Dunal

Member
  • Content count

    733
  • Joined

  • Last visited

4 Followers

About Dunal

  • Birthday 04/01/1993

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Fire Emblem Game
    Thracia 776

Member Badge

  • Members
    Rajaion (Wyvern)
  1. Your thoughts on biorhythm?

    I did point why exactly the mechanic is often intrusive though (lack of direct player control, even if you can plan ahead for it, as well as lack of weaponry types to be used as a failsafe and/or properly take advantage of the mechanic, or lack of viable/strong units at certain parts of the game. For example, if Nolan falls into bad Biorhythm early on, the game punishes you more than it should since it's not like you can afford to contribute less for a few turns; since your other units aren't that good, same with Geoffrey/Kieran in 2-3 etc etc...). Something worth pointing out as well is how FE often accounts for dodge tanking being necessary for a lot of units to survive, in which a mechanic like biorhythm can contest. This doesn't matter for those with Earth affinity but does for others. Solution to this is to adjust balance where dodging is a luxury as opposed to a unit's primary way to survive (higher HP values across the board combined with higher base accuracy on enemies). This leaves only HIT rates being penalized (on your own units) being the remaining aspect that is "actively harmful"... which can be resolved with both items/skills to boost Biorhythm and/or weapons (including high tier ones) that offer really high HIT. Although, in the context of RD, forging +HIT on weapons could be sufficient enough for the latter. Also, the part 1 chapters being "hellish" isn't inherent to Biorhythm at all -- that's just a problem with the game's difficulty curve. Also, hypothetically, you could buff Bronze/Slim weapons to have +10-15 HIT than they currently do which is enough to both make them more relevant, and also to give the player further options in planning around the mechanic. There's also the Heaven affinity, which is capable of completely resolving any HIT issues even for lower accuracy weapons. The popular opinion is that it isn't useful but actually, you could argue that it's because Biorhythm isn't impactful enough for it to matter. Which is part of the problem: Biorhythm's impact is more annoying than meaningful because it isn't powerful enough to care about until it might actually screw you over. If it was stronger (with also the addition of extra tools for the player to work around it) it can genuinely be a good mechanic because players would actually monitor and prepare for it, and be hugely rewarded for doing so. As it stands, Biorhythm isn't meaningful 90% of the time, so the player has conditioned themselves to ignore it, so the rest of the time, it becomes intrusive because normally there isn't enough actual incentive to play around it in the first place.
  2. Your thoughts on biorhythm?

    On the contrary, I believe that there are some positive aspects of Biorhythm that people overlook that the developers likely had in mind: 1) It allows lower accuracy weapons (or units?) to exist and become situationally useful based on your own or the enemy's biorhythm. If for example, Brave or Killer weapons have lower/bad accuracy, then biorhythm can be a means of keeping them powerful but not universally so (rather than lower accuracy making them bad/unreliable all the time). In reverse, can allow you to include really high accuracy weapons (100+ HIT) which have the sole purpose of counteracting bad biorhythm. If you provide the right tools to the player, then this can provide some interesting options and diversity in weaponry. Personally, I don't think PoR/RD really pushed this enough to give the mechanic some additional depth. HIT on weapons are never that extreme either way, so the player has minimal capability to take advantage of biorhythm or play around it. 2) Makes SKL/LCK more valuable in excess. As in, beyond just having a sufficient amount in the stat in order to perform 100% reliably. In most games, the difference in having decent SKL and great/amazing SKL barely mattered (only if you had notably low SKL would it really matter). This does help, to a degree. 3) Situationally nerfs dodge tanking. However, it could be argued that it occasionally makes it even stronger at the same time. As such, it could be argued that biorhythm should affect avoid rates more than hit. As in, a lesser boost in avoid/hit when having good biorhythm, but a more severe affect when in bad biorhythm (with the player being able to manipulate it somewhat). That said, with how borderline broken earth supports are in RD, this could be negated completely. 4) Gives emphasis on swapping out units or using certain units based on the overall state of biorhythm within your army. Does Jill currently have low biorhythm? Is Nolan the opposite? Then let's secure this kill with Nolan instead, as that 20% difference can matter. Again, I really don't think RD's design in other areas (or unit balance) could accommodate this nearly as well as it could have. RD has a big emphasis on low-manning as being the best way to play (generally) so this aspect of biorhythm couldn't come into play too much. I've personally played around with the mechanic and if you can structure the game to accommodate it (failsafe weaponry, unit design, buffs to SKL/LCK stats, more powerful/inaccurate weaponry, commands/items that can boost biorhythm, tweaks to the mechanic itself etc...) it can actually be a surprisingly good mechanic. Problem in PoR/RD is that it was included without many ways for the player to utilize or play around it. Herons are the best thing you have and they would much rather use 'Vigor'. In other words, I really wouldn't write it off as a bad mechanic. It just didn't get enough support within each game to either matter or that much, or occasionally annoying since you'd have limited ways to play around it other than putting focus on different units on any given turn (which is a problem in RD since outside of Part 3, your roster of 'good' units is very limited, so you usually just have to make do with the few units you have that can be used regularly... which is an inherit problem with the game itself and how biorhythm interacts with that).
  3. No new changes that haven't been mentioned already (enemy AI is the last major change), and likely that the scope of the project is now finalized. Next update will be fairly substantial based on the feedback of everyone so far. Next release will also be up to 3-2. Been some delays due to personal reasons (just haven't had a lot of free time lately) but progress for the next release is going well. Still making tweaks to 2-E which probably the biggest map re-design yet. That's a completely normal response to have for the first few maps. A lot of the changes are introduced without really pressuring the player to make optimal use out of them, so a lot of them may seem a little odd. Once the difficulty ramps up it should provide some clarity on how/why things are balanced/designed as they are. One of the main goals of the hack was to cater to a huge amount of different playstyles and/or unit archetypes, without there being any real way to break the game either. So you can have fun experimenting with different unit builds and play-styles without gimping yourself for not playing a certain way (where basically, the gap between the optimal and less optimal choices are less pronounced than the RNG -- Edward being a good example of this). Thunder is 1-2 range as it's basically the Javelin/Handaxe of thunder magic (purely exists so Ilyana has a 2 range option) with the upside of being able to forge. Fire has 2 range only so that Volug and other beast laguz can kill users on player phase without being punished (other fire tomes are 1-2 though). The E tomes are all quite weak due to forging possibilities, to make early enemy mages easier to deal with, and to also make the higher rank tomes feel strong in comparison (and worth spending gold on). Situationally they can still be useful though. Forging 'Light' is useful for Laura after promotion while forging 'Wind' gives Tormod/Calill a 3 range option without destroying their hit-rates in the meantime. 'Thunder' is always a really useful forge for Ilyana. 'Fire' is probably the worst out of the lot but if you have a spare coin you can forge one for Micaiah in part 3 or something. Otherwise it's the 'El' tomes and beyond that solidify each type's niche. Dark magic doesn't have an E tome however; 'Ruin' is essentially the equivalent of an 'El' tome in terms of overall value. In terms of base stats, what examples do you have? Keep in mind that the actual values matter less than how they affect units in practice. Micaiah having more DEF than RES is one example that I've seen others make, but based on lower enemy mage ATK, her low RES base teaches players to be somewhat aware of the magic triangle early on. She does still have a good growth in the stat however. On the other hand, she has enough HP/DEF to avoid being one-shot and viably make good use out of dark magic (although the latter becomes a lot more situational later on).
  4. Radiant Dawn Gameplay Changes?

    Interesting concept, although that would still leave Caineghis and Giffca. And the downside is that unless these units gain a free/extra deployment slot, you'll just end up with less options overall. If they do get a free slot, then you risk having too many units for the size of each map/encounter at Endgame. Perhaps one of these possibilities aren't too much of a big deal, but would mean the endgame would need to be balanced around it, of course. Most elegant solution IMO is to just tone down the Royals (slightly lower stats and no more Formshift -- just a really good Laguz gauge instead) in order to make them more comparable to a (trained) non-royal or Beorc. They still lack 2 range and other benefits Beorc have, so they wouldn't really need to be toned down all that much. Just enough so they're more like Renning or Bastian when compared to units you actually need to train. Someone like Vika should be comparable to Naesala with a healthy amount of investment (the video in my previous post should be a good demonstration of that) and need to share items like Laguz Stones/Gems with non-royals as well. Thematically they should still be powerful at base, more-so than others, but just having outright better caps, higher skill capacity, formshift, free mastery etc... is unfair on top of the bases they also have. Not quite as effective of a solution as giving them more availability; but it's actually pretty feasible to tune them for part 1 while either auto-levelling them for Part 4 or making them scale better with BEXP or promotion gains when they return. Combined with strong EXP gains if they do get used in Part 1. I think the developers may have neither wanted them to stay with Micaiah and fight other Laguz, while also unwilling to allow them fight Micaiah/Sothe as well (even though it could well have made sense) in the same vein as Rafiel/Nailah. Making them join right at the start of Part 4 would be plausible though, possibly with the Tibarn's army as they would benefit the most from that. Either lowering the level requirements or just making them a higher level at base works fine. As for unique abilities, there are ways to make them more unique through gauge differences, movement and other utility etc... Giving Leanne 2 range healing per turn with higher MAG for instance (meaning that compared to the other two Herons, you can possibly afford to use one less staff user if you choose her) is one example.
  5. Radiant Dawn Gameplay Changes?

    If difficulty is your thing then you might be interested in this (although, it depends on what you define as 'disassembling the game': Also worth mentioning that Laguz: Lack 2-range (or higher) for the most part. They can use cards, but they're pretty bad. Do not gain access to effective weapons or utility (for the common Laguz), unlike Beorc. Cannot take advantage of WTA. Higher movement Laguz like Cats/Tigers do not have Canto unlike their Beorc equivalents (Cavalry). Are weak to a particular type of magic. Often have good bases but grow very little. Gaining very few EXP makes them feel unrewarding to feed kills to, even if their bases can carry them far into the game (The Hawks/Ranulf). Have weapons that are weak compared to later Beorc weaponry, and many Laguz can't be used enough to reliably get SS rank. On top of all this... then has to worry about the Laguz Gauge. Matters are even worse if you're a Cat. Then the Royal Laguz come along and make non-royals feel even worse because the former doesn't even need to suffer with this. The plus sides for them are... they're gold efficient (in terms of weaponry) and typically have high move / low terrain costs? That's really the only innate advantages they get aside from any statistical advantages they may have at base (which again, won't grow much -- someone like Lethe is decent enough at base but "decent" just doesn't cut it when you don't really grow much more under standard usage). Olivi Grass could honestly be completely free/infinite and wouldn't be gamebreaking whatsoever. For instance, If Laguz simply all had a 'Rest' command to restore 15 gauge... The fact that they have to use up their turn is pretty substantial when they have worse enemy phase than other units (lack of 2-range and losing gauge when attacked from it). And Halfshift is kinda a joke when the Royals exist. (In order to make Cats feel good/rewarding to use I had to fully revamp their Laguz gauge, give them situational canto, provide them with innate crit, faster WEXP and also put their growth/scaling in line with Beorc. Sounds a like a lot, but unless you give them crazy bases or something which is a less than optimal solution, it's completely necessary) Toning down on the NPCs was/is definitely a priority for me. Some maps can definitely use less enemies as well. Geoffrey's charge is a good example. Quality > Quantity.
  6. How is using only 3 units in Lyn's Story "optimal"?

    Forgetting? I did mention her 'offence' which attributes to her doubling, of course. Wallace hits harder and can retaliate at 2 range, so doubling is really the only real factor there. But I'd consider it enough to be in Lyn's favour. Movement and availability being the main benefiters here. Although, Wallace may not be the best example since his bases aren't exactly stellar, but his main problem is that the one thing he's supposed to be good at is rather redundant in this game. Not really sure what you mean by the latter statement, since she isn't exactly well equipped for clearing out groups of enemies by herself due to lack of 2-range. She isn't exactly weak on player phase, but she'll suffer if she takes a hit compared to most other units and can even struggle to 1RKO without effective damage. Really though, if she had a common 1-2 range option (like a wind edge), she would be significantly better (and so would Guy) at least with Lyn Mode. That's really her main downfall. Thing is, movement and 1-2 range becomes the easiest thing to abuse the tamer the difficulty is in FE, so typically be 'best' units in FE7 in particular would have access to those. Someone like Marcus or Isadora are objectively less powerful than some other units in the lategame, but because enemies are quite weak, they can get by with their extra utility/flexibility compared to say, Lyn or Guy. However, if enemies were stronger, Marcus/Isadora would struggle a lot more and Lyn/Guy would benefit from being more player phased focused. Since player phase matters a lot more when the game demands you avoid letting enemies focus fire you on enemy phase. FE tends to play out a lot differently depending on the difficulty or design of enemies/maps. Units are also just rated based on difficulty curve of the game itself. If HHM was far easier in the early/mid portions and significantly harder in the later sections of the game, then units like Eliwood/Rebecca/Bartre would be a lot better off and Marcus would be notably 'worse' due to several factors. This is a really huge part of it. Jegan is only a top 5 unit in Shadow Dragon because early game would be incredibly daunting without him (and then falls off when the difficulty does as well). Obviously FE7 is a far less extreme case, but it still applies to some degree. For rating units, It really just comes down to "how much easier does this unit make the game overall". (It's also why I personally consider FE6 Marcus to be even better than FE7 Marcus in context to the games they're in. He has worse bases/growths in FE6, so on paper you'd think he's flat out worse... But the difficulty of the early game makes Marcus even more valuable. Even if you were to Bench FE6 Marcus after CH7, he's still contributed to lowering the overall difficulty of the game compared to Percival, despite Percival clearly being far more powerful -- it's just that the game demands him less)
  7. How is using only 3 units in Lyn's Story "optimal"?

    Again, survivability (as in, having no casualties) is to be assumed when playing through the game. Yes, you should definitely prioritize survival, that goes without saying. However, merely surviving isn't exactly a difficult feat, especially in a game like FE7. Once you have established a strategy that has a guaranteed success rate to 'survive' (which is possible with any combination of units, really, if you play slow enough), then you need to consider how efficient/easily you can get through the game while maintaining that quota. What limits can a unit be pushed or utilized while still surviving (with the least amount of effort), in other words. That is how units are typically rated. Merely surviving doesn't take a lot of player skill or unit power, so testing the limits (vs. the ease of use) of each unit or the player themselves is the differentiating factor here. The limits are often then dependant on the difficulty of the game or obstacles you're expected to overcome. In what ways can you utilize a unit that you cannot do with another unit? That is the question. If a unit is tankier than another, but they both survive in the exact same scenarios, then that extra "survivability" is going to be a non-factor outside of healing. Classic case of Paladins vs. Generals in most games. Yeah, the General may take less damage, but the Paladin can still survive while pulling off a lot more stunts or different strategies, like clearing an area of the map faster or just generally being able to accomplish more on any given turn. There is little benefit to the General since "surviving more" doesn't really make much sense. Either the unit survives or they don't. As an extreme example, a unit with 50 DEF isn't going to be much better than a unit with 30 DEF, if at all (in the context of FE7). The 30 DEF unit is still practically invincible, but if they have +1 movement? They become better than the 50 DEF unit because the game doesn't even demand 30 DEF to begin with, let alone 50 -- so the extra movement just allows them to be more flexible and accomplish things easier and faster. Depending on the player's skill level, more can be done with the unit with higher mobility in this case. As an example, if maximising survivability was the primary factor, then Wallace would be better than Lyn and a good amount of other units. However, since Lyn can be used sufficiently (despite her innate lack of durability) while surviving well enough (since a game like FE7 does not demand a huge amount of survivability to begin with), then her offence and movement matter a lot more. There are more opportunities to utilize Lyn in more efficient ways and get the job done. That all said, being able to reliably survive differs from game to game and that definitely matters when it comes to unit rating. Marcus would be notably worse off if FE7 had higher requirements lategame for surviving or killing off enemies such as in say, FE12 or Conquest (although would still be high tier at worst due to his early game contribution and class. But if early game was no longer the hardest/slowest stage of the game, then it would certainly effect him). While Wallace would be better since his innate durability would actually matter rather than being unnecessary (if enemy phase had a bigger focus on surviving as opposed to killing off as many enemies as possible). Meanwhile in say, Conquest, Benny would be worse off if the mid/lategame becomes tamer than it is, since the extra 'survivability' is no longer all that useful. Meanwhile, Peri possibly shoots up the tier list since her stats are now sufficient enough to clean up groups of enemies quickly/efficiently due to the extra movement. It's all within context to the game itself. Difficulty has a massive impact on what units are efficient or weak. Easier games like FE7 tend to promote movement and utility over raw stats, while harder games like FE12 require far higher stats for a unit to be sufficient (one of the only games where unit growth is actually a considerable factor). However, if the idea behind "mitigating the most amount of damage as possible" as opposed to just reliably surviving is considered into unit rating, then some things would change. I personally wouldn't completely dismiss that idea, but I also wouldn't say it should be a huge factor in unit worth, since there is no real consequence in taking extra damage so long as you don't die. There isn't any real consequence in taking more turns to clear a map either (most of the time), but it does more strongly factor in player skill and unit power as a whole, and testing the limits of each unit.
  8. How is using only 3 units in Lyn's Story "optimal"?

    The thing is, the more conservative you play, without making the most out of your units/resources in an efficient manner, rating units becomes even more arbitrary/difficult since what are we rating them for at this point? Over-killing foes? Clearing while losing the least HP? Does turn count even matter? Not that the latter is the be all, end all for rating units, but it's strongly factored in, and high mobility units just happen to be "efficient" in that they can cover the most ground on any given turn. Most FE7 enemies can be described as "fodder" at best, so clearing waves of enemies with a high mobility, 1-2 range unit can be sufficient for a section of the map. FE7 even has a ranking system which does a pretty good job at rating 'efficiency' in general. Not perfect, but encompasses enough factors that tie into what would be considered as such. It's a good enough method to apply that to any other FE in terms of rating units. Survivability is pretty binary. Either you survive or you don't. An excess amount isn't required, otherwise Generals would be top tier (kinda). Instead, any factors beyond reliably surviving are more important, such as turn counts, efficiency in funds or even just coming down to how easy they are to use and clear maps with. The latter is probably the best way to summarize it. "How much easier does this unit make the game from start to finish" and "what do I sacrifice in terms of efficiency if I don't use them?". Going back to Lyn, she isn't exactly winning many medals for a fair few of these factors. 1-range means she cannot kill a good handful of enemies on enemy phase when many other units can cleanly sweep groups of enemies at a time. Her survivability is RNG as opposed to others who can reliably survive. Her movement is average. And while the Mani Katti is neat, unfortunately effective damage is x2 and once you hit mid/late game, either targets for it aren't overly common, but those that do exist can be 1RKOed by most units you have with any shred of offensive capability, like against tier 1 cavalry/knights (which Lyn will often have WTD against, so avoiding becomes less reliable). Then there's all the EXP you have to sink into a unit which, while indeed forced at times, could go to any other run-of-the-mill 1-2 range sweeper that can clear the game more quickly and more reliably. Otherwise, Lyn doesn't have stellar offense against other units, being much more reliant on crits that she innately doesn't even have compared to Swordmasters, who also aren't particularly stellar in this game. She isn't awful, but she doesn't exactly stand out in ways that make the game easier or efficient. "Dodge tanking" isn't exactly a huge factor in a game where enemies are typically weak enough that you don't need to rely on it whatsoever, so it really just comes down to secured survivability vs. RNG. Lyn may well survive a group of enemies due to avoid, but no matter what, she isn't counter-attacking half of them anyway which was the other factor. There's also the late promotion compared to a lot other units etc... she has quite a number of things against her that you cannot just arbitrarily dismiss. However, use Lyn if you enjoy using her. I always tend to do so myself. Tiers or efficiency shouldn't dictate who you should use. It's just that, unfortunately, some units just have it easier than others. Objectively, the easiest and "best" way to clear the game is to just use every Paladin/Flier/Priscilla/Pre-promote and steam roll through it. You'll have more than enough survivability while clearing the game faster with little effort. Not that you're forced to play that way however, and units like Lyn still have their strengths -- it's just that they take extra effort and resources/time. That's all it comes down to.
  9. Why not give Knights two weapons?

    I've figured that the best way to design armors is to simply make their terrain costs low as opposed to the opposite. They should keep low base move, but situationally be more mobile by being able to pass through terrain (typically forests or forts), or climb ledges better than others. Then you just adjust the difficulty/map design to accommodate for their strengths. Then they're fine, even with limited weapon types. Difficulty is a major factor actually. Usually they're fairly overkill in terms of what the game throws at you, so a high mobility unit is more than sufficient to 'tank' in the first place. Why bother with Oswin (past early game) when Lowen can perform the exact same role sufficiently?
  10. Camilla Is Way To O.P.

    In Rev? I'm inclined to disagree since she isn't even hampered by her base level in terms of EXP; she's actually a LV15 tier 1 in that regard, so her growth is even better than suggested. And being a flier in general more than makes up for weakness in bows. That's how FE has always been. She becomes even better when heart sealed to Wyvern Lord (to remove the hybrid gimmick which gimps her a little overall). Either way, fliers in general are always the best candidate to hog resources, or make the best use out of them. In Conquest, she's the undisputed best unit, for factors already mentioned. Bases are fantastic for her join time (again, for what's essentially a level 15 unit that doesn't need a master seal -- consider that for a second). Granted, dodge tanking is the best way to cheese BR/Rev (aka Ryoma), but in Conquest it's not a reliable strategy. And someone like Takumi is stuck outside of the game where player phase actually matters a lot, which is something against him as well. Considering CQ is by far the more difficult of the three games I think she deserves the most praise as a unit, with Xander very close behind (I'd say he's arguably better than Camilla past his own join time but she has availability). Stat spread or potential is only one aspect of a unit. Instead, bases vs. avaliability is the most important factor for almost any unit. Wouldn't say she's 'OP' though (although could have certainly been a bit weaker than she is, same for Ryoma/Xander). Enemies in CQ actually put up a fight, so unlike say, FE7 Marcus who has a similar niche, doesn't really trivialize a portion of the game or anything; she isn't invincible. Wasn't really a fan of the Royals overall since they are basically the game being designed around using all of these units, which is an indirect way of lowering your deployment slots (otherwise you're low-key gimping yourself). Although I suppose that just goes for powerful units in general (like Mathilda, Orsin or Caeda etc..).
  11. Perhaps so, though I used Jill since I see comparisons between the two most often. Granted, weapon type is the only thing they really have in common. Comparing to Aran or Meg however he does still hold up. He gets a level lead and offense/bulk is very similar to Aran. Nolan has a bit more SPD/RES but slightly less STR/DEF, otherwise it's weapon type and Nihil vs. Vigilance. With the Brave Lance/Horseslayer I think weapon type is in Aran's favour but the Killer Axe should help with this. Extra SPD on Nolan sets a somewhat dangerous precedent with the inclusion of speedwings. On average he should double slower enemies in 1-E, but could use a speedwing to secure that if need be. Dropping Halberdier SPD by 1 point could be very feasible though. Otherwise, it risks him doubling enemies he shouldn't, since at that point the rest of his stat spread would just make him too good compared to others. He already has a level lead over tier 1s, so if he's too well rounded it might end up too beneficial for him to hog resources. Nolan gets +3 SKL on promotion (although that may have been changed shortly after the public release, so that may instead be +2 for yourself) with an 80% SKL growth. So it's otherwise 24-25 SKL. Of course, this does matter a lot for Hand Axe / Short Axe or a Battle Axe, weapons someone like Jill would struggle hitting with on occasion. Soon, the Killer Axe as well. This is where the massive HIT differences come into effect. Between Meg having effective weapons against her (and bad HIT, especially with anything ranged), and Aran not having the SPD to double anything, or more likely to being doubled as a result (Brave Lance aside) Nolan is the most reliable tanky unit you have, with two forms of effective weaponry in Hammer and Crossbow. And unlike those two, gets a prf weapon after 1-E. So with that said, I'll still hold off on further changes for now. If I were to buff further though it would be extra SKL (double down on his strengths or possibly an extra point of STR -- which does situationally help his AS as well) or DEF. Keep in mind, the benefit to having good base STR + promotion bonus over a higher growth is the short term immunity to being RNG screwed. If he had only +2 STR on promotion but a 50% growth... then his STR as a Warrior be around the same on average, but would have a lot more variance and could end up with less STR that would be otherwise secured with a higher promotion bonus. So in that sense, Nolan has some reliability there. Again, dropping Halberdier SPD by 1 should add to this as it helps him excel against them as intended, without affecting other match-ups. Otherwise, the current incarnation of Tarvos actually drops Nolan's SPD by 3 (a flat stat penalty) as does Leo and Edward's prfs, in return for other benefits. So it's designed around never doubling, but has 20 MT and +5 DEF. Nolan just needs to hit 16 SPD to not get doubled by tigers, so any extra SPD above that is unneeded. Again, it makes him reliably good, and makes it so as long as he hits that in Part 1, you can just bench in 1-E and still make him powerful in part 3. Still, I do understand how Nolan's more long-term strengths aren't going to be appreciated in the current release. Between Tarvos, his class (tier 3), Arbelest, skill/crit proc % later on etc... He's very powerful. Any deficiencies in STR/SPD are more than made up for, just less-so early on where his level lead or reliability/bulk are the main factors to his worth.
  12. Oh sorry I meant it would be the main file, not the map data (read your post wrong). The latter can only be used to lock pre-established skills allocated by the former (Like the BK's Nihil/Imbue).
  13. Thank you both for sharing your thoughts. I will list the following stats for Nolan and Jill for comparison's sake (how I'm viewing things currently). This is them both going into 1-E (or midway 1-E possibly): HP | STR | MAG | SKL | SPD | LCK | DEF | RES Nolan 16/8 (1.5 levels per map + 1 level of BEXP > Promoting at the start of 1-6-2) 57 | 19 | 9 | 27 | 18 | 25 | 16 | 10 Jill 17/6 (1.5 levels per map + 1 level of BEXP) > Promoting at the start of 1-7) 45 (-12) | 20 (+1) | 7 (-2) | 14 (-13) | 13 (-12) | 23 (+5) | 15 (-1) | 7 (-3) You also need to take into account that Nolan has Nihil while Jill has no innate. While Jill has extra move in 1-6 and 1-8 + canto. Nolan is more likely to have a higher axe rank to use the Silver Axe by 1-E, and a higher support rank with someone (although Jill can feasibly each an A support by 1-E, you have less time to establish it). Otherwise, Nolan gets crossbows (mainly strong in 1-6 and 1-8) while Jill gets lances (pretty niche aside from extra HIT on Javelin or Horseslayer usage). Taking everything into account, I don't believe that Nolan is in a bad spot here. SPD is a big factor and allows Jill to double a fair few enemies that Nolan cannot. But consider that she has a whopping 52% less hit-rate against Halberdiers without giving her Nihil... That's a substantial difference in hit rate, to the point where Nolan can reliably use say, the Battle Axe to land finishing blows on enemies without retaliation (where Jill would need to take damage and then follow up). Lastly, without Nullify (which means no Celerity, Pass or Stillness) Jill gets wrecked by thunder magic and bishops, while Nolan has no such weakness, with enough HP and RES (with pure water/barrier) to tank magic extremely well. Throw in the Tarvos in part 3 and aside from the mobility and SPD (where Jill won't be doubling Cats anyway) and Nolan is generally better. Of course stat booster prioritisation matters here. Giving Secret Books to Jill doesn't otherwise sacrifice too much. While with Nolan, sparing a speedwing to secure doubling (and therefore one-rounding) Halberdiers/Generals may be a steeper cost. Although I'd argue that double-downing on his high AVO with Ashera Icons is pretty effective since he does ignore 'Focus' as well; increasing survivability even more. In the next update, the Killer Axe should help him (and Jill will seldom be reliable with it in comparison) but I'd even debate that's it's not strictly necessary. Don't think it'll hurt to add though. The former. Skills are inherit to the unit data in the main file. Payoff isn't worth it here. You can buy standard longbows in 1-E as well. Although I could change that for 1-7 or 1-8 as well. I think the general consensus is that Leo is fine. Water affinity + Reliable ranged damage + Low investment (He can promote whenever and still be good) + anti-flier niche (Nolan aside). He lacks SPD but he's designed around it. He hits hard with accuracy. Later on, his huge SKL means high Disarm/Deadeye procs or crits. Lughnasadh is the highest ranged weapon outside of seige tomes. With all that said, he works good for what he's intended for.
  14. Thanks for the extensive feedback! I'm starting to see that people don't really value reliability too much. I don't know if that's just how people play (or whether battle saves are part of the issue) but those with a tendency to have high HIT rates regardless of weaponry or biorhythm (Nolan/Aran... Ilyana in the case of Renigade) don't tend to be be too popular currently. I think most would disagree with Ilyana though, being able to one-shot dracos and/or nuke Dragons is pretty huge, and she's bulky enough to do it. Arcthunder crits are generally strong enough to 1-shot a lot of enemies as well and she'll do it pretty often. Obviously has her weaknesses in SPD/RES but that's a light tradeoff for what she's capable of doing. She gets two siege tomes as well so has utility in that regard, as well as access to water affinity / barriers to patch up RES. For Nolan, I'm seeing a trend where people aren't putting a lot of focus into him and then come 1-E finding him 'weak' as a result. His level curve is going to be above every other tier 1 and is a good promotion candidate for 1-6. That gives him 3 (or 4?) maps of being promoted which should sit him at LV7-9 by 1-E (so he'll be ~3 SPD/DEF/RES, 7 SKL etc... better off). I don't think him being LV1 promoted really indicates anything aside from him being benched for a couple maps prior. And of course, a unit isn't going be stellar with that circumstance. Fiona/Jill going into 1-E with no 1-7/1-8 deployment aren't going to be looking too hot either. Still, to Nolan's benefit, he actually gets access to a powerful prf weapon after part 1, so being underlevelled hurts him less. I'll be giving him a nudge in the next update (slightly more SKL and early Killer Axe access) but I'd be hesitant to give him any more. Aran's much the same way, with proper investment he's a great tank, arguably the best one there is -- and consistently great with the Brave Lance. @Miacis I'll certainly take a look at those logs. Thanks for providing those. Makalov lacks a skill slot which comes under 'expanding data' to implement. I'd otherwise provide skills to more units if I could. It's why mage classes no longer have Shove (because alternative skills are just more interesting when they only really have the CON to shove each-other, statue frags aside).
  15. There isn't really a way to make proc% based skills satisfying outside of making them crits or glorified variants of them (otherwise they're rarely going to be meaningful outside of maybe Sol) -- the weaker skills are, the less likely they would have made a different in killing vs. not killing). I'd like to make them command based and/or similar to the way 'Heroes' utilise skills (in order to make them weaker but reliable) but that would take a huge amount of work. They do therefore still function like crits with bonus effects which for the most part is fine. After all, players would otherwise just rather have procced a crit itself. Flare, Corona and Bane being the exceptions of course. That said, enemies are generally a lot bulkier later on so masteries will often not be enough to 100-0 for a lot of units, especially for casters. And some classes no longer have their old masteries or tweaked probability of them activating. For example, Heather gets Canto rather than Bane. Reavers have +15% crit and Focus as opposed to Colossus (which would be completely useless for Boyd in terms of proc% and comparatively too good on Nolan) etc.. There are also only three Satori signs in the game, and most Royals no longer start with their masteries.