Aethereal
-
Posts
342 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Aethereal
-
-
Miami is the only team to have a 100% undefeated season in football, but that doesn't mean that the Miami Dolphins from that season will win against the Detroit Lions as there are many factors (otherwise the entire thing could happen via a computer simulation and sports-gambling would be non-existent). That doesn't mean I can't say one team is better than another. Also, isn't the whole point of a tier-list/debate topic to discuss the various differences between characters to decide which is better in the first place?
This analogy is terrible and makes no sense.
You say this like we should be rewarding bad starts and low movement. The fact of the matter is that you just don't like how much it penalizes them, which is fine. But understand that all the metric does is penalize things that are bad, and reward things are good, like every other metric. The answer to the question is "a metric by which we can actually discuss things"Let me turn that question around. What do I get by using turncounts as a measurement? All I really seem to obtain is a method of ranking characters in one style of gameplay that penalizes any unit who isn't instantly awesome and/or lacks high movement.
The problem isn't the Seth/Seth-less tier lists. It's the tiering philosophy that caused the needs for two separate lists in the first place. That all units will always be used for a LTC run in a optimized manner all the time basically.
Holy shit, dude. No one assumes this. The only thing that any one assumes is that people use Seth the same way they would use every other unit. Every one has said this. The fact is, when you use Seth the way you would use every unit, it changes every other units' performance to an incredible degree. Instead of getting a disorganized list and discussion topic that doesn't reflect either side of the debate but some vague subjective middle ground, you get two different and organized lists and topics. You don't even have to worry about weighing the two sides against each other, and which playstyle is more important.
-
-I've lived in 14 different cities, in 5 different states, and attended 12 schools and 1 university (soon to be another city and university)
-I've broken 12 bones in my body, and dislocated a shoulder and 3 fingers. I get hurt good.
-At 5'10, I've dunked multiple times in my life. As stupid, irrelevant, and unimpressive as that is, it's probably the most difficult thing I've ever accomplished in my life. I put much more effort into it than getting accepted into a solid university, keeping a steady and strong relationship, working a full-time job, or keeping good grades in college.
-I've road tripped cross-country, for what that's worth. I also recommend that to any one who could do it with people you like. It's bananas.
-I lost 50 lbs over the past 8 months.
This is incredibly impressive. Good for you, dude.
and I am 6'8" (203.3 centimeters)
I'm really freakin' jealous of this.
-
I included each, individual, rating separate from the whole, total rating (which was used to give them their actual position). That way, if someone disagreed with one particular style of play, they could just ignore all the points or see where a specific character really shown through as great. If they liked/disliked a certain character the could even sit down and, at a glance, tell what was good/bad about them just by the rating without having to work through pages of tier-listing via the scores. I won't say it was perfect, it was a singular rating topic, not a tier list for one, but it does seem more of a step in the right direction than simply one singular list focused on LTC/efficiency/cookingskill/whatever.
Mkay, I can agree that more information is good. Why wouldn't we just do this with two/three/however many separate tier lists? Just separately marking them (like you did) is all fine and good; but you're basically just making multiple tier lists in one topic. That's really not a big deal, especially in your case where it's less of an active debate as it is your opinion, but it would be less organized and efficient(lol) than just a few separate topics.
-
Why is that better than separate lists for each criteria? In a rating topic like yours you encompass three standards, and the result doesn't accurately represent any of the three. Well, at least not necessarily. When any one does a run they aren't interested in the criteria and standards for different styles of play than the one they use.
For example, I'm sure people who don't play for efficiency don't care about how good Thany is at rescue-dropping, and they don't care that Fir takes up some time and resources to become a good unit. Conversely, I'm sure efficiency minded players love Thany's flexibility and availability, and dislike Fir's lack of concrete durability and resource requirements, just to be a worse-Rutger. In a list like yours, those two units could be right next to each other. Each 'good' by one standard, and 'bad' by another. Does a list where they are both middle of the road reflect that? An efficiency tier list and a seperate non-efficiency tier list represents both units more accurately.
Edit: I get that my descriptions of the units are overly-simplified, and that there is probably a case to be made that Fir isn't really 'bad'. Just an example.
-
The only thing a Sethskip tier list assumes is that you use Seth the same way you use EVERY unit. That is, to the best of your abilities, and to best help you accomplish whatever goals you have set in place. In an efficiency tier list that means using him efficiently. There is nothing about this that should be considered wrong. In an efficiency tier list, people assume you use your units efficiently. Efficient use of Seth, by the parameters set forth by the tier list, is letting him break the game over his knee. This is not a scenario in which you assume one strategy, so much as it assumes the hypothetical player would be using Seth to accomplish his goals. If you want to make an "All units get equal EXP" tier list, whatever, Seth doesn't need to kick the game's ass. But that's not the goal of an efficiency tier list, which is what the Sethskip tier list is. I don't see how this is such a problem.
-
You purposefully perform worse than you can to train other units, like Franz. That's fine, if that's how you want to play. Play for fun, blahblahblah. But it's an inaccurate representation of how good Franz is when Seth is used. That's talking about a player who purposefully makes the game harder and slower than they can with the units they chose to use. If Seth is used the way a player would use most units, to the best of their abilities, and to help them clear all stated objectives as best as that unit can, Franz is much much worse than when Seth is not used. The difference is freakin' ridiculous.
Besides, if we're just ignoring what Seth can do when talking about performance, why aren't we just talking about a Sethless run? The way you and Othin describe using Seth, the difference is probably negligible.
-
14. Slow and steady wins the race.
Not when the person you're racing is going fast and steady.
-
While he's not quite good enough to get danced, his offense is above average, he has exclusive access to the best bows until Faval shows up, and will most likely have them after that, and has a horse. There's also a fair amount of wyverns with good durability, that he is one of your best units for. 7/10
-
Obviously. If you ever played a MMO and learned a bit about it's history, this is a known fact. WoW originally started off with the classes being very different in how they played, strengths, weaknesses, and discovered just how hard it was to balance them all out. Come WotLK they changed models and have tried to make all the classes similar. People haven taken to the latter model so far, but that's not to say the former lacked merit. I bet you can't tell me the reasons for the preference of the latter model though. Come on, give it a shot.
This is an outright lie. People haven't taken to the new model, there was tons of complaints about homogenization. And that's all perception, but what isn't is that WoW has lost literally over a million subscribers in about a year, with the new expansion of, "super dynamic gameplay, where all classes play and feel the same". I'm not familiar enough with the game to continue any kind of debate over it, but this is clearly you pulling evidence out of your ass.
You can attempt to include balance and niches for all roles even in a scenario where you want to, gasp, have dynamic and interesting gameplay. Go ahead and make a hack of a game where all your units have equal hit and attack after weapons, and be amazed at how interesting it is! Your decisions on which units to take will literally all be based off the weapon triangle. We can call it "Fire Emblem: Roshambo".
There have been games where all 3 weapon types and their users had niches and were, if not equally good, balanced enough that you wouldn't feel stupid using one over another-except in situations that demand one. Balance isn't that hard.
-
One interesting way it makes a few of the open-field defenses work is that it adds some objectives involving defending NPCs, often from multiple directions. The NPCs are fortunately never the type to decide they can fight on their own, and they either remain still or move away from enemies to escape. This creates a more abstract and less localized defense target, similarly contributing to making it less easy to just block off a specific location and call it a day.
This actually sounds really interesting. I somewhat like the FE7 Merlinus chapter(13x? I think? And even that one I don't think is well done) because of having to defend a ton of space with few available units good at it. An open field with a moving defense point would be a nice change of pace, especially if there were side goals involved.
Edit: The main thing with that chapter is that it too can be easily trivialized. I'd imagine a changing defense point with a lot of open space could keep that from happening. Don't know if that point was well conveyed, but whatever.
-
Probably the best foot unit in the series. Gets ferried around wherever just because he kills shit so easily, and is so necessary to kill the tough enemies. 10/10
-
Charisma, good availability, good weapon type, mount, and good offense. Not gonna be getting the best weapons, so-so durability, and never really dominates enemies. 8.5/10, mostly for Charisma, and because he really shouldn't be below the swordtwins.
-
I take it you mean that evidence of profiling is well supported? Because profiling in the U.S.A. is definitely not well supported.
Specifically talking about airport checks, but it's the mindset that counts.
-
In other words, it offers some interesting variety with no real problems.
Personally, I'm very much a fan of the games offering reasons to not turtle.
You don't like turtling, so you like defend maps. What?
Best: Escape
Worst: Defend, by far.
-
Profiling in general happens in America, and is well supported. If you're not of the minority groups that are profiled, you are experiencing white privilege. I can pull up statistics and quotes on racial profiling's support, and its use if you really want, but I'd really rather not. It's a few google searches away if you'd like to be a little more informed, but basically, by being a white American, you escape a lot of question and suspicion. This is one example of white privilege. There are many others, but if you don't buy those, this one is pretty difficult to argue against. :/
-
So, you're trying to say that because my parents may have experienced white privilege, I too have experienced it because of that? I can't really say that is something I've personally experienced, but I guess that could be correct in a way.
It's not just that. Being white in America creates benefits others do not always have. While we like to believe racism is gone in America, it is not, and even if it is much less direct and much less severe than it has been in the past, the reality is the way you are perceived by peers, school boards, potential employers, law enforcement, potential customers/clients(If you work. I have no idea) is all different as a white American than it would be if you were a minority. This can be as minor as some guy being more friendly to you, or not looking at you in an odd way, and it can be as serious as getting a job you're less deserving/qualified for than a minority, but the point is it exists.
I just realized I don't know if you're American. I kinda assume you are, but if you arent, my fault. I don't know racial dynamics in other countries, sadly, but I assume most pre-dominantly white countries are the same. Sorry if I'm wrong, though.
-
This is basically just adding onto the 'prepremotes dont suck' notion, but don't be afraid to use units you might drop later. So many people don't deploy or use their best units, and end up making the game a lot harder for themselves in the process. All this to feed a little more experience to bad units; this kind of thing may end up getting those units like half an extra level, at the expense of tons of time and energy. Disclaimer about playing however you want blahblahblah
-
Right, but one point somebody made earlier is it still will be the case that they're compared to e.g. Oifaye, Shanan, and Leaf. Even if we say "don't penalize them for not being the children," we still basically indirectly penalize them for that because they're not going to ever rate as highly as fixed characters, and some children probably will rate as highly or maybe higher. Radney is clearly more bad than Lakche is in terms of which one is worse than Celice. Both are worse than Celice, but Lakche is less worse. Oops, now we've compared them. You see the difficulty there.
This was exactly what I was saying was missing the point? Comparing them, indirectly, is fine. But you can't explain how the difference between Radney and Lakche is bigger than that between Sigurd and Azel. The only way to do so is to be like "Man, Radney sucks because if we have Radney we lose out on Lakche".
BigBangMeteor made a point about bias points, but Azel got +1 on 1 vote, soooo.
-
I would say the point is to not penalize them for not being the children characters. The fact that you lose Lakche is, to me, the only way you could possibly justify a 6 point difference in their scores. For example, Azel is scored at 5.3 points lower than Sigurd. Apparently Lakche has more over Radney than Sigurd has over Azel. lolno.
-
Testing things whee
You missed 3, noob.
Still, this is really interesting, and any multi-target attacks will make for an awesome addition.
-
Situationally a great unit. Awesome offense, great inheritance, blahblahblah. Doesn't reach all the battlefields. Even if you don't play for LTC, not having a horse keeps you from getting to a lot of fights. I mean, there are still times where you want to rush from one place to the other, with or without aiming for the lowest turncount possible. And the difference in this game between mounted and not is huge.
3.5/10. Superduper offense without reaching fights=sadface.
-
it really doesn't help that FE has this thing against expressive portraits.
I, for one, am incredibly glad for this. Expressive portraits(like the ones you just posted) from most JRPGs have over the top expressions that leave a really childish and cartoon-like feel.
On the topic of Volke: "My father hired you?" does not highlight Greil's love of his comrades. In any way. At all.
-
But Crash is not doing it in GOTTA GO FAST mode. Regardless of how you did it in your run, the whole point is moot because he said he's going to take his time with the maps.
I know dondon doesn't need defending, but
As a disclaimer, you can put the Hero Axe wherever you want if you're playing super casually, but if you want to bumrush through the chapter, you're going to need the Hero Axe on Dagda so that that area of the map is completely clear.
-
Because there are ten numbers on the scale, and everything is relative. In a hypothetical FE where everyone has 0% growths and bases of 1 except one guy who has bases of 2 and 10% growths, the latter is Seth-tier, but one of the former could still rate a 7 if they were a Pegasus or Warper or something.
Rating both Wolt and Bors a 0 implies equivalence and equality of uselessness between them. This simply isn't true. 2-3 is still an aggressively sub-par score. 1-2 is considered terrible. 0-1 is basically reserved for the absolute worst units in the game, and as shitty as they are, Wolt and Bors are somehow not as bad as those units.
My point was that a 3 implies that he is about 1/3 as useful as Lance, Marcus, or Allen (Actually more than that.) which I think is incredibly generous. I can understand a rating of 1, if you think that being a smaller liability is better. But, while he can contribute a little more than Wendy and Sophia, it's very close to nothing contributed at all. This is all just my opinion of course. Maybe I don't know of strategies that effectively utilize him
The Great LTC Debate Thread (Yay? Nay? Burn in Hell?)
in General Fire Emblem
Posted
Maybe we should have a metric where knights' movement helps their score, or where having Lilina-like durability and start makes you top tier. I think that's the suggestion here anyways.