Sumia is underrated

[Interceptor]

No it wouldn't. All I am saying is that we should consider how efficient the run was with Sumia present instead of Cordelia, and with Cordelia present instead of Sumia. All other factors would remain equal (same units used as efficiently as possible, and so on). Why would this only work if Sumia or Cordelia were soloing the game?

Because you are not changing a single thing, you are changing two things. The proposal you have outlined has two runs, where it actually needs something like four or five.

• Cordelia and Sumia (realistically this could be broken down into further runs on its own)
• No Cordelia, no Sumia
• Cordelia, no Sumia
• Sumia, no Cordelia

From that, you could start to approximate what the actual difference might be. Or, just use two runs, where the sole difference is that one maximizes Cordelia's utility, and the other one Sumia's. Since we're measuring utility rather than deployment, this makes the most sense.

The reason a solo run would allow your craziness is that a solo run wouldn't have a team to consider. Literally the only difference would be Cordelia or Sumia, so now your idea becomes valid.

You still have failed to answer this question, and even though you point out others can point out the error in my reasoning, no one has done so.

More accurately, you've simply failed to understand it. Consider the possibility that nobody else has corrected you because 1) it's already been adequately explained, and 2) nobody really gives a shit if you're ignorant on this subject.

Although at posting it looks like Redwall took a stab at explaining it to you, and he seems to understand.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Interceptor

[Chiki]

The proposal you have outlined has two runs,

I never said anywhere that I consider only two runs, now, did I? I don't consider only two runs when tiering units. That just isn't my philosophy.

From my tier list thread:

Turns saved: A unit saves turns if and only if the lowest possible turncount in varying contexts for a chapter is higher without their presence.

Look at what I said earlier:

You can compare a playthrough in which only Cordelia is used, and a playthrough in which only Sumia is used.

Notice the use of "can." Not once did I say those are the only two playthroughs considered in tiering a unit. It was merely an alternative to your claim that it's nonsense to compare them where Sumia and Cordelia were used together. Not once did I indicate that they were the only playthroughs I use to judge whether a unit is good or not.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Chiki

[PKL]

Olwen, I find Chapter 15 2 turn one of the easiest @_@, same with Chapter 7.

[Galenforcer]

I really agree with the fact that Sumia is underrated. I actually find Cordelia to be immensely overrated.

The problem I think that people have with Sumia is really just more personal issues than actual gameplay issues.

[shadykid]

I really agree with the fact that Sumia is underrated. I actually find Cordelia to be immensely overrated.

The problem I think that people have with Sumia is really just more personal issues than actual gameplay issues.

isn't that just interesting

Cordelia is at a bare minumum slightly worse than Sumia, and if Chiki here is arguing that Sumia is #2 she'll be in top 5 by the same rankings

[Chiki]

Olwen, I find Chapter 15 2 turn one of the easiest @_@, same with Chapter 7.

It's probably different in an LTC run like mine. Unless you've done one that went as far too?

[Interceptor]

I never said anywhere that I consider only two runs, now, did I? I don't consider only two runs when tiering units. That just isn't my philosophy.

From my tier list thread:

Look at what I said earlier:

Notice the use of "can." Not once did I say those are the only two playthroughs considered in tiering a unit. It was merely an alternative to your claim that it's nonsense to compare them where Sumia and Cordelia were used together. Not once did I indicate that they were the only playthroughs I use to judge whether a unit is good or not.

Excellent. Now that we're at the point where you're flailing and backtracking, it's a sign that this crap is nearly over.

Naturally, your endless parade of failing to understand the "Team" concept was a clever rope-a-dope play, and your butchery of the Athos logic was simply an Oscar-worthy acting performance. The whole time, you were trollface.jpg, surely.

I put the only there on purpose. One can consider a playthrough using only Sumia to see her general contributions to said playthrough, and one can consider a playthrough using only Cordelia to see her general contributions to said playthrough. The playthrough which is more efficient is the winner.

Has a certain finality to it, I'd say.

[Chiki]

I don't really understand your argument. Saying a playthrough is a winner does not mean that Sumia ranks higher than Cordelia on the tier list.

[PKL]

Idk, I always blazed through that one in drafts, but I guess that's different. The only one I sometimes have an issue is Chapter 23.

[Chiki]

Idk, I always blazed through that one in drafts, but I guess that's different. The only one I sometimes have an issue is Chapter 23.

Well, Sumia was my MVP for that chapter thanks to Hammer Frederick being able to kill Generals and Knights with marriage support. I was stuck to using Cordelia x Panne, Sumia x Frederick, and my Avatar x Ricken, pretty much.

It says a lot about Sumia though, if she can take out Generals midgame (which are very difficult to deal with) with minor help from Frederick.

[Interceptor]

I don't really understand [...]

This is almost like a catchphrase for you, at this point.

Saying a playthrough is a winner does not mean that Sumia ranks higher than Cordelia on the tier list.

Tier lists have nothing to do with it. The conclusion doesn't mean very much of anything at all, since it was a flawed comparison in the first place. Calling one run a "winner", as if it indicated something useful, suggests that one either doesn't understand what they are measuring, or doesn't understand how to compare things properly to begin with.

By all means, if your position is that you consider your CordyxSumia comparison to be part of a balanced breakfast, and my strange words about Athos to be a hopeless/ridiculous line of reasoning, I certainly have no incentive to spend any more keystrokes to correct you.

[Ema Skye]

It says a lot about Sumia though, if she can take out Generals midgame (which are very difficult to deal with) with minor help from Frederick.

Cherche and Panne can hammer them.

Cordelia can take Frederick or Vaike and ORKO them too.

Tharja, Miriel, Ricken and Henry can ORKO them too.

[Raine]

Why not just say more people should grade units based on LTC and be done with it? Though, I must say I agree with you that she's underrated. She has access to Luna, Pavise, Galeforce, Lancefaire, and Tomefaire. She's kinda wasted on the cleric branch imo, she shoulda had Valkyrie/Sage as her magic options.

EDIT: (to below post) Well, she's certainly not lacking in offensive skills.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Raine

[Chiki]

Cherche and Panne can hammer them.

Cordelia can take Frederick or Vaike and ORKO them too.

Tharja, Miriel, Ricken and Henry can ORKO them too.

Not denying that at all. All I am saying is that Sumia's offense isn't lacking, when people claim it is.

[General Horace]

its the idealogy that people have the doing 70 damage to an enemy with 50 hp is better than doing 50 damage to an enemy with 50 hp. At the end of the day, a dead enemy is a dead enemy. that being said having to rely on dual strikes (even if sumia doubles forever) is still not as good as not needing them at all.

[Chiki]

its the idealogy that people have the doing 70 damage to an enemy with 50 hp is better than doing 50 damage to an enemy with 50 hp. At the end of the day, a dead enemy is a dead enemy. that being said having to rely on dual strikes (even if sumia doubles forever) is still not as good as not needing them at all.

A Sumia x Frederick support has around an 85% Dual Strike chance, if I recall correctly. It's as reliable as attacking an enemy unit.

[Raine]

Regardless of how reliable it is doesn't excuse her from the fact that she's not doing it on her own. Besides, most support's dual strikes end up being pretty high irregardless so you could say that about any unit. Sumia is not exempted.

it's like saying Kellam is 10/10 because dual strike at 80% solves his inability to double.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Raine

[Chiki]

Regardless of how reliable it is doesn't excuse her from the fact that she's not doing it on her own. Besides, most support's dual strikes end up being pretty high irregardless so you could say that about any unit. Sumia is not exempted.

it's like saying Kellam is 10/10 because dual strike at 80% solves his inability to double.

Everyone is going to be using pair up in this game. It's not smart to consider a unit without pair up support because a unit will always be paired up. There's no reason not to in this game.

Anyway, dual strikes don't let Kellam double attack. A double attack would allow two chances at a Dual Strike. Kellam has one because of his low speed.

[Raine]

Eh, what's the point in a double if enemies'll just die to the dual strike anyway? that's all I'm sayin'. Assurance is a weak argument in the face of hit rates-- most the time hitting is a non-issue unless you're going up against guys with breakers stacked with avoid bonuses-- but there's really none of that in the game in the first place.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Raine

[Redwall]

The double improves the odds of a Dual Strike. With a forged Hammer, you'll have at worst an 84% chance of procuring at least one Dual Strike (S support grants [60 + Skl/4]% chance of a DS).

[Raine]

Saying attacking more gives a better chance in a round of procing a dual strike is about as insightful as saying a forged hammer strike from a high strength character on a armored foe'll basically kill it. =___='' My point is that it'll rarely get to a point you'll need to have a double simply because the chances of it procing are completely in your favor. Thus, why Kellam's speed will then become a non-issue.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Raine

[Redwall]

A single 70%-reliable Dual Attack is not what I consider "completely in [my] favor." Getting two attempts gives you a 91% of scoring at least one. That's still not completely in my favor, but 91% > 70%, without question.

[mewyeon]

Regardless of how reliable it is doesn't excuse her from the fact that she's not doing it on her own. Besides, most support's dual strikes end up being pretty high irregardless so you could say that about any unit.

True.

Unless you grind, which I doubt most people do in these sort-of playthroughs.

MMMMHMMMM. No grinding=I don't use her on a regular basis. Yes, I've experimented, and yes, it was painful. Gathering FrederickxSumia support required too much time and grinding. I'm sure there are many of you who are more skilled than I am at this game, so I'm not doubting that you guys can turn her into a good unit much faster. I'm just speaking out from my own experience. Honestly, this feels like the RTU thread from yesterday, and Chiki is going to think I'm crazy again, but I still really don't have the patience for her when there are other units that can work out just as well. I feel like even if I managed to do everything perfectly and the stats work out the way you mentioned in your OP, it would take so much extra grinding and time that I personally wouldn't consider it worth it. Just saying

[Chiki]

it would take so much extra grinding and time that I personally wouldn't consider it worth it

....none of the calculations here involved grinding. You can get all this experience and support levels in the main game chapters.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Chiki

[SPSEliwoodGabriel]

I have NO clue what's going on, but I'll just add something-

My Lucas *Robin* and Sumia are freaking powerful together, so, uh, I agree with the whole underrated thing?