Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Fire Emblem Game
    Binding Blade


  • I fight for...

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I don't because it isn't always possible or efficient to do that. In reality we don't choose between scenarios. We don't rank characters based on how much worse it would be if they existed and other units didn't. Besides, the fact that a unit is using resources to complete a chapter is a side effect of actually using the unit. Here's an example where your hypothetical situation doesn't work. Suppose we compare Marcus to a hypothetical Marcus that joins in chapter 26 with the experience he would have had if we used him a decent amount. Real Marcus is better than hypothetical Marcus because it's far more efficient to have him around early than to have that character later on. We don't consider the resources that real Marcus uses because he has to use them to make the early game as quick as it is. It doesn't matter that he's promoted; pretend that he isn't if you like, or perhaps consider an unpromoted unit that isn't quite as good that is still necessary for efficient play.
  2. Assuming that this hypothetical unit reaches the same level of combat at the same time while not being a detriment to the team then yes, they would be better. As I said earlier training units does not absolve them of their weaknesses. Amelia spends most of the time either not existing or being the worst character in the game, and a tier list would reflect that. Amelia's also kind of special because she's so bad that she needs to set the rest of the team back in order to train her, and we would use opportunity cost to determine if it's worth the time it takes to make her a positive contribution to the team. I said this earlier "A unit should be trained to the extent that it's possible to train them assuming the rest of the team is well constructed and designed to beat chapters quickly.", and it applies here. Potential is the wrong word here; it depends on when they reach their potential. I covered that more in the Amelia example, so I won't go into any more detail here. Anyway, Isadora would be considered the worst Paladin (every other unit that can become a Paladin is probably better than her by the time they join or close to it, or they have a lot more early game utility), but that doesn't make her the worst unit. She's the worst Paladin, but she's better than the best Warrior, Swordmaster, or Sniper for example.
  3. If you want to take opportunity cost into account then you run into exactly the issue I outlined. I can say that Lyn isn't worth training because the resources could be better used elsewhere. In Jill's case it's the fact that it's just not worth spending the time it takes to get her, but in Lyn's case it's experience and the deployment slots over the course of several chapters. They are two different resources, but functionally the result is the same. Isadora is mounted and she has access to the weapon triangle. Training units does not absolve them of their inherent weaknesses, so Isadora's position would likely not change much. We can't always compare characters from one playthrough anyway, and we don't compare units from a single hypothetical playthrough. If we wanted to compare Kent to Sain for example we would compare a Kent that was promoted in LHM to a Sain that was promoted in LHM.
  4. Hard is not the correct term here. We should value resources and time, but difficulty doesn't matter. It's a small point, but it's important because difficulty is subjective, and it could be difficult to train a character that is both fast and efficient to use. I can't really think of any good examples at the moment, but it is possible. I'm going to assume that both experience and deployment are free resources because otherwise we run into the best play issue. If we rank characters based on how much they can do while playing efficiently then babying is not an issue. A unit should be trained to the extent that it's possible to train them assuming the rest of the team is well constructed and designed to beat chapters quickly. I don't think that opportunity cost should be factored in. Otherwise we run into that same problem I mentioned earlier. I'll use FE9 Jill in normal mode as an example to illustrate the point; I wish I had an example that didn't involve recruitment cost, but I'm tired and can't think of anything better at the moment. Suppose we compare the Jill we recruited and used to the fullest to the Jill we never even recruited. The Jill we never recruited is better because it saves time over recruiting and using her. If we only factor in opportunity cost to a certain degree we have to arbitrarily decide where we want to draw the line, and it gets complicated really quickly too. I want to mention stat boosters just for the sake of completion here. I don't think that using a bunch of stat boosters on a character breaks tiering either. Let's suppose I wanted to give Lyn a bunch of stat boosting items. She does get a lot more durable, but it doesn't change her situation much otherwise. She still doesn't have 1-2 range or a mount, so her ability to do anything meaningful in a map is still limited.
  5. I'm guessing he thinks that it's actually worth using Eliwood for an entire playthrough even if he's wrong. We'd need clarification from him to be sure, but I wouldn't say "so for the most part it's just a waste of exp to train Lyn" if I wanted to actually compare her to Eliwood.
  6. Eliwood is slightly more useful than Lyn in the second context because he has some early game contributions. I don't disagree with your sentiment though; I would also rather use the first criteria to compare characters, but I don't think that Altha is comparing characters that way.
  7. No, it absolutely does change things. I provided an instance where we don't compare Lyn to other characters based on using her.
  8. I'm assuming that he's trying to compare Lyn to Eliwood in a theoretically 'optimal' playthrough, and we can absolutely judge characters based on that.
  9. Reporting your post usually helps. That's what I have done when I double post anyway =P. You want to be careful about saying this sort of thing. It's not worth putting resources into either of the two long term unless Eliwood gets blessed, so if we go by that logic then the better character is determined by what they contribute early on. Eliwood exists in the first 5 chapters of HHM, so by that logic he's still better, but he also doesn't get deployed after that unless he gets blessed enough to the point that it's worth using him. The Lyn vs. Eliwood discussion isn't really doing much to show that there are characters that are much worse than Eliwood that are ignored though. Lyn is often overrated and not really ignored (or at least she was historically, and I would argue that it has more to do with the fact that people like Lyn than how she performs as a character). That being said Eliwood isn't actually good, so there aren't many lords that are much worse than him to begin with. He might get a mount in chapter 26, but getting one doesn't automatically make him good.
  10. You didn't point out anything that helped. Mounted units perform better in every single situation you mentioned. A mounted unit can get to a chokepoint faster or reposition after attacking. Your claim is dubious too considering there are only 4 defend maps out of the 30+ maps in the game, and there isn't really any reason to stay at a chokepoint in most maps considering we want to clear the objective rather than stand still. Enemies in PoR are rather weak, so it's not very difficult to do that either. Mages are useful for certain things too if we want to play quickly, but you can't really make the argument that PoR did anything to help given that they removed some of the tools that made mages good.
  11. The fact that Ike is in a much easier game with access to broken resources makes him better than Eliwood. It helps that he is always going to be deployed too whereas Eliwood doesn't get that luxury in the mode where he actually promotes at a reasonable time, but that's more of a minor thing. Otherwise you've listed several characters that people don't have a good opinion of and female characters that people tend to like to use and therefore overrate. Those don't really fall into the category of characters that are way worse than Eliwood who are ignored either.
  12. What lords are you talking about that are way worse than him?
  13. It doesn't cut their movements indoors. If you do a quick youtube search of a speedrun or something you can confirm it for yourself. I'd provide a video myself if I was sure that it didn't mess with the formatting, but it shouldn't really matter. PoR is really not favorable to unmounted units. It's easy enough of a game that any character can kill enemies, but mounted units are far superior to just about every other unit in the game. Magic units have their place, but otherwise mounted units have some of the best combat stats and a broken form of canto. It doesn't help that Paladin is the only class with a good Occult skill besides Ike's. The only thing that unmounted units have going for them is that they don't need to see that much combat to be functional combat units because of bonus experience.
  14. If we don't nerf mounted units in any way it's tough to balance unmounted units. Some flying units are weak defensively, but not all are, and they're the kinds of units that are worth investing into heavily anyway if they don't already have good combat to begin with. Once a unit reaches a certain threshold more stats don't really matter, so even if we give unmounted units better stats it doesn't fix the issue. It doesn't help that Paladins generally have good control of the weapon triangle on top of everything else. Thracia did it pretty well. They have enough maps where mounted units are really strong, and they are effectively neutered indoors. Giving more enemies anti mount weapons doesn't really fix the issue (too many and mounted units don't get used for combat, and without enough of them it becomes a player phase issue to solve rather than being much of a real nerf), and it would require intricate map design and specific mechanics to accomodate unmounted units while not nerfing mounted units.
  15. It's not that they're bad because of how 'difficult' it is to train them. They're bad because it's not very efficient to train them. Ross is a bit of an exception because he does join early and has a specific niche, but he's not amazing. If you want you can look at their average stats and compare them to similar characters by the way; you'll find that their stats aren't that impressive.
  • Create New...