Ike is overrated

[Refa]

You're missing the point entirely. When people say the game is EP focused, they are not saying that it is brainless but rather that a majority of the combat takes place in the EP and that contributes significantly to the win condition of the map.

[Radiant head]

The distinction seems pretty vague to me.

Like, Apotheosis in Awakening is definitively PP-focused because ideally there's practically zero EP combat, but beyond that it just feels like however you interpret what EP-focus or PP-focus means.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Radiant head

[Gradivus.]

PP is where you set your characters up to not die on EP and progress through the map.

I mean sure, you can only actively do anything on PP. But the fact that you're explicitly and always preparing for an EP shows that there is much significance to it.

PP is always more important than EP.

You can always compare situations based on when the amount of damage a unit can do on counterattacks matters more, and those situations are more reliant on EP action. I don't really know how you're missing that.

EP is just where most of the aftermath of your PP positioning is shown

Positioning is just a preparation for the combat that happens on EP

you should generally know how an EP is going to happen.

This doesn't render the EP combat any less important.

Even in your hypothetical example you display why PP is more important.

My example mainly shows that EP centricness is possible even with PP action having notable importance. I suppose since I made you assume there's only one solution, they are of equal importance, so my mistake, but the EP being more significant is easily indicated by the amount of enemies that need to die during it.

1) Not die on EP so you can keep countering the other enemies to death.

2) Take out enemies that can avoid dying from counterattacks

3) so all of the enemies die on your counter attacks.

4) Move the dancer out of enemy range so they don't attack it

Here you're practically admitting that EP makes a big difference. You're just trying to avoid saying that it can be more predominant.

I suppose on technical grounds one can say PP is more necessary for the progress of the game and conclude that it's more important, but it's better to judge which factor plays a bigger role to the strategy used.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Gradivus.

[Dunal]

The distinction appears to be:

EP: Positioning for enemies to attack you.

PP: Attacking/killing enemies before they act themselves.

Archers are useless for the former (unless it's specifically to lure in a 2-range enemy).

Typically the more dangerous enemies are in contrast to their durability, the more PP matters. If they're too tanky to warrant dealing with on PP, or if they aren't particularly dangerous, then 'EP' usually matters more.

Stealing and conditional requirements do help benefit 'PP' too.

If enemies in part 3 were incredibly strong (which they aren't) then Shinon could be fantastic.

[Junkhead]

Shinon's pretty unique in 1-P and is definitely key for low-turning 3-1, 3-2 (assuming you're not rigging a Haar/Titania Tomohawk critical or Wrath Soren), can be surprisingly solid at 3-3 and can also be a key component at low-turning 3-4 & 3-5. He has great stats, and the only others that are 1RKO'ing are something like Ike & Titania (when she doubles) earlygame.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Soul o:

[Radiant head]

The distinction appears to be:

EP: Positioning for enemies to attack you.

PP: Attacking/killing enemies before they act themselves

In that case, I'd say Part 1 & 4-E are definitely PP-focused. Part 2 is a mix. Part 3 depends on the map, it's probably more EP, but the some of the terrains lend more to PP (ie. 3-3 and 3-4). And Part 4 before endgame is mostly EP.

[Florete]

Nah come on. Positioning matters no matter what the objective is. If it's rout you need to be positioned properly to kill as many enemies as possible without dying. If it's seize you need to be positioned properly to clear a path for the Lord/Rescue chain the Lord there. If it's defend you need to be positioned properly to hold a choke.

Positioning always matters to a certain extent, yes, but whether the map is PP or EP focused depends on the reason positioning matters. In 1-9, positioning matters for survival, so I consider it PP focused. In 4-2, positioning matters solely for speed (unless you screw up), so I consider it EP focused. This is what I meant by "not worrying too much about positioning," basically; positioning always matters, but there are different reasons as to why.

If you have anything else to say on this matter I'll hear it, but honestly, unless you disagree with the point I was getting at (Ike's lack of good ranged combat before Ragnell isn't that big of a deal), I'd rather not discuss it anymore.

I just think many of RD's lategame maps (which are mainly the topic of this thread, it's true that much of the earlygame relies on PP action) count as such since EPs take up roughly 80-90% of the combat.

I'm pretty sure I agreed with this, btw. "I will agree that from about 3-8 onwards they are largely maps that are EP focused" and "4-P to 4-4 are all clearly EP focused maps, for example." Edited December 4, 2015 by Red Fox of Fire

[Gradivus.]

True, sometimes I just restate things even though I don't need to, I didn't overlook that.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Gradivus.

[Augestein]

I'd argue that RD's later maps that are "EP focused" are poorly designed maps. You don't have to do anything to win generally outside of existing.

I mean sure, you can only actively do anything on PP. But the fact that you're explicitly and always preparing for an EP shows that there is much significance to it.

No. It means that the EP is a result of your PP actions. Consider LTC playthroughs. It may be important for certain key components to happen on EP, but what makes a LTC actually able to be done is the conscious actions a person makes to optimize their movements in PP. That's the difference between PP and EP. Another Example: people often say that dancers are good classes to use while archers suck, and in most games, both classes generally have no EP. So why are dancers good and archers not? That's because dancer's contribute more on PP than archers do on PP and both are fairly equal in terms of liability on EP . Sure you could argue that it's because archers have terrible stats, but then again, when simply discussing class usefulness, stats have nothing to do with the functionality of the class itself. Or another example: Fliers. Fliers are generally mediocre combat units, but have a ton of utility thanks to their ability to fly into different areas and position themselves better as a result of their movement and their ability to fly different places where they cannot be attacked. Even siting an actual bona fide example from the series? Chapter 2 Lunatic + Awakening. A lot of people find this chapter absolutely wretched. Sure a lot of enemies are killed on EP, but PP is far more important to winning this chapter or a lot of people wouldn't get stuck on it.

You can always compare situations based on when the amount of damage a unit can do on counterattacks matters more, and those situations are more reliant on EP action. I don't really know how you're missing that.

This only assumes that your characters are strong enough to do so. If they are, of course you'd move them into a spot to do so. When you can't, you're not going to. Thus, the EP with all of these counterattacks only happens when... The unit is strong enough to pull it off. It's a conscious decision made on the player's behalf. The player is going to naturally put a unit in a spot where multiple enemies can die when the unit can come out unscathed or only need to be healed on the PP. That doesn't suddenly mean EP became more important in that tunnel because a unit is poorly balanced.

My example mainly shows that EP centricness is possible even with PP action having notable importance. I suppose since I made you assume there's only one solution, they are of equal importance, so my mistake, but the EP being more significant is easily indicated by the amount of enemies that need to die during it.

Positioning is just a preparation for the combat that happens on EP

So? That doesn't make EP more important. How EP carries out is entirely dictated by your actions or lack of action in PP.

This doesn't render the EP combat any less important.

Yes it does. The fact that your PP allows you to see what is going to happen on EP, means that you're going to place your units in certain positions as you accomplish your objective. The fact that you can see it means that literally PP is everything. Am I saying EP isn't important? No. Even in FoW maps where you necessarily can't see the enemy, you can progress based on the relative power of enemies.

My example mainly shows that EP centricness is possible even with PP action having notable importance. I suppose since I made you assume there's only one solution, they are of equal importance, so my mistake, but the EP being more significant is easily indicated by the amount of enemies that need to die during it.

But it really doesn't show anything like that. Even if there was only 1 solution and the solution was to literally do nothing on the PP, it would still highlight the importance of PP. You can only lose if you move a unit so little as 1 tile. No matter what the EP phase is, pass or fail is entirely dictated on the PP. Even in that situation, the player dictates the success of the map based entirely on their PP. Plain and simple, EPs stuff only happens as a result of good / bad moves on PP. EP resulting in a ton of enemies dying is a result of a good move... Or terrible enemy to player unit strength.

Here you're practically admitting that EP makes a big difference. You're just trying to avoid saying that it can be more predominant.

I suppose on technical grounds one can say PP is more necessary for the progress of the game and conclude that it's more important, but it's better to judge which factor plays a bigger role to the strategy used.

No. It doesn't. Enemy death doesn't determine which is more important. For instance, a person that turtles is more likely to kill things on PP than EP.

More enemies dying on EP isn't a result of EP being more important. More enemies dying on EP than PP is a result of you putting your units in a way that can result in them dying like that in the first place and the enemies being weak enough for them to constantly die like that. When I started playing FE mods and hacks of games where the enemies weren't complete pushovers or the enemies didn't all bum rush you Awakening style in congested maps in the lategame, that's when I realized that EP is only a result of what I already planned ahead of time -- whether more enemies died on the EP or PP.

When a map doesn't have you doing anything but walking forward and pushing wait or End Turn, that's not the result of the game being more EP important. It's a result of lazy, sloppy map design.

[Gradivus.]

I won't bother quoting every single paragraph since you haven't addressed this part of my post, which was my main criticism against your logic:

it's better to judge which factor plays a bigger role to the strategy used.

but I can counter all of your arguments by addressing this one:

So? That doesn't make EP more important. How EP carries out is entirely dictated by your actions or lack of action in PP.

Our actions on PP are based on what we expect to happen on EP.

Circular argument (and do not repeat your part of it again, you're not disproving anything I'm saying). This unequivocally shows that EPs are either more or less important, depending on the situation. Your argument that PP is more important because preparations for EP are met there is true on the level of technicalities at best. The decisions a player makes always are based on what would happen on enemy phase and if the objective is killing enemies and the easiest way to do so is utilizing the enemy phase, then it's not difficult to see that the map is EP-focused. If the consequences of missing out on good EP units are bigger than the ones of not having a big team that can rout all enemies in the vicinity, then EP action is more important. Period. If you aren't willing to make logical conclusions based on the impact of enemy phases on a player's strategy, I have no reason to continue the discussion because as I pointed out, we'd just run around in a circle without ever reaching a valuable consensus.

(fwiw, I don't even disagree that near-exclusive EP focus tends to be a result of poor map design)

I'll address this one though since it's not one that can immediately be answered by my previous post:

For instance, a person that turtles is more likely to kill things on PP than EP.

Turtling is a defensive strategy type and takes EP survival into primary account, instead of quick killing of enemies. I mainly referred to strategies that do revolve around killing enemies quickly for the sake of simplicity. I don't really care to debate with you whether turtling is more EP- or PP-focused, but you can infer it by applying the logic I presented differently.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Gradivus.

[Augestein]

Circular argument (and do not repeat your part of it again, you're not disproving anything I'm saying). This unequivocally shows that EPs are either more or less important, depending on the situation. Your argument that PP is more important because preparations for EP are met there is true on the level of technicalities at best. The decisions a player makes always are based on what would happen on enemy phase and if the objective is killing enemies and the easiest way to do so is utilizing the enemy phase, then it's not difficult to see that the map is EP-focused. If the consequences of missing out on good EP units are bigger than the ones of not having a big team that can rout all enemies in the vicinity, then EP action is more important. Period. If you aren't willing to make logical conclusions based on the impact of enemy phases on a player's strategy, I have no reason to continue the discussion because as I pointed out, we'd just run around in a circle without ever reaching a valuable consensus.

No it doesn't. You completely ignored what I said about archers or even dancers for that matter. You haven't even responded with any real substance. The EP is nothing but the aftermath of a PP-- being able to kill enemies or the result of muck ups such as a village being destroyed or possibly green units dying that you have to protect, or even your units in some cases. Some such as Fire Emblem 8 even had turn limits on recruits such as Amelia-- you just plain miss her if you go too slowly. All you're doing is hand waving by saying "no it's not." Hand waving is not my lack of ability to make an argument. I'm not going to bother discussing anymore, because it's impossible to discuss with someone that basically responds with "no, and I'm not going to even bother to respond with any substance."

[Gradivus.]

You haven't even responded with any real substance.

I presented multiple arguments as to why the terms PP and EP focus should be based on how they impact a player's strategy and not how important they are for the completion of the game or whatever similar conclusion you were getting at. I'll reiterate on the core one.

On technical grounds one can say PP is more necessary for the progress of the game and conclude that it's more important, but it's better to judge which factor plays a bigger role to the strategy used.

The player acts during the player phase. They focus on enemy phase combat to a smaller or greater extent depending on how the map and their objectives look. Fire Emblem is primarily a combat-oriented (in addition to positioning and movement, don't nitpick me) game, so it's logical that combat actions are a valid judgment for which phase the game, map, strategy or object of a similar category emphasizes. Regarding your dancer, archer and flier example, Dancers are important for positioning purposes, which I'm certain you know, and said positioning is either important for the appropriate EP actions to take place or to reach a player phase-activated objective in time. Archers do not assist positioning by anything close to this degree. Fliers do and are valuable for taking out or dealing damage against enemies on player or enemy phase. Positioning is important, but it is done with both player phase and enemy phase in mind. Really, based on this all it takes to infer that potential EP action makes a difference to strategies is common logic.

I'll grant that if we assume your logic (EP is always given the same amount of consideration, everything you do to achieve it correctly happens on PP, if I interpreted it right) the more valuable one, you're technically right, but that's not the point I'm arguing against - I simply believe your logic doesn't lead to any productive distinctions between PP and EP focus. By your logic, EPs inherently are less important than player phases because "they are just a consequence of player phase", but I established that they can be emphasized by the game to various extents multiple times and have shown that they make a difference to a player's strategy, so your accusations about me not making arguments with any substance or hand-waving yours should be at least largely dispelled by now.

All you're doing is hand waving by saying "no it's not."

I don't even know what this is allegedly based on. I have given reasoning for my opinion the whole time, if you didn't find it detailed enough you have it above again. If this isn't enough for you to take seriously, then my suspicion of you not being willing to make conclusions that exceed the logic of your initial argument gets confirmed.

But we've way derailed the topic so yeah.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Gradivus.

[Augestein]

And I stand by that it's a disagreement. I'm fine with that. There's no harm in having people come to the conclusion that they simply do not agree.

The player acts during the player phase. They focus on enemy phase combat to a smaller or greater extent depending on how the map and their objectives look. Fire Emblem is primarily a combat-oriented (in addition to positioning and movement, don't nitpick me) game, so it's logical that combat actions are a valid judgment for which phase the game, map, strategy or object of a similar category emphasizes. Regarding your dancer, archer and flier example, Dancers are important for positioning purposes, which I'm certain you know, and said positioning is either important for the appropriate EP actions to take place or to reach a player phase-activated objective in time. Archers do not assist positioning by anything close to this degree. Fliers do and are valuable for taking out or dealing damage against enemies on player or enemy phase. Positioning is important, but it is done with both player phase and enemy phase in mind. Really, based on this all it takes to infer that potential EP action makes a difference to strategies is common logic.

Yes. I wouldn't disagree with that at all. Because both phases do. Lucky criticals for instance can alter the entire outcome of PP as well. Both are going to be gong back and forth. Also, phrases like "Really, based on this all it takes to infer that potential EP action makes a difference to strategies is common logic" is handwaving. Explain it then.

I'll grant that if we assume your logic (EP is always given the same amount of consideration, everything you do to achieve it correctly happens on PP, if I interpreted it right) the more valuable one, you're technically right, but that's not the point I'm arguing against - I simply believe your logic doesn't lead to any productive distinctions between PP and EP focus. By your logic, EPs inherently are less important than player phases because "they are just a consequence of player phase", but I established that they can be emphasized by the game to various extents multiple times and have shown that they make a difference to a player's strategy, so your accusations about me not making arguments with any substance or hand-waving yours should be at least largely dispelled by now.

And my opinion is that even if/when EP have more emphasis placed on them, it really doesn't matter unless the player takes advantage of them and plans accordingly. Otherwise the map is a self-defeating map and would be won regardless of the players actions. Obviously you can't have EP without PP or vice versa, but whether the map has more enemies dying on EP or PP doesn't really change the fact that PP is where the bulk of things start events happening under normal circumstances outside of turn based events. I suppose to make the example less Fire Emblem like, PP is akin to taking a test and EP is the score you did on the test. No one would deny that the score is important, but your performance during the test matters much more because the score is based off of what you did while taking the test.

I don't even know what this is allegedly based on. I have given reasoning for my opinion the whole time, if you didn't find it detailed enough you have it above again. If this isn't enough for you to take seriously, then my suspicion of you not being willing to make conclusions that exceed the logic of your initial argument gets confirmed.

Because calling someone's argument circular is akin to calling it a logically unsound argument. That's hand waving because it's just kind of a shrug of "nope." When a logically circular argument can be pointed out easily. If you were saying "neither side will budge" than sure. But the phrase "circular argument' shouldn't be used in the context. Especially when your first post copies quotes from mine-- ignoring several other factors of it just to say "see this is basically saying EP is more important" with no logical coherence for a proper rebuttal. Look at your first post in response to mine. Even with your example, I completely explain a stance, yours just shrugs and says "nope." There literally IS not counterargument in the first response. You even go so far to ignore the second post of the discussion.

No. There isn't anything to left to discuss then. And it has derailed now and I have no idea how the strict rules are for this forum on that. So let's not derail it more.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Augestein

[Irysa]

Uh, circular doesn't mean it's logically unsound. The entire point of circular reasoning is that it's internally consistent.

The problem with your argument is that, like Gradivus said, your assumptions automatically mean the conclusion of EP orientated vs PP orientated is foregone, so a distinction doesn't even make sense under those criteria. If the point of the distinction is to to help categorise and differentiate between what types of maps value what types of strategies, then your axiom serves absoloutely no purpose in that context. Unless you want to argue that's NOT the point of making a distinction (good luck with that), or want to present an alternative naming convention that will effectively achieve the same thing as what people like Gradivus have proposed.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Irysa

[Augestein]

Uh, circular doesn't mean it's logically unsound. The entire point of circular reasoning is that it's internally consistent.

The problem with your argument is that, like Gradivus said, your assumptions automatically mean the conclusion of EP orientated vs PP orientated is foregone, so a distinction doesn't even make sense under those criteria. If the point of the distinction is to to help categorise and differentiate between what types of maps value what types of strategies, then your axiom serves absoloutely no purpose in that context. Unless you want to argue that's NOT the point of making a distinction (good luck with that), or want to present an alternative naming convention that will effectively achieve the same thing as what people like Gradivus have proposed.

Circular logic/reasoning literally means that you prove what you're saying because you say what your proving as the conclusion. It's not logical as a result of the logical fallacies within the argument itself: the statement might not be false, but the argument is. It's akin to saying P is P because P is P. it's definitely true but doesn't say anything as the argument itself would not be logically sound to reach the same conclusion we started with by saying the same statement. And I have never said "PP is more important because PP is more important" or anything to that nature. I've been saying "PP is more important because EP is largely dependent on PP." How is that circular logic at all? EP is entirely determined by PP. It's not to categorize maps -- something I never proposed, nor is it to talk about alternate naming conventions. These are both largely ideas that you and he have now brought up. It's pretty silly to bring up things that I have never once said them and then dismiss them as if I have even come remotely close to those conclusions.

The player being able to see the enemy and prepare for their strike on EP is not a testament to the importance of EP. Why? Because the placements and positions are set on the PP. The EP happens exactly as you planned in PP. EP is a result of the conscious actions of the player. Enemy death on EP doesn't show the importance of EP because there have been several arguments pointed out against this such as powerful enemies that cause the player to be unable to kill several enemies on EP or even more of the enemy on EP than PP like the DB chapters in RD, objectives such as RD's "burn the supplies", or even chapters such as Elincia's defense chapter that can be cleared in 1-2 turn(s) if the player really tried hard enough. All of which are results of the player's actions on the PP. And I reiterate again that if there ARE maps where EP is more important than PP you'd be running into nonsensical moments such as maps being able to be won regardless of the player doing terrible/stupid things on the PP. Which is not true, nor has it ever been true in Fire Emblem. Please explain to me: where are the maps where the player can literally make any move they desire and they can still win?

More enemies dying on the phase is not sufficient conclude which phase is more important. Which largely seems to be the focal point of Grad's argument. Hence why I was asking for more information.

But yes, it's off topic now, so I will kindly see myself off.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Augestein

[Mekkah]

Okay, I have a feeling the PP vs EP discussion is no longer relevant to the topic at hand ("Ike is overrated"). Even if it was relevant for Ike vs Shinon, I have seen part 1 and 2 mentioned more than once...

So, what it boils down to is the question of "How overrated is Ike?" We're no longer in the FEF days where Inui makes a garbage tier list with Ike, Haar and Tibarn as the top 3 units. If your point is that Ike isn't anywhere near as good as Haar, you're just preaching to the choir. In that case we're done here.

The issues you've named for Ike are perfectly legitimate (for his part 3 performance), but several of the units you listed as better have similar issues. In addition, Ike has them beat in part 4. As I said earlier, it's not 90% of his existence...but it's being severely handwaved in the OP.

Yeah, Titania and Haar are better. Oscar though? If Ike has glaring Spd issues, Oscar (21 base Spd) is not much better off. Sure, his growth is better, but his tier 2 cap prevents him from going beyond 24, and that alone makes him miss out on a lot of enemies as long as he's not given a crown. Then when he promotes he has 26 AS and he grows super slowly. He can double just fine but from what I remember he has some Atk issues. Especially if he's using that 1-2 range.

Sure, he has the mount, but a horse isn't the same as an autowin in FE10. It gets in the way in 3-4, 3-7, and several part 4 maps. You can say he's "Titania without high atk + adept" but that doesn't mean much.

Gatrie? Well, he's obviously a lot worse before he gets a crown. When he has a crown, he's fine for a bit, but then around 3-7 everyone and their mom promotes and surviving + ORKOing isn't all that special anymore. Celerity helps Gatrie get further, but it's not like I need to use Gatrie to get utility out of Celerity. Instead of a +2 mov Gatrie I would have a +2 mov Haar or Titania or even Ike. And in the case of Haar it probably helps me more because it gives me more reach (good for seize/boss kill objectives), whereas wherever Gatrie goes I could probably reach with just about anyone in the case of a rout map. If everyone is moving towards the same general direction then Gatrie having extra movement doesn't do anything for me.

For Boyd, let's accept for a moment that your setup works and he doubles things that aren't Swordmasters in part 3 when he gets the crown. You said give him the crown at the end of 3-4, so Ike has pretty much won 3-P, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4. Boyd's main bragging right comes from 1-2 range (since both should KO pretty much anything), but that point in his favor vanishes when Ike gets the Ragnell in 3-11. So Boyd's window of "beating" Ike is 3-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-10, since you conceded part 4. I dunno if Boyd can ORKO everything with unforged Hand Axes at this point. He has 29 str + 9 mt = 38 atk with them...from what I can see in enemy samples he is ORKOing non-Generals/SMs at 3-5.

Shinon isn't even in this competition. Even if he started with all around capped stats, he simply isn't contributing for most of the game. He is completely superfluous in rout maps. I like him a lot in 3-1 because there's more of a need for his high Spd and proc% rate, he has his uses here and there throughout the rest of part 3, but no matter how much you argue semantics about PP vs EP oriented game, Shinon has a garbage EP while Ike does not.

Something else I've noticed is that all of the units listed above as "better" all seem to be really reliant on the Crown. These things don't grow on trees. There's only one in 3-3, and the next GM crown doesn't come until 3-9. There's the 3-6 one, but you'd have to do shenanigans to get it, and it's even more competition to argue against. A Crown is at worst 100 saved EXP, however much BEXP that is, usually more if a unit has no more business being in tier 2 and wanting to use their tier 3 boosts and getting EXP there.

People like Gatrie, Boyd and Oscar might be decent with a Crown, but we can only quickly crown one of them, so their long-term usage restricts my choice of characters or makes the other characters a lot worse. This is why you resort to units that don't need a Master Crown to be good. See: Ike, Haar.

tl;dr Some part 3 units can come close to Ike, maybe beat him for a few chapters, but in the end it's by a small margin when they do actually win. But it takes some restrictive resource use to do so and some of them start stuttering when part 4 rolls around. Or even 3-11.

The only units in part 3 that I think beat Ike are Titania, Haar, maybe Reyson.

[Junkhead]

Totally not crying tears of joy that somebody actually read what I said. Like, that's not a miracle, or anything.

Okay, I have a feeling the PP vs EP discussion is no longer relevant to the topic at hand ("Ike is overrated"). Even if it was relevant for Ike vs Shinon, I have seen part 1 and 2 mentioned more than once...

Maybe it was just me, but I was getting a feeling this wasn't about Ike at all. Maybe, just maybe, it was just me. >w>

So, what it boils down to is the question of "How overrated is Ike?" We're no longer in the FEF days where Inui makes a garbage tier list with Ike, Haar and Tibarn as the top 3 units. If your point is that Ike isn't anywhere near as good as Haar, you're just preaching to the choir. In that case we're done here.

True, true. Sadly, I wasn't actually present around the fandom, those days. >w>

And, of course not. Just because a unit is excellent doesn't mean a worse unit than them can't be great.

The issues you've named for Ike are perfectly legitimate (for his part 3 performance), but several of the units you listed as better have similar issues. In addition, Ike has them beat in part 4. As I said earlier, it's not 90% of his existence...but it's being severely handwaved in the OP.

Yeah, I don't actually recall saying that was most of his existence, but the more important part of it. Like, a ton of characters are taking over Part 4.

Yeah, Titania and Haar are better. Oscar though? If Ike has glaring Spd issues, Oscar (21 base Spd) is not much better off. Sure, his growth is better, but his tier 2 cap prevents him from going beyond 24, and that alone makes him miss out on a lot of enemies as long as he's not given a crown. Then when he promotes he has 26 AS and he grows super slowly. He can double just fine but from what I remember he has some Atk issues. Especially if he's using that 1-2 range.

Let's get this out of the way:

Whenever I said things like "X unit requires a Crown to standout" (read standout, not "become barely decent"), I'm not actually factoring your typical effeciency-based run. Yes, while these could very well be effecient (all those that take Crown are supposed to make serious use of them and become, literally, Titania-level good). So, yeah. This is why I'm not a huge fan of effeciency. We're always assuming Haar AND Titania are going to be in play. I'm just giving you the heads up that there are plenty more potential units that can replicate a similiar job with negligeble/minimal costs. But, of course, since we're always using Haar & Titania, the very idea that someone else can actually make use of said resources is crazy far-fetched.

Sure, he has the mount, but a horse isn't the same as an autowin in FE10. It gets in the way in 3-4, 3-7, and several part 4 maps. You can say he's "Titania without high atk + adept" but that doesn't mean much.

It's not excellent, but it's definitely significantly better than we once thought it was. Even if horses can't climb mountains in 3-4, they still fulfill their role by being able to carry Ike up the mountain farther. This strategy worked pretty great for me. In 3-7, it's not even a question lawl. Oscar's on a similiar boat than Gatrie & Boyd, I feel. Going by normal levelling, he'd probably get going by around 3-5/3-8. Atk isn't a huge issue if he doubles. Adept patches that, seeing as he 3HKO's for most of the part. If you're not using Titania, he can take the Speedwings and double even sooner.

Gatrie? Well, he's obviously a lot worse before he gets a crown. When he has a crown, he's fine for a bit, but then around 3-7 everyone and their mom promotes and surviving + ORKOing isn't all that special anymore.

"Everyone and their mom"? You do realize just how scarce Exp runs in HM, even at this point, right? There's not even a second Crown at this point, yeah. But there's even less Exp to go around in our team, BEXP need not even be mentioned.

Celerity helps Gatrie get further, but it's not like I need to use Gatrie to get utility out of Celerity. Instead of a +2 mov Gatrie I would have a +2 mov Haar or Titania or even Ike.

Gatrie's actually a really powerful candidate for Crown + Celerity (like Boyd). You get a unit that can solo most of 3-8 & 3-10 (since 3-11 is just flight-based) and then we have 3-E. Giving Haar Celerity is just like giving Mia a Speedwings. It's completely unnecessary and they can still do their job while being great at it. It's kill vs. overkill, like I said earlier. And no, I don't think Ike uses Celerity better than Gatrie. He can't perform those feats I mentioned (not as fast & reliably, at least).

And in the case of Haar it probably helps me more because it gives me more reach (good for seize/boss kill objectives), whereas wherever Gatrie goes I could probably reach with just about anyone in the case of a rout map. If everyone is moving towards the same general direction then Gatrie having extra movement doesn't do anything for me.

Well, it does, actually. Just like -1 Mov seems to be a big deal among you folk, I don't see how +1 Mov above average can't be the opposite. And even then, it's only -1 Mov. than the folk who have the best Mov. in your team (9 Mov, pre-Celerity mounts).

For Boyd, let's accept for a moment that your setup works and he doubles things that aren't Swordmasters in part 3 when he gets the crown. You said give him the crown at the end of 3-4, so Ike has pretty much won 3-P, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4. Boyd's main bragging right comes from 1-2 range (since both should KO pretty much anything), but that point in his favor vanishes when Ike gets the Ragnell in 3-11. So Boyd's window of "beating" Ike is 3-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-10, since you conceded part 4. I dunno if Boyd can ORKO everything with unforged Hand Axes at this point.

omg, somebody has been doing their homework. :p

I actually conceded Ike's winning, by, liek, literally a chapter. I said he takes 3-5, unless you want to stuck yourself with a 24 AS Boyd for a while. So, yeah. lol I never conceded Ike winning Part 4, I said they're about equals at said point. If both are 1RKO'ing, then only the one who kills them harder could be better (obviously m00t). I'm not even going to count 4-E-5.

He has 29 str + 9 mt = 38 atk with them...from what I can see in enemy samples he is ORKOing non-Generals/SMs at 3-5.

Enemies are also weaker and slower in 3-7, for some reason. This is where I think he should get at least an extra level so he can get 25 AS as a 3rd tier.

Something else I've noticed is that all of the units listed above as "better" all seem to be really reliant on the Crown. These things don't grow on trees. There's only one in 3-3, and the next GM crown doesn't come until 3-9. There's the 3-6 one, but you'd have to do shenanigans to get it, and it's even more competition to argue against. A Crown is at worst 100 saved EXP, however much BEXP that is, usually more if a unit has no more business being in tier 2 and wanting to use their tier 3 boosts and getting EXP there.

Sadly. I clarified my opinion on that above. There's also this, from another post I did:

Haar - Doesn't really need a Crown to do his job. He flies, and that's 90% of his utility. I pull great turncounts in Part 3 by only really using Haar's flight much more than his actual prowess in combat. aka, something he can do regardless of promotion or level. He can promote naturally about 3-10 (26 AS doubles everything in Part 3 that isn't a Swordmaster)

Titania - The exact same as Haar, except she has a 25 AS (aka, fine for most of Part 3) cap and can promote naturally around 3-8/3-10, by the time she needs it.

Oscar - One of the two that's actually competing for the Crown. But then again, he'd also appreciate a Speedwings. Otherwise, he's actually not much better than Boyd (and actually slightly inferior in the long run, given his decline in Part 4 areas).

Mia - She's a weaker Ike

Shinon - Again, really? Lack of (good) melee range is enough to limit him the use of a Crown.

Gatrie - The other one who's actually competing with Boyd for the Crown. I'd say they're roughly on par, Gatrie's only marginally better because he can make use of the Crown as early as 3-4 (+Celerity).

tl;dr Some part 3 units can come close to Ike, maybe beat him for a few chapters, but in the end it's by a small margin when they do actually win. But it takes some restrictive resource use to do so and some of them start stuttering when part 4 rolls around. Or even 3-11.

The only units in part 3 that I think beat Ike are Titania, Haar, maybe Reyson.

I guess I'd have to go with that. Do admit, though. They're a lot closer in terms of performance than we once thought it was.

[dondon151]

oscar is pretty garbage

in addition to haar and titania, i would tentatively rank boyd (T) above ike, but that's about it.

[Augestein]

Agreed with Oscar being kinda bad. He has really terrible stat placement with his growths and the caps of Male Silver Knights are among some of the worst caps in the game.

It's not excellent, but it's definitely significantly better than we once thought it was. Even if horses can't climb mountains in 3-4, they still fulfill their role by being able to carry Ike up the mountain farther. This strategy worked pretty great for me. In 3-7, it's not even a question lawl. Oscar's on a similiar boat than Gatrie & Boyd, I feel. Going by normal levelling, he'd probably get going by around 3-5/3-8. Atk isn't a huge issue if he doubles. Adept patches that, seeing as he 3HKO's for most of the part. If you're not using Titania, he can take the Speedwings and double even sooner.

I feel that Oscar's not even in the same league as Boyd. Boyd has shaky base speed, and that's the only thing that's really noticeably wrong with him. Oscar meanwhile has terrible strength and terrible speed because of his awful caps. So any potential he has is ruined. It's not a matter of feeling he performs better with a crown either, he pretty much needs it. And then he spikes for some usage, and then falls off once again in towards the end of part 3. Boyd, like Ike only gets better with time.

Gatrie's actually a really powerful candidate for Crown + Celerity (like Boyd). You get a unit that can solo most of 3-8 & 3-10 (since 3-11 is just flight-based) and then we have 3-E. Giving Haar Celerity is just like giving Mia a Speedwings. It's completely unnecessary and they can still do their job while being great at it. It's kill vs. overkill, like I said earlier. And no, I don't think Ike uses Celerity better than Gatrie. He can't perform those feats I mentioned (not as fast & reliably, at least).

But it really isn't the same. Haar with Celerity can canto even further after PP attacks, which means that he can move even further from everyone else faster. Mia with speedwings goes from doubling everything to... Doubling everything. It's true that Gatrie getting Celerity is more useful for Gatrie than it is for Ike because in one case Gatire moves slower and in the other one, he keeps up with the main bulk of the army and moves slightly faster than them while it just plain makes Ike move faster. I agree that early promoted Gatrie is more useful than Ike, but the amount of chapters he wins doesn't make up for the difference between Ike and Gatrie in part 4. Especially when Ike doesn't have to take anything, so he's always guaranteed the strength he has while Gatrie isn't.

[-Cynthia-]

I think Oscar(T) is pretty good- the Str and Spd increases help his offense a lot and he'll cap stats earlier to get more Str with BEXP. He does kinda need a Crown because of that Tier 2 Spd cap though. I don't think his tier 3 Spd cap is a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

[Junkhead]

oscar is pretty garbage

wut

Agreed with Oscar being kinda bad. He has really terrible stat placement with his growths and the caps of Male Silver Knights are among some of the worst caps in the game.

His only cap problem is in Part 3, and only in 3-4 (where he's carrying Ike for like half of the mountain). 24 AS doubles in 3-3 & 3-5 (at least the Paladins, which compose most of the enemies). Was going to say 3-7, but he's not doing much there, because swamps. If there's a chance for him to promote through natural means and hit lvl. 21 without needing a Crown, he'll still be pretty viable afterwards (Adept fixes his Atk issues).

I feel that Oscar's not even in the same league as Boyd. Boyd has shaky base speed, and that's the only thing that's really noticeably wrong with him. Oscar meanwhile has terrible strength and terrible speed because of his awful caps. So any potential he has is ruined. It's not a matter of feeling he performs better with a crown either, he pretty much needs it. And then he spikes for some usage, and then falls off once again in towards the end of part 3. Boyd, like Ike only gets better with time.

Oscar's only real problem is his Spd base, honestly. His Str is within the 3HKO range (assuming he uses Steel Greatlance/Forge), he still has 9 Mov. and Earth affinity. Yes, he pretty much needs the Crown. But I established why it's not a huge problem as everyone makes it seem it is. Haar & Titania aren't desperate for it, and it's definitely not necessary to get good turns (both of them can promote by reaching lvl. 21).

And Paladin caps are understimated. The only real time it poses to a "problem" is probably at The Tower. Otherwise, he's still doubling all up to 4-4.

But it really isn't the same. Haar with Celerity can canto even further after PP attacks, which means that he can move even further from everyone else faster. Mia with speedwings goes from doubling everything to... Doubling everything. It's true that Gatrie getting Celerity is more useful for Gatrie than it is for Ike because in one case Gatire moves slower and in the other one, he keeps up with the main bulk of the army and moves slightly faster than them while it just plain makes Ike move faster. I agree that early promoted Gatrie is more useful than Ike, but the amount of chapters he wins doesn't make up for the difference between Ike and Gatrie in part 4. Especially when Ike doesn't have to take anything, so he's always guaranteed the strength he has while Gatrie isn't.

I don't know where you people get this from (the thing about Part 4 & Ike being better than another trained folk that also 1RKO's). If we're to agree that Celerity manages to fix Gatrie's one and only issue and he's outperforming most of your team, what difference does that make between him and Ike in Part 4? Once again, they're both 1RKO'ing and they're durability's also really similiar.

I can tell you've been reading, though. I appreciate that.

I think Oscar(T) is pretty good- the Str and Spd increases help his offense a lot and he'll cap stats earlier to get more Str with BEXP. He does kinda need a Crown because of that Tier 2 Spd cap though. I don't think his tier 3 Spd cap is a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

I never actually used Oscar, but I can tell this much from looking at enemy stats and raw speculation.

Base (T - Str/Skill/Spd) Oscar 1RKO's at base.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Soul o:

[dondon151]

i said

oscar is pretty garbage

[Junkhead]

Yeah, I'm sure I didn't undertsand that the first time.

[Augestein]

His only cap problem is in Part 3, and only in 3-4 (where he's carrying Ike for like half of the mountain). 24 AS doubles in 3-3 & 3-5 (at least the Paladins, which compose most of the enemies). Was going to say 3-7, but he's not doing much there, because swamps. If there's a chance for him to promote through natural means and hit lvl. 21 without needing a Crown, he'll still be pretty viable afterwards (Adept fixes his Atk issues).

And the thing is, is that other people can fairy Ike too. For instance, if you took of Savior from Fiona and then carted it over with Ilyana, Haar can do this. It's faster too rather than using Oscar. Yes, Oscar can double them if he reaches 24 AS, but 6 levels is a bit much for 3-3 don't you think? I'd say so. 3-5? Sure, but I don't believe Oscar will have the strength to kill them even if he doubles. 20 base strength is 35% growth is pretty miserable. But it's not natural for Oscar to hit 21 without using a crown. It really isn't. He has a difficult time killing things even when he doubles because of it. Adept doesn't fix his issues. It helps mitigate the strength he starts with. Forged weapons go further for his atk than Adept would for consistent damage honestly.

Oscar's only real problem is his Spd base, honestly. His Str is within the 3HKO range (assuming he uses Steel Greatlance/Forge), he still has 9 Mov. and Earth affinity. Yes, he pretty much needs the Crown. But I established why it's not a huge problem as everyone makes it seem it is. Haar & Titania aren't desperate for it, and it's definitely not necessary to get good turns (both of them can promote by reaching lvl. 21).

It's not just his base. It's the caps with the growths that's the problem. 65% growths that pretty much cap out 4 levels early is lame. If he didn't have that pitiful cap, he'd have 26 speed and then promote and have 28 speed on promotion. Now that's pretty impressive. But even your arguments point out who'd want it: Gatrie wants it pretty badly too because the difference between Gatrie having it and not is being able to keep up with the army under normal circumstances and getting the ability to start doubling more consistently. Soren if you're using him might want it, because it gives you another healer so you can opt to drop Rhys if you don't want to use him and keep using Soren. Nephenee could want it a bit early as well if you're into her. Mia might want to use it as well. Haar and Tita are fine. It's not just about them.

And Paladin caps are understimated. The only real time it poses to a "problem" is probably at The Tower. Otherwise, he's still doubling all up to 4-4.

No. It's that these caps are absolutely wretched for Oscar. Speed is one of his best stats, and he can't even show it off because he caps so early that he can't do anything with it. So he ends up being slower than people that he should be faster than... Like say, Boyd for instance. For Geoffrey they actually screw up his strength and serve to make him not worth using after his charge in part 3.

I don't know where you people get this from (the thing about Part 4 & Ike being better than another trained folk that also 1RKO's). If we're to agree that Celerity manages to fix Gatrie's one and only issue and he's outperforming most of your team, what difference does that make between him and Ike in Part 4? Once again, they're both 1RKO'ing and they're durability's also really similiar.

Ike with Celerity > Ike w/o Celerity.

Gatrie with Celerity >>> Gatrie w/o Celerity.

Ike with Celerity > Gatrie with Celerity.

The issue at hand is that you were saying "Ike is overrated." So... People are naturally defending Ike on this one because he should be. It's not far to compare Gatrie with Celerity and Ike without it and then conclude that Gatrie is better than Ike or even Ike's equal when Ike doesn't need anything and Gatrie does.

That's the difference. And Ike also has a better affinity which makes him more useful to his partner, Aether > Luna because even if both are largely overkill, Aether still heals Ike helping him to survive even longer than Gatire. When playing normally, people are definitely go to spread the power around the units that they use. But... In terms of which unit is straight up better? The one that requires less to function to powerful utility.

I think that's kind of why people hated arguing which units are "better" so to speak and rather just label the units as "good," "bad," and "meh."

Edited December 6, 2015 by Augestein

[Florete]

I don't know where you people get this from (the thing about Part 4 & Ike being better than another trained folk that also 1RKO's). If we're to agree that Celerity manages to fix Gatrie's one and only issue and he's outperforming most of your team, what difference does that make between him and Ike in Part 4? Once again, they're both 1RKO'ing and they're durability's also really similiar.

Ya know, Celerity doesn't just up and fix Gatrie's movement. He's still an armor, and that means he has the armor movement type, which has more issues with terrain. This is especially a problem in part 4, as 4-1 is really the only pre-tower map without significant terrain.