Worst class in the series?

[Von Ithipathachai]

31 minutes ago, CyberController said:

Armor Knights have wayyyyy too many weaknesses.

They have poor movement, so it takes them some time to get anywhere and they can’t escape powerful enemies (Which makes them terrible for maps with time limits or thieves)

But they can defend a point, right? Well, their high defense is compromised by crap resistance, poor speed, and the existence of the Armorslayer and Hammer.

They should at least have normal infantry movement, IMO.

An idea I thought of to partially mitigate the Movement problem is to give one of the player's Knights less Defense than normal, but Movement +1 as a Personal Skill to make them more viable for LTC play.

By the way, how often do anti-Armor weapons usually appear in any given map?  I know they show up a lot in Thracia 776, which is why Knights in that game are especially terrible, but I only ever recall seeing them a few times in any given playthrough of any other game.

[Emperor Hardin]

On 6/11/2018 at 4:24 PM, Von Ithipathachai said:

An idea I thought of to partially mitigate the Movement problem is to give one of the player's Knights less Defense than normal, but Movement +1 as a Personal Skill to make them more viable for LTC play.

By the way, how often do anti-Armor weapons usually appear in any given map?  I know they show up a lot in Thracia 776, which is why Knights in that game are especially terrible, but I only ever recall seeing them a few times in any given playthrough of any other game.

Anti Armor rarely appear in most games and in all games, even Thracia 776, are never the classes primary weakness.

Radiant Dawn had the right idea giving them more weapon ranks and good resistance.

[Von Ithipathachai]

1 hour ago, Emperor Hardin said:

Anti Armor rarely appear in most games and in all games, even Thracia 776, are never the classes primary weakness.

Radiant Dawn had the right idea giving them more weapon ranks and good resistance.

So I don't see why so many people make a big deal out of the existence of Armorslayers as a problem for Knights.  I mean, you don't see many people complaining that Ridersbanes are a big problem for Cavaliers.

[Emperor Hardin]

3 minutes ago, Von Ithipathachai said:

So I don't see why so many people make a big deal out of the existence of Armorslayers as a problem for Knights.  I mean, you don't see many people complaining that Ridersbanes are a big problem for Cavaliers.

They are a problem on multiplayer though.

I wish Merc-Slayers and Brigand slayers weapons continued, though.

Still the primary issue is movement, their defense being too low, being ironically bad at protecting other units, terrain restrictions, low resistance(Awakening putting this back was idiotic), being doubled, and other classes doing their job better.

You know it'd be nice if Armored Knights, for a canto equivalent universal skill, got the ability to rescue/capture units without losing any stats.

[Von Ithipathachai]

1 minute ago, Emperor Hardin said:

They are a problem on multiplayer though.

Really.

I don't really do multiplayer, so I've never heard of this.

[Emperor Hardin]

7 minutes ago, Von Ithipathachai said:

Really.

I don't really do multiplayer, so I've never heard of this.

People forge hammers in multiplayer.

A good way to say it is while anti Armor weapons aren't a major weakness, they don't need to exist most of the time because the class already has weakness after weakness.

Ridersbanes, by contrast, are a necessary counter for an overpowered class.

Like in Echoes: SOV, they took so much away from the  Armored class line and all they added to them was anti armor weaponry, like really, how was that what the class needed to have.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Emperor Hardin

[Von Ithipathachai]

5 minutes ago, Emperor Hardin said:

Like in Echoes: SOV, they took so much away from the  Armored class line and all they added to them was anti armor weaponry, like really, how was that what the class needed to have.

Huh?  I don't remember that.  What I do remember is Barons getting a Skill that halves damage from Bows.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Von Ithipathachai

[Emperor Hardin]

38 minutes ago, Von Ithipathachai said:

Huh?  I don't remember that.  What I do remember is Barons getting a Skill that halves damage from Bows.

The original game had no anti armor and didn't need it as the game is chock full of magic users.

Heavy Armor was useless as enemy bow users were extremely weak unlike player bow users and with their range, were unlikely to aim for Barons anyhow.

Why they gave them Heavy Armor instead of pavise is a mystery to me?

[Von Ithipathachai]

3 minutes ago, Emperor Hardin said:

The original game had no anti armor and didn't need it as the game is chock full of magic users.

Heavy Armor was useless as enemy bow users were extremely weak unlike player bow users and with their range, were unlikely to aim for Barons anyhow.

Why they gave them Heavy Armor instead of pavise is a mystery to me?

Oh.  The way you worded your earlier sentence made it sound like Barons in Shadows of Valentia got a Skill that helped them against other armored units.

[Emperor Hardin]

2 minutes ago, Von Ithipathachai said:

Oh.  The way you worded your earlier sentence made it sound like Barons in Shadows of Valentia got a Skill that helped them against other armored units.

I mean other units got weapons that gave them skills against armored units when there was no need for this in the first place.

[SSbardock84]

Archers in any game that isn't Radiant Dawn.

[DisobeyedCargo]

18 minutes ago, SSbardock84 said:

Archers in any game that isn't Radiant Dawn.

What about echoes?

[SSbardock84]

2 hours ago, DisobeyedCargo said:

What about echoes?

Not sure, I don't recall actually using any and I only played through the game once. Are they pretty good?

[DisobeyedCargo]

8 minutes ago, SSbardock84 said:

Not sure, I don't recall actually using any and I only played through the game once. Are they pretty good?

1-5 range 

 

enough said 

 

tho I think that's for snipers 

archers I think have 1-3 range 

 

bow knights get sniper range along with 8 mov

 

you used no archers?

or saw Leon in combat as an ally NPC?

Edited June 18, 2018 by DisobeyedCargo

[SSbardock84]

2 minutes ago, DisobeyedCargo said:

1-5 range 

 

enough said 

 

tho I think that's for snipers 

archers I think have 1-3 range 

 

bow knights get sniper range along with 8 mov

 

you used no archers?

or saw Leon in combat as an ally NPC?

Oh frick, as soon as you mentioned Leon I remembered. Yeah, I used Leon he was one of my main units lol. Yeah he was pretty good.

[Sage of the Mist]

Berserkers no doubt. As someone who plays with hyper-caution they just don't cut it for me, if i had it list just a few of their problems they would be

• Axe hit rate is mediocre in most games so I can't rely on any axe user let alone zerkers who are prone to being crit-ed,  to reliably kill an enemy. 
• they often have disproportionately low def compared to their high hp, and while I get thats the point, for me it means they aren't on the front lines due to their lack of accuracy and durability.
• As previously mentioned, the susceptibility to crits is a fatal flaw. In pretty much every game crit is heavily lopsided in the enemy favor ( I cannot count the number of times i've been crit by an enemy with a crit% below 10 and a  hit% of 40 or lower) and rarely does anything for the player. This is especially for someone like for me who would rather not risk the survival of my units based on an arbitrary crit % and plans strats to kill the enemy outright, not pray to the RNG gods.

Overall, to me and my style of play, zerks are an unnecessary liability and a waste of space due to the aforementioned reasons. They have high HP but low def, maning they can't act as walls. They have a crap weapon type and very shaky hit rates, meaning they are unreliable for taking down enemy units (if they can even hit them in the first place..) Lastly they  are venerable to crits, one of the worst traits a class can have and makes them even more risky and unreliable.

Final note: This is just my option and its based off of the way I play the games so I realize that other will have differing options and I respect that. I can see how they could be useful or even worthwhile under the right circumstances, but bottom line they're just not for me.

[Shadow Mir]

5 hours ago, Sage of the Mist said:

Berserkers no doubt. As someone who plays with hyper-caution they just don't cut it for me, if i had it list just a few of their problems they would be

• Axe hit rate is mediocre in most games so I can't rely on any axe user let alone zerkers who are prone to being crit-ed,  to reliably kill an enemy. 
• they often have disproportionately low def compared to their high hp, and while I get thats the point, for me it means they aren't on the front lines due to their lack of accuracy and durability.
• As previously mentioned, the susceptibility to crits is a fatal flaw. In pretty much every game crit is heavily lopsided in the enemy favor ( I cannot count the number of times i've been crit by an enemy with a crit% below 10 and a  hit% of 40 or lower) and rarely does anything for the player. This is especially for someone like for me who would rather not risk the survival of my units based on an arbitrary crit % and plans strats to kill the enemy outright, not pray to the RNG gods.

Overall, to me and my style of play, zerks are an unnecessary liability and a waste of space due to the aforementioned reasons. They have high HP but low def, maning they can't act as walls. They have a crap weapon type and very shaky hit rates, meaning they are unreliable for taking down enemy units (if they can even hit them in the first place..) Lastly they  are venerable to crits, one of the worst traits a class can have and makes them even more risky and unreliable.

Final note: This is just my option and its based off of the way I play the games so I realize that other will have differing options and I respect that. I can see how they could be useful or even worthwhile under the right circumstances, but bottom line they're just not for me.

Speaking of which, sometimes I see Berserkers as being as bad as, if not worse than Warriors. Fates and Sword of Seals were the worst games for Berserkers by far - the former had them vulnerable to crits, which makes them even more unreliable than they already are, and axe accuracy SUCKS in the latter, meaning they miss more than stormtroopers.

[Von Ithipathachai]

2 minutes ago, Levant Mir Celestia said:

Speaking of which, sometimes I see Berserkers as being as bad as, if not worse than Warriors. Fates and Sword of Seals were the worst games for Berserkers by far - the former had them vulnerable to crits, which makes them even more unreliable than they already are, and axe accuracy SUCKS in the latter, meaning they miss more than stormtroopers.

Somehow I thought you thought Berserkers were objectively worse.

At least Warriors have Bows to fall back on if their accuracy is such a massive problem.

[DragonFlames]

9 hours ago, Von Ithipathachai said:

Somehow I thought you thought Berserkers were objectively worse.

At least Warriors have Bows to fall back on if their accuracy is such a massive problem.

Doesn't help when they're suddenly turning into enemy phase fodder. Make one mistake and leave your Warrior with a bow out in the open and chances are you can kiss their @$$ goodbye. Trust me, I had that happen to me one too many times.

[Von Ithipathachai]

5 hours ago, DragonFlames said:

Doesn't help when they're suddenly turning into enemy phase fodder. Make one mistake and leave your Warrior with a bow out in the open and chances are you can kiss their @$$ goodbye. Trust me, I had that happen to me one too many times.

Ah, didn't think of that.  Although, if you make a mistake, isn't that your fault as much as it is the unit's?  You are, after all, a super cautious player.