Jump to content
Lord Raven

Defining Efficiency

Recommended Posts

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.

There is a difference between 'knowing how to best use them' and 'If we move unit X to this square we can clear the chapter one turn earlier but unit Y can't handle that so we need to delay so Unit Z can clear the way'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like the tier list for beating the game in the fewest turns would be different from actual usefulness tier lists, so it sounds like it would just depend on what kind of game you're trying to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anouleth with any handsome man on a horse

I don't really show much favouritism to handsome paladins. Treck isn't really handsome, and Edward and Tanith aren't paladins. I mean, I do like Paladins, but I don't have the patience for Makalov/Geoffrey/Kieran.

A utility tier list assuming that the player turtles would be:

Usable tier:

- Everyone

This information is not very useful.

Precisely. We have to apply some standard for turncounts, and I don't mean the often absurdly lax BEXP or ranked turncounts. Ultimately, how good a character is should be determined by their contributions to an efficient playthrough and not their contributions to a picnic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Precisely. We have to apply some standard for turncounts, and I don't mean the often absurdly lax BEXP or ranked turncounts. Ultimately, how good a character is should be determined by their contributions to an efficient playthrough and not their contributions to a picnic.

Laughable. First off, tiers did exist before turncounts became essential. It doesn't take much of a genius to realize that Ike > Lucia by any gameplay standard. It's quite easy to tier characters without actually dealing with shaving off turncounts. For example, clearing a chapter (as in, killing or otherwise removing all enemies from the map) instead of just rushing to the seize square is a perfectly acceptable method of tiering that is definable that is not LTC. It even has the added bonus of being far more relevant to how actual players who do not obsessivly pour over maps to achieve low turncounts play. Even in a LTC, just removing the concept of following specific strategies would go a long way to making the tiers more relevant to people who are not actively part of the tiers. I know that both of these still have shaving turns off, but they don't put it as the main focus (which is how the current lists seem to use it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really show much favouritism to handsome paladins. Treck isn't really handsome, and Edward and Tanith aren't paladins. I mean, I do like Paladins, but I don't have the patience for Makalov/Geoffrey/Kieran.

Do not lie, Anouleth. I saw Skrimir one night riding a horse. You offered him a Speedwing. You cannot hide from me...

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.

Do you fucking read? Did you not see the multiple people who have said that you are arguing some of the best units in the game where the most minute differences keep them from being in the same slot with a backslash? That's the point where something as stupidly meticulous as "this unit can contribute to more efficient/optimal strategies" makes the difference in terms of tiers. How the fuck else do you tier Oscar vs Marcia or Jill huh? I'd like to see you propose a better way to do so. Because as far as I know, max turn efficiency aside (those just give specific examples with APPLYING the advantages btw) a Flier that can easily be brought up to par (with BEXP) vs a mounted unit with great stats requires something as a tie breaker.

Just gonna put out there that I didn't argue because I liked using Karel, but because I don't see why he should be so low.

Edited by Mercenary Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you fucking read? Did you not see the multiple people who have said that you are arguing some of the best units in the game where the most minute differences keep them from being in the same slot with a backslash? That's the point where something as stupidly meticulous as "this unit can contribute to more efficient/optimal strategies" makes the difference in terms of tiers. How the fuck else do you tier Oscar vs Marcia or Jill huh? I'd like to see you propose a better way to do so. Because as far as I know, max turn efficiency aside (those just give specific examples with APPLYING the advantages btw) a Flier that can easily be brought up to par (with BEXP) vs a mounted unit with great stats requires something as a tie breaker.

Here Mercenary Raven, I'll show you.

First, you place a blindfold onto your head. Remember this step, it is very important!

Next, make sure you attempt to compare the characters under a bunch of irrelevant or idiotic circumstances that don't make sense. After that, start bitching that turn counts can't be assumed with comparing such characters because "ZOMG NO ONE CARES ABOUT 2 TURNS SAVED OH NOES!!!1!!!!". Finally, make sure you post all of this on your local tier list.

Notice that no dart is necessary to do this, either. And you thought you were playing "Pin the Tail on the Donkey", weren't you? Well, when you argue like one of the favorite members here........... you are kind of playing such a game. Except the only reason I need a blindfold is to prevent my eyes from being scalded from such crappy information.

Edited by Kitty M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laughable. First off, tiers did exist before turncounts became essential. It doesn't take much of a genius to realize that Ike > Lucia by any gameplay standard. It's quite easy to tier characters without actually dealing with shaving off turncounts. For example, clearing a chapter (as in, killing or otherwise removing all enemies from the map) instead of just rushing to the seize square is a perfectly acceptable method of tiering that is definable that is not LTC. It even has the added bonus of being far more relevant to how actual players who do not obsessivly pour over maps to achieve low turncounts play. Even in a LTC, just removing the concept of following specific strategies would go a long way to making the tiers more relevant to people who are not actively part of the tiers. I know that both of these still have shaving turns off, but they don't put it as the main focus (which is how the current lists seem to use it).

I don't think you were paying attention. In any case, the statement that people who use efficiency for tiering and playing purposes obsess over a map is inaccurate. For example, I don't obsess over maps and I play somewhat efficiently (I take longer than dondon, though that's mostly a given). Nobody actually assumes we ALWAYS assume specific strategies when playing, just that we're narrowing them down to efficient strategies. For example, a viable strategy would be to have a very high level Gatrie solo a map in FE9. Does it take forever? Yes it does, but it's safe and reliable. Thing is, such strategies have no relevance due to a variety of factors so obvious a child could point them out. In any case, none of the tier lists I've seen assume we always go for the same specific strategy, so at this point, you're strawmanning.

We do want to beat FE games SOMETIME in this millennium Snowy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laughable. First off, tiers did exist before turncounts became essential. It doesn't take much of a genius to realize that Ike > Lucia by any gameplay standard.

Those same tiers also threw Marcus into low tier, so I don't really think your argument holds water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laughable. First off, tiers did exist before turncounts became essential. It doesn't take much of a genius to realize that Ike > Lucia by any gameplay standard. It's quite easy to tier characters without actually dealing with shaving off turncounts.

Yes, but any tiering process like that will only produce a flawed product. Such a tier list might manage easy tasks, such as showing that Ike is better than Lucia, but sadly, there are plenty of difficult comparisons to be made as well. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

And yes, if you take my statement completely literally, it is incorrect. After all, you can tier characters by any standard. But eventually if you want to produce a tier list that measures commonly agreed factors of being "good" (since tier lists after all are about measuring how good character X is), you are going to have to discuss turncounts. A limitless number of available turns trivialises the game even before considering the possibility of boss abuse. And those factors that contribute to low turncounts are typically considered crucial to making a character good, such as mobility, durability, offense, or other utility.

For example, clearing a chapter (as in, killing or otherwise removing all enemies from the map) instead of just rushing to the seize square is a perfectly acceptable method of tiering that is definable that is not LTC.

Except that healers are bottom tier in such an environment. Why bother with a healer when you can just use a vulnerary? Clearly reducing our turncount is not a priority. Why care about durability when you can just take another turn to turtle up? Why care about offense when you can just take another turn to kill the enemy?

And to be honest, even if it were turned into "who can rout/kill enemies the fastest", that's really no change at all. High move units and dancers are still great because typically, reaching enemies is a lot more time consuming than killing them. Even if in theory, Mia had notably better offense than Titania, Titania is still reaching enemies a turn or two earlier. So Mia would need to like, 1RKO while Titania 3RKOes in order to be as efficient at killing units.

It even has the added bonus of being far more relevant to how actual players who do not obsessivly pour over maps to achieve low turncounts play.

I have no interest in making a Lowest Common Denominator tier list where we try to guess what the "average" player would do. Many players limp into Endgame with 12 characters + a 20/20 Jeigan: smarter ones game the system by boss abusing or arena abusing.

If I don't use Seth then he is not suddenly an inferior character. If actual players shun Seth (and many do for opposite reasons), that just means that they're stupid or that they don't want to break the game. Not that Seth is somehow a bad character when he snaps the entire game over his knee.

Even in a LTC, just removing the concept of following specific strategies would go a long way to making the tiers more relevant to people who are not actively part of the tiers. I know that both of these still have shaving turns off, but they don't put it as the main focus (which is how the current lists seem to use it).

I do not really condone the concept of following specific strategies in tier lists, because I think that tier lists should have a broader scope rather than a narrow one. Sadly, the practice seems so ingrained into various tier lists such as FE9 that it seems like a doomed battle, which is why I haven't engaged much recently on the FE9 list. Even on the FE10 tier list, people act like the Energy Drops have "assumed" recipients.

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.

I feel that this is a major weakness of your debating style. I don't care what the "best use" of a resource is, I care about how it can help me. I suppose I'm saying that it seems like you're saying you're looking how to maximize the potential of a resource rather than maximize the potential aid the resource can provide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Some people find it fun to use turns as a metric. If you like to turtle, and watch your units bloom, that's perfectly fine, but that means that your idea of "good" will be different from the person who's trying for lower turn counts. As long as you enjoy yourself~!

If you want a use for Bord, give him a Hammer, and let him loose on some armor units.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must...stop...posting

99% of the time, if a unit can pull an LTC strategy, they will have the same value to your team no matter how long you take to beat the game.

Since I've been talking about FE9 Marcia so much recently, I'll use her as an example. In chapter 17-2, Marcia can reach the arrive square in 2 turns thanks to a long sequence of shoves. But, let's say we want to take the time to level up our units in this chapter. We could have Marcia go nearby the arrive square in 3 turns, and camp there for however long we want. She's giving us the amazing flexibilty to end the map whenever we want, whether that be in 2 turns or 20.

Similarly, if you play a rout map, you could doodle around for the first 5 turns... that doesn't make flying any less h4x whenever a burst of efficiency is needed. Basically, what I'm saying is for the most part a good unit will still be just as good even if we relax the level of efficiency involved. It's just that LTCing is the single most powerful way to differentiate units' abilities, though admittedly it kills a lot of debate. Who needs more than a sentence to write off an armor, for instance?

Edit: Look at it this way. Someone like FE10 Haar is useful no matter your playstyle, he's delivering strategic flexibility to any approach you use towards beating the game. He also happens to be the primarily used unit in most LTC clears in FE10. So, in addition to satisfying an extremely specific LTC strategy, he also satisfies an inummerable amount of other approaches that aren't quite as efficient.

Basically, usefulness is usefulness. It's hard to come up with examples where a unit is useless in most conceivable strategies, yet suddenly becomes essential in an LTC setting. LTCing (or a playstyle closely approximating it) is just the most accurate metric we've come up with so far.

Edited by Vykan12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but any tiering process like that will only produce a flawed product. Such a tier list might manage easy tasks, such as showing I do not really condone the concept of following specific strategies in tier lists, because I think that tier lists should have a broader scope rather than a narrow one. Sadly, the practice seems so ingrained into various tier lists such as FE9 that it seems like a doomed battle, which is why I haven't engaged much recently on the FE9 list. Even on the FE10 tier list, people act like the Energy Drops have "assumed" recipients.

Yeah, somehow I got roped into a debating style I'm not comfortable with on the FE9 tier list. I reckon I prefer tier lists to have a broader scope even than you, Anouleth - at least with respect to unit deployment. Yet there I am helping Vykan count "turns saved" for Marcia vs. Jill, which has a load of assumptions embedded.

Basically, usefulness is usefulness. It's hard to come up with examples where a unit is useless in most conceivable strategies, yet suddenly becomes essential in an LTC setting.

FE9 Mordecai comes to mind.

Edited by aku chi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uggg. This is why I stopped tier debates. Every time it's people obsessed with LTC who can't imagine a tier being built any other way.

Do you fucking read? Did you not see the multiple people who have said that you are arguing some of the best units in the game where the most minute differences keep them from being in the same slot with a backslash? That's the point where something as stupidly meticulous as "this unit can contribute to more efficient/optimal strategies" makes the difference in terms of tiers. How the fuck else do you tier Oscar vs Marcia or Jill huh? I'd like to see you propose a better way to do so. Because as far as I know, max turn efficiency aside (those just give specific examples with APPLYING the advantages btw) a Flier that can easily be brought up to par (with BEXP) vs a mounted unit with great stats requires something as a tie breaker.

Just gonna put out there that I didn't argue because I liked using Karel, but because I don't see why he should be so low.

Yes I do... And I think it is outright stupid especially when you're talking instances of ONE FREAKING TURN! Even if someone was trying for a low turn-count, but not using the specific strategies offered, it suddenly renders the placement invalid. Face it, tier lists are effectivally LTC lists and not much else.

And here is a better way to tier them. Which one is stronger and helps the team progress more through the game? That sort of thing can be tiered and handled without resorting to OMGMARCIASAVESONETURNPUTHERATTHETOP! type debating. Besides, I would think that if a flier is statistically the same as a mounted unit the mounted unit wins simply due to lacking a bow weakness. I would think that would be more relative than one turn in a specific strategy.

Here Mercenary Raven, I'll show you.

First, you place a blindfold onto your head. Remember this step, it is very important!

Next, make sure you attempt to compare the characters under a bunch of irrelevant or idiotic circumstances that don't make sense. After that, start bitching that turn counts can't be assumed with comparing such characters because "ZOMG NO ONE CARES ABOUT 2 TURNS SAVED OH NOES!!!1!!!!". Finally, make sure you post all of this on your local tier list.

Notice that no dart is necessary to do this, either. And you thought you were playing "Pin the Tail on the Donkey", weren't you? Well, when you argue like one of the favorite members here........... you are kind of playing such a game. Except the only reason I need a blindfold is to prevent my eyes from being scalded from such crappy information.

Personal attack. Stupid assumptions made off of baseless claims. Incapable of thinking beyond himself. Nothing new. Moving on.

I don't think you were paying attention. In any case, the statement that people who use efficiency for tiering and playing purposes obsess over a map is inaccurate. For example, I don't obsess over maps and I play somewhat efficiently (I take longer than dondon, though that's mostly a given). Nobody actually assumes we ALWAYS assume specific strategies when playing, just that we're narrowing them down to efficient strategies. For example, a viable strategy would be to have a very high level Gatrie solo a map in FE9. Does it take forever? Yes it does, but it's safe and reliable. Thing is, such strategies have no relevance due to a variety of factors so obvious a child could point them out. In any case, none of the tier lists I've seen assume we always go for the same specific strategy, so at this point, you're strawmanning.

We do want to beat FE games SOMETIME in this millennium Snowy.

I find it funny that the only person who's provided a actual argument so far has been the person with a Clockwork Orange image and Chaotic Evil tag. Anyways... The problem with doing that, sage, is that you make the tierlist irrelevant to anyone not willing to read through the topics to find out what those max-efficiency strategies are. Not to mention that choosing to play in any different method results in much of the reasoning behind the placements going out the window. However, there is even a more key flaw in these arguments. Let's assume we decide we're willing to turtle. Who's better? Oscar or Gatrie? It's pretty clear and easy to determine who is since Gatrie is still too slow to double and lacks many other key things that Oscar does have. It's pretty clear that Gatrie is inferior to Oscar even when LTC is thrown out the window. Yes, it's less clear when you compare units similar in tier standings, but that's the reason why we debate.

Sides, we want to talk about strawmanning?

A utility tier list assuming that the player turtles would be:

Usable tier:

- Everyone

This information is not very useful.

Far more strawmanning than anything else right there. Shouldn't even need to point it out. The whole argument of 'if we remove LTC there will be no tier standards' is a strawman for crying out loud.

Yes, but any tiering process like that will only produce a flawed product. Such a tier list might manage easy tasks, such as showing that Ike is better than Lucia, but sadly, there are plenty of difficult comparisons to be made as well. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

That's why we debate though, to resolve those differences.

And yes, if you take my statement completely literally, it is incorrect. After all, you can tier characters by any standard. But eventually if you want to produce a tier list that measures commonly agreed factors of being "good" (since tier lists after all are about measuring how good character X is), you are going to have to discuss turncounts. A limitless number of available turns trivialises the game even before considering the possibility of boss abuse. And those factors that contribute to low turncounts are typically considered crucial to making a character good, such as mobility, durability, offense, or other utility.

Let me ask you this then. If it is true that things like mobility, durability, offense, or other utility generally relates to being a good character, why is it that people act like asses when someone suggests removing the LTC requirement? We still have those things and making a tierlist based on those factors results in a tierlist that is far more accessible, usable, and quite frankly, less exclusive tiering?

Except that healers are bottom tier in such an environment. Why bother with a healer when you can just use a vulnerary? Clearly reducing our turncount is not a priority. Why care about durability when you can just take another turn to turtle up? Why care about offense when you can just take another turn to kill the enemy?

Vulnerary's cost turns and don't heal as much. Durability matters because the enemy phase does happen and you do take damage no matter how you play and, unless your enemy can't counter or you kill in one hit, you will take a counter. Offense matters because enemies still need to die or else they attack you. All these things still matter, just in different ways and amounts.

And to be honest, even if it were turned into "who can rout/kill enemies the fastest", that's really no change at all. High move units and dancers are still great because typically, reaching enemies is a lot more time consuming than killing them. Even if in theory, Mia had notably better offense than Titania, Titania is still reaching enemies a turn or two earlier. So Mia would need to like, 1RKO while Titania 3RKOes in order to be as efficient at killing units.

Which is why Titania would be *uggg* ranked over Mia even in such a tier. However, take the sages for example. Right now Tormod is above Ilyana because of his higher movement and better siege (I assume) which is worth more than Ilyana's joining time and shade. Switch that from a LTC to a enemy clear though and the situation reverses. Ilyana's earlier join time advantage is increased as is her ability to take two skills compared to Tormod's one (since those help her out in direct combat more) as well as being able to be at a higher level (more kills) with a band to ease her speed troubles. Though Tormod is still good, it's no where near as pronounced and Ilyana is arguably better.

I have no interest in making a Lowest Common Denominator tier list where we try to guess what the "average" player would do. Many players limp into Endgame with 12 characters + a 20/20 Jeigan: smarter ones game the system by boss abusing or arena abusing.

An average player will likely attempt to clear the map with as many kills and valuable items as possible, follow obvious strategies (though doubtful specfic ones), and such. He won't get everything perfect or percise, but will try to complete each chapter with as much rewards as reasonably possible. There. Done.

If I don't use Seth then he is not suddenly an inferior character. If actual players shun Seth (and many do for opposite reasons), that just means that they're stupid or that they don't want to break the game. Not that Seth is somehow a bad character when he snaps the entire game over his knee.

Yet, I assume, you still consider the possibility that he might not be played when discussing supports, I hope? Even if it's just 'In order for X to get this support, Seth and Y would likely not be played since they are better supporters, making this support between Seth and X unlikely at best'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I do... And I think it is outright stupid especially when you're talking instances of ONE FREAKING TURN! Even if someone was trying for a low turn-count, but not using the specific strategies offered, it suddenly renders the placement invalid. Face it, tier lists are effectivally LTC lists and not much else.

And here is a better way to tier them. Which one is stronger and helps the team progress more through the game? That sort of thing can be tiered and handled without resorting to OMGMARCIASAVESONETURNPUTHERATTHETOP! type debating. Besides, I would think that if a flier is statistically the same as a mounted unit the mounted unit wins simply due to lacking a bow weakness. I would think that would be more relative than one turn in a specific strategy.

Except it isn't just one turn. There are multiple turns (it goes into the double digits I can tell you that) that Marcia vs Oscar debates boil down to. Marcia vs Jill ends up being around a couple turns here and there, but they're basically the same unit no matter how you use them so of course youd be fucking anal about it. Saving turns is always relative to those tiered around the unit you're arguing. Maybe if you took time to judge context instead of going "fuck all tier debaters they just dick off over low turn counts" then maybe you wouldn't get so many people against you.

Bow effectiveness, Full Guard aside, is _really_ bad in this game. Terrain can be a bitch in random chapters and frankly the ability to go over random bits of terrain is every bit as much better than what a mounted unit can do, be it for low turns or for flexibility.

Edited by Mercenary Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sides, we want to talk about strawmanning?

Far more strawmanning than anything else right there. Shouldn't even need to point it out. The whole argument of 'if we remove LTC there will be no tier standards' is a strawman for crying out loud.

Please actually learn what a strawman is. My statement was not directed at you, so please don't interpret it as being such. Also please learn to actually refute arguments instead of falsely declaring them logical fallacies because the fact that a casual tier list will yield no important information is a fairly important point.

Vulnerary's cost turns and don't heal as much.

HMMMMMMMMM I think you answered your question for yourself.

Edited by dondon151

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personal attack. Stupid assumptions made off of baseless claims. Incapable of thinking beyond himself. Nothing new. Moving on.

And then:

Yes I do... And I think it is outright stupid especially when you're talking instances of ONE FREAKING TURN! Even if someone was trying for a low turn-count, but not using the specific strategies offered, it suddenly renders the placement invalid. Face it, tier lists are effectivally LTC lists and not much else.

And here is a better way to tier them. Which one is stronger and helps the team progress more through the game? That sort of thing can be tiered and handled without resorting to OMGMARCIASAVESONETURNPUTHERATTHETOP! type debating. Besides, I would think that if a flier is statistically the same as a mounted unit the mounted unit wins simply due to lacking a bow weakness. I would think that would be more relative than one turn in a specific strategy.

So much for "baseless assumption".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, somehow I got roped into a debating style I'm not comfortable with on the FE9 tier list. I reckon I prefer tier lists to have a broader scope even than you, Anouleth - at least with respect to unit deployment. Yet there I am helping Vykan count "turns saved" for Marcia vs. Jill, which has a load of assumptions embedded.

Tbh I was testing out the extreme of debating under the metric of LTCing, and literally counting turns to see which unit is better. I agree that it's restrictive (Devdan vs Brom was pretty lame under such a pretense), so I'll be more flexible in my debate style from now on. It didn't help that when I saw the FE9 tier topic the last 3-4 pages were on Marcia/Jill LTC strategies.

FE9 Mordecai comes to mind.

That's why I said "in most cases". He's an obvious exception because of the finicky usefulness of smiting.

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.

me: Here are some examples highlighting what I look for in debates and what tier list arguments should strive to be.

you: well they aren't about turn counts so they don't matter

anyone else see what's wrong about this picture?

Edited by smash fanatic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dondon, are you even aware of the tier lists that were used and argued for years on FEFF and related sites?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

me: Here are some examples highlighting what I look for in debates and what tier list arguments should strive to be.

you: well they aren't about turn counts so they don't matter

anyone else see what's wrong about this picture?

Funny thing is, I'm not disagreeing, the problem is low turning is basically the smartest way to play, and Fire Emblem does not give a lot of room for characters to contribute at all, much less do something substantial. LTC is right, but it's boring as fuck and kills discussion quicker than cyanide. The problem I will repeat again is not the playstyle people want to fight over, but the game design itself.

It's kinda why I have been wanting to see playthroughs that basically use the characters that are essential to a fast turncount, but the rest of the slots are filled with random people, because I'm pretty much of the opinion that only certain characters have any control over the turncount at all. Kinda why I've been digging the "FE8 with No Seth" stuff, cause it basically allows breathing room for the cast that isn't riding a mount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Playing with the goal of low turn counts isn't the easiest way to play, it isn't the most reliable, it isn't the most intuitive, it usually isn't the one that fits best with what the game tells you to do, and for many people, it isn't the most fun. So by what standard is it the "smartest" way to play? Certainly not a standard worth caring about if we agree about the existence of those issues.

Edited by Othin

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...