Jump to content
Lord Raven

Defining Efficiency

Recommended Posts

We've always defined efficiency as low turns, correct? Well, in my debates in the FE9 tier list we've had a dilemma of "efficiency vs low turns"- where a "high risk high reward" was never given priority over a "low risk higher turn," even if the risk was only a 25% risk.

My idea is to define efficiency by taking into account that risk- so essentially, if you have a 75% chance to perform an extremely important action to get a 2-turn (on top of a bunch of other actions) and we also have close to 95% of performing another important action to get a 3-turn, we use the following formula:

# of turns DIVIDED BY chance of activation.

So, here we go:

2 / .75 = 2.6667

3 / .95 = 3.1589

This would essentially equate to the 2-turn being more efficient than the 3-turn because you have a lower "risk turncount." So if someone needs to get a 50% wrathcrit, they actually have to double their turncount to get their "risk turncount". If someone relies on a 3% chance to 1-turn, their "risk turncount" is 33.3333%, and so on.

Not that I am in no way suggesting this to alter turncounts in playthroughs and drafts. No. I am merely arguing this to set a greater standard for efficiency because these sorts of numbers keep coming up in the FE9 tier list thread and I am merely offering a more objective way to do this. I haven't seen this as a be-all end-all way of doing this yet, but I can only suggest as such until more research on this is done. It does seem rather arbitrary, though, but it's hard to think things up in terms of this. Hopefully this will give a better definition with regards to efficiency than our more arguable "low turncount with low luck factor." Of course, the chance is a lot lower than 75% or 95% given the little factors (and sometimes major factors) that factor into each play, but if the "killing stroke" of, say, a boss or an important enemy is pretty low and the way to get there is quite reliable, then we never necessarily need to take that into account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's pick up where we left off, shall we?

I think that efficiency is not something that can be described in a single pithy statement or calculated using a formula. I don't think that tier list discussion should be or needs to be reduced to simply counting how many turns Character X saves in comparison to a team that lacks Character X, or to be stretched to include a judgement of whether reliability or speed is more desireable. At times like these when you are trying to decide resource distribution and what strategies are "assumed", the question occurs: "Is it relevant?"

To take an example, Stefan is not always recruited in Chapter 15 due to living in the middle of nowhere. Sometimes, the player will recruit him, sometimes, he will not be recruited. If we are asking "how good is Stefan", is the scenario where we don't recruit him relevant? I wouldn't think so. Now, if we are asking "how good is Soren", is the scenario where Stefan isn't recruited relevant? I should think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Efficiency can refer to anything you put in. Literally and practically speaking, the most efficient playthrough is one that is efficient in terms of everything you put into the game to complete your goals as best you can, including time spent resetting and even planning strategies. So a perfectly efficient playthrough would have strategies that are simple, easy, reliable, and reasonably quick - taking 15 extra turns in a chapter would almost never be efficient, but taking 3 extra turns in a typical enough chapter to use simple and reliable strategies would probably be efficient quite often.

Now, those goals can just be completing the game, but they can also be anything else on top of that - completing a certain difficulty, completing with ranks, completing while using or obtaining certain characters or items, etc. Of course, the most popular additional goal here is completing while getting particularly low turn counts, even when it causes the strategies to be more complex, more difficult, and less reliable. But even for this particular type of efficiency, it indeed makes sense to put limits on that, considering what is efficient to give up for the sake of turns.

Efficiency simply means making what you get out worth what you put in. Sometimes that means not getting perfect ranks or perfect turncounts if they aren't worth what you would put in, by whatever definition, if you're playing with the goal of getting good ranks or turncounts but not necessarily perfect ranks or turncounts. And playing with the goal of fulfilling an objective well rather than perfectly is a far healthier mindset to take. Indeed, as Mercenary Raven noted, especially for a tier list, it is important to keep in mind what you have to put in in order to get those low turncounts, and whether or not that is truly "efficient".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My idea is if you're describing particular strategies that bolster a character's use- at the same time, it allows for at least *a little* more objectivity in the definition. We can say low turn counts but then we begin to rely on really chancy strategies- at which point, many wouldn't consider it efficiency simply because of low clear rate. This also bridges the gap between arguments saying "is that 50% critical really worth taking an extra turn?" by assigning some degree of objective standards.

After all, the only objective way we can judge efficiency *is* turncount (or in some cases, such as Chapter 15 or whichever Chapter Prisoner Release was, maximum BEXP yield), and taking "chance of getting x turncount" into account help one's ability to judge the effectiveness of said character. This can also help provide a more objective sort of argument, where we can effectively answer "Is this 50% critical [on 100% hit rate]" worth getting an extra turn? (Protip, for all those that thing that I'd be trying to defend my point by making this thread, It actually wouldn't be worth it because you're effectively doubling your "chance turncount"/"CTC", meaning that it's not quite worth it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My idea is if you're describing particular strategies that bolster a character's use- at the same time, it allows for at least *a little* more objectivity in the definition. We can say low turn counts but then we begin to rely on really chancy strategies- at which point, many wouldn't consider it efficiency simply because of low clear rate. This also bridges the gap between arguments saying "is that 50% critical really worth taking an extra turn?" by assigning some degree of objective standards.

You are using the word "objectivity" incorrectly. What you are talking about is not "increasing objectivity". It is increasing measurability by turning strategies into a number. And I don't think that's necessary, or desirable to turn ranking characters into a numerical comparison of "turns saved".

After all, the only objective way we can judge efficiency *is* turncount (or in some cases, such as Chapter 15 or whichever Chapter Prisoner Release was, maximum BEXP yield), and taking "chance of getting x turncount" into account help one's ability to judge the effectiveness of said character. This can also help provide a more objective sort of argument, where we can effectively answer "Is this 50% critical [on 100% hit rate]" worth getting an extra turn? (Protip, for all those that thing that I'd be trying to defend my point by making this thread, It actually wouldn't be worth it because you're effectively doubling your "chance turncount"/"CTC", meaning that it's not quite worth it.)

You keep on using the word "objective". Please stop doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm using it correctly. People measure efficiency differently; a more defined measurement as opposed to measurement that varies quite a bit from person to person. As it stands, it's quite subjective, ie everyone has their own opinions about efficiency, so obviously i'm trying to make it less so... hence, more objective. And more measurability does mean more objectivity.

On top of that, I'm not sure why you quoted my entire second paragraph just to say that- as if I'd be able to actually edit it as soon as you countered my first use of it. Not that I'd do it anyway.

And I don't think that's necessary, or desirable to turn ranking characters into a numerical comparison of "turns saved".
"Turns saved" is not quite the right term- how much they contribute to a lower turncount compared to another unit is what I am looking for. But even then, that is *generally* what we're arguing when we measure efficiency. Efficiency is far too vague a term to properly rank characters with anyway, considering the lack of concreteness in the rules behind the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm using it correctly. People measure efficiency differently; a more defined measurement as opposed to measurement that varies quite a bit from person to person. As it stands, it's quite subjective, ie everyone has their own opinions about efficiency, so obviously i'm trying to make it less so... hence, more objective. And more measurability does mean more objectivity.

No, you're just coming up with a way to calculate turncount that confirms your own belief that the reliability of a strategy doesn't matter.

"Turns saved" is not quite the right term- how much they contribute to a lower turncount compared to another unit is what I am looking for.

But that is the exact same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've always defined efficiency as low turns, correct? Well, in my debates in the FE9 tier list we've had a dilemma of "efficiency vs low turns"- where a "high risk high reward" was never given priority over a "low risk higher turn," even if the risk was only a 25% risk.

75% chance of successful 2-turn clear is a "high-chance of a low turn clear".

XX% chance of a low-turn clear is pretty reliable, so you should always go for it; resets are irrelevant when that chance is high enough. Could the two of you please stop arguing about this stupid thing already?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

75% chance of successful 2-turn clear is a "high-chance of a low turn clear".

XX% chance of a low-turn clear is pretty reliable, so you should always go for it; resets are irrelevant when that chance is high enough. Could the two of you please stop arguing about this stupid thing already?

I don't think that resets are irrelevant. We're ranking units based on how good they are. If a unit forces us to reset because they get criticaled, or because they miss, or because they don't avoid attacks, or so they can get a good level up, then clearly that's a mark against them. In other words I don't think that whether a unit is reliable or not is irrelevant to whether they're a good or bad unit at all.

Edited by Anouleth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are completely relevant if you have to reset a bunch of times to do it. But you don't for the most part.

No, you're just coming up with a way to calculate turncount that confirms your own belief that the reliability of a strategy doesn't matter.

If that were the case I would not post this thread. But it is not, therefore I posted this thread.
But that is the exact same thing.
Then tell me a measurable way of determining a character's ability to contribute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then tell me a measurable way of determining a character's ability to contribute.

Unless there is a completely linear, unchaotic path to follow, you can't, as randomness will not conduce linear formula. If one desires efficiency in such a state, it must be conducted at each and every contextual interval--not before you've even started.

Otherwise you are blanketing without even looking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where would be the fun in arguing characters if the comparison could be boiled down to one number on one strategy?

Turn-efficiency tier lists don't have the slightest shred of practical value; their only purpose is the enjoyment of making them. Or at least I've been told it's enjoyable for you people. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with that, but it means that if you furthermore make the process purely objective, leaving no subjective room for enjoyable argument, there's no point in bothering to spend time making the tier lists at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turn-efficiency tier lists don't have the slightest shred of practical value;

Oh, that's fresh. There's no "practical value" to essentially telling people how to clear the game with a low turncount?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that were the case I would not post this thread. But it is not, therefore I posted this thread.

You agree that some people value reliability more than others, right? You agree that the value of reliability, is therefore subjective, right? And you realise, thus, that just because you assign a numerical value to reliability, it doesn't make you some objective arbiter of truth, right?

Then tell me a measurable way of determining a character's ability to contribute.

There isn't one. Turns saved is often a good rule of thumb to use, but it breaks down in weird cases, such as when the strategy is unreliable, or when other factors influence how many turns a unit might save. The simplest example is Franz: if Seth is being used to his full extent, then Franz has few opportunities to gain experience and never really excels, but if Seth is not being used to his full extent, then Franz is possibly the best character in the game. Both ways of playing the game are frequently described as "efficient", so how do you determine how good Franz is when the number of turns he "saves" varies? In addition, it falls into the same problem as opportunity costs do: that if you're offered a choice between two identical options, then both of the options are "worthless" because their cost is each other.

Of course, you want to narrow tier list debating down to an extremely small set of optimum strategies, which simplifies things a great deal. In theory, if we were to reduce the scope of the FE9 tier list to only optimum strategies, we could create an "unused" tier; or, since characters have to be used to be tiered, it would be more likely that you'd remove them from the list entirely.

Edited by Anouleth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, that's fresh. There's no "practical value" to essentially telling people how to clear the game with a low turncount?

There is little practical value in telling people how to clear the game with a low turncount. A tier list fulfills precisely none of that value.

Consider how many people actually care about your standard of minimum turncounts. As you've admitted yourself, it's quite low, and most of the people who care are the ones arguing the tier lists in the first place... so you're creating the tier lists to instruct yourselves. Which leads back to my point that the tier lists exist only for their own sake.

As for someone who wants to learn about it, a tier list is a woefully inadequate method of conveying how to clear the game in minimum or even remotely low turns. Getting particularly low turncounts requires using specific strategies, or a specific strategy, period. Telling people how to clear the game with a low turncount means showing or explaining those strategies, or at least the general methods behind those strategies. A simple ordered list of characters will not convey those strategies; giving that list to a player who knows nothing about those strategies will not cause them to magically figure out those strategies, and without those strategies, they won't get remotely close to low turncounts. On the other hand, if you don't bother ranking the characters, but simply show or explain the strategies, then once a player sufficiently understands those strategies, they will figure out approximately who they need to make use of on any given chapter on their own - at least as effectively as they'd be able to figure it out with the aid of a tier list.

The core of this is that tier lists as a method of instruction don't fit with something with options as limited as low turncounts. Once you've been analyzing strategies in that much detail, and you've planned out strategies that are being assumed for the purposes of a tier list, there isn't some simple scale of characters being more or less effective, as tier lists are meant to show. There are characters that are necessary for some or many strategies, characters that are interchangeable, maybe modifying the chances of a strategy working, and characters that just don't do much of anything. You can quantify those effects, but that quantification isn't necessarily any help in telling people which characters to use at any given time, or even whether or not they have a choice.

It's like if Metroid Prime speedrunners were making a tier list about which Missile Expansions are most or least effective to get on a speedrun. Now, I'm a huge fan of Metroid games, both in general and in speedruns. But such a tier list would be completely worthless. On a speedrun, you figure out which Missile Expansions will be worth it to get on whichever route is the best at the time, and you get them. By the same token, on an FE turn-efficient playthrough, you figure out which characters will be useful or necessary to your planned strategy on a given chapter, and you use them. No simple tier list can ever provide accurate enough information about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is little practical value in telling people how to clear the game with a low turncount. A tier list fulfills precisely none of that value.

Consider how many people actually care about your standard of minimum turncounts.

OK. Now consider how many people even care about debating Fire Emblem. Or consider the lack of practical value in any tier list. Your argument is self-defeating.

Edited by dondon151

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You agree that some people value reliability more than others, right? You agree that the value of reliability, is therefore subjective, right? And you realise, thus, that just because you assign a numerical value to reliability, it doesn't make you some objective arbiter of truth, right?

Therefore why use a subjective principle to argue an objective tier list?
There isn't one. Turns saved is often a good rule of thumb to use, but it breaks down in weird cases, such as when the strategy is unreliable, or when other factors influence how many turns a unit might save. The simplest example is Franz: if Seth is being used to his full extent, then Franz has few opportunities to gain experience and never really excels, but if Seth is not being used to his full extent, then Franz is possibly the best character in the game. Both ways of playing the game are frequently described as "efficient", so how do you determine how good Franz is when the number of turns he "saves" varies? In addition, it falls into the same problem as opportunity costs do: that if you're offered a choice between two identical options, then both of the options are "worthless" because their cost is each other.
Of course if you compare Franz's other chapters to other units he does indeed save turns so I don't see what you are getting at.
Of course, you want to narrow tier list debating down to an extremely small set of optimum strategies, which simplifies things a great deal. In theory, if we were to reduce the scope of the FE9 tier list to only optimum strategies, we could create an "unused" tier; or, since characters have to be used to be tiered, it would be more likely that you'd remove them from the list entirely.
I'm not suggesting that, but if someone contributes to more optimum strategies than someone else then they should obviously be higher. If they have an advantage that contributes to an optimum strategy at all, they should be placed higher than others. For example, Elincia can make a great Rescue user late game if you didn't train a staff user. Someone like Syrene has priority over chars lower than her than others. We're not narrowing the scope to that- by no means- but the fact of the matter is that if they contribute to any sort of optimum strategy it should be used heavily in their favor, especially if it's easy or most efficient for a large portion of the game to get them to partake in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Therefore why use a subjective principle to argue an objective tier list?

Tier lists aren't objective. How could they be? Tier lists rank characters on how "good" they are, and what makes a character "good" is completely subjective. Some people think it's 20/20 stats, and some people think it's the ability to beat chapters in a low number of turns. Ultimately, the axioms that make up a tier list are completely arbitrary and based on the subjective preferences of the creator. In the same way, how much reliability makes a character "good" is also subjective. Clearly, you don't put a high value upon it. Just because you happen to represent that with a number doesn't make your opinion of reliability any less subjective.

Of course if you compare Franz's other chapters to other units he does indeed save turns so I don't see what you are getting at.

I don't understand your point. Of course Franz saves turns. But sometimes he saves more turns and sometimes he saves fewer turns. Franz is in one position on one tier list and in a different position on another tier list.

I'm not suggesting that, but if someone contributes to more optimum strategies than someone else then they should obviously be higher.

Mia does not contribute to optimum strategies, at least, not more so than someone like Vika. Yet this isn't reflected in the current tier list.

If they have an advantage that contributes to an optimum strategy at all, they should be placed higher than others. For example, Elincia can make a great Rescue user late game if you didn't train a staff user.

So Elincia should be above Soren because she contributes to an optimum strategy and he doesn't?

We're not narrowing the scope to that- by no means- but the fact of the matter is that if they contribute to any sort of optimum strategy it should be used heavily in their favor, especially if it's easy or most efficient for a large portion of the game to get them to partake in it.

So what you're saying is that you do want an optimal playthrough tier list, only you use suboptimal playthroughs as a tie-breaker for the units who are unused in optimal play (or who are identical in optimal play)?

In addition, you specify "any sort of optimum strategy". That is impossible: optimum means best. There can only be one optimum strategy.

Edited by Anouleth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. Now consider how many people even care about debating Fire Emblem. Or consider the lack of practical value in any tier list. Your argument is self-defeating.

Most tier lists can be used to give new players a good idea of who to use to make the game easier, or experienced players an idea of who to use to make the game harder. Those are the normal reasons why such tiers exist, and there are indeed people who benefit from them.

Are the tiers regardless mostly made for the fun of making them? Sure. I didn't say otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tier lists aren't objective. How could they be? Tier lists rank characters on how "good" they are, and what makes a character "good" is completely subjective. Some people think it's 20/20 stats, and some people think it's the ability to beat chapters in a low number of turns. Ultimately, the axioms that make up a tier list are completely arbitrary and based on the subjective preferences of the creator. In the same way, how much reliability makes a character "good" is also subjective. Clearly, you don't put a high value upon it. Just because you happen to represent that with a number doesn't make your opinion of reliability any less subjective.

Then why argue things that are based on things entirely arbitrary? Then we only waste time. If a tier list weren't objective we'd have no reason to argue them.
I don't understand your point. Of course Franz saves turns. But sometimes he saves more turns and sometimes he saves fewer turns. Franz is in one position on one tier list and in a different position on another tier list.
Okay, so obviously his turncount saving-ability is taken into account.
Mia does not contribute to optimum strategies, at least, not more so than someone like Vika. Yet this isn't reflected in the current tier list.
The FE10 Tier List is stupid anyway.
So Elincia should be above Soren because she contributes to an optimum strategy and he doesn't?
I think Elincia should be a lot higher than she is now based on that staff utility, yeah, but being above Soren is a stretch because Soren contributes to a couple things throughout the game (nothing major at all, though).
So what you're saying is that you do want an optimal playthrough tier list, only you use suboptimal playthroughs as a tie-breaker for the units who are unused in optimal play (or who are identical in optimal play)?
Sadly that's how it boils down to. It's as if you have optimal deployments except for one slot which is reserved for the unit in question, or mostly optimal deployments with a couple slots for suboptimal units.
In addition, you specify "any sort of optimum strategy". That is impossible: optimum means best. There can only be one optimum strategy.
Semantics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why argue things that are based on things entirely arbitrary? Then we only waste time. If a tier list weren't objective we'd have no reason to argue them.

Subjective =/= Arbitrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FE10 Tier List is stupid anyway.

How about you add "The FE10 list is run by a bunch of doo-doo heads" too while you're at it? It helps come across the tone set in that sentence, which is that of a petulant child upset because he didn't get his way when arguing on the list.

And sure, if we're arguing strictly by optimal play and turns saved, might as well push Edward to the top of the tier list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about you add "The FE10 list is run by a bunch of doo-doo heads" too while you're at it? It helps come across the tone set in that sentence, which is that of a petulant child upset because he didn't get his way when arguing on the list.

I'm not saying Red Fox is a shithead at all- dealing with the FE10 tier list is a pain in the ass, and I respect him for that. Instead, I'm saying that the FE10 tier list is stupid because you can't weigh units' usefulness against one another's in an easily measurable and objective way to make one big tier list. Geoffrey is almost necessary for two chapters he's in, but after that he blows while being lower than Soren on the tier list who is a mediocre unit for most of the time he exists. Elincia is just as capable as Haar of doing the 2-E 1-turn, with Haar being more capable, and somehow Sothe (despite being the most efficient unit to use for Part 1 until your God units, and he remains really powerful when you do) is ranked lower than far too many units who don't contribute nearly as much to their chapters as Sothe does. There's far too much to measure at once and tiering that game like it is doesn't make sense.

If you want to fucking insult me, I will bite back. I know what I am talking about and I guarantee you that I am far from a petulant child who doesn't get his way- I'm just sick of people arguing contradictory stances and making almost half-assed arguments about "efficiency" when every single person's definition differs. If you're going to bother insulting me, then you may as well attack my points as to why only a child would make them.

And sure, if we're arguing strictly by optimal play and turns saved, might as well push Edward to the top of the tier list.
Except the following chapters where he becomes more and more of a liability (and not so gradually either) while being a forced deployment option really hamper his ability to contribute very often.

And here you see my problem. There is no measurable way to judge efficiency as it stands now, and the fact that people use "Turns saved" in some arguments and then when a unit like Edward comes around who is generally poor throughout the game but is good in the first couple chapters he's in- without even scraping high tier (not that FE10 tiers, once again, make sense, considering my tier list suggestion makes the tiering style more similar to a traditional fire emblem game. You don't rank Generation 1 and Generation 2 together in FE4, after all, and Gen 1/2 are independent of one another when tiering; same concept).

Subjective =/= Arbitrary
Your point? Edited by Mercenary Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying Red Fox is a shithead at all- dealing with the FE10 tier list is a pain in the ass, and I respect him for that. Instead, I'm saying that the FE10 tier list is stupid because you can't weigh units' usefulness against one another's in an easily measurable and objective way to make one big tier list. Geoffrey is almost necessary for two chapters he's in, but after that he blows while being lower than Soren on the tier list who is a mediocre unit for most of the time he exists. Elincia is just as capable as Haar of doing the 2-E 1-turn, with Haar being more capable, and somehow Sothe (despite being the most efficient unit to use for Part 1 until your God units, and he remains really powerful when you do) is ranked lower than far too many units who don't contribute nearly as much to their chapters as Sothe does. There's far too much to measure at once and tiering that game like it is doesn't make sense.

Sothe's actually in top tier and while there was a movement against his rise that far up, the opposition was composed of basically Interceptor only, who I recall once said he was not all that objective about Sothe (he hates him with a burning passion).

If you want to fucking insult me, I will bite back. I know what I am talking about and I guarantee you that I am far from a petulant child who doesn't get his way- I'm just sick of people arguing contradictory stances and making almost half-assed arguments about "efficiency" when every single person's definition differs. If you're going to bother insulting me, then you may as well attack my points as to why only a child would make them.

I'm not calling you a child or your points childish. I'm calling the attitude you present childish. It's difficult to put to words why exactly and I'm in a hurry right now, so sadly, I can't explain, though I'll try to be tactful about it.

Basically I'm insulting the sin, not the sinner.

Except the following chapters where he becomes more and more of a liability (and not so gradually either) while being a forced deployment option really hamper his ability to contribute very often.

This is the big split between the "pure turn counts party" and the "tier counts are important but not the be all and end all party (or TCIBAEAP party)." I personally don't think he should go into top tier for obvious reasons and you're pretty much preaching to the choir with everyone else as well.

And here you see my problem. There is no measurable way to judge efficiency as it stands now, and the fact that people use "Turns saved" in some arguments and then when a unit like Edward comes around who is generally poor throughout the game but is good in the first couple chapters he's in- without even scraping high tier (not that FE10 tiers, once again, make sense, considering my tier list suggestion makes the tiering style more similar to a traditional fire emblem game. You don't rank Generation 1 and Generation 2 together in FE4, after all, and Gen 1/2 are independent of one another when tiering; same concept).

If your suggestion for FE10 is to tier the different parts of the game, that's not really going to work out very well. The reason why we tier FE10 as a whole and not make different tiers for each part like we do with FE4's gens is because of key fundamental differences between the two games. In FE4, the entire 1st generation (except Fin) never comes into contact with any 2nd generation characters, so then it basically becomes a subjective comparison between whether Sigurd's 1st gen godliness is better than Levin!Arthur's godliness. It's still complicated even when comparing dumbshit noob units like Patty and Dew, Tiltyu and Tristan, etc. Since there's no way to tier all that, we split them into two gens. This also makes sense since they're essentially two separate games.

In FE10, Part 1 people appear in some Part 3 chapters, but not all of them and everybody is around in Part 4 basically. Characters share multiple chapters and unlike the 2 FE4 gens which, like I said, are basically two different games with a bit of overlap (pairings), none of the parts in FE10 are long enough to justify tiering them differently.

Tiering is a complicated business and I think I like how it's done best in the FE7 list honestly. You should go check it out if you wish. I think the only contested arguments there that might be a double standard are Sain getting the LHM Knight Crest but not Kent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize now for whatever hostility I expressed out of that misinterpretation.

I'm not calling you a child or your points childish. I'm calling the attitude you present childish. It's difficult to put to words why exactly and I'm in a hurry right now, so sadly, I can't explain, though I'll try to be tactful about it.
I'm not sure how it's childish. I got my way for Marcia vs Oscar and Tormod vs Soren, but the points we were arguing were... exactly the grievance I brought up in the OP. A 75% 2-turn vs a 95% 4-turn; whichever is more preferred in terms of a tier list is not specified at all, and I am suggesting a more measurable way to see which is better. In which case, the N / P formula actually mathematically matched up with some point dondon brought up and aku chi fiddled around with, so it was a lucky guess.
This is the big split between the "pure turn counts party" and the "tier counts are important but not the be all and end all party (or TCIBAEAP party)." I personally don't think he should go into top tier for obvious reasons and you're pretty much preaching to the choir with everyone else as well.
I tried arguing Geoffrey vs Soren but it lasted like two posts, and it said "hence they're two spaces apart, so it's not a big deal and hard to measure..." It's hard to even make a tier list for a game with specific strategies.

The specific strategies involving "x" character are more practical than the specific strategies involving "y" character is what I'm trying to judge things by. Exceptions like Edward are affected by the rule in a more different way, in that his non-forced chapters aren't held against him because those who *are* better than him are still ranked higher than him.

I'm also sort of making a plea to make some sort of compromise with that schism you mention.

If your suggestion for FE10 is to tier the different parts of the game, that's not really going to work out very well. The reason why we tier FE10 as a whole and not make different tiers for each part like we do with FE4's gens is because of key fundamental differences between the two games. In FE4, the entire 1st generation (except Fin) never comes into contact with any 2nd generation characters, so then it basically becomes a subjective comparison between whether Sigurd's 1st gen godliness is better than Levin!Arthur's godliness. It's still complicated even when comparing dumbshit noob units like Patty and Dew, Tiltyu and Tristan, etc. Since there's no way to tier all that, we split them into two gens. This also makes sense since they're essentially two separate games.

In FE10, Part 1 people appear in some Part 3 chapters, but not all of them and everybody is around in Part 4 basically. Characters share multiple chapters and unlike the 2 FE4 gens which, like I said, are basically two different games with a bit of overlap (pairings), none of the parts in FE10 are long enough to justify tiering them differently.

There are fundamental differences between each part of the game though. I wasn't necessarily suggesting parts; just "steady streams" of units like in a regular FE tier list. That way we don't have the weirdness of weighing Sothe's part 1 against a royal's part 4, or having to rank the gradually more powerful units you get every chapter (so you don't have to rank Muarim, Royals, Black Knight, etc against decent long-term units who are helping out in previous chapters). The way it works now is fundamentally flawed, so separating them into different "games" I guess makes far more sense to me because they fit the traditional FE game more.

Furthermore, the arguments applied to FE4's apply to FE10 but only to less of an extent because each portion of the game is indeed far too different in what/who you need and how you're supposed to play (read: difficulty spikes in Part 3) to tier it effectively. Much of what happens in Dawn Brigade chapters are independent of what happens in Part 2 and Greil Mercenaries. They all factor in together for Part 4 and endgame, but Part 4 is still independent of endgame in some ways.

Tiering is a complicated business and I think I like how it's done best in the FE7 list honestly. You should go check it out if you wish. I think the only contested arguments there that might be a double standard are Sain getting the LHM Knight Crest but not Kent.
Yeah I saw that and I actually didn't have much problem with what went on there generally.

Share this post


Link to post
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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...