"there are better options" and why it doesn't fit in most discussions

[eclipse]

I won't deny that my Raigh/Virion are the world's bestest units.  However, I think just about every unit can be made usable, in some way, shape, or form.  It becomes a matter of whether or not the person is trying to min/max the best unit, or is just trying to have fun with their favorite units.

Case in point: My first 5* was a +Spd/-Atk Young Tiki.  All this means is that she'll need to run her default weapon with Distant Counter, instead of Lightning Breath+.  She's still plenty usable, because +Spd means that she doubles stuff, and doubling is a Good Thing.

[Usana]

What simulator and list do you use? Every one I fire up says Fury outperforms or at least performs equally well as a second DD with the IV's of +ATK/-RES as was indicated earlier in the thread. I mean its not a huge difference in wins one way or the other. The big difference is in outright losses. Fury gives much greater survival in general at the cost of falling prey to bow breakers a bit easier. Gronnraven Triangle Adept Bowbreaker Inigo is the biggest offender. However, Fury lets you deal with Kagero who otherwise would double you into oblivion. Though shuriken breaker would also do that. Anyways with Guard Bow+(DEF)/Iceberg/QR; Sundere's list ends up with 14 ranged losses when running double DD and 11 ranged losses when running fury. On the 700-710 Tally list double DD has 8 losses vs fury's 6.  On a meta list I found and imported double DD has 1 lose and Fury 0. Fury also always had fewer inconclusives than DD. On a forced moonbow+fury custom list they perform equally, but I don't really consider that a good baseline to go off. Obviously no simulator list is going to be the 'perfect' list. And results will differ depending on if you are including buffs on your side and if so what buffs, etc, etc, etc. Not sure what your list set up is coming up with, but I find it hard to believe that DD would WAAAAYYY out perform fury. I could see things slightly shifting the other way, but not a huge jump. Though it does appear I was wrong on the spd issue. Apparently it was only Kagero that fury was stopping(wonder where the denying doubles was coming from. I must've thought she had 30 spd with fury or something. maybe I forgot to deselect the Summoner Support box?).

TL;DR Fury is a lot easier to learn for the A Slot than Distant Defense is. Given that the matchup difference is so small I would say fury has this. I mean do you really think you should be tanking Gronnraven TA Bow Breakers with a bow unit anyways? Fury Faye's problem is the same as every other Fury user. If you need to soak multiple times in a row on the same phase fury saps your survivability bad. 6 damage after every engagement is nothing to sneeze at.


As for vantage. It almost always seems to net more wins in the simulator than breakers(at least with the limited number of units I have punched in), but that is ignoring teams. As stated it is a straight up dueling skill. In an arena match nuking something down is generally more important, but I never claimed it was the arena king, did I?

 

[Arcanite]

4 hours ago, XRay said:

Since all tier lists are subjective,

They are but come on

Look at game press and then look at gamepedia

I don't follow the tier list updates at all but gosh darn it. Some things just straight make no sense.

7 hours ago, Hilda said:

well on player hands the skills are great, on AI hands... mmm not so much, ecxept if you are stuck on a shitty Arena map with 2 bridges as the only crosspath lol

That 2 bridge map...

With armors it's easy but with horses it's just UGGGHHHH if you're not tanking and killing something on the first turn you're probably screwed LOL

 

[Johann]

I think people tend to care too much about what other people say and do

[MrSmokestack]

4 hours ago, Roflolxp54 said:

 I don't see this going on often (though that can just be my not paying attention to unit build discussion threads often).

I’d like to see some concrete examples of this too. I personally haven’t seen anyone use this argument, nor have I used this argument myself to the best of my knowledge. Any variation of “Not X” is universally looked down upon in unit discussion threads for other FE games.

3 hours ago, Usana said:

Fury lets you deal with Kagero who otherwise would double you into oblivion.

I was going to address this but it looks like you caught yourself.

3 hours ago, Usana said:

Not sure what your list set up is coming up with, but I find it hard to believe that DD would WAAAAYYY out perform fury. I could see things slightly shifting the other way, but not a huge jump

Nowhere in my original post did I say this.

I would ask what lists exactly you used and what the losses and draws were, but that would be going off on a tangent. Distant Def 9 doesn’t give Faye her 44/44/52 defenses when she’s being attacked in melee~

3 hours ago, Usana said:

As for vantage. It almost always seems to net more wins in the simulator than breakers(at least with the limited number of units I have punched in), but that is ignoring teams.

Weaponbreaker is often preferred over Vantage or other HP% skills because of how important the first round of combat is in a map. Vantage has some interesting applications especially in PvE but it remains a niche skill. Desperation doesn’t have this problem since it works on player phase, where everything is in your control.

Vantage can also be bypassed by attacking from range or using a skill that negates counterattacks. The popularity of -Sweep skills has been pretty fatal to Vantage builds.

2 hours ago, Johann said:

I think people tend to care too much about what other people say and do

My opinion is fact!

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

1 hour ago, MrSmokestack said:

I’d like to see some concrete examples of this too. I personally haven’t seen anyone use this argument, nor have I used this argument myself to the best of my knowledge. Any variation of “Not X” is universally looked down upon in unit discussion threads for other FE games.

I was going to address this but it looks like you caught yourself.

Nowhere in my original post did I say this.

I would ask what lists exactly you used and what the losses and draws were, but that would be going off on a tangent. Distant Def 9 doesn’t give Faye her 44/44/52 defenses when she’s being attacked in melee~

Weaponbreaker is often preferred over Vantage or other HP% skills because of how important the first round of combat is in a map. Vantage has some interesting applications especially in PvE but it remains a niche skill. Desperation doesn’t have this problem since it works on player phase, where everything is in your control.

Vantage can also be bypassed by attacking from range or using a skill that negates counterattacks. The popularity of -Sweep skills has been pretty fatal to Vantage builds.

My opinion is fact!

 

Not x is a valid argument actually especially in Fire Emblem tier list where depending on context a properly delivered "Not X" can make you drop 2 - 3 spot. This have been a widely discussed issue actually

 

 

That being said 

What imo is ok is:

This character isnt the best compared to X. His best build is "insert build"

 

What ISNT ok is:

X sucks just use Y

 

It is like when someone said Lyn isnt that good because Chrom exists by describing that Lyn is basically Bartre.... i mean Lyn is basically Chrom. The content and context is more important than the actual statement

[XRay]

3 hours ago, Arcanite said:

They are but come on

Look at game press and then look at gamepedia

I don't follow the tier list updates at all but gosh darn it. Some things just straight make no sense.

They are pretty much the same in my eyes. Their top tiers have melee units and no Reinhardt nor Dancers/Singers. The only difference is that one top tier is bigger than the other. For Anna's sake, they have the balls to rank Dancers/Singers as anything less than top tier!

As a player who prioritizes map control and performance, both tier lists are super cringy. Both seem to focus only on performance and ignore map control based on what their criteria description says, but they do not seem that way either. If they were to really only focus on performance, then armor units would automatically be top tier as they have access to Bold Fighter.

[Arcanite]

48 minutes ago, XRay said:

They are pretty much the same in my eyes. Their top tiers have melee units and no Reinhardt nor Dancers/Singers. The only difference is that one top tier is bigger than the other. For Anna's sake, they have the balls to rank Dancers/Singers as anything less than top tier!

(Speaking of gamepedia)

That's because on the arena tier list it takes everything into account, from merges, to best matchups, and even support...

Also those placements are based on player control and not enemy control. I believe gamepedia has tier notes in each placement too

Dancers and singers are great and all but their low bst bin tanks score and requires more merges, and most often than not the dancer themselves won't be killing much or doing anything crazy other than tanking the occasional Rein or Brave Lyn

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

28 minutes ago, Arcanite said:

(Speaking of gamepedia)

That's because on the arena tier list it takes everything into account, from merges, to best matchups, and even support...

Also those placements are based on player control and not enemy control. I believe gamepedia has tier notes in each placement too

Dancers and singers are great and all but their low bst bin tanks score and requires more merges, and most often than not the dancer themselves won't be killing much or doing anything crazy other than tanking the occasional Rein or Brave Lyn

They confirmed bst bin tanks isnt a factor which really made you think

 

 

I disagree with you saying Nowi at high tier made no sense though

[Ice Dragon]

On topic, it does bug me anytime someone says to not bother using a unit citing that another unit does the build better or another nature is better for it. Some people make do with what they have because that's all they have. Others are trying to build units for Arena Assault where second, third, and fourth best are all good enough. Telling someone to use something else when they are asking how to make something they have work is just being an ass.

 

1 hour ago, XRay said:

If they were to really only focus on performance, then armor units would automatically be top tier as they have access to Bold Fighter.

Gamepedia currently has every armored unit as S- or higher, more or less split by their Atk stat (36 or higher with +Atk nature in S, everything else in S-). I'm pretty sure their movement range is the one thing keeping them out of S+, which currently only houses the best Firesweepers in the game.

They clearly do account for map control, but weight it less than you do.

Dancers give your team greater mobility, but less combat coverage because they are generally not great at combat. As such, while they "count as another copy of one of your other units", they don't add to your combat HP pool. They are also a positioning liability in cramped maps.

 

43 minutes ago, Arcanite said:

That's because on the arena tier list it takes everything into account, from merges, to best matchups, and even support...

According to the update notes, Gamepedia uses +0 units with +4/4/0/0 buffs against +5 opponents with +6/6/6/6 (or highest possible C-slot field buff for their movement type) buffs using a curated set of opponent builds.

As best as I can tell, their tier list is geared towards players looking to stay in Tier 20, and is less representative for players lower or higher than that.

[XRay]

1 hour ago, Arcanite said:

That's because on the arena tier list it takes everything into account, from merges, to best matchups, and even support...

I do not think they take everything into account. They definitely do not take into account map control nor team composition. Mobility and range is pretty important; combat performance matters, but this is not Pókemon where only combat performance matters. Non loli melee infantry and melee armor units should not even be in the top two tiers.

Their rating criteria seems to imply that it is based solely on combat performance, but the way they rank each character does not reflect that. If it was based solely on performance, then armor units have the best combat performance with Bold Fighter and should be ranked at the top. Here is their rating criteria description:

Spoiler

Ratings in this tier list factor in Skill Inheritance. Units are rated by their stats (including boons/banes), skill potential, flexibility, and important match-ups. As with all tier lists, ratings can be subjective and should only serve as a general guideline.

Up until now, we've relied on the same rating criteria for all of our tier list updates. The idea was that we'd be able convey our thought process behind the requirements for each respective tier and hopefully make things clearer for the reader. Unfortunately, there was just one problem: it didn't work. Our old rating criteria was filled with inconsistencies. Going in depth was nice, but we didn't foresee the number of edge cases that would consistently (and infuriatingly) contradict our criteria. To be honest, it's something we should have addressed as soon as possible, because in addition to having inconsistencies, it was also cumbersome and wordy. Fortunately, those days are now over, as we're pleased to present our NEW tiering criteria.

S: Contains the metagame defining heroes. Units in this tier are highly effective on offense teams, consistently beating units they are required to defeat (ie: A red unit that can kill all green units and a fair amount red units). Alternatively, they can counter top tier threats or provide considerable support to allies, while also being a major threat in their own right. These units are staples, and are a common component for most teams.

A: These units are highly effective, but either have flaws that hold them back or simply do not reach the heights of S tier. A tier units can more than adequately contribute to a team, and in some cases, can even surpass S tier units depending on the team composition.

B: Weaker units that can still fill a minor, but important niche. They can typically succeed on most teams, but require a bit more support in order to use effectively. These units aren't bad by any stretch, but are demonstrably worse than the units in S and A tier.

+, neutral, and - still remain, but these are essentially function sub-tiers used to rate characters relative to each other. For example, an A+ tier character is better than a A tier character, but two characters within A tier are strictly on par. Please note that characters within the same sub-tier are NOT ranked in order.

---

Factors NOT considered:

• Synergistic team compositions which utilize Infantry, Cavalry, Armor, Dragon, or Flying team buffs heavily are not considered.
• Investment costs for promotions and skills are generally not considered in order to ensure more accurate analysis.
• Availability of a unit is not considered.

 

1 hour ago, Arcanite said:

Also those placements are based on player control and not enemy control. I believe gamepedia has tier notes in each placement too

A!Tiki and Dorcas are definitely not Player Phase units in my opinion. Loli dragons are also generally not Player Phase units.

1 hour ago, Arcanite said:

Dancers and singers are great and all but their low bst bin tanks score and requires more merges, and most often than not the dancer themselves won't be killing much or doing anything crazy other than tanking the occasional Rein or Brave Lyn

Tanking score does not matter when investment costs are not considered. You can just brute force your score through merges.

31 minutes ago, JSND Alter Dragon Boner said:

I disagree with you saying Nowi at high tier made no sense though

Nowi can be high tier, but I would not place them over Dancers/Singers.

34 minutes ago, Ice Dragon said:

Gamepedia currently has every armored unit as S- or higher, more or less split by their Atk stat (36 or higher with +Atk nature in S, everything else in S-). I'm pretty sure their movement range is the one thing keeping them out of S+, which currently only houses the best Firesweepers in the game.

They clearly do account for map control, but weight it less than you do.

They weigh it a lot less if that is the case. In my opinion, past a certain performance point, having more map control starts to matter more than having better performance. Going against the triangle is nice, but with teammates around. being able to go against the triangle does not really add much.

12 minutes ago, Ice Dragon said:

Dancers give your team greater mobility, but less combat coverage because they are generally not great at combat. As such, while they "count as another copy of one of your other units", they don't add to your combat HP pool. They are also a positioning liability in cramped maps.

Combat wise, running two Player Phase nukes will cover the vast majority of the cast, and Dancers/Singers are just there to fill in the last bit of coverage that the two nukes cannot cover.

I am not exactly sure what you mean by combat HP pool, but Player Phase units are less dependent on their HP compared to Enemy Phase units, so having limited HP is not that big of a deal. Additionally, Player Phase units have an easier time managing their HP and can get into and stay at a certain HP range better than Enemy Phase units.

Besides the Arena map with two vertical bridges, I do not think being cramped is a big issue for other maps. Other maps feel pretty spacious.

[MrSmokestack]

9 hours ago, JSND Alter Dragon Boner said:

Not x is a valid argument actually especially in Fire Emblem tier list where depending on context a properly delivered "Not X" can make you drop 2 - 3 spot. This have been a widely discussed issue actually

The content and context is more important than the actual statement

I wouldn’t be surprised since it’s possible to weave fallacies into an argument and get away with it if it’s convincing enough.

Quote

What ISNT ok is:

X sucks just use Y

This happens a lot more than it should, but not on this subforum, at least I hope.

(Also this is mainly what I was talking about)

Edited December 27, 2017 by MrSmokestack

[Junkhead]

im generous and actually reply to 10 people at a time

 

On 26/12/2017 at 5:43 AM, Arcanite said:

Try running owl in arena

Try it in AA

Heck try it in tempest lol

Do you even understand how much easier it is to buff someone to another dimension compared to trying to place someone in a certain spot to get buffs? 

I've been doing that just fine since I got Katarina, actually. Like, legitimately fine. It's probably one of those things that seems a lot less practical in practice than on paper. Doesn't seem very ideal at first, but you can actually work with them pretty fine.

Something people sometimes seem to forget is that Owls buff all your stats, and not just Atk. Sure, you may not always have massive Atk to overpower the weapon triangle (which is pretty awesome, not gonna lie), but having other stats to fall back on allow for flexibility. Owl Tome characters can double for a tanking and baiting role, were the situation demand to demand it. Hell, I even theorised a 35+ Def Katarina taking single-digits from Ryoma.

If anything, outside of "Emblem"-specific teams (and their respective Hone skills), you have to rely on having people station next to you at the start of the turn. Works well in the first turn. It's not all too different on one issue people call Owl Tomes out on (which also work with Drive skills, mind you).

 

On 26/12/2017 at 5:43 AM, Arcanite said:

Most of the time your bane and boon are at the very least salvageable. But seriously, sometimes it's just so crippling there's not much you can do

BUT

Now with refine options and the upgradable seals, any bane can be patched up easy peasy. There really isn't much to discourage one from using something when it comes to that respect. The thing is though, even if it's salvageable, one should expect that unit to underperform if they don't have an amazing nature. It also depends on the type of unit we're talking about. If you have a -Spd Nino and it's your only one you're better off waiting for something that is anything but -Spd since she's pullable at 3 or 4 star. If you have a -Spd Ryoma, then all you can do is salvage him lol Unless you have a couple hundred dollars lying around to whale for a better one heh

The cool thing is, with all these upgrades, you can build characters up on that. I can finally use my Charlotte's +Def to actual use, for example.

On 26/12/2017 at 5:56 AM, Hilda said:

And this game is not really balanced lol

It's Rock/Paper/Scisors, of course it's balanced. There's always something to counter, so literally any character can be brought up and be used in their own appropriate way. At worst, they're not MU-polarising monsters like New Lyn/Ayra, but they're mostly outliers anyway.

On 26/12/2017 at 8:34 AM, Hilda said:

I have run owl on my +10 Boey in AA Tempest and Aerna, its a blast and underrated. You can annihilate any match up even the ones less favourable, ecxept if they run Triangle Adept. But alas my Boey got replaced, not because Litrowl is weak, but because he cant function in a Dragon-Loli infected world... However considering i only ran up against Armored units on this season i am questioning if i should swap BIke out for him and let him slaughter all the Armorers, because Armors and Panic Ploy have no effect on a +10 owl Boey that runs +6 Atk +6 Spd +18 Res and +18 Def in Spur effects! However with the new Bold Fighter 3 addition, it has gotten a bit tricky to bait out Armorers with Close Counter :/

I'm interested.

What's your build?

On 26/12/2017 at 1:06 PM, Arcanite said:

Oh yeah, and there is also the issue of TA

  Hide contents

https://imgur.com/gallery/jV77I

Granted, BK has low res, but his HP is very high to compensate. I also only killed by exactly 1 point of attack lol

 

That's almost as lame as TA Xander... hell, he even gave Wrath to him.

On 26/12/2017 at 5:32 PM, MrSmokestack said:

The words “Brave” and “Enemy Phase” don’t belong in the same sentence.

Running a setup to boost bulk while equipping the one weapon that kills your bulk makes no sense at all. You’re better off focusing purely on player phase or enemy phase, not both, especially for a unit with such a mediocre offensive spread.

They do when you know how to pull it off. It's actually been my staple on Hawkeye for quite a while, and it's worked fine to counter, say, Camus (at the time). It's even more doable, considering healers are a thing now. I'm actually thinking outside the Arena, too. Battles are way too linear there, and you pretty much only customise your character for basically a single battle. I'd rather have my Faye be able to at least tank a first round if the situation demands me to bait out certain chokepoints (something that barely happens in the Arena since AI is dumb and just rushes on you).

On the other hand, I might highly consider building her like that. I just tend to appreciate a sense of flexiblity.

On 26/12/2017 at 5:37 PM, XRay said:

I am going to add a little bit on what @Arcanite said. In addition to the her low Speed, she is also colorless and your build runs Brave Bow (Player Phase skill and no Weapon Refinement) on an Enemy Phase build. Felicia and TOD!Sakura are already a little shaky as mage tanks, and that is when they are both fully stacked with only Enemy Phase skills with Distant Def as their Sacred Seal. Felicia [+Res, Silver Dagger [Res], Moonbow, Fury, Quick Riposte, Distant Def Sacred Seal] dies to Celica [+Spd, Ragnarok, Luna, Life and Death, Quickened Pulse/Heavy Blade]; Distant Def Felicia dies to +Atk Celica; with 4/4/0/0 buffs, Delthea, Sonya, and Blade mages can kill her depending on their nature.

That's basically worse-case scenario. They'll do "just fine", and that's an exaggeration. I rarely even seem to counter Celicas, at this point.

On 26/12/2017 at 5:37 PM, XRay said:

I think Faye is better off just focusing on being a Brave Bow archer with Death Blow-Breaker to double things that your team has difficulty handling. She can also run Life and Death-Watersweep/Windsweep-Phantom Speed to avoid counterattacks.

I currently got her a Death Blow > Brash Assault Desperation (Pseudo Quad).

On 26/12/2017 at 5:37 PM, XRay said:

I think Owl tomes just need to relax their positioning requirements from adjacent units to units within two spaces. If not that, then buff the stat boost from 2 per ally to 3 or 4 per ally.

They'd be kind of silly like that.

[MrSmokestack]

1 hour ago, Soul~! said:

Something people sometimes seem to forget is that Owls buff all your stats, and not just Atk. Sure, you may not always have massive Atk to overpower the weapon triangle, but having other stats to fall back on allow for flexibility. Owl Tome characters can double for a tanking and baiting role, were the situation to demand it. Hell, I even theorised a 35+ Def Katarina taking single-digits from Ryoma.

“Flexibility” takes your positioning into account far more than your stats, and the positioning requirements for Owl tomes to give a better return than just using -Blade make it less flexible.

1 hour ago, Soul~! said:

If anything, outside of "Emblem"-specific teams (and their respective Hone skills), you have to rely on having people station next to you at the start of the turn. Works well in the first turn. It's not all too different on one issue people call Owl Tomes out on (which also work with Drive skills, mind you).

It’s easier to position yourself for the end of a turn than in the middle of a turn. Once a unit receives a buff from a Hone or Fortify skill, you are free to do whatever you want with the  buffed unit for that turn.

Needing to keep units packed together cuts into the team’s  mobility which is very fatal against teams that have high-movement options like Dance, horses, or flight.

The one advantage I will give to Owl tomes is that they’re unaffected by Panic debuffs. But that’s it.

You can also run Drives and Spurs without Owl tomes. They’re generic support for any team and don’t have a special use with Owl.

1 hour ago, Soul~! said:

It's Rock/Paper/Scisors, of course it's balanced.

To say that Heroes is glorified RPS is an oversimplification. That implies any red unit can be used to deal with any green unit, any green unit for any blue unit, and any blue unit for any red unit, all with equal effectiveness. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

”In their own appropriate way” cuts into the credibility of your statement because it suggests that not every unit of a color can perform to the same standard. In reality, units of a given color have their own niches, some more valuable than others, and therefore some that are necessarily less valuable than others. Therefore the game is not balanced.

1 hour ago, Soul~! said:

I'm actually thinking outside the Arena, too. Battles are way too linear there, and you pretty much only customise your character for basically a single battle.

Ah yes, the good old “Arena isn’t the only game mode” argument.

Quite frankly, PvE effectiveness matters less than PvP effectiveness when you can beat anything save Tempest Trials in the former with 3-4* free units. Anything that isn’t built to KO in one round is a total joke. The constant threat of being nuked in arena for a small mistake isn’t fun but it’s one of the few challenges this game has to offer.

I would argue the opposite. PvE maps are linear while PvP demands a more flexible setup. There is literally an enemy preview before you even start any PvE map, so you know exactly which units to bring to counter it. How more linear can you get than that?

In regular arena, on the other hand, you have no way of knowing for sure what you’re going to face. The lead unit you see when selecting a team can be bait for the 3 Reinhardts or Elises behind it  @XRay or it can something else entirely. While Brave Lyn and Reinhardt are top tier threats, they aren’t the only threats you need to prepare for.

Arena assault does have a team preview of its own, but it’s still random as to what units you face because you can’t back out without surrendering if you ran out of checks for the team you’re facing.

1 hour ago, Soul~! said:

That's basically worse-case scenario.

FEH tier lists are mainly concerned with arena performance against units you are likely to face in the scoring range necessary to stay in T20. It is less relevant to other parts of the game.

1 hour ago, Soul~! said:

They'd be kind of silly like that.

Owl tomes need all the help they can get.

[Junkhead]

18 minutes ago, MrSmokestack said:

“Flexibility” takes your positioning into account far more than your stats, and the positioning requirements for Owl tomes to give a better return than just using -Blade make it less flexible.

It’s easier to position yourself for the end of a turn than in the middle of a turn. Once a unit receives a buff from a Hone or Fortify skill, you are free to do whatever you want with the  buffed unit for that turn.

Needing to keep units packed together cuts into the team’s  mobility which is very fatal against teams that have high-movement options like Dance, horses, or flight.

The one advantage I will give to Owl tomes is that they’re unaffected by Panic debuffs. But that’s it.

Extra Spd and durability can really help, assuming you're not narrowed-down to only an offensive role. You don't need to be staple to three other units. One of them them could be packing full Atk/Spd Spurs, while another could be assisting with, say, Drive Def/Res (whatever benefits the character in question).

I think it came out wrong to make it seem as if I'm arguing they're better than Blades. It definitely sounds that way, but I want to clear up I feel the stretch isn't as massive as depicted (and especially with some of the positioning requisites involved).

Quote

To say that Heroes is glorified RPS is an oversimplification. That implies any red unit can be used to deal with any green unit, any green unit for any blue unit, and any blue unit for any red unit, all with equal effectiveness. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

”In their own appropriate way” cuts into the credibility of your statement because it suggests that not every unit of a color can perform to the same standard. In reality, units of a given color have their own niches, some more valuable than others, and therefore some that are necessarily less valuable than others. Therefore the game is not balanced.

In that case, I don't disagree with you.

I meant to say, the game is "balanced" in the way that any character could easily take part and be relevant, assuming you know how to build. Like, literally anyone. That's a lot better than other games can say, which probably have barely usable characters. An example being Henry, which you could just slap TA + QR/G.Tome/Axebreaker and he's a Hector/Cecilia/Nino counter.

Quote

Ah yes, the good old “Arena isn’t the only game mode” argument.

Quite frankly, PvE effectiveness matters less than PvP effectiveness when you can beat anything save Tempest Trials in the former with 3-4* free units. Anything that isn’t built to KO in one round is a total joke. The constant threat of being nuked in arena for a small mistake isn’t fun but it’s one of the few challenges this game has to offer.

I would argue the opposite. PvE maps are linear while PvP demands a more flexible setup. There is literally an enemy preview before you even start any PvE map, so you know exactly which units to bring to counter it. How more linear can you get than that?

In regular arena, on the other hand, you have no way of knowing for sure what you’re going to face. The lead unit you see when selecting a team can be bait for the 3 Reinhardts or Elises behind it  @XRay or it can something else entirely. While Brave Lyn and Reinhardt are top tier threats, they aren’t the only threats you need to prepare for.

Arena assault does have a team preview of its own, but it’s still random as to what units you face because you can’t back out without surrendering if you ran out of checks for the team you’re facing.

And yet, that hardly stops you from facing Reinhardt, Lyn + Dancer like 90% of the time. You're basically assuming that the only real advantage the Arena has is the ability for the player to think a bit outside the box, which doesn't appear to happen as much in Arena Defense (also more fun to plan than Offense). I'm not even necessarily arguing and handwaving Arena Offense as incompetent, but rather as a narrow standard. You could make anyone viable by just giving them, say, a Breaker-skill. Chains and Trials and least tend to shake it up a bit with buffed enemies and random order. You only really get the preview for the first stage, but then not the extra 6-7. Sometimes, they even go the extra mile (GHBs I guess) and put in Ploys and smart chokepoints, which is still far smarter than the same group of ponies rushing you 90% of the time.

Edited December 28, 2017 by Soul~!

[XRay]

1 hour ago, Soul~! said:

And yet, that hardly stops you from facing Reinhardt, Lyn + Dancer like 90% of the time. You're basically assuming that the only real advantage the Arena has is the ability for the player to think a bit outside the box, which doesn't appear to happen as much in Arena Defense (also more fun to plan than Offense). I'm not even necessarily arguing and handwaving Arena Offense as incompetent, but rather as a narrow standard. You could make anyone viable by just giving them, say, a Breaker-skill. Chains and Trials and least tend to shake it up a bit with buffed enemies and random order. You only really get the preview for the first stage, but then not the extra 6-7. Sometimes, they even go the extra mile (GHBs I guess) and put in Ploys and smart chokepoints, which is still far smarter than the same group of ponies rushing you 90% of the time.

Arena is not a narrow standard. Generally speaking, Arena is the most relevant and highest standard a team can meet. Arena teams can be used in every other mode, whereas teams in other modes fare very poorly in Arena. Grand Hero Battles and Bound Hero Battles are a little more tricky, but Arena teams generally have no trouble completing most of them. Defense teams are a little different in that color balance is bad and unorthodox surprise builds are good, but every other principle for making a good Arena team still holds true, such as using high mobility units and ranged units.

Chain Challenges and Tempest Trials are a joke for an Arena team. The enemies are unoptimized, spread apart, and have no synergy with each other. Their high stats mean nothing without the skills to back it up. Unlike in Arena where the randomness is limited to what type of well built and well thought out teams you will face, which makes it challenging, the randomness in Tempest Trials is bad in that every enemy is random so there is no teamwork involved at all. Occasionally, if you have crap luck, you will see enemies with overlapping attack ranges and you cannot bait without them ganging up on you, but that is few and far between and Player Phase focused teams are better at handling those types of scenarios.

Edited December 28, 2017 by XRay

[Time the Crestfallen]

Yes and no.

When someone is asking about a specific unit, while it doesn't help much to just say 'they're good, but X is better', that doesn't make comparisons to similar units valid in terms of pros and cons.

When it comes to tier list discussions, this sort of thing can't be helped. Tier lists can only be considered 'subjective' in the sense that unit placements can be moved up or down 3 spaces or so based on different situations and personal opinion, but that doesn't change that some units are going to be strictly better or worse than other units.

[XRay]

6 hours ago, Phillius the Crestfallen said:

Tier lists can only be considered 'subjective' in the sense that unit placements can be moved up or down 3 spaces or so based on different situations and personal opinion, but that doesn't change that some units are going to be strictly better or worse than other units.

I do not think it is only 3 tiers of difference. Different players value different things. For one, I value map control (mobility and range; i.e., ranged pony/flier teams) much more than most players; I strongly disagree with all major tier lists out there for that reason. I consider melee infantry units to be complete utter trash with few exceptions. If I were to recreate the tier list, many melee infantry units would fall far more than 3 tiers: they are all going to be on the dirt bottom. There is no way in hell that I would agree with any tier list that puts Ryoma or Ayra above Leo.

[Time the Crestfallen]

43 minutes ago, XRay said:

I do not think it is only 3 tiers of difference. Different players value different things. For one, I value map control (mobility and range; i.e., ranged pony/flier teams) much more than most players; I strongly disagree with all major tier lists out there for that reason. I consider melee infantry units to be complete utter trash with few exceptions. If I were to recreate the tier list, many melee infantry units would fall far more than 3 tiers: they are all going to be on the dirt bottom. There is no way in hell that I would agree with any tier list that puts Ryoma or Ayra above Leo.

1) The tier list doesn't put Ryoma or Ayra above Leo cause they're in different categories.

2) Tier lists are a community thing. Not to sound condescending, but you can like Leo as much as you want but if the majority of the community puts say, Arvis above him, then there's not much that can be done about it. The difference of 3 places was less a comment on player preference and more a comment about differing situations i.e. Ryoma is more useful than Ayra if there's a high number of ranged enemies.

[XRay]

Just now, Phillius the Crestfallen said:

1) The tier list doesn't put Ryoma or Ayra above Leo cause they're in different categories.

2) Tier lists are a community thing. Not to sound condescending, but you can like Leo as much as you want but if the majority of the community puts say, Arvis above him, then there's not much that can be done about it. The difference of 3 places was less a comment on player preference and more a comment about differing situations i.e. Ryoma is more useful than Ayra if there's a high number of ranged enemies.

1.

The Wiki's master tier list still places Ryoma and Ayra above Leo, which makes no sense when armor units are placed above Leo as well. If they are not going to factor in buffs, then they should not factor in Armor March either. If they do not factor in Armor March and still place those armor units that highly, then they must be crazy to think that insane-performance-but-shit-mobility/range is better than good-performance-but-superior-mobility/range.

2.

Putting Arvis, another ranged unit, above Leo, is something I can understand and somewhat accept. Putting melee infantry units above either of those two units is what I have a problem with. Melee infantry units' poor movement only magnifies their terrible melee range. There is no way insane-performance-but-shit-mobility/range is better than good-performance-but-superior-mobility/range.

[Time the Crestfallen]

32 minutes ago, XRay said:

<Snip>

Well for one thing Leo doesn't perform well compared to other units, so there's not much I can do about that.

Furthermore, blanket statements like all armour units and melee units are not only just flat-out not true, but indicate to me that your placing an absurd over-emphasis on movement and range, when those things are only part of what make a unit good.

[XRay]

24 minutes ago, Phillius the Crestfallen said:

Well for one thing Leo doesn't perform well compared to other units, so there's not much I can do about that.

Furthermore, blanket statements like all armour units and melee units are not only just flat-out not true, but indicate to me that your placing an absurd over-emphasis on movement and range, when those things are only part of what make a unit good.

Once a unit hits a performance level, movement and range matter more than getting even more kills. Getting more kills at that point just means going against the triangle and there is not as much benefit to do that since a unit has teammates. As part of a cavalry team, Leo has no problem hitting that performance level with Rauðrblade and Hone Cavalry buffs.

Having low movement and melee range is a huge handicap. There is a reason why BH!Lyn and Reinhard are feared while Ayra and Mia are a joke. BH!Lyn and Reinhardt are so effective and easy to use that the AI has no trouble using them to terrorize players.

Edited December 29, 2017 by XRay

[Time the Crestfallen]

18 minutes ago, XRay said:

Once a unit hits a performance level, movement and range matter more than getting even more kills. Getting more kills at that point just means going against the triangle and there is not as much benefit to do that since a unit has teammates. As part of a cavalry team, Leo has no problem hitting that performance level with Rauðrblade and Hone Cavalry buffs.

I disagree quite heavily. In fact, I'd say it's the opposite; once a unit hits a certain level of maneuverability, the only thing that matters is performance, since movement and range only matters to the extent of which you can outplay the AI, which can easily be done with Infantry Melee units.

Besides, if you cared so much about movement, you'd go for Flier Emblem rather than Cavalry Emblem, since most maps are designed in such a way that the movement of Cavalry is rather heavily impaired.

21 minutes ago, XRay said:

Having low movement and melee range is a huge handicap. There is a reason why BH!Lyn and Reinhard are feared while Ayra and Mia are a joke. BH!Lyn and Reinhardt are so effective and easy to use that the AI has no trouble using them to terrorize players.

BH!Lyn and Reinhardt have more going for them than range and movement. Also, Reinhardt is absolutely a joke when he decides to attack a Green Mage just because they're in attack range. All units are a joke in the hands of the AI.

[Ice Dragon]

12 hours ago, MrSmokestack said:

“Flexibility” takes your positioning into account far more than your stats, and the positioning requirements for Owl tomes to give a better return than just using -Blade make it less flexible.

It’s easier to position yourself for the end of a turn than in the middle of a turn. Once a unit receives a buff from a Hone or Fortify skill, you are free to do whatever you want with the  buffed unit for that turn.

Litrowl is best used as an enemy-phase weapon because, as you say, it's easier to position yourself at the end of a turn than in the middle of a turn.

If you're trying to use Litrowl on the player-phase, you are one or more of (1) very good at thinking ahead and getting the positioning right, (2) an idiot, or (3) fighting something that didn't need the buffs in the first place, in which case Litrowl isn't any worse than its alternatives.

 

12 hours ago, MrSmokestack said:

”In their own appropriate way” cuts into the credibility of your statement because it suggests that not every unit of a color can perform to the same standard. In reality, units of a given color have their own niches, some more valuable than others, and therefore some that are necessarily less valuable than others. Therefore the game is not balanced.

Would you be a bit more willing to admit that the game is "sufficiently balanced"?

 

30 minutes ago, XRay said:

Once a unit hits a performance level, movement and range matter more than getting even more kills. Getting more kills at that point just means going against the triangle and there is not as much benefit to do that since a unit has teammates. As part of a cavalry team, Leo has no problem hitting that performance level with Rauðrblade and Hone Cavalry buffs.

Play with only melee units for a while and you learn how to force the AI to play into your hands.

Perhaps your problem with them is not that they are bad, but that you are bad at using them. Kind of like how I and the vast majority of other people suck at playing Zerg in StarCraft: Brood War (12-unit selection limit is a bitch, for one), but that doesn't make Zerg a bad faction (it just has the steepest skill curve by far).

Some players, like me, have zero trouble (from the game-play side, not the getting-the-expensive-ass-skills side) making melee-ranged units work.

 

33 minutes ago, XRay said:

There is a reason why BH!Lyn and Reinhard are feared while Ayra and Mia are a joke. BH!Lyn and Reinhardt are so effective and easy to use that the AI has no trouble using them to terrorize players.

And here you are again talking about tier lists and bringing up AI-controlled units, which are not at all rated on any tier list of any proper repute.

[XRay]

52 minutes ago, Phillius the Crestfallen said:

I disagree quite heavily. In fact, I'd say it's the opposite; once a unit hits a certain level of maneuverability, the only thing that matters is performance, since movement and range only matters to the extent of which you can outplay the AI, which can easily be done with Infantry Melee units.

Besides, if you cared so much about movement, you'd go for Flier Emblem rather than Cavalry Emblem, since most maps are designed in such a way that the movement of Cavalry is rather heavily impaired.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree. In my opinion, a unit just needs to hit a certain level of performance since teammates can cover for each other.

Cavalry teams are cheaper to build and when BH!Lyn was released at the time, the only ranged flier was SF!Camilla, so I was not too interested in building up a flier team.

1 hour ago, Phillius the Crestfallen said:

BH!Lyn and Reinhardt have more going for them than range and movement. Also, Reinhardt is absolutely a joke when he decides to attack a Green Mage just because they're in attack range. All units are a joke in the hands of the AI.

Almost everyone can be baited with counters. The thing with ranged cavalry units is that they are so simple to use. The AI's weak tactical prowess can be patched a little by giving them units with high mobility and ranged attack.

55 minutes ago, Ice Dragon said:

Play with only melee units for a while and you learn how to force the AI to play into your hands.

Perhaps your problem with them is not that they are bad, but that you are bad at using them. Kind of like how I and the vast majority of other people suck at playing Zerg in StarCraft: Brood War (12-unit selection limit is a bitch, for one), but that doesn't make Zerg a bad faction (it just has the steepest skill curve by far).

Some players, like me, have zero trouble (from the game-play side, not the getting-the-expensive-ass-skills side) making melee-ranged units work.

I admit I am not the best at using melee units, especially Player Phase melee units. However, ranged units are a lot easier to use and have more leeway for positioning mistakes since you are less likely to overextend yourself into enemy territory.

1 hour ago, Ice Dragon said:

And here you are again talking about tier lists and bringing up AI-controlled units, which are not at all rated on any tier list of any proper repute.

The point is that mobile ranged units are so effective that even the AI can use them well enough to score a kill or two against players consistently. In a player's hand, that mobility and range only magnify players' already superior tactical ability even more over the AI.