User talk:Thunderbrine

Organization Issues (THIS TOPIC HAS ENDED)
Teg (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC) -- Hello, thanks for your contributions to the various strategy pages on this wiki! However, I'm planning to revert some of the changes you made -- specifically these blurbs in the checks/counters and team options sections: Aside from the obvious typo at the beginning, these sentences are unnecessary and make the page look unsightly. They are also enforcing strict structuring into sections where natural prose is preferred. I think we can probably come up with a better way to organize these sections. Until then, I will revert these sections to clean up the pages. If you'd like to discuss this further or help with the planning, feel free to hit us up in the discord #wiki channel.
 * "They are very little or no units of the Red Color that counters this Unit. If there is a unit that does counter this Unit, state the unit and delete this message."

Strategy pages
Hello,

68.173.71.153 03:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC) -- First off, I want to say I'm glad somebody is paying attention to the Strategy pages. Some of them are really out-of-date, so some updating is useful. That said... I have some concerns about your edits, and don't think you're taking the pages in a useful direction. (I was the one who reverted you on Hinata. I appear as an IP because Twitch's integration is messy and the site hangs for my account for whatever reason.)


 * Strategy pages should be, for lack of a better word, punchy and to the point. People want to know what they can do with the character, not merely a recitation of the base kit and what it does.  You seem to violate that in parts, with boring recitations of exact stat differences with another character, or verifying that yes, Rally Resistance increases Resistance.
 * In the same way, I'm not sure your "Character X is statistically most similar to character Y" sections make any sense. You compare Cecilia to Lachesis, for example.  But...  Cecilia & Lachesis aren't remotely comparable!  They act totally differently - one is a healer, one is on a horse, they have different skills they want to set, they have very different places in a team composition.  Now, this is not to say comparing characters is bad; it's very useful.  But, to be relevant, they need to be apples-to-apples comparisons.  In other words, it might be reasonable to compare Abel, Peri, and Camus, all blue lance Cavaliers, so that someone who is looking for a blue spot on their Horse Emblem team knows their options and the strengths & weaknesses thereof.  It's also reasonable to bring up when characters are relevantly very similar, for example Tharja & Katarina having the exact same Atk/Spd and differing only in which defensive stats they favor, starting kit, and ease of acquisition.  But stuff like Black Knight & Amelia is pretty distant, and Cecilia / Lachesis is nonsense.  Nobody says "huh I want a high-Attack low-speed unit, should I grab the unit that only goes in Horse Emblem or the Absorb+ healer."  Cecilia vs. Gunnthra is the relevant comparison, if you want to do one.
 * I also think that your Base Kit / Skill Inheritance / Weaknesses is being applied too strictly and in a way that can render strategy articles incoherent. To use Cecilia as an example again, since you edited her recently, there's basically two relevant Cecilia builds: Gronnraven+ / Triangle Adept, and Gronnblade+.  You have split this information across both "Base kit" and "With Skill Inheritance", and casually mentioned Triangle Adept right near Gronnblade+ - despite the fact that Gronnblade+ definitely does NOT run TA (Blade Cecilia can kill some Reds without it).  I'd argue that just cutting to "here are the two 'meta' builds and why they work is more interesting and concise.  And if any time is spent at all on the base kit, it's something like "you probably want to replace Rally Resistance immediately, it is only good for very specific situations, a movement skill is preferred."
 * This is also getting into the above concerns again, but for Hinata at least, there's just no point in discussing the bad options other than to say they're bad. Yes, they do something, but you have to invest in them at the expense of something else in the slot.  "His Special, Pavise, is a defensive special that will pretty much nullify any and all physical damage when activated" - ah, but it won't.  It's -50% damage from *adjacent* targets, aka generally fighters, which is exactly what Hinata doesn't need help against.  He will still get destroyed by blue fighters and many red fighters; I suspect Pavise wins him very few matches he didn't already win compared to no skill slot at all, while a well-timed Bonfire or Ignis will let him steal some victories against Reds & Blues he wouldn't beat otherwise.  Pavise is already a pretty niche skill, but to the extent it has use, it's as a fast-charging Miracle for frail units that turns a one-hit KO into a 2HKO, since for that -50% damage taken to mean the most, you need to be taking a lot of damage.  (i.e. that one build of Elincia).  I guess the short version of this is that while a "budget" build is fine that eschews 5* exclusive skills, I don't think people are interested in a "base skills only" build, which the app will already let them do for free and they don't need any discussion to see.

Anyway, I hope this didn't come off too hostile, but I figured it'd be better to talk about it then have an edit war or the like. I'd be happy to take a shot at some of those pages again and see if we can come to a mutually acceptable version, if you want? Any comments/thoughts on the above first, though?


 * Anonymous 04:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC) -- In my opinion, regarding the character comparisons, I do like those quite a bit, but I think they should not be included at all even if they compare similar roles because that make the strategy pages not future-proof and outdated eventually once more characters are released. Other future-proofing things would be not doing an extreme closeup of stats with specific calcs and more viewing everything generally. I also think opinions like "this unit is great" and such should be kept off pages, people can make judgements for themselves on whether a unit is great or not from all the information about advantages, weaknesses, and strategies listed.


 * Thunderbrine (talk) 05:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC) -- Hello, and thank you for this argument and because i saw it as a good argument, I will consider your thoughts. I will also respond to your certain concerns.
 * Upon reading this, and looking at the pages I have worked on, I will make an effort in not trying to state facts that are obvious, especially if i'm using the IL template.


 * The topic of Stat Comparison is one I fight myself over with a bit. I know a unit like Cecilia and Lachesis is utter ridiculousness, but once I found it, a found myself blown away and needing to jot it down begrudgingly because it was a valid comparison between pure stats and nothing else. The editor before me compared her to Spring Camilla and I was so flabbergasted with how different Camilla's stat distribution was to Cecilia but i kept it anyway because because It seemed there was good reason. Comparing units by type instead of just pure stats is a good idea, and one I myself have been doing this entire time, by comparing only Distant Units with other Distant Units or Close Units with other Close Units. But being more specific like taking movement into account might be the additional step I need. As far as Stat Comparison by Color, I'm not to sure on that. With more specification, every units become more and more unique, making it harder to compare. I could compare Black Knight to multiple units at a time if you want, like i did with Cecilia. I also compared Alfonse with Chrom AND Ephraim but Chrom was removed.


 * As far as strictness, I would like to apologize and would like to blame that on my obsessive/compulsive nature on trying to keep websites tidy-looking. Secondly, Most of the text was just text from the previous edit moved around, with me trying to preserve their helpful information. Third, I tried to keep at the skills separated, in an order of Weapon, Assist, Special, A-Passive, B-Passive, and C-Passive. I also mentioned Gronnraven with Triangle Adept right after i mentioned it, and i'm sorry I caused any confusion. As far as the base kit is concerned, I will refer to Bullet 1 and and be more discriminating, as weird as my word choice is, when concerning skills.


 * Concerning the explanation of Hinata specifically, I said to myself that I have to make an effort if a skill is there and you might see some potential. Otherwise, I should just talk poorly and move on. I initially saw Pavise as a good skill on Hinata because his high defense would make the foe's attack do less damage and do next to nothing upon activation. Just a simple case of me wanting to boost his extremities.


 * Thank you if you see this, and feel free to help me on my sandbox page on my user page, where my experimentation with the wiki will take place and is open for discussion.


 * Thanks for the reply. No need to apologize; it's a wiki, that means anyone can edit it, so long as you're willing to work collaboratively with others. :)
 * Re stating the obvious: Yeah, just trust your readers. If they don't know what a skill does, they'll click the link for Fury 3 or the like and find out.  The interesting part to write about is the synergy - i.e. "use Fury to set up Desperation" or the like.
 * If you find cool stat things with wildly disparate units, that's fine! I'd just call that "Trivia" rather than Strategy, and hide it at the bottom or the like.  Otherwise, yeah, comparing like types is generally the way to go.
 * It's totally fine to have a "formula" for strategy page composition, just the trick is not to let it obscure the main points. The structure is the starting place rather than a goal, basically.
 * And yeah... a lot of the "base" units have "flavorful" skills that push their existing strengths even farther.  Unfortunately, sometimes this ends up as "overkill," and sometimes units want to go against their archetype as far as 'optimal' strategy (rather than flavor).  A low-damage tank like Hinata needs damage on their special, while a super-frail character like Elise or Elincia sometimes want defense on their special.  Hinata might actually be tempted by something like Defense +3, which can help null out attacks entirely, but Pavise doesn't really help with that due to being percentage-based.  It's especially notable in a team setting rather than an artificial duel - sometimes there's a scary unit you need to kill right now, and having damage is always good for helping take it out.
 * I'll take a shot at editing some of those pages tomorrow - feel free to edit it more yourself afterward if you think I missed something or are mangling your points. Thanks for responding.  68.173.71.153 06:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Axe Experience
Hello, I reverted your Axe Experience name change. We name passives after their in-game names, which are many times inconsistent. Valexiv (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Icon List
First of all, thanks for creating (and keeping up to date) your list of icons. It has been a tremendous help when editing this wiki. That said there are some errors I'd like to point out: -Markfeh (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Aether raids seasons only rotate between Light/Dark and Astra/Anima. Currently, there aren't any Light/Astra, Light/Anima, Dark/Astra, and Dark/Anima seasons.
 * File:Icon Rarity 5 Glow.png and File:Icon Rarity S Glow.png are missing from Character Menu Icons.
 * 1) Currently, all beast weapons have no weapon sprites.
 * File:Empty Passive Icon Glow.png is the result of layering the Empty Passive Icon over 's icon in the Adrift update in order to hide it (Unused_content).