FE9 Tier list v3

[GreatEclipse]

Because restarting to proc level ups, especially a lot of the time, not only affects chances of completing the chapter massively but interferes with individual unit quality in the tier list. It brings in too many technicalities and the other portion is that it actually lowers my hypothetical "turn value" count because an extra 50% or 40% actually nearly doubles the "turn value" meaning... it's a less efficient clear.

Assuming low turns counts in the first place already has a huge impact on individual unit quality. Look at the number of otherwise perfectly viable growth units in this game and others that always end up doing nothing or very little on this kind of run because they never get the chance. In fact, out of all the ways to play Fire Emblem, shooting for the mathematically lowest turn count is always the most centralized around specific units used in highly specific ways. If you plan on killing everything with Titania and Marcia anyway, what would it hurt to ensure they always have the stats to do it effectively?

Edited September 16, 2011 by GreatEclipse

[Lord Raven]

This tier list is judged based on assuming something to the extent of Fixed mode without the random growth alterations due to rounding and attacking.

They'll always have the stats to effectively do it anyway- Marcus may end up a little short on Speed (easily fixed and worked around) and Tits may not be able to kill as much later on (due to not being the crux of every single strategy towards the end of the game), but they are still damn valuable with their base stats.

Edited September 16, 2011 by Mercenary Raven

[GreatEclipse]

This tier list is judged based on assuming something to the extent of Fixed mode without the random growth alterations due to rounding and attacking.

They'll always have the stats to effectively do it anyway- Marcus may end up a little short on Speed (easily fixed and worked around) and Tits may not be able to kill as much later on (due to not being the crux of every single strategy towards the end of the game), but they are still damn valuable with their base stats.

First, you should either assume fixed mode or not assume it, doing anything in between does not accurately represent the game. Second, I see no reason to assume fixed mode at all if achieving the lowest final turn count is the overriding goal, and a quick reset is considered a reasonable sacrifice if needed to achieve it. Third, I highly doubt such a practice will never save you even a single turn, and that should be all you need to justify it with the standards you have set up. At the very least, you could cut down on the resources needed to make Marcia viable and give them to the next best alternative. Finally, even if you put a cap on when it is reasonable to reset (In terms of time it takes off your life), I would much rather do it at the BEXP screen than a few turns into a chapter.

[Lord Raven]

We're assuming no abuse as far as I'm aware (aside from the BEXP abuse to save BEXP). Therefore, we end up assuming a middle ground between fixed mode and random mode. Furthermore, you don't even need to proc a bunch of gains to effectively finish it early; the growths don't matter nearly as much as you'd think, and while they do matter in the case of every unit who receives BEXP their averages are enough to make them effective to use. We can't just assume that every single BEXP stat up gives +6 stats.

[Anouleth]

Do not misunderstand me, I use plans with success rates well under 100% even when playing on a cart, I would just never assume them on something like a tier list with no account for individual play styles, nor would I assume myself a better player than someone else because I pulled off something really luck based and ended up with a lower turn count as a result. Much of the time, playing a chapter the reliable, inefficient way is both a bigger test of skill and tells you more about the units being used.

Well, my issue is more that it shouldn't be assumed that the player will prefer one strategy over the other, since they both have their merits. And I think that both ways of playing are equally valid for consideration by the tier list.

[GreatEclipse]

We're assuming no abuse as far as I'm aware (aside from the BEXP abuse to save BEXP). Therefore, we end up assuming a middle ground between fixed mode and random mode. Furthermore, you don't even need to proc a bunch of gains to effectively finish it early; the growths don't matter nearly as much as you'd think, and while they do matter in the case of every unit who receives BEXP their averages are enough to make them effective to use. We can't just assume that every single BEXP stat up gives +6 stats.

That presuppose that restarting for levels is abuse and restarting for chapters is not, which is exactly what you are trying to prove. And I'm sure you can finish quickly without every BEXP level being +6 stats, what I'm saying is that you should make every level +6 stats whenever it would let you finish even faster, under the standards you have set for yourself. Besides, doesn't what you're saying now contradict this statement from earlier?

[Resetting for level ups is banned] Because restarting to proc level ups, especially a lot of the time, not only affects chances of completing the chapter massively but interferes with individual unit quality in the tier list.

[Anouleth]

Obviously, that rule should be removed since it interferes with Mercenary Raven's definition of efficiency. An optimal playthrough would manipulate all BEXP level ups in order to reduce the expected turncount to minimum levels and thus be maximally efficient.

[Lord Raven]

Anouleth, you can shut up now and stop exaggerating every single one of my points. In fact, I just now stated that BEXP abuse past the maximizing of BEXP use (so raising your BEXP in increments, essentially, so you can get more EXP out of your BEXP) was not apart of this tier list. Are you unable to read?

That presuppose that restarting for levels is abuse and restarting for chapters is not, which is exactly what you are trying to prove. And I'm sure you can finish quickly without every BEXP level being +6 stats, what I'm saying is that you should make every level +6 stats whenever it would let you finish even faster, under the standards you have set for yourself. Besides, doesn't what you're saying now contradict this statement from earlier?

Restarting for chapters because of a 75% chance of a low-turn completion is not abuse. Restarting chapters because you need to proc 3 stats- around a 3% chance- is not at all what my argument applies to. The chances are so much lower that proc'ing stats is not at all efficient unless you're trying to proc a +1 in only a certain stat for one chapter (read: Edward needs a Spd proc in the Prologue to double Bandits in 1-1; 60% chance iirc and someone mentioned this proc as a point in his favor on that tier list. In fact, it was Anouleth who did).

And the formula I placed in my "defining efficiency" thread? Was more or less proven by aku chi and dondon to be pretty accurate to measure turn value as far as restarting goes. If you apply my formula to trying to proc 3 stats or even 2, you end up multiplying the turncount by either 5 or 33. I'm not a fucking moron, thank you very much.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Mercenary Raven

[GreatEclipse]

We were mostly discussing BEXP, which does not effect turn counts at all when it comes to resetting, but even ensuring you gain certain stats on a turn 1 level up, or outright RNG abusing in games where it is possible (Only to ensure things like vital STR and SPD gains), is not terribly time consuming compared to a 25% chance I will need to restart on turn 2.

Edited September 17, 2011 by GreatEclipse

[Narga_Rocks]

And the formula I placed in my "defining efficiency" thread? Was more or less proven by aku chi and dondon to be pretty accurate to measure turn value as far as restarting goes. If you apply my formula to trying to proc 3 stats or even 2, you end up multiplying the turncount by either 5 or 33. I'm not a fucking moron, thank you very much.

But there are no turns spent in the base. 0 / p = 0. No matter how low that probability is, there isn't a cost.

It's tough to argue in favour of arbitrary rules created based on what we think is fair. And Great Eclipse quite frequently argues relentlessly against any such rules when people attempt to justify the rule.

Think of it this way, 2/0.75 = 2.66..., correct? Well, what if we can make that 2/1 = 2 turns by getting a unit more skill and more defence during bexp levels. Now consider that we come up with some arbitrary measurement of "cost" in order to achieve that through resetting for bexp. If there is a way to make that cost less than 2/3 of a turn, then it is therefore more efficient than the 75% method of achieving 2 turns. How many resets does it take, on average, to get Marcia an extra 2 defence? It's not like you have to play a chapter, so it shouldn't take too long to force it. Even a 30% chance of getting defence only generally takes 3 or 4 resets. How long does that take in comparison to a 25% chance to restart the chapter? Enemy phase + 2 player phases a quarter of the time. It comes close, perhaps. Hence, it's an arbitrary rule to suggest that restarting a chapter is fine, but restarting for bexp levels is not.

However, if we give a higher cost to restarting, say, +.5 turn per restart, then that happens each reset for bexp and it becomes quite costly. However, a two turn clear with 75% chance is still better than a 4 turn clear. Of course, .5 turns per restart is again coming out of our butts, so perhaps it'd be better to force more reliable strategies?

Edited September 17, 2011 by Narga_Rocks

[Lord Raven]

But there are no turns spent in the base. 0 / p = 0. No matter how low that probability is, there isn't a cost.

It's tough to argue in favour of arbitrary rules created based on what we think is fair. And Great Eclipse quite frequently argues relentlessly against any such rules when people attempt to justify the rule.

But it is fair to argue as such. Getting a proc on a bunch of BEXP gains may end up good for you in the long run but that also eliminates any sense of uniqueness in the tier list and basically makes it a massive mount fest. It already is as such, but it would also eliminate any reason to use an unmounted unit not named Tormod or Ike. It is not at all a double standard to take averages into account even with BEXP levels while advocating a 75% clear.

Think of it this way, 2/0.75 = 2.66..., correct? Well, what if we can make that 2/1 = 2 turns by getting a unit more skill and more defence during bexp levels. Now consider that we come up with some arbitrary measurement of "cost" in order to achieve that through resetting for bexp. If there is a way to make that cost less than 2/3 of a turn, then it is therefore more efficient than the 75% method of achieving 2 turns. How many resets does it take, on average, to get Marcia an extra 2 defence? It's not like you have to play a chapter, so it shouldn't take too long to force it. Even a 30% chance of getting defence only generally takes 3 or 4 resets. How long does that take in comparison to a 25% chance to restart the chapter? Enemy phase + 2 player phases a quarter of the time. It comes close, perhaps. Hence, it's an arbitrary rule to suggest that restarting a chapter is fine, but restarting for bexp levels is not.

However, if we give a higher cost to restarting, say, +.5 turn per restart, then that happens each reset for bexp and it becomes quite costly. However, a two turn clear with 75% chance is still better than a 4 turn clear. Of course, .5 turns per restart is again coming out of our butts, so perhaps it'd be better to force more reliable strategies?

That 2/.75 actually ends up taking into account restarts. Go back to aku chi's and dondon's posts; they were using series essentially and aku chi showed it converges to the value of... N/P. Edited September 17, 2011 by Mercenary Raven

[-Cynthia-]

Efficiency has never really been defined by time spent playing the game, just completing the chapters as quickly as possible with reaonable success rates (obviously this definition comes in question a lot).

I think one could then say there's no cost for BEXP "abuse" unless it's specifically banned, which I wouldn't mind doing. Characters become difficult to compare if level ups are all "rigged" IMO.

[GreatEclipse]

It's tough to argue in favour of arbitrary rules created based on what we think is fair. And Great Eclipse quite frequently argues relentlessly against any such rules when people attempt to justify the rule.

I think the list should be consistent and accurately reflect the game, but I also find this whole style of play dreadfully boring to both execute and discuss, and my argument can just as well be taken as a reduction to absurdity. If I had to make the rules, though, reliability would probably win every time just because forcing luck requires nothing in the way of player skill. If I had my way, we would assume every map a rout using units at or below enemy levels and every item of value acquired in the fewest turns possible (Basically FE6 and 7 ranked with more weight on turn counts). It is both the most taxing and the best at setting units apart, from my experience.

[Anouleth]

Anouleth, you can shut up now and stop exaggerating every single one of my points. In fact, I just now stated that BEXP abuse past the maximizing of BEXP use (so raising your BEXP in increments, essentially, so you can get more EXP out of your BEXP) was not apart of this tier list. Are you unable to read?

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realise this was your tier list and your set of rules, to decide as you see fit. No, go ahead. If you state that permitting resets doesn't implicitly condone BEXP abuse, it must be true. This is your tier list and your word is law. Permit and forbid whatever you want.

Restarting for chapters because of a 75% chance of a low-turn completion is not abuse. Restarting chapters because you need to proc 3 stats- around a 3% chance- is not at all what my argument applies to.

I never said you should restart a chapter. I said you should restart in the base to manipulate biorhythm. After all, it doesn't cost turns, which according to you is the only objective measure of efficiency.

The chances are so much lower that proc'ing stats is not at all efficient unless you're trying to proc a +1 in only a certain stat for one chapter

How is it inefficient? It takes 0 turns to reset for a level in the base. Even if the chance of a good level was only 1%, a 99% chance of taking an extra 0 turns is not really threatening.

(read: Edward needs a Spd proc in the Prologue to double Bandits in 1-1; 60% chance iirc and someone mentioned this proc as a point in his favor on that tier list. In fact, it was Anouleth who did).

Please link me to this. I've always accepted that Edward's reliance on constantly proccing speed to double reliably is a flaw against him and that he shouldn't be used if he fails to proc speed (if he does proc speed then he's viable). If I ever said otherwise, I was wrong.

In addition, Edward can gain two levels in 1-P if he kills every enemy (which doesn't cost turns). So his chance of a speed proc is more like 84%.

And the formula I placed in my "defining efficiency" thread? Was more or less proven by aku chi and dondon to be pretty accurate to measure turn value as far as restarting goes.

What do you mean, "accurate"? What are you comparing it's accuracy against? Accuracy describes how close it comes to the true value. But the only "true value" there could be is the one that the game gives you at the end. How is 2.67 accurate when the "true value" is 2 turns, according to the game?

I'm not a fucking moron, thank you very much.

I don't call people morons. I prefer to express my frustration through passive-aggressive sarcasm, like any true British gentleman.

I think the list should be consistent and accurately reflect the game, but I also find this whole style of play dreadfully boring to both execute and discuss, and my argument can just as well be taken as a reduction to absurdity. If I had to make the rules, though, reliability would probably win every time just because forcing luck requires nothing in the way of player skill. If I had my way, we would assume every map a rout using units at or below enemy levels and every item of value acquired in the fewest turns possible (Basically FE6 and 7 ranked with more weight on turn counts). It is both the most taxing and the best at setting units apart, from my experience.

I like that idea. Dunno about "items of value", though. There are many chest items of extremely dubious value in game, like Elfire tomes, lategame Master Seals, high rank tomes, that Chapter 27 Silver Lance. If you're going to permit items like that which have practically no value, you might as well require items like stealable vulneraries or weapons.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Anouleth

[Lord Raven]

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realise this was your tier list and your set of rules, to decide as you see fit. No, go ahead. If you state that permitting resets doesn't implicitly condone BEXP abuse, it must be true. This is your tier list and your word is law. Permit and forbid whatever you want.

I think one could then say there's no cost for BEXP "abuse" unless it's specifically banned' date=' which I wouldn't mind doing. Characters become difficult to compare if level ups are all "rigged" IMO.[/quote']

Don't get snippy with me.

I never said you should restart a chapter. I said you should restart in the base to manipulate biorhythm. After all, it doesn't cost turns, which according to you is the only objective measure of efficiency.

Of course it is but the biorhythms happen enough in the average playthrough to cancel out the biorhythm boosts. It's simple, you restart if you fail a chapter with a high value low-turn strategy without any stat/bio abuse.

And I'm still waiting to hear a more objective measure of efficiency than turncounts. I've seen repeatedly, both from you and many others, that turncounts was probably the most objective way to measure it- turncount values makes it even more measurable.

How is it inefficient? It takes 0 turns to reset for a level in the base. Even if the chance of a good level was only 1%, a 99% chance of taking an extra 0 turns is not really threatening.

I'm referring to level ups within the chapter. Furthermore, once again, refer to Cynthia's post. Nobody is implying at all that BEXP abuse at base + Biorhythm abuse is apart of this tier list, and no one is arguing that a 75% low turn completion is abuse either; they are merely showing ways to measure a turncount with taking into account probability.

What do you mean, "accurate"? What are you comparing it's accuracy against? Accuracy describes how close it comes to the true value. But the only "true value" there could be is the one that the game gives you at the end. How is 2.67 accurate when the "true value" is 2 turns, according to the game?

Because it takes into account probability. The argument was made way back when you were arguing a higher than 75% 4-turn over a 75% 2-turn. Your entire argument is built upon passive-aggressiveness and strawman fallacies.

I think the list should be consistent and accurately reflect the game, but I also find this whole style of play dreadfully boring to both execute and discuss, and my argument can just as well be taken as a reduction to absurdity. If I had to make the rules, though, reliability would probably win every time just because forcing luck requires nothing in the way of player skill. If I had my way, we would assume every map a rout using units at or below enemy levels and every item of value acquired in the fewest turns possible (Basically FE6 and 7 ranked with more weight on turn counts). It is both the most taxing and the best at setting units apart, from my experience.

75% isn't much luck at all.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Mercenary Raven

[Radiant Dragon]

I like that idea. Dunno about "items of value", though. There are many chest items of extremely dubious value in game, like Elfire tomes, lategame Master Seals, high rank tomes, that Chapter 27 Silver Lance. If you're going to permit items like that which have practically no value, you might as well require items like stealable vulneraries or weapons.

I wouldn't consider those 'items of value', personally (assuming that by 'value', he means 'high value'). Then again, 'value' in this case is pretty subjective.

[Anouleth]

Don't get snippy with me.

Well then, maybe you shouldn't make grandiose declarations about how your version of efficiency is perfectly objective and wonderful and everyone else's is subjective and poopy.

Of course it is but the biorhythms happen enough in the average playthrough to cancel out the biorhythm boosts.

I don't understand what this sentence means.

It's simple, you restart if you fail a chapter with a high value low-turn strategy without any stat/bio abuse.

Yet nothing stops the player from restarting before they begin the chapter to ensure a more favourable biorhythm, except for you declaring that we won't consider it.

And I'm still waiting to hear a more objective measure of efficiency than turncounts. I've seen repeatedly, both from you and many others, that turncounts was probably the most objective way to measure it- turncount values makes it even more measurable.

And as I've said, turncount is a good rule of thumb, but that's all it is. It's not the only thing that should be taken into consideration. And clearly, you agree with me. If you truly thought that turncount was the only thing that mattered, you would have no problem with permitting BEXP abuse or biorhythm abuse, since they don't affect turncount.

In addition, I still don't understand your weird insistence on using the word "objectivity". Going by the amount of gold in your pocket is just as "objective" as turncount, as is reducing the amount of time you take to beat the game, since these measures aren't open to interpretation any more than turncount is. That doesn't make them good ideas to base a tier list on.

I'm referring to level ups within the chapter. Furthermore, once again, refer to Cynthia's post. Nobody is implying at all that BEXP abuse at base + Biorhythm abuse is apart of this tier list, and no one is arguing that a 75% low turn completion is abuse either; they are merely showing ways to measure a turncount with taking into account probability.

To be honest, I think that refusing to consider BEXP abuse is a completely arbitrary move on your part. Because you have a subjective desire to see the tier list take a certain form, you're refusing to consider strategies that are, by your own criteria, objectively superior. You're willing to reset all day and all night to get the result that you want in a battle as long as it reduces your "expected turncount", but not in the base?

Because it takes into account probability. The argument was made way back when you were arguing a higher than 75% 4-turn over a 75% 2-turn.

I don't favour either of them over the other. Both are efficient ways to play the game, and I'd personally give them equal weight. The tier list should consider both.

Characters become difficult to compare if level ups are all "rigged" IMO.

Quite the contrary. Characters become spectacularly easy to compare when you rig their level ups. When everyone is ORKOing and never dying, suddenly it's no longer necessary to compare how characters perform in combat. It also reduces the need to consider variations in a character's stats. Take, for example, Oscar versus Kieran. Since we're rigging their levels, we no longer care about Kieran's better strength. We no longer have to carefully weigh the pros and cons of better strength against better availability, because availability is now the only thing that matters. What was before a difficult comparison is now extremely easy.

[Lord Raven]

I'm done with this. If you want to talk about efficiency, I'll talk in the other thread. This is about the FE9 tier list and nothing more.

[GreatEclipse]

I like that idea. Dunno about "items of value", though. There are many chest items of extremely dubious value in game, like Elfire tomes, lategame Master Seals, high rank tomes, that Chapter 27 Silver Lance. If you're going to permit items like that which have practically no value, you might as well require items like stealable vulneraries or weapons.

My definition is anything currently unavailable for purchase, but if you are not a completionist like I am you could drop that requirement. You can make your own ranked style play in any game you want, without the annoyance of arbitrary and often lenient requirements set by developers, by shooting for the highest possible team level in the fewest number of turns. Success is measured by averaging levels per turn, with final turn count the tie breaker. This tends to result in the kind of play I described, with deviations when appropriate. Units like Titania are allowed to be used when you need them, without trivializing early maps the way they do now, and also creates a strong incentive to recruit everyone and keep them alive to pump up the final total.

[Anouleth]

My definition is anything currently unavailable for purchase, but if you are not a completionist like I am you could drop that requirement. You can make your own ranked style play in any game you want, without the annoyance of arbitrary and often lenient requirements set by developers, by shooting for the highest possible team level in the fewest number of turns. Success is measured by averaging levels per turn, with final turn count the tie breaker. This tends to result in the kind of play I described, with deviations when appropriate. Units like Titania are allowed to be used when you need them, without trivializing early maps the way they do now, and also creates a strong incentive to recruit everyone and keep them alive to pump up the final total.

That doesn't work in a game like FE10, though, where almost invariably, spending turns doing anything will reduce your average levels per turn (because almost all your levels are from base levels). How many levels do you get from base levels? A thousand or more. And the game is over in about 300 turns. Just to "break even", you need to gain 3 levels per turn which is not easy to do.

[GreatEclipse]

That doesn't work in a game like FE10, though, where almost invariably, spending turns doing anything will reduce your average levels per turn (because almost all your levels are from base levels). How many levels do you get from base levels? A thousand or more. And the game is over in about 300 turns. Just to "break even", you need to gain 3 levels per turn which is not easy to do.

I have not played FE10, so I had no idea. Would replacing it with EXP per turn help?

[Narga_Rocks]

That 2/.75 actually ends up taking into account restarts.

Not really. It takes into account the average turns spent before restarting, basically. It doesn't assign a cost to the restarting itself. Regardless, my point in all that is that no matter how many restarts you do for bexp levels, there will never ever be any turn cost. You haven't come up with a logical reason to deny the use of restarts for bexp levels. It's just that you don't like it therefore you don't want it.

But it is fair to argue as such. Getting a proc on a bunch of BEXP gains may end up good for you in the long run but that also eliminates any sense of uniqueness in the tier list and basically makes it a massive mount fest. It already is as such, but it would also eliminate any reason to use an unmounted unit not named Tormod or Ike. It is not at all a double standard to take averages into account even with BEXP levels while advocating a 75% clear.

This, is not a valid argument. This is "we don't want things this way so they won't be". You have a double standard because one type of restart is perfectly okay, but another is not. You've assigned turn count cost (the expected value of number of turns spent based on the potential need to reset) to restarting. That's the penalty you've given. You've provided no other cost to the action "restart", and therefore there is no cost to making bexp level resets. Therefore why can't we?

[dondon151]

Wow, holy shit. You guys are absolutely retarded. Thanks for taking a perfectly reasonable assumption and applying it in ways that it was never intended to because you feel like nitpicking it to death. Resets are assumed to cost nothing when re-attempting chapters because it takes literally 10 seconds to reset the game and restart the first turn of the chapter. That pales in comparison to a player phase, which takes at least 3 times as long, or an enemy phase, which can take 6 times as long, if not more.

I think this is a perfectly reasonable approximation. There are many instances in mathematics where small numbers are approximated to zero. What is illogical is your sudden assertion that restarting 100, 200 times for frivolous purposes still takes a negligibly small amount of time. This is a purposefully malicious misinterpretation of the original assumption that is complete nonsense, yet you're still wasting your breaths on debating this illogical extreme. Grow up.

Edited September 17, 2011 by dondon151

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

the fact that this is being discussed and not the makalov vs nephenee from several pages ago is honestly making me want to hear an compairison even more

[Anouleth]

Wow, holy shit. You guys are absolutely retarded. Thanks for taking a perfectly reasonable assumption and applying it in ways that it was never intended to because you feel like nitpicking it to death. Resets are assumed to cost nothing when re-attempting chapters because it takes literally 10 seconds to reset the game and restart the first turn of the chapter. That pales in comparison to a player phase, which takes at least 3 times as long, or an enemy phase, which can take 6 times as long, if not more.

I think this is a perfectly reasonable approximation. There are many instances in mathematics where small numbers are approximated to zero. What is illogical is your sudden assertion that restarting 100, 200 times for frivolous purposes still takes a negligibly small amount of time. This is a purposefully malicious misinterpretation of the original assumption that is complete nonsense, yet you're still wasting your breaths on debating this illogical extreme. Grow up.

I don't think that the amount of physical time taken is at all relevant. After all, we're willing to painstakingly feed characters 1BEXP at a time to keep it's cost down, which is quite time-consuming. In addition, I would not call guaranteeing level-ups "frivolous", nor do you have to restart 100 times. If your level up is "bad" (happens say, 40% of the time), then reset. Merely weeding out bad levels is enough to ensure that you will end up on the good side of your averages. Marcia has a 51% chance of getting two out of STR/SPD/DEF, for example.