Fire Emblem Heroes General Discussion and Links

[Xenomata]

uh... unpopular opinion I'm sure, but I could care less how the Tier List is shuffled on Gamepedia, cause I just use it as my unit hub whenever I need to access a units page real fast.

[DehNutCase]

1 minute ago, Korath88 said:

But how many healers is an armor team going to encounter at their score range anyways? Especially since the most commonly recommended ones are cavalry healers who have lower BST. I think the most I saw was one Veronica every 10 matches or so. While definitely a threat, it's not one so common that all melee armors should be dropped several tiers.

If you're in T20 (and therefore, probably don't need a tier list in the first place)? Not much.

If you're in T17? Probably a lot. And I think the people in T17 need tier lists more than the people in T20, considering.

 

Like, how many of us discussing the tier lists actually needs to use a tier list?

[Alkaid]

1 minute ago, Xenomata said:

uh... unpopular opinion I'm sure, but I could care less how the Tier List is shuffled on Gamepedia, cause I just use it as my unit hub whenever I need to access a units page real fast.

I use Gamepedia exclusively for checking IVs. I'm actually curious how many really use the tier lists for this game, since 90% of the time I see them mentioned it's just people saying they're bad.

[Xenomata]

2 minutes ago, Alkaid said:

I use Gamepedia exclusively for checking IVs. I'm actually curious how many really use the tier lists for this game, since 90% of the time I see them mentioned it's just people saying they're bad.

That to. I do occasionally check the Unit's Build pages for inspiration, but I largely ignore such anyways. I mean, take Matthew for instance, who has some killer defensive potential as shown by @Zeo, but the sets listed are all purely offensive builds done better by any number of other daggers that seem to only exist because they only went for raw numbers rather than wittling and weakening potency.

[Ice Dragon]

18 minutes ago, Korath88 said:

not to mention how pointless the armor emblem buff list is, since despite following the criteria, completely undermines the point of an emblem specific list.

17 minutes ago, DehNutCase said:

I mean, I rather enjoyed how they said 'tiering is about how good a unit is at doing their jobs' and then went and pretended 'all armors are equally good at doing an armor's job.'

I'm under the impression that the Emblem Tier lists are not "how units of the movement type compare to each other", but are supposed to be "how units of the movement type would place on the normal tier list if they had full movement-type buffs".

In which case, all armors are S+ relative to the normal tier list when fully buffed.

 

4 minutes ago, Korath88 said:

Are those specific omnibreaker/wary builds so common that the criteria for mages has to be completely overhauled? Because I'm pretty sure forcing a PP mage to run a niche EP build is only going to kill every other matchup they have just to counter one threat, that should arguably be another unit's job to kill.

With the rate that I see Wary Fighter, Myrrh, and Thunder Armads, yes. They're common enough. The idea behind running alternative builds is that the amount they sacrifice to get those kills is less important than missing out on those kills.

You can't argue an enemy is "someone else's job" when the tier description specifically mentions neutral match-ups as rating criteria:

Quote

S: These heroes are the best answers to the common threats in the arena. Units in this tier are highly effective on offense teams, consistently beating units all required favourable (WTA) matchups (MUs) as well as the majority of neutral MUs. Alternatively, they can provide considerable support to allies, while retaining their ability to counter all their required WTA matchups and more. 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. Combat units can still adequately counter most, if not all, meta WTA MUs but simply lack the breadth of coverage that the S tier units provide.

B: These units are still effective but require heavy support to provide the degree of coverage of the units above. These units generally suffer losses against critical meta MUs within WTA and Neutral MUs under simulation conditions, but are still generally serviceable with adequate team coverage.

Every neutral match-up a unit cannot handle on their own is counted against them, presumably weighted roughly by the prevalence of the opponent.

 

9 minutes ago, Korath88 said:

And if team synergy isn't taken into account, then why is Odin assumed to have +6/6/6/6?

Because any warm body can give him +6/6/0/0 due to his weapon, and all characters are afforded +6 to two stats of their choice as rudimentary buffs. Odin therefore picks Def and Res as his two +6's because he already has +6 to both Atk and Spd from his weapon. None of these buffs are the result of team synergy.

[Silverly]

5 minutes ago, Alkaid said:

I use Gamepedia exclusively for checking IVs. I'm actually curious how many really use the tier lists for this game, since 90% of the time I see them mentioned it's just people saying they're bad.

I never tend to ignore Gamepedia’s tier lists and stick with Gamepress. I remember last year people (particularly FEHtubers like Sagemaster15) were ruthless towards them and thought Gamepedia was a joke. Nowadays it seems largely ignored except by a select few. 

[DehNutCase]

8 minutes ago, Ice Dragon said:

I'm under the impression that the Emblem Tier lists are not "how units of the movement type compare to each other", but are supposed to be "how units of the movement type would place on the normal tier list if they had full movement-type buffs".

In which case, all armors are S+ relative to the normal tier list when fully buffed.

But they also went and said that Reinhardt being whatever tier he is isn't the same as, say, Veronica being whatever tier she is---since they do different jobs.

 

What exactly are they S tier relative to, if not each other?

[Korath88]

6 minutes ago, Ice Dragon said:

I'm under the impression that the Emblem Tier lists are not "how units of the movement type compare to each other", but are supposed to be "how units of the movement type would place on the normal tier list if they had full movement-type buffs".

In which case, all armors are S+ relative to the normal tier list when fully buffed.

 

Which is why I said it follows the criteria, but because of that, is completely useless to anyone trying to build an armor team. Sometimes it would be better to change a few definitions so as to better account for the slight differences in performance of armors.

Regarding the other point, rating PP oriented mages on EP builds still isn't a fair way to rate units. And considering that gamepedia is the only tier list to do so, I don't see any reason to back this change.

[Ice Dragon]

1 minute ago, DehNutCase said:

But they also went and said that Reinhardt being whatever tier he is isn't the same as, say, Veronica being whatever tier she is---since they do different jobs.

Being relative to yourself with fewer buffs is always a reasonable comparison because you always can have the same role as yourself.

 

7 minutes ago, DehNutCase said:

What exactly are they S tier relative to, if not each other?

The tier definitions, which I've quoted twice now, set guidelines for where the breaks are between letter tiers that can be determined independently by color.

 

1 minute ago, Korath88 said:

Regarding the other point, rating PP oriented mages on EP builds still isn't a fair way to rate units.

They're not being rated based only on their enemy-phase build. They're rated based on their best build relative to the current state of the meta, and their enemy-phase build has been found to be better than their player-phase build. If they were rated only on their player-phase build, they'd be as high or lower than they currently are.

[DehNutCase]

16 minutes ago, Ice Dragon said:

Being relative to yourself with fewer buffs is always a reasonable comparison because you always can have the same role as yourself.

That would imply the units that are already S tier gain literally nothing from full armor emblem buffs. [Double Edit: Not even, say, a melee Armor being better at hitting a staff user when they have armor march.]

 

Edit: And the entire point of S+ tier compared to, say, B tier, according to the definitions, is that they don't need support. So their definition of armor emblem is:

'When fully supported, armor emblem doesn't need support.'

Edited September 13, 2018 by DehNutCase

[Ice Dragon]

20 minutes ago, DehNutCase said:

That would imply the units that are already S tier gain literally nothing from full armor emblem buffs.

No, it would imply that the units that are already in S+ tier don't gain enough to be worth splitting into another tier.

Tier lists are a histogram with each tier representing a bucket of units, not single discrete points. Characters in the same tier are not identical to each other in performance; they are close enough in performance that their differences are not significant.

 

20 minutes ago, DehNutCase said:

Edit: And the entire point of S+ tier, according to the definitions, is that they don't need support. So their definition of armor emblem is:

'When fully supported, armor emblem doesn't need support.'

Where does it mention that that's "the entire point of the tier"?

S tier is defined, as "consistently beating units all required favourable matchups as well as the majority of neutral MUs" as one of its two alternative criteria.

Obviously, it follows that "when fully supported, armored units consistently beat all required favorable match-ups and the vast majority of neutral match-ups".

 

I honestly feel like half the time I'm arguing with someone, they're trying to be either a smart-alec or overly pedantic in a way not meaningful for discussion or possibly to try to find some foothold to justify their own beliefs. Or maybe I just overestimate people's reading comprehension skills.

Edited September 13, 2018 by Ice Dragon

[DehNutCase]

10 minutes ago, Ice Dragon said:

Where does it mention that that's the entire point of the tier?

S tier is defined, as "consistently beating units all required favourable matchups as well as the majority of neutral MUs" as one of its two alternative criteria.

Obviously, it follows that "when fully supported, armored units consistently beat all required favorable match-ups and the vast majority of neutral match-ups".

Of course---by definition, everyone in B tier is automatically elevated to S tier.

That's my problem with the definition.

 

They deliberately set out to make the emblem tier lists utterly worthless, rather than showing which units gain the most from support---Reinhardt both starts as one of the best horses and scales exceedingly well when given horse buffs, he should rise more tiers than everyone except basically Leo---they turned the class tier lists into a place where, by definition, all units are either S or A, and the differences are completely invisible, because it's insufficiently granular.

 

Edit: When the description of your tier list is a god damn tautology there's something wrong.

 

Double Edit: I think we basically have different axioms. I started from the assumption that a tier list is supposed to be useful for someone looking at it to choose which units they want. You seem like you started from the assumption that all a tier list needs to do is be internally consistent. (Which, incidentally, a tautological tier list is ideal for.)

Edited September 13, 2018 by DehNutCase

[Ice Dragon]

1 minute ago, DehNutCase said:

Of course---by definition, everyone in B tier is automatically elevated to S tier.

That's my problem with the definition.

That doesn't follow at all.

The individual tier list indicates exactly how much support is given to the units on that list. The main tier list gives everyone +6 to 2 stats. The movement-type tier lists give everyone two to three teammates' worth of dedicated support using movement-type-specific buffs.

Maybe everyone in B tier can actually perform at the level of S tier with enough support, but the main tier list specifically limits how much support everyone is allowed to receive to rudimentary levels.

Therefore, at the amount of support afforded to each unit on each applicable tier list, they perform at the indicated level of performance. The slippery slope you want to exist to disprove my point doesn't exist.

[DehNutCase]

15 minutes ago, Ice Dragon said:

That doesn't follow at all.

The individual tier list indicates exactly how much support is given to the units on that list. The main tier list gives everyone +6 to 2 stats. The movement-type tier lists give everyone two to three teammates' worth of dedicated support using movement-type-specific buffs.

Maybe everyone in B tier can actually perform at the level of S tier with enough support, but the main tier list specifically limits how much support everyone is allowed to receive to rudimentary levels.

Therefore, at the amount of support afforded to each unit on each applicable tier list, they perform at the indicated level of performance. The slippery slope you want to exist to disprove my point doesn't exist.

2 units supporting one Type unit is +6 all stats from link and at least +4 all stats from Goad\Wards, even ignoring the S-slot. That's more than enough to push everyone into acceptable levels of performance. Supports got a lot better as the game went on.

 

Hell, the 'indicated level of performance' is completely arbitrary---the only reason melee armors can be S tier is if they aren't at all expected to fight Staff users, since they can't be reasonably expected to hit them first. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure Reinhardt & Co. are expected to fight into dragons, even though dragons naturally check player phase units---yet PP units' ability to kill staves are pretty much discounted.

This is also ignoring the major issue of Galeforce---for the same reason units that need a dancer to fight properly are lowered to B tier, units that have reasonable combat despite using Galeforce would need to rise above S, to denote the fact that they self-generate 2 unit-turns per player phase.

Edited September 13, 2018 by DehNutCase

[Ice Dragon]

1 minute ago, DehNutCase said:

2 units supporting one Type unit is +12 and at least +4 all stats from Goad\Wards (since we have Link skills now), even ignoring the S-slot. That's more than enough to push everyone into acceptable levels of performance. Supports got a lot better as the game went on.

That's outside of the rating criteria of the main tier list and therefore has no business being considered there.

The movement-type-specific tier lists already have that covered. I don't see the problem.

 

4 minutes ago, DehNutCase said:

This is also ignoring the major issue of Galeforce---for the same reason units that need a dancer to fight properly are lowered to B tier, units that have reasonable combat despite using Galeforce would need to rise above S, to denote the fact that they self-generate 2 unit-turns per player phase.

In most cases, losing a damaging Special drops your combat performance against neutral match-ups enough that the lost performance doesn't make up for having two actions. Sure, you have two actions, but each action is worth less than the one stronger action.

[DehNutCase]

1 minute ago, Ice Dragon said:

That's outside of the rating criteria of the main tier list and therefore has no business being considered there.

The movement-type-specific tier lists already have that covered. I don't see the problem.

Uh, weren't we talking about how the Type tier lists are basically useless because of how the tiers are defined? Mind, I'm not saying the Type tier lists are inconsistent, just that they are basically a giant waste of space.

2 minutes ago, Ice Dragon said:

In most cases, losing a damaging Special drops your combat performance against neutral match-ups enough that the lost performance doesn't make up for having two actions. Sure, you have two actions, but each action is worth less than the one stronger action.

A good offensive unit has beyond overkill advantage matchups, though, and you can fix the neutral matchups with a debuff C-slot (Def Smoke or Savage Blow, for example) by taking the neutral after the advantage matchup.

They'll be worse at buffing, which is something I ding points for---but not gamepedia.

[XRay]

2 hours ago, Ice Dragon said:

No, because she is pretty terrible at actually killing blue and green units in one round of combat with Firesweep. She requires dancer support, multiple turns, or preexisting damage to get her free kills, which seems to fit the description of B tier rather well:

Quote

B Tiers (6.0 - 7.0)

These units are still effective but require heavy support to provide the degree of coverage of the units above.

These units generally suffer losses against some critical meta MUs within WTA and Neutral MUs under simulation conditions, but are still generally serviceable with adequate team coverage.

Dancer support is better used getting two kills on one turn or getting unit in for a kill and back out, not helping a unit get their kill in two rounds of combat.

But the beauty of Firesweep Bow is that they ignore counterattacks. Trading a few kills for being able to have, in essence, infinite bulk is huge. No other green ranged unit can do that. Desperation nukes and even Blade-Close Counter-Vantage tanks have limits on what they can engage, but Firesweep nukes do not. I would argue Firesweep nukes' max coverage makes up for the lack in performance.

Edited September 13, 2018 by XRay

[Ice Dragon]

2 minutes ago, DehNutCase said:

Uh, weren't we talking about how the Type tier lists are basically useless because of how the tiers are defined? Mind, I'm not saying the Type tier lists are inconsistent, just that they are basically a giant waste of space.

You sure had a massively roundabout way of doing so, then.

I don't see any problem with the lack of granularity in the movement-type-specific tier lists. The top is already winning almost every relevant match-up and winning one or two more match-ups than another unit isn't enough of a difference to put them in separate tiers.

Since this mode has relatively strict limits to enemy stats and involves few rounds of combat per unit (unlike PvE challenge maps), getting more overkill and surviving with more HP remaining aren't worth enough to meaningfully differentiate units that are already performing at S+ levels.

 

4 minutes ago, DehNutCase said:

A good offensive unit has beyond overkill advantage matchups, though, and you can fix the neutral matchups with a debuff C-slot (Def Smoke or Savage Blow, for example) by taking the neutral after the advantage matchup.

They'll be worse at buffing, which is something I ding points for---but not gamepedia.

Buffing is something that Gamepedia does take into account, though. Prior to the recent rework, Linde and Delthea were a tier above blue tome users with comparable combat performance because they had a weapon that could provide buffs. Regular Ephraim similarly was a tier above other lance users with similar combat performance due to Siegmund providing buffs.

I do believe the C slot is expected to be used for a buff except when used for Savage Blow on the Pain build.

Furthermore, being able to use this Galeforce strategy requires there to be a favorable match-up available to you to apply the debuff. If that favorable match-up doesn't exist, you're dead in the water when faced with a match-up that you could have won with a damaging Special or a debuff that you don't have due to Galeforce eating the Special slot and no safe initiation to apply the debuff. Builds that use Galeforce are by nature less reliable than builds designed to maximize single-round combat performance.

You can always be assured that Reinhardt will destroy Karla, but you can't always be assured there is a safe target for Cordelia to initiate a Galeforce chain from.

 

14 minutes ago, XRay said:

But the beauty of Firesweep Bow is that they ignore counterattacks. Trading a few kills for being able to have, in essence, infinite bulk is huge. No other green ranged unit can do that. Desperation nukes have limits on what they can engage, but Firesweep nukes do not. I would argue Firesweep nukes' max coverage makes up for the lack in performance.

Infinite bulk is nice, but if you aren't actually killing in a single round, you need support to either finish the job or move far enough away to not have to take a hit on enemy phase (where your bulk is no longer infinite). And needing additional support for the build to work is  a reason to lower the rating.

[DehNutCase]

24 minutes ago, Ice Dragon said:

You can always be assured that Reinhardt will destroy Karla, but you can't always be assured there is a safe target for Cordelia to initiate a Galeforce chain from.

If there's a Karla, Cordelia can use her to start the chain. 40 base hp and 22/22 bulk if you take -Res is 62 bulk in both directions, and I run Slaying Lance to push that up even higher. This is true even for Slaying Wrath Karla builds, since Cordelia is fast enough that she can just start the chain on EP instead (assuming Def Smoke rather than Savage Blow)---if there's a ranged WoM user, then, ranged units being squishy, you start the chain from the ranged unit.

Cordelia has 2 main advantages when she wants to start a chain: 1, her speed is damn high, meaning it's difficult to double her. 2, The fact that she can afford to run a performance A-slot rather than a counter A-slot, which makes DC users have huge issues fighting into her on EP---and non-DC melees aren't threatening assuming you have at least 1 ranged unit on the team.

24 minutes ago, Ice Dragon said:

Buffing is something that Gamepedia does take into account, though. Prior to the recent rework, Linde and Delthea were a tier above blue tome users with comparable combat performance because they had a weapon that could provide buffs. Regular Ephraim similarly was a tier above other lance users with similar combat performance due to Siegmund providing buffs.

I do believe the C slot is expected to be used for a buff except when used for Savage Blow on the Pain build.

I can only go 'what the hell' at that, then, considering using Linde and Delthea as buffers make them a lot worse in the combat department. Even if we assume only +6/+6 for -blade tomes that's still 11 Atk for +1 special CD. Hell, it even ignores the fact that there are a shitton of Type units---yeah, melees are half the game, but horses and fliers are also half, and their Type Buffs are +6/+6, compared to Dark Aura's +6.

Like, if you ding Type Buffs for being too 'specific,' why the hell does Dark Aura get a bye.

 

Regarding the C-slot... then why aren't horses and fliers naturally better while infantry and armors naturally worse? C-slot buffs have positioning requirements even if we ignore the raw strength of Type Buffs.

Edited September 13, 2018 by DehNutCase

[Ice Dragon]

6 minutes ago, DehNutCase said:

If there's a Karla,

"Reinhardt annihilates Karla if she is there" is in no way equivalent to "there will be a Karla".

 

8 minutes ago, DehNutCase said:

considering using Linde and Delthea as buffers make them a lot worse in the combat department.

Except it doesn't because the definition of "rudimentary buffs" prior to this rework was +4 to two stats of the unit's choice. Which isn't enough to make Blarblade+ a significantly better choice than Aura and Dark Aura.

 

9 minutes ago, DehNutCase said:

Regarding the C-slot... then why aren't horses and fliers naturally better while infantry and armors naturally worse? C-slot buffs have positioning requirements even if we ignore the raw strength of Type Buffs.

When everyone is restricted to running Hone/Tactic/Wave/Drive/Rally/whatever, everyone is using the same pool of buffing skills and is subject to the same positioning requirements when using the same buff skill and no movement type has an advantage.

[Spectraman]

Does anyone know when the new trailer for the new heroes that is coming out on the 14th should be released?

[Landmaster]

1 minute ago, Spectraman said:

Does anyone know when the new trailer for the new heroes that is coming out on the 14th should be released?

Today or tomorrow~

[Spectraman]

1 minute ago, Landmaster said:

Today or tomorrow~

Is there a pattern to what time they should release the trailer, and by time I mean clock time.

[DehNutCase]

12 minutes ago, Ice Dragon said:

"Reinhardt annihilates Karla if she is there" is in no way equivalent to "there will be a Karla".

What I meant was, essentially:

There are comparable amounts of people that Cordelia can start Galeforce Chains from to the amount that Reinhardt can annihilate. You can use some other examples that Reinhardt kills, if you'd like.

12 minutes ago, Ice Dragon said:

When everyone is restricted to running Hone/Tactic/Wave/Drive/Rally/whatever, everyone is using the same pool of buffing skills and is subject to the same positioning requirements when using the same buff skill and no movement type has an advantage.

Positioning requirements are more easily borne with higher mobility. And units very much do not have the same positioning requirements---highly mobile units have more places they can stand and still get to a certain square. And, likewise, standing in the same square, highly mobile units can get to more squares---which helps with skills like reposition, dance, and so on.

Edit: Like, just take the underground column & water square map, that waffle thing. Fliers can stand on top of the water tile and still buff around them---no one else can. This means a team with a flier can have 3 spur effects active on the unit behind a column compared to the 2 max of teams without fliers.

Edited September 13, 2018 by DehNutCase

[Landmaster]

1 minute ago, Spectraman said:

Is there a pattern to what time they should release the trailer, and by time I mean clock time.

It's usually 11:30 my time, which is in about an hour~