Defining Efficiency

[grandjackal]

Might as well throw my hat in the ring. Kinda silly to define it, because the definition is obvious. Reason no one really does it anymore is that the discussion has become boring, since we've basically hit the tip of the iceberg. There's nothing left to argue. It's doubly why FE12 was not talked about at all, because what was the obvious good was pretty much forced to be used, as the gap between usable characters was so wide, that people past the first 3rd of the game were unsalvageably useless.

Basically any ideals on what is best is pretty much set in stone by now, and people argue because what is pretty much the ultimate point of argument now is unwinnable, and thus boring and not worth the time. There's no sense of surprise left, what is good is so obvious that anything beneath it is a joke. Again, refer to the FE12 tier list (wherever in the graveyard it fell to), and see that it was shaped top, high, mid, useless. That's pretty much what every other tier is devolvng into, and it ceases being fun when any argument can be shut down by "But he's useless, so shut up".

I wouldn't blame the people that argue the lists though. They devolve to arguing the philosophy because they feel they have to for their argument to make sense, but the arguments are not the problem as much as the game design is. The cold hard numbers are simply and statically going to come to a basic truth at some point, and nothing can be done about it. Things are bound to hit a peak eventually, and they have. Just happens the peak isn't fun.

It's personally why I pretty much don't deal with arguing FE stuff anymore, though I still do my efficient runs every now and then (Though I'm starting to prefer doing it for your standard RPGs nowdays). I'm trying to just sit back and relax with it now, FE's more fun that way (or at least FE6 is). The series needs to mellow out imo.

Only time FE's gonna have another burst of activity in deciding what's good or not is if the next Fire Emblem reworks the numbers entirely, and changes the formula up so drastically that it boggles the mind. It plays the same, but subtly functions completely different. I would deeply welcome it too, I'm sick of playing Mounts: The Game, or FE12's take on it, "Have Speed or Suck Nuts".

[-Cynthia-]

Actually thinking on my stance a little bit, freely allowing the character the deployment slot somewhat solves the "dropped" character issue. Yes, deploying Geoffrey in 4-E doesn't help much, but it doesn't hurt or compromise his 2-3 and 3-9 contributions. It just makes, say a Geoffrey vs. Volke comparison better IMO, since it's Volke's better 4-E vs. Geoffrey's inferior 4-E/2-3/3-9. As opposed to Geoffrey's 2-3 and 3-9 and neither of them being fielded in 4-E.

As for deployment of characters not being compared, it should probably considered that using higher characters is more likely, but not necessarily assumed unless they are forced. If FE9 Titania isn't being argued, she's still used for the first 7 chapters all the time (since she is forced and very good). For the rest of the game, her deployment is probably "very likely" since she's useful in many of the remaining chapters as well. However, it's only likely, not assured, I would prefer not to assume every FE9 runthrough has all 9 Mov units.

@FE12 tiering I think there's more that could be done there actually, such as tiering the different incarnations of My Unit, sorting out the bottom tiers, and putting healers with the rest of the list (why does Etzel having 30 staff exp at base make a comparison between him and Merric impossible?) Perhaps arguing a less restrictive difficulty than Lunatic would help as well, Maniac is already more difficult than most FEs anyway.

[Anouleth]

Been checking the forums once in a while for the past few months, finally an interesting topic! Well, at least for the first 10-20 posts, then the arguments just go in circles with ridiculous walls of text.

Tier debating was so much more amusing in the dark ages where most people would use fanboyism as their main argument for moving a character up/down in a tier list. Then you could rip their argument to shreds. Now we spend more time arguing about some almighty tiering standard than we do actually arguing about character placement.

The reality is, FE tiering is ultimately subjective, and it's a vain effort trying to objectify something that is subjective at heart. Besides, true objectivity would take all the fun out of it, in fact I'd argue that it already has. Debating your favorite character loses a lot of its appeal to most people when it turns into a statistics and optimization problem. It's more of a math exercise than a battle of clashing wits.

Believe it or not, I'd say the biggest problem with FE tiering is that it's simply being taken too seriously. People are recording entire "efficiency playthroughs" dedicated to helping the tiering process. People will spend hours making huge write-ups about instances that would never happen in normal play (that is, play that doesn't require exceptional dondon-level planning) to prove one character > another. People will get so emotionally attached to their tiering views that they will argue endlessly with an opposing viewpoint, no matter how many circular arguments and rationalizations are involved. And, above all, esoteric questions are constantly being raised. How do we measure efficiency? What makes one character better than another? Might as well be asking, "what is the meaning of life?" "are we real, or are a product of the matrix?".

Tiering was a fun little concept that exploded in the FE community, but the well has really run dry. Every game except maybe FE12 has been discussed to death. The increasing intensity of discussion is alienating more and more people from the process that aren't already on the hardcore bandwagon. And again, the arguments have gotten so intense in nature that we spend most of our energy focusing on the core structure of tiering, but said structure is always going to be shaky because of the game's intensely statistical nature. A character could get slightly blessed in an important stat, which produces a butterfly effect that makes the unit awesome. The team you uses will affect the performance of the character you're trying to evaluate. One player might reset much more than another, and therefore accept bigger risks in his/her playstyle. Personal biases will affect who you chose to give exp to, and how you allocate your resources. I could go on forever.

I say, **** efficiency up a horsie's anus. Stop debating tier criteria and just compare characters based on your own arbitrary standards. It would probably be a ****storm at first, but the reduced rigor would do it some good as an argumentative construct. I say this half jokingly, I honestly think tiering is a lost cause at this point.

Now watch as someone takes the time to address every point in my post and tell me at length that I'm wrong. Could be entertaining. Though, not as entertaining as BOOBIES.

Personally, I like to keep it vague. That's why I like the FE10 tier list best. The criteria is "contribution to an efficient playthrough", which is defined well enough for me even if other people might not like it.

Actually thinking on my stance a little bit, freely allowing the character the deployment slot somewhat solves the "dropped" character issue. Yes, deploying Geoffrey in 4-E doesn't help much, but it doesn't hurt or compromise his 2-3 and 3-9 contributions. It just makes, say a Geoffrey vs. Volke comparison better IMO, since it's Volke's better 4-E vs. Geoffrey's inferior 4-E/2-3/3-9. As opposed to Geoffrey's 2-3 and 3-9 and neither of them being fielded in 4-E.

This is the problem: what do we do with someone like Arran? Like Geoffrey, he's good initially and poor later on. It almost seems like sandbagging to talk about how crap he is later on in the game given that it's not really relevant to how good he is in the earlygame.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Anouleth

[nflchamp]

In response to Vykan (and probably agreeing with dondon), I feel that there have ever only been two ways a character has ever moved on a tier list.

1. We realize that a character can do something we previously didn't think they could. (Or the opposite.)
   
2. We redefine or better define what we think it means "to be good".
   

If one of these two things isn't fulfilled, no one is going to change their opinion on the placement of characters. As there is only so much we can discuss about what a character can do, tier lists will inevitably start trying to better define what we think it means to be good. If we do better define what it means to be good, it usually ends up with more discussion about what characters can do in reference with the new definition. In other words, we fall into a cycle in tier debating:

• We discuss 1) to death
  
• We discuss 2)
  
• We make refinements to what it means to be good
  
• We discuss 1) to death
  
• so on and so forth
  

This is how discussion has progressed in the past and how it still progresses now. The "problem" (if you want to call it that) is that we have gotten to a point where discussing 2) hasn't led us to making any changes to what it means to be good. What people seem to want is to be able to discuss 1) without ever discussing it completely which, as said before, is impossible because there is only so much to discuss. If you think such a tier list, where we only need to look at what characters can do and never need to look at what is "good", is the "solution" to the "problem", then it is impossible to fix the tier lists. Tier lists' very foundations are made from the discussion of what is "good"; you can't get rid of that without getting rid of the tier lists themselves.

[-Cynthia-]

This is the problem: what do we do with someone like Arran? Like Geoffrey, he's good initially and poor later on. It almost seems like sandbagging to talk about how crap he is later on in the game given that it's not really relevant to how good he is in the earlygame.

Arran not contributing much past C7 or whatever is still a part of his overall performance. This means he loses to someone like Palla(who beats him upon showing up and for the rest of the game) and becomes a point of debate compared to say Cecile (who he clearly beats at jointime, but she overtakes him eventually). Cecile having the ability to be a decent unit past C7 is a point in her favor and IMO shouldn't be ignored by an argument that's approximately "We can just not field Arran after C7, Cecil takes up a slot better used by units like Luke or Caeda, Arran>Cecile." A unit's whole existence whould be important if we're trying to measure what they can do.

[Anouleth]

Arran not contributing much past C7 or whatever is still a part of his overall performance. This means he loses to someone like Palla(who beats him upon showing up and for the rest of the game) and becomes a point of debate compared to say Cecile (who he clearly beats at jointime, but she overtakes him eventually).

Cecile having the ability to be a decent unit past C7 is a point in her favor and IMO shouldn't be ignored by an argument that's approximately "We can just not field Arran after C7, Cecil takes up a slot better used by units like Luke or Caeda, Arran>Cecile." A unit's whole existence whould be important if we're trying to measure what they can do.

Hmm, I think I kind of understand. To make this work, you'd have to rank characters purely on "gross" utility, though. So even if Geoffrey is much, much worse than Volke in 4-E, it can't be so much worse as to constitute a negative against him, so even if it's worth zero, it turns into Geoffrey's 2-3 and 3-9 against Volke's 4-E.

[aku chi]

Hmm, I think I kind of understand. To make this work, you'd have to rank characters purely on "gross" utility, though. So even if Geoffrey is much, much worse than Volke in 4-E, it can't be so much worse as to constitute a negative against him, so even if it's worth zero, it turns into Geoffrey's 2-3 and 3-9 against Volke's 4-E.

I'm on board with this. Assume that the unit you're evaluating has free deployment in all of their chapters but that we aren't compelled to give them resources, slow down for them, or even deploy them if it would result in a net negative contribution.

The bigger question is what to assume about the remainder of the chapter's deployment slots. One extreme is assuming optimal deployment (with the exception of the unit being evaluated). My preference is towards the other extreme: make no assumptions about unit deployment and consider how the unit being evaluated can contribute based on a variety of unit deployment possibilities. The Radiant Dawn tier list has clearly nestled very closely to the "optimal deployment" extreme by making resource use assumptions (which inherently have embedded unit deployment assumptions).

[Anouleth]

I'm on board with this. Assume that the unit you're evaluating has free deployment in all of their chapters but that we aren't compelled to give them resources, slow down for them, or even deploy them if it would result in a net negative contribution.

The bigger question is what to assume about the remainder of the chapter's deployment slots. One extreme is assuming optimal deployment (with the exception of the unit being evaluated). My preference is towards the other extreme: make no assumptions about unit deployment and consider how the unit being evaluated can contribute based on a variety of unit deployment possibilities. The Radiant Dawn tier list has clearly nestled very closely to the "optimal deployment" extreme by making resource use assumptions (which inherently have embedded unit deployment assumptions).

Oh, I don't know. I didn't see that much opposition to giving Boyd T the Speedwing, if that's what you're talking about.

[-Cynthia-]

I usually assume that higher tier characters are more likely to be fielded (when they aren't in the comparison), but not necessarily. For example, FE10 Part 3 Haar is very likely to be fielded (but not quite every playthrough), Titania likely but a bit less so, once we get down to someone like Oscar he's only somewhat likely to be fielded. Forced characters can be assumed to be used all the time though, though this only applies for their forced chapters.

So I suppose it's no longer optimal deployment but not all characters have an equal chance at being deployed either.

Resources would be the same way I guess, Haar and Titania aren't always in play to take their respective Speedwings, but that will probably happen a lot of the time. The cost of the resource is never "free", but obviously stat boosters/BEXP/whatever shouldn't be ignored. If the character being argued is a better option than other likely candidates that can be taken into consideration.

[GreatEclipse]

The main problem is the standard for evaluation that is currently popular. Out of all the ways to play Fire Emblem, low-turning is the one most reliant on specific units used in specific ways, and the tier lists are only now starting to reflect that. It makes sense, when you think about it. There is only ever going to be one way to achieve the most efficient outcome, but the number of ways you can achieve an inefficient outcome (To varying degrees) border on limitless. I prefer the kind of play encouraged by the FE6 ranked run I am currently working on, where far more units are not only viable but necessary, and it actually makes the game more challenging by forcing you to ration use of the most powerful units.

Edited September 22, 2011 by GreatEclipse

[Anouleth]

The main problem is the standard for evaluation that is currently popular. Out of all the ways to play Fire Emblem, low-turning is the one most reliant on specific units used in specific ways, and the tier lists are only now starting to reflect that. It makes sense, when you think about it. There is only ever going to be one way to achieve the most efficient outcome, but the number of ways you can achieve an inefficient outcome (To varying degrees) border on limitless. I prefer the kind of play encouraged by the FE6 ranked run I am currently working on, where far more units are not only viable but necessary, and it actually makes the game more challenging by forcing you to ration use of the most powerful units.

I don't know how I feel about ranked tiering. On the one hand, it does broaden the list of viable units and give opportunities to units that are good but just don't fit into efficient strategies. On the other hand, as you say, far more units are necessary. When so many units are necessary, talking about which ones are more or less useful breaks down because so many of them just have to be used. The eventual result is FE4 ranked where you basically have to use all but 3 units in the game to meet the ridiculous EXP requirements. Dew might be shit but he contributes to EXP rank just as much, more so in fact, than Sigurd.

[Colonel M]

The other issue with ranks is that, in some scenarios, different ranks are valued in different ways, not to mention there are ways to curb some of the requirements (i.e. in FE7, have Marcus plow earlygame to take more turns in 31X).

On a lighter note, I practiced Experience Efficiency for MaxKnight yesterday. Franz, Seth, Gilliam, and Garcia are of the same level!

[Snowy_One]

I know my opinion is worthless in these cases but...

I hate LTC being used as the term for 'efficiency'. It not only promotes a style that not all players use, but ends up turning the tier list into a ranking of how good and useful units are to 'which units will help you get the lowest turncount with our strategies and which units hurt/should be avoided'. What really annoys me though is that, whenever someone suggests using alternative methods, others will shout them down because their system isn't perfect/needs work (no duh) instead of even trying.

[Dark Sage]

I know my opinion is worthless in these cases but...

I hate LTC being used as the term for 'efficiency'. It not only promotes a style that not all players use, but ends up turning the tier list into a ranking of how good and useful units are to 'which units will help you get the lowest turncount with our strategies and which units hurt/should be avoided'. What really annoys me though is that, whenever someone suggests using alternative methods, others will shout them down because their system isn't perfect/needs work (no duh) instead of even trying.

I don't think that's quite true. Even in lists which are dangerously close to assuming LTC and optimal deployment (like the FE9 list), it's mainly when we're arguing top and high tiers do we start assuming such things, as they can reasonably help with such quick clears.

Plus there is resistance against optimal deployment max efficiency tier lists in general, even among us efficiency lovers. For instance, Colonel M made a rule on the FE6 list that makes a unit slot for a character being argued relatively free (to avoid sandbagging a unit for being deployed instead of a better one for example). The FE10 list only has this issue with the likes of Oliver, where that isn't even a problem, and the other lists are fine for the most part. You can basically have efficiency without assuming the lowest turncounts and only one strategy.

Basically the only list that takes a cue from the maximum efficiency list in terms of making actual tiers is the FE12 Lunatic list (which has a Free Silvers tier) and there, it's not because those units can't really save a turn, it's because they're nearly impossible or are impossible to use on that mode.

[Lord Raven]

Snowy One, I'm not sure which tier list you've been reading which leads you to conclude that.

Edited October 2, 2011 by Mercenary Raven

[Dark Sage]

He's been reading the FE9 and FE10 lists (FE10 ones on GFaqs though). While at the time he was arguing, he was incorrect (and in fact, he mostly is still incorrect), I can still sort of see why he'd feel that way. For example, in the FE9 list, I recall you arguing that we should make a Flying tier, a Mounted tier, a Good Offense for a bit tier, and a Bottom tier. This idea is not unlike a max efficiency tier list. While it was never implemented, it still left some of us uneasy.

Plus we're now assuming things like 3 turn clears and the like. Of course given that this is a game in which Paladins and fliers are truly at the best, it was inevitable.

As you notice, I mostly stay out of the FE9 list, mostly for those reasons (also because I haven't played enough of the game to argue properly about it). I personally don't think this is a problem necessarily with efficiency lists as it is with how some people choose to argue them, but given that there've been arguments like Fir vs Wolt in the FE6 list, it's easy to see why some people would start turning against efficiency lists.

Edited October 2, 2011 by Clockwork Sage

[Lord Raven]

While it was never implemented, it still left some of us uneasy.

dondon picked up on the hyperbole and exaggeration, it was more or less a segue into my arguments that Oscar should be < Marcia.

The 3-turn clear-type were in terms of arguing Oscar and Marcia. I'm not sure if you've noticed that the entire last 20 some pages of debate were more or less relevant to Oscar vs Marcia, and those two are in Top tier spots where we can safely start arguing LTC/close to max efficiency without completely ruining the tier list. I was also arguing Tormod over Soren due to optimal efficiency, but my point there was that Tormod has the potential to contribute to far more efficient runs on top of basically being the same as Soren in less efficient-but-still-efficient runs. I never seriously advocated for an optimal-only tier list.

I have never ever argued an LTC-only tier list, I've only advocated that when the person I was arguing against said that x unit would have to take resources away from another unit in order to become vaguely usable (ie, Ulki w/ Demi Band arguments).

Edited October 2, 2011 by Mercenary Raven

[Dark Sage]

dondon picked up on the hyperbole and exaggeration, it was more or less a segue into my arguments that Oscar should be < Marcia.

Ah. Well that makes me feel better.

The 3-turn clear-type were in terms of arguing Oscar and Marcia. I'm not sure if you've noticed that the entire last 20 some pages of debate were more or less relevant to Oscar vs Marcia, and those two are in Top tier spots where we can safely start arguing LTC/close to max efficiency without completely ruining the tier list. I was also arguing Tormod over Soren due to optimal efficiency, but my point there was that Tormod has the potential to contribute to far more efficient runs on top of basically being the same as Soren in less efficient-but-still-efficient runs. I never seriously advocated for an optimal-only tier list.

A lot of the posts tended to be tl;drs, so I didn't quite pick up on everything said, though I was aware of the debate between Soren vs Tormod and Oscar vs Marcia. In any case, I like that approach since it falls nearly exactly in my style of tiering.

Still, in recent posts, I did see Vykan arguing pretty much exclusively for a LTC standpoint, which is odd since I thought he hated that standard. So we got stuff like Mordecai>Muarim beginning to be argued.

I have never ever argued an LTC-only tier list, I've only advocated that when the person I was arguing against said that x unit would have to take resources away from another unit in order to become vaguely usable (ie, Ulki w/ Demi Band arguments).

Well thanks for clearing that up.

[Lord Raven]

To be honest, something like Mordcai > Muarim is a gray area that is up to the OP's discretion. Utility is never an easy thing to gauge if there's very little combat on top of that utility; in times like that, it's either a more concrete definition of tier lists/efficiency or something as simple as the OP's personal preferences that takes care of an argument like that.

[Snowy_One]

It personally aggravates me a lot to see that units with high mobility and who aid that mobility ending up higher seemingly just because of said mobility, which is something that is mainly a sign of a LTC tier. I can easily recall people getting into arguments about if it is better to clear certain chapters in X turns or Y turns but have a character that will cost Z terms on the following chapter. For me, this just does not jive well (wow. Never thought I would use that word). I personally value availability and overall team flexability/power, and while I understand that is not the goal of the tier lists, it's also pretty aggrivating to see it basically treated as non-existent.

[Dark Sage]

It personally aggravates me a lot to see that units with high mobility and who aid that mobility ending up higher seemingly just because of said mobility, which is something that is mainly a sign of a LTC tier. I can easily recall people getting into arguments about if it is better to clear certain chapters in X turns or Y turns but have a character that will cost Z terms on the following chapter. For me, this just does not jive well (wow. Never thought I would use that word). I personally value availability and overall team flexability/power, and while I understand that is not the goal of the tier lists, it's also pretty aggrivating to see it basically treated as non-existent.

Actually, high variety is valued in tiers, which is why high mobility units are usually ranked highly. This is not always the case though. Something has to go along with high move, or it's useless. So while pretty much every top and high tier has a lot of high move units, in other FE games, there are plenty of mounted units who are ranked low.

FE6 and FE10 are the best examples of this. For example, Noah (a cavalier who joins just before the midgame) has high move but has mediocre combat without highly contested resources. Therefore, he is mid tier. Thany is an early joining pegasus knight with unsalvageable combat, but she is in high tier due to her flight. If she had passable combat, she'd be in top, but she's not because there's only so much she can do. Zeiss and Juno are latejoining fliers that have their own fair share of problems, so they're ranked low and Treck, a cavalier who joins at the same time as Noah, is ranked in Low Mid for his sheer mediocrity.

In FE10, there's Fiona, Geoffery, the pegasus knights, Kieran, etc., all who have high move but have poor availability and mediocre combat. Therefore, they're ranked in Mid (except Fiona, who's in Bottom).

Also a unit's recruitment cost is not factored into their ranking (though if a unit's recruitment is truly ridiculous like Xavier from FE5, then there's a massive debate about it).

Keep in mind, on our efficiency lists, the goal wasn't originally efficiency, it was to rank characters based on how they can help beat the game and turns were extrapolated on that.

Edited October 2, 2011 by Clockwork Sage

[Lord Raven]

It personally aggravates me a lot to see that units with high mobility and who aid that mobility ending up higher seemingly just because of said mobility, which is something that is mainly a sign of a LTC tier. I can easily recall people getting into arguments about if it is better to clear certain chapters in X turns or Y turns but have a character that will cost Z terms on the following chapter. For me, this just does not jive well (wow. Never thought I would use that word). I personally value availability and overall team flexability/power, and while I understand that is not the goal of the tier lists, it's also pretty aggrivating to see it basically treated as non-existent.

Nope, that is not entirely true. A flier in any game other than FE9 tends to be hammered because they're not very strong (unless your name is Miledy or FE10 Jill/Haar). Generally in FE, Paladins and whatnot are more powerful and easier to raise and therefore they are higher tiers due to good mobility + good combat.

In FE9 it just happens that there are resources to make your higher mobility units that would, in any other game, be kinda weak and only valued for rescue dropping into a unit with high power + high mobility. That's fully consistent with other tier lists.

[Othin]

While it's being brought up, I must say that I question whether factoring availability into a tier list serves any purpose at all.

In FE7, Athos is rated near the bottom of the tier list, solely because of his availability. But what does that ranking mean? Does it mean you shouldn't use him when he's available? Certainly, that would be false. He doesn't require a unit slot, and he's incredibly powerful for the short time he's available while taking minimal or no resources away from the rest of the team, so he should be used on every playthrough when he's available, and tier lists should recognize that. Literally speaking, efficiency is effectiveness divided by cost. Athos has high effectiveness and almost zero cost, so he has nearly infinite efficiency, and should be at or near the top of any tier list, to signify that he should always be used during the time he's available, not at the bottom.

Now, Athos isn't the only unit this applies to, but he's one of the most familiar and best examples of the problem of caring about availability and how it makes a tier list worthless for actually playing the game. Hopefully soon I'll be able to use Lanette as an example instead; she demonstrates the point even better, but no one would know what I was talking about if I started talking about her now.

Or have I already made this post? Now I'm not sure...

Edited October 2, 2011 by Othin

[Dark Sage]

While it's being brought up, I must say that I question whether factoring availability into a tier list serves any purpose at all.

Yes it does. If a unit is great and he is great for a long time, then he should be higher than a unit who is great but who is around much less unless what the unit with less availability does can completely outweigh what the greater availability does (So Marcia>Oscar in FE9).

In FE7, Athos is rated near the bottom of the tier list, solely because of his availability. But what does that ranking mean? Does it mean you shouldn't use him when he's available? Certainly, that would be false. He doesn't require a unit slot, and he's incredibly powerful for the short time he's available while taking minimal or no resources away from the rest of the team, so he should be used on every playthrough when he's available, and tier lists should recognize that. Literally speaking, efficiency is effectiveness divided by cost. Athos has high effectiveness and almost zero cost, so he has nearly infinite efficiency, and should be at or near the top of any tier list, to signify that he should always be used during the time he's available, not at the bottom.

Please don't be stupid. For one thing, there is no such thing as infinite efficiency. There is always a limit and how we determine the rankings of various characters is how we compare the efficiency values to other units. Athos being in Low Mid (at the top of it mind you) is not saying Athos is bad, it's saying he is useful but only for one chapter. The Laguz Royals like Caineghis are also ranked accordingly. Athos would probably be in mid if he was a high move unit who couldn't die, but he has mediocre move and is mortal, so he isn't any higher than where he is.

Being able to contribute greatly to Final is awesome, but it's not so great that it makes him in the same tier as the likes of Marcus or Sain. His magnitude is less in the whole game. Therefore, he is in Low Mid. Efficiency is not simply effectiveness divided by cost. If you actually read closely various tier debates and philosophies, you'd realize that there are numerous factors in determining the worth of a character.

Now, Athos isn't the only unit this applies to, but he's one of the most familiar and best examples of the problem of caring about availability and how it makes a tier list worthless for actually playing the game. Hopefully soon I'll be able to use Lanette as an example instead; she demonstrates the point even better, but no one would know what I was talking about if I started talking about her now.

Tier lists are useful mainly if you're informed and if you're attempting to do a playthrough that the tier list is, well, tiering. Tier lists mainly exist as an intellectual and entertaining exercise after all.

[Anouleth]

While it's being brought up, I must say that I question whether factoring availability into a tier list serves any purpose at all.

In FE7, Athos is rated near the bottom of the tier list, solely because of his availability. But what does that ranking mean? Does it mean you shouldn't use him when he's available? Certainly, that would be false. He doesn't require a unit slot, and he's incredibly powerful for the short time he's available while taking minimal or no resources away from the rest of the team, so he should be used on every playthrough when he's available, and tier lists should recognize that.

If you use Lyn, she contributes for 20 chapters. Athos contributes for 1. Obviously, it's a matter of personal opinion whether sometimes contributing to many chapters or always contributing to one chapter is more important, but I would not say that the second is always better.

And your example breaks down. If I were to play FE10 efficiently, I should use every character at some point except for a small list of about 10 useless scrubs. Does that mean that all those characters would be in the same tier? Of course not. Both Haar and Astrid should technically always be used, but that does not make them equal.

Literally speaking, efficiency is effectiveness divided by cost

That seems like a terrible way to rank anything. What do you do when the cost is zero?

Rather, it seems more appropriate to calculate it as benefit minus cost. So even though Athos has no cost, his benefit isn't that great since after all, he's only around for 1 chapter and there's only so much you can do in one chapter. So he would be below someone like Marcus who provides huge contributions for many chapters even though he does have a cost.

Now, Athos isn't the only unit this applies to, but he's one of the most familiar and best examples of the problem of caring about availability and how it makes a tier list worthless for actually playing the game.

I would imagine that the person reading the tier list is intelligent enough to realise that even though Marcus is above Athos, that does not mean that you should bring Marcus into Endgame and have Athos sit in a corner and do nothing.

Moreover, what if Athos were at the top of the tier list, above, say, Erk? A new player might interpret that as meaning that Erk is not worth training because Athos will eventually surpass him: but benching Erk because Athos will eventually show up is a terrible idea. So I think a tier list that reflects availability becomes much more useful for someone who is actually playing the game.

Edited October 2, 2011 by Anouleth