Jump to content
gjuptonv

Is Lyn better than Marcus/is Marcus good/ is Lyn good

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, ping said:

Also, if my XP / funds ranks allow me to skip Value of Life, I'm fairly positive that I'll be able to finish the game with about 20 turns to spare for 5 Star Tactics. 32x is basically a way for me to convert that turn surplus into XP and Funds, if needed.

4 hours ago, DiogoJorge said:

Effectiveness means in the context of Fire Emblem, to have a powerfull group of units, rather than rely on the bare minimum stats units like Marcus. Meaning basically to have more overall fire and man power. As well killing as many enemies as possible, since you have 20 turns to spare, clearly you rushed too much and there's room for improvement.

  You heard the man, you effectively complete the game in less turns than he does? Yeah you loser, you thought you were the better player? Nah, "clearly you rushed too much" and "there's room for improvement"

3 hours ago, ping said:

I'm also 17 turns behind Balcerzak's turncount in his successful S Rank run at this point in the game (taking into account the different requirements for chapter 24).

  Also who's this Balcerzak guy? Man, he must really suck at this game! I mean, he had 17+20 = 37 turns to spare, there's obvious room for improvement!

@DiogoJorge I highly advise stepping down from this throne of yours and listening to what we're saying, proving to us that Lyn contributes more than Marcus in a ranked/efficient playthrough will be very difficult considering you don't seem to have any idea what "contributing" means, looking foward yo this ranked run of yours (no sarcasm this time)

4 hours ago, DiogoJorge said:

Effectiveness means in the context of Fire Emblem, to have a powerfull group of units, rather than rely on the bare minimum stats units like Marcus. Meaning basically to have more overall fire and man power. As well killing as many enemies as possible, since you have 20 turns to spare, clearly you rushed too much and there's room for improvement.

  I'll leave the definition of "effectiveness" to the more experienced FE players out there (though I could try to give myself I think), however I can tell you one thing: you're the only person in the world that defines "effectiveness" this way. Literally the only one. 

@Aut @ping thanks for the stats! that format is looking hella clean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Koumal8 said:

  You heard the man, you effectively complete the game in less turns than he does? Yeah you loser, you thought you were the better player? Nah, "clearly you rushed too much" and "there's room for improvement"

  Also who's this Balcerzak guy? Man, he must really suck at this game! I mean, he had 17+20 = 37 turns to spare, there's obvious room for improvement!

@DiogoJorge I highly advise stepping down from this throne of yours and listening to what we're saying, proving to us that Lyn contributes more than Marcus in a ranked/efficient playthrough will be very difficult considering you don't seem to have any idea what "contributing" means, looking foward yo this ranked run of yours (no sarcasm this time)

  I'll leave the definition of "effectiveness" to the more experienced FE players out there (though I could try to give myself I think), however I can tell you one thing: you're the only person in the world that defines "effectiveness" this way. Literally the only one. 

@Aut @ping thanks for the stats! that format is looking hella clean

He's good enough, but I bet his party was poorly trained. He put too much effort to make it faster, there are easier ways to acomplish the same thing. If you can finish the game and get an A rank, then you are a good player. Balcerzak's flaw is that he's putting more effort in finishing the game faster rather than focus on finding a easier way to play the game (that doesn't involve exploits by the way). If he S ranked this way, good for him, but I have another way that works just as well.

I'm one of the more experienced FE players though. Not really, I seriously doubt I'm the only one, when I've met players before that prefer to have a balance between having a powerful team and efficiency. Would you rather put more effort into solving a problem, or choose a method that is slower but works better and easier? Because that's common sense, specially on a job. They want a job done well, not one done fast.

Edited by DiogoJorge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with applying the term "effective" to Fire Emblem - in general, not only in the context of this thread - is that every strategy that allows the player to beat the game is, first and foremost, equally effective. The desired outcome is to get to the final boss and beat him (or her, or it), and if a player reaches that goal, then his playing style has been effective. Full stop, end of discussion, we can all go home now.

The only way to differenciate the effectiveness of different playstyles is to introduce additional, variable side objectives - lowest turn count, fastest playthough, highest rankings, the most tactitian stars, the most cash at the end of the game, the most Shiny Green Numbers (tm), as many A supports as possible, full recruitment, no casualties...
Basically, as long as there is consensus about the criteria, there's a whole lot of playthroughs that can be called the "most effective", but obviously, those criteria are highly subjective. I'm fairly certain that me skipping Wallace was an effective choice in order to reach an S rank, but in a full recruitment run, my strategy would not have had the desired outcome. Instead, I would have had to take as much time as needed in order to get one of the Caelin characters to recruit him (and probably promote him in Lyn Mode, too, since he died on turn 2 :lol: )

Other than bullshitting, one of Diogo's basis of argumentation is to assume Moar Bigger Numbers as a central side objective, so his playstyle, which is to focus on unit with good 20/20 stats, is the most effective through his own definition. And by completely ignoring any misgivings about that definition, he can basically just "win the argument" (in some big fucking airquotes) simply by referring to those 20/20 stats, while stuff like actual combat performance can be dismissed.

The advantage of the "efficient" criteria is that it is considerably more objective. How can the game be beaten with the least required effort? This, of course is pretty much a platonic ideal. I'd wager that very few players will only have "effort" in mind - it's a game, after all, and usually, the primary reason to play is to have fun - another highly subjective term, unfortunately. In any case, assuming a modicum of mental flexibility, people can now discuss what the most efficient playstyle entails - which units to use, which items to get, where to slow down and where to warp skip - and how much one can deviate from that playstype before the needed effort increases noticeably. Like, how much harder is the game if one doesn't use Marcus, but plays efficient otherwise? How much more tedious does the earlygame get if one were to train Rebecca? How impactful is that Speedwings/Body Ring combo on Athos?

It's important to remember (and as far as I can tell, almost everyone in this threat does) that "efficient" shouldn't be seen as the way the game "should" be played. It's still a game, remember? But it's by far a smarter way to gauge a unit's value than just looking at the potential: What can a unit do to help beat the game? What kind of opportunity cost is needed for the unit to reach the necessary benchmarks to do so? Note that this does not mean that Jagens are automatically the only good units in a game. My favourite example is probably RD!Jill, who has a rather unimpressive start, but I believe that many players agree that it's still worth it to dump a whole lot of resources into her so that she will later almost trivialize the part 3 chapters of the Dawn Brigade.

Edited by ping

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why is this still ongoing.

also did he just shit talk a mod who's had a logged S rank run playthrough for focusing on making sure it was an s rank run?

as proven by a shitload of much better players, you don't need growths at all in this game. base HHM Harken can pretty much bosskill half the shit lategame.

this is fucking funny. 

 

@ping even if we take 20/20 stats into consideration, skl/spd/luck are probably the least important even at caps.

once 20 speed gets hit, you're pretty much safe in fe7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mister Rogers said:

 even if we take 20/20 stats into consideration, skl/spd/luck are probably the least important even at caps.

once 20 speed gets hit, you're pretty much safe in fe7.

Doesn't matter, Kent has two Shiny Green Numbers on average compared to Sain's one. And since Sain caps Str so early, you don't get as many satisfying *tink*s per level up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ping said:

Doesn't matter, Kent has two Shiny Green Numbers on average compared to Sain's one. And since Sain caps Str so early, you don't get as many satisfying *tink*s per level up.

yeah but Kent isn't a waifu like Lyn therefore he doesn't count.

now Oswin is a waifu. caps str/def or comes really close to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, ping said:

Doesn't matter, Kent has two Shiny Green Numbers on average compared to Sain's one. And since Sain caps Str so early, you don't get as many satisfying *tink*s per level up.

I mean, in regular casual play I would absolutely care about the Shiny Green Numbers because they give me a warm fuzzy feeling. But I see the folly in training a unit that is worse than another for 90% of the game just so they can perhaps be considered better in the remaining part while the other was still effective enough.

It's unfortunate that it doesn't really hold any water in any 'effective' debate by any metric. Personally, that's why I never cared about that stuff. I always enjoyed using the scrublings.

Fuck it, open the "Nino is actually good" threads again.

Edited by Edgelord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Edgelord said:

I mean, in regular casual play I would absolutely care about the Shiny Green Numbers because they give me a warm fuzzy feeling. But I see the folly in training a unit that is worse than another for 90% of the game just so they can perhaps be considered better in the remaining part while the other was still effective enough.

It's unfortunate that it doesn't really hold any water in any 'effective' debate by any metric. Personally, that's why I never cared about that stuff. I always enjoyed using the scrublings.

Fuck it, open the "Nino is actually good" threads again.

we should do that in fftf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Edgelord said:

I mean, in regular casual play I would absolutely care about the Shiny Green Numbers because the give me a warm fuzzy feeling. But I see the folly in training a unit that is worse than another for 90% of the game just so they can perhaps be considered better while the other was still effective enough.

It's unfortunate that it doesn't really hold any water in any 'effective' debate by any metric. Personally, that's why I never cared about that stuff. I always enjoyed using the scrublings.

Oh, absolutely. I loved Fighter!Yubello in my last New Mystery playthrough, for example. But while I legit think that Fighter or Pirate is the best class for Yubello, I'm not going to pretend that he is better than Barst or even just Pirate!Doga.

I'll say it again - it's a frigging game and I don't mean to tell anyone how to have fun. If there's any practical application for all this nonsense, it's that a good unit in "efficiency metric" is also a good unit to recommend to a player who has trouble beating the game or a specific chapter. The whole DONT USE JEIGAN mentality that is still drifting through the ether makes the games (or, in FE7's case, at least the harder modes) a lot less accessible for newcomers, if that's the advice they're taking to heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ping said:

Oh, absolutely. I loved Fighter!Yubello in my last New Mystery playthrough, for example. But while I legit think that Fighter or Pirate is the best class for Yubello, I'm not going to pretend that he is better than Barst or even just Pirate!Doga.

I'll say it again - it's a frigging game and I don't mean to tell anyone how to have fun. If there's any practical application for all this nonsense, it's that a good unit in "efficiency metric" is also a good unit to recommend to a player who has trouble beating the game or a specific chapter. The whole DONT USE JEIGAN mentality that is still drifting through the ether makes the games (or, in FE7's case, at least the harder modes) a lot less accessible for newcomers, if that's the advice they're taking to heart.

i agree that the best advice for the game is "use the jeigans and prepromotes to have an easier time".

aside from that, there's not much else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DiogoJorge said:

He's good enough, but I bet his party was poorly trained. He put too much effort to make it faster, there are easier ways to acomplish the same thing. If you can finish the game and get an A rank, then you are a good player. Balcerzak's flaw is that he's putting more effort in finishing the game faster rather than focus on finding a easier way to play the game (that doesn't involve exploits by the way). If he S ranked this way, good for him, but I have another way that works just as well.

I'm one of the more experienced FE players though. Not really, I seriously doubt I'm the only one, when I've met players before that prefer to have a balance between having a powerful team and efficiency. Would you rather put more effort into solving a problem, or choose a method that is slower but works better and easier? Because that's common sense, specially on a job. They want a job done well, not one done fast.

First off, experience in absolutely no way, shape or form guarantees quality. Let's just get that out of the way. Second of all, there's a tradeoff between speed and effort. People want to do it in the easiest and best way, yes, but they also don't want to be sat killfeeding for a good ten chapters and would rather get those chapters out of the way so they can get to the part with the actual good units like Pent and Hawkeye. Which is basically what happens to have Lyndis, Rebecca, or anyone in the usual 'suboptimal' group come out as good. Yes people want a strong and effective team, but they also want to actually get on with the game instead of having to play a certain way to get the (extremely subjective) 'Most Optimal' squad. I'd much rather use Marcus and get through the game than sit there killfeeding to grind Lyndis up and hope she doesn't get boned on the growths.

The fact you're still trumpeting growth units as the be-all and end-all means that despite your 'experience', you're still not very good at this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Ironthunder said:

First off, experience in absolutely no way, shape or form guarantees quality. Let's just get that out of the way. Second of all, there's a tradeoff between speed and effort. People want to do it in the easiest and best way, yes, but they also don't want to be sat killfeeding for a good ten chapters and would rather get those chapters out of the way so they can get to the part with the actual good units like Pent and Hawkeye. Which is basically what happens to have Lyndis, Rebecca, or anyone in the usual 'suboptimal' group come out as good. Yes people want a strong and effective team, but they also want to actually get on with the game instead of having to play a certain way to get the (extremely subjective) 'Most Optimal' squad. I'd much rather use Marcus and get through the game than sit there killfeeding to grind Lyndis up and hope she doesn't get boned on the growths.

The fact you're still trumpeting growth units as the be-all and end-all means that despite your 'experience', you're still not very good at this. 

 

On contrary, it's precisely because I give them  the worth they deserve that I'm good at this.

They aren't the end all be all, but one look at Marcus averages should have told you that Marcus isn't all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it takes a good player to use a unit, then the unit itself isn't good.

If I played Magnus Carlsen in chess, he would most certainly be able to beat me without using his queen. Does that mean that the queen is a worthless piece?

And I'm going to tell a secret: Everyone in this thread is able to use low-tier units such as Wil, Rebecca, Bartre, Nino, Wallace, and so on. Most folks here are also able to gauge the effort it takes in relation to the reward it brings. Don't tell anyone, though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ping thanks A LOT for writing that small essay on efficiency in FE, I don't really know why I used the word "effectiveness". Your last posts wrap things up really nicely; now let me go beat the everliving crap out of Idun with speed-capped Wendy!

46 minutes ago, DiogoJorge said:

They aren't the end all be all, but one look at Marcus averages should have told you that Marcus isn't all that.

lol is oxymoron your second name? Last time I ask of you, just to be sure: is there any other reason Marcus is worse than Lyn other than the fact that he ends up with worse stats than her? Like, lets leave aside the fact that you don't really seem to have any kind of grasp on neither Lyn nor Marcus' performance throughout the game (since you still refuse to compare their stats with those of the enemy units), is there anything else that matters in a unit other than "big numbers"? Is a unit only a bunch of stats to you, FE7 veteran player DiogoJorge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DiogoJorge said:

 

On contrary, it's precisely because I give them  the worth they deserve that I'm good at this.

They aren't the end all be all, but one look at Marcus averages should have told you that Marcus isn't all that.

Ok so first of all. Giving them 'the worth they deserve' drastically depends on your valuation of the unit. Several units, like Lyndis and Rebecca, are frequently given the worth they deserve, which is minimal exp because they'll be benchwarming all game in favor of fielding better units. To you, they might seem worth investing in because to you, their growth potential makes them better. To me, their growth potential is a risk, and their lack of anything at base means they're going to struggle to carry their weight early on. And if they can't carry their weight early on, then usually they aren't worth fielding over someone who can. Yes Rebecca and Lyn have good growths. But their bases are terrible, and their initial combat potential is extremely lacking. Is killfeeding worth it? Possibly. Is that a risk worth taking against putting the exp into someone who'll make use of the levels, like one of the cavaliers or Hector? Not really. 20/20 statlines look cool and all, but in reality you aren't hitting 20/20 without either severely neglecting units or abusing arenas. Hell, 10/20 is questionable. There's a reason Lyn, Rebecca and Wallace are all about the same usability tier. The latter is a worse Marcus in every sense and as such is not worth investing in, while the former two require significant investment for a chance to possibly be good, which ultimately makes them not worth investing in, because if they don't turn out good then you've just wasted what typically amounts to a few chapters' worth of exp, which could have been levels on units who'll actually remain good for a while.

One look at Marcus' averages? Who cares? He can stay at bases and still be usable for the vast majority of the game. Unlike Lyndis, who's completely reliant on her growths to even stand a chance at being good and if she gets let down then she wastes a solid number of levels for any other unit, as well as slowing down the game, worsening the playing experience and generally making the game both harder for yourself and worse to play. 

If your 'experience' (which I'm starting to question now given your blatant idiocy) leads you to blindly trumpet growth units and decry jeigans as the fruits of Satan's loincloth, then quite frankly I'm not sure you've been playing the same FE7 as the rest of us. Growth units are not reliable and are certainly in no way better than units with actually good bases. And the moral of this story, the main lesson every actually experienced Fire Emblem player learns and accepts, is that growths mean nothing if you don't have the bases to get the levels to potentially proc them. I'm yet to see any example of any unit being so perfectly, reliably good that feeding them kills is a superior strategy to anything else outside of the 3DSFE avatars, whereas there's an array of examples of units whose bases are plenty sufficient to carry them through most if not all of the game. Most if not all of the Jeigans for starters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ironthunder said:

Ok so first of all. Giving them 'the worth they deserve' drastically depends on your valuation of the unit. Several units, like Lyndis and Rebecca, are frequently given the worth they deserve, which is minimal exp because they'll be benchwarming all game in favor of fielding better units. To you, they might seem worth investing in because to you, their growth potential makes them better. To me, their growth potential is a risk, and their lack of anything at base means they're going to struggle to carry their weight early on. And if they can't carry their weight early on, then usually they aren't worth fielding over someone who can. Yes Rebecca and Lyn have good growths. But their bases are terrible, and their initial combat potential is extremely lacking. Is killfeeding worth it? Possibly. Is that a risk worth taking against putting the exp into someone who'll make use of the levels, like one of the cavaliers or Hector? Not really. 20/20 statlines look cool and all, but in reality you aren't hitting 20/20 without either severely neglecting units or abusing arenas. Hell, 10/20 is questionable. There's a reason Lyn, Rebecca and Wallace are all about the same usability tier. The latter is a worse Marcus in every sense and as such is not worth investing in, while the former two require significant investment for a chance to possibly be good, which ultimately makes them not worth investing in, because if they don't turn out good then you've just wasted what typically amounts to a few chapters' worth of exp, which could have been levels on units who'll actually remain good for a while.

One look at Marcus' averages? Who cares? He can stay at bases and still be usable for the vast majority of the game. Unlike Lyndis, who's completely reliant on her growths to even stand a chance at being good and if she gets let down then she wastes a solid number of levels for any other unit, as well as slowing down the game, worsening the playing experience and generally making the game both harder for yourself and worse to play. 

If your 'experience' (which I'm starting to question now given your blatant idiocy) leads you to blindly trumpet growth units and decry jeigans as the fruits of Satan's loincloth, then quite frankly I'm not sure you've been playing the same FE7 as the rest of us. Growth units are not reliable and are certainly in no way better than units with actually good bases. And the moral of this story, the main lesson every actually experienced Fire Emblem player learns and accepts, is that growths mean nothing if you don't have the bases to get the levels to potentially proc them. I'm yet to see any example of any unit being so perfectly, reliably good that feeding them kills is a superior strategy to anything else outside of the 3DSFE avatars, whereas there's an array of examples of units whose bases are plenty sufficient to carry them through most if not all of the game. Most if not all of the Jeigans for starters.

 

But the thing is, they have the bases to level up. And you would rather drag a Jaigen around with their poor growths instead? I will take my chances with the growth units, since there are dozens of them, while Marcus is only one unit. Even if one gets remotedely RNG screwed, I can just replace them with another growth unit, like Geitz for instance, since he has both good bases and good growths. The best part is, even when RNG screwed, chances area that a good deal of screwed units still end up having more stats than Marcus.

So unless you are expecting your luck to be abysmal when it comes to growths, I don't see why it wouldn't  be reliable. The chances of most growth units being RNG screwed is incredibly low, it would be like a lightning bolts striking the same place twice.

Edited by DiogoJorge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rather drag around a Jeigan with usable stats now than drag around a growthie with potentially usable stats by like, three-quarters of the way into the game.  Marcus' stats are guaranteed to be at the very least decent, and that's much better than the possibility of having a blessed Lyn, because there's just as big a chance that the Lyn will be cursed as she is blessed, at which point the exp would have been better spent on two to three one-stat levels on Marcus. Why risk a 40% when you have a 100%? Yes the 40% could be more rewarding, but is that reward worth the 60% failure risk that's extremely likely to turn around and bite you in the arse come BBD/Cog? I'd say no. You'll probably say yes because you have a substantially higher view of growthies than I do (and I admit, perhaps I undervalue them sometimes), but the point still stands: The safe option isn't a bad option, so is the risk really worth it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

man this thread is basically the best example on "how not to have a proper argument".

 

With all due respect, Lyn is the singular worst character to be relying on growths since she's melee locked for a long time in a lance heavy game. Rebecca/Wil/Nino are garbage, but that's also due to their own bases and not being handy in an EP heavy game.. Out of all the dudes in fe7 that had shaky growths, Bartre/Heath/Lowen are the ones that give the biggest boost if the growths clock in properly. The 1-2 range is worth it just that much.

 

without LHM, Lyn's effectively like Lucius, but at 1-range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ping said:

If it takes a good player to use a unit, then the unit itself isn't good.

Eh, I don't really agree with that. Sometimes a unit can seem mediocre at first but knowing the right way to use them makes them very good, like Jill in RD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Florete said:

Eh, I don't really agree with that. Sometimes a unit can seem mediocre at first but knowing the right way to use them makes them very good, like Jill in RD.

granted that the unit has the potential to be shitstomping.

it's lyn and rebecca we're talking about here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mister Rogers said:

granted that the unit has the potential to be shitstomping.

it's lyn and rebecca we're talking about here

Just because not everyone has the potential doesn't make the logic correct.

Also you're talking to someone who does think Lyn is a good unit. Not as good as someone thinks, but still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Florete said:

Just because not everyone has the potential doesn't make the logic correct.

Also you're talking to someone who does think Lyn is a good unit. Not as good as someone thinks, but still.

yeah but i mean it along the lines of "Lyn can be good with favoritism, but not as good as someone like Jill who gets durability, mount, flight, and 1-2 range".

if anything, I'd find Lyn more comparable to fe10 HM edward. Good infantry if favoritism is given, but also incredibly squishy and relies on growths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...