Jump to content
Altha

Why Eliwood is so hated?

Recommended Posts

Quote

but it’s also important how hard or easy it is to get them to their potential

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.

Quote

Good point actually. But if you said we could count required babying against the unit, then is that much different then what I said?

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.

Quote

If we compare Wil and Hawkeye. Let’s assume for the sake of the argument that Wil can be better than Hawkeye if he is trained up and promoted. If we assume that Wil gets that investment to be trained up and promoted, then Wil is simply a better character than Hawkeye. However, the investment given to Wil could have been given to someone else instead. With Hawkeye, he starts out strong with no opportunity cost to get there. Shouldn’t that be factored in somehow as well?

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.

Quote

I think a basic principle we should adopt is that every unit deserves to be used. If a unit needs some babying, maybe some stat boosters to get there, give them.

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.

Share this post


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

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.

True.

2 hours ago, samthedigital said:

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.

I get what you are saying. I’m not going to rate Geitz lower because you need to train Eliwood and Lyn, and they are not worth training. I don’t think that’s fair. If I rate Geitz, I am going to assume that I have him. Likewise I am not going to say that Karel is bad because you shouldn’t get over Harken. I’m going to rate him by assuming that I have him.

But I disagree that opportunity cost shouldn’t be considered at all. It’s a huge part of the game. Resource management is a huge part of the game. Going by what you said, then Isadora should pretty much be bottom tier. Most characters can be better than her if trained up. But you can’t train up most characters in one playthrough, and Isadora joins for free without needing to be trained up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

But I disagree that opportunity cost shouldn’t be considered at all.

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.

Quote

Going by what you said, then Isadora should pretty much be bottom tier. Most characters can be better than her if trained up. But you can’t train up most characters in one playthrough, and Isadora joins for free without needing to be trained up.

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.

Quote

 you can’t train up most characters in one playthrough

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, samthedigital said:

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.

I kind of get what you are saying, but I feel like we may not be on the same page. If resources are assumed free, and if opportunity cost is not considered, then are we mostly looking at a unit’s potential, and not base stats? Is Amelia a good unit because the resources she needs to become good are assumed free?

Take a hypothetical version of the prepromotes, have this version join earlier but at a lower level. Which one is better? This version has the advantage of availability and can contribute in the early game, but has the disadvantage of needing resource investment to become as good as they normally start out at base. If we ignore opportunity cost and assume resources are free, then this hypothetical version becomes entirely better.

Using the Isadora example again. If we compare Isadora to Kent that was promoted in LHM, than that means that Sain was not promoted in LHM. Kent may be better than Isadora, but Isadora could still be better than Sain in that case. In this case Promoting Kent had the opportunity cost of not being able to promote Sain. If we ignore opportunity cost and assume resources are free, then won’t Isadora always be considered the worst of the Paladins, simply because the others have more potential? I don’t think we can only look at potential, but I don’t think that’s what you are doing either...

 

Like I said, I don’t think we even have a disagreement so much as a misunderstanding. I’m just trying to get on the same page here.

 

(I do think Isadora is the worst Paladin overall, but it’s much more complicated than that. Sorry if I’m not explaining my thoughts well.)

Edited by Whisky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Take a hypothetical version of the prepromotes, have this version join earlier but at a lower level. Which one is better? This version has the advantage of availability and can contribute in the early game, but has the disadvantage of needing resource investment to become as good as they normally start out at base. If we ignore opportunity cost and assume resources are free, then this hypothetical version becomes entirely better.

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.

Quote

Is Amelia a good unit because the resources she needs to become good are assumed free?

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.

Quote

If we ignore opportunity cost and assume resources are free, then won’t Isadora always be considered the worst of the Paladins, simply because the others have more potential?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't get the hate for Eliwood either. Unlike his son who is portrayed as the perfect person in existence, Eliwood has flaws as a character and builds it up later on. If he was placed in Binding Blade instead of Blazing Blade, I would have been more tolerant for FE6.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/19/2019 at 9:54 AM, samthedigital said:

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.

I don’t agree with that. In reality, resources are limited, and not needing resources needs to be counted as an advantage. If you train up five un-promoted units, distributing resources across them, then later in the game you can have these five units and five pre-promotes that started good without needing resources. In reality if the pre-promotes were replaced by these hypothetical units, you wouldn’t have enough resources to train all ten of these units (as much). Earlier join time is an advantage, but not needing resources is also an advantage. I think it’s an even trade off.

 

When I compare two units, I assume that they are getting equal resources. It’s kind of tricky when units join at different times though, because then they have different opportunities to get those resources. I think there is definitely merit to not even needing any resources to be good. This lets you distribute more resources to the rest of your team, making them stronger. Of course there is also merit to a unit being able to contribute earlier because of actually joining earlier, as well as being able to become stronger with resources.

 

My only argument was that every factor should be considered in a thorough analysis or comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

When I compare two units, I assume that they are getting equal resources.

I don't because it isn't always possible or efficient to do that.

Quote

If you train up five un-promoted units, distributing resources across them, then later in the game you can have these five units and five pre-promotes that started good without needing resources. In reality if the pre-promotes were replaced by these hypothetical units, you wouldn’t have enough resources to train all ten of these units (as much).

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.

Edited by samthedigital

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, samthedigital said:

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.

Well I don’t know what our disagreement was because I agree with everything you just said. I didn’t mean that I always assume that all units are getting equal resources. I meant that you have to treat both units equally, as in, you can’t show favoritism.
 

Everyone that tries to argue that Amelia is a good unit shows her favoritism. They give her more exp so that she does become better than other characters eventually, without realizing that if they gave the same amount of resources to another unit, it would be hard for Amelia to catch up. Especially since it would be so much easier for the other characters to get the exp because of how much better they start out. 
 

But didn’t you say that you assume resources are free?

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...