Most Overrated character?

[arvilino]

I think sometimes the trainee's (mostly Amelia) can get a misguided distinction of having better stats than other units, though mostly through youtube comments on FE8 videos as opposed to within a community.

[Baldrick]

I don't think anyone considers trainees good in efficiency. The people who claim trainees to be excellent units aren't really overrating them, since units like General!Amelia are good in their playstyle. If anything, they underrate certain prepromotes.

[General Banzai]

The thing is that even in a slow-your-roll playthrough, the trainees are legitimate ass next to comparable units. Lute is basically better than Ewan statistically, and Amelia only somewhat beats Seth when both are at Level 20. And Ross just fucking sucks in general, like wtf is his speed seriously

[Just call me AL]

I don't think anyone considers trainees good in efficiency. The people who claim trainees to be excellent units aren't really overrating them, since units like General!Amelia are good in their playstyle. If anything, they underrate certain prepromotes.

I'm gonna have to echo what Shock Banzai is saying. And I'm gonna add the detail that, even when trying to use logic to explain why they're not really great even in efficiency PTs, chances are you're arguing someone whose arguments reek of PE. They also may not understand your point, since there are those that still think 20/20 stats is a viable measurement of a unit's worth. You can expect childish insults to be thrown at you in such an argument with a YouTube dweller.

(Man, if only there were a cure for stupidity, nothing like what I describe would happen.)

Edited October 20, 2012 by Little Al

[Baldrick]

The thing is that even in a slow-your-roll playthrough, the trainees are legitimate ass next to comparable units. Lute is basically better than Ewan statistically, and Amelia only somewhat beats Seth when both are at Level 20. And Ross just fucking sucks in general, like wtf is his speed seriously

1. Somewhat beats = legitimate ass? OK

2. Ewan is probably worst trainee even in casual, but he does have variety on his side, and even in Sage, is only somewhat beaten by Lute, which means of course that Lute is legitimate ass.

3. Speed issues are not a dealbreaker on their own, Seth, Marcus and Haar, among others, have speed issues.

4. I never said trainees are much better than prepromotes in casual, only that trainees are good in casual.

Little Al: Logic and casual playthroughs don't mix. For example:

The endgame is vastly inflated, since the final bosses are "more important" than the earlier bosses.

Amelia's stats are given extra value since she started so weak.

As an ex-casual FE player, this is what I thought. I can only assume most other casual players think the same.

The fact the trainees are good in casual doesn't effect their worth in efficiency.

The sooner you throw out the values of efficiency when discussing casual play, the better.

And btw, ad hominem attacks are not a one-way street.

[BrightBow]

But the trainees start weak and end up merely on par with everyone else. Consequently, this would make them worse then everyone else. And you can't be considered "good" if you are worse then everyone else.

Btw, what does "Casual" and "efficiency" mean? Those terms get thrown around a lot here but I don't think I know what it means in this context.

[Silvercrow]

Btw, what does "Casual" and "efficiency" mean? Those terms get thrown around a lot here but I don't think I know what it means in this context.

Casual--play however you want using whoever you want, not caring about how quickly or effectively you're completing chapters. Examples being using turtling strategies, leveling Trainees, or spending like 50 turns at the end of every chapter building supports.

Efficiency--attempting to complete the game quickly and at minimal cost. So usually means rather low turncounts and near-optimal distribution of resources.

[BrightBow]

Casual--play however you want using whoever you want, not caring about how quickly or effectively you're completing chapters. Examples being using turtling strategies, leveling Trainees, or spending like 50 turns at the end of every chapter building supports.

Efficiency--attempting to complete the game quickly and at minimal cost. So usually means rather low turncounts and near-optimal distribution of resources.

Thank you for the clarification.

I guessed that casual is about restarting a map when loosing a unit or something like that so that definitely helped me out here.

Edited October 20, 2012 by BrightBow

[Original Alear]

....hmmmm

Probably either old man jesus (levin) or steroid jesus (ike).

I dunno.

[Snowy_One]

Thank you for the clarification.

I guessed that casual is about restarting a map when loosing a unit or something like that so that definitely helped me out here.

I'd think that would be more of an efficiency thing as they have a tendency to lean towards using every bit of the games systems in their favor (points to the FE10 tiers). Not saying anything pro/con against efficiency there. Just noting a perspective.

Anyways, to me, the difference has been in the mindset that the players who play the game approach the game. For example, in WoW, given two players of equal gear and playtime and activities, but one doing them for fun while the other doing them to max out his power, I'd call the former a 'casual' player and the latter a 'hardcore' even though there is no statistical difference between them.

So to me, in FE, casual means: I'm here to have fun.

Efficiency: I'm here to do as best as possible.

Course, mindset reflects on playstyle as well as casuals will likely look at a tier list and see high-ranked units and assume that they're generally good units and not take into account that there may be a certain way needed to play them to be good.

[dondon151]

you can have fun while aiming to do as well as possible...

[ClLoulD]

Titania, most other mounted units, Vanessa and most of all...

NEPHENEE I mean seriously she just about caps 2 or 3 stats and her strength and defence in the harder difficulties makes it difficult for her to 0RKO If I have to pick a lancer I almost always go with aran his defence and strength usually cap much quicker so yeah he might not double everything but that gives the extra exp to someone else who needs it much more in the dawn brigade.

[Baldrick]

I would say Casual is playing without any challenges or goals beyond what the story dictates, and Efficiency is playing with the extra goal of collecting as many and/or using as few of X resource as possible. Since turns are by far the most common resource used, efficiency and LTC are often used interchangably.

But the trainees start weak and end up merely on par with everyone else. Consequently, this would make them worse then everyone else. And you can't be considered "good" if you are worse then everyone else.

If I hacked FE8 so that Eirika and Seth were the only PCs, and made Eirika a Knight Lord with 20 in every stat, Seth would be the worst unit in the game, even though I haven't changed him in any way. Would that mean he is no longer "good"?

In casual play, due to the lack of restrictions, nearly every unit can be considered "good". To be considered bad even in casual play, you need a lack of short-term usefulness and long-term potential, and no utility whatsoever.

[Rapier]

If I hacked FE8 so that Eirika and Seth were the only PCs, and made Eirika a Knight Lord with 20 in every stat, Seth would be the worst unit in the game, even though I haven't changed him in any way. Would that mean he is no longer "good"?

In casual play, due to the lack of restrictions, nearly every unit can be considered "good". To be considered bad even in casual play, you need a lack of short-term usefulness and long-term potential, and no utility whatsoever.

You forgot to compare those 'bad' units to the enemy units. Sure, your logic is valid when referring to your own units, but it just doesn't work when your 'bad who is not bad on casual plays' unit is not efficient at all agaisnt foes.

[Loki Laufeyson]

What about Casual Efficiency? Ive seen people do that too. Where you are playing with a more casual slant but are still doing things relatively efficiently. Where yer using someone like Nino but still getting ok turn counts. Using who you want but still playing for ranks. Or fucking around in FE9/10 and still getting most or maximum BEXP in each chapter. You know, best of both worlds. When im not support grinding or cash grinding in arenas, thats more or less how i play.

I never tried using her but isnt Sophia really bad even in casual play?

[Original Alear]

If I hacked FE8 so that Eirika and Seth were the only PCs, and made Eirika a Knight Lord with 20 in every stat, Seth would be the worst unit in the game, even though I haven't changed him in any way. Would that mean he is no longer "good"?

In casual play, due to the lack of restrictions, nearly every unit can be considered "good". To be considered bad even in casual play, you need a lack of short-term usefulness and long-term potential, and no utility whatsoever.

Worst is a statement relative to other units. While Seth would be the worst player unit in the game, he would probably be improved because he would be only one of two units available to use. In fact, maybe the access to lances (1-2) and higher movement (Eirika promo has 7 right?) would still make him more useful - or rather, because both Seth and Eirika would probably be used in an "efficient" setting, there would be no purpose in determining who was better. They would probably both make a contribution which the other unit could not replace. If you're aiming for LTC, for instance, I think it's a safe assumption that Seth + Eirika will do better than Seth with no Eirika (ok just forget seize) or Eirika with no Seth. Therefore, there's no point in determining which is better in order to assist you in your LTC.

And I assume Eirika would have more than 20 HP if all her other stats were buffed to 20, though I suppose having such a good spread generally would kind of make it ok for her hp to suck for a promo.

If there is a lack of restrictions on casual play, I don't understand why short term uselessness, lack of long term potential, and lack of utility would make a unit bad. That all seems to assume restrictions that hardcore players (and casual players) may take into account.

What about Casual Efficiency? Ive seen people do that too. Where you are playing with a more casual slant but are still doing things relatively efficiently. Where yer using someone like Nino but still getting ok turn counts. Using who you want but still playing for ranks. Or fucking around in FE9/10 and still getting most or maximum BEXP in each chapter. You know, best of both worlds. When im not support grinding or cash grinding in arenas, thats more or less how i play.

I guess it depends. Because, some people might use Nino along the lines of "Nino is bad so I'll use her because she's bad, but I'll play my best" and some people might say "Nino is bad but I like her for some other reason so I'll use her anyway, and I'll play my best." The first seems more hardcore (i.e., someone who has a "challenge" they want to complete) and the second seems more casual, but the second player might still end up with a lower turncount than the first player, and they might put more of their time into playing well as well. But maybe they put in more absolute time, but they just have a lot more spare time, while the hardcore person is using all their spare time but they have less of it to throw around. Etc.

Edited October 22, 2012 by L1049

[Parrhesia]

What about Casual Efficiency? Ive seen people do that too. Where you are playing with a more casual slant but are still doing things relatively efficiently. Where yer using someone like Nino but still getting ok turn counts. Using who you want but still playing for ranks. Or fucking around in FE9/10 and still getting most or maximum BEXP in each chapter. You know, best of both worlds. When im not support grinding or cash grinding in arenas, thats more or less how i play.

Yeah, this is popular too. Like, I want a good turncount inasmuch as max BEXP or an A Tactics. That doesn't stop me from using scrubs like Wil and Ross who I happen to like. Dunno how popular it actually is, though.

And christ people have got to realise that people play efficiently BECAUSE THEY ENJOY IT

this is not a difficult concept

[Dark Sage]

And christ people have got to realise that people play efficiently BECAUSE THEY ENJOY IT

this is not a difficult concept

I enjoyed something once it was terrible.

[Loki Laufeyson]

Yeah, this is popular too. Like, I want a good turncount inasmuch as max BEXP or an A Tactics. That doesn't stop me from using scrubs like Wil and Ross who I happen to like. Dunno how popular it actually is, though.

And christ people have got to realise that people play efficiently BECAUSE THEY ENJOY IT

this is not a difficult concept

I think its more popular than one would think to be honest. From what i can see, when people arent doing drafts, LTC runs, etc, they are basically going the Casual Efficient route. I think these players are less likely to be jamming away at the hardest modes in the games, but playing for fun while trying to not have over like, 300 overall turns lol!

Myself as an example: I do not play hard modes. Ever. I also rarely use the same units over and over in any given run. Without support/arena grinding, tend to have at least a 4 star tactics rating in FE7. Usually getting the maximum BEXP for turn clears in FE9/10. Thats if Im not using "bad" units like Lyre, Fiona, etc. though. hahahaha!

Yeah some people want to see just how few turns it can take to clear a game and who performs the best in said scenarios. Its their idea of fun. It isnt mine, but if they are enjoying that playstyle, wtf shouldnt they do it? Ya know? The key is to not get on peoples' cases for playing a different way and that goes for everyone. Casual, hardcore, or whatever.

[DarkCrusader]

Nephenee - I've dealt with WAY too many people who treat her as a Goddess that can do no wrong. Solid unit but not even within the Top 10 characters of either game.

Canas - People on the Fire Emblem Facebook page have a fetish for monocles. It gets incredibly annoying. "Oh but he has the Luna tome". Yes and he also has a low Constitution and happens to wield a weapon type that punishes low constitution harshly.

Hector - People act like Hector is the best lord in the series when frankly he can get speed and skill screwed and then there's that late game promotion. *Shudders*

Lyn - I've seen way too much Lyn love. People actually like Lyn way more than Lucina. The only reason I can think of is the nostalgia of FE 7. She's basically a swordmaster with the title of Lord attached to her. I still don't think she's that great.

Edited March 22, 2014 by DarkCrusader

[RJWalker]

Nephenee - I've dealt with WAY too many people who treat her as a Goddess that can do no wrong. Solid unit but not even within the Top 10 characters of either game.

Canas - People on the Fire Emblem Facebook page have a fetish for monocles. It gets incredibly annoying. "Oh but he has the Luna tome". Yes and he also has a low Constitution and happens to wield a weapon type that punishes low constitution harshly.

Hector - People act like Hector is the best lord in the series when frankly he can get speed and skill screwed and then there's that late game promotion. *Shudders*

Lyn - I've seen way too much Lyn love. People actually like Lyn way more than Lucina. The only reason I can think of is the nostalgia of FE 7. She's basically a swordmaster with the title of Lord attached to her. I still don't think she's that great.

Liking Lyn more than Lucina is a perfectly valid opinion, nevermind that they're both bad characters in my own opinion.

[Florete]

But you know what's a bad opinion? Thinking necroposting a year+ old topic is okay.

It's not.