Whats Gordon doing so high anyways?

How much weight exactly are we putting on his Chapter 1 performance? Thats the only time he can really make a difference. If we take our friend Biraku Obama here at the very beginning of Chapter 6:

Vyland (1/0): 20 HP, 12 Atk (Javelin), 4 AS, 7 Def
Gordon (6/0): 21 HP, 14 Atk (+1) (Steel Bow), 4 AS, 8 Def

Eerily similar. Gordon chips an extra 3 damage, but Vyland has other advantages as well. He can switch to a Steel against Archers, and not fear a counter. Vyland isn't equal to an Armor Knight in mobility, and can actually get around and chip when needed. Sure he's not killing anything, but Gordon's +3 Atk isn't really doing any better. Now lets take a look at them after a few levels, say Chapter 8:

Vyland (6/0): 23 HP, 14 Atk (+1) (Javelin), 8 AS, 8 Def
Gordon (9/0): 23 HP, 15 Atk (+1) (Steel Bow), 7 AS, 8 Def

Now they're pretty much equal, but Vyland has a few advantages up his sleeve that give him a clear edge over Gaggles. Vyland still has 9 move to Gordon's 5, so Gordon is still not as flexible for chipping away. Vyland can also now use a forged Ridersbane as well. In situations where he's right next to another cav, he can get it through a trade, and OHKO like any other lance wielding unit. Plus, Vyland still has an advantage on Archers/Horsemen thanks to not taking counters from them. All these advantages definitely make up for lol 1 atk.

This trend seems to continue, looking at their growths:

Vyland: +10% Str, +5% Spd,
Gordon: +15% Def

Gordon may eventually have an extra point of def, but who really cares? They're both being 2RKO'd by everything anyways.

They're both shit before promotion. Lets look at them after promotion:

Gordon (15/1): 44 HP, 22 Str (+2) (Silver Bow), 14 AS, 11 Def
Vyland (13/1): 31 HP, 25 Atk (+2) (Silver Lance), 12 AS, 12 Def

Is Gordon finally pulling off a win? Well, its debatable. See, Cavs and Archers are the only enemies that are still getting doubled by 14 AS. Vyland has Ridersbane to easily make that gap up, and they're buyable very soon as well. Archers are not very common, and are easily dealt with on player phase (although Gordon has to eat a counter everytime he attacks one). So its really not a huge win at all. I'll admit that its a slight win, but Vyland now has +20% spd growth over Gordon, so he's making 1 AS up in 4-5 levels.

So in conclusion, these guys are both huge piles of shit. However, its looking like Vyland's more versatile with move/ridersbane advantages, so he may be a smaller pile of shit. Maybe Gordon down, maybe Vyland up.

inb4 Partia is mentioned

BUH GORDON CAN USE PARTIA AND 3RKO SHIT I DONT SEE VYLAND DOING THAT ;;>>

In the strictest sense, Gordin contributes more to an efficient run just by being forced in a few early chapters where he can actually do shit without kicking out a better unit. Whereas Vyland blows in Ch 5 and should probably just be killed off during that chapter.

I'm not arguing against Vyland here; this is simply an attempt to provide a possible justification for Gordin > Vyland, since it's pretty much the only one I can see.

If you use 'em for the whole game, I agree that Vyland's obviously better, and FE3 Player seems to favor this approach.

I guess it depends on what approach you're taking. You're right about none of them being used outside of their forced chapters on an efficient play through, thats for sure. It all depends on what angle we're taking. I suppose Gordon contributed more in my efficient run then Vyland did (although Gordon was still killed by Chapter 2).

If you use 'em for the whole game, I agree that Vyland's obviously better, and FE3 Player seems to favor this approach.

I actually favor utility over long term use if there are better characters to use for long term, but I am not really siding towards either.

Well, I just assumed you favored using units for the whole game in comparisons, since you had the whole "you can't use the exact same team every time, it's not always the good units, any team is considered as long as it's good enough to beat the game" attitude in that other topic.

We should make up our mind one way or the other. Or if we're applying different standards in different situations, we should figure out which one applies where and why.

Well, we have to look at Gordon in a long term comparison to determine that Vyland's doing better in the long term, so that doesn't really change. It's just that the resulting end result I usually value utility more.

It really depends on what Vyland wants to do. Because it's already been determined that Gordon can double your basic cavalier just fine at a 15/1 promotion. However, there are other enemies, such as paladins. They have higher AS that he won't double and that fact never changes.

Example, he needs to be level 15/7 to double those paladins that have 12 AS. Then, it builds up to 15-16. He doesn't hit 19 AS till level 15/16, and 20 till 15/19.

Simply put, that's never gonna happen. If Vyland goes archer, post-promotion, doubling is simply not a problem to him. If Vyland goes paladin, he faces the same problems Gordin would have, just with a different weapon type.

So the only way I could see Vyland>Gordon is if somehow Vyland can be justified going archer, and going from there, as otherwise they're similar (same problems, just different classes). Otherwise, I'm firmly gonna think that those early chapters Gordon's got>Whatever the hell Vyland does.

Ridersbane. Remember you kept mentioning it in the other topic? Doubling isn't a big issue when you OHKO.

You also didn't mention that Gordon doesn't reach 19 AS until 15/15, and doesn't reach 20 until around 15/18. THAT isn't happening either.

Neither of these characters is reaching a high enough level to be able to double anything but unpromoted enemies. Therefore, Ridersbane>Gordon.

I'd really be interested in knowing exactly how much weight is being put on Gordin's earlygame, because him and Matthis are like...the exact same character.

Gordin Base Growths: 20 HP, 10 Str, 5 Spd, 20 Def
Matthis Base Growths: 50 HP, 25 Str, 10 Spd, 15 Def

Matthis is much better in this category

Both have 0 in every base stat, except for 2 in HP.

Because of how shitty archers are, I don't think we can even assume that Gordin is going that route. I think you could definitely make a case for Matthis>Gordin as well

Well, both are fish out of water in any other class. Matthis loses his lance rank, and Gordon loses his bow rank, of which eventually lets him use silver bows at around the same time George comes around, of which very little would differ between them at that time. Matthis on hte other hand could soon get the C rank glory weapon we all know and love, the Ridersbane.

Basically, Ridersbane vs Silver bow. Ridersbane might be better, but Gordon only has to share silver bows with George until Kashim gets the rank himself (granted, not a long wait). So it's usefulness vs virtual monopoly (Gordon is a seal away from being better than George forever).

Then consider as their own class, Gordon can at least keep a form of use, in that eventually he can snipe dracos out of the sky with Parthia. Matthis's ridersbane is far more available by then, but Matthis himself is now slow garbage. He'll just get his ass kicked, while Gordon can cop out with the "snipers can't really be un-useful" deal.

So really, both have minimal uses as their base class, but at least Gordon stays stably bland, while Matthis only stands to get worse and worse.

It's close, but I'd take the earlygame>never actually needed to be used.

Still depends entirely on whether or not you're actually going to use them up to promotion and such.

I guess thats up to FE3_Player to determine.

CAT5 wrote:Still depends entirely on whether or not you're actually going to use them up to promotion and such.

Why would you though? Gordon's the only one who really "improves" after promotion, despite just how short-lived that improvement is.

Still depends entirely on whether or not you're actually going to use them up to promotion and such.

Gordon: No.

Matthis: Yes.

The reasoning being that Gordon has more positive utility without being trained. Matthis' positive is mostly not taking a unit slot in Ch. 4 and Gaiden Sacrifice luring.

So......you're saying that Gordin wins? Because Matthis's utility is also more positive without being trained for long-term use.

CAT5 wrote:So......you're saying that Gordin wins? Because Matthis's utility is also more positive without being trained for long-term use.

If you mean Ridersbane, he needs to be trained for that too. D rank lance base is not C rank. You need him to attempt at least 30 blows to be useful. Gordon's not having to deal with that.

Gordin doesn't have Ridersbane access period, so I don't really see how that turns out as an advantage for him. Although I certainly agree that Matthis won't be trained up to C Lances, not when you already have Abel.

CAT5 wrote:Gordin doesn't have Ridersbane access period, so I don't really see how that turns out as an advantage for him. Although I certainly agree that Matthis won't be trained up to C Lances, not when you already have Abel.

Chip something, now you can kill without wasting money on forging the damn thing.

Guess who's not whiffing half the time?

CAT5 wrote:So......you're saying that Gordin wins? Because Matthis's utility is also more positive without being trained for long-term use.

I didn't say anything about either winning. I'm just saying how they're likely used.

Well, I asked whether you would actually use them up to promotion or not, and you said no for Gordin but yes for Matthis. Which is sort of inconsistent.

CAT5 wrote:Well, I asked whether you would actually use them up to promotion or not, and you said no for Gordin but yes for Matthis. Which is sort of inconsistent.

I think he meant if it's important for them to be used up till promotion to be useful.

Gordon: No, he's forced, so he's already useful.

Matthis: Yes, he can't be useful if he's not being used.

CAT5 wrote:Gordin doesn't have Ridersbane access period, so I don't really see how that turns out as an advantage for him. Although I certainly agree that Matthis won't be trained up to C Lances, not when you already have Abel.

I don't understand how Abel existing has any bearing on whether or not Matthis could possibly reach C lances. Mind explaining that one to me?

ChaosNinji wrote:

CAT5 wrote:Gordin doesn't have Ridersbane access period, so I don't really see how that turns out as an advantage for him. Although I certainly agree that Matthis won't be trained up to C Lances, not when you already have Abel.

I don't understand how Abel existing has any bearing on whether or not Matthis could possibly reach C lances. Mind explaining that one to me?

30 battles to reach C rank still takes time, and we got Hardin, Jeigen and Abel already able to use it. Then consider other D lancers, such as Vyland, Roshea, soon to come general Zagaro and Wolf (if you choose them to go that route), possibly Cain if he got to D rank by chapter 4.

It's said that healing becomes less meaningful the more people can use it. I could see the same going for the ridersbane.

Well, I asked whether you would actually use them up to promotion or not, and you said no for Gordin but yes for Matthis. Which is sort of inconsistent.

How is it inconsistent? Using Matthis up to/after promotion is the only way he can be used. Gordon can be tiered as being ditched after his utility period.

Grandjackal wrote:

CAT5 wrote:Gordin doesn't have Ridersbane access period, so I don't really see how that turns out as an advantage for him. Although I certainly agree that Matthis won't be trained up to C Lances, not when you already have Abel.

Chip something, now you can kill without wasting money on forging the damn thing.

Guess who's not whiffing half the time?

So I'm using up a unit slot that could be used fielding an extra healer, or sacrifical lamb just so I have to slow down my efficiency so that Gordon can actually keep up with the main group to chip pathetic damage? When I could spend less then $5000 to have a character OHKO consistently. Simply put, Gordin can not be used in an efficient playthrough beyond like...Chapter 2. Unless you're making him a curate, in which case there are dozens of better options, and curates are still not all that useful in efficient play.

Gordin is only as high as he is because of earlygame. Thats it, you'd be stupid to use him past that.

IOS wrote:

Grandjackal wrote:

CAT5 wrote:Gordin doesn't have Ridersbane access period, so I don't really see how that turns out as an advantage for him. Although I certainly agree that Matthis won't be trained up to C Lances, not when you already have Abel.

Chip something, now you can kill without wasting money on forging the damn thing.

Guess who's not whiffing half the time?

So I'm using up a unit slot that could be used fielding an extra healer, or sacrifical lamb just so I have to slow down my efficiency so that Gordon can actually keep up with the main group to chip pathetic damage? When I could spend less then $5000 to have a character OHKO consistently. Simply put, Gordin can not be used in an efficient playthrough beyond like...Chapter 2. Unless you're making him a curate, in which case there are dozens of better options, and curates are still not all that useful in efficient play.

Gordin is only as high as he is because of earlygame. Thats it, you'd be stupid to use him past that.

And you'd be wasting your time using Matthis at all, your point?

And you'd be wasting your time using Matthis at all, your point?

It's statements like this that are why you're soft banned. Why the heck are you still posting?

Grandjackal wrote:
30 battles to reach C rank still takes time, and we got Hardin and Abel already able to use it. Then consider other D lancers, such as Vyland, Roshea, soon to come general Zagaro and Wolf (if you choose them to go that route), possibly Cain if he got to D rank by chapter 4.

You can pretty much discount Vyland and Roshe, possibly General Zag and Wolf, since Hero seems to be the better choice if we're trying to be efficient.

That being said, I don't think that using Cain, Abel, Hardin, and Matthis in the same playthrough is likely at all.

It's said that healing becomes less meaningful the more people can use it. I could see the same going for the ridersbane.

Depends on how you look at it. Gordin can't use it, so it's a point for Matthis, even if a bunch of other people can.

FE3_Player wrote:

And you'd be wasting your time using Matthis at all, your point?

It's statements like this that are why you're soft banned. Why the heck are you still posting?

Because you're the only one crying about it, from the looks of it.

But fine, lemme restate myself.

You could train up Matthis's rank to do what any other D base rank lancer can do.

Because you're the only one crying about it, from the looks of it.

Yes, and I happen to be the one running the H5 tier list. It's because of your complete lack of regard for people's arguments as to why I don't want you debating here anymore.

FE3_Player wrote:

Well, I asked whether you would actually use them up to promotion or not, and you said no for Gordin but yes for Matthis. Which is sort of inconsistent.

How is it inconsistent? Using Matthis up to/after promotion is the only way he can be used. Gordon can be tiered as being ditched after his utility period.

Yes, and when this is done, Gordin is contributing more towards an efficient run. So you're saying that Gordin wins?

I don't understand how Abel existing has any bearing on whether or not Matthis could possibly reach C lances. Mind explaining that one to me?

The point is that, despite possible Ridersbane access, training Matthis is still not worth your time.

Yes, and when this is done, Gordin is contributing more towards an efficient run. So you're saying that Gordin wins?

I'm not directly saying "Gordon wins". If that's what you want to think constitutes a win, sure, but people may still think that training Matthis/Vyland for an overall gain > Gordon's utility.

The simple fact is that they're not worth training, period. They're low tier. I can provide the numbers and the evidence if you want. If Matthis/Vyland were worth training whereas Gordin wasn't, that would be one thing, but that isn't the case. None of the 3 are worth raising for long-term use, so you might as well hold them all to the same standard (in which case either Gordin wins or the other two beat him, depending on which way you look at it).

Well, like I keep saying, I am neutral.

And... *checks tier list* I just now realized there is a tier gap. I suppose I'm obliged to change that.

FE3_Player wrote:Well, like I keep saying, I am neutral.

And... *checks tier list* I just now realized there is a tier gap. I suppose I'm obliged to change that.

Fine with him dropping, but would you be so kind as to drop George down with him? 2 move and not needing a seal is fine, but he's neither forced, nor is he important (chip when your army is struggling earlygame, or chip when your army is starting to pick itself up along with being far better equipped? Hmmm...).

Fine with George above Gordon, but in the very least, a tier shouldn't be the difference between them.

Absolutely not.

FE3_Player wrote:Absolutely not.

Explain the reasoning as to why then, other than the words "I'm on the softban list", because saying I'm on the soft ban list will say 2 things.

1. You don't actually have a reason (To show that they aren't that different, my attempt to get Gordon over George in another topic only proved to show the only real difference between them is a seal and 2 move, which isn't an entire tier of difference).

2. You only ignore it because it's me saying it. If others don't like this suggestion, I'll hear them say it and then I'll back off.

Yes I tend to jump the gun and go berserk with a stupid idea every now and then, but I'm positive this isn't one of them.

Yes, it is because you're on the soft ban list. I take it seriously.

FE3_Player wrote:Yes, it is because you're on the soft ban list. I take it seriously.

You take serious an idea that no one could take seriously?

Again, if it's a stupid idea, more than you will tell me that. If you're gonna deny this move, give me an actual reason other than you just don't like me.

The only way I could accept an argument from you, regardless of whether it's good or not, is if others pressure me to accept it. Your opinion is pretty much invalidated for the most part now.

FE3_Player wrote:The only way I could accept an argument from you, regardless of whether it's good or not, is if others pressure me to accept it. Your opinion is pretty much invalidated for the most part now.

What I don't hear from you is a disagreement. My argument is invalid simply because I am me, the person you don't happen to like? Yes, I tend to jump the trigger on many a hairbrained ideas, but notice how I come to my senses eventually and stop pushing an idea? Wanna know why? I was given reasons as to why an idea was psychotic. Maybe if I never got it through my head that these ideas were too messed up to work, I could understand. Hwever, that is not hte case, or all my crazy topics would still be ongoing and I would still be trying to defend them.

Now explain to me how this is one of those ideas, when it was agreed that they aren't much different in another topic. Look at the George and Gordon topic, see that everyone seemed to agree that though George might be cheaper, he's not that much more important nor that much better than Gordon. We all seemed to settle on that idea.

Now why is it suddenly illogical to assume that wherever Gordon goes, George goes with him?

You weren't soft banned because of an idea. You were soft banned because of a strawman.

And I don't disagree or agree with George vs. Gordon because I am neutral, but if you're on the ban list, there is nothing I can do to accept your argument.

FE3_Player wrote:You weren't soft banned because of an idea. You were soft banned because of a strawman.

And I don't disagree or agree with George vs. Gordon because I am neutral, but if you're on the ban list, there is nothing I can do to accept your argument.

A single strawman got me on the softban? Get over yourself, like I'm the only one who had ever done so (granted I tend to slip up as one of my more insane ideas loses credibility, but that's no reason to ban me, rather it's a reason to see that I am slowly accepting defeat).

Let's not let a single strawman break our backs, shall we? I'm starting to learn a bit of humility, I'm starting to stop early before one of these ideas blows up too far yet again, I'm better approaching in introducing an idea. If I start to get out of control, don't ban me, just tell me to my face that I might be trying to hard to win at that point rather than to make a logical conclusion on the list. Good chances are I will listen and withdraw.

'Twas my last slip-up, and it won't happen again. I will use a new process in that before I post any scheme here, I'll discuss it with others over AIM or something before it just spills out and gets out of hand on here or serenes.

I still don't think this is an illogical conclusion (the Gordon/George deal), but if you are not quite decided one way or the other quite yet, I will wait patiently for others to pipe in.

A single strawman got me on the softban? Get over yourself, like I'm the only one who had ever done so (granted I tend to slip up as one of my more insane ideas loses credibility, but that's no reason to ban me, rather it's a reason to see that I am slowly accepting defeat).

That was a terrible thread anyway, full of bad arguments from you, but that strawman was the breaking point because you disowned a credible source of evidence (actually playing the game) in a mocking manner. I found this disrespectful. Learn to accept defeat quicker.

Let's not let a single strawman break our backs, shall we? I'm starting to learn a bit of humility, I'm starting to stop early before one of these ideas blows up too far yet again, I'm better approaching in introducing an idea. If I start to get out of control, don't ban me, just tell me to my face that I might be trying to hard to win at that point rather than to make a logical conclusion on the list. Good chances are I will listen and withdraw.

'Twas my last slip-up, and it won't happen again. I will use a new process in that before I post any scheme here, I'll discuss it with others over AIM or something before it just spills out and gets out of hand on here or serenes.

See, I would be less disrespectful to you had you said something like this to me right as you get soft banned, but you kept posting and making arguments.

I'll tell you what, I'll remove you from the soft ban list, but Jeorge will not drop with Gordon for this argument.






































Nevermind that Gordon never dropped in the first place.

FE3_Player wrote:That was a terrible thread anyway, full of bad arguments from you, but that strawman was the breaking point because you disowned a credible source of evidence (actually playing the game) in a mocking manner. I found this disrespectful. Learn to accept defeat quicker.

I'll admit, though an idea tends to start with me thinking it's an actual idea, I'm too much of a sore loser to accept defeat too quickly. It's a bad habit.

See, I would be less disrespectful to you had you said something like this to me right as you get soft banned, but you kept posting and making arguments.

Was one of those moments, I was on the defensive. When I get defensive, pretty much every sense of the word can be applied to me when it comes to it.

I'll tell you what, I'll remove you from the soft ban list, but Jeorge will not drop with Gordon for this argument.

Not yet anyways? *charming smile*

Nevermind that Gordon never dropped in the first place.

Neh? Thought you said you were dropping him.

...Well you would agree George in Mid would be insane, right?

Neh? Thought you said you were dropping him.

No. I said I was closing the gap.

Learn to actually look at the tier list.

FE3_Player wrote:]No. I said I was closing the gap.

Learn to actually look at the tier list.

Oi oi, just misread something ya said is all.

I'm fine with closing the gap though, just as long as the 2 cavs don't get above Gordon.

Looking at the list though, what exactly has them below Ymir? Sure, Ymir needs no training to be a solid filler hero with an axe rank for the 3 pole axes you have, but with the minimal effort of putting in rank for Vyland and Matthis, them using Ridersbane would have quite a bit more long-term profits than Ymir could muster up, due to their availability. Their time with the ridersbane, they can claim to OHKO enemies at a far more dangerous time.

Paladin:
46 HP
26 atk
94 (95) hit
16 AS
11 def
7 res

Ymir starts with 17 Str as a hero. Poleaxe is 9x3, so that would be 44 mt, so he would do 33 damage on his debut. You'd need to forge 5 might onto that pole axe to one shot that guy, which is 7,875 gold. That's nearly an entire small bullion. Not only do we need to forge less might on the Ridersbane for it's time (possibly only +3 might), we didn't have to buy the original weapon because it dropped into our lap for free.

So while a bit of effort would have to go into Vyland and Matthis to get their ranks up, they aren't nearly as expensive to prove their worth, and they have a longer time to prove themselves.

Ymir is going to drop anyway because we're warp skipping late game chapters.

Your same argument that Ymir can't OHKO Paladins without a forge applies to Vyland too. Vyland needs to be level 20/12 to double 16 AS Paladins as a Dragon Knight, which I don't see as reasonable at all. He'll do up to 40 damage otherwise. Both are sharing this same problem.

If Matthis & Vyland were easy to train and we got decent characters out of it, they wouldn't be so low to begin with.

Ch. 10 Cavaliers have 34 HP and 8-9 Def. Vyland's Str doesn't exceed their Def values unpromoted, and he needs to either be 20/1 or 15/6 to double 10 AS variations. The result is around 25-28 damage. He is two-rounded by them until 20/1 or 15/3.

Matthis is better Def wise, but he's still two-rounded until Level 17 unpromoted or level 15/1.

I'm not seeing anything special other than "Ridersbane is good". I am ignoring the fact that these two need to be trained. Going any other class, they're not using Ridersbane anyway. My only conclusion is leaning towards Matthis > Vyland.

Ymir is going to drop unrelated to these two.

Wouldn't ya know it, I make an argument the moment I'm unbanned, and it ends up in the weirdest way.

Decided to check up on some factors on Matthis and Vyland lategame, and it seems the best they got is that Vyland as a draco with an axe and Hardin can make the enemy flip coins so he can have extra player phases, and Matthis I rechecked to discover that he would be worse, as though despite he's more durable, his support isn't quite as close by and he's quad'd.

So yeah, guess that argument started with nothing, ended with nothing. Pardon me then.