6 elements of building?

Got the idea from a concept that a certain chess grandmaster used in a lecture. He suggested that chess could be looked at according to five elements: tempo (or time, ex: your pieces get into position quicker, or your attack hits before your opponents’ attack), material (ex: having more pieces than your opponent), structure (the configuration of the pawns is actually very powerful in directing the flow of play; many high-level games are won or lost on whether a pawn moves one square forward or doesn’t), and the last two were something like piece placement and king safety or piece placement and space or king safety and space.

Anyways, I thought, maybe there’s a similar way to understand how to build units. I came up with the following, and I’m wondering if anyone sees ways to improve the concept.

  1. Unit specifics: statline, colour, move type, weapon type, prf abilities including weapon, place in the legendary-mythic system (gives or can receive extra stats)
  2. Teammates: for covering different opponents, and also for support functions such as stat boosts (and we can count blessing stats here), healing, refreshing, positioning
  3. Opponents: what kinds of opponents you’re facing - inflated stats in general PvE? Hordes of inflated stats in reinforcement maps? Highly merged bold fighters and dragons? Ward-stacked fliers and infantry pulse mages with L.Azura? Røkkr, AKA dummies that hit back?
  4. Objective: territorial objective like in GC? Are you autobattling TT? Special “kill this with that” for quests or Allegiance Battles? Are you trying to spam scoring mechanisms for arena/AA/AB/AR?
  5. Budget: determines stuff like merges and fodder, and in some cases, rarity (I’m thinking 4* merges)
  6. Style and aesthetics: something like steady breath + spiral might be objectively a little less sound than steady stance 4 + QR, but it is interesting in its own way. In another stream, @Sir_of_Coffee seems to have an interest in mixed bulk. @Krazytre has a thing against atk refines. A lot of people have an unnecessary (but not necessarily bad) interest in using their grails for merging. Style also has a lot to do with decisions like hypertanking in AR vs playing around it using galeforce/vantage all-ins or hit-and-run with B.Fjorm.

I thought about somehow condensing opponents and objectives into “context” or something like that, make it five elements instead of six, but it feels more organized this way.

@RoyAhoy @Bow-of-Sacae @ShinxDaSphinx @Anoniem @Maskilraid


Let me read through that

1 Like

I guess this is one way to look at it. I tend not to complicate it much and just know off the top of my head how to do it

1 Like

I don’t think such a list is really so necessary once a player is on your level, but for people who feel like they don’t know how to build or don’t have a lot of experience and feel really lost I think something like this might help


Definitely a nice way to think about things.

Teammates, I feel, is a bit overlooked, even with more experienced players, or maybe it’s because a lot of us tend to take things for as they are rather than as they will be. Sometimes, when someone posts a build, we (the ones that do it anyway, I sometimes do it too) tend to find ways for that one unit to do it all: offense, defense, possibly support, especially for the units with a more balanced and stagnant stat line (me when trying to build Fae for instance, I was trying to find ways for her to do everything possible which made things difficult).

Style and Aesthetics is definitely an interesting one and shows that we have a bit of flexibility when it comes to unit building and usage.

It was a good read, including the part about the chess grandmaster. I’ve never gotten into chess myself, but I’ve wanted to learn at least the basics. :thinking:

1 Like

I think that such a list would indeed help new players to find a way for themselfes to build a unit for a specific goal.

Objective is probably the most important point for most players. What does the player want to accomplish in the game or in the specific gamemode?

  • Do they want the rewards? (score spamming).
  • Do they want to make their favourite characters the most feared versions of themselves as can be? Do they only want to use their favourite character and don’t care about the fodder holding characters?
  • Do they (only) want to win? (less healthy in gaccha but there are players with this mindset).
  • Are they just playing the game or gamemode for fun? Do they want to get the most out of it with for example the least loss of resources? (resources in the form of characters)

Some of these examples will already determine whether someone is going for a budget build (last example) or for a premium build on a character (second example).


I like this way of thinking

Often we see builds here in isolation. But I feel for example when building a cavalier or flier, it’s only natural to build them with a team in mind while an infantry would be more self contained on their build.
I generally feel like I need more speed on my infantry builds than on cavs and fliers for that reason.

Of course most builds also ignore situation. But sometimes a differend build works better in other modes. Giant power spikes in Røkkr.
And I switched out DC for Fort def/res 3 on my Hawkeye just because is works better for arena (he needs to bait, not kill)

1 Like

As long as all of this information is kept condensed and easy to understand, this type of information can be immensely helpful. Obviously, the goal is to give the reader/new player something to chew on, not something to be intimidated by and the formatting you have for it here looks nice. Maybe even with additional information you want to add onto each bullet point, you could feature a “hidden detail” that the reader can expand to learn more about the topic.


Thanks for the feedback; it’s been helpful. Did any of you see a way to improve on the list? (ex: I kind of wanted to go with five since it seems like an easier number to keep track of, but I couldn’t find a way to cover everything with five and maybe six is better than I originally felt it was)

1 Like

I would say Statline, and Role (EP, PP, Tank, etc.) would be the most important, with innate Skills as a third semi-important aspect.

1 Like

Looks pretty good. It captures pretty well a lot of the points that I consider for units, albeit sometimes at a more intuitive level, as opposed to a conscious evaluation.

One thing that came to mind that sort of overlaps the given points… But when choosing a build, I often try to think of what the unit at hand can do that it does better than its closest competitors.

I’m sure there are better examples, but the first one that came to mind… You could classify Ophelia, Linde, Lute, and Tailtiu all as “player phase blue infantry mages” (as opposed to say, Micaiah, who can do well with an enemy phase set). And I’d consider all of them to be “very good units”, whose stats are at least in the same ballpark… But each one has small differences and a unique personal weapon that carves out a distinct role for each of them. Assuming that you have access to them… If you’re looking for a unit to provide buffs to the rest of your team, you’re best served to choose Linde. Debuffs? Lute. A turn one high-CD special? Ophelia. Sustained high offensive output over a longer battle? Tailtiu.

It kind of makes less sense to try and force one to do the job of the others, if for no reason other than requiring a higher investment for potentially lower returns. I mean, you could give Reinhardt a Blade tome… But why?

1 Like