Jump to content
Lord Raven

Defining Efficiency

Recommended Posts

What you're suggesting seems to be more of a character suggestion guide, which would probably have to go chapter by chapter. There's nothing wrong with this, but it's not a tier list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FE Tiering is like politics for SRPG gamers. What remains is to identify which philosophies are "conservative", and which are "liberal".

Edited by Vykan12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FE Tiering is like politics for SRPG gamers. What remains is to identify which philosophies are "conservative", and which are "liberal".

Haha. So who are the conservatives and who are the liberals? I do know that Reikken and CATS are the Ron Pauls of debating according to my best friend Inui.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conservatives insist on units pulling their own weight. Units don't get deployment slots for free, the player shouldn't be giving handouts! If a unit wants a slot, they should work harder!

Liberals prefer to delete deployment slot opportunity costs. Units should be given a chance to perform and shine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democrats = Tiers made to be highly specific while claiming that they apply to everyone and everyone should like them.

Republicans = Tiers that claim to be highly flexible and embracing all play styles, but actually just a few primary styles.

Libertarians = Down with tiers!

Green = Writes tiers while stoned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically, everyone has a vested self-interest in promoting their playstyle? Sounds about right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically, everyone has a vested self-interest in promoting their playstyle? Sounds about right.

Well Snowy anyway. From what I've read about by Anouleth, he sees the value in both styles he presents in terms of tiering. Kinda.

Edited by Clockwork Sage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pretty sure a Libertarian would do what a Conservative would, except they'd be more batshit about it.

Some libertarians yes, but other libertarians simply hate both sides of the issue. Some do go a step further and come up with new ways of being batshit.

You can basically come up with liberal/conservative equivalents of libertarians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm central-right myself. I don't play favorities when it comes to finding the correct answer, but I do tend to end up more on the right than the left.

Admittedly this is largely due to the stench of hippy on the left, but still... Funny how we go from 'defining efficiency' to national politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would explain about the standards of tiering that I used way back when I first started debating. Instead, however, I'll post some quick examples of debates from FEFF (before it converted to the new forum it is now) that I think highlight what I look for in debating.

Solid (Ward) vs WJC (Dorothy)

http://s11.zetaboards.com/Fusion/topic/7276585/1/#new

Notice how they are arguing the merits of the units, and not "well dorothy can do these potshots and ward does these potshots". I know that "official" debates are generally different than tier list debates, but arguing the units is what I generally look for and not some silly minor contributions they can make.

WJC (Lilina) vs Reaver (Ray)

http://s11.zetaboards.com/Fusion/topic/7268672/1/#new

I really liked how Reaver argued Lilina's durability woes. It's been awhile since I actually read it, but it was something along the lines of WJC saying "Lilina shouldn't be getting attacked" and Reaver replying with arguments about reliability (if something goes wrong, lilina's durability suddenly becomes a huge problem). The whole debate was very good though, but I do recall Reaver somewhat messing up with an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa whoa whoa, is this the smash fanatic who got banned? Cause I thought you were banned. Meaning you shouldn't be here. On accounting getting banned.

As for those arguments you post, they basically pose the problem. 1. That's a debate between two characters to voncnve which one is better to the other, rather than the use to the team and completion of the game. 2. Those arguments are again old news. Supports don't matter, and neither is there assumed deployment. By turncount method, one can actually count the number of turns a character can kill compared to the best.

Personally speaking, this politics of "playstyles" and such is garbage, and people just have to admit to the fact that at it's peak, the Fire Emblem metagame is very frozen, boring, and exclusive. Every tier list at this point is slowly gonna turn to the FE12 one (a list that was finalized in the course of like..a week), and the reason is simply the game design itself is heavily catered to mobile units, or helping somehow in mobility, as it bypasses most other problems one would encounter (such as, actually having to deal with enemies on the map).

Funny thing is, that kinda makes a weird paradox concerning the game. Fire Emblem is a strategy game and not a combat game, yet people find the game more fun to talk about when it comes to combating through a map rather than just beating it with ease. We have actually come to a point of discussion where we realize that the whole RPG and Strategy aspects of this game are actually eating each other until nothing is left. Hopefully they fix up the more painful bits of this in FE13, cause some FE games make me forget what fun is (like FE12). Getting sick of playing "Mounted Units: The Game".

Also, FE6? Really bad example.

Edited by Grandkitty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read the Athos thing a few posts back, and I have to say that I know very little about this sort of thing but shouldn't Athos (and some others of his typs, like Gotoh, Nagi, FE6!Karel and so on) be unrankable? The whole about being exceedingly awesome for one map but not existing for most of the game would probably make them nearly impossible to rank, so shouldn't they just be excluded?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa whoa whoa, is this the smash fanatic who got banned? Cause I thought you were banned. Meaning you shouldn't be here. On accounting getting banned.

Ah, but he was unbanned, so he should be here, on account of being unbanned.

As for those arguments you post, they basically pose the problem. 1. That's a debate between two characters to voncnve which one is better to the other, rather than the use to the team and completion of the game. 2. Those arguments are again old news. Supports don't matter, and neither is there assumed deployment. By turncount method, one can actually count the number of turns a character can kill compared to the best.

And I don't agree with counting turns. I think that saving turns is generally a good rule of thumb, because being able to complete chapters more quickly is an indicator of all that good stuff like movement, durability, offense, staff access, and so on. But it's not the only thing. Comparing how many turns Character X saves in comparison to the best alternative only considers the optimal playthrough, so I think it's an imperfect measure of how "good" a character is, which should take into account how they perform in sub-optimal playthroughs. For example, say the optimum use of the FE10 Dracoshield is to give it to Volug. I don't think that we should consider the possibility of giving it to Micaiah or Nailah (which is just dumb), but that doesn't mean that we can't talk about giving it to Sothe, Nolan, or Jill. That is to say, how Nolan and Jill perform when the Dracoshield goes to them is relevant to the question "how good are they", and how Volug performs when he gets no Dracoshield is relevant to the question "how good is he".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I don't agree with counting turns. I think that saving turns is generally a good rule of thumb, because being able to complete chapters more quickly is an indicator of all that good stuff like movement, durability, offense, staff access, and so on. But it's not the only thing. Comparing how many turns Character X saves in comparison to the best alternative only considers the optimal playthrough, so I think it's an imperfect measure of how "good" a character is, which should take into account how they perform in sub-optimal playthroughs. For example, say the optimum use of the FE10 Dracoshield is to give it to Volug. I don't think that we should consider the possibility of giving it to Micaiah or Nailah (which is just dumb), but that doesn't mean that we can't talk about giving it to Sothe, Nolan, or Jill. That is to say, how Nolan and Jill perform when the Dracoshield goes to them is relevant to the question "how good are they", and how Volug performs when he gets no Dracoshield is relevant to the question "how good is he".

Perhaps I only say "Can count turns lost" because I was playing FE6, where it feels like you're crippling yourself by not using every mobile unit on your team at every moment you can.

As for stat boosters, one COULD see if the using of it on one or another character could in fact save turns, or simply makes things easier on someone. For a Dracoshield, I don't think a point could be pointed out that it saves turns, but it DOES make something easier for whoever it's put on. The question would stand on who you want to have having an easier time. For example as you say Volug, one could argue he doesn't help with durability because it changes nothing of his performance, so it could easily be tossed to Nolan or Jill or Sothe.

Ya know, that's probably the only reason I have any interest in FE10, as stat boosters have a more profound effect on characters in that game than they do in most other games, and is more abject for scrutiny between who gets what...Well, until part 3 rolls around and kills fun.

...In fact, that's a nice point you make about stat boosters. Which boosters on who would unquestionably save turns at what point in time? Obviously some cases are more no brainer than most (Wings on Titania and Haar=gold), but what about in other games? Could make certain characters better, but it won't necessarily save turns (except for Wings and Boots of course). Perhaps that's something that could be given a second look over? The effect of stat boosters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, ignoring maximum efficiency's existence like Snowy does will only get you laughed at. Let's keep in mind that efficiency tier lists have evolved a lot through playthroughs of other people (and I mean not just dondon's entirely), and efficiency is constantly measured through a turn spectrum.

I think the most important thing, above all else, is recognizing that such strategies exist in a vacuum, but it is also true that many players don't take max efficiency to heart since there are other characters that people like to use just to mix it up (me with Lot, Sirius with Darros, IOS with FE11 Catria, Rody with Rody, dondon with Dougla- I'm joking I think..., Paperblade with Mordecai, smash with Aran, Int with Nephenee, Narga with Fir, Raven with Karel, Life with Ranked Marcus, RFoF with Astrid, Anouleth with any handsome man on a horse, Mekkah with Ward, Vykan with ...you know I'm not sure, bblade with CAPTAIN GORDIN, DEFENDER OF GOTHAM CITY, Grandjackal with Bors, Tangerine with RFoF, Snowy with Volug, Inui with MetaKnight, mjemerzian with Edward... the list goes on and most of it is pulling your legs). The biggest problem is being contradicting from the higher tiers to the lower tiers. Yes, it is technically true that we could give someone like Geese the Speedwings in FE6, but it also comes at an opportunity cost that exceeds his chances of obtaining said item... but if he desperately needs the item to function better than a character, what happens? I don't mean to sound completely rhetorical with that question, it's just finding a middle ground at the end of the day is pretty chaotic and holds a threat of not having solid guidelines (in other words guidelines that slightly or do contradict themselves).

Of course, different play styles exist. I'm not saying there's a complete "right or wrong" to it, since I understand that some people just like to turtle and grind in their games (while spreading misinformation like Peter is a fucking crutch... which can be applied to someone like FE8 Seth), but I think we can generally agree that there's "better recommendations" than others.

Edited by Kitty M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That last part you mention colonel about stat booters is pretty much the only place I think needs one last piece of scrutiny, because one has to ask what really saves turns if we're just gonna do nothing but pure saving turns, then do these items save turns by themselves? Only items really that can be definitive are things like Speedwings and Boots, but what of others (aside from Sill Books and Goddess Icons of course)? What is best distribution? Cause last I recall, we assumed to use stat boosters to fix problems to mae characters suddenly up to par with great units, but how best do we put them to the use of maximum efficiency? Stuff like Wings on FE10 Titania are obvious (though I'd have to ask, how would Resolve on her sound? Her or Haar, saves a wing for someone else), but what about other stuff we tend to assume? Any thoughts on how that might change under these new thoughts of playstyle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That last part you mention colonel about stat boosters is pretty much the only place I think needs one last piece of scrutiny, because one has to ask what really saves turns if we're just gonna do nothing but pure saving turns, then do these items save turns by themselves? Only items really that can be definitive are things like Speedwings and Boots, but what of others (aside from Sill Books and Goddess Icons of course)? What is best distribution? Cause last I recall, we assumed to use stat boosters to fix problems to mediocre characters suddenly up to par with great units, but how best do we put them to the use of maximum efficiency? Stuff like Wings on FE10 Titania are obvious (though I'd have to ask, how would Resolve on her sound? Her or Haar, saves a wing for someone else), but what about other stuff we tend to assume? Any thoughts on how that might change under these new thoughts of playstyle?

I don't think most people want to do a max efficiency tier list. FE12's H3 list was special since 3/4 of the cast was unusable, but I don't think there it was ever assuming max efficiency.

If we do go by a pure turn count standpoint, then we should put Edward on the top of the list and Wolt above Ray and so forth. Unfortunately this ignores that Edward is very flawed for most of his existence and that Ray is a better unit than Wolt combat wise. Basically like Anouleth said, turn counts are a good estimate of a unit's worth but they shouldn't be the only way to judge them.

Now regarding stat boosters....it depends. Stat boosters are a very complicated topic in general. It depends on how high the best unit with the resource is on the list, how many other options there are, etc. I think a good rule of thumb is that if there is a way to work around the cost of letting a unit like Lugh take a speedwing, thus denying a unit like Dieck the option on the Ilia list (to use my favorite example), then the unit should be allowed to get such a resource. The opportunity cost is still factored into their ranking, but since they're making good use of the wing, then it won't be so farfetched for them to get it. Somebody like Kyza on the other hand, who has 30 attack and requires a speedwing to double, is not only making bad use of a wing for various reasons, but he's also competing with Haar and Titania for it. The difference between this situation and the Lugh and Dieck situation is this. Haar is so ridiculous that he has like a 99% chance of being played and Titania has around 90%. Dieck has an 80% chance. Not only that but it's harder to work around Haar's and Titania's AS issues without the Wing than it is with Dieck. For these reasons, Kyza taking a wing isn't very feasible. If it was someone like Boyd (T) taking a wing, I'd cut him some slack since he ORKO's with it.

I think I'm rambling now and probably spouting nonsense, but you get the idea.

@Colonel M: I'm disappointed you didn't put me and Cath on your list :P:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to stat-boosters or any limited-use item, I personally first decide what the best way to use the item (for example, using Vantage with wrath, adept, guard, or what have you), then finding characters who fill that requirement, then deciding among them who is best. Being at the bottom of the list doesn't mean you won't get the item, but it means you are less likely than the person above you to get said item. So for a item like the speed-growth boosting bands I would figure out what the best use for them is (giving them to a character with a low level who has borderline speed), finding a character who fits that description (like Ilyana), then giving them the band assuming they are in the top X amount (where X is the number of available items). I never actually penalize someone for taking a item, but I do acknowledge that their doing so comes with certain consequences. So Unit X may be able to take wrath/vantage without problem, but doing so means we can't have a swordmaster/Mia and Neph/whathave you take the skill combo as well.

And also, take a look at the FE9 tiers right now. There is a Jill/Marcia debate going on where the amount of 1 turn in chapters is being considered important. That is absurd in my eyes. Not only does this mean that for the tier to be applicable you have to follow a certain series of strategies, but you enter into a state where you can only use certain units because, otherwise, the tiers and strategies won't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, different play styles exist. I'm not saying there's a complete "right or wrong" to it, since I understand that some people just like to turtle and grind in their games

My playstyle involves turtling the crap out of my enemies. I'm playing Shadow Dragon right now and when reinforcements try to pin me in I will block off every exit and fight until no more show up. I do this on every map that this happens in. I like to do it like this because it does give my units a lot of exp, and it gives my healers a lot to do. Of course, I act fast when there's treasure on the line, but other than that I'm almost never, ever, rushing straight in to end the level quickly, so I always end up spending 15-20+ turns on a map just luring and poking the enemy out.

I don't see the reason to complete the game in the fewest amount of turns as possible unless you were going for rank or a challenge. This is coming from someone that enjoys the series, but isn't exactly the best at it. I enjoy beating the game and trying to grab all of the chests on the map, and it brings me a lot of joy when my attempt to stop the enemy thieves from taking treasure and running off works. It's oh so satisfying.

Overall, what I do might not be the most efficient, as units I want to try using sometimes just can't keep up and end up being severely underleveled. My poor Bord has been with me for quite a while and he's only level 6, while everyone else is 11-12, I just can never find a good situation to send him in without him getting killed. It sucks mainly because I wanted an axe user, and I'm just not getting that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And also, take a look at the FE9 tiers right now. There is a Jill/Marcia debate going on where the amount of 1 turn in chapters is being considered important. That is absurd in my eyes. Not only does this mean that for the tier to be applicable you have to follow a certain series of strategies, but you enter into a state where you can only use certain units because, otherwise, the tiers and strategies won't work.

Jill/Marica/Oscar I believe technically. And this is so because those units are top tiers and when you get to their level (AKA, ORKOing everything with high move and never dying), then one turn differences become important in their comparisons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jill/Marica/Oscar I believe technically. And this is so because those units are top tiers and when you get to their level (AKA, ORKOing everything with high move and never dying), then one turn differences become important in their comparisons.

However, when you start doing that, you move from 'which unit is better' to 'specific strategies that use certain units and how to use them best'. Ergo, you might as well stop tiering and try, instead, to make a minimum turn count strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, when you start doing that, you move from 'which unit is better' to 'specific strategies that use certain units and how to use them best'. Ergo, you might as well stop tiering and try, instead, to make a minimum turn count strategy.

Isn't knowing how to use a unit best part of what makes them better? I could throw Priscilla into a group of enemies and watch her die, or I could use her for healing. Knowing the best way to use a unit is part of determining how good they can be.

Edited by -Cynthia-

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...