Jump to content

FE9 Tier list v3


Recommended Posts

I would call my own logged playthroughs efficient. I don't care right now to trawl this board and find other playlogs to hold up as examples of what I would call efficient, but there are many others (p. sure Interceptor and Narga both have logs, but they'll be quite far back).

If this tier list is about efficiency and there are ways to be efficient that don't involve turncounts, then shouldn't we see more units ranked higher/lower for reasons not related to turncounts?

Conversely, if this list is focused on turncounts and 'efficiency' is secondary to that shouldn't we see a lot of fliers and mounted units at the top with foot soldiers almost entirely under them and healers under them, beating only those units with costs so high as to be stupid to be used?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If this tier list is about efficiency and there are ways to be efficient that don't involve turncounts, then shouldn't we see more units ranked higher/lower for reasons not related to turncounts?

Conversely, if this list is focused on turncounts and 'efficiency' is secondary to that shouldn't we see a lot of fliers and mounted units at the top with foot soldiers almost entirely under them and healers under them, beating only those units with costs so high as to be stupid to be used?

You misunderstand. Completing the game efficiently means completing the game swiftly and reliably. This is not at odds with most LTC clears. Turns are a simple metric for measuring completion speed. But the scope of efficient playthroughs is greater than optimal LTC playthroughs. At the very least, efficient playthroughs encompass runs where all units are recruited, and/or certain "optimal" units are not used. It also encompasses a variety of clears with speed/reliability tradeoffs.

Edited by aku chi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Characters are compared based on how they contribute towards an efficient playthrough."

An efficient playthrough can mean many things aside from the absolute most optimal low turn count playthrough.

Sure, and Brom contributes towards a lower turn count more than Devdan does. I'm just saying he should get credit for it.

Edited by Aeine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where rankings are pretty much obsolete. There's no exact formula for determining where a character stands.

I mean, to just put a group of characters in a tier, without separating them amongst their tier group is hard enough. Ranking characters amongst their own tiers, especially when they all perform different roles...it's not measurable, unless you're going to say clearly what tasks are ranked more highly than others.

If it's about getting the lowest turn count possible, there are already LTC tier lists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this tier list is about efficiency and there are ways to be efficient that don't involve turncounts, then shouldn't we see more units ranked higher/lower for reasons not related to turncounts?

Conversely, if this list is focused on turncounts and 'efficiency' is secondary to that shouldn't we see a lot of fliers and mounted units at the top with foot soldiers almost entirely under them and healers under them, beating only those units with costs so high as to be stupid to be used?

I found that in my efficient playthrough, the best characters were:

Kieran

Astrid

Tanith

Marcia

Reyson

And the worst characters by far were Rolf and Volke (in terms of combat).

This bears out what I see in the tier list fairly well.

Also, turncounts and efficiency are sometimes the same thing. That's not always true (think Edward in 1-P, for example, who saves a lot of turns but is still fairly low on the list). But usually, saving turns is a good rule of thumb to determine how good a character is.

Edited by Anouleth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, if turncounts and efficiency are not the same thing, shouldn't we see units who would do good for turncounts, but are 'inefficient', ranked lower and/or units who are VERY efficient/useful but not all that useful for low turn counts ranked higher?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, if turncounts and efficiency are not the same thing, shouldn't we see units who would do good for turncounts, but are 'inefficient', ranked lower and/or units who are VERY efficient/useful but not all that useful for low turn counts ranked higher?

What's a unit who is very useful but not good for low turn counts? In general, contributing to efficiency and being part of low turn counts emphasize the same traits, having good offense, having high Mov, availability, staff usage etc. are useful in both kinds. It's just that efficiency playthroughs do not look at turncounts as absolute (or else Edward's 1-P would make him like the 4th best unit in the game) and do not assume an optimal team.

Edited by -Cynthia-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's a unit who is very useful but not good for low turn counts? In general, contributing to efficiency and being part of low turn counts emphasize the same traits, having good offense, having high Mov, availability, staff usage etc. are useful in both kinds. It's just that efficiency playthroughs do not look at turncounts as absolute (or else Edward's 1-P would make him like the 4th best unit in the game) and do not assume an optimal team.

Healers and sages for one. But let's look at a specific example. Marcia. Marcia is a swordsmaster with wings in almost every sense of the word. If you took Mia or Zihark, dropped their critical bonus, got rid of Vantage/adept, and gave them lances and flying, they'd be Marcia. All three join at almost the same time and all are fairly close, both at joining and as they grow. Marcia has two advantages over them though, Lances and flight... and the latter is of use only when focusing on mega-low turncounts due to rescue-dropping and the like (utilities that matter only when focusing on LTC runs and strategies) and... She's the second highest unit on the tier list as a result. Three full tiers higher than her statistical twins in the swordsmasters. Why? It's not the lances as Nephenee is BETTER than the swordsmasters on the whole stat-wise and has lances and is only one tier higher, so flight is apparently worth TWO FULL TIERS! Why? Because of the amount of turns it can save IF the player uses LTC strategies.

And this list ISN'T a LTC list? What possible efficiency use could flight have for such a huge difference that isn't LTC rescue-dropping based?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm...funds, for not using plethoras of (rare and nonrare) wpnry to demolish scrubs and get levels that don't really need to be acquired. Amassing BEXP, as quick lvl completion alotts more bexp than plugging along, and that can be measured with your eyes pretty easily, too.

LTC (as meaning, speed or time) is just the most simple way to define efficiency, as efficiency is the balance of using the least resources possible (time, money) for the most gain possible (in this game what, funds, base exp, and most quick completion) .

I dunno, what other ways do you measure efficiency?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, if turncounts and efficiency are not the same thing, shouldn't we see units who would do good for turncounts, but are 'inefficient', ranked lower and/or units who are VERY efficient/useful but not all that useful for low turn counts ranked higher?

Almost always these two are the same thing. But while I wouldn't quite say that Rolf saved any turns in a net utility sense, I would say that he contributed to my playthrough.

Healers and sages for one. But let's look at a specific example. Marcia. Marcia is a swordsmaster with wings in almost every sense of the word. If you took Mia or Zihark, dropped their critical bonus, got rid of Vantage/adept, and gave them lances and flying, they'd be Marcia. All three join at almost the same time and all are fairly close, both at joining and as they grow. Marcia has two advantages over them though, Lances and flight... and the latter is of use only when focusing on mega-low turncounts due to rescue-dropping and the like (utilities that matter only when focusing on LTC runs and strategies) and... She's the second highest unit on the tier list as a result. Three full tiers higher than her statistical twins in the swordsmasters. Why? It's not the lances as Nephenee is BETTER than the swordsmasters on the whole stat-wise and has lances and is only one tier higher, so flight is apparently worth TWO FULL TIERS! Why? Because of the amount of turns it can save IF the player uses LTC strategies.

Marcia and Tanith killed huge numbers of enemies between them, and yes, they rescue-dropped Ike forward. Those are both contributions to completing the map! Duh...

Edited by Anouleth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moved Shinon to above Tauroneo for the time being.

Healers and sages already have their contributions considered- staff utility isn't all that great in FE9 due to most characters having relatively high durability and a lack of status effects for the Restore staff to remove (the Rescue staff is why Mist and Elincia are relatively high). Healing isn't all that valuable period when we don't actually need it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marcia is a swordsmaster with wings in almost every sense of the word. If you took Mia or Zihark, dropped their critical bonus, got rid of Vantage/adept, and gave them lances and flying, they'd be Marcia.

If you want to compare Marcia's stats with a non-mounted unit's stats, a comparison with Nephenee is more apt. The have very similar availability, starting level, stats, and weapon access. Nephenee has innate Wrath and a little more physical durability. Marcia has a better starting Lance level and more magical durability. If Marcia and Nephenee switched classes and nothing else, they would probably switch tier positions with little to no adjustment (Soldier Marcia might be a little lower than Soldier Nephenee).

Marcia has two advantages over them though, Lances and flight... and the latter is of use only when focusing on mega-low turncounts due to rescue-dropping and the like (utilities that matter only when focusing on LTC runs and strategies) and... She's the second highest unit on the tier list as a result. Three full tiers higher than her statistical twins in the swordsmasters. Why? It's not the lances as Nephenee is BETTER than the swordsmasters on the whole stat-wise and has lances and is only one tier higher, so flight is apparently worth TWO FULL TIERS! Why? Because of the amount of turns it can save IF the player uses LTC strategies.

Marcia has three notable advantages over the Myrmidons:

1) Lances. If you want to know what a difference Swords vs. Lances makes, look at Zihark vs. Nephenee. Their stats are very similar. Nephenee has a small defense advantage. Zihark has a stronger start and crit post-promotion. Lances' 1-2 range and +2 Mt is a notable advantage. It's evidently worth a tier difference for early joiners like Nephenee and Zihark.

2) +2 mov & canto & rescuing. This is a very large difference. 9-mov units can complete just about any objective 9/7 = ~1.29 times faster than any 7-move unit. In a game like PoR where there are numerous good->superb 9-mov combat units, it's trivial to, by and large, use them to the exclusion of 7-mov combat units. Canto is another large advantage, which allows mounted units to make use of their full movement irrespective of whatever they are doing and allows them to easily position themselves for Reyson's vigors. Mounted units' additional weight allows them to rescue any beorc non-mounted unit. This enables them to aid those less blessed in movement. This does have a downside: mounted units are harder to shove and impossible to rescue.

3) Flight. Marcia is not slowed down by terrain that the Myrmidons are. This allows her to complete chapter objectives more efficiently. Flight is enormously useful in a several chapters (12, 15, 17-2, 17-4, 20, 21, and 25) and slightly beneficial in many others.

Each of these advantages by themselves would be enough to justify a tier gap for early joiners like Marcia and Nephenee.

And this list ISN'T a LTC list? What possible efficiency use could flight have for such a huge difference that isn't LTC rescue-dropping based?

I'm not sure why you are focused on rescue-dropping. I'm one of the few tier list debaters that regularly brings up rescue-dropping as an alternative to solo flier clears. The existance of rescue-dropping actually helps Nephenee more than it helps Marcia. Flight is helpful because it allows Marcia to get to chapter objectives faster than Nephenee. Valuing such contributions is obviously in line with valuing efficiency: completing the game swiftly and reliably. Efficient clears and LTC clears are rarely in mutual opposition. But I don't know why I'm wasting more time explaining this to you, when my previous post was completely ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to compare Marcia's stats with a non-mounted unit's stats, a comparison with Nephenee is more apt. The have very similar availability, starting level, stats, and weapon access. Nephenee has innate Wrath and a little more physical durability. Marcia has a better starting Lance level and more magical durability. If Marcia and Nephenee switched classes and nothing else, they would probably switch tier positions with little to no adjustment (Soldier Marcia might be a little lower than Soldier Nephenee).

So having the ability to fly is worth two tier positions in of itself? Just for being capable of flight. Because flight is efficient and, if the list suddenly stopped caring one bit about turn counts, would still be 'efficient'. I'm sorry, no, I don't buy that. Marcia's position is that high solely because all this list cares about is low turn counts, not efficiency.

I'm not sure why you are focused on rescue-dropping. I'm one of the few tier list debaters that regularly brings up rescue-dropping as an alternative to solo flier clears. The existance of rescue-dropping actually helps Nephenee more than it helps Marcia. Flight is helpful because it allows Marcia to get to chapter objectives faster than Nephenee. Valuing such contributions is obviously in line with valuing efficiency: completing the game swiftly and reliably. Efficient clears and LTC clears are rarely in mutual opposition. But I don't know why I'm wasting more time explaining this to you, when my previous post was completely ignored.

Let's say I devised a way to clear every chapter in 1 turn using Rolf. Rolf is the only unit who can do it and he does it by loading Ike into his bow and firing him across the map right to the seize tile. So is Rolf suddenly the best character in the game? Even if NOTHING else about his character changed besides his ability to fire Ike as ammunition? What if *gasp* a player chose NOT to fire Ike to the seize square or use the utility, but still used Rolf? Where would he be ranked then? This is why I don't like rescue-drops or using LTC as measuring sticks for how good a character is. Because what happens when a player opts to not use those strategies? The entire tier list suddenly becomes invalid. Is Marcia better than Nephenee? We don't know because Marcia's tier position was given to her based on her rescue-dropping, not how good she is on the map. Nephenee may very well be the superior character, or it might very well be Marcia, but we won't know that from looking at the tier list.

This tier list is a proverbial house built on sand. It's foundation is weak and assumes that you MUST play a certain way (rescue-dropping for LTC). It's not even an 'optional' playstyle that has its possibility accounted for alongside other possibilities. That's not strategy in the slightest. To quote Erfworld 'Perfect Strategy doesn't mean one perfect, flawless, plan. It doesn't mean you never lose.' ( http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F124.jpg ). This is supposed to be a tier list, a place where we weigh the value of every unit as best we can for how much they help the player. But if we are only helping one specific type of player than the tier list has FAILED. Horribly. It's like the dweeb running a high-end magic deck that's mega-specialized. He might be good, his deck might be strong, but no matter how hard he tries his deck is NOT undefeatable and if he doesn't know how to respond when given a deck that may very well be a strong deck, but is not HIS deck, he's not a good player or a player worth listening to.

That's why I've been so constantly hostile to 'LTC' tiering. Because it's not a reflection of the characters. It's a reflection of the player and what one group of people thinks is best, but is not the best by any means. NOTHING IS! There will NEVER be a perfect tier list, but that doesn't mean we should just give up or should set ourselves some arbitrary goal for definition. It means we should be doing our best to account as best we can for everything. Weighing our costs, finding out what the most we can accomplish with a character is, trying to account for those moments when we WON'T be at our strongest as well as when we will. Not sitting down and going 'let's define our list by how fast we can complete the game'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say I devised a way to clear every chapter in 1 turn using Rolf. Rolf is the only unit who can do it and he does it by loading Ike into his bow and firing him across the map right to the seize tile. So is Rolf suddenly the best character in the game?

Erm, why not?

What if *gasp* a player chose NOT to fire Ike to the seize square or use the utility,

What if a player chose to finish the game with a Volke solo? What if the player chose to draw a swastika sign with their units?!?!!?!?

Edited by Aeine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the biggest problem is, PoR is hardly a game where the difficulty is high enough that any of these tier lists even matter.

In the end, it all depends on how you'd like to play the game. In a game absent of all rankings except character kills, you can see there was no intent of making this game one about clearing maps in the lowest amount of turns possible. So if you're going to rank characters only based on how fast they're helping you complete this 'community-agreed' upon goal, it neglects any other ways people would play this game.

I'd just hope people would look outside of their predetermined mindset that LTC is all that matters when it comes to efficiency. Since the only rankings in the end are combat kills, why isn't this tier list based off of that? Isn't that what efficiency is in regards to the game? Since apparently characters are ranked on their ability to kill, and only that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the biggest problem is, PoR is hardly a game where the difficulty is high enough that any of these tier lists even matter.

In the end, it all depends on how you'd like to play the game. In a game absent of all rankings except character kills, you can see there was no intent of making this game one about clearing maps in the lowest amount of turns possible. So if you're going to rank characters only based on how fast they're helping you complete this 'community-agreed' upon goal, it neglects any other ways people would play this game.

I'd just hope people would look outside of their predetermined mindset that LTC is all that matters when it comes to efficiency. Since the only rankings in the end are combat kills, why isn't this tier list based off of that? Isn't that what efficiency is in regards to the game? Since apparently characters are ranked on their ability to kill, and only that.

Then let's all rank characters on things like beauty and late game potential. Surely that's more meaningful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which does Snowy_One's latest post demonstrate?

A) Snowy_One doesn't (fully) read my posts.

B) Snowy_One doesn't comprehend my posts.

Since the only rankings in the end are combat kills, why isn't this tier list based off of that? Isn't that what efficiency is in regards to the game? Since apparently characters are ranked on their ability to kill, and only that.

Short Answer: Feel free to make your own tier list.

Other Short Answer: Reyson is the worst unit in the game!

Longer Answer: If we tiered units based on the largest numbers they could kill in a playthrough, it would almost exactly map to unit availability. Even Rolf can be made to kill almost every unit in chapter 10 and beyond (along with most of the units in C9).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if a player chose to finish the game with a Volke solo? What if the player chose to draw a swastika sign with their units?!?!!?!?

In the Volke solo Volke would be the best unit, obviously, but the Volke solos would be off-set by the solos/other playthroughs using specific units on the whole.

And someone who did that is REALLY trying to invoke good luck on their units to appease the RNG goddess.

I think the biggest problem is, PoR is hardly a game where the difficulty is high enough that any of these tier lists even matter.

In the end, it all depends on how you'd like to play the game. In a game absent of all rankings except character kills, you can see there was no intent of making this game one about clearing maps in the lowest amount of turns possible. So if you're going to rank characters only based on how fast they're helping you complete this 'community-agreed' upon goal, it neglects any other ways people would play this game.

I'd just hope people would look outside of their predetermined mindset that LTC is all that matters when it comes to efficiency. Since the only rankings in the end are combat kills, why isn't this tier list based off of that? Isn't that what efficiency is in regards to the game? Since apparently characters are ranked on their ability to kill, and only that.

Cause units offer things that aren't combat related. Is Rolf better than Mist? According to combat kills, yes. I'm sure no one agrees with that though on any serious level though. And I want to make this clear. I do not think using LTC as A means to measure efficiency is a bad thing. I think using it as THE ONLY, BE-ALL END-ALL measure of efficiency is a HORRIBLE thing though.

Also, this game, and FE in general, is 'too easy' because fliers/mounted units are, for all intents and purposes, 'masters of all trades, jacks of none'. They need to be hit with a mega nerfbat all around.

Which does Snowy_One's latest post demonstrate?

A) Snowy_One doesn't (fully) read my posts.

B) Snowy_One doesn't comprehend my posts.

Neither. Though you clearly didn't comprehend mine. Zihark, Mia, Nephenee, I almost don't care which of them Marcia relates closest to. The fact is that she's getting at LEAST two tiers of ranking simply for having flight because the tier list assumes that the player WILL use certain strategies to get low turn counts that can only be done with a unit that CAN use flight. Why do units lower than, maybe, upper mid not really matter? Cause Marcia/Jill/the paladins complete it faster than they can make any meaningful contributions? Because our assumptions about the list are so rigid it renders it meaningless to anyone who doesn't conform to them? Why don't we just make it a list of ideal units and drop everyone down into 'everyone else' then because our mounted units will just complete it superfast?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say I devised a way to clear every chapter in 1 turn using Rolf. Rolf is the only unit who can do it and he does it by loading Ike into his bow and firing him across the map right to the seize tile. So is Rolf suddenly the best character in the game? Even if NOTHING else about his character changed besides his ability to fire Ike as ammunition? What if *gasp* a player chose NOT to fire Ike to the seize square or use the utility, but still used Rolf? Where would he be ranked then? This is why I don't like rescue-drops or using LTC as measuring sticks for how good a character is. Because what happens when a player opts to not use those strategies? The entire tier list suddenly becomes invalid. Is Marcia better than Nephenee? We don't know because Marcia's tier position was given to her based on her rescue-dropping, not how good she is on the map. Nephenee may very well be the superior character, or it might very well be Marcia, but we won't know that from looking at the tier list.

Marcia's not that high just for "rescue-dropping", if you want to see a character based solely on rescue-dropping look at FE6 Thany or something. Marcia is capable of reaching map objectives and killing all the units in the way with relative ease, thus allowing her to help to complete the game. If she were only good for ferrying Ike she wouldn't be nearly as high- in some chapters (Routs for instance) getting Ike to a specific location isn't helpful.

With your Rolf example that would make the game significantly easier in many instances so yeah (similar to the Warp Staff in FE11). You could make a tier list that explicitly banned Warp!Rolf, but if you didn't you'd have to consider the fact he could do that as part of his ranking. An ordered list of units can't really take into account all possible strategies you can use with them and instead goes for the most common ones (Sothe is high because of thief utility, as a pure combat unit he'd be ranked lower). I'll note that this tier list, among others, generally does not consider essential Lord functions to be part of the list.

This tier list is a proverbial house built on sand. It's foundation is weak and assumes that you MUST play a certain way (rescue-dropping for LTC). It's not even an 'optional' playstyle that has its possibility accounted for alongside other possibilities. That's not strategy in the slightest. To quote Erfworld 'Perfect Strategy doesn't mean one perfect, flawless, plan. It doesn't mean you never lose.' ( http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F124.jpg ). This is supposed to be a tier list, a place where we weigh the value of every unit as best we can for how much they help the player. But if we are only helping one specific type of player than the tier list has FAILED. Horribly. It's like the dweeb running a high-end magic deck that's mega-specialized. He might be good, his deck might be strong, but no matter how hard he tries his deck is NOT undefeatable and if he doesn't know how to respond when given a deck that may very well be a strong deck, but is not HIS deck, he's not a good player or a player worth listening to.

That's why I've been so constantly hostile to 'LTC' tiering. Because it's not a reflection of the characters. It's a reflection of the player and what one group of people thinks is best, but is not the best by any means. NOTHING IS! There will NEVER be a perfect tier list, but that doesn't mean we should just give up or should set ourselves some arbitrary goal for definition. It means we should be doing our best to account as best we can for everything. Weighing our costs, finding out what the most we can accomplish with a character is, trying to account for those moments when we WON'T be at our strongest as well as when we will. Not sitting down and going 'let's define our list by how fast we can complete the game'.

What would you base it on then? I can use Titania to kill an enemy unit in one turn- Rolf might take 4 turns but without taking turncounts into play who cares really? The problem with a relatively easy game like PoR is that if you take turncounts out all the units blend together really- it doesn't matter who you use because just about all of them can be used to beat the game.

Fire Emblem is about completing the main objective of each map- that's how we beat the game. When beating the main objective isn't very difficult we tend to go for who can beat it the fastest.

Edited by -Cynthia-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact is that she's getting at LEAST two tiers of ranking simply for having flight because the tier list assumes that the player WILL use certain strategies to get low turn counts that can only be done with a unit that CAN use flight.

The tier assumes that we use units to their full capacity. When we evaluate Marcia, we're evaluating a unit that can move 2 more spaces per turn than Nephenee, can fly over terrain that Nephenee cannot, has canto, and can rescue any beorc foot unit. Marcia can get to any chapter objective faster (often substantially faster) than Nephenee, and is equally competent when there. One doesn't need to recite LTC clears to understand this. Turn counts are an easily measurable quantity that strongly correlates with efficient game completion. Have turn counts been emphasized too much in some past tier list arguments? Certainly. Turn counts are only one measure of swiftness. Reliability and resource expenditure are also critical considerations in game completion efficiency. If you're suggesting that the tier list no longer reflects how units can contribute to efficient playthroughs of FE9: I disagree. I have some quarrels, of course, but I cannot identify a systematic bias towards overvaluing inefficient contributions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marcia's not that high just for "rescue-dropping", if you want to see a character based solely on rescue-dropping look at FE6 Thany or something. Marcia is capable of reaching map objectives and killing all the units in the way with relative ease, thus allowing her to help to complete the game. If she were only good for ferrying Ike she wouldn't be nearly as high- in some chapters (Routs for instance) getting Ike to a specific location isn't helpful.

With your Rolf example that would make the game significantly easier in many instances so yeah (similar to the Warp Staff in FE11). You could make a tier list that explicitly banned Warp!Rolf, but if you didn't you'd have to consider the fact he could do that as part of his ranking. An ordered list of units can't really take into account all possible strategies you can use with them and instead goes for the most common ones (Sothe is high because of thief utility, as a pure combat unit he'd be ranked lower). I'll note that this tier list, among others, generally does not consider essential Lord functions to be part of the list.

Actually it would be Ikeshot!Rolf... but that's unimportant. I know that we are supposed to be using units to their full potential, but there is a big difference between using Ikeshot!Rolf to bypass an entire chapter and using Ikeshot!Rolf like it would probably have been intended to have been used if it existed, namely to rocket Ike into ideal positions that he couldn't have reached as the party moved forwards. Big difference between Marcia flying right to the enemy base and Marcia simply flying over a single tree or shrub to hit a enemy.

What would you base it on then? I can use Titania to kill an enemy unit in one turn- Rolf might take 4 turns but without taking turncounts into play who cares really? The problem with a relatively easy game like PoR is that if you take turncounts out all the units blend together really- it doesn't matter who you use because just about all of them can be used to beat the game.

Fire Emblem is about completing the main objective of each map- that's how we beat the game. When beating the main objective isn't very difficult we tend to go for who can beat it the fastest.

What I would like to base it on is something more of a hybrid of LTC and kill-count. 'Completion' I guess, where we compare how much we cleared the entire map to how much time it took. Though, to be more accurate, what I REALLY want is to see more overall flexibility in the assumed strategies. Like, I dunno, a 'banned Rescue!drop' tier list maybe? I'm not even sure if that's the right way to describe it. Something more fluid that doesn't rely on the playing doing one specific thing or strategy when it comes to using units for sure.

I have some quarrels, of course, but I cannot identify a systematic bias towards overvaluing inefficient contributions.

Flight. Simply having it seems to get you knocked up a tier or two. Same with mounted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the Volke solo Volke would be the best unit, obviously, but the Volke solos would be off-set by the solos/other playthroughs using specific units on the whole.

And someone who did that is REALLY trying to invoke good luck on their units to appease the RNG goddess.

Cause units offer things that aren't combat related. Is Rolf better than Mist? According to combat kills, yes. I'm sure no one agrees with that though on any serious level though. And I want to make this clear. I do not think using LTC as A means to measure efficiency is a bad thing. I think using it as THE ONLY, BE-ALL END-ALL measure of efficiency is a HORRIBLE thing though.

Right, that's why we use efficiency and not LTC! But you must admit that being able to move Ike forward contributes towards clearing the chapter, and that being able to slaughter enemies before anyone else can even reach them is a contribution.

Also, this game, and FE in general, is 'too easy' because fliers/mounted units are, for all intents and purposes, 'masters of all trades, jacks of none'. They need to be hit with a mega nerfbat all around.

Neither. Though you clearly didn't comprehend mine. Zihark, Mia, Nephenee, I almost don't care which of them Marcia relates closest to. The fact is that she's getting at LEAST two tiers of ranking simply for having flight because the tier list assumes that the player WILL use certain strategies to get low turn counts that can only be done with a unit that CAN use flight.

Uh, why not? I mean, if you have Marcia, why not use her to her fullest potential? Anything else would just be sandbagging.

Why do units lower than, maybe, upper mid not really matter? Cause Marcia/Jill/the paladins complete it faster than they can make any meaningful contributions? Because our assumptions about the list are so rigid it renders it meaningless to anyone who doesn't conform to them? Why don't we just make it a list of ideal units and drop everyone down into 'everyone else' then because our mounted units will just complete it superfast?

The problem is that it's actually quite hard to "not conform" to the tier list. The number of excellent 9 move units the game gives you is really very high, between Muarim, Makalov, Kieran, Titania, Astrid, Oscar, Jill, Marcia, and Tanith (and you could stretch to accomodate Tormod). All you actually need is three of these units to render all those 7 move units obsolete (you can have a 7 move unit with Mordecai stuck to him, in theory, pretend to be a 9 move unit, but that's about it). Maybe even two. Maybe that won't happen in some playthroughs, but it's a minority: and even in those playthroughs, the 9 move canto units will still be a cut above.

If you insist on playing the game super-optimally or whatever, obviously units in Upper Mid and below won't matter. But that's true of every tier list. Mid Tier on the FE6 tier list contains outrageous mediocrities like Lot, Lugh, and Roy.

What I would like to base it on is something more of a hybrid of LTC and kill-count.

Kill count is a really bad way to tier the game. Rolf got more kills in my pt than Tanith or Titania. But that doesn't make him better, it just means he needs to be fed an ungodly number of enemies. And Tormod got more kills than all three.

'Completion' I guess, where we compare how much we cleared the entire map to how much time it took. Though, to be more accurate, what I REALLY want is to see more overall flexibility in the assumed strategies. Like, I dunno, a 'banned Rescue!drop' tier list maybe? I'm not even sure if that's the right way to describe it. Something more fluid that doesn't rely on the playing doing one specific thing or strategy when it comes to using units for sure.

What about the tier list relies on one single strategy? Because I guarantee you that unless you use a completely boneheaded strategy Marcia is still far and away the best character in Chapter 15.

Flight. Simply having it seems to get you knocked up a tier or two.

Interesting theory: if Ulki didn't have flight, would we have to create a new Sub-Bottom Tier to accomodate him?

Edited by Anouleth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then let's all rank characters on things like beauty and late game potential. Surely that's more meaningful.

Or you could just not rank characters to the last detail in such a piss easy game.

And beauty/personality sounds a lot more fun than you make it out to be, actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...