Geriba

Controversy. time for another Rate The Unit topic?

This is awesome. If you do decide to take one for the FE community and rip these, be sure to keep us updated!

From Google: e·gre·gious/iˈgrējəs/ Adjective: Outstandingly bad; shocking. Remarkably good. Stop sending me mixed signals, Obviam

lol i'm egregious

thanks guys, you're the best. but what really got me out of my funk yesterday? this vid right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbDVASpFGI0&feature=related Just beautiful.

prolly half serious, half joking. in which case (using my math), he's a half douche

Straight girls love making out with gay guys, especially while drunk. So if you're alright with only getting to first base (admittedly a steamy, tongue-laden first base), then go for it :tangerine:

Merlinus is superior to most units in terms of utility, and assists extremely well in both ranked and efficiency runs.

Neither do Hector or Athos, and they were ranked. Again, the list is just a big conglomerate of competing standards. So if we had a prepromoted staff-only user, would he not be rated? Besides, Ninian/Nils WERE rated. btw, Merlinus is an easy 10/10

Again, this is addressed in the OP. Given that a) there is only one US available, and b) any given team is likely to have two or more lance users, bunching all lance users in a separate top tier does little to compare characters or classes. Under your proposal, for example, Paladin units- who will almost never get the US, since there are plenty of superior candidates- would likely be at the level of, or above, Warriors or Berserkers. There's also the issue of "proportional quality" among lance users, which (again) is addressed in the OP. In other words: read the OP.

This is mentioned in the OP: all lance-users are assumed not to have the US at first.

Mind clarifying? Paladins have horrible stat caps, and everyone will be carrying a horseslaying weapon. At least sages can hit pretty hard while they're alive.

Bows are viable, sure. Most teams won't be sporting more than one flier, if only because there's only one Delphi shield available and bow-wielding Warriors are all over the place.

Best not to take these rankings too seriously. As an unusual hybrid of incompatible standards, it's just a fun list.

Let's see... Balcerzak is (unsurprisingly) right on all counts. Other than that, Louise is too high and Eliwood is too low.

Not sure what to make of this just yet, but it's fascinating. I feel the easiest way around this problem is increased deployment numbers, not variable weapon uses. A 5-use Silver Lance should remain that way over the course of the game, instead of tying it up with some cumbersome algorithm.

I agree with Boron that Karel's ranking is unfortunate, but things like this happen sometimes when there's no clear standard. Now I just wonder what will keep this board active?

For what it's worth, you guys have convinced me on the usefulness of Athos.

Not fielding an underleveled unit in Light means you've fielded an underleveled in some other chapter (multiple chapters, really, since Light's all promoted units). All I'm suggesting is that you don't assume some unrealistic experience buffer. Speaking of which... No one's assuming that. I am assuming that the player doesn't have a 30-level buffer.

1) No, I'm not assuming the player will fail to S-Rank. The experience rank is high for the final chapter, which the player will know ahead of time; instead of needing 3000 experience, then, let's say he needs, as I said, a modest but important experience gain. 2) Berserk utility has been noted. As for the rest of your post, you're opening up the Net-versus-Gross argument all over again, which is not a path worth going down. We'll just agree to disagree.

1) S-Rank weapons cost an absolute fortune, so they won't be getting used. 2) My "standard" is to assume that the player is right around the expected requirements going into Light, which means he'll need a modest but important performance in experience to end the game. Is that really a controversial position? 3) Even if Athos is fielded, he does next to nothing. How many turns does he save, exactly? 2?

This is where I feel our disconnect lies. I'd say that a player proactively trying to maximize experience gain in Light (without taking too long, since that would impact Tactics) can realistically expect 1200-1500 experience. If Athos kills a promoted unit, that's a potential 100 down the train. All I'm arguing is that, for the purposes of ranking, it's odd to assume that the player has over-prepared. Don't you agree that the best system is to follow ranking requirements up to that point? Athos can staff-spam (expendable, but he's the best at it aside from movement) and he can weaken certain enemies in Light for your weaker units (again, not at all unique in this regard); all this while only being available for one chapter.

You know better than that, dondon. If you've already accounted for the experience rank in full, that means you've been pulling unnecessary weight for far too long. Remember that one late chapter where you needed to bodyguard an underleveled unit, feeding it kills with great caution and frustration? How about that early game chapter where you could've shaved off a couple turns if only you could've gotten the experience at a later time? Say, Light? Bottom line, it's unfair to assume for the purposes of ranked ratings that the player has over performed, making Athos artificially useful; I could assume that just the opposite has occurred, and that the player is UNDER prepared, making Athos' use drop from little to nothing. This has nothing to do with personal experience.

Please. Light is one of the best places to acquire tons of experience is a short amount of time, and I'll point out that experience is without question the toughest rank to 5* in HHM. If you've already finished the experience rank by Light, then that means you've gone through a whole lot of unnecessary trouble to farm experience just to use Athos in the final chapter. I hardly think that's a point in his favor.

...Yes? It's an irrelevant personal attack that serves no purpose in the context of the conversation.