Fire Emblem Genesis

screw playing, i want to argue about it on the internet


You are not connected. Please login or register

Hardin > Cain

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 Hardin > Cain on Fri Dec 25, 2009 12:54 am

I think a case can be made here. Let's start with the simple fact: Cain has 4 chapters over Hardin. Granted, not being able to use a Javelin is a problem and needing to resort to a Sword to keep his durability on-par is the thing. So let's look at when Hardin joins in 6.

Hardin - 24 HP | 9 Str | 7 Skl | 8 Spd | 3 Luck | 8 Def | 1 Res
Silver Lance - 23 Atk
Javelin - 17 Atk
Steel Sword - 16 Atk (w/WTD)

Cain - 23.75 HP | 8.75 Str | 7.5 Skl | 8.5 Spd | 5 Luck | 8 Def | 0 Res
Steel Sword - 16 Atk (w/WTD)
Javelin - 16 Atk
Steel Lance - 18 Atk

The two problems Cain has in comparison to Hardin is not being able to have a completely solid Lance rank. Having C by the time Hardin joins is probably tredging on the lines of impossible. Meanwhile, Hardin has a 5 Atk lead with a Silver Lance in comparison to Cain's Steel Lance. Cain MIGHT have the upper hand on using Armorslayer, but at best is moot since it comes in C6 and Armor Knights don't reappear until C8, thus Hardin has time to build up a Sword rank.

Hardin having a natural Lance advantage makes building Sword rank easy to do with no penalty. Granted it only helps vs. Armor Knights, but it allows Hardin to one up Cain most of the time. Cain might not reach Ridersbane until C8, I'd assume. Silvers might be longer, though promotion has the possibility of closing that. So just a quick glance at C7 and how the Silver Lance really helps:

8 Hardin - 25 HP | 9.6 Str | 8.1 Skl | 9.1 Spd | 3.6 Luck | 8.4 Def | 1 Res
8 Cain - 25.25 HP | 9.45 Str | 8.5 Skl | 9.5 Spd | 5.8 Luck | 8.4 Def | 0 Res

Silver Lance - 24 Atk
Steel Lance - 19 Atk
Code:
Chapter 7

2 Archer lvl 3 [1 Steel Bow, 1 Long Bow]
2 Merc [1 lvl 3 1 lvl 5]
1 Thief lvl 3
2 Armor lvl 3
1 Priest lvl 1
1 Wyvern lvl 2
2 Peg [1 lvl 1 1 lvl 3]
Code:
Archer 3 (Steel Bow): 29 (30) HP, 18 atk, 93 hit, 9 AS, 6 def, 0 (1) res, 4 crit
Long Bow: 29 (30) HP, 18 atk, 83 hit, 9 AS, 6 def, 0 (1) res, 4 crit
The Silver Lance can 2RKO while the Steel Lance!Cain fails (13 daage per round).
Code:
Wyvern 2 (Steel Lance):38 HP, 23 atk, 93 hit, 14 (15) AS, 10 def, 3 res, 4 crit
Cain does 9 damage while Hardin does 14 damage. +1 Mt on that Silver Lance can 2HKO the Wyvern! Granted both get doubled.
Code:
Merc 3 (Steel Sword): 29 HP, 20 atk, 101 hit, 13 AS, 6 def, 5 crit

Merc 5 (Steel Sword): 31 (32) HP, 21 atk, 101 (102) hit, 14 AS, 6 def, 0 (1) res, 5 (6) crit
Apply the same sitation of Archers #RKOed to Mercenaries. Hardin still beats him.
Code:
Peg 1 (Steel Lance): 29 (30) HP, 19 atk, 91 (92) hit, 13 AS, 5 def, 6 res, 3 crit

Peg 3 (Steel Lance): 31 (32) HP, 19 atk, 92 hit, 14 AS, 6 def, 6 res, 3 crit
Same thing here really. Cain 3RKOes, Hardin 2RKOes.
Code:
Thief 3(Steel Sword): 26 (27) HP, 16 (17) atk, 98 hit, 13 AS, 1 (2) def, 4 crit [His AS will lower if he gets low str because steel weighs him down]
Probably the only time their #RKO actually matches aside from the Priest.

So in short: Hardin's capability of using the Silver Lance is a major boon to the team's offense. Cain is waiting for a while before he gets his chance at a Silver Lance.

Aside from that, they're pretty similair once Cain decides to get C and B Lances. Still, given the circumstances that earlygame it's slightly more efficient to use a Sword and that he needs 37 phases of combat to get Ridersbane, 67 for Silver Lance, should help you understand that Cain is at a disadvantage offensively for a while. So Cain's only real advantage is earlygame where he's only a minor positive, at best.



Last edited by Colonel M on Tue Dec 29, 2009 2:50 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile

2 Re: Hardin > Cain on Fri Dec 25, 2009 2:20 am

I'd say that 4 chapters of Cain contributing positively (with forced deployment until atleast Ch 4, iirc) outweighs Hardin doing better while both exist for a similar amount of time. Cain's contributions before Hardin joins are at no opportunity cost (or for Ch 4, it might be something like Cain vs Gordin or some other crappy unit who would be your next best option for a slot), whereas after Hardin joins, his contributions over Cain are still only equal to his worth minus Cain's worth.

View user profile

3 Re: Hardin > Cain on Fri Dec 25, 2009 7:27 am

CAT5 wrote:I'd say that 4 chapters of Cain contributing positively (with forced deployment until atleast Ch 4, iirc) outweighs Hardin doing better while both exist for a similar amount of time. Cain's contributions before Hardin joins are at no opportunity cost (or for Ch 4, it might be something like Cain vs Gordin or some other crappy unit who would be your next best option for a slot), whereas after Hardin joins, his contributions over Cain are still only equal to his worth minus Cain's worth.
Hardin is doing better vs. most enemies until Cain gets C Lances. Not that I'm going to use Int's Efficient run for an example, but you'd have to favor a rather weaker option in the earlier chapters of the game constantly just to get Javelins. Then it's a little easier to get Ridersbane, but at best he might get it Chapter 7 or 8. So he could tie the Cavaliers at least, but Hardin would still have an offensive win against, practically, everything else since Cain needs the Silver Lance to compare as well.

While I'm not totally throwing out Cain's 4 chapters (3 of them being forced), he's not exactly the most stellar unit on the team. He's almost the worst since he actually lacks a two range (so he's probably better than Marth) in Chapter 1. In Chapter 2, he has Ogma and co. to rival against him. Ogma's having a much better Player Phase in most instances than Cain, so again he's comparing to be pretty bad. The only good news is Draug, and possibly Gordin, are worse than him now.

When Hardin joins, offensively, he's one of your better offensive units in comparison to the team. Just the Silver Lance alone puts him on Jeigan's offense, which isn't exactly the worst at this point. The only units he's possibly losing to at that point is possibly Ogma if he's doubling, Shiida w/Wing Spear, and Barst w/Steel has maybe 2 Atk less than him, to give an example

So it's mainly if his 4 chapters outweigh possibly 2-3 chapters without Ridersbane and more without the Silver Lance, in which it could be argued that it doesn't.

View user profile

4 Re: Hardin > Cain on Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:26 am

Let's not forget that in chapter 2, some axers have 10 AS, which would double Cain's 6 speed base. Either a coin flip or 2 levels (how is Cain getting 2 levels?), but if you fail at either, Cain's your biggest detriment. Even worse is if he gets screwed and doesn't get speed even after 2 levels, because chapter 3 ALL axers have 10 speed.

While Cain does indeed have 4 more chapters, 2 of those chapters require a sort of luck to keep Cain steady, otherwise he's boned right at the start.

Hardin's bases being perfectly fine for a good while I'd say is another fine advantage he has over Cain, as Cain's start is a bit more wobbly than people figure due to his base speed.

I do agree with the Colonel, but I know I tried this before (though yes, ended up in an argument that embaressed me on a spectacular level even by my standards). If what CATS says works for FE3 Player, not much argument for us, cause it worked before.

View user profile

5 Re: Hardin > Cain on Fri Dec 25, 2009 2:33 pm

I don't think I've ever seen a 10 AS Pirate; only 8-9. The Fighters do have 10 AS.

View user profile

6 Re: Hardin > Cain on Fri Dec 25, 2009 3:17 pm

Hardin is doing better vs. most enemies until Cain gets C Lances. Not that I'm going to use Int's Efficient run for an example, but you'd have to favor a rather weaker option in the earlier chapters of the game constantly just to get Javelins. Then it's a little easier to get Ridersbane, but at best he might get it Chapter 7 or 8. So he could tie the Cavaliers at least, but Hardin would still have an offensive win against, practically, everything else since Cain needs the Silver Lance to compare as well.

While I'm not totally throwing out Cain's 4 chapters (3 of them being forced), he's not exactly the most stellar unit on the team. He's almost the worst since he actually lacks a two range (so he's probably better than Marth) in Chapter 1. In Chapter 2, he has Ogma and co. to rival against him. Ogma's having a much better Player Phase in most instances than Cain, so again he's comparing to be pretty bad. The only good news is Draug, and possibly Gordin, are worse than him now.

Irrelevant. There's no opportunity cost of deployment, so Cain being worse than whoever else doesn't matter.

Yes, Silver Lance and etc. I'm still fairly sure that the gap between having a Cav with B Lances vs a Cav with D Lances is smaller than the gap between having Cain there and not having Hardin there.

Hardin needs to be twice as good as Cain, literally, after joining in order to stack up against those early maps. Assume that Hardin is worth 4 points, Cain is worth 2, and just do the math. If you feel that Lance rank alone is enough to make Hardin's performance literally twice that of Cain's, then go ahead, but I probably won't buy it (even if it made his offense twice as good, it does little or nothing for his defense).

View user profile

7 Re: Hardin > Cain on Fri Dec 25, 2009 3:30 pm

It's been proven that Abel can match Hardon's bases with little effort, so the only differential is Hardon's rank for a few chapters.

Although in Hardon's defense, he's gauranteed to use Silver when it's buyable, Cain's not.

I've never been 100% sold on Hardon>Cain but I don't necessarily disagree with the logic either.

View user profile

8 Re: Hardin > Cain on Fri Dec 25, 2009 3:40 pm

CAT5 wrote:
Hardin is doing better vs. most enemies until Cain gets C Lances. Not that I'm going to use Int's Efficient run for an example, but you'd have to favor a rather weaker option in the earlier chapters of the game constantly just to get Javelins. Then it's a little easier to get Ridersbane, but at best he might get it Chapter 7 or 8. So he could tie the Cavaliers at least, but Hardin would still have an offensive win against, practically, everything else since Cain needs the Silver Lance to compare as well.

While I'm not totally throwing out Cain's 4 chapters (3 of them being forced), he's not exactly the most stellar unit on the team. He's almost the worst since he actually lacks a two range (so he's probably better than Marth) in Chapter 1. In Chapter 2, he has Ogma and co. to rival against him. Ogma's having a much better Player Phase in most instances than Cain, so again he's comparing to be pretty bad. The only good news is Draug, and possibly Gordin, are worse than him now.

Irrelevant. There's no opportunity cost of deployment, so Cain being worse than whoever else doesn't matter.
No it still matters. Being forced means that he isn't a major negative in comparison to Dolph who isn't forced and is like your 17th string Fighter.

Look at FE7 Bartre and Rebecca for examples. Just because they're forced doesn't excuse them as negatives. The only advantage is not taking a unit slot and that his other negatives aren't a total blowout. Cain not having 2 range for a while means that most of his combat must be up-close, whereas a unit such as Abel or Barst have the 2 range option to help their durability. Just some examples.
Yes, Silver Lance and etc. I'm still fairly sure that the gap between having a Cav with B Lances vs a Cav with D Lances is smaller than the gap between having Cain there and not having Hardin there.
Not exactly. Hardin also comes at a level near equal to the team's with a weapon rank advantage with no opportunity cost.
Hardin needs to be twice as good as Cain, literally, after joining in order to stack up against those early maps. Assume that Hardin is worth 4 points, Cain is worth 2, and just do the math. If you feel that Lance rank alone is enough to make Hardin's performance literally twice that of Cain's, then go ahead, but I probably won't buy it (even if it made his offense twice as good, it does little or nothing for his defense).
Technically being able to wield a forged Ridersbane and Silver Lance can improve his durabilituy by having a lesser chance of eating a counter.

View user profile

9 Re: Hardin > Cain on Fri Dec 25, 2009 3:41 pm

Colonel M wrote:I don't think I've ever seen a 10 AS Pirate; only 8-9. The Fighters do have 10 AS.

Perhaps it's a rare occurance for chapter 2. Still, talk about unfun times.

Worst luck ever...

View user profile

10 Re: Hardin > Cain on Fri Dec 25, 2009 5:02 pm

Look at FE7 Bartre and Rebecca for examples. Just because they're forced doesn't excuse them as negatives.

Bartre and Rebecca are not negatives during forced chapters. You can't come for free and contribute negatively.

The only advantage is not taking a unit slot and that his other negatives aren't a total blowout. Cain not having 2 range for a while means that most of his combat must be up-close, whereas a unit such as Abel or Barst have the 2 range option to help their durability. Just some examples.

Yes, others are better. This has no effect on Cain's own abilities, and he's not being compared against those other units, so it's meaningless. He's being compared against Hardin, who isn't here yet, so what you should be doing is asking how much Cain is helping by being there as compared to Hardin doing nothing on account of not existing yet.

Not exactly. Hardin also comes at a level near equal to the team's with a weapon rank advantage with no opportunity cost.

With no opportunity cost for Ch 5, where he also happens to be in a very bad position to contribute much if anything.

Past that, yes, opportunity cost.

View user profile

11 Re: Hardin > Cain on Fri Dec 25, 2009 5:10 pm

Losing to Barst is also not a good way to prove a character's poorness. Everybody loses to Barst in the early chapters.

View user profile

12 Re: Hardin > Cain on Mon Dec 28, 2009 10:23 am

Alright, I didn't really want to do this comparison by a bunch of stuff, so this is why Cain being in those chapters is not a major positive:

Marth - 10 Atk
Abel - 11 Atk, 12 w/Javelin
Cain - 12 Atk
Gordin - 13 Atk, 10 w/Iron
Jeigan - 12 w/Sword, 13 w/Javelin, 19 w/Silver Lance
Draug - 13 Atk w/Iron, 14 w/Javelin
Shiida - 11 Atk w/Wing Spear, 10 w/Javelin

Note that Shiida doubles with Wing Spear and procing a Spd level up allows her to double with the Javelin.

Now notice that... just about everyone but Marth has 2 range here. In theory, Abel, Jeigan, Draug, Shiida, and yes, even Gordin have better durability than Kain. The only real exception is Marth, who loses durability to Kain up close anyhow. This also means that Kain has to fight up close in order to contribute anything, and even so Abel would love to pull out his Iron Sword to maybe apporach Armorslayer earlier, Shiida can double w/Wing Spear for a good amount of damage, Jeigan could leeroy with Silver Lance, and Marth obviously needs CEXP in order to contribute just about anything unless he's being a seizebot.

Now, C2. We get 3 more dudes: Ogma, Barst, and Cord. Oh, I guess Bord too. Cord probably helps Cain's case a lot because he too lacks any opportunity for 2 range. As for Ogma, he makes up by being able to double some of the Pirates and have a small, A SMALL, dodging game with them. Draug looks a lot more pale, and I guess Gordin's advantage of 2 range is still superior, so at best Gordin still wins until about C4. Darros can at least use a Hand Axe, but with it weighing him down to being doubled, lol. Darros sucks. I guess having potential 2 range helps him out a little, though. Castor is a superior version of Gordin, so Cain's out of that. And now Marth has Rapier to his advantage against some of the Cavaliers here.

So I'd say Cain is not looking horrible, but a lot of the people that are technically "bad" at this point can avoid combat to an extent. Keep in mind Iron Axe Darros doesn't get doubled by the Pirates. He likely beats or ties Cord.

Finally C3 brings Julian the useless, so finally another unit that he has an advantage on. Bord and Darros aren't doubled with Iron Axe, so good news there. Bord could also theoretically wield the Devil Axe so Barst isn't wasting his time suiciding. So Darros is likely worse than Cain. As for everyone else, Marth still fails here like Cain, Cord isn't hitting D Axes yet, Draug still sucks. Pretty much the usual crew here.

And like I said, his lack of 2 range is a double edged sword. While he is more accurate, people still have the option to pull accuracy out, and in Castor and Gordin's case they are always fairly accurate. Oh, and before you say Navarre is at a disadvantage, 1 level he can likely wield the Killing Edge against the boss, so Cain theoretically loses there too.

So overall, Cain is not looking to have a major positive in the chapters that he exists, so his availability advantage over Hardin is not that big. Not saying suddenly that Cain is a negative, by the way, but Hardin not existing does not suddenly mean that Hardin stands no chance against Cain. Hardin with the Silver Lance is still one of your best offensive units. When I say "he beats Barst!", that's pretty good considering Barst has one of the more solid offensive attributes at this point barring Jeigan w/Silver Lance. And, once again, not to mention that Cain lacking Ridersbane for a time period does hurt as well.

I can't really express it with numbers because it's really his ranks vs. availability here. If we even used your "theoretical" system, I'd almost say Hardin is worth 5 points to Cain's 2 anyhow.

View user profile

13 Re: Hardin > Cain on Mon Dec 28, 2009 3:41 pm

Yes, others are better. This has no effect on Cain's own abilities, and he's not being compared against those other units, so it's meaningless.

As for Hardin being worth 5 to Cain's 2, lol, you're seriously claiming he's over twice as useful purely because of his weapon rank?

Let's go back to the old Hardin > Abel topic. BB compared Abel to Hardin, but Cain's stats are extremely similar to Abel's, so this should work for him too.

Thief 3(Steel Sword): 27 HP, 16 atk, 98 hit, 13 AS, 1 (2) def, 4 crit

2RKOing vs 2RKOing. Next.


Cav 3(Steel Lance): 31(32) HP, 22 atk, 92 (93) hit, 9 AS, 8 def, 3(4) crit
Silver Lance: 31(32) HP, 22 atk, 101 (102) hit, 9 AS, 8 def, 3(4) crit

Any leads Hardon has are made minimal due to Ridersbane.

Archer 1 (Steel Bow): 28 HP, 18 (19) atk, 92 (93) hit, 8 (9) AS, 6 def, 3 (4) crit
Archer 3 (Steel Bow): 29 (30) HP, 19 (20) atk, 94 hit, 9 AS, 6 (7) def, 0 (1) res, 4 crit

liek wow. He can kill Archers in one less hit, when Archers are fucked if you 1 range them anyway. This is nearly as bad as Grandjackal hype.


Mage 1 (Elfire): 22 HP, 20 atk, 90 (91) hit, 4 (5) AS, 2 def, 3 res, 2 (3) crit

Mage 3 (Elfire): 22 (23) HP, 21 atk, 91 (92) hit, 5 AS, 2 (4) def, 3 res, 3 crit

Hardon can't OHKO either, so Silver Lance does him no good here.


6x

Archer 1 (Iron Bow): 25 HP, 16 atk, 104 hit, 8 AS, 3 lck, 6 def, 4 crit
Steel Bow: 25 HP, 19 atk, 94 hit, 8 AS, 3 lck, 6 def, 4 crit

They're helpless once 1 ranged, and Abel just misses a 2RKO, so archer dies from getting breathed on after anyway. Are we really going to waste Silver Lance uses on Archers of all things, anyway?


Archer 3 (Iron Bow): 26 (27) HP, 16 atk, 104 hit, 9 AS, 3 (4) lck, 6 (7) def, 0 (1) res, 4 crit
Steel Bow: 26 (27) HP, 19 atk, 94 hit, 9 AS, 3 (4) lck, 6 (7) def, 0 (1) res, 4 crit

-

Pirate 3 (Iron Axe): 33 (34) HP, 20 (22) atk, 100 (101) hit, 8(9) AS, 5 def, 0 (1) res, 2 (3) crit
Steel Axe: 33 (34) HP, 23 (25) atk, 90 (91) hit, 8(9) AS, 5 def, 0 (1) res, 2 (3) crit
Hand Axe: 33 (34) HP, 21 (23) atk, 80 (81) hit, 8(9) AS, 5 def, 0 (1) res, 2 (3) crit

Get this, Hardon's ATK gets cut down by two points [1 from Rank being cancelled, 1 from WTA] so it's possible he'll be missing 2RKOs and thus not be doing any better than Abel against these guys.


Merc lvl 1 (Armorslayer): 28 HP, 18 (19) atk, 91 hit, 12 AS, 5 def, 5 crit

Merc lvl 5: (Iron Sword): 31 HP, 17 atk, (112), 13 (14) AS, 6 def, 0 (1) res, 6 crit

I admit to a win here, but come on, there's four of them on the map.

Mage lvl 1 (Thunder): 22 HP, 17 atk, 100 hit, 5 AS, 2 def, 3 res, 2 crit

Mage lvl 3 (Fire): 22 HP, 17 atk, 111 hit, 7 AS, 2 def, 3 res, 3 crit

He can OHKO mages. I guess it's notable, but when there's only a small handful on the map?

The Silver Lance isn't significant against every enemy, and even when it is, does +4 Mt seriously make Hardin's offense more than twice as powerful as Cain's? I rather doubt it. The only case where you can reasonably argue that is against Cavaliers due to Ridersbane, but there's only one of those at this point and it can be replicated by other units, so its actual worth is questionable. Cain's team is still perfectly capable of utilizing the Ridersbane without Hardin. And again, it's only against one enemy type anyways, Hardin's offense is obviously not over twice as powerful as Cain's.

Then there's defense to consider, which is just as relevant as offense, and which Hardin has no significant victories in (other than avoiding counters against certain enemies with OHKOs, which isn't even close to making his defense twice as good as Cain's overall). Even if his offense is twice as good as Cain's, if their defense is similar, can it really be said that Hardin is worth twice as much as a unit overall? I'd argue no.

View user profile

14 Re: Hardin > Cain on Tue Dec 29, 2009 3:34 pm

BB fudged up a small calculation in there (The ORKOing Mages in 6X, but +1 Mt forge will take care of that), but even so, you are suddenly going to call taking out an enemy with less effort a disadvantage? Note that I'm not exactly calling you out BB (like you call out me once in a while), but come on, seriously. I don't care that you can take them out in one range: it's the point of it. 1 less unit is needed in order to take the enemy Archer out. That's still relevant. Fuck, that's VERY relevant. I also like how you didn't say anything about conceding the Cavaliers to Hardin period. Funny, I don't remember Cain hitting C Lances that fast. In fact, Cain got D Lances on Int's efficient playthrough by 6 and STILL didn't have Ridersbane access by 8. Then a few other notes:
Code:
Armor 3 (Steel Lance): 33 (34) HP, 22 (23) atk, 92 (93) hit, 3 (4) AS, 11 (12) def, 0 (1) res, 3 crit
Any reason why you forgot these units? Hardin 2RKOes with the Silver Lance (22-24 damage), which is still significant to speak about. Now Cain is running low on time because he needs C Lances as fast as he can to attempt to keep up with Hardin's wins. The Armorslayer isn't even here, UH OH! How could someone ignorantly ignore this? By the way, just if you're curious, he does 14-16 damage a round.

Then take those Mercenaries. Just because there's 4 of them is still 4 units that Hardin wins against, not Cain.

Another chapter to just take a miniature glance at is 7. Check this retardedness out.
Code:
Chapter 7

2 Archer lvl 3 [1 Steel Bow, 1 Long Bow]
2 Merc [1 lvl 3 1 lvl 5]
1 Thief lvl 3
2 Armor lvl 3
1 Priest lvl 1
1 Wyvern lvl 2
2 Peg [1 lvl 1 1 lvl 3]
Are you ready?
Code:
Archer 3 (Steel Bow): 29 (30) HP, 18 atk, 93 hit, 9 AS, 6 def, 0 (1) res, 4 crit
Long Bow: 29 (30) HP, 18 atk, 83 hit, 9 AS, 6 def, 0 (1) res, 4 crit
Sure... you could take these guys on close, but Mercenaries lurk around here. Anyway, clean 2RKO with the Silver Lance. As for Cain and his Steel Lance (Level Cool, he does 12 damage or a 3RKO. Oops.
Code:
Wyvern 2 (Steel Lance):38 HP, 23 atk, 93 hit, 14 (15) AS, 10 def, 3 res, 4 crit
Holy fuck. Cain does 9 damage or a 5RKO. Hardin w/Silver makes this a 3RKO. Oh shit, are we going to try to blow this out of the way too? Even though both are doubled, Hardin at least has a reasonable chance to finish one off (13 damage vs. 9).
Code:
Merc 3 (Steel Sword): 29 HP, 20 atk, 101 hit, 13 AS, 6 def, 5 crit
Hardin w/Silver does 17 damage per round, Cain w/Steel does 13 damage per round.
Code:
Merc 5 (Steel Sword): 31 (32) HP, 21 atk, 101 (102) hit, 14 AS, 6 def, 0 (1) res, 5 (6) crit
Pretty much ditto here.
Code:
Peg 1 (Steel Lance): 29 (30) HP, 19 atk, 91 (92) hit, 13 AS, 5 def, 6 res, 3 crit

Peg 3 (Steel Lance): 31 (32) HP, 19 atk, 92 hit, 14 AS, 6 def, 6 res, 3 crit
Repeat.
Code:
Thief 3(Steel Sword): 26 (27) HP, 16 (17) atk, 98 hit, 13 AS, 1 (2) def, 4 crit [His AS will lower if he gets low str because steel weighs him down]
Okay both 2RKO. Fair point. Ditto with the Priest.[/code]
Code:
Boss: Hermine (Silver Lance) 44 HP, 29 (30) atk, 101 hit, 8 AS, 15 def, 3 res, 3 crit
Arguably Hardin could have the Armorslayer access at this point, so at best this would be a tie.

Cain ties vs. 2 unit types on the field offensively. Can anyone say "blowout"?

If Cain even lacks C Lances by C8 (possible), he's losing to Hardin while Hardin is in the grand canyon of Ridersbane utilty. And from there on, he still loses to Hardin offensively when Hardin has his Silver Lance advantage.

Abel can reasonably keep his Lance rank in check because the Javelin gives 1-2 range properties and can help bypass a counterattack. Cain has to resort to an innacurate weapon in comparison to his Iron Sword while still fighting 1 range. That's actually pretty bad for Cain because not only does this mean that Abel has +15 and Hardin has +w/e WEXP over him in the Lance department, it could actually harm his Sword investment to try to help gain a lead on Armor Knights. It's pretty much a lose / lose situation.

On top of this while Hardin can, indeed, be a long-term unit, he can easily be a utilty unit on top of this just because of his Lance ranking. He can easily take Jeigan's role of a... well, the Lance user with power. Also, if the team elects to not use Cain, his team suddenly gets more CEXP to go around. With Hardin, he could still be used momentarily with the team at little opportunity cost barring his availabilty. It takes 22 swings of a Steel Sword to get his Armorslayer access, which could be done on the Archers, Pirates, and Priests from time to time.
The only case where you can reasonably argue that is against Cavaliers due to Ridersbane, but there's only one of those at this point and it can be replicated by other units, so its actual worth is questionable. Cain's team is still perfectly capable of utilizing the Ridersbane without Hardin.
Allow me to give you your options:

- Jeigan
- Abel (if you even bothered to raise him)
- Hardin

Jeigan is actually in trouble. He loses 3 AS from the Ridersbane as is and his 5 AS gets him doubled back by the Cavs. Abel... well I guess he isn't in a much better position than Jeigan is, and on top of it still has to actually be used. It's hard enough to use one Cavalier and carry him through. Then you have Hardin which... wait, aren't you trying to argue AGAINST him? And on top of that, your statement barely matters. Hardin can use it, Cain can't. Advantage: Hardin.

View user profile

15 Re: Hardin > Cain on Tue Dec 29, 2009 4:53 pm

BB fudged up a small calculation in there (The ORKOing Mages in 6X, but +1 Mt forge will take care of that)

+1 Mt on Silver Lance costs more than forging +2 Mt onto a Steel Lance, and the latter forge would allow Cain to 2RKO the Mercs and Pegs that he's otherwise 3RKOing in Ch 7.

Any reason why you forgot these units? Hardin 2RKOes with the Silver Lance (22-24 damage), which is still significant to speak about. Now Cain is running low on time because he needs C Lances as fast as he can to attempt to keep up with Hardin's wins. The Armorslayer isn't even here, UH OH! How could someone ignorantly ignore this? By the way, just if you're curious, he does 14-16 damage a round.

I didn't mention them precisely because Hardin wins against them. The point was to highlight that there are enemies where Hardin's lance rank is not significant.

*junk about hardin having better offense than cain*

You are still very much missing the point. The point is not to dispute whether or not Hardin's offense is better, rather, the point is the extent to which Hardin must be superior in order to override Cain's performance in earlier maps. Recall:

Hardin needs to be twice as good as Cain, literally, after joining in order to stack up against those early maps. Assume that Hardin is worth 4 points, Cain is worth 2, and just do the math.

Frankly, Hardin's offense is not twice as good as Cain's. First off there are in fact enemy types where Hardin has no notable offense advantage to begin with. If he has 2x offense against 80% of the enemies and 1x against the other 20%, then his overall offense is 1.8x better than Cain's. Still not twice as good.

And when Hardin's higher damage is significant, it's still rarely twice as good as what Cain is doing. #RKO isn't relevant against enemies that neither one ORKO (which is the majority of them right now); rather, what really matters is total damage needed to bring down the enemy, since you'll be having multiple units attack it regardless (as opposed to Cain/Hardin trying to take it on solo). For example, against that Ch 7 Draco, Hardin's not close to doing twice as much damage as Cain; he's barely doing 50% more, and it's entirely possible that his extra 4 damage will not make a difference in how many units must attack the Draco in order to bring it down. In which case, his offense is clearly not overall twice as powerful against said enemy.

And also recall:

Then there's defense to consider, which is just as relevant as offense, and which Hardin has no significant victories in (other than avoiding counters against certain enemies with OHKOs, which isn't even close to making his defense twice as good as Cain's overall). Even if his offense is twice as good as Cain's, if their defense is similar, can it really be said that Hardin is worth twice as much as a unit overall? I'd argue no.

Is Hardin better than Cain after joining? No doubt he is. Is his presence on the field worth twice as much as Cain's? Also a no.

Arguably Hardin could have the Armorslayer access at this point, so at best this would be a tie.

Essentially 1 chapter after joining? I think not. The only way he'd get to C Swords that fast is to use nothing but swords between his jointime and now, in which case that lance rank is doing nothing for him.

Allow me to give you your options:

- Jeigan
- Abel (if you even bothered to raise him)
- Hardin

Jeigan is actually in trouble. He loses 3 AS from the Ridersbane as is and his 5 AS gets him doubled back by the Cavs. Abel... well I guess he isn't in a much better position than Jeigan is, and on top of it still has to actually be used. It's hard enough to use one Cavalier and carry him through. Then you have Hardin which... wait, aren't you trying to argue AGAINST him? And on top of that, your statement barely matters. Hardin can use it, Cain can't. Advantage: Hardin.

If losing AS is too much of an issue, reclassing Jeigan to Dracoknight gives him only 1 less Str than base Hardin. Abel's stats should be roughly equal to Hardin's; at L6, his combined Str/Spd is higher than Hardin's base by 0.5. "Has to actually be used" isn't much of an argument against Abel, considering he's forced for the first few chapters and remains a superior option for Ch 4 and 5.

You're missing the point here. Ofcourse being able to use the Ridersbane > not. The point is that it may not be a significant advantage given that there's just 1 Ridersbane and other units capable of using it to similar effect. A character comparison consists of Unit A + team vs Unit B + team; on Cain's team, Abel or Jeigan use the Ridersbane to OHKO Cavs, while perhaps Hardin does on his team (or perhaps not, either way), but in both cases each team has about the same performance in that regard. Both teams have a unit capable of using the one Ridersbane to OHKO Cavs. Hardin's team does not get any significantly larger use out of this weapon due to his presence over Cain.

View user profile

16 Re: Hardin > Cain on Wed Dec 30, 2009 5:30 pm

CAT5, why the hell are you sandbagging Hardin's Ridersbane due to the fact that both teams "have Ridersbane". If you're comparing both characters, you compare them directly and don't sandbag a top-tier weapon that only one has access to because "other characters can use it".

Also, the comparison between +1 Silver Lance for Hardin and +2 Steel Lance for Cain is pretty dumb, considering that you just proved Cain REQUIRES a forge to even compete with Hardin, while Hardin's forge just increases his lead slightly, while still not taking into account the fact that Hardin's Ridersbane allows him to shitstomp Cain during the time that Cain doesn't have Ridersbane access.

4 chapters of availability (in which his usefulness is dubious and worse than most everyone else around) is not enough to make up for getting absolutely destroyed by Hardin as soon as he shows up.

View user profile

17 Re: Hardin > Cain on Wed Dec 30, 2009 6:06 pm

CAT5, why the hell are you sandbagging Hardin's Ridersbane due to the fact that both teams "have Ridersbane". If you're comparing both characters, you compare them directly and don't sandbag a top-tier weapon that only one has access to because "other characters can use it".

The Ridersbane is a resource, just like stat boosters or any other rare weapon, and carries an opportunity cost just like those other resources. Again, obviously not denying that being able to use a power weapon > not, but its significance is indeed reduced by the fact that it's a limited resource and other units are also able to make use of it.

Also, the comparison between +1 Silver Lance for Hardin and +2 Steel Lance for Cain is pretty dumb, considering that you just proved Cain REQUIRES a forge to even compete with Hardin, while Hardin's forge just increases his lead slightly, while still not taking into account the fact that Hardin's Ridersbane allows him to shitstomp Cain during the time that Cain doesn't have Ridersbane access.

"Requires a forge to compete with Hardin?" What are you talking about? I never implied that Cain is getting a forge while Hardin isn't, or anything else along those lines. And I don't know what the Ridersbane has to do with the point at all.

Rather, the point was that if you forge the Silver Lance for Hardin (since Colonel mentioned forging +1 Mt onto it), forging a Steel Lance with roughly the same amount of money is more helpful to Cain than the forged Silver is to Hardin. Colonel mentioned forging, and I responded by explaining how forging doesn't help Hardin's case. I don't see what your complaint is.

4 chapters of availability (in which his usefulness is dubious and worse than most everyone else around) is not enough to make up for getting absolutely destroyed by Hardin as soon as he shows up

Numbers or evidence to support this assertion?

View user profile

18 Re: Hardin > Cain on Wed Dec 30, 2009 6:23 pm

CAT5 wrote:
CAT5, why the hell are you sandbagging Hardin's Ridersbane due to the fact that both teams "have Ridersbane". If you're comparing both characters, you compare them directly and don't sandbag a top-tier weapon that only one has access to because "other characters can use it".

The Ridersbane is a resource, just like stat boosters or any other rare weapon, and carries an opportunity cost just like those other resources. Again, obviously not denying that being able to use a power weapon > not, but its significance is indeed reduced by the fact that it's a limited resource and other units are also able to make use of it.

Why does that matter? You can't shrug off a benefit as massive as early Ridersbane access by just saying "oh, you have other characters that can use it so I don't see why it's a benefit". Limited resource or not, Hardin has just as much of a claim on Ridersbane as Abel and Jagen, and the fact that it's a power weapon that Cain doesn't even have the option of using is a huge downside for Cain. Not to mention that getting Ridersbane in a reasonable time frame negates Cain's only early advantage.

CAT5 wrote:
Also, the comparison between +1 Silver Lance for Hardin and +2 Steel Lance for Cain is pretty dumb, considering that you just proved Cain REQUIRES a forge to even compete with Hardin, while Hardin's forge just increases his lead slightly, while still not taking into account the fact that Hardin's Ridersbane allows him to shitstomp Cain during the time that Cain doesn't have Ridersbane access.

"Requires a forge to compete with Hardin?" What are you talking about? I never implied that Cain is getting a forge while Hardin isn't, or anything else along those lines. And I don't know what the Ridersbane has to do with the point at all.

Rather, the point was that if you forge the Silver Lance for Hardin (since Colonel mentioned forging +1 Mt onto it), forging a Steel Lance with roughly the same amount of money is more helpful to Cain than the forged Silver is to Hardin. Colonel mentioned forging, and I responded by explaining how forging doesn't help Hardin's case. I don't see what your complaint is.

My complaint is that you just proved Cain needs a forge to even compete with Hardin's advantages, which makes Hardin > Cain pretty obvious by your own words.

CAT5 wrote:
4 chapters of availability (in which his usefulness is dubious and worse than most everyone else around) is not enough to make up for getting absolutely destroyed by Hardin as soon as he shows up

Numbers or evidence to support this assertion?

Look up. CM posted a fairly decent comparison showing that Cain isn't fantastic early game, and his only advantage, Steel Sword, ruins his chances of netting Ridersbane at a decent level.

View user profile

19 Re: Hardin > Cain on Wed Dec 30, 2009 6:31 pm

I'm not going to play "ring around the rosie". I think I got SDS support on this, GJ probably doesn't seem... that leery with it (though if you have something positive to say about it, feel free) and I still have BB on the fences. So I actually want to hear other's opinions; especially BB, because of the Abel ordeal and him being on the fence.

I think I proved enough sufficient points to prove it. If anyone other than CATS wants to challenge this (Rody, IOS, etc.) because they think I need more to support it, feel free to say so.

View user profile

20 Re: Hardin > Cain on Wed Dec 30, 2009 7:58 pm

Why does that matter? You can't shrug off a benefit as massive as early Ridersbane access by just saying "oh, you have other characters that can use it so I don't see why it's a benefit". Limited resource or not, Hardin has just as much of a claim on Ridersbane as Abel and Jagen, and the fact that it's a power weapon that Cain doesn't even have the option of using is a huge downside for Cain. Not to mention that getting Ridersbane in a reasonable time frame negates Cain's only early advantage.

Why does it matter? "Why does it not matter?" would be the better question. There was even a huge discussion about this in the general FE forum a while ago; there is always an opportunity cost. The Ridersbane in this case is a limited resource available to multiple units, thus there is clearly an opportunity cost for using it.

Again, not saying that it isn't an advantage, as you seem to imply (using the phrase "so I don't see why it's a benefit" when quoting a summary of my argument). Ofcourse it's a benefit. And I'm saying that the benefit of it is significantly reduced by the opportunity cost.

My complaint is that you just proved Cain needs a forge to even compete with Hardin's advantages, which makes Hardin > Cain pretty obvious by your own words.

No, I proved that the option of forging the Silver Lance is not beneficial to Hardin's case.

"By my own words?" Do quote these words where my argument that forging doesn't help Hardin's case supposedly leads to me proving that Hardin > Cain.

Look up. CM posted a fairly decent comparison showing that Cain isn't fantastic early game, and his only advantage, Steel Sword, ruins his chances of netting Ridersbane at a decent level.

He posted comparisons showing that Cain is not among your best earlygame units, and comparisons showing that Hardin > Cain after Hardin joins (until Cain gets a high lance rank of his own, ofcourse). However, he has not directly responded to my argument, since I'm not challenging either one of those facts.

Hardin needs to be twice as good as Cain, literally, after joining in order to stack up against those early maps. Assume that Hardin is worth 4 points, Cain is worth 2, and just do the math.

This is very simple.

Assume that Cain's presence is worth 2. In an early chapter with no opportunity cost of deployment (i.e. forced deployment for the entire team), then his net contribution over Hardin for that chapter is equal to 2 (2 minus nothing; with Hardin absent from play, he obviously contributes nothing during this chapter).

Assume that Hardin's presence in a chapter after he joins is worth 4. His net contribution over Cain for a chapter in which they're both available is thus also equal to 2 (worth of Hardin minus worth of Cain).

Thus, Hardin's performance must literally be worth twice Cain's performance in order to match Cain's contributions during early chapters.

Do you disagree with this? If so, why? If not, do you honestly think Hardin as a unit overall is worth twice as much as Cain is after joining, and if so, do you have any actual evidence or comparisons to back up that assertion (as opposed to Colonel's comparisons which are just aimed at showing that Hardin outperforms Cain, not showing that Hardin's performance doubles Cain's)?

I'm not going to play "ring around the rosie". I think I got SDS support on this, GJ probably doesn't seem... that leery with it (though if you have something positive to say about it, feel free) and I still have BB on the fences. So I actually want to hear other's opinions; especially BB, because of the Abel ordeal and him being on the fence.

I think I proved enough sufficient points to prove it. If anyone other than CATS wants to challenge this (Rody, IOS, etc.) because they think I need more to support it, feel free to say so.

So the plan is to defeat my argument by getting enough people to vote in favor of yours? I suppose Mekkah's experiment in the FE7 forum is becoming reality.

View user profile

21 Re: Hardin > Cain on Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:44 pm

No, I think I do not need much more to support my claim and the fact that no one aside from SDS weighing in is the ordeal. I am not trying to 100% start democracy (dicTATERship ftw), but I want to hear what "others" have to say about this.

View user profile

22 Re: Hardin > Cain on Wed Dec 30, 2009 10:24 pm

Fair enough I guess.

View user profile

23 Re: Hardin > Cain on Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:29 am

Why does it matter? "Why does it not matter?" would be the better question. There was even a huge discussion about this in the general FE forum a while ago; there is always an opportunity cost. The Ridersbane in this case is a limited resource available to multiple units, thus there is clearly an opportunity cost for using it.
Having an opportunity cost =/= having a larger opportunity cost.

Hardin using the Ridersbane is preventing Abel from using it if you cannot trade it to him (Abel may be able to finish off the enemy anyway, so the opportunity cost is evened out by Abel getting more EXP from the enemy.)

Kain's opportunity cost is the same as above, but he needs to train his lance rank in order to do so, and needs to gain 5 or 6 levels in his opening chapters to match Hardin's bases.

In order to obtain Ridersbane use over Hardin, he will need to fight 33 battles with a Lance in five chapters to match Hardin at his base. Then after that he needs to fight 30 more battles for Silver Lance, so Hardin will have a Lance rank win for a decent time.

Assume that Cain's presence is worth 2. In an early chapter with no opportunity cost of deployment (i.e. forced deployment for the entire team), then his net contribution over Hardin for that chapter is equal to 2 (2 minus nothing; with Hardin absent from play, he obviously contributes nothing during this chapter).

Assume that Hardin's presence in a chapter after he joins is worth 4. His net contribution over Cain for a chapter in which they're both available is thus also equal to 2 (worth of Hardin minus worth of Cain).

Thus, Hardin's performance must literally be worth twice Cain's performance in order to match Cain's contributions during early chapters.

Do you disagree with this? If so, why? If not, do you honestly think Hardin as a unit overall is worth twice as much as Cain is after joining, and if so, do you have any actual evidence or comparisons to back up that assertion (as opposed to Colonel's comparisons which are just aimed at showing that Hardin outperforms Cain, not showing that Hardin's performance doubles Cain's)?
Hardin does not need to be "twice as good" as Kain in order to be above him on the tier list, especially since they are next to each other and will not likely separate.

Hardin WILL have a much stronger game than Kain if you use his early game to his full potential, which is using Swords, and if Kain uses lances his early game will be weaker.

Not only this, but Kain's earlygame is not strong enough to warrant being someone that carries your team.

In Chapter 1, Jeigan and Doga carry your team. Kain should be able to take a hit, but will need to have units spoonfeed him for kills. Abel himself needs to level up, but he has Javelins to double as utility as well as building Lance rank with less risk to his HP.

Chapter 2, you get a more competent sword user that can carry you this chapter (just park him on a fort), and several units that are as forced as he is in the task of weakening. Now Kain is competing for opportunity cost on taking kills. I won't go into detail as it'll just go on a tangent, but I'm fairly confident that they'll all be doing at least as much damage as he is, lowering the significance of his early game.

Oh, and Doga eats Thieves.

Chapter 3

Kain is more useful on this map due to its rush friendly nature and because of 10 AS Pirates prohibiting heavier weapons for some units. Despite this, all units are useful for handing both sides (I know from experience as I often need every unit to attack at once on a single turn.)

View user profile

24 Re: Hardin > Cain on Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:30 am

Yeah, I've heard all I need to.

Hardin is now above Cain on the tier list.

View user profile

25 Re: Hardin > Cain on Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:22 am

Hardin WILL have a much stronger game than Kain if you use his early game to his full potential, which is using Swords, and if Kain uses lances his early game will be weaker.

Not only this, but Kain's earlygame is not strong enough to warrant being someone that carries your team.

I'm tempted to say that my argument is being strawman'd here. For the last time:

No, Cain does not "carry your team" (to use your words) during the early chapters, nor is he exceptional in any way. That's not the point, and I'm pretty sure that I haven't tried to argue anything of the sort. It's not about him being awesome in early chapters, it's about him being there at all, while Hardin is still contributing nothing. Even if he isn't one of your better units, he's clearly helpful. Now going back to this line of logic, which has yet to get an actual response:

Assume that Cain's presence is worth 2. In an early chapter with no opportunity cost of deployment (i.e. forced deployment for the entire team), then his net contribution over Hardin for that chapter is equal to 2 (2 minus nothing; with Hardin absent from play, he obviously contributes nothing during this chapter).

Assume that Hardin's presence in a chapter after he joins is worth 4. His net contribution over Cain for a chapter in which they're both available is thus also equal to 2 (worth of Hardin minus worth of Cain).

Thus, Hardin's performance must literally be worth twice Cain's performance in order to match Cain's contributions during early chapters.


Folks keep arguing that Cain's earlygame isn't impressive for this reason or that, but how good his earlygame is has no relevance whatsoever to the point illustrated in this passage. Nowhere in here is it stated that Cain is exceptional or even good during earlygame. You can assign whatever value you want to Cain's worth in earlygame chapters, 2, 0.2, 200, whatever. The point remains the same regardless: Thanks to the lack of opportunity cost for deployment, Hardin's worth must be twice that of Cain's in order to match per-chapter contributions for those early maps.

Cain's contributions = x
Hardin's contributions = y

Worth of Cain in Ch 1, 2 & 3: x - 0 (no opportunity cost of deployment, Hardin not present)
Worth of Hardin over Cain after Ch 4: y - x

In order for (y - x) to be atleast equal to (x - 0), y must be atleast twice the value of x.

Where's the flaw in this?

Or do you agree with this, and you're arguing that Hardin is in fact contributing twice as much per chapter after joining?

It's not clear which one, since the counter-arguments so far are just "Cain's earlygame is not strong" or "Hardin is better after he joins," neither of which are being disputed at all. The only actual comparisons posted so far have failed to demonstrate that Hardin is twice as good as Cain after joining, and no one's actually responded to the assertion that Hardin needs to be that much better or the logic behind said assertion.

View user profile

26 Re: Hardin > Cain on Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:30 am

You have not defined what actually is twice as good, so there is no reason for us to prove such a thing. A unit slot doesn't hold such a huge cost anyway, and I value taking a unit slot more than needing to be spoonfed Lance rank.

View user profile

27 Re: Hardin > Cain on Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:38 am

Assigning arbitrary values to "cain's performance" and "hardin's performance" and saying "hardin has to be twice as good as cain to be better" is complete bullshit, and I'm not buying it, nor do I feel the need to argue on/against what is an utterly flawed premise.

View user profile

28 Re: Hardin > Cain on Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:04 am

You have not defined what actually is twice as good, so there is no reason for us to prove such a thing.

I gave an argument about it in my most recent response to Colonel's posts, which was conveniently never countered.

To be literally twice as good as another unit, presumably you need to double them in both offense and defense, since those are equally relevant to a unit's performance (or nearly so). If you're only doubling them in offense, then you're doubling them in half of what matters, so you're still not twice as good overall. Only twice as good on offense. And I'm fairly sure that Hardin doesn't double Cain even on offense.

How would you be able to tell if a unit was doubling another unit's offense? Presumably they are able to kill enemies in half the time; ORKO vs 2RKO, or 2RKO vs 4RKO. Or in this particular case:

#RKO isn't relevant against enemies that neither one ORKO (which is the majority of them right now); rather, what really matters is total damage needed to bring down the enemy, since you'll be having multiple units attack it regardless (as opposed to Cain/Hardin trying to take it on solo).

I'll just do Colonel's Ch 7 comparison for this, since it's the only comparison posted so far. Looks like Colonel was assuming L8 for Hardin/Cain, looking at the damage values he posted for each.

Archer: 30 Hp, 6 Def
vs Hardin w/ Silver: 17 damage (2RKO; 41.7% more damage than Cain, only 1.417x as good, not 2x)
vs Cain w/ Steel: 12 damage (3RKO)

Wyvern: 38 Hp, 10 Def
vs Hardin w/ Silver: 14 damage (3RKO; 55.5% more damage than Cain, about 1 and 1/2 of Cain's offense, not 2x)
vs Cain w/ Steel: 9 damage (5RKO)

Merc 3: 29 Hp, 6 Def
same as archer, merc 5's are no different, still 2RKO vs 3RKO and same damage value

Peg 1: 30 Hp, 5 Def
vs Hardin w/ Silver: 18 damage (2RKO; about 40% more damage)
vs Cain w/ Steel: 13 damage (3RKO)

etc

Hardin does not double Cain's offense; he does not double Cain's #RKO's, nor does he double Cain in the amount of pure damage that he's dealing out.

Now I agree that he atleast doubles Cain's offense against Cavs with the Ridersbane, but that's the only case where he's actually that much better. And being 2x against one enemy type clearly doesn't mean he's twice as good in general.

Then there's defense to consider, which is just as relevant as offense, and which Hardin has no significant victories in (other than avoiding counters against certain enemies with OHKOs, which isn't even close to making his defense twice as good as Cain's overall). Even if his offense is twice as good as Cain's, if their defense is similar, can it really be said that Hardin is worth twice as much as a unit overall? I'd argue no.

A unit slot doesn't hold such a huge cost anyway, and I value taking a unit slot more than needing to be spoonfed Lance rank.

What? "You value taking a unit slot more than needing to be spoonfed Lance rank," but, Cain and Hardin both take unit slots, except for Hardin in Ch 5 and Cain in 1/2/3. I don't see what you're trying to say.

Assigning arbitrary values to "cain's performance" and "hardin's performance" and saying "hardin has to be twice as good as cain to be better" is complete bullshit, and I'm not buying it, nor do I feel the need to argue on/against what is an utterly flawed premise.

So you can't explain exactly why it is a flawed premise?

Seriously, I just want to see some semblance of a proper counter-argument before my position can be referred to as "complete bullshit."

View user profile

29 Re: Hardin > Cain on Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:23 am

Once again, there does not need to be "twice as much" of an offensive win in order to be considered slightly better (twice as good is a much larger gap than what we're going for). My (I have not paid attention to Colonel M's arguments) argument is more about arguing getting what is otherwise the same unit but with less EXP cost and no Lance rank issues.

Whether or not Hardin's wins stack up to Kain's forced period (where it truly matters) still needs to look into (SDS pre-maturely ending the argument of such a heated debate wasn't something I felt was a good idea).

View user profile

30 Re: Hardin > Cain on Thu Dec 31, 2009 7:38 am

I don't know where this "twice as good" baloney came from, but there is more to this match-up than merely the opportunity cost of deployment and relative combat performance.


Cain's deployment is basically free for CH1 - CH4, but he's not really doing much with it. He has an accurate 1-range game, but doesn't have solid durability to go along with it, not even with WTA. His primary contribution is as a closer, or bait for Enemy Phase (which requires healing afterwards). Though perhaps more importantly than what he's doing, is what it costs: he's retarding the growth of your other units when he takes a kill. Weakening, not so much, but his options are quite limited there because he's basically guaranteed to take damage in the process unless it's an Archer or something.

Hardin's team has Hardin of course, but it also doesn't have to train Cain. I can have a stronger team heading into CH5 if I am only using Cain for weakening and setting up traps, because units like Caeda and Barst will be able to take more of the kills, and more quickly get into their powerful stages. Hardin doesn't have to do very much to overcome what Cain in Cain's army has done, since what Cain has done isn't very much, and even what he did wasn't free.


The irony of Cain is that using him to efficiently complete early chapters puts him in a position of having an under-leveled Lance rank, and reduces his usefulness afterwards considerably. Misses are death in the earlygame, and not only is his Sword highly accurate, but he has potential opportunities to use a Steel Sword for damage as well. Forcing him to use an Iron Lance for training his rank (and let's be real, that's the only reason that he'd be using one voluntarily except against the odd Thief) reduces his usefulness in the only chapters he has over Hardin in the first place.

View user profile

31 Re: Hardin > Cain on Thu Dec 31, 2009 7:53 am

Except, CATS, you never ever argued yet another premise to my argument, which was similair to Rody' reasonings:
On top of this while Hardin can, indeed, be a long-term unit, he can easily be a utilty unit on top of this just because of his Lance ranking. He can easily take Jeigan's role of a... well, the Lance user with power. Also, if the team elects to not use Cain, his team suddenly gets more CEXP to go around. With Hardin, he could still be used momentarily with the team at little opportunity cost barring his availabilty. It takes 22 swings of a Steel Sword to get his Armorslayer access, which could be done on the Archers, Pirates, and Priests from time to time.
I was, instead, tossed some other arbitrary value of Hardin needing to be twice as good as Cain. Using your logic, not needing CEXP and a set Lance rank is about double in my book, add on to his offensive contributions.

Also, IF Hardin was twice as good as Cain, then Hardin would have a tier difference between him and Cain. x1.5 or w/e arbitrary number logic would define unit a > unit b.



Last edited by Colonel M on Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:33 am; edited 1 time in total

View user profile

32 Re: Hardin > Cain on Thu Dec 31, 2009 9:50 am

Mekkah

avatar
Admin
int writing stuff

Amen this. Cain does not magically get an enormous advantage over Hardin that forces Hardin to be "twice as good" for the rest of the game. If that was the case, I'd say Hardin would be at least a tier above Cain.

View user profile http://fegenesis.forummotion.com

33 Re: Hardin > Cain on Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:03 am

CATS is overgeneralizing the issue, but he's not necessarily incorrect.


Availability is not the end of the world but it DOES play in a character's advantage, and Cain is not godawful during his earlygame. Hardon would have to be notably better than Cain to offset this availability advantage. Is he? That's debatable. Once Silver Lances are buyable, it's less so, but if Hardon's wins against Cain with mid/lategame Silver Lance are just barely relevant, and if Cain can use Silver himself, then so much weight being put on Hardon's 4 chapters of Silver Lance use as opposed to Cain's 4 chapters of availability seems rather iffy.

View user profile

34 Re: Hardin > Cain on Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:13 am

sPortsman wrote:CATS is overgeneralizing the issue, but he's not necessarily incorrect.


Availability is not the end of the world but it DOES play in a character's advantage, and Cain is not godawful during his earlygame. Hardon would have to be notably better than Cain to offset this availability advantage. Is he? That's debatable. Once Silver Lances are buyable, it's less so, but if Hardon's wins against Cain with mid/lategame Silver Lance are just barely relevant, and if Cain can use Silver himself, then so much weight being put on Hardon's 4 chapters of Silver Lance use as opposed to Cain's 4 chapters of availability seems rather iffy.

Not when 6 base speed is involved. There is such a thing as shaky bases. 10 AS is possible in chapter 2, and is the common threat in chapter 3. If he's given 2 levels and he gets screwed, he is just fucked. Using him already is a gamble earlygame.

A bit of Vykan's chaos theory suggestion comes into play with Cain far more than it does with Hardin. Hardin starting off stable is already an advantage he has over Cain, especially since Cain adds nothing new to the table early one, whereas Hardin can play as a third Ridersbane user (the other two being Abel and Jeigen, and Jeigen's not gonna be around forever), and secondary silver lancer (of which Jeigen's only advantage would be A rank).

Hell, he could easily just replace Jeigen, the only difference between them is 2 HP 2 Str 2 Luck in Hardin's favor, 3 Skill 1 Def 5 Res and promoted class selection in Jeigen's favor. While the promoted class deal is nice, easily replacing Jeigen for a longer-running unit sounds a lot better than having to build Cain up from scratch.

View user profile

35 Re: Hardin > Cain on Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:49 pm

I don't consider Silver Lances buyable a strong point if Kain still has trouble getting the rank to use them by C8.

Lance Rank is not Hardin's only advantage. He also doesn't cost 600 EXP (roughly six or seven boss kills or 20 killed units that give 30 EXP) to have a unit with his stats.

View user profile

36 Re: Hardin > Cain on Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:05 pm

There is such a thing as shaky bases.

There is such a thing as it barely hurting him.

And nothing but Hunters have 10 AS, and him proccing a speed in C1 is not impossible.

Furthermore none of that refutes my statement. I don't have a chip in Cain vs Hardain and I'm not arguing for either side. I'm saying CATS's logic does make a degree of sense, he's just overblowing it, somewhat.

I don't consider Silver Lances buyable a strong point if Kain still has trouble getting the rank to use them by C8.


I never said he would have Silver Lances by C8. But I also never said he wouldn't. By C10 it's completely possible. If a bit on the "eh" side.

View user profile

37 Re: Hardin > Cain on Thu Dec 31, 2009 5:43 pm

Once again, there does not need to be "twice as much" of an offensive win in order to be considered slightly better (twice as good is a much larger gap than what we're going for).

If "slightly better" is what you're aiming at, then it should be pretty clear that Cain wins. Just think about the gap between having a Cav and having nothing for 4 chapters, against the gap between having a Cav and having a slightly better Cav for 4 chapters.

I'm not sure if you're grasping how large the gap is between having a unit, even a mediocre one, vs having nothing there at all instead. Though at this point I've already attempted to demonstrate how large that gap is multiple times, so I guess there's not much point in re-posting said demonstrations again.

My (I have not paid attention to Colonel M's arguments) argument is more about arguing getting what is otherwise the same unit but with less EXP cost and no Lance rank issues.

Well yeah, the Lance rank is Hardin's big advantage. Without that he'd have no case, or an extremely weak case at best.

As for "Exp cost," Exp has no relevance to combat contributions, Exp has no intrinsic worth, this is why Marcus and Seth top the FE7 and FE8 lists, and so forth and so on. What actually matters is combat contributions. Exp is only relevant to that in the sense that it's a resource, like items or forging or w/e.

So logically, you do your best to divide the kills evenly between units that you'll be using long-term, take the results, and compare combat contributions based on the levels you get from that. This should factor in "Exp cost" naturally, as the resource is divided out as efficiently as possible among all the various beneficiaries of it.

Outside of that, determining levels, Exp has no relevance of any kind. Yes, if Cain hadn't gotten those kills, someone else could've gotten them instead. However, at the same time, there are many more kills available than there are PCs to take those kills, and someone must get the kills, as the enemies must die in order for you to clear the chapter. Thus it follows that each unit is entitled to some share of the kills, best determined by the results you get if kills are divided as evenly as possible between long-term units.

Hardin's team has Hardin of course, but it also doesn't have to train Cain. I can have a stronger team heading into CH5 if I am only using Cain for weakening and setting up traps, because units like Caeda and Barst will be able to take more of the kills, and more quickly get into their powerful stages.

You have a stronger team going into Ch 5 of FE8 if you never allow Seth to get any kills.

Anyways, Exp cost applies equally to all combat units. It doesn't apply to Cain more than it does to anyone else. You said I can have a stronger team heading into Ch 5 if I only use Cain to weaken and set up traps so that Barst can get kills? What if I use Barst to set up the kills and let Cain take them? Total Exp/stats gained should be similar in both cases. How does the former result in a stronger overall team?

If anything, the fact that he's locked on 1 range for a while provides more incentive to give Cain kills, since it is in fact more efficient to have 2 rangers set them up before Cain finishes.

On top of this while Hardin can, indeed, be a long-term unit, he can easily be a utilty unit on top of this just because of his Lance ranking. He can easily take Jeigan's role of a... well, the Lance user with power. Also, if the team elects to not use Cain, his team suddenly gets more CEXP to go around. With Hardin, he could still be used momentarily with the team at little opportunity cost barring his availabilty. It takes 22 swings of a Steel Sword to get his Armorslayer access, which could be done on the Archers, Pirates, and Priests from time to time.

If you use them as utility only, Cain's utility lasts until Ch 5 at least, and is irreplaceable in Ch 1-3. The "irreplaceable" part of that statement being most important. By the time Hardin joins, he has what, 1 Str over Draco Jeigan to his name? Not impressive. His Silver Lance goes away by the time Abel hits B Lances (Ch 8, maybe 9 at the latest?), and if he's utility alone, then giving him Ridersbane was never useful to begin with, since Jeigan can already do that and Abel should have C Lances by Ch 6 at the latest.

So by like Ch 10, his utility is likely gone, and he was never irreplaceable during his utility period. Right from the start, there were other units who could've been used as "utility" in his place, even Cain himself would be an option for that. An inferior option, but a possible alternative nonetheless; meanwhile, the same is not true for more than half of Cain's utility period.

Anyways, if they're utility units only, then I don't think either one of them belongs in high tier to begin with.

The irony of Cain is that using him to efficiently complete early chapters puts him in a position of having an under-leveled Lance rank, and reduces his usefulness afterwards considerably. Misses are death in the earlygame, and not only is his Sword highly accurate, but he has potential opportunities to use a Steel Sword for damage as well. Forcing him to use an Iron Lance for training his rank (and let's be real, that's the only reason that he'd be using one voluntarily except against the odd Thief) reduces his usefulness in the only chapters he has over Hardin in the first place.

For Cain to get D Lances by the start of Ch 6 is 3 lance uses per chapter.

There's at least 3 non-axe enemies in every early chapter except Ch 1, in which there are only 2. In Ch 2, there's 6 non-axe enemies (and 4 using either swords or lances), compared to 8 axe enemies. In Ch 3, 5 non-axe enemies, vs once again 8 axe enemies. On Ch 4, sword/lance enemies outnumber axe enemies. By Ch 5, there are no axe enemies, and all melee enemies use either swords or lances.

You could probably actually push him close to a C by Ch 6 if you had him spam lances at every single opportunity. 7-8 lance uses per chapter for that. 5-6 uses per chapter in order to be D Rank and 3/4 of the way to C by Ch 6. However, no one is arguing that he uses lances that much. Rather, non-axe enemies outnumber axes in Ch 1-5 by a factor of about 1.35 (42 total non-axe vs 31 total axes).

So if Cain gets at least 5-6 rounds of combat per chapter, he can easily hit D Lances by Ch 6 without ever using a lance on a Pirate or a Fighter. Is that feasible? Well, let's look at the turn counts for your playthrough and IOS's. On your second run, you took 61 turns from Ch 1-5, or 12 turns per chap on average. IOS took 71 turns over the 5 chapters, or about 14 turns per chap. Average of 13 turns per chap between the two playthroughs. So 5-6 rounds of combat per chapter means attacking on less than half of each chapter's player phases and never acting on enemy phase.

Cain does not magically get an enormous advantage over Hardin that forces Hardin to be "twice as good" for the rest of the game. If that was the case, I'd say Hardin would be at least a tier above Cain.

Not the rest of the game. Ofcourse if he retained his initial advantages for the entire game, he would be better overall. However, his advantages only last until Cain hits B Lances, and the worth of said advantages goes down steadily over that time period. First Cain will get C Lances, negating Ridersbane, and then Hardin will need to buy a Silver Lance in Ch 8 to keep that going (either that or use his original copy less in earlier chapters, either way), which is 2200G. The same amount of money can forge a +2 Mt Steel Lance for Cain (with about 200-300G left over), and that forge has nearly twice as many uses as the Silver Lance that Hardin just bought.

View user profile

38 Re: Hardin > Cain on Mon Jan 04, 2010 5:17 pm

CAT5 wrote:As for "Exp cost," Exp has no relevance to combat contributions, Exp has no intrinsic worth, this is why Marcus and Seth top the FE7 and FE8 lists, and so forth and so on. What actually matters is combat contributions. Exp is only relevant to that in the sense that it's a resource, like items or forging or w/e.

So logically, you do your best to divide the kills evenly between units that you'll be using long-term, take the results, and compare combat contributions based on the levels you get from that. This should factor in "Exp cost" naturally, as the resource is divided out as efficiently as possible among all the various beneficiaries of it.
Of course EXP has no intrinsic value. But EXP -> levels -> parameters -> combat, so therefore the "taking EXP" argument still holds, as Cain getting EXP hinders the combat ability of everyone else on the team in the long run. Do Cain's contributions in the short run offset the combat penalties he incurs in the long run? Cain is not like Seth, because Seth taking EXP is not a large enough opportunity cost to offset to any significant degree the benefit gained from using him as a combat unit.

CAT5 wrote:However, at the same time, there are many more kills available than there are PCs to take those kills, and someone must get the kills, as the enemies must die in order for you to clear the chapter. Thus it follows that each unit is entitled to some share of the kills, best determined by the results you get if kills are divided as evenly as possible between long-term units.
This is operating under the assumption that Cain is a long term unit, or otherwise it's implying that the best team is the team that always occupies all possible unit slots, which has pretty much been empirically shown to be false (although I still like using big teams anyway).

CAT5 wrote:Anyways, Exp cost applies equally to all combat units. It doesn't apply to Cain more than it does to anyone else. You said I can have a stronger team heading into Ch 5 if I only use Cain to weaken and set up traps so that Barst can get kills? What if I use Barst to set up the kills and let Cain take them? Total Exp/stats gained should be similar in both cases. How does the former result in a stronger overall team?
Because Barst is more flexible in a greater number of situations than Cain?

CAT5 wrote:If anything, the fact that he's locked on 1 range for a while provides more incentive to give Cain kills, since it is in fact more efficient to have 2 rangers set them up before Cain finishes.
Of course it's more "incentive," at least from Cain's point of view, but that doesn't mean that Cain is entitled to killing enemies; it just means that Cain isn't good for anything but killing enemies while other units can fill multiple roles. Unless Cain is by circumstance always the last available unit to kill the last available enemy, then he is not specifically entitled to any kills, even if he has the handicap of being locked to 1-range.

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum