FE9 Tier List

[Inui]

There are 12 deployment slots available and the player seeks to utilize all of them.

Team A uses Ike. Team A has 12 units.

Team B does not use Ike, keeps him away from combat, and keeps him at his base level. Team B has 11 units.

The team that used Ike does indeed have an extra unit.

Well then. I lose.

*bans this argument from debate tournaments at FEFF*

[Narga_Rocks]

It depends on what standard you use for durability. Gatrie is facing crit rates from Thunder Mages and Sages forever, and if the player is too stupid to use the Knight Ward, they can double him as well. Yet your tier list has him quite high.

Not many, though.

1x Mage lv 15 (thunder, gamble [d])

24 hp, 17 atk, 11 AS, 103 hit, 24 avo, 6 def, 12 res, 9 crit, 2 cev

This guy doubles and 4HKOs Gatrie until Gats has 8 spd, which may not even happen until promotion, but more commonly around level 19. Until then, he has 2% crit and doubles. Now, normally I'd suggest things like this mean nothing. There is an entire map to deal with that doesn't randomly ORKO Gatrie. But if the player is supposed to be occasionally incompetent, you could easily attack the sage with Gats.

1x Mage lv 16 (elthunder)

25 hp, 19 atk, 9 AS, 96 hit, 21 avo, 6 def, 13 res, 14 crit, 3 cev

This guy actually 3HKOs Gatrie until promotion, and has 6 or 7 % crit as well.

But even with the condition that the player has moments of stupidity, there probably aren't enough circumstances to hurt Gatrie. I'd be more worried about why he's so high.

I disagree. As stated already, the objective and easily defined is also easily settled and decided. Hence, reducing subjective factors stifles discussion to a certain extent. And is discussion not the ultimate purpose of the tier list topic?

Then you might as well just change the rules every two months for tier lists. I would have thought the objective was to set the units in an ordering based on how good they are.

From where do you deduce that I was attempting to prove durability > offense?

I'm suggesting it is a consequence of focusing on how easily a stupid player gets units killed. I'm not suggesting you'd have a unit with horrible offence but good durability be better with a unit that has great offence and almost as good durability, but it seems that durability is more heavily weighted in general, so a unit that is durable enough to be useful and has incredible offence is placed worse than a unit with great durability and mediocre (not horrible) offence.

And yet clearly the topic does not care for maximum-efficiency "playstyles." Realize that this mentality is simply an artificial constraint to guide discussion, in the same way that the traditional "efficiency" tier list encourages a minimum turncount. If you dislike it, then you are free to that opinion, but I hardly see how you can prove that it is not a viable condition for discussions, nor do I see why it is at all undesirable.

So in this tier list durability is > offence. If a unit is better because it is easier to keep alive even if it lacks offence, that means durability > offence here. It is certainly viable to weigh durability more heavily than offence, I'm just stating what it's doing. As for why it is undesirable (to me), isn't that obvious?

That depends, I suppose. Do you think Gatrie's defensive advantage should be meaningful?

Not particularly. At least, not against units like Marcia and Nephenee. It's not meaningless, obviously. If it was, then I'd be suggesting that durability is of no importance. But in general if a unit is durable enough (hard to define, differs game-to-game) then better offence becomes more important than extra durability. If a unit is not durable "enough", then at this time durability becomes more important than offence.

Also, question:

Which playthrough is this for the player?

First? He might not even bother with Astrid outside chapter 13. Why? Locked to bows. How does he know that he can get her to promotion quickly and give her axes? How does he even know that cavs get a second weapon at promotion? Because Titania has two weapons? Unlikely. She's a "Paladin". Astrid is a "Bow Knight". In some of the other games (like fe4 and fe5) that would mean she never gets another weapon.

Second? Third? After enough playthroughs if he's used enough units he should at least have an idea of how they grow, and may have even noticed that the unit he gave the Knight Ward to for the +2 def/res in one playthrough had way more spd than in a playthrough another unit got the KW. And that this happened with different units each time. There are other things, as well, that are different depending on the number of playthroughs.

Edited February 22, 2010 by Narga_Rocks

[Anouleth]

There are 12 deployment slots available and the player seeks to utilize all of them.

Team A uses Ike. Team A has 12 units.

Team B does not use Ike, keeps him away from combat, and keeps him at his base level. Team B has 11 units.

The team that used Ike does indeed have an extra unit.

There's no real reason to use max deployment anyway. Ike's not taking a deployment slot is only useful for a handful of chapters, such as Solo. Of course, you're assuming the player is trying to use all of them, but we have no idea what our Idiot Player is going to do in regards to this.

Not many, though.

1x Mage lv 15 (thunder, gamble [d])

24 hp, 17 atk, 11 AS, 103 hit, 24 avo, 6 def, 12 res, 9 crit, 2 cev

This guy doubles and 4HKOs Gatrie until Gats has 8 spd, which may not even happen until promotion, but more commonly around level 19. Until then, he has 2% crit and doubles. Now, normally I'd suggest things like this mean nothing. There is an entire map to deal with that doesn't randomly ORKO Gatrie. But if the player is supposed to be occasionally incompetent, you could easily attack the sage with Gats.

1x Mage lv 16 (elthunder)

25 hp, 19 atk, 9 AS, 96 hit, 21 avo, 6 def, 13 res, 14 crit, 3 cev

This guy actually 3HKOs Gatrie until promotion, and has 6 or 7 % crit as well.

I don't know what crazy stats you have for Gatrie. The SF averages list him as having a 31HP/0RES base, so both of those mages will 1-round him at base. It's not until about level 12 that the first one fails to do so. And even if they don't cleanly 1-round, they'll leave Gatrie on low enough HP that something else might kill him, especially if we assume 'maximal room for player errors'.

[CATS]

Well then. I lose.

*bans this argument from debate tournaments at FEFF*

Yeah, like I said in the discussion topic, don't allow this in tournament debates.

Then you might as well just change the rules every two months for tier lists. I would have thought the objective was to set the units in an ordering based on how good they are.

"How good they are" is atleast partially subjective, though. Furthermore, if your only objective is to obtain the "right" or "correct" tier list, then kudos to you. I thought about that once, and then considered the fact that were that my mentality, I'd be pursuing the absolute truth......of what? Of a tier list ordering of fictional characters in an obscure SRPG game? What a high calling. I find that these topics are worthwhile for the actual discussion that they provide, not for pursuit of whatever cheap sense of satisfaction one might acquire if the "finalized, correct" tier list was ever actually achieved.

The Serenes community abolished the established "rules" for FE7 and FE6 tier lists and insisted that "pure efficiency" be the standard instead of ranks. How is this any different?

I'm suggesting it is a consequence of focusing on how easily a stupid player gets units killed. I'm not suggesting you'd have a unit with horrible offence but good durability be better with a unit that has great offence and almost as good durability, but it seems that durability is more heavily weighted in general, so a unit that is durable enough to be useful and has incredible offence is placed worse than a unit with great durability and mediocre (not horrible) offence.

Perhaps, perhaps not. However, this wasn't my point. I was merely attempting to demonstrate that assuming an imperfect player does not shut down discussion.

So in this tier list durability is > offence. If a unit is better because it is easier to keep alive even if it lacks offence, that means durability > offence here. It is certainly viable to weigh durability more heavily than offence, I'm just stating what it's doing. As for why it is undesirable (to me), isn't that obvious?

I don't see the relevance of that, in response to the first three sentences. In response to the question: No, not really.

[CATS]

There's no real reason to use max deployment anyway. Ike's not taking a deployment slot is only useful for a handful of chapters, such as Solo. Of course, you're assuming the player is trying to use all of them, but we have no idea what our Idiot Player is going to do in regards to this.

Sure there is. More units > less. You can argue that it is advantageous to focus Exp more on certain units than on others, but can you deny that it's always better to have a unit on the field than to not have a unit on the field?

[Anouleth]

Sure there is. More units > less. You can argue that it is advantageous to focus Exp more on certain units than on others, but can you deny that it's always better to have a unit on the field than to not have a unit on the field?

When that unit is taking experience away from better ones without really contributing anything. If giving up some 12th-string fighter gives everyone else a level-up or two and makes everyone else more durable and more likely to 1-round, well, what exactly was that 12th-string, probably low-mid fighter gonna do? I'd rather have Boyd be 1 or two levels higher than spend that experience on Lethe or something.

Seriously, even if you were locked to Player Phase, enemy density is never so high that 10 units can't take care of everything. There are a handful of Rout chapters, most of which aren't so large you need 12 units to cover all the ground.

I mean, the main reason Ena and Nasir are overrated on your list is just the existence of Ike. If Ike + any healer + Oscar + maybe four or five fighters can beat Endgame just as fast as twelve units, who cares if Ena and Nasir don't take up a deployment slot?

[CATS]

When that unit is taking experience away from better ones without really contributing anything. If giving up some 12th-string fighter gives everyone else a level-up or two and makes everyone else more durable and more likely to 1-round, well, what exactly was that 12th-string, probably low-mid fighter gonna do? I'd rather have Boyd be 1 or two levels higher than spend that experience on Lethe or something.

Slots #11 and 12 can be filled with competent pre-promotes such as Calill or Tauroneo. These units can keep up with the main group, stay out of combat when they are not wanted, then act such as they are needed. It cannot be argued that they are a detriment, as you are not forced to focus Exp on them.

Furthermore, you should consider that the tier list assumes an imperfect player. A perfect player may indeed be able to achieve minimum turncounts using only 8 units, but it is unlikely that a more average or casual player will be capable of the same.

[Anouleth]

Slots #11 and 12 can be filled with competent pre-promotes such as Calill or Tauroneo. These units can keep up with the main group, stay out of combat when they are not wanted, then act such as they are needed. It cannot be argued that they are a detriment, as you are not forced to focus Exp on them.

So all Ike is really doing is allowing us to field some backup unit like Calill, who I note is at the bottom of Lower-Mid. Is that really worth Titania being better in combat than Ike for almost the entirety of the game?

Furthermore, you should consider that the tier list assumes an imperfect player. A perfect player may indeed be able to achieve minimum turncounts using only 8 units, but it is unlikely that a more average or casual player will be capable of the same.

We have no idea what an imperfect player will do. You say that an imperfect player will need more units, but it could be that the imperfect player does better with a lower number of more powerful units.

Who knows? The 'imperfect player' is so vaguely defined that it's impossible to say what he's likely to do, or which strategy is best for him, or even in which cases we can assume he uses the best strategy. Our player may not be smart enough to recruit Tauroneo or Calill, or they may not think far enough ahead to keep a backup around.

[-Cynthia-]

On the subject of Astrid, how do we even know how to recruit her under the "errors" rules? Normally we have to Shove Ike 3 times or Smite+ Shove), but the player probably doesn't know this. NPC Astrid gets herself killed and can't contribute anything.

The recruitment issue is actually a pretty big one. It's very possible that Ilyana, Marcia, Makalov, Haar, Tauroneo, Volke, definitely Stefan, Zihark, Astrid, Gatrie/Shinon the second times, Largo, Reyson/Ulki/Janaff, Devdan, Sothe, Nephenee, Brom, and Kieran might all not be recruited if the player can't even look up growth rates and such.

Edited February 22, 2010 by -Cynthia-

[CATS]

So all Ike is really doing is allowing us to field some backup unit like Calill, who I note is at the bottom of Lower-Mid. Is that really worth Titania being better in combat than Ike for almost the entirety of the game?

Possibly not. Others have stated that it is not unreasonable for Ike to move below Titania. However, against other units it would be difficult for them to win against Ike. Kieran can do 5 more damage than Ike to this enemy? Ike's presence allows you to field "backup" as you call it; surely someone such as Largo or w/e will be able to do more than 5 damage to that enemy in addition to Ike's own damage, overriding Kieran's advantage.

We have no idea what an imperfect player will do. You say that an imperfect player will need more units, but it could be that the imperfect player does better with a lower number of more powerful units.

The lower number of more powerful units can still exist without Ike's advantage being nulled, though. This is why I explained that it is always preferable to have something on the field rather than nothing. It does not take a perfect player to figure out that more units > less. The assumption is that the player is not perfect; not that he is stupid.

[Inui]

Titania should be over Ike anyways due to getting BEXP and being the best almost forever.

[Defeatist Elitist]

So, uh, guys, I just lost every unit except Ike, and I just finished losing to the Black Knight. Ena for Top Tier plox?

[Reikken]

@Cynthia:

Aye, but the list is based on how much you miss out on in their absence as opposed to when they are not absent, so how likely they are to be recruited doesn't matter, as far as their own position is concerned.

Edited February 22, 2010 by Reikken

[Paperblade]

So, uh, guys, I just lost every unit except Ike, and I just finished losing to the Black Knight. Ena for Top Tier plox?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

We have no idea what an imperfect player will do. You say that an imperfect player will need more units, but it could be that the imperfect player does better with a lower number of more powerful units.

Who knows? The 'imperfect player' is so vaguely defined that it's impossible to say what he's likely to do, or which strategy is best for him, or even in which cases we can assume he uses the best strategy. Our player may not be smart enough to recruit Tauroneo or Calill, or they may not think far enough ahead to keep a backup around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki's_Wager

Edited February 22, 2010 by Paperblade

[Defeatist Elitist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Okay, so, considering I actually got a serious response, explain to me how that is actually a straw man. I originally intended it as a joke, I mean, obviously no one intends to take it that far, however, given "This list assumes maximal room for player error (tactically bad decisions resulting in death, ideal supports less viable, not always using the perfect team or strategy, etc.)", one must consider such situations.

How exactly did I make a weaker facsimile of your argument and attack it? I simply obeyed the letter of the law. Obviously that was a very extreme example, however, it is still obeying the rule, so it cannot actually be a straw man. Basically, that IS maximal room for player error. Would you like me to draw some more, less extreme examples?

It's funny that you throw out the straw man defense instead of the many, far more logical and accurate counters to that statement, which I am well aware is absurd.

[Reikken]

As said many times, we assume that the player is not perfect, not that he is stupid.

[Defeatist Elitist]

As said many times, we assume that the player is not perfect, not that he is stupid.

Then why is the rule "maximal room"? The wording immediately evokes thoughts of stupidity on the part of the tier player. And again, where do you draw the line between imperfect and stupid? The wording is incredibly ambiguous there, and as it is, the meaning it conveys seems rather odd indeed.

[Colonel M]

There are 12 deployment slots available and the player seeks to utilize all of them.

Team A uses Ike. Team A has 12 units.

Team B does not use Ike, keeps him away from combat, and keeps him at his base level. Team B has 11 units.

The team that used Ike does indeed have an extra unit.

That isn't necessarily a loss. If we don't include storyline battles, for example (so Ashnard battle), Ike's earlygame does make him pretty mediocre at life to drop. It's been proven many times how it's usually Ike's rough earlygame that keeps him from being a Top Tier unit. Even in the situation that he gives you a free unit, how necessary is that unit in situations such as...?

- Chapter 1 and 2 where we have Boyd, Titania, Oscar, (and Rhys)?

- Chapter 3 where we have Gatrie, Shinon, and Titania?

- Chapter 4 where we have Titania, Shinon, Gatrie, Rhys

- Chapter 5 where we have Titania, Shinon, Gatrie, Oscar, Boyd, and Rhys.

- Chapter 6 on where we have Titania, Oscar, Boyd, and Rhys

Etc. Ike is not necessarily needed for any of those earlygame chapters whatsoever. He's not even much of a positive here in the first place.

Sure, it may give you a free unit to use, but in earlygame it barely matters anyway. He's not doing anything so special in these chapters that make him stand out. It isn't even until later on in the game when he makes a good stand as a unit.

Of course, if we include the storyline-pendant (like killing Ashnard), then I would take my stance back on it for sure.

[Paperblade]

Okay, so, considering I actually got a serious response, explain to me how that is actually a straw man. I originally intended it as a joke, I mean, obviously no one intends to take it that far, however, given "This list assumes maximal room for player error (tactically bad decisions resulting in death, ideal supports less viable, not always using the perfect team or strategy, etc.)", one must consider such situations.

How exactly did I make a weaker facsimile of your argument and attack it? I simply obeyed the letter of the law. Obviously that was a very extreme example, however, it is still obeying the rule, so it cannot actually be a straw man. Basically, that IS maximal room for player error. Would you like me to draw some more, less extreme examples?

"Player isn't perfect" does not mean "Player could be beaten by a piece of string in a game of chess", which that quote implies. People make mistakes. They make input errors because they're impatient, they forget things (especially if they aren't as familiar with the game because they don't spend their days arguing about it). They don't study the game like we do. This tier list is supposed to reflect that. Unfortunately, most people read this and go "HERP DERP PLAYER IS A MORON"

I don't like talking to my other friends about FE gameplay, because I'm a huge massive nerd about it (although to say this is limited to FE would be wrong), and I know it pisses them off when they're talking about how awesome some Low tier unit is and my initial reaction is "No that unit blows" or how shitty some uber unit is because they don't think about EXP and killing the way a debaeter does, and I wanna go into detail about how wrong they are (I don't do this, but goddamn is it tempting).

Obviously, new players can make mistakes. Shit happens. But I would be very surprised if your entire team was dead by Endgame, and even moreso if this happened often enough for it to actually matter on any tier list, including this one.

It's funny that you throw out the straw man defense instead of the many, far more logical and accurate counters to that statement, which I am well aware is absurd.

I was going to link every fallacy that deals with the "this tier list assumes player has an IQ of -6" that's being spewed by everyone in this topic, but there are a lot of fallacies and Strawman is the easiest one.

False Dilemma fits, Perfect Solution is also a good one that could be pointed out in some arguments (although I don't think it fits what I quoted from you). Loki's Wager also fits (and I posted that one in response to someone else), since many people are arguing that what this tier list actually measures cannot be quantified.

I will admit your quote wasn't the best to respond to, but I'm lazy and sifting through the tl;dr to find a stupid comment is too much effort when I'm hungry and want ice cream.

Edited February 22, 2010 by Paperblade

[Narga_Rocks]

It's funny that you throw out the straw man defense instead of the many, far more logical and accurate counters to that statement, which I am well aware is absurd.

Paperblade is, in my opinion, in love with flinging declarations of various fallacies and similar types of bad argument titles.

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=16775&view=findpost&p=590890

Well, he doesn't do it all the time, though, so I have no idea what prompts the decision to give lame replies rather than respectable ones. I mean, to merely declare something to be a fallacy and not actually counter the statement properly (especially when that something has very little, if anything, in common with the stated fallacy) seems like a pointless post.

(and looking above my post you can see an example of what happens when he chooses not to give a lame a response.)

Edited February 22, 2010 by Narga_Rocks

[Colonel M]

I'm also going on a limb and asking how Mia is two tiers under Zihark.

Enter: Flamewar

Edited February 22, 2010 by Colonel M

[Paperblade]

Hey look, it's Narga.

Thank god he's flaming rather than doing anything constructive.

Edited February 22, 2010 by Paperblade

[Defeatist Elitist]

"Player isn't perfect" does not mean "Player could be beaten by a piece of string in a game of chess", which that quote implies. People make mistakes. They make input errors because they're impatient, they forget things (especially if they aren't as familiar with the game because they don't spend their days arguing about it). They don't study the game like we do. This tier list is supposed to reflect that. Unfortunately, most people read this and go "HERP DERP PLAYER IS A MORON"

I don't like talking to my other friends about FE gameplay, because I'm a huge massive nerd about it (although to say this is limited to FE would be wrong), and I know it pisses them off when they're talking about how awesome some Low tier unit is and my initial reaction is "No that unit blows" or how shitty some uber unit is because they don't think about EXP and killing the way a debaeter does, and I wanna go into detail about how wrong they are (I don't do this, but goddamn is it tempting).

Obviously, new players can make mistakes. Shit happens. But I would be very surprised if your entire team was dead by Endgame, and even moreso if this happened often enough for it to actually matter on any tier list, including this one.

I was going to link every fallacy that deals with the "this tier list assumes player has an IQ of -6" that's being spewed by everyone in this topic, but there are a lot of fallacies and Strawman is the easiest one.

False Dilemma fits, Perfect Solution is also a good one that could be pointed out in some arguments (although I don't think it fits what I quoted from you). Loki's Wager also fits (and I posted that one in response to someone else), since many people are arguing that what this tier list actually measures cannot be quantified.

I will admit your quote wasn't the best to respond to, but I'm lazy and sifting through the tl;dr to find a stupid comment is too much effort when I'm hungry and want ice cream.

Perhaps the wording could be adjusted then. I dunno, saying "The player is not assumed to be perfect" is a more accurate explanation of what you seem to be wanting to express. Again, where the line is drawn is something that should also be more fully explored in the first post. My statement simply took advantage of the things that were given right there (ie. Character death).

Again, the statement was absurd, but it most certainly was not a Straw Man, because, as the rule is worded right now, I was in no way, shape, or form bending it.

[Paperblade]

Well the OP needs to be edit'd then, since that comment has already come up and been clarified. Quote from Solide.

Obviously the player is not perfect. We aren't assuming that the player cannot play the game--we are merely accounting for the possibility of errors.

And that actually does constitute a straw man, albeit perhaps not an intentional one. It's actually quite similar to the example in the Wikipedia article itself.

And now I'm actually going to get ice cream. >_>

Edited February 22, 2010 by Paperblade

[Colonel M]

I do agree with ZXValaRaven. When I first read that passage I do admit that I thought of something similar. "The Tier Player Isn't Perfect" sums up what you want just fine. If you just say that they aren't assumed to be perfect it's better than how it's worded in the OP.

The Serenes community abolished the established "rules" for FE7 and FE6 tier lists and insisted that "pure efficiency" be the standard instead of ranks. How is this any different?

??? Of course I was never at FEFF, but I never knew there were "established rules" for these tier lists. I also don't buy either of them as standard either, as otherwise I wouldn't be running that Ranked list in 7 would I? Though I should start up 6 (lolTacticsisamassivejokeinthatgame). In Shining Force: RotDD I had a tier list with only NM and HM1 considered while another had higher difficulties. Is there a problem with having both?

Edited February 22, 2010 by Colonel M