Rate the Unit-Three Houses, Day 0

[Anathaco]

6 hours ago, Benice said:

Oh heck, you're riht about the BE having two routes! I assume I'll go with CF as the route of choice, since VW and SS are the same things. I'll probably also with with AM for the DLC characters?

Do the DLC characters perform much differently on routes? Unless I've missed something, I would have thought a general rating would be better, taking into account some differences between the routes (eg: Balthus can be considered slightly worse on AM because his niche of being able to effectively tank Maddening Ch2 is shared with Dedue). But other than stuff like that I feel that taking a specific route to rate them all is a little redundant considering the paid characters can be recruited regardless of route.

[Benice]

1 hour ago, Anathaco said:

Do the DLC characters perform much differently on routes? Unless I've missed something, I would have thought a general rating would be better, taking into account some differences between the routes (eg: Balthus can be considered slightly worse on AM because his niche of being able to effectively tank Maddening Ch2 is shared with Dedue). But other than stuff like that I feel that taking a specific route to rate them all is a little redundant considering the paid characters can be recruited regardless of route.

Huh, that would work too. (I'm unfamilliar with the DLC, so apologies for the errors.)

 

2 hours ago, leesangstar10 said:

Imo do maddening. There is bigger differences in unit's viability in maddening compared to hard. So it helps make each unit's rating more unique.

I'll probably end up doing that, although I may try having ratings for both Hard and Maddening for the first few, just to see if it works.

[Dark Holy Elf]

I'm of the opinion that character worth does not differ significantly from Hard to Maddening. The same strategies work, and work mostly equally well, just everything is more effective/easier on Hard, relatively. I think it's perfectly fine to let some people rate based on Maddening and some people rate based on Hard.

(side note, I rate on Maddening but I don't rate FE3H rallies very highly anyway, which proves that it's more of a playstyle concern than a difficulty one)

I'm definitely not in favour of considering non-quest aux battles, they clearly feel like grinding to me. The other thing I feel strongly about is I'd vote for not considering fishing as a method of amping prof rank (not a full ban on fishing, just a ban on using it as an exp-grinding method). In general if an action is repeatable for a long time for a (near) indefinite boost, such as arena/boss abuse in earlier FEs or fish grinding/rusted weapons/letting enemies attack you over and over in this one, it's something I'd frown on.

[ruruo]

On 10/8/2020 at 6:38 PM, LoneRecon400 said:

Even that I wouldn't approve of. When it eventually only takes 25 battles to learn some of the best abilties in the game (Death Blow, Darting Blow, Hit +20), it really diminishes class management and makes it so that units never even have to fight in a class to master it.  

Plus it really skews a unit's skill exp. Even if a unit fought only 5 rounds of combat in a intermediate class, that's often more Skill Exp than they get from instructing. Add on the Knowledge Gem, and it's the main reason why some think S+ Skills are achievable when they're otherwise not very feasible for people who don't use Aux Battles or Sauna.

What about limiting to one extra mastered intermediate skill for each character? Would that be fair? It takes grinding out of the equation, and offers a bit of flexibility with builds. I can only speak for myself, but for units I like, I don't mind going for an extra intermediate skill. But it's not something I would bother for everyone on a run. There are some skill set ups that are popular with two intermediates too, and I think a lot of folk aim for good builds on their favourites anyway.