GamePress

Effeciency and realistic expectations

This isn't so much a question as a it is a topic that criticizes the current views of the meta, as to how people argue and assume things without taking into consideration their actual costs and disgustingly low odds. This doesn't mean we should necessarily penalise characters for skills, but only to an at least somewhat realistic standard.

For starters, people always tend to assume that a character is going to be *5 when using their stats for discussion. I can somewhat agree to that, but also say that it's not always going to be the case. And not only that, but it also takes away from the amazing potential 4*+ merges have at a much lower cost, given the option.

I'm aware that there are many people that don't mind putting money to heavily increase their odds. But for the sake of a consistent and reasonable/realistic arguement, I would hope to take that off the table.

Thank you.

Asked by Nogitsune1 year 4 months ago

Report

Answers

People do use 4 star merged Olivias...

I have fully pimped out 4* [10+] Sophia, Donnel, Olivia, Adult Tiki, Jakob (wat), and soon to be Tharja and Nino that completely agree with that potential you're talking about there.

I really wanted to build a [+10] Sophia a while back at 5* which would cost at least 200,000 feathers but then decided I should just do it at 4*. The only units I have at [+10] merged are Ike and Delthea which are 5* exclusive but that's where I'm stopping. I love this duo a lot, hence the stupidity of my actions. Anyway, 4* [10] is equal to either [+4] or [5] merged 5* and should never be overlooked if you're interested in making a great unit at only a fraction of the cost.

I would still make that 5* [+10] Sophia merge, regardless of the feather costs by the way, I wouldn't regret it.

phuck
Been meaning to make a +10 *4 Sophie and Jakob (whom I still lack one, even). I really like this meta because it allows variety and not having to limit yourself because you don't have the feathers to *5 everything. And the way the game is built, it pretty much encourages to use many characters.

It is one thing to discuss units all based on 5* stats, it is another to use 4* merges units. Why would discussions based on 5* stats "take away from the amazing potential 4*+ merges"? Seems to me that you are the one overreacting here...

I'm not overreacting. I may have worded that wrong. What I meant was that always assuming a character is going to be at least *5 somewhat understimates what a vanilla *4 can do, and they're competent without having to be overpowered. You can do a lot by putting a little thought into an actual strategy, rather than it being an overkill setup. I've seen people use 5*+ merges as a legitimate form of arguement as well as every buff in the book.

It is overkill to assume the extreme I'll be honest, but I think it's more about sharing that specific piece of knowledge. In the end, you have to decide for yourself, your own team, and your own very specific scenario whether that specific match-up matters or not, because this game varies so much. Perhaps their team does care about the match-up, and perhaps yours doesn't, no one will know.
I mean, it's also easier to take their experience as knowledge and have that knowledge yourself rather than argue against it right?

As for the 5 star, I think everyone knows 4 star +10 are stronger than 5 star base. The reason no one mentions it is because, I think, it's more realistic to assume people have base 5 star stats rather than assume everyone made the commitment to make a +10 merged 4 star or a +4 merged 5 star. Doing calcs using base stats are just easier than doing ones for merges, not because people think 4 star merges are bad. It's just stat changes after all.

Eh, some people just have the luxury to merge so much in general due to fat pockets. I mentioned having a 4* +4 Fae at some point, people thought that wasn't a good idea, so I don't really know what is a good idea, and what is not a good idea.

@Infinite: I like your take on the matter because it basically sums it up to "just throwing it out there"/to take it with a grain of salt and weigh your own judgement on the matter.
@Regimus: Take it they said it's not such a good idea because it's still not quite 5*-level (about 1-2 merges away). It's actually good that you didn't have to invest anywhere as much feathers and it saves you the trouble of 40k feathers if you're thinking on giving her Lightning Breath+.

My idea behind 4*+ merges is not so much in the +10's as it is in just having them be similiarly competent to vanilla 5*s.

tl;dr version way down below (but little interesting ideas up here!)

If all you want is similarly competent to vanilla 5*s then the issue of exclusive 5* skills comes into play, too.

You can inherit Falchion to a 4* merged Chrom, yes, but if all you wanted was "competent compared to vanilla 5*s", then you'd have to set aside those 5* exclusives, thus making them often time not as competent.

Why would you waste 20k feathers to do the Falchion/Chrom example if all you wanted was minimal competence? [+10] 4* merges are long-term (ish) investments but the cost is like night and day when the result is equal to an 80,000 or 100,000 feather investment to make the exact same unit at [+5 or +6] 5* merge.

Sorry if this comes off as a bit too accusing. I'm trying to point out some possible issues based on my understanding.

Edit: Merging 4*s according to availability like if you had 4 Fae's lying around to name a random example isn't a bad thing at all, don't get me wrong. I'd say building a 4* [+10] Fae is one of the best things you can do, absolutely, as Fae is a powerhouse in the roles she serves.

The only issue being that she needs 1 more merge than regular units at 4* to be equal to her 5* version in ONLY base stats. She needs 6 merges vs the typical 5, which kind of affects her in the long run.

tl;dr version: This entire topic can be boiled down to comparing investment in costs and short-term vs. long-term goals. Maximized 4*s are better for the short-term and easy on investment while maximized 5*s are better for the long-run and heavy on investment.

It's all a matter of choosing which you'd prefer. I could merge my 5* Effie to feed my 4* Effie her skills and make a [+8 or +9] Effie right now, if I wanted to and make her stronger than she currently is. I'm not doing that though because I have a [+1] 5* Effie and with 1 or 3 more merges she'll be equal to the other idea.

I don't understand your comparison. You're basically saying that the cost of a potential *5+5/6 is pretty much the same as a 4*+10. For starers, their stats are virtually (if not literally the same). And yet, even if were to highball costs for a really good 4*+10 you're looking at around 60k (22k for promoting 11 3*s, 20k for a 5* weapon and 20k for LD3) vs. a base minimum of 120k for a 5*+5 without even including LD3 or a potentially better weapon. That's already double the costs.

It's not "short term" vs. long term. 4+10 is very effective long term, and even far more realistic. You're looking at an actual, achievable goal without having to invest most of your career only to get *one* elusively overkill unit (which pretty much only serves to brag about at that point, really).

More or less, yes. Although, personally I'd look at it more as, somone is sharing something of value that can't be bought, for Free. So yeah, more like "take it with a grain of salt and use it to build your own opinion".

As for the topic, my apologies, I thought most people merged at 4 for cheaper +10s.
I definitely think people shouldn't judge a unit just because they have very slightly less stats than their 5 star variant, it's very min-max thinking (which isn't wrong by the way, just depends on whether you care or not).

I think cost wise, it's like spending money. Some people like to save, some people like to buy cost efficiently, and some like to spend on their current needs. It's up to them.

In my case (F2P btw), I actually 5 star all the units I want to use because it's the most far-reaching investment, and that's what I want. I don't care as much about cost because I know I'll eventually get more feathers and heroes. Even though I don't have any heroes beyond +2 right now, perhaps I will eventually.
I think it's just completely depends on your experiences on the game, I mean, I've gotten 4 Reinhardts and enough feathers to promote each one as a F2P, so a 5 star +3 Reinhardt has more value to me than more feathers.

It's a long read, but I hope my point is clear and gives a different perspective on the matter than what others have wrote.

Loud and clear.

Oh, I just edited the last bit lol. That's awkward haha.

Mate

There we go, I got you lol.

Thanks mate.

I can always count on you!

yah