more broken (making it less engaging overall), and everything else is worse. Birthright is one of the most bland/forgettable games in the series, even if the gameplay is an upgrade from Awakening. Rev is Rev. Grouping all campaigns in Fates into one singular entity doesn't really work since Conquest is just that much better than the other two. Not even an exaggeration -- Conquest probably had the most replay value of any game in the series so far. But I honestly don't know if I'd care to play BR/Rev ever again.

If anything, the increased EXP gain in normal means that Meg's stat lead will be even higher than in hard mode. So I would disagree that difficulty mode is a factor. There's also more leeway in giving them additional resources on lower difficulties because you're able to sacrifice less towards other units -- and I feel that Meg benefits more from early resources than Fiona (such as giving a robe and/or shield). Having 4x more BEXP is also a factor. It allows Meg to reach a decent spot with relative ease, while say, a 20/1 Fiona is very weak with or without bonus EXP, assuming that's the level you're aiming for on 3-6 or so. Either way, the main factor here is Meg being rather serviceable in part 3, while Fiona isn't without abuse. Considering their part 3 maps are some of the more difficult maps in the game, I'd consider this a considerable win for Meg. Fiona may be better during a couple later maps but I'd consider being stronger during the more difficult portions of the game to be more important. It's why Sothe is objectively one of the best units in the entire game. Or how Jeigans in FE generally are. They're both pretty bad -- Meg being 'objectively good' during part 3 is still a stretch... but it's much more realistic than any kind of praise Fiona could receive in the first 3/4 of the game.

Fiona is definitely worse. With equal use Fiona is only 'better' in the latter portions of Part 4 and by not that much surprisingly (move being the only main reason -- Meg actually has the better stats of the two overall aside from 4-F-5 assuming Fiona can actually reach 20/20/14... which is tougher than it sounds). If you're using either of the two, you're probably giving them additional resources to make them 'work' in which Meg makes a lot more use out of them. Stat boosters / forges / BEXP on Meg can make her somewhat functional (on hard mode) even at base (defining functional as actually contributing to the objective of the map rather than just fishing for kills). Fiona struggles no matter what you give her and while Meg's move is bad... the maps themselves aren't doing Fiona any favours. And she flat out doesn't exist in 1-8 for whatever reason. If she did exist in 1-8 and had no in-door move penalty, then I'd put them about even, with maybe Fiona edging out. Meg would still be better combat-wise but at least Fiona would have the mobility/utility that Meg doesn't. And she'd have an extra map to 'fix' her combat earlier. Fact is, is that Fiona's class is often more of a hindrance than anything so in that regard, she's not much better off than Meg. And at least Meg has the option of equipping Celerity and/or boots and still climb ledges or move through swamp. There's also weaponry to mention as well. Brave Sword and Killing Edge actually exist to aid Meg's combat much further. Sure, it's a degree of favouritism to give those to her... but Fiona simply doesn't the opportunity whatsoever to get a Killer/Brave which otherwise could have helped salvage her poor combat.

It's a shame you can't give her Wary Fighter though. That would make her really strong. Can only hope they'll introduce a Sacred Seal version of it at some point (perhaps weaker at >70% HP but usable on anyone). Either way, Raven tome is good on her. I personally use Rauðrwolf+ / Bowbreaker instead which works all the same (mostly just for variation since I have a couple other Raven users).

The current patch was/is outdated but they'll be a new update shortly after FEE3. Should be sometime next month.

Give them +1 movement. Also give Soldier/Knights/Barons a passive that gives them STR equal to twice an equipped shield's weight (capped at +10 STR boost). Gives them some unique flexibility in terms of equipment/skills. Another idea is a passive that allows them to act after using non-combat skills like Swap or Shove. Imagine being able to attack after using 'Swap'. That's some good utility.

Updated the link. Should now be fixed.

Well the idea is that Marcus getting boss kills gives him enough EXP is occasionally level up, keeping his momentum (on average). Put it this way, levelling a weak unit a few times is doing little to benefit you in the short term, while levelling a strong unit (to make them even stronger) even just once often makes a bigger difference in FE. For example, a weak unit may need 8-10 levels to ORKO specific enemies on average, while a stronger unit might only need 1 or 2 to put them in that range. You can give Marcus boss kills because he seldom gains much EXP otherwise (assuming you're giving him as a few normal kills as possible). He'll still be strong without them for a long time, but this makes him even better for longer.

Best unit in the game. He's never weak at any point aside from strictly endgame. LV18-20 Marcus on (HHM) Victory or Death is still good. That puts things into perspective. And early on you can just have him rescue someone you're not using to chip everything. And just about everything else about him is great. "Stealing EXP" is also a pointless argument since there's plenty of time to train units in this game before enemies start scaling (unlike some other games). Even in HHM Ranked you probably still want to give him boss kills early on despite the EXP rank.

Far more trouble than he's worth? 2K gold to have a solid unit for the entire game? Fair to disagree but that's hardly a huge factor for a FE game (with the Geeses and Martys and Bartres out there). But if you insist. You have to consider that units need to be rated on their own merits. Assuming certain resources are going to certain units is not a fair way to judge other units. You can only use a certain amount of units, so any resources going to the other unit you'd be otherwise using are going to Arthur or any particular unit we'd be discussing. Arthur's personal skill reduces nearby enemy luck by 30 in regards to critical avoid (so up to 15% extra crit towards nearby enemies). Over the course over an entire late game map you're likely to outright 1HKO a few enemies because of it (over the course of attacking 6 times in the proximity to Arthur, on average you'll land on extra crit). That's a lot more powerful than other personals at that stage of the game. And due to Arthur's high SKL at that point in the game, he ends up having high crit even as a hero (granted, he needs to not be using a bronze at that point, but either way, it benefits your other units that are attacking). It doesn't mean much early on since the base crit of your own units isn't that high and enemy luck isn't high either. But either way, setting enemy crit avoid to literally zero is good later on. It might as well read as "Passively grant all allies within 2 spaces up to 15% crit" in most cases.

And? All units need resources to some degree. Your argument is that units like Arthur are "unusable" as a counter argument for Conquest being balanced. Yet... a 2k gold investment is all it takes to make him decent/good (the dude has solid bases/growth, near perfect availability and a really powerful personal skill later into the game -- also a good class change option where the base weapon rank doesn't matter that much due to a forged bronze being optimal for him anyway. Not to mention that Percy negates Arthur's main weakness even more should you decide to use him). Meanwhile there are other FE games where there are no quick fixes like this. Games plagued with units with genuinely bad stat spreads (or stats in general) and/or are underleveled. The only two units in conquest without these "quick fixes" are Odin and Mozu. But they aren't exactly awful long-term, especially the latter. All other units are decent from base with some kind of resource. That isn't typical for a FE game. Especially for a FE with higher difficulty.

They really just need higher stat totals than other units; and then the difficulty to be high enough where extra survivability is actually useful (as opposed to any other unit being able to tank significantly under similar circumstances). Healing is also part of that -- it tends to be extremely easy to top off any unit no matter how much damage they take. So if an armor is taking less, then it really doesn't matter since any amount of health loss can be healed to full anyway (usually). So all that matters is whether a unit lives though enemy phase. And if they do -- doesn't matter what health your paladin is left with. Long-term sustain/healing is rarely a thing. Map design/terrain is a factor of course. Wary fighter would be huge if it was learned in T1 as well. There are many ways to make them good.

Like I said, you need 10 of any mineral to forge a +2 weapon. This is because you can convert 5 to an ore of any type. If you just so happen to get the right ore then all the better. I suppose it's a big difference since you can forge earlier for specific units (immediately at CH7). Last run I had Ruby so forged a lance for Arthur w/ heart seal. Or Mozu could have ran with it (Or given to Peri/Benny later if Arthur wasn't growing well -- after all, it's almost a strictly better Steel weapon for the same gold cost). There's only a 1/6 chance in getting the weapon type you want -- but chances are the type you get can have some good use. Otherwise it'll take ~3 chapters to forge a +2. In time for CH10 (for Fire!Nyx) for instance. But you'd likely only be able to create 2 forges tops per run in this manner (assuming efficiency has merit here -- spending more than 4K on forges total is a tad much). I don't really see how that's relevant for Bronze / Irons, especially the former. That statement is only specific for weapons either expensive or hard to get (Well... that's pretty much any weapon that isn't Bronze / Iron). I mean, the forging system is bad no doubt, but that's not relevant in optimising units in some cases.

Because the whole point is so they can use an accurate weapon without sacrificing damage (base bronze is weak of course). +2 Bronze is a Steel with -1 MT, but +17 HIT, no AS penalty and mostly crit immunity (it's the equivalent of +20 LCK in crit avoid). This is the same price as a steel weapon. Arthur can also class change and do this for Sword/Lances as well. Same goes for any unit. Odin included... although Iron probably has more incentive because of his personal (for whatever that's worth). It does mean though that A) you need to farm 10 of whatever mineral you have at base and B) Using one (or two maximum) of these 'lesser' units is viable between that and the gold you have. It does make these units go from a 4 or 5/10 to 7/10 though. And in terms of gold or resources, the other good units don't really benefit from a forge much (they can either use weapons with drawbacks like lower acc or AS penalties... or just have powerful prfs). Some can be multi use as well. An early bronze axe forge can be passed from Arthur to Charlotte or a promoted Selena/Laslow/Effie etc... who starts E axe. So they get a much better weapon to work with. Forging is mostly bad or too expensive for anything other than a Bronze / Iron but since they are the cheap-no-drawbacks-weaponry they really benefit some units. Units like Charlotte want to use a bronze due to the accuracy, but loses 8 damage on a round of combat without a forge. So either she has bad accuracy or bad damage at base. A forge + maybe a couple early STR tonics should fix that (at least makes her very usable before her growth kicks in).

For the difficulty to balance ratio (basically how hard a FE has ever been while being fairly balanced) then it's Conquest. Some other games are more "balanced", but only by virtue of enemies being so weak that anyone can be used as a result. Everyone is usable in Conquest. Even Gunter for a few maps after his jointime where he can see some use -- and that's the worst unit you have. Otherwise, Nyx/Charlotte/Arthur are more than usable with a +2 bronze (which are rather cheap) especially the latter. Same thing with Odin regarding a thunder tome (albeit more expensive in comparison) or like Mozu; Heart Seal + Forge. Everyone else is at least average without too much support. And the best two units at least have a specific weakness (Camilla = Bows, Xander = Magic). Again, you need to throw a bit of money (usually in the range of 2 to 4k gold) for the group of weaker units -- but that's an immediate investment that doesn't set you back too much. Comparatively in a lot of other games, the lesser units don't have this 'fix' available to them. Mostly because the weaker units here are held back by a very specific weakness -- that either being accuracy or crit avoid. Only Odin or Mozu are notably 'underleveled' as a whole, which is pretty impressive (for example, Nyx's only prominent issue is doubling at base and accuracy; in which a forge fixes the latter and a couple early speed tonics fixes the former. It's not actually all that difficult to have her 1RKOing at base, or very close to it).

Radiant Dawn has the best core gameplay IMO but Conquest has the better balancing/execution of its mechanics (while still having great core gameplay). Overall I'd say Conquest. Worst would probably be Gaiden. Mostly because it's far too slow/clunky for what the game was trying to accomplish. While Echoes isn't fantastic either, it definitely smoothed things out and enabled the player to speed things up tremendously. Honourable mentions are FE5 for best and FE1/Awakening/Rev for worst.

Erk is quite a bit better than Rei in context to their own games. Put it this way, Rei has only 1 more AS 11 levels higher with a lot less availability... in a game with faster enemies. Perhaps the statement is accurate with Lugh instead. On that note, Isadora rarely has to care about AS loss because of how slow a lot of FE7 enemies are. And maybe only has to worry about it for a short period after joining if using a Javelin (since a couple SPD procs should see her through the entire rest of the game for the most part). Silver Sword is 2 AS loss and Killing Edge is 1 AS, so outside of ranged options, she's not really being affected at base level. Otherwise she's just a low-investment unit in a great class. Also the same reason why Cecilia is still decent at worst, except Isadora has more than passable combat stats.

Attack stance was a great new addition and/or concept (in isolation -- pair ups themselves are a different matter). The only reason why the execution was/is flawed because units are usually either too squishy (overly punished by it) or too tanky (can ignore it) in Fates as a whole. And pair-up just outright counters it. In a world where the latter doesn't exist and HP values are much higher (seriously, why was attack stance introduced in a game where HP values are worse than they usually are) and DEF/RES are mellowed down a bit, attack stance would be a fantastic addition. Related to that, I don't necessarily think this is an "unpopular" opinion, but Fates' direction with having low HP values is a poor design choice for other reasons as well (the only benefit I can see is allowing lower MT variance between weapons to still have impact). Heroes has the same issue as well. It's now either Burst Emblem or Tink Emblem. Rarely anything in-between. Also, GBA CON was a good mechanic. I don't think it was perfectly balanced but it worked extremely well nonetheless. Pegasus were some of the better units in each game and suffered the most from it. Fighters were least affected by it and they were some of the worst. The point is that in terms of balance it was fine, and it's existence created varied weapon diversity between units. The main flaw was just the actual numerical balancing. The Sol Katti doesn't point towards the mechanic being bad -- it just meant that the actual weapon just shouldn't have been that heavy in the first place (it's like saying Jeigans shouldn't exist because of examples like Seth). The current system (Fates or Echoes)? Basically just punishes slower units even more. A steel weapon is now bad on anyone with middling speed and only viable on faster units. Same with any weapon with "weight" these days. Faster units are now even better. EDIT: Then again, weapons that cannot double do counteract that I suppose. That's the better direction to have for more powerful weaponry. Flat decreases in SPD just don't work for the most part (lowering doubling threshold would be a lot better as well, since it doesn't overly punish slower units who may start being doubled).

I probably want to avoid Inspire on more than one unit, just because stacking would be too powerful (+10 SPD may break endgame with units that shouldn't double). Currently I'm testing: Kieran (separates him from Titania), Sanaki and Mia (fits their playstyle/niche or at least challenges good use with them due to lack of mobility/endurance): Rally Other good candidates were Skrimir, Ena and T3 Ike. It couldn't be both Sanaki and Skrimir considering their joint availability (access to buffs should be sporadic) and a second mandatory endgame unit is a bit much. I'm open to giving Rally to Ike rather than Sanaki though. Pelleas/Vika (powerful ability provided to est-type units that kinda fit their theme): Fortify (Now named Shroud). Naesala was considered instead of Vika but decided on Vika in the end. Mostly because it's easier to fit within her power budget (lack of availability). Still unsure on Inspire because speed buffs require even more power budget (unless it's a main/forced unit). Candidates are: T3 Fiona, Astrid or Sothe, Elincia, T2+ Micaiah. Or a Heron. Personally, I'm heavily leaning on Micaiah at this point. I just think that a speed rally unit would be far too valuable to not be in your endgame team, to the point where I'd need to balance around that possibly being a factor (much like how Nasir currently is in the Ashera fight). But then it would mean that if they are not present... you would likely be a lot worse off. Making them optimal no matter what. A Heron with Inspire would just make them the best one as well. It also means that I can balance Micaiah's SPD (and MAG?) itself under the circumstance that she can never receive a SPD buff herself.

Like: I wouldn't say I "like" Camilla -- she's still not a great character by any stretch of the imagination. But I'd give her benefit of the doubt in regards to the fact that the reason why she's appears as awful as she does is because her character just does not work with her design. At all. She's meant to be a overly caring mother archetype, which is kinda fine by itself... but design/age-wise it almost comes across as sexual in nature and that really doesn't do her overall character many favors at all. By itself, her character could have been okay (if toned down a bit) if her design was completely different, like an older/reserved type. I mean, design isn't even bad either -- it would just work well if her character was more suited towards it. Like as a unit: Dorcas. Even without Lyn Mode he can be a solid contributor in HHM. Still an average unit overall by all means -- but since early game HHM is much harder than what comes later, he can certainly have some value. Community generally thinks he's awful from what I've seen (growths are valued higher than they should be). Dislike: Lucina. She's so bland. It would help if her design wasn't just a gender-swapped Marth -- but a lot of people seem to dig that for whatever reason. I mean, her character isn't bad... just wholly uninteresting. Dislike as a unit: Edward. A good contender for the most overrated unit in FE. People seem to love this guy and will completely go out of their way to defend the fact that he's a good unit. He's okay at best, by sheer effort of keeping him relevant. On Hard mode, he doesn't even fare well against axe users, and gains zero benefit by losing WTD against lances. And by virtue of earth affinity being as broken as it is, the other swordmaster just happens to be the better unit no matter what (let alone everything else about them). "Potential" doesn't even matter in this game either since everyone can cap-ram their stats with little effort. I'd even go as far to say he's 'bad' in HM, while many would disagree because it's "worth training him" or something.

The problem with making them equipable/removable is that the optimal strategy is just going to put them on units with high move + canto (especially the latter, which means that positioning no longer matters that much -- much more so for Inspire and Fortify. Rally is the weakest out the lot so I suppose it's fine). And since the skills are inherently super powerful, there are problems with balancing their usage against being able to be placed on any unit (much like wrath/resolve). The skills feel like they need to be given to units where I can appropriately adjust their power budget in terms of balance while also giving them uniqueness and contrasting reasons to be used over another unit. For example I've thought about giving 'Rally' to Kieran since otherwise he isn't going to be too interesting as a unit. A lot of the unique stat spreads are taken by other units therefore, compared to Titania it's difficult to make him stand out. Otherwise, T3 masteries are a consideration since it allows me to provide some further unique skills to certain classes as opposed to RNG instant kills. As in, Kieran gaining it at T3. Or Pelleas/Brom getting Fortify at T3 (solidifying them as the primary support tanks for magic/physical respectfully, since they also have water affinity) etc... I'm leaning on this a lot currently. Haven't really messed with terrain yet. The cover/ward tiles are going to be reworked a bit anyway.

4-E-3 is still only dragons, but White Dragons have Nullify innate. Meaning that Red ones are only food for effective damage (And Dheg himself, I guess). Lucia now has Paragon rather than Slayer as well. Don't have stats finalised for later units, no. I could list them shortly, though. Speaking of innate skills, I've also decided that the Dragon Buffs should be spread across other classes because they are some of the most interesting/cool skills from a gameplay standpoint (would be interesting for them to appear much earlier). However, I'm still deciding how that should be done. At the very least, they are renamed to be more universal (Rally, Inspire and Fortify being Red/White/Black Tide respectfully). My first thought would be designated units (for example: Soren with Fortify -- pushing him towards being more of a support unit. Or Skrimir with Rally etc...). Either that or class specific in the form of masteries. Guardian (Meg) = Inspire. Baron (Brom) = Fortify. F!Champion (Titania) = Rally etc... Thoughts on what could be the best direction to go down? They're such powerful abilities that replacing mastery skills in some cases could be a good option. Dragons would instead just have skills that make them better combat units than support units. Honestly, that suits them better.