FE3 unit ratings

[Cornguy]

I know they're a bit subjective by nature, but I really enjoyed reading the character ratings in the FE3 page, and would enjoy seeing a ratings section for other games in the series.

Perhaps a user-submitted format could work for this? Let other users rate the pages and stuff.

Kind of a frivolous suggestion I know, but I'd love to see something like this in the future if it's possible. 

Btw, I was unsure whether this belonged here or under Member Feedback, so if it needs to be moved, sorry bout that. 

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

There have been several Unit Ratings in this site, the most content heavy being probably dondon151's review of every unit in FE7, and Mekkah's review on FE5 units. They aren't posted as a site postings though but have an extremely detailed information in it. Its a nice read.

A lot of the information on the later have been somewhat outdated though, Mekkah's rating on Leif was spot on to how he is seen now but he would be WAY higher now since he's currently considered as one of the most powerful Lord of all time by the efficient playthrough community almost on the level of Marth

 

the FE3 rating in particular is rather outdated. Wendell, Gordin, and Minerva for example are rather on the bottom end when they are currently considered some of the most overpowered unit in the entire series in their particular class, with Gordin being regarded as far and away the best Archer in the entire series.  Wendell actually have a reputation of being so overpowered in every appearance, that he got nerfed in every game he appeared in(although FE3 Wendell is arguably his strongest form)

Edited February 1, 2018 by JSND Alter Dragon Boner

[Refa]

The unit ratings on the site are bad.  I don't think luigibros knows what he's talking about most of the time, and he makes several questionable decisions.

-In general, he overemphasizes the importance of growths and underemphasizes bases.  For example, he mentions that Luke isn't worth using over Rody just because he has worse growths and nothing else about the character.  He completely ignores how useful Wendell is because his growths suck.  This is ridiculous, we're not in 2010.  What a character is doing in the early, the mid, and the late game is important, not just the late game.

-He almost never takes availability into account except to undervalue late joining prepromotes.

-He never takes into account the availability of promotion items and how useful it is that prepromotes don't need to use them.

-Class ratings are dumb because units don't exist in a class vacuum and some classes are naturally better than others.

-Doesn't mention what each score on the scale means, which is pretty awful because it means the numbers are meaningless.

-Complains about Marth being unable to promote when it's a nonissue.

-Rates Marth and Feena a 7.5/10 in their class ratings when they're the only person of the class...Why?

-Complains about Cecil falling behind to Rody despite it taking him 20 levels to match her Str, 10 levels to match her defense, and never matching her speed.  I'm not doing to do a comparison like this for every unit, but these are the kind of objective mistakes that I don't want to see in a unit rating.

-Complains that archers are inferior to hunters in Gordin's entry but never explains why that is.

-Rates Gordin lower than Jeorge, but says he's the best archer.  It's this kind of consistency that makes me worry.

-Maybe it's just me, but it never feels like any of his thoughts are adequately fleshed out or explained.  For example, in Doga's entry, his thoughts are entirely correct, but it feels disorganized and doesn't explain why being an early game tank is valuable or anything else that Doga could do.

-Rates Yumina lower than Malliesia even though Rescue is broken.  Somehow puts her as the worst Cleric which is insane.

-Complains that Palla is one weapon level away from Gradivus even though...she can use it at base.  Please do your research.

-Rates Catria the same as Palla.  No.

-Rates Merric the same as Palla.  No.

-Rates Merric a 10/10 but Ellerean a 3/10.  What?  Merric has slightly better growths and a personal tome, which somehow accounts for this 7 point gulf.  No.

-Rates Ogma a 9.5/10 but Samto a 1/10.  Hate to break it to you, but Ogma is not that much better than Samto.

-Spends an entire paragraph pontificating about Feena's irrelevant combat.

@JSND Alter Dragon Boner I'd say FE11 Wendell is better because he can use Excalibur (especially if you're comparing FE1/FE3 Book 1 to FE11 H1), though.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Refa