Mechanics that you want

[Dark Sage]

In other words, Matthis is usable if you want to use him as a collection of stats that can be tossed around to whatever role you want him to suit, but not if you want to use him as Matthis the knight, the character he really is.

That's really your own fault for not taking advantage of a game mechanic to make Matthis useful. Don't whine about how much Matthis sucks when you're not even trying to use him at his full potential.

In the lower difficulties of FE11 and 12 and in FEs 1 and 3, Matthis isn't all that bad a unit.

Edited November 1, 2011 by Dark Sage

[arvilino]

I am well aware that Banzai briefly mentioned Matthew, in a context that would not at all suggest that Shanam is as good as Matthew.

In other words, Matthis is usable if you want to use him as a collection of stats that can be tossed around to whatever role you want him to suit, but not if you want to use him as Matthis the knight, the character he really is.

So are quite a few characters. Draug is a good unit, but as an Armoured Knight H5 doesn't do him many more favours than it does Matthis as a Cavalier.

[General Banzai]

That's really your own fault for not taking advantage of a game mechanic to make Matthis useful. Don't whine about how much Matthis sucks when you're not even trying to use him at his full potential.

In the lower difficulties of FE11 and 12 and in FEs 1 and 3, Matthis isn't all that bad a unit.

Matthis base:

Lvl: 2

HP: 20

Str: 5

Mag: 0

Skl: 2

Spd: 6

Lck: 0

Def: 7

Res: 0

Matthis growth:

HP: 90

Str: 40

Mag: 0

Skl: 30

Spd: 20

Lck: 30

Def: 30

Res: 0

Abel base:

Lvl: 1 (-1 than Matthis)

HP: 20 (equal Matthis)

Str: 6 (+1 Matthis)

Mag: 0 (equal Matthis)

Skl: 7 (+5 Matthis)

Spd: 7 (+1 Matthis)

Lck: 2 (+2 Matthis)

Def: 7 (equal Matthis)

Res: 0 (equal Matthis)

Abel growth:

HP: 65 (-25 Matthis)

Str: 40 (equal Matthis)

Mag: 0 (equal Matthis)

Skl: 50 (+20 Matthis)

Spd: 50 (+30 Matthis)

Lck: 25 (-5 Matthis)

Def: 20 (-10 Matthis)

Res: 0 (equal Matthis)

Abel joins 3 chapters before Matthis at 1 level lower than Matthis and yet with better or equal bases in every single stat. Abel has a significantly lower HP growth than Matthis and small disadvantages in Lck and Def which lead to Matthis having 8 more HP and 3 more def at 20/20 although despite the lower growth Abel has more luck than Matthis for the entirety of the game, even at 20/20. Abel thus beats Matthis in str, skl, spd, and lck at every single point in the game and is equal to him in mag and res, leading to a 12 point advantage over Matthis at Level 20/20 and an 11 point advantage over Matthis at Level 20/20, both of which on their own are a larger difference than Matthis's largest lead over Abel (HP), especially when factoring in that 1 point of HP is worth significantly less than one point of speed.

You can of course make similar arguments that Amelia is unequivocally worse than Seth at all points in the game, and I will concede that point to you, albeit grudgingly and while pointing out that at least when both Seth and Amelia are at max level Amelia is better than Seth. The idea here is that if you so desire to use Amelia and put effort into training her give her kills, for your effort you will get a strong unit. Perhaps not as strong as the amount of work required to get her up to level would imply, but definitely strong. Matthis, however, can be given kills and forged items and class changed to classes specifically designed to get him usable stats, and he will become usable, but never strong, and always inferior to units who you got earlier in the game.

Compounded upon this is that Amelia, Ewan, and Seth are perhaps the only three examples of horribly unbalanced units in FESS (where the amount of work required to turn them into a usable unit is disproportionately related to their usefulness). Most other characters, while some are undeniably superior to others based on this community's criterion for judging the usefulness of units, are at least relatively near each other. When designed a tier list for FESS, one places Seth in his own top tier and Amelia and Ewan in their own bottom tier. The problem with FESD, in contrast, is that you do not have a gradual spectrum of usability and quality of units but rather two distinct groups of units who are quite good and units who are just lousy, with little middle ground. You have your Barsts, Lenas, Wolfs and Sedgars who intuitively and without much effort benefit your team greatly and then your Matthises, Rosheas, Dolphs and Tomases who without specific guides explaining how to make them not horrible flounder about and die, frequently.

FESS, FE7, PoR, and Thracia are not perfectly balanced and all of those games have bad units and godly units, but MOST units fall on a spectrum of decency which is gradual rather than sudden. Usually there is an intuitiveness in that "This character comes strong and overleveled and thus will be weaker later in the game" and "This character comes weak and underleveled and thus will be stronger if I put in the extra effort to train them". Even characters such as Seth and Amelia follow this line of reasoning, even if the amount of effort needed to train Amelia is in no way proportionate to the payoff while Seth starts godlike and ends merely good. With Abel and Matthis there is no such reason. Abel starts better than Matthis and joins earlier and is easier to use and that's exactly how he ends up in comparison to Matthis.

So that is what I am trying to say balance is: an intuitiveness of unit usability.

[Dark Sage]

Matthis base:

Lvl: 2

HP: 20

Str: 5

Mag: 0

Skl: 2

Spd: 6

Lck: 0

Def: 7

Res: 0

Matthis growth:

HP: 90

Str: 40

Mag: 0

Skl: 30

Spd: 20

Lck: 30

Def: 30

Res: 0

Abel base:

Lvl: 1 (-1 than Matthis)

HP: 20 (equal Matthis)

Str: 6 (+1 Matthis)

Mag: 0 (equal Matthis)

Skl: 7 (+5 Matthis)

Spd: 7 (+1 Matthis)

Lck: 2 (+2 Matthis)

Def: 7 (equal Matthis)

Res: 0 (equal Matthis)

Abel growth:

HP: 65 (-25 Matthis)

Str: 40 (equal Matthis)

Mag: 0 (equal Matthis)

Skl: 50 (+20 Matthis)

Spd: 50 (+30 Matthis)

Lck: 25 (-5 Matthis)

Def: 20 (-10 Matthis)

Res: 0 (equal Matthis)

Abel joins 3 chapters before Matthis at 1 level lower than Matthis and yet with better or equal bases in every single stat. Abel has a significantly lower HP growth than Matthis and small disadvantages in Lck and Def which lead to Matthis having 8 more HP and 3 more def at 20/20 although despite the lower growth Abel has more luck than Matthis for the entirety of the game, even at 20/20. Abel thus beats Matthis in str, skl, spd, and lck at every single point in the game and is equal to him in mag and res, leading to a 12 point advantage over Matthis at Level 20/20 and an 11 point advantage over Matthis at Level 20/20, both of which on their own are a larger difference than Matthis's largest lead over Abel (HP), especially when factoring in that 1 point of HP is worth significantly less than one point of speed.

And thus Abel>Matthis. But Abel>Most of the cast anyway. Also lol at using 20/20 stats in comparisons.

You have shown that Matthis is not a good unit, but not that he is unusable, like you have claimed.

You can of course make similar arguments that Amelia is unequivocally worse than Seth at all points in the game, and I will concede that point to you, albeit grudgingly and while pointing out that at least when both Seth and Amelia are at max level Amelia is better than Seth. The idea here is that if you so desire to use Amelia and put effort into training her give her kills, for your effort you will get a strong unit. Perhaps not as strong as the amount of work required to get her up to level would imply, but definitely strong. Matthis, however, can be given kills and forged items and class changed to classes specifically designed to get him usable stats, and he will become usable, but never strong, and always inferior to units who you got earlier in the game.

Most units are never going to reach 20/20 first off, so at least get that right. Second of all, Matthis can still contribute to a playthrough when given kills, forged items, and good reclassing choices. Going Curate allows him to build up his speed while providing healing to the group, a useful contribution. Becoming a Sniper on promotion allows him to help take down units at a distance and makes him effective against Dracoknights and Pegasus Knights, who are dangerous in H5. He isn't godly or even particularly good, but as long as he can contribute something, then he's not completely useless. I mean think about it for a second. Amelia can only dream to do stuff like that.

I know you agree that Amelia and Seth are horribly unbalanced, but you seem to be implying that they are better balanced than Matthis and Abel. But at least Matthis can get up his speed enough to snipe down Dracos within a reasonable timeframe while all Amelia has are good 20/20 stats she'll never reach.

Compounded upon this is that Amelia, Ewan, and Seth are perhaps the only three examples of horribly unbalanced units in FESS (where the amount of work required to turn them into a usable unit is disproportionately related to their usefulness). Most other characters, while some are undeniably superior to others based on this community's criterion for judging the usefulness of units, are at least relatively near each other. When designed a tier list for FESS, one places Seth in his own top tier and Amelia and Ewan in their own bottom tier. The problem with FESD, in contrast, is that you do not have a gradual spectrum of usability and quality of units but rather two distinct groups of units who are quite good and units who are just lousy, with little middle ground. You have your Barsts, Lenas, Wolfs and Sedgars who intuitively and without much effort benefit your team greatly and then your Matthises, Rosheas, Dolphs and Tomases who without specific guides explaining how to make them not horrible flounder about and die, frequently.

Marisa, Ross, and Neimi are also horribly unbalanced units who require more work than is worth the reward. Also Dolph isn't even really that bad. He's not that great, but he can also contribute something to a playthrough thanks to his good enough growths and high speed base.

There are really three groups of units in FE11. People like Barst, Lena, etc. who are good units, people like Matthis, Vyland, Darros, etc. who aren't good but aren't so bad as to have no use, and then you have your Roshes, Arrans, and Lorenzs, who are really are what you describe Matthis to be.

FESS, FE7, PoR, and Thracia are not perfectly balanced and all of those games have bad units and godly units, but MOST units fall on a spectrum of decency which is gradual rather than sudden. Usually there is an intuitiveness in that "This character comes strong and overleveled and thus will be weaker later in the game" and "This character comes weak and underleveled and thus will be stronger if I put in the extra effort to train them". Even characters such as Seth and Amelia follow this line of reasoning, even if the amount of effort needed to train Amelia is in no way proportionate to the payoff while Seth starts godlike and ends merely good. With Abel and Matthis there is no such reason. Abel starts better than Matthis and joins earlier and is easier to use and that's exactly how he ends up in comparison to Matthis.

So that is what I am trying to say balance is: an intuitiveness of unit usability.

Look, nobody is objecting to the idea of greater character balance. Most agree that it can be improved. In fact, so do I. However, when you start spouting off stupid shit like claiming Shanam is useful because he has mad shopping skills in a game where you don't really need to buy anything and Matthis is unusable even when he's not, then people are going to tear what you have to say apart.

The only time Matthis truly is unusable is when you're playing Lunatic Mode in FE12, but it's not unique to him since 3/4 of the cast can't be used in Lunatic. That's what I dislike about that mode.

I also notice previously in the topic you said that nobody in FE5 is unusable, conveniently neglecting such dumbshits like, for example, Ronan. But then you think Shanam isn't unusable so I'm probably wasting my breath here.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Dark Sage

[Anouleth]

Matthis is different only in terms of stats, and stats are boring. Amelia is more interesting, since she has a unique starting class giving her more class options, and potentially a unique final class.

Yet what I originally said was that Matthis was no less "unusable" than Amelia was. Which is true. I made no claim as to whether Matthis was a supah speshul unique snowflake, merely that Matthis is plenty usable.

[General Banzai]

Since there seems to be a lot of clinging-on to the specific terminology I used, I'll concede that, under special circumstances and with a special reclass and maybe some forging, Matthis is indeed usable. By "unusable" I mean to say that there is literally no incentive to use him over, say, Abel and Cain, who come earlier and with better bases and with better growths and with better average stats.

Now sure, Seth may be way way way way way way way way better than Amelia overall, but at least if one puts the effort into Amelia she will wind up better than Seth eventually, even if that "eventually" happens only in the Creature Campaign (and since this is an FE3DS discussion thread and it seems that FE3DS may have a similar style of postgame, that's not all that irrelevant of a point).

Even given infinite time, Matthis will never be better than Cain or Abel.

Edited November 2, 2011 by General Banzai

[I.M. Gei]

No one really cares about how certain units perform in Creature Campaign because of infinite stat-boosters. =|

[eclipse]

I can think of at least two instances where Matthis isn't totally useless:

1. Draft play, and you haven't recruited any of the Altean Trio.

2. Reclass playthrough, and the Altean Trio are stuck using magic, and Matthis is. . .not.

If you can bring up something as silly as CC, I can shamelessly advertise drafts

[Colonel M]

Since there seems to be a lot of clinging-on to the specific terminology I used, I'll concede that, under special circumstances and with a special reclass and maybe some forging, Matthis is indeed usable. By "unusable" I mean to say that there is literally no incentive to use him over, say, Abel and Cain, who come earlier and with better bases and with better growths and with better average stats.

Now sure, Seth may be way way way way way way way way better than Amelia overall, but at least if one puts the effort into Amelia she will wind up better than Seth eventually, even if that "eventually" happens only in the Creature Campaign (and since this is an FE3DS discussion thread and it seems that FE3DS may have a similar style of postgame, that's not all that irrelevant of a point).

Even given infinite time, Matthis will never be better than Cain or Abel.

I love how contradicting this entire statement is to your entire argument.

10/20/20 Amelia - 46.2 HP | 21.45 Str | 24.8 Skl | 25 Spd | 29.5 Luck | 17.1 Def | 14.05 Res

--/20 Seth - 47.1 HP | 23.5 Str | 21.55 Skl | 20.55 Spd | 17.75 Luck | 18.6 Def | 13.7 Res

Oh wow look, a level capped Amelia barely has any stats better than Seth (Spd lead is almost irrelevant), not to mention that you just busted almost 50 fucking levels for a not-really-that-superior Seth. Then she has an inferior Sword rank AND promoting her anywhere else makes her shit with her Mov, and if you argue stat boosters on Amelia, I argue stat boosters on Seth!

OH MY GOD I AM IMPRESS!

Next person that says Amelia is better than Seth gets rammed with a crowbar across their face.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Colonel M

[Anouleth]

Since there seems to be a lot of clinging-on to the specific terminology I used, I'll concede that, under special circumstances and with a special reclass and maybe some forging, Matthis is indeed usable. By "unusable" I mean to say that there is literally no incentive to use him over, say, Abel and Cain, who come earlier and with better bases and with better growths and with better average stats.

And at the same time, there is literally no incentive to use Amelia over Seth. Eventually having better stats is not an "advantage" because it is a useless distinction, any more than Matthis having red hair is an advantage over Abel. You might call it an advantage, and I'm sure there are players out there who are interested in training units with the best average stats and the reddest hair, but that does not make it an advantage.

In addition, you originally claimed that FE10 was not sufficiently "balanced" because characters were supposedly unusable. Yet, every character in FE10 has their own set of advantages. Experienced players might turn their noses up at Astrid or Fiona, but they are in classes that are well suited to Endgame performance and even in a optimal run, they see some use. Even Lyre, the character that RFoF loves to hate, has advantages over her contempories Lethe and Ranulf (Lyre caps her speed and skill very, very early, permitting easy BEXP abuse, and has the most desirable affinity), even if those advantages are just as useless as Matthis' red hair or Amelia's huge Luck stat.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Anouleth

[General Banzai]

And at the same time, there is literally no incentive to use Amelia over Seth. Eventually having better stats is not an "advantage" because it is a useless distinction, any more than Matthis having red hair is an advantage over Abel. You might call it an advantage, and I'm sure there are players out there who are interested in training units with the best average stats and the reddest hair, but that does not make it an advantage.

Perhaps if Creature Campaign did not exist I would agree with you. However, since it does, as well as skirmishes, there is a point in the postgame where Amelia will be better than Seth. Although it requires an extreme amount of work and Amelia's statistical advantage over Seth is not large by any means, it is still a statistical advantage and thus there is a reason to use Amelia instead of Seth. Yes, it is a weak reason. Yes, it will probably not manifest itself at any point during the story mode of the game. I am not arguing that Amelia is in any way a better unit than Seth, or that Amelia is in any way a good unit, or anything like that, but rather that Amelia and Seth follow a logical pattern of growth over the course of the game.

Undoubtedly, Seth is at his absolute strongest at the beginning of the game and slowly gets worse and worse over time. Meanwhile Amelia is at her worst when she is first recruited and only gets better and better over time. Maybe Seth doesn't get much worse and Amelia doesn't get much better but these changes do happen, eventually leading to a moment of time where Amelia will preform better than Seth in combat.

Matthis and Abel follow no pattern like that. Both Abel and Matthis are at their worst when they first join and their best at the end of the game, this is true. But Abel starts earlier than Matthis and better than Matthis and gets better at a faster rate than Matthis. This is counterintuitive and basically leads to Matthis becoming a "trap" character even more than, say, Jagen.

In addition, you originally claimed that FE10 was not sufficiently "balanced" because characters were supposedly unusable. Yet, every character in FE10 has their own set of advantages. Experienced players might turn their noses up at Astrid or Fiona, but they are in classes that are well suited to Endgame performance and even in a optimal run, they see some use. Even Lyre, the character that RFoF loves to hate, has advantages over her contempories Lethe and Ranulf (Lyre caps her speed and skill very, very early, permitting easy BEXP abuse, and has the most desirable affinity), even if those advantages are just as useless as Matthis' red hair or Amelia's huge Luck stat.

Again, by unusable I mean without incentive to use them over other characters. The problem with FERD is mostly about unit availability, however, and a different category altogether. Without the Creature Campaign or skirmishes of FESS there is often just not enough time for one to ever see the payoff of the (arguably) higher endgame stats of Fiona over, say, Titania.

[Dark Sage]

Perhaps if Creature Campaign did not exist I would agree with you. However, since it does, as well as skirmishes, there is a point in the postgame where Amelia will be better than Seth. Although it requires an extreme amount of work and Amelia's statistical advantage over Seth is not large by any means, it is still a statistical advantage and thus there is a reason to use Amelia instead of Seth. Yes, it is a weak reason. Yes, it will probably not manifest itself at any point during the story mode of the game. I am not arguing that Amelia is in any way a better unit than Seth, or that Amelia is in any way a good unit, or anything like that, but rather that Amelia and Seth follow a logical pattern of growth over the course of the game.

Undoubtedly, Seth is at his absolute strongest at the beginning of the game and slowly gets worse and worse over time. Meanwhile Amelia is at her worst when she is first recruited and only gets better and better over time. Maybe Seth doesn't get much worse and Amelia doesn't get much better but these changes do happen, eventually leading to a moment of time where Amelia will preform better than Seth in combat.

I love how you ignore the fact that there are buyable statboosters in Creature Campaign to make any statistical difference between Amelia and Seth completely nonexistent. Therefore, there will never be a time in which Amelia is ever superior to Seth and therefore, there is absolutely no reason to use Amelia over Seth besides personal preference (which can in fact be a good enough reason, which I'll get to below).

Matthis and Abel follow no pattern like that. Both Abel and Matthis are at their worst when they first join and their best at the end of the game, this is true. But Abel starts earlier than Matthis and better than Matthis and gets better at a faster rate than Matthis. This is counterintuitive and basically leads to Matthis becoming a "trap" character even more than, say, Jagen.

Hey, while we're at it, why don't we throw Oujay under a bus for being worse than Dieck in pretty much every single way for every single part of the game. Why don't we do the same to all the characters who are not among the top ten in the game. Screw them! Why would I use those scrubs over the ten best units in the game?

The thing is, some people just happen to like inferior characters and use them even though there's little incentive to. Ray and Cath basically have permanent spots in my team despite that fact for example because I like their personalities. Even though Cath costs me turns and is worse than Asthol, I use her anyway. Even though Ray has durability problems and has trouble doubling with mediocre endgame stats, I use him anyway because he's charming. It is rare that you will ever encounter a character who is so bad that you literally cannot use them.

Plus your example with Abel and Matthis is flawed in that you seem to imply that you must use one or the other. The argument "why should I use Matthis when I have Abel" isn't a very good one because you can use Abel alongside Matthis, just like how I can use Cath alongside Asthol and Ray alongside Niime.

Again, by unusable I mean without incentive to use them over other characters. The problem with FERD is mostly about unit availability, however, and a different category altogether. Without the Creature Campaign or skirmishes of FESS there is often just not enough time for one to ever see the payoff of the (arguably) higher endgame stats of Fiona over, say, Titania.

FE RD's system of availability was unique for that game, so we probably won't see such a situation with Fiona again. In any case, you don't seem to mind scroll abusing Marty up even though it's nearly as big a waste of time as babying Fiona to get her ready for endgame, so who are you to complain about there being no incentive to raise Fiona besides personal preference when Marty is in a similar situation? I mean there's no real incentive to both besides personal preference.

Plus it's not just simply like/dislike that can give people an incentive to use a character. Matthis can be pretty good defensively when raised, and since it doesn't take a ridiculous amount of effort to get him up to that point, you can take advantage of a high move unit good at taking hits. There is a place for that unit depending on what army you're building.

This is an attitude present among many people in the tiering community. Many members have a unit or two they love who they know is bad and has little reason to be used instead of a better unit, but use them anyway due to liking and the unit's ability to still fulfill a role without too much resources/babying/effort (examples include Grandjackal w/Bors & Eddie, Colonel M w/Dolph, Anouleth w/Treck, Interceptor w/FE9 Mia, Narga w/Fir, etc.).

[Thor Odinson]

Undoubtedly, Seth is at his absolute strongest at the beginning of the game and slowly gets worse and worse over time.

Seth has like, the fourth-highest growths in the game ON TOP of his bases and can solo it with ease. Maybe if the enemies are actually competent in FE8 would Seth's -/20 speed would actually fail to double some, but as it stands he basically bulldozes the entire game. Slowing down? Never.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Luminescent Blade

[General Banzai]

I did not include FE6 on my list of "balanced" games for a reason.

As to your point of personal preference, that has nothing to do with statistical balance. Yes, I use Matthis even though he is undeniably worse than Abel. The point I'm trying to make is that he shouldn't be, that in using him I over Abel I am not horribly crippling myself (especially if I want to keep him a Cavalier and not reclass him to Curate). (As for Marty, I'd still argue that he is a completely underrated unit in non-ranked play of Thracia but now is not the thread for that).

My point is that while some units may considered better than others based on what this community values most in terms of stats and abilities, there should be nobody who is inherently and irrevocably worse than somebody else. Why must this point be argued? What is it about this statement that makes everyone completely derail this thread, with several different posters posting about how utterly wrong I am? Look at my original post.

Exactly.

I really want to use Matthis but he's soooo bad it's not even worth it for the lulz. And have you ever tried to use Lyre in FERD? It's not pretty.

FE5, 7, 8, and 9 would be examples of what I consider "good balance", where while some units are better than others nobody is unusable.

What about this merits so much discussion? There have been, what, around 20 posts based around this one? Why? I notice here I didn't even explicitly call Matthis unusable but rather simply "not worth it". Suddenly everyone jumps on my case defending Matthis from like his only actual fan as though he's high tier or some shit. How can it possibly be so controversial that I think Matthis is a terrible, unbalanced unit?

Does everyone object to the games which I listed which I consider "balanced"? Okay, so they aren't perfectly balanced even by my own definition, in bold above (I'd actually consider Lute vs. Ewan a more striking example of lack of balance than Amelia vs. Seth). I'll concede that. I'll concede that in Evayle, Dagda, and Shanam are pretty fucking useless in Thracia. Okay, alright already. I don't understand what else everyone has to complain about.

Again, look above to my bolded definition of what I consider "balance" to be. Disagree with my definition? Okay. Then talk about that.

[Thor Odinson]

Evayle and Dagda aren't useless. Evayle's the best earlygame bosskiller and Dagda is a capturing pro.

[Anouleth]

My point is that while some units may considered better than others based on what this community values most in terms of stats and abilities, there should be nobody who is inherently and irrevocably worse than somebody else. Why must this point be argued? What is it about this statement that makes everyone completely derail this thread, with several different posters posting about how utterly wrong I am? Look at my original post.

Nobody is taking issue with that statement. However, you say that it is true about certain FEs when it isn't and that it isn't true about certain FEs when it is.

What about this merits so much discussion? There have been, what, around 20 posts based around this one? Why? I notice here I didn't even explicitly call Matthis unusable but rather simply "not worth it".

Which doesn't mean much. Lute isn't "worth it", neither is Miranda, or Marty, or a million other FE characters (assuming that "it" means long-term use). If Matthis is not worth training because there are better units, then you could say the same thing about all but a small team of characters from each game.

Does everyone object to the games which I listed which I consider "balanced"? Okay, so they aren't perfectly balanced even by my own definition, in bold above (I'd actually consider Lute vs. Ewan a more striking example of lack of balance than Amelia vs. Seth). I'll concede that. I'll concede that in Evayle, Dagda, and Shanam are pretty fucking useless in Thracia. Okay, alright already. I don't understand what else everyone has to complain about.

Evayle and Dagda are great characters. I don't know what you're talking about.

[Lord Raven]

(I'd actually consider Lute vs. Ewan a more striking example of lack of balance than Amelia vs. Seth)

Not really, Amelia and Ewan are ridiculously hard to use in standard play, whereas Seth is faaar easier than Lute. In fact, Ewan can at least strike at 1-2 range- not that it helps, but Amelia doesn't have a consistent or accurate option to do this.

[Colonel M]

My point is that while some units may considered better than others based on what this community values most in terms of stats and abilities, there should be nobody who is inherently and irrevocably worse than somebody else

I actually disagree. This is a 1 Player Game, not a Call of Duty / Street Fighter. It also exists in real life war: no two people are likely the same on a battlefield, and there is more than likely one person better than the other. I mean, what is so awesome about balancing characters in a 1P game? Make them usable is fine...

[Dark Sage]

I did not include FE6 on my list of "balanced" games for a reason.

Way to completely miss my point. The point was that to say that the argument "why should I use x when I can use epic unit y" is a pretty stupid one since you can use both of them and the inferior unit can still contribute something when used. Those epic units are the best units in the game for a reason. If I took your logic to it's fullest extent, I could say screw the rest of the cast, even if a lot of them are good, because why use them when I can just use the top ten epic units in the game?

As to your point of personal preference, that has nothing to do with statistical balance. Yes, I use Matthis even though he is undeniably worse than Abel. The point I'm trying to make is that he shouldn't be, that in using him I over Abel I am not horribly crippling myself (especially if I want to keep him a Cavalier and not reclass him to Curate). (As for Marty, I'd still argue that he is a completely underrated unit in non-ranked play of Thracia but now is not the thread for that).

Did you read everything I posted before you started your reply? Here, I'll show it again:

Plus it's not just simply like/dislike that can give people an incentive to use a character. Matthis can be pretty good defensively when raised, and since it doesn't take a ridiculous amount of effort to get him up to that point, you can take advantage of a high move unit good at taking hits. There is a place for that unit depending on what army you're building.

Some of these units who are pretty mediocre to bad may have some quality that can be useful when the character is raised. In Matthis's case, it's his sturdiness that can be seen as useful. Having a mounted tank can be seen as desirable which would be why he is raised. IIRC, Matthis does edge out Abel in concrete durability, so he does have an advantage over a top tier unit. Matthis is obviously inferior to Abel as a unit, but he, like some other lower tier units, has an advantage over a top tier unit.

My point is that while some units may considered better than others based on what this community values most in terms of stats and abilities, there should be nobody who is inherently and irrevocably worse than somebody else. Why must this point be argued? What is it about this statement that makes everyone completely derail this thread, with several different posters posting about how utterly wrong I am? Look at my original post.

This is going to be true in a lot of games. It is inevitable you are going to have characters in a video game who are completely superior to other characters. Perfect balance is something to achieve for certainly, but it may not be possible.

[/color]

What about this merits so much discussion? There have been, what, around 20 posts based around this one? Why? I notice here I didn't even explicitly call Matthis unusable but rather simply "not worth it". Suddenly everyone jumps on my case defending Matthis from like his only actual fan as though he's high tier or some shit. How can it possibly be so controversial that I think Matthis is a terrible, unbalanced unit?

Maybe you should actually think before you post. You have a habit of occasionally posting something that is a good point while burying it in garbage. Like how you suddenly brought up Shanan and compared him to Matthew (lol) when there was pretty much no reason to. Maybe you should check your posts for implications that say stuff like "Matthis is unusable" and correct them before you make your point.

Does everyone object to the games which I listed which I consider "balanced"? Okay, so they aren't perfectly balanced even by my own definition, in bold above (I'd actually consider Lute vs. Ewan a more striking example of lack of balance than Amelia vs. Seth). I'll concede that. I'll concede that in Evayle, Dagda, and Shanam are pretty fucking useless in Thracia. Okay, alright already. I don't understand what else everyone has to complain about.

Again, look above to my bolded definition of what I consider "balance" to be. Disagree with my definition? Okay. Then talk about that.

Lol. You think Marty is a good unit while Evayle and Dagda are terrible. You have extremely weird standards to be saying stuff like that. Evayle is a great bosskiller and is invincible in most of her maps while Dagda has great base stats and is good at capturing people.

Anyway Lute vs Ewan is actually a less striking example of balance than Amelia and Seth. Ewan may be completely horrible, but Lute herself is not such a great unit. Comparing Ewan to Lute is like comparing a grub to a normal human. Comparing Amelia to Seth is like comparing the same grub to a god.

[Othin]

Please tell me you're smart enough to not assume LTC in an attempt to discredit a point made without assuming LTC.

[Dark Sage]

The arguments I and my fellow posters have made apply whether or not LTC is assumed or not. For the record, I wasn't assuming LTC in these posts. I was simply arguing against crappy logic.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Dark Sage

[Colonel M]

Please tell me you're not retarded and realize that Dark Sage isn't attempting to discredit with just LTC. Thank you.

[I.M. Gei]

Remember guys, the resentment toward the LTC übermenschen is strong in these two!

[Othin]

Please tell me you're not retarded and realize that Dark Sage isn't attempting to discredit with just LTC. Thank you.

So much conclusion jumping.

I saw a couple of statements that didn't line up with the views I've seen on other sites, differences which would fit perfectly with assuming LTC, so I inquired to make sure that was not the case. Dark Sage has said that it is not, and I will take his word for it. I have nothing more to say on this matter.

[General Banzai]

Oh shit it's the "standard play" thing again. I'm not going to start that again.

I make a post saying that the point of my post was what I personally considered balance to be and not the specific examples/terminology I used, which is all that people were arguing about. Enter a lot of posts in which people continue to argue about my specific examples. Literally the next post is one saying "Oh no Evayle and Dagda are really good" and missing the point so entirely that I'm under the impression it was a troll post intended to make me facepalm.

Now we've got some people throwing around LTC and that has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about so I'm not going to talk any more about that. Most of you know how I feel about that already and we don't need to open that can of worms again especially since it has nothing to do with what I'm trying to say.

WHAT I WANT IN FE3DS IS FOR THERE TO BE A GOOD UNIT BALANCE. BY BALANCE I MEAN THAT I WANT IT SO THAT THERE ARE NO UNITS WHO ARE IN EVERY WAY INFERIOR TO COMPARABLE UNITS.

That is the mechanic I want in this game.