Defining Efficiency

[Anouleth]

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?

But the tier list is based on those factors. Offense, durability, mobility are not as easy to measure as you say. Obviously for you, Ike is better than Lucia. But how do you decide what is more valuable between Haar's durability and mobility and Ike's offense? How do you decide if Mia's offense and mobility is more valuable than Gatrie's durability? The answers to these questions are not obvious if you do not apply pressure through turncounts.

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

But according to you, turns don't matter. You have to have some upper limit on the number of turns you take, otherwise in theory you could turtle through the game incredibly slowly, using Vulneraries for healing and gumming down enemies with Bronze weapons.

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.

Durability matters in that you shouldn't get OHKOed, but that's about it. Additional durability is only useful for cutting down on turns. You don't "need" that durability, all it does is let you move across the map faster and fight enemies at a faster rate without dying. Which is again, irrelevant unless you care about turns.

Offense matters because enemies still need to die or else they attack you. All these things still matter, just in different ways and amounts.

As long as you do "some" damage.

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.

It's very arguable if we would ever want to train Ilyana in such an environment, though. Ilyana has poor speed, poor movement, and poor durability. Those are terrible qualities to have in Routs. Tormod might very well still be higher. Depending on what team we assume, it might be that Ilyana can't do anything in her earlygame because other, more capable characters kill everything before she reaches the battlefield.

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'?

No, of course not. Once you introduce the possibility that Seth might not be played, the list goes topsy-turvy, because FE8 is so radically different without him. That's why there are two FE8 tier lists: one for when Seth is used, one when he is not used. And even in the no-Seth list, there is the implication that we banned Seth because he was totally fucking OP. It doesn't make him a bad character. If you don't use Tauroneo in 1-6, then it doesn't change the fact that he can solo that chapter. Right now, there are no rigid assumptions in the FE10 tier list about any specific strategy being used, except for bullshit chapters like 1-9 and 2-3. But if a character can contribute to a really fast strategy, then they get credit.

[Othin]

But according to you, turns don't matter. You have to have some upper limit on the number of turns you take, otherwise in theory you could turtle through the game incredibly slowly, using Vulneraries for healing and gumming down enemies with Bronze weapons.

Regardless of any turn limits, wasting a character's action when you need them to be doing something else (killing a certain enemy, plugging a hole, etc.) can cause issues. And some maps have natural turn limits for various reasons - map ending automatically in a certain number of turns, needing a certain turn count to get to a Gaiden or other objective, needing to catch a thief before it reaches a chest, etc.

Reading the rest of your post other than that most glaring error, the same answer applies to just about all of it. Sometimes you can slow down to make up for less offense, durability, or whatever else, and sometimes you can't.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Othin

[Anouleth]

Regardless of any turn limits, wasting a character's action when you need them to be doing something else (killing a certain enemy, plugging a hole, etc.) can cause issues.

Most of the time, characters don't "need" to do anything.

And some maps have natural turn limits for various reasons - map ending automatically in a certain number of turns, needing a certain turn count to get to a Gaiden or other objective, needing to catch a thief before it reaches a chest, etc.

And a lot of them don't. So while in some chapters, a certain degree of speed would be needed, in other chapters, we can just dick around. Do stuff like move forward a Sniper and chip at an enemy then form a rescue-chain to drop them outside of the enemy range so that you never actually get attacked.

Turn limits for Gaidens are also typically very lenient.

[Snowy_One]

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.

Strawman are fake arguments set up to attack while ignoring the actual issue at-hand. Like, say, claiming that if LTC is removed all tiers become meaningless as every unit is automatically 'good'. This argument sets up a false premise (that turncounts are the only possible standard of tiering) and a ridicules conclusion (that all units suddenly become 'good' with no units being clearly better than others) to distract from the real issue at hand (if it is possible to make a tierlist that doesn't put a huge emphasis on low turn counts).

HMMMMMMMMM I think you answered your question for yourself.

Looks like you picked up the idiot ball. When you use a vulnerary, you are incapable of attacking at all that turn. This means losing the chance to kill and/or clear any enemies as well as recieving a heal that is far inferior to what a priest could do (resulting in potential loss of life). This is not to mention being far more costly (it costs 300 G in FE9 for a vulnerary and 800 for a heal staff with a base-heal of 10. The heal-staff has 40 uses, so in order to almost match the number of heals a heal-staff puts out you need to spend 3,900 as opposed to 800 gold) than a healstaff in the long run.

But the tier list is based on those factors. Offense, durability, mobility are not as easy to measure as you say. Obviously for you, Ike is better than Lucia. But how do you decide what is more valuable between Haar's durability and mobility and Ike's offense? How do you decide if Mia's offense and mobility is more valuable than Gatrie's durability? The answers to these questions are not obvious if you do not apply pressure through turncounts.

Actually it is obvious. Mia's superior offense allows for her to more reliably 2HKO, her superior skillset allows better customization, and while her concrete durability is inferior, unless the player is outright suicidal with her, she will survive especially since vantage allows a increase in her overall durability. Meanwhile Gatire's movement inferiority means he won't be doing much fighting unless the entire party slows down to let him keep-pace, his low SPD means he won't be killing much without serious help, and while his huge concrete durability is nice, outside of defend chapters it is largely overkill. Mia can be used in multiple playstyles across multiple chapters well, while Gatrie requires a player to slow down to allow him to keep up to be of use, so Mia > Gatrie. Simple, straightforwards, and LTC is not a factor. Just an example (there would be a lot more factors like how useful Gatrie is in the early chapters and such in a actual tiering), but it IS possible.

Durability matters in that you shouldn't get OHKOed, but that's about it. Additional durability is only useful for cutting down on turns. You don't "need" that durability, all it does is let you move across the map faster and fight enemies at a faster rate without dying. Which is again, irrelevant unless you care about turns.

Unless you have both Rhys and Mist and possibly a sage as well healing with physic staves, it is likely you will have at least one unit hurt at the end of each phase. Not only is this costly (needing to have Volke steal constantly, basically fielding three healers instead of one with maybe two on the backup), having low durability cuts into survival chances. Plus, a more durabile unit is more flexable and can be put into more situations with chances of survival than a frailer unit.

It's very arguable if we would ever want to train Ilyana in such an environment, though. Ilyana has poor speed, poor movement, and poor durability. Those are terrible qualities to have in Routs. Tormod might very well still be higher. Depending on what team we assume, it might be that Ilyana can't do anything in her earlygame because other, more capable characters kill everything before she reaches the battlefield.

Ilyana's speed-deficit is often overstated. With a SPD band she ends up only having one less SPD than the other sages at endgame (where their higher growths will have made the most difference) and in the early-game her higher STR makes her actually faster than Soren until level 11-12 and even then she is more likely to be faster or tie him than not (basically, 11 is when his 5% growth becomes more likely than not to give him a stat, but it is reasonable to assume it won't happen till later) and while Ilyana is indeed frailer than other units, she still has shade and a element that grants her boosted defense with supports. In fact, I would wager that pre-promotion, she is, overall, the best of the mages or at least very close. Tormod has his own set of issues (coming later and underleveled, Celerity not allowing for any signifigant skills until promotion and only one after, no desirable supports outside of Calill) as well.

[nflchamp]

Alright people, if this is going to devolve into a "why turns matter" argument, let's do it properly.

The starting point is, of course, the point Snowy brought up. A character with good mobility, durability, offense, or other utility is considered a good character. So why does good mobility, etc., make a character good?

[Aethereal]

Actually it is obvious. Mia's superior offense allows for her to more reliably 2HKO, her superior skillset allows better customization, and while her concrete durability is inferior, unless the player is outright suicidal with her, she will survive especially since vantage allows a increase in her overall durability. Meanwhile Gatire's movement inferiority means he won't be doing much fighting unless the entire party slows down to let him keep-pace, his low SPD means he won't be killing much without serious help, and while his huge concrete durability is nice, outside of defend chapters it is largely overkill. Mia can be used in multiple playstyles across multiple chapters well, while Gatrie requires a player to slow down to allow him to keep up to be of use, so Mia > Gatrie. Simple, straightforwards, and LTC is not a factor. Just an example (there would be a lot more factors like how useful Gatrie is in the early chapters and such in a actual tiering), but it IS possible.

LTC is a factor. You can't slow down for Gatrie? If LTC doesn't matter, why can't he "keep-pace"? You could just spend turns having Gatrie catch up, after all. This is exactly the point Anouleth was making, that yes, LTC runs aren't the only way to illustrate who is good, but when you can do stuff that contributes to LTC runs, it's usually because you're good. Mobility matters, you said so yourself. So does everything. The idea isn't that LTC'ing is the only playstyle that matters, but it's a good way of comparing a lot of factors. Having good mobility is awesome for rushing forward, and doesn't matter if you individually pull every unit to you, like you can in a "Turncount does not matter" scenario. Mobility is awesome, but it's severely downplayed in a world where you don't mind spending 6 extra turns so your mages/priests/armors can keep up. I don't always do the most efficient clears, but I can reasonably see how seeing who can do efficient clears is a way of discussing a lot of important relevant factors.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Aethereal

[Colonel M]

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.

No, but it's probably the easiest way to debate, the most reliable to debate, perhaps not quite intuitive but definitely accurate, the game doesn't fucking specify what to do other than the usual goals which are followed with LTC anyway barring ranks and maybe maxing out BEXP (and the game doesn't even accurately give the latter until you beat the chapter), and fun is such an arbitrary term that I can't even believe you brought it into such a discussion. Tiering characters under LTC is simple, quick, and usually comes with few disagreements. While it's true that it can create some misconceptions that many people disagree on (if, say, we completely value each turn equally saved, Edward would be a hell of a lot higher than what he is), that is why a tier list isn't one-dimensional. This is probably the hardest thing to drive through any nimrod's skull (and I'm not being sarcastic about that, I am dead serious on that statement) because they're too busy overreacting, misinterpreting, or are just named Snowy_One.

The starting point is, of course, the point Snowy brought up. A character with good mobility, durability, offense, or other utility is considered a good character. So why does good mobility, etc., make a character good?

This is a question my thirteen year-old sister could answer without breaking a sweat, but for the mentally challenged audiences at home, I'll be the guest of honor and describe why high mobility units are valued simply by breaking down their advantages.

1) Higher Movement

Higher movement means you have more actions that can possibly be performed in the turn given. Using Shining Force II for a minor example, Peter is able to possibly perform more actions than, say, Claude can (7 Move vs. 4 Move).

2) Similar Stats

Most mounted units have stats that are roughly similar to a foot unit's. Now, a foot unit can have slightly higher stats in some areas (for example, Knights have higher Defense, Mercenaries and Myrmidons have higher Speed, Fighters have more Str); however, most Cavaliers that are in the higher up tiers have stats that are comparable, slightly worse, or even slightly better. Let's face it: under most circumstances a unit only needs to be so durable, so accurate (though to be fair, the more accurate the better), and so strong to be a functional unit. Even so, mounted units can still reach further to some enemies than others, so it's possible their lack of offense (if they have it) can be accommodated.

3) Unique Traits

Flight is usually in this category here. FE11 and FE12 Shiida (Caeda, Sheeda, whatever) is able to traverse different areas where other units cannot, which can help a player immensely. They also can re-move after certain actions unlike foot units, which give more diverse strategies.

4) Rescue

This is probably the biggest thing that makes mounted units so special; they can carry a unit further. Even if a foot unit rescues someone, they cannot re-move (unless this is FE5).

It's only natural that mounted units have a higher impact in Fire Emblem. There's only one game that comes eerily close to appealing to foot units to the point where they can have significant advantages over mounted units, and that game my friends is not even released in the United States nor Europe. Yes, I'm talking about FE12 Lunatic mode. Yes, high movement is emphasized still at the end of the day; however, you also need to have crucial stats to accompany the high movement and there's no Rescue function (barring staff units). You're right that I can find functions for DracoKnights, which have the lowest Speed cap barring Generals, up until Chapter 23 (hell, Chapter 24 can work too!), but notice that aside from Sirius I needed foot units such as Swordmasters and Snipers to accommodate with it. I needed a solid General in Chapter 14 to fend off as many Ice Dragons as possible.

There's many more things that could be explained why mounted units are significantly better, under most circumstances, to foot units. Armor Knights usually have the worst of the bunch due to their poor offense and poor movement. They're two crucial aspects to plowing through the game efficiently. Sometimes their poor Speed even offsets their good durability, as the case in FE11 and FE12.

Now see, this guy who posted above me:

LTC is a factor. You can't slow down for Gatrie? If LTC doesn't matter, why can't he "keep-pace"? You could just spend turns having Gatrie catch up, after all. This is exactly the point Anouleth was making, that yes, LTC runs aren't the only way to illustrate who is good, but when you can do stuff that contributes to LTC runs, it's usually because you're good. Mobility matters, you said so yourself. So does everything. The idea isn't that LTC'ing is the only playstyle that matters, but it's a good way of comparing a lot of factors. Having good mobility is awesome for rushing forward, and doesn't matter if you individually pull every unit to you, like you can in a "Turncount does not matter" scenario. Mobility is awesome, but it's severely downplayed in a world where you don't mind spending 6 extra turns so your mages/priests/armors can keep up. I don't always do the most efficient clears, but I can reasonably see how seeing who can do efficient clears is a way of discussing a lot of important relevant factors.

He's smart. He knows that there are other aspects to tiering a character, and he at least recognizes that such strategies exist and what not. It's a pity that more people aren't like him.

Also, Snowy, please learn how to spell "ridiculous". Your argument looks very weak and unprofessional with simple spelling errors such as that.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Kitty M

[I.M. Gei]

I think the following quotes from the previous Efficiency topic would be a good read.

WRT the value of efficiency for tiers:

Beating a game faster makes the real differences between units matter, in a way that you can see. Mobility, durability, offense, healing... all of it. This gives you a pretty good framework for saying that one unit is better than another, by extension. You already know this, and at some point after you swallow the bitter pill that you've been gumming for three years, you might even acknowledge it.

WRT the problems present in Ranked:

The goal is clear as a bell, and the path to it as clear as mud. Realize that the wiggle room afforded to reach the highest rank was oftentimes such that you could sacrifice one aspect to favor another without changing the final result; in other words, creating a situation where two arguments could both be simultaneously correct and irreconcilable.

Put away your rose-colored sunglasses, and note that ranked tiering was more the morass than efficiency is now.

WRT the problems of efficiency tiering:

[...] but this situation is different. We've had people point out this "problem" multiple times before, but no one, us or them, has ever come up with anything that could be agreed on as better. If you're just going to come in here and point out the same problem without even trying to offer a solution, you are only wasting our time.

[...]this is June of 2011, son. The problem, such that it's even a "problem" to begin with, is already well-known. Your complaint was defensible two or three years ago, when one could credibly argue that a better way might exist, if only it was tried.

Well, you had your chance (and still do), but that whine is getting a little old now, coming up on the four-year anniversary of Radiant Dawn, a game that no longer even has the faintest whiff of undiscovered mystery contained within it.

WRT the relative lack of activity in tier lists compared to years past:

[...]They simply have less activity than 2 or so years ago due to them being talked to death. Eventually, you're gonna get to a point where most people agree with how it looks.

Finally, WRT the definition of efficiency:

[...]If something is done efficiently, it is done in the easiest and fastest way. Not the fastest. Not the easiest. Both. Extrapolate from there.

[eclipse]

Alright people, if this is going to devolve into a "why turns matter" argument, let's do it properly.

The starting point is, of course, the point Snowy brought up. A character with good mobility, durability, offense, or other utility is considered a good character. So why does good mobility, etc., make a character good?

MOBILITY - To get to where you're going in less turns. If you need to travel 24 spaces, an 8-move unit will get there in 3 turns, a 7-move unit will get there in 4, and a 4-move unit will get there in 6. With the 4-move unit, unless you have other ways of making him/her get to where they need to faster, you're dealing with more turns waiting for that unit to go where you want them to.

With more move, you can cover more of the map, which means you have more options, in terms of what you want to do.

DURABILITY - The more durable you are, the more theoretical enemies you can face and not die. Taking base Nino and having her run into the midst of a bunch of enemies will guarantee her death, because it doesn't take much to kill her. Having a 20/10 Barrier!Oswin run into the same situation means that he's far more likely to survive, because he can face that many more enemies and live.

OFFENSE - Most of the "killing stuff" happens on enemy phase, or you'd have to wait for their turn to do something, then your turn again to kill them. Therefore, if you can chew through enemies on their turn, you don't have to kill them on your turn. This also means that lance/axe users who can use thrown weapons and mages have a slight advantage over swordies and bow guys, because the former group can counter at 1-2 range (which is most attacks) and the swordies and bow guys are generally stuck in their range (I know the Light Brand exists, but you aren't seeing it in shops like Javelins).

RANDOM UTILITY - Certain things need to be obtained/otherwise get done on a map. Thieves are a very interesting case, as they can see much further in darkness, steal stuff, pick up desert items with no chance of missing, and open chests/doors. Stealing stuff nets you things like good early stat boosters (SS Chapter 7) and/or promotional items (Zoldam/generic, Oleg, etc.) Promotional items are especially important, as they allow for more/different strategies for characters. Non-promotional Knoll is a waste of time; Summoner Knoll has his uses. Opening chests/picking up desert items allow you to get helpful/necessary items. While most items are "oh, that's nice", some are vital to LTC (Starsphere/Geosphere in SD, Boots in RD, Warp in SS Chapter 15, etc.)

I'll shut up now

[Anouleth]

Actually it is obvious. Mia's superior offense allows for her to more reliably 2HKO,

Mia is not more reliable against anything. Certainly not when it comes to 2HKOing. She is dependent on luck to ORKO everything but Sages, but Gatrie can typically ORKO them himself. Gatrie also has the advantage of ORKOing Paladins and Generals, which are pretty common, and his 1-2 range is far better (Mia won't ORKO Sages at 1-2 range, for instance). Mia's advantage is that she has a *chance* of ORKOing. After Gatrie promotes he's outright superior.

her superior skillset allows better customization,

You mean "she has vantage", which just shores up her poor durability.

and while her concrete durability is inferior, unless the player is outright suicidal with her, she will survive especially since vantage allows a increase in her overall durability. Meanwhile Gatire's movement inferiority means he won't be doing much fighting unless the entire party slows down to let him keep-pace,

Gatrie can be rescue-dropped into locations that Mia cannot go. In terms of mobility, Mia is better, but not by the huge margin you make it out to be. In addition, Mia's small movement advantage is only important if you are playing the game extremely fast. If you are not LTCing, you can make use of rescue-dropping, or shoving or smiting or Celerity to help him keep up.

his low SPD means he won't be killing much without serious help, and while his huge concrete durability is nice, outside of defend chapters it is largely overkill.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Gatrie can kill Sages/Paladins/Generals fine with almost no help (only needs a Hammer), and they make up almost half of Part 3 enemies. Gatrie's concrete durability is useful. Certainly, it allows him to go places and fight enemies that Mia simply cannot. It has nothing to do with the one defend chapter in Part 3 (which ironically has no use for his durability because enemies don't really attack).

Mia can be used in multiple playstyles across multiple chapters well, while Gatrie requires a player to slow down to allow him to keep up to be of use, so Mia > Gatrie.

Yes, because Gatrie can only be used in one chapter in one playstyle.

Simple, straightforwards, and LTC is not a factor. Just an example (there would be a lot more factors like how useful Gatrie is in the early chapters and such in a actual tiering), but it IS possible.

Yet you haven't proved anything. Mia's only advantage is a minor movement one. You're perfectly happy to bitch about LTC players "overhyping" movement when it comes to Titania, but when it's Mia, it's okay?

Unless you have both Rhys and Mist and possibly a sage as well healing with physic staves, it is likely you will have at least one unit hurt at the end of each phase.

That's not true even in a fast LTC playthrough, let alone the turtlefest I am talking about. When I beat 4-E-1 in two turns, I did not have to heal once. Rhys and Mist and a Sage can easily keep up if you're not concerned about turn counts. And if you have a unit hurt, just let them use a vulnerary!

Not only is this costly (needing to have Volke steal constantly, basically fielding three healers instead of one with maybe two on the backup), having low durability cuts into survival chances.

If you play the game slowly, nobody should ever be at risk of death. If someone is at risk of death, then slow down. It's not like you're worried about turncount.

In addition, you don't need to field three healers. Just field one and take two extra turns to heal everyone. It's very rare that you're constantly under attack and can't wall off enemies in chokepoints. As long as you have a few durable units to form a wall, the durability of other units doesn't matter so much because they can stay behind the wall.

Plus, a more durabile unit is more flexable and can be put into more situations with chances of survival than a frailer unit.

Again, that's only useful for an LTC player. A non-LTC player is happy to take extra turns to avoid dangerous situations that require durable units.

Ilyana's speed-deficit is often overstated. With a SPD band she ends up only having one less SPD than the other sages at endgame (where their higher growths will have made the most difference) and in the early-game her higher STR makes her actually faster than Soren until level 11-12 and even then she is more likely to be faster or tie him than not (basically, 11 is when his 5% growth becomes more likely than not to give him a stat, but it is reasonable to assume it won't happen till later) and while Ilyana is indeed frailer than other units, she still has shade and a element that grants her boosted defense with supports. In fact, I would wager that pre-promotion, she is, overall, the best of the mages or at least very close.

That's not true at all. If you staple a band to Ilyana's pale, malnourished forehead, she ends up with about 22.4SPD at max level. Tormod reaches 25.4 and Soren reaches 25.2, aside from the bit where they can take a band themselves. In that case, Soren and Tormod would have 27SPD, a full five points again.

Tormod has his own set of issues (coming later and underleveled, Celerity not allowing for any signifigant skills until promotion and only one after, no desirable supports outside of Calill) as well.

Coming late and underlevelled is no different from coming early and underlevelled in FE9. Ultimately, Tormod and Ilyana take the same amount of experience away from other units, the only difference is that Ilyana takes it through CEXP and Tormod takes it through BEXP.

Celerity is a significant skill. And FE9 is so short on good skills that it doesn't matter if Tormod can't take one. You don't have so many skills that everyone is going to get one.

Alright people, if this is going to devolve into a "why turns matter" argument, let's do it properly.

The starting point is, of course, the point Snowy brought up. A character with good mobility, durability, offense, or other utility is considered a good character. So why does good mobility, etc., make a character good?

Ultimately, what makes a character good is subjective. Some people would say that it's 20/20 stats (or "potential"), for example. We have to negotiate some sort of consensus between tier list debaters on what qualities to measure, and I think that most players would agree that offense, durability, and mobility are the key qualities. (Although technically, durability is merely a tool for ensuring that the unit can make use of their mobility and offense, since a very frail unit would not be able to enter combat as often and would not be able to move into certain positions for risk of death. In Rout maps, mobility is just a way of enhancing offense by increasing the amount that a unit can enter combat. Ideally, a unit would have a lot of all three. A lack in any of these areas weakens the others.)

Edited October 5, 2011 by Anouleth

[dondon151]

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

How droll; I can direct the same statement at you and make the same implication that you're an idiot! To answer your question, I am well aware of both the old and the alternate tier lists.

Strawman are fake arguments set up to attack while ignoring the actual issue at-hand. Like, say, claiming that if LTC is removed all tiers become meaningless as every unit is automatically 'good'. This argument sets up a false premise (that turncounts are the only possible standard of tiering) and a ridicules conclusion (that all units suddenly become 'good' with no units being clearly better than others) to distract from the real issue at hand (if it is possible to make a tierlist that doesn't put a huge emphasis on low turn counts).

Wrong on both accounts. I did not imply that turncounts are the only possible standard of tiering (in fact, that is not even my opinion); rather, turncounts are the cumulative result of consideration of all of our tiering standards. You also misrepresent my conclusion that all units are equally "good;" if you encourage turtling strategies, then it's no longer really important which units are actually "good" so long as they get the job done.

Looks like you picked up the idiot ball. When you use a vulnerary, you are incapable of attacking at all that turn. This means losing the chance to kill and/or clear any enemies as well as recieving a heal that is far inferior to what a priest could do (resulting in potential loss of life). This is not to mention being far more costly (it costs 300 G in FE9 for a vulnerary and 800 for a heal staff with a base-heal of 10. The heal-staff has 40 uses, so in order to almost match the number of heals a heal-staff puts out you need to spend 3,900 as opposed to 800 gold) than a healstaff in the long run.

Wow, you think I didn't know that? Have you ever thought about the numerous circumstances where it is beneficial to use a Vulnerary instead of relying on a staff use? Or about how trivial it is to consider the cost of a Heal vs. a Vulnerary?

[nflchamp]

MOBILITY

DURABILITY

OFFENSE

RANDOM UTILITY

You're assuming turns matter when the argument is meant to determine why turns matter, or if they matter at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but,ignoring the turn count undertone, your points seem to outline a reason why any of these things are considered important; they help get stuff done. Or rather, these things are important because they help beat the game.

To put that onto the characters, a good character is one that is good at beating the game. Then to compare to characters all we have to do is determine which character beats the game better. This brings up an important question; how does a character beat the game better than another?

[Anouleth]

You're assuming turns matter when the argument is meant to determine why turns matter, or if they matter at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but,ignoring the turn count undertone, your points seem to outline a reason why any of these things are considered important; they help get stuff done. Or rather, these things are important because they help beat the game.

To put that onto the characters, a good character is one that is good at beating the game. Then to compare to characters all we have to do is determine which character beats the game better. This brings up an important question; how does a character beat the game better than another?

I would imagine by doing so faster, or more reliably, or with a better ranking. And this fits with the fairly common intuition that players have that movement, offense, durability are desirable things to have.

[nflchamp]

I would imagine by doing so faster, or more reliably, or with a better ranking. And this fits with the fairly common intuition that players have that movement, offense, durability are desirable things to have.

While being more reliable or having a better ranking are straightforward, why would beating the game faster be beating the game better?

[Dark Sage]

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.

Right, that clearly shows you weren't paying attention to the argument because if you were, you would've realized that in context, the only true way to determine who is better would be to be extremely anal about turn counts. Marcia, Jill, and Oscar are all units who have 8 (later 9) move who ORKO everything and have trouble dying. Marcia and Jill have flight and Oscar has availability. Since at this point, comparing their combat is ridiculous, we need to compare the way they save turns. It was determined that while Oscar likely saves a few turns in his chapters before either show up, Jill and Marcia's flight can eclipse that easily since they save many more turns throughout the game. Now since it is determined that Marcia/Jill>Oscar, then we must compare the two flying chicks to each other using the same anal standards.

You see, if we really did assume we were going for max efficiency, then we would drop a lot of the units to bottom, regardless of how good they were. Brom and Nephenee would go into bottom tier now because they cost turns to recruit, Jill would fall somewhat for similar reasons (only reason she wouldn't fall into bottom would be because she can help cut down turns with flight), etc.

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.

You see here's the thing. The weakness to bows only matters to a certain extent. If a unit is like, 4HKO'd by bows and dodges 50% of the time (like Jill), it doesn't matter because she can kill the bow user quickly and still doesn't die that often to them. If you're so worried about that, just slap on a Full Guard (Or Delphi's Shield or Iote's Shield depending on the game you're playing) and it's gone. The ability to ignore terrain is a powerful advantage that can't be ignored.

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.

Just because I didn't insult you doesn't mean that I was the only one who posted an argument and the ones who posted before me didn't present good arguments.

The thing is, if turn counts don't matter, than it doesn't matter that Gatrie can't double as many enemies as Oscar or has less move or anything. Since we don't care about turns, we don't care about how long it takes for him to kill enemies compared to Oscar. Therefore, Oscar's offense advantage wouldn't matter as long as Gatrie isn't doing 0 damage to an enemy.

I realize this is stupid, but I'm only taking the argument to it's logical conclusion.

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?

I don't see why we should explain at this point. We have explained before and you stuck your fingers in your ears while singing "I Feel Pretty." What's the point in explaining if you aren't actually going to listen?

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

What have we thar?

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 don't see why you're so against Titania being above Mia. Wait, yes I do. Fanboyism is a powerful thing Snowy and there's nothing wrong with it in small doses. Still, just like how I don't bitch about Cath not being at the Top of the list in the FE6 tier list, you shouldn't bitch about Titania being better than Mia.

Shade by the way is a terrible skill. When you need it to work, it's not reliable and when you don't want it to work (so Ilyana can have an enemy phase), it's not reliable in not working either. It's like playing Russian Roulette since you don't know your chances of it activating. Celerity allows Tormod to have only 1 less move than his mounted compatriots, meaning he can do something other than siege bomb or mop off any leftovers. He can basically become part of the ORKOing crew and Ilyana has nothing on that. Early join time I guess is better, but then you have to wonder what Ilyana is actually doing there.

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'?

It's called a No-Seth tier list. Meaning no Seth supports. Because he's not going to be in play. Ever. Because he's ridiculously broken.

[Naglfar]

ugh this thread

efficiency = turncount + reliability

clear-cut form of measurement

not a damn thing wrong with it <- important

suddenly, "TURNCOUNT DOESN'T MATTER"

Let's apply this in some different situations. I'm going to bold some stuff, because there are some real fuckwits on this forum and I don't feel like having to reply to people who don't get it.

Two people want to figure out which of them is better at running. Much like Fire Emblem, running is an activity for one person. It does not involve external competition. In the end, these people have the ingenious idea to run the same course together, so even though they can't directly compete, as you would in a game of basketball or a fight to the death, they can decide who is better at running by finding out who can complete the course in a lower amount of time.

What about video games? Two people aren't sure who is better at Starcraft. That's easy, they play against each other. Street Fighter? Again, they can play against each other. Mario 64? Whoops. Single player. They can't directly compete. So they instead decide to race each other through the game, since logically, the player with better knowledge of the game's layout, a sounder route and sharper skills is going to complete the game faster than the other player.

Let's compare lumberjacks now. Same concept: out of two lumberjacks performing an identical job, the one with superior strength, technique and stamina will have the job done earlier than the lesser tradesman. Getting the idea yet?

Being better at just about anything not involving direct competition has historically entailed being more efficient at it, the ability to perform the action smoothly at the expenditure of fewer resources (time, effort, materials, etc). The moment you stop talking about efficiency with regards to this sort of thing is the moment you stop talking about being good at it. Finally, going back to Fire Emblem, the usual manifestation of being an efficient player, which is synonymous to playing well, is getting a low turncount. Other things will result from it, such as finishing chapters quickly with little trouble, but the turncount is the bit that's usually visible to the public. You could TAS the game or something, bringing forth a different measurement of efficiency (replacing turncount with frames, mostly), or even do a traditional speedrun, but there really is no other sensible way to measure efficiency.

This extends to units. We think of an "efficiency tier list" as referring to turncount, since too few of us actually do speedruns to really make a active TAS tier list, but you get the idea - any form of ranking units has to have some root in the concept of efficiency or else there will be no logic and this hypothetical tier list will make no sense. To not play efficiently in some capacity is to play casually; there is no way to bullshit around this fact. I hasten to add there is nothing wrong with this, as at least one person will assume I use the word "casual" negatively like some fucking TF2 troll, or consider it bad to be "casual" themselves.

So yes, turncount isn't the only way to measure efficiency, but efficiency is the only way to measure unit quality. You cannot measure quality in casual terms, because that's when quality stops being relevant. Casual sentiments flat out don't belong in tier lists; the only time a tier list will consider a suboptimal viewpoint is when that viewpoint lends itself to interesting discussion.

That's it. I'm done. I hope you're satisfied.

[Anouleth]

While being more reliable or having a better ranking are straightforward, why would beating the game faster be beating the game better?

It's an arbitrary but necessary designation, just as defining "reliable" or "A Rank" as better is also arbitrary. Such is the nature of goodness is that the definition of good is subjective. If you want to talk about what characters are good and what characters are bad, then you have to deal in such arbitrary distinctions.

Now, can we talk about something slightly more interesting? In other words, stop being such a fucking contrarian and live with the fact that most debaters would rather treat fast as better than slow.

[Othin]

And then we consider the time and effort of figuring out how to get those low turns reliably and we find that particularly low turncounts aren't always that efficient at all compared to turncounts that are merely reasonably low - say, compared to one of dondon's runs, taking another 100 turns or so throughout the entire game.

Edited October 6, 2011 by Othin

[Anouleth]

And then we consider the time and effort of figuring out how to get those low turns reliably and we find that low turns aren't always that efficient at all.

Isn't that the whole point of a strategy game? To spend time like, formulating strategies?

[nflchamp]

It's an arbitrary but necessary designation, just as defining "reliable" or "A Rank" as better is also arbitrary. Such is the nature of goodness is that the definition of good is subjective. If you want to talk about what characters are good and what characters are bad, then you have to deal in such arbitrary distinctions.

Now, can we talk about something slightly more interesting? In other words, stop being such a fucking contrarian and live with the fact that most debaters would rather treat fast as better than slow.

As I said, being more reliable and beating it with a better rank are easily seen as better. Something that is reliable gives the same result in successive trials. Beating the game 100% of the time being better than beating the game 50% of the time seems obvious. Having a better rank, ranks being defined such that one rank is better than another, also seems obvious. Being faster is not so obvious. But if what you say, that most debaters would rather treat fast as better than slow, there most be some reason we would want to do so.

Naglfar touches on this with his Mario 64 example; a player who is better at the game is able to complete the game faster because he has better skills in certain areas. Extending this to the characters of Fire Emblem that we rank, a character that beats the game better is able to help complete the game faster because they are better in certain areas. This seems like something we should all be able to agree on.

However, there remains one more question. Mario 64, unlike Fire Emblem, doesn't have a luck factor. In that way it is possible for a character to seem better, but in reality they may of just gotten lucky. So how do you deal with this luck factor when determine which character is better?

[Othin]

Isn't that the whole point of a strategy game? To spend time like, formulating strategies?

Sure. Doesn't change the fact that a character that needs less strategy to be effective is better than a character that needs more strategy to be effective.

And identifying those better characters isn't just for the sake of using those better characters. Here, I see such big deals being made from people neglecting to use one or two of the best units in a game and seeing how different it was. To use FEFF as an example again, since it makes such a great example, I recall people there using their rank-based tier lists in part to identify which characters would take more skill and strategy to be used so that confident players could focus on those characters for the fun of playing the game with more strategy and exploring different options. When focusing specifically on particularly low turn counts, the different options to explore are greatly limited, which in turn takes away from the reason to play FE as a strategy game.

[Anouleth]

As I said, being more reliable and beating it with a better rank are easily seen as better. Something that is reliable gives the same result in successive trials. Beating the game 100% of the time being better than beating the game 50% of the time seems obvious.

I would say that killing an enemy in one round of combat being better than killing an enemy in two rounds of combat is obvious as well, but apparently not. Merely the fact that every person who ever played Fire Emblem agrees that it's better doesn't seem to be enough.

Having a better rank, ranks being defined such that one rank is better than another, also seems obvious.

What makes you so sure? For all we know, E Rank could be the best rank that the designers intended us to aim for. And the plans of the designers aside, it's not really obvious that better ranks are better. Some of the ranks are pretty counter-intuitive, such as hoarding money rather than spending it on useful things. It doesn't seem obvious at all that it's a good thing.

Being faster is not so obvious. But if what you say, that most debaters would rather treat fast as better than slow, there most be some reason we would want to do so.

Perhaps, most debaters treat fast as better than slow because that is obvious to anyone who discusses FE in any depth at all?

However, there remains one more question. Mario 64, unlike Fire Emblem, doesn't have a luck factor. In that way it is possible for a character to seem better, but in reality they may of just gotten lucky. So how do you deal with this luck factor when determine which character is better?

We have access to the averages, so there is no need to rely on anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence can be useful to show that certain strategies are possible or impossible, or to estimate EXP gain, but it shouldn't be used as a basis for estimating a character's stats.

[Naglfar]

And then we consider the time and effort of figuring out how to get those low turns reliably and we find that particularly low turncounts aren't always that efficient at all compared to turncounts that are merely reasonably low - say, compared to one of dondon's runs, taking another 100 turns or so throughout the entire game.

efficiency

However, there remains one more question. Mario 64, unlike Fire Emblem, doesn't have a luck factor. In that way it is possible for a character to seem better, but in reality they may of just gotten lucky. So how do you deal with this luck factor when determine which character is better?

averages, do you seriously have to be told this

Sure. Doesn't change the fact that a character that needs less strategy to be effective is better than a character that needs more strategy to be effective.

And identifying those better characters isn't just for the sake of using those better characters. Here, I see such big deals being made from people neglecting to use one or two of the best units in a game and seeing how different it was. To use FEFF as an example again, since it makes such a great example, I recall people there using their rank-based tier lists in part to identify which characters would take more skill and strategy to be used so that confident players could focus on those characters for the fun of playing the game with more strategy and exploring different options. When focusing specifically on particularly low turn counts, the different options to explore are greatly limited, which in turn takes away from the reason to play FE as a strategy game.

You talk as if tier lists threaten our strategic freedom or something.

What makes you so sure? For all we know, E Rank could be the best rank that the designers intended us to aim for. And the plans of the designers aside, it's not really obvious that better ranks are better. Some of the ranks are pretty counter-intuitive, such as hoarding money rather than spending it on useful things. It doesn't seem obvious at all that it's a good thing.

This is pretty dumb. It is obvious that the developers intended for higher rank to be better. Rank doesn't necessarily coexist with efficiency, but you don't have to be a tool about one to promote the other.

Both S rank as opposed to E rank and low turncount as opposed to high turncount are obviously seen as better, the former because it's built into the rules of the game and is thus inherently a part of it, and the latter because I just fucking explained why. Why do I bother?

Edited October 6, 2011 by Naglfar

[Anouleth]

This is pretty dumb. It is obvious that the developers intended for higher rank to be better. Rank doesn't necessarily coexist with efficiency, but you don't have to be a tool about one to promote the other.

You don't win just by declaring "it's obvious so THERE". If your argument is "it's obvious because everyone accepts that higher ranks are better, thus proving that it's obvious", then that would be an acceptable line of argument.

Both S rank as opposed to E rank and low turncount as opposed to high turncount are obviously seen as better, the former because it's built into the rules of the game

Please, point me to the bit in FE where Anna says that S Rank is better than E Rank. I agree that ranks in general are built into the game, but the game doesn't seem to pass judgement on which are better, so I wouldn't say that S Rank > E Rank is built into the game any more than 100 turn completion > 150 turn completion is built into the game just because the game displays your turncount.

[dondon151]

And then we consider the time and effort of figuring out how to get those low turns reliably and we find that particularly low turncounts aren't always that efficient at all compared to turncounts that are merely reasonably low - say, compared to one of dondon's runs, taking another 100 turns or so throughout the entire game.

Probably not, actually. I spend a lot of time fine tuning strategies until they're optimized for video recording, so regardless of how lazily I can run through a chapter, the time figuring out and fine tuning those strategies would scale linearly with chapter length.

Please, point me to the bit in FE where Anna says that S Rank is better than E Rank.

That's implied in some of the extra text where it says stuff like historians wondering how the player, with his poor tactical record, managed to secure victory, and such.