I hope Archers get a buff in this game.

[RNG Princess]

Seeing as he's stomping an iron boot in Micaiahs face and I'm just reloading the state because it's hilarious? yes I do.

Wouldn't Micaiah stomp an iron boot on his face with Thani + Resolve? ;3;

[Onmi]

Wouldn't Micaiah stomp an iron boot on his face with Thani + Resolve? ;3;

Resolve would require her to be low on HP, and for Gatrie to not be able to one shot her.

[Kngt_Of_Titania]

Anyone's trainable, even Wendy or Sophia if you're willing to spend 1000 turns feeding them kills

My point is that people seem to think they're as hard to train as Wendy/Sophia when they're not. I got in this same argument with the whole Ward v. Dorothy thing; Ward is a gigantic PITA to train because he faces a similar deal as Wendy (as in he'll attack somebody and die or nearly die on the counter), while Dorothy can safely snipe from a distance and just has to deal with poor bases. It's a false equivalency which ends up deflating their worth.

[Thor Odinson]

Ward's shit, but he does have forced chapters on his side. Dorothy may be better in the long term, but as neither are likely contributing much in an efficient playthrough so I can see both sides. Efficiency-wise Ward wins for having like 4 chapters vs Dorothy's 1/maybe 2 due to C7, but I'd much rather use Dorothy in the long run than Ward since goddamn that guy has no speed ever and I don't even like him unlike Lot whom I like but just didn't enjoy using.

[Kngt_Of_Titania]

Ward's shit, but he does have forced chapters on his side. Dorothy may be better in the long term, but as neither are likely contributing much in an efficient playthrough so I can see both sides. Efficiency-wise Ward wins for having like 4 chapters vs Dorothy's 1/maybe 2 due to C7, but I'd much rather use Dorothy in the long run than Ward since goddamn that guy has no speed ever and I don't even like him unlike Lot whom I like but just didn't enjoy using.

Well, base Ward is nearly ORKO'd by any cav on C4 with 9 AS or more (I think 1/2 of the cavs get 8-9 AS and 1/2 get 9-10 AS, so we're talking about many or most of the cavs here), and every enemy on C5 except the Steel Axe warrior(s) ORKO him on counter (and he faces 40-60% hit rates on them). So realistically, Ward gets C2 and C3 effective free deployment, while Dorothy gets C6 free deployment and C7 preferred deployment (wyverns), so it's not that big of a difference on that front. I tend to weigh mid-late-game a little more than many people on SF because I feel Marcus/Zealot/Seth pretty much have early-mid-game offense largely to themselves.

I like Lott as a character and I enjoy using him as a unit, so yay~ 40% DEF growth 80% HP growth GO

Edited March 25, 2012 by Kngt_Of_Titania

[dondon151]

Well, from personal experience, Rebecca on casual/ranked is usually starting to double slower enemies by C13x and a decent portion of enemies by C17 and actually starts to have decent offense by that point. And hell, before C17, it's not like Lowen/Eliwood/Bartre/Dorcas are exactly stealing the show -- Hector and Guy (w/ HHM bonuses) are, but still. It's like saying archers aren't good in casual because every growth unit becomes comparatively better with more levels, but the archers with 40-50% growth rates in STR/SKL/SPD are going to see more from the levels than say, Lowen's 30% offensive growths. Units like Raven and Sain are going to rape enemies almost as hard on LTC as they will on casual just because they seem to be made from the pure essence of awesome; does it really matter how badly you ORKO most generic enemies?

actually it does matter, because archers are not ORKOing most generic enemies for half of the game. they are doing nothing. absolutely nothing. furthermore units with existent EP offense gain EXP much faster than archers, so any advantage conveyed by their good growths is nullified

by the way since you brought up lowen, need i remind you that wil loses spd to lowen until after promotion?

In short, if Rebecca/Wil are somehow not contributing a good bit to offense by C20-23 on casual play, which is around the middle of the game, RNG shit on your face, and hard.

actually i think it's because they can't fight for over half of the game, rather than blaming it on RNG shenanigans that never happened

by the way do you realize how stupid you sound (probably not)

how hard is it to understand that archers perform (relatively) best in environments where there is little competition for their combat roles and worst where there is a lot of competition for those roles

Edited March 25, 2012 by dondon151

[Kngt_Of_Titania]

actually it does matter, because archers are not ORKOing most generic enemies for half of the game. they are doing nothing. absolutely nothing. furthermore units with existent EP offense gain EXP much faster than archers, so any advantage conveyed by their good growths is nullified

by the way since you brought up lowen, need i remind you that wil loses spd to lowen until after promotion?

Rebecca is coming pretty close to ORKO'ing archers in C17 if she doubles them with an iron bow, which requires her to be level 8 or so by that point -- hardly an impossible task in a ranked/casual run, and more difficult in a LTC run. Getting them to reliably double faster means they do double chip damage faster which then makes leveling them much easier from that point on. Plus, LTC relies on characters like Guy (for a little while) and Marcus and Raven and Sain trashing craploads of enemies on EP, while a more casual run would naturally spread out EXP more to other units since you're not doing that. It's a similar phenomenon as the FE8 Sethskip versus FE8 standard efficiency tier lists.

As for your Lowen v. Wil comment:

1) Has very little to do with my argument, really.

2) Wil's offensive growths are better, so he GAINS more offensively in an environment where growth units get more levels; in fact, the only way Lowen is getting more out of this is if he gains nearly twice the levels Wil is given equal effort to level each on casual (he's not).

actually i think it's because they can't fight for over half of the game, rather than blaming it on RNG shenanigans that never happened

I'm saying they CAN, especially when you go slower. Their SPD outpaces stagnant FE7 enemy AS way faster that way, and once they double, they pretty much have good PP offense.

by the way do you realize how stupid you sound (probably not)

An ironic statement, especially given the fact you fail to realize what the shift button does.

how hard is it to understand that archers perform (relatively) best in environments where there is little competition for their combat roles and worst where there is a lot of competition for those roles

I have considerable difficulty, mostly because it's blatantly false in this case. Archers do not lose their niche if you allow units to level up more -- most characters with 1-2 range before will have it even in LTC; the only exception is that mercs will get 1-2 range only after promotion (but hell, you often do that EARLIER in LTC than in ranked/casual). And if you mean "archers" as in the unpromoted class solely, then going slower actually means they have a better shot to get enough levels that it's not an inherently obvious decision to ditch them for prepromotes.

Edited March 25, 2012 by Kngt_Of_Titania

[dondon151]

Rebecca is coming pretty close to ORKO'ing archers in C17 if she doubles them with an iron bow, which requires her to be level 8 or so by that point -- hardly an impossible task in a ranked/casual run, and more difficult in a LTC run. Getting them to reliably double faster means they do double chip damage faster which then makes leveling them much easier from that point on. Plus, LTC relies on characters like Guy (for a little while) and Marcus and Raven and Sain trashing craploads of enemies on EP, while a more casual run would naturally spread out EXP more to other units since you're not doing that. It's a similar phenomenon as the FE8 Sethskip versus FE8 standard efficiency tier lists.

what does this have anything to do with what i said

nothing. next!

As for your Lowen v. Wil comment:

1) Has very little to do with my argument, really.

how does it have very little to do with your argument when you specifically included lowen in your argument?

2) Wil's offensive growths are better, so he GAINS more offensively in an environment where growth units get more levels; in fact, the only way Lowen is getting more out of this is if he gains nearly twice the levels Wil is given equal effort to level each on casual (he's not).

this is not a valid line of reasoning. most units "get more out of EXP" than marcus does; does this mean that they are better than marcus? no! lowen does not need to get more out of EXP than wil does in order to surpass wil's PP offensive power.

other consideration: if lowen only needs to reach a magic number of 12 spd, and he gets there before wil does (using a smaller amount of EXP, no less), then doesn't that mean that lowen "got more" out of the EXP that he gained?

I'm saying they CAN, especially when you go slower. Their SPD outpaces stagnant FE7 enemy AS way faster that way, and once they double, they pretty much have good PP offense.

no amount of slowplay can give archers an existent EP

well, actually, that's not true, if you count arranging 2-range counters at the edge of the range of every enemy possible, but no one plays that slowly

An ironic statement, especially given the fact you fail to realize what the shift button does.

too bad my syntax is still grammatically solid, and the content of my posts is no less understandable. point void

I have considerable difficulty, mostly because it's a blatantly false statement.

it is something that is (and was) very demonstrably shown:

- if everyone is kicking ass and taking names, archers lose because they do nothing half of the time

- if hardly anyone is kicking ass and taking names, (good) archers win because they hit things safely for substantial amounts of damage and it's okay if they do nothing half of the time

and in the end, archers still lose in general because they don't have EP, but at least in the second case, they have an exclusive combat role

see, points so adequately succinctly summarized are much easier to understand than your blathering nonsense

Edited March 25, 2012 by dondon151

[Kngt_Of_Titania]

EDIT: Just to clarify, THIS is the statement we're arguing:

archers are (relatively) the best in LTC play because they meet that very specific combat role that tends to be lacking

what does this have anything to do with what i said

You specifically claimed that units with better EP offense will specifically get considerably get more experience. I then replied in that quote that the units that are probably most guilty of that are, in fact, encouraged to do so in LTC, moreso than in casual or slower play. Realistically, slower play will have archers seeing MORE action, not less as you seem to imply, simply because much of the way one achieves LTC in many FEs (FE7, for example) is to abuse EP offense as much as possible, much more than one would do in casual play. In addition, there isn't the automatic assumption in casual play that Marcus is dominating half the map like in LTC, so that only helps all growth units (I'm referring, of course, to the low base, low level, and high growths archers IS loves to put in).

So I guess if you ignore all of those reasons, I suppose it has nothing to do with what you said.

how does it have very little to do with your argument when you specifically included lowen in your argument?

Because I compared their offensive GROWTHS, not the SPD stat itself, pointing out that better growths mean you get more from leveling up. The fact that Lowen has a SPD lead for a while is entirely due to his better SPD base, which has nothing to do with how much better he will get by leveling. If anything, you simply point out that Wil closes a SPD gap by being allowed to get more levels because of slower play.

this is not a valid line of reasoning. most units "get more out of EXP" than marcus does; does this mean that they are better than marcus? no! lowen does not need to get more out of EXP than wil does in order to surpass wil's PP offensive power.

other consideration: if lowen only needs to reach a magic number of 12 spd, and he gets there before wil does (using a smaller amount of EXP, no less), then doesn't that mean that lowen "got more" out of the EXP that he gained?

But it is a valid line of reasoning, because we're not arguing which unit is BETTER, but which unit gets more from playing more slowly or casually, and by extension giving our unpromoted growth units more levels. Even if we assume that Lowen is undeniably better than his archer counterpart at PP in casual, the gap between them will be much more stark in LTC because Wil's superior growths mean less because they don't come as much into play. So I'd be saying that Wil is in a better position in casual play by comparison, not that Wil > Lowen simply because Wil has better growths. The only way that Lowen gains more from slower play, as I said before, is if he gains so many more levels than Wil that he ends up getting more SPD/STR/SKL faster despite his lower growths in those areas, which doesn't happen if simply due to the fact that EXP tends to suffer severe diminshing returns as you outlevel enemies, especially in HM.

As for your other consideration, both Wil and Lowen would have that magic number, and both would hit it sooner in casual play than in LTC. Lowen only claims an advanatage in this situation if (for example) he hit that magic number 3-4 chapters sooner than he would in LTC whereas, say, Wil only hit it 2-3 chapters sooner than he would in LTC.

no amount of slowplay can give archers an existent EP

well, actually, that's not true, if you count arranging 2-range counters at the edge of the range of every enemy possible, but no one plays that slowly

But this problem exists in both LTC AND casual. Why does this point make archers better in LTC, especially considering EP is, in many FEs, MORE important in LTC than in casual play?

too bad my syntax is still grammatically solid. point void

Does your computer NOT have a shift button or something? Or do you think you're too cool for caps?

Edited March 25, 2012 by Kngt_Of_Titania

[BBM]

Another thing they could do is to have Archers unequip their bows when they face a 1-range attack, like Mages in FE7 under the Magic Seal. If they're losing speed from their bows, it could increase their avoid on EP 1-range, which makes more sense to me than them trying to punch the guy who's slashing at them with a sword. If they're not really suffering an AS loss, you could just give them, say, 15 avoid.

[Othin]

Another thing they could do is to have Archers unequip their bows when they face a 1-range attack, like Mages in FE7 under the Magic Seal. If they're losing speed from their bows, it could increase their avoid on EP 1-range, which makes more sense to me than them trying to punch the guy who's slashing at them with a sword. If they're not really suffering an AS loss, you could just give them, say, 15 avoid.

Which would then leave them unable to counter any 2-range attacks later in the turn. Bad idea.

[Titamon]

So no objections to my idea of having Snipers gain 1-range when they S-rank bows?

[Andreyas]

Give Archers a knife... that would make the perfect sense for a close-range counterattack. If this was already said, please disregard.

[Othin]

So no objections to my idea of having Snipers gain 1-range when they S-rank bows?

Objection. Archers are ranged attackers, and they need to stay that way, getting better at that if necessary. There's nothing wrong with limited 1-range options like a unique Double Bow or weaker Crossbows, but such a change as adding 1-range to regular bows would just make Archers become part of the same role as other physical classes rather than developing their own, distinct role.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Othin

[Titamon]

Objection. Archers are ranged attackers, and they need to stay that way, getting better at that if necessary. There's nothing wrong with limited 1-range options like a unique Double Bow or weaker Crossbows, but such a change as adding 1-range to regular bows would just make Archers become part of the same role as other physical classes rather than developing their own, distinct role.

And what is that distinct role? Ranged attacking? Mages do it better

[Thor Odinson]

Hence Archers should get 3 range instead taking no PP counters except from fellow archers ever

Or at least more longbows that don't suck

[Othin]

Hence Archers should get 3 range instead taking no PP counters except from fellow archers ever

Or at least more longbows that don't suck

Exactly. Mages have things archers can't do, so give archers more meaningful and effective things mages can't do. Not a difficult concept.

[Anouleth]

And what is that distinct role? Ranged attacking? Mages do it better

So you want to give bow users 1-range and make them even more like mages?

[Klokinator]

So you want to give bow users 1-range and make them even more like mages?

I think he may have meant giving them +1 range, as in a 2-3 niche, not a 1-2 niche.

I've been wrong before though. Oh hey, Yeti did that with longbowman

[Titamon]

So you want to give bow users 1-range and make them even more like mages?

Yes mages with better durability but hit on Def

[Othin]

Yes mages with better durability but hit on Def

In other words, just like anyone with a Hand Axe, and little different from mages. Hardly interesting.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Othin

[Titamon]

In other words, just like anyone with a Hand Axe, and little different from mages. Hardly interesting.

My goal wasn't to make them more interesting, it was make them better

[Thor Odinson]

2-3 range would serve to make them better in a better way

[Othin]

My goal wasn't to make them more interesting, it was make them better

Then let's give them axes, too. And lances. Hell, let's just give all the weapon types to every class. Now they're all good and perfectly balanced... and completely boring, constituting a game that would probably not even be worth playing.

Improving the effectiveness of a class at the expense of interesting class diversity is not a good thing. Different characters and classes should be good in their own, unique ways, not in the same ways as everything else. There are better ways to accomplish this, as Lumi noted.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Othin

[dondon151]

And what is that distinct role? Ranged attacking? Mages do it better

depends on the game

if archers double and mages don't double, then archers are better at ranged attacking (duh) and can be designed this way.