Tell me how wrong this person is

[Narga_Rocks]

Even for Luminescent Blade if Seth's name got changed to 42i3rugly, got stuck with a portrait so ugly that it made people's eyes bleed and was giving a personally so horrible and yet say Ewan was giving a joining situation so he became usable, given a cooler name, a portrait that would even make the guys fall for him, no longer a shota, and the best personality ever I'm betting that even if 42i3rugly is still great from efficiency standpoints, it would make a ton of people unhappy to use him, thus some might even call him a bad character (or die from loss of blood from bleeding). I'm betting people will suddenly think Ewan is a better character because using him in the game makes it more pleasurable to play.

Not sure about Lumi, since part of her like is his appearance and the love story between him and Eirika. I think.

Me? I use Marcus. Don't tell me he has a nice portrait. And when you skip through almost all the text in the game after the first playthrough, personality (or, "personally") means less. I hate Shinon's attitude. I find little appeal in his portrait, and his name falls in my "whatever" category. I use him in HM and will gladly state that he is better than Rolf, even though I like Rolf's portrait and attitude more.

Seth could look like Gonzales and have a personality like Aran or Shinon. I'd still use him to bash through the game and I'd say the same things to people that don't think he's the best unit in the game.

And sure I'd suddenly think Ewan is a better character. You stipulated that his joining situation would be such that he became usable. Clearly he'd then be better or he wouldn't meet the criteria you laid out for the changes in him. If you don't change his join time or move or weapon levels or bases or base level or growths or support speeds/affinities/units? Same trash as he is now, doesn't matter what he looks like or what his name is or what his personality is like. He's no better than he is now.

However, you said "better character". If you aren't using that as a synonym for "better unit" then fine. He's a better character. Nicer personality (what even is his personality anyway? Not like I ever paid attention to the personality of someone so useless) and mug and name, so he's probably a better "character" in terms of the non-gameplay stuff. If you are meaning "better unit", then no. Absolutely not.

Surely you've noticed that the arguments that move around units in tier lists have nothing to do with name or appearance or personality. Only stats (which includes move and supports and all that other stuff we look at) matter. Now sure, maybe units with more interesting appearances/personalities get more discussion. Ilyana probably gets talked about more than Giffca. But that doesn't mean that once the unit gets discussed their appearance/etc has anything at all to do with how we place them.

[Salad Utensil]

Not sure about Lumi, since part of her like is his appearance and the love story between him and Eirika. I think.

Me? I use Marcus. Don't tell me he has a nice portrait. And when you skip through almost all the text in the game after the first playthrough, personality (or, "personally") means less. I hate Shinon's attitude. I find little appeal in his portrait, and his name falls in my "whatever" category. I use him in HM and will gladly state that he is better than Rolf, even though I like Rolf's portrait and attitude more.

Seth could look like Gonzales and have a personality like Aran or Shinon. I'd still use him to bash through the game and I'd say the same things to people that don't think he's the best unit in the game.

And sure I'd suddenly think Ewan is a better character. You stipulated that his joining situation would be such that he became usable. Clearly he'd then be better or he wouldn't meet the criteria you laid out for the changes in him. If you don't change his join time or move or weapon levels or bases or base level or growths or support speeds/affinities/units? Same trash as he is now, doesn't matter what he looks like or what his name is or what his personality is like. He's no better than he is now.

However, you said "better character". If you aren't using that as a synonym for "better unit" then fine. He's a better character. Nicer personality (what even is his personality anyway? Not like I ever paid attention to the personality of someone so useless) and mug and name, so he's probably a better "character" in terms of the non-gameplay stuff. If you are meaning "better unit", then no. Absolutely not.

Surely you've noticed that the arguments that move around units in tier lists have nothing to do with name or appearance or personality. Only stats (which includes move and supports and all that other stuff we look at) matter. Now sure, maybe units with more interesting appearances/personalities get more discussion. Ilyana probably gets talked about more than Giffca. But that doesn't mean that once the unit gets discussed their appearance/etc has anything at all to do with how we place them.

By no means was I rejecting the premise of tier lists, in fact I find them very interesting discussion related activity and I of course do not think that just because Seth suddenly looked like crap and Ewan became awesome (not as a unit) they would switch place, but instead the point of the topic is the concept of 'good' and 'mediocre' shouldn't have to be defined solely by a tier list (as long as they aren't forcing this view on others of course).

[Narga_Rocks]

By no means was I rejecting the premise of tier lists, in fact I find them very interesting discussion related activity and I of course do not think that just because Seth suddenly looked like crap and Ewan became awesome (not as a unit) they would switch place, but instead the point of the topic is the concept of 'good' and 'mediocre' shouldn't have to be defined solely by a tier list (as long as they aren't forcing this view on others of course).

No, "good" and "mediocre" are defined by logic. The tier lists are merely a reflection of that logic. Even without tier lists, we'd still say Seth is a god and Ewan is an ant. Good here is being defined by how good you are throughout the game and how much effort is required (generally in terms of turns lost due to training).

I'm all for people defining a "good character" however they want. It can be "The closer your haircolour is to 00FF00 the better you are". But when you start talking "good unit", I've got problems if you are focusing on 20/20 stats and don't care what it took to get them there.

[Naglfar]

By no means was I rejecting the premise of tier lists, in fact I find them very interesting discussion related activity and I of course do not think that just because Seth suddenly looked like crap and Ewan became awesome (not as a unit) they would switch place, but instead the point of the topic is the concept of 'good' and 'mediocre' shouldn't have to be defined solely by a tier list (as long as they aren't forcing this view on others of course).

Yes it should, assuming the tier list is correct. Like Narga said, they're logical terms. Ewan is crap, but if he's emotionally appealing to use, then that's what the word "fun" and similar descriptions are for. Don't use "good", because that's not an accurate representation of what you mean, as you can see from how nobody knew what you meant until you clarified. Lethe is awful, but I like her, and still I don't refer to her as good. I can cite things about her that are good like her rack character, but I can't say she's good outright because of the context - I'm talking about a unit in a strategy game and everyone would get the impression that I'm referring to something else. What I meant to say would not be communicated adequately. So say what you mean, in a way people can understand. That's how language is meant to be used.

Is 00FF00 blue? I'm shit at hex.

[Parrhesia]

If 00FF00 was the latest standard, the Rolf fanboys would multiply and rejoice.

[Excellen Browning]

Pfff. I had originally planned to write another in-depth post, but it seems pointless to me.

All right, read. I and Brighton do not disagree with the way you try to judge a character in tier lists. But. That does not mean we find the resulting tier list to be anything but incentive for further debate.

That is what I think it all comes down to.

[eclipse]

Pfff. I had originally planned to write another in-depth post, but it seems pointless to me.

All right, read. I and Brighton do not disagree with the way you try to judge a character in tier lists. But. That does not mean we find the resulting tier list to be anything but incentive for further debate.

That is what I think it all comes down to.

That's the point of a tier list. . .

[Excellen Browning]

Then why are some people saying the way to judge characters used in tier lists is the only good way to judge a character?

[Darros]

Then why are some people saying the way to judge characters used in tier lists is the only good way to judge a character?

A tier list isn't the only way to judge a character but it is the best way.

[Naglfar]

Pfff. I had originally planned to write another in-depth post, but it seems pointless to me.

All right, read. I and Brighton do not disagree with the way you try to judge a character in tier lists. But. That does not mean we find the resulting tier list to be anything but incentive for further debate.

That is what I think it all comes down to.

This has been established and acknowledged like five times already.

Then why are some people saying the way to judge characters used in tier lists is the only good way to judge a character?

We're saying it's the only good way, or at least the best way, to judge a character's usefulness, because of what goes into a tier list. The moral of the story here is to make sure you're saying what you mean clearly, with as little room for misinterpretation as possible, so a thread doesn't grow into six pages of circular discussion. This would be probably be over if not for issues here.

[Darros]

Well usefullness varies with effeciency, which all tier lists consider. But you can go look at a site, like this one, and everything is there already to see.

[Snowy_One]

IMO, seems like a pure PvPer who doesn't care one bit for PvE. Magikarp's evolved form is pretty kick-ass, but fried by electric. Not too much a concern in normal play, a huge one in PvP. Seth is a solid character to use, but IIRC, Great Knights are better if you are planning on maxing out stats due to higher caps/more weapons/movement not being a issue. Still off his rocker though since, even if so, there is no point in making it into a banner.

[Thor Odinson]

Movement not being an issue is only because of the infinite boots glitch and stuff AFTER the main game in Creature Campaign, which is not exactly all that serious.

During the main game I'd rather give my only pair of boots to Seth so he can easily pull of some maneuvers that is otherwise rather difficult to do without several spams of the warp staff and having to repair it after its uses go down.

Like C17. 10 move-Seth can 3 turn the chapter without much problem. When I played Jehanna run aka no Seth, Saleh at least used three uses of Warp to pull off the same turncount with less desirable results. This wasn't even an efficiency run, but rather I just don't like dealing with the reinforcements. I'd much rather just have him bulldoze his way through in three turns. Saves me a ton of trouble, too.

C19, too. 10-move Seth can reach Riev before the influx of reinforcements come rather easily. Audhulma his ass and he'll be gone.

[Naglfar]

IMO, seems like a pure PvPer who doesn't care one bit for PvE. Magikarp's evolved form is pretty kick-ass, but fried by electric. Not too much a concern in normal play, a huge one in PvP. Seth is a solid character to use, but IIRC, Great Knights are better if you are planning on maxing out stats due to higher caps/more weapons/movement not being a issue. Still off his rocker though since, even if so, there is no point in making it into a banner.

And yet no matter what you do, no Great Knight save Duessel can ever bring anything unique to your team, and by the time CC comes around and you can max people out, nobody is unique (except Myrrh, but not in a good way). Seth is making light work of the first half of the game and then some, and in CC, a maxed GK is only marginally better than a maxed Seth, which doesn't narrow Seth's massive lead much.

I'm not much of a PvP guy either.

Movement not being an issue is only because of the infinite boots glitch and stuff AFTER the main game in Creature Campaign, which is not exactly all that serious.

It's not a glitch, it's an exploit of the RNG. A really, really awesome exploit. I have maxed movement on quite a few units, actually. *nerd*

[Thor Odinson]

Right. My bad on the wording.

... I did it too on my CC file. Lol max-stat/max move team because I have no life.

[Loki Laufeyson]

which is not exactly all that serious.

Is that why you lot never judge characters based on their overall performance in the Lagdou Ruins? Cuz for me, thats always been a good way to judge just how good a character can be. :/

[Thor Odinson]

Lagdou is trivialized by infinite statboosters. Maybe it could be a bit more challenging the first runthrough for a first time player, but going into Lagdou can net you about 80-100k, and with Silver and Member Cards, and the RNG trick for infinite boots, you can buy all the statboosters you want. It's even less of a challenge than the main game, due to the ability to max out any character you want. And don't bring Lagdou 10 into this. Two bishops with tons of Purge and a convoy. Easy as hell victory.

If infinite statboosters didn't exist, then it would've been a more legitimate indication of a character's abilities. However, since it does...

[Rewjeo]

Basically, it's an assessment for how good a class's caps and weapon choices are, not how good any specific unit is.

[Luna]

eek. Gone for like 4 days and so manyposts to read... I didn't read all of them and my brain is STILL fried. Methinks I inadvertently opened up a touchy subject?

[Galenforcer]

Don't worry. I think we've stopped talking about Seth and went into how to play efficiently.

[Naglfar]

Is that why you lot never judge characters based on their overall performance in the Lagdou Ruins? Cuz for me, thats always been a good way to judge just how good a character can be. :/

Aside from the infinite resources making the Ruins a lolfest, it's also not part of the main game, and repeatable as well as mostly randomly generated like the Tower and skirmishes. So it's really not possible to stick any standards to it.