The Great LTC Debate Thread (Yay? Nay? Burn in Hell?)

[Narga_Rocks]

Because justifying jill resources is a lot easier if your team is liek Volug/Sothe/etc (Tauroneo/BK/etc. are used when applicable), whereas replacing a single unit on this team suddenly means that DB maps can't be ez'd and that the extra levels and stats on dudes like Nolan/etc. suddenly matter.

Um, pretty sure that DB maps can still be ez'd with a level 15/15 Jill in 3-12. And I've used Jill (to level 20 by 3-6) and Edward and Ilyana and dumping bexp into Laura to get her to level 16+ by level 3-6. Jill still rocks. Sorry to break your bubble.

You'd have to be pretty silly to use a mid tier in any given playthrough and say "damn this guy sucks why are we even using him, let's just leave him at his suck and not help him ever". When using mid and lower tiers, the general idea is to actually give them the resources they need so they don't suck, and the fact that they require these extra resources is the reason why they're mid or lower tier (or more accurately, look at input vs output). So something liek Ike x Soren CAN happen if Soren is also given a few more resources, like Ike support + 3-3 crown + BEXP abuse in 2nd tier.

As for the forge, I've heard lots of varying stories about how many forges she's blowing through, but the less she uses the forge, the weaker her cancel/vantage/whatever combo becomes, and the weaker her offense becomes.

I've played with Ilyana, Marcia, Calill, Mist stealing kills to reach level 20 by 4-1, Nephenee, Heather with enough kills to reach level 20 by 4-1 or 4-4, all at the same time. It's actually part of the reason for my perception of Mia. She blows them out of the water. I see little reason to give Ike to them instead of Mia herself. It'd only slow me down to not have two units at the front blasting away. And you and your Soren love. lol.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Narga_Rocks

[aku chi]

Um, pretty sure that DB maps can still be ez'd with a level 15/15 Jill in 3-12.

I believe smash fanatic's point was that only by using the very best units possible in 1-6 through 1-E and 3-6 can we afford to give Jill the resources and training she needs to dominate in 3-12 and beyond. I'm not sure if I agree with that claim in its strong form, but giving Jill the resources and training she needs is certainly more costly if we're also training other units.

And I've used Jill (to level 20 by 3-6) and Edward and Ilyana and dumping bexp into Laura to get her to level 16+ by level 3-6. Jill still rocks. Sorry to break your bubble.

NM?

[Narga_Rocks]

I believe smash fanatic's point was that only by using the very best units possible in 1-6 through 1-E and 3-6 can we afford to give Jill the resources and training she needs to dominate in 3-12 and beyond. I'm not sure if I agree with that claim in its strong form, but giving Jill the resources and training she needs is certainly more costly if we're also training other units.

NM?

Laura was on HM. I don't remember if I trained Eddie that time, though. I think maybe not? But I still trained Jill along with Ilyana and dumping a ton of bexp into Laura. I admit it wasn't the fastest, but that's what happens when you don't use all the best units. A 20/1 Jill in 3-6 is about the same as a 16/5 Jill anyway, and I doubt paragon in 1-7 and 1-E can get her that high anyway. I didn't do the Interceptor training method, because this was long before I read about that idea (long before he even conceived of it), but the point here is that I could have.

[Lord Raven]

Exactly what it says.

I literally do not understand what you are saying.

I guess my point is: properly accounting for the cost of Jill's optimal resource bundle is difficult and it does change depending on which other units are being used (though perhaps not to the extent that smash fanatic suggests).

It does nothing but bring out her true potential anyway. Jill is still the best candidate bar none for each of those resources; but I am not saying a tier list would assume that Jill is getting all those resources. The fact that she makes best use of it is a good point in her favor.

[Progenitus]

Did you skip my post? All units being evaluated have free deployment for all of their chapters now. This still doesn't mean that we need to expend other resources (like your infamous 2 Energy Drops) to salvage abysmal units like Lyre. We should only do so if they provide the greatest benefit when given to Lyre. So we are still at odds in that I don't believe training (slowing down for or giving many resources to) Lyre, Fiona, Astrid, Meg, or Kurthnaga is compatible with any efficiency run. But free deployment does open up consideration to training units like Kyza.

Sounds like a step in the right direction.

I still disagree with Lyre < the other trash tiers, but of course this isn't the topoic for that.

Um, pretty sure that DB maps can still be ez'd with a level 15/15 Jill in 3-12.

Unless this figure also includes stat boosters, doubtful. she's getting 4HKO'd (I'm assuming she's trying to do this unsupported) and won't one round back without the brave axe.

And I've used Jill (to level 20 by 3-6) and Edward and Ilyana and dumping bexp into Laura to get her to level 16+ by level 3-6. Jill still rocks. Sorry to break your bubble.

Laura was on HM. I don't remember if I trained Eddie that time, though. I think maybe not?

So wtf did you include Edward's name in that then?

Laura and Ilyana are also terrible examples as Laura is awful in everything except staffing while Ilyana is just awful in everything, so of course Jill will look like a god compared to them with no resources in her. Your example would be more relevant if you were using any other 1st tier DB.

But I still trained Jill along with Ilyana and dumping a ton of bexp into Laura. I admit it wasn't the fastest, but that's what happens when you don't use all the best units. A 20/1 Jill in 3-6 is about the same as a 16/5 Jill anyway, and I doubt paragon in 1-7 and 1-E can get her that high anyway. I didn't do the Interceptor training method, because this was long before I read about that idea (long before he even conceived of it), but the point here is that I could have.

I'm personally not impressed with an average level Jill with no resources. But maybe that's just me.

I've played with Ilyana, Marcia, Calill, Mist stealing kills to reach level 20 by 4-1, Nephenee, Heather with enough kills to reach level 20 by 4-1 or 4-4, all at the same time. It's actually part of the reason for my perception of Mia. She blows them out of the water. I see little reason to give Ike to them instead of Mia herself. It'd only slow me down to not have two units at the front blasting away. And you and your Soren love. lol.

I'm personally not impressed with Mia outperforming absolutely amazing combat units like mist or Ilyana or Heather.

The point being, have you ever considered Ike support with Neph? Or Boyd? Or Soren? Or even Oscar or Titania? Or *insert whoever*? Nevermind this post from paperblade years ago that was still never actually responded to.

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=16775&view=findpost&p=600623

I literally do not understand what you are saying.

Basically what aku chi just said.

I believe smash fanatic's point was that only by using the very best units possible in 1-6 through 1-E and 3-6 can we afford to give Jill the resources and training she needs to dominate in 3-12 and beyond. I'm not sure if I agree with that claim in its strong form, but giving Jill the resources and training she needs is certainly more costly if we're also training other units.

If we're using the best units, then a guy like Volug can deal with not getting the energy drop and letting Jill take it instead. But if we were training Edward, then it's a different story. Same thing for the rest of her resources.

[Narga_Rocks]

Nevermind this post from paperblade years ago that was still never actually responded to.

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=16775&view=findpost&p=600623

Nevermind that his post is in the wrong thread and so a response at the time would've been an off-topic post. If you seriously want a response, go post it in the tier list topic and maybe you'll get something. Also, isn't this off-topic now for the last how many posts? All we are talking about is resource distribution and you trying to convince people that the resource cost is somehow higher once you take out the units that are better. That's no longer ltc, or even the effects of ltc.

[Progenitus]

That whole topic got sidetracked by Mia vs Titania, so unless you want to accuse of everyone being off topic there, I don't see the point.

But yes you're right. This is getting very side tracked. And no, I'm not going to post in tiers here, so I guess nothing else will come out of this. I was simply explaining to Raven that deployment assumptions are affecting the tiers on this site and brought up examples.

[Dark Sage]

Btw I love this line:

1. I don't care if Zihark has the ability to kill everything else on the map if we have units with even better move killing everything else first.

Although I guess this has more to do with GJ being a tool than it does with the problem of LTCs in tier lists since only GJ was arguing that Zihark sucks because he is not as good as the best units on the team and that he takes up a deployment slot even though at that point of time deployment slots became free.

[Narga_Rocks]

That whole topic got sidetracked by Mia vs Titania, so unless you want to accuse of everyone being off topic there, I don't see the point.

Exactly. We all are off-topic so

But yes you're right. This is getting very side tracked.

Now we'll all hopefully stop.

[dondon151]

I'm not sure if I agree with that claim in its strong form, but giving Jill the resources and training she needs is certainly more costly if we're also training other units.

Yes, or... training other units is more costly if we're using Jill.

I like this version better because Jill is actually good.

[Snowy_One]

I don't know is this is a necro-post or not... It's JUUUUUST a month depending on timezones and it's still on the first page of the forums so I think it's okay (if very close), but if I'm wrong, forgive me.

Anyways, LTC in my eyes is not a bad way to play. It's not a wrong way to play. It is simply a way to play the game. 'Efficient' play is similar, especially when you take into account that turncounts are often considered to be the measuring stick of how good a unit is. My problem is twofold with using it as a tiering standard.

1) By definition it is a minority playstyle. Look at the first word in a LTC list... before the list itself. The 'LTC' part. 'Least'. By definition you are going for an amount of turns that is lower than usual and, as a result, are playing by an abnormal way. It really doesn't get much similar than that. Even going by an 'efficient' standard heavily implies that most people play by a 'inefficient' means. I won't say that this disqualifies it from being a viable standard just by it's own definition, but I would tend to think that any accurate list would have to reflect the fact that it simply is not capable of addressing every situation. So it's a very narrow definition to say the least.

2) It's inflexible. Let's use the FE:SS tiers for this example. We currently have two of them and they are VERY different depending on if you decide to use Seth a lot or bench him. I understand the reasoning behind this, but it does make me raise one question. What if I were to just use Seth like an ordinary unit? When I first played SS I noticed how powerful Seth was, but I felt wrong in powering up one unit alone in a game that is supposed to be about teamwork and tactics. Beforehand I hadn't considered Seth as much more than a powerful unit, but hadn't showed him any true favoritism or disdain. Afterwords the only change was that I simply made sure that he wasn't outclassing my other units by huge leaps and bounds. So which tier is accurate for me? I still used Seth and he was still the best unit in the game, so the Seth lists should reflect that, right? But at the same time I didn't use him to mangle my way through the game ASAP, so the Sethless list then? I know someone more skilled in the FE8 debates than me will probably say 'Sethless lists' but that's really not the point. In FE9, what if I used the paladins, but didn't take much advantage of their high movement? What would the list look like then? How does the FE10 list apply if I don't use BEXP optimally? I'm not saying every little variation on playstyle should be handled in a tier list, but that a list can't really handle such a minor change at all seems... counter-productive.

Most of my problems come from the debaters themselves though as many seem to think that LTC/'efficient' is the only way to play/rank characters and don't even try to bother with other styles of play. Many times I've brought it up I've heard an argument that can be summarized as 'If you don't play for LTC/'efficiency', then a tier list loses all purpose because you can take as much time as you need'. If everyone in the world ate organic food because it is 'healthy', then you could rewrite this argument as 'If you don't eat organic food, then health loses all meaning because you can cram as many Big Macs into your mouth as you want'. I shouldn't need to point out the logical failing in such a argument. Just because we aren't playing for efficiency/LTC doesn't mean that Rolf > Titania or that Titania > Rolf doesn't matter. Just that it needs to be handled differently.

I won't say it's perfect by a long shot, but look at the rating topic I attempted in the FE9 boards. I used three different standards to rank the characters (of which one was poorly defined, I admit), but the real beauty of it was that, in the event you disagreed with one rating or playstyle or anything you could completely ignore said thing and still have a viable list. As much as I hate to say it, I'm on smash's side here...

Yea, yea. Doesn't help/hurts his argument/whatever.

[Anouleth]

1) By definition it is a minority playstyle. Look at the first word in a LTC list... before the list itself. The 'LTC' part. 'Least'. By definition you are going for an amount of turns that is lower than usual and, as a result, are playing by an abnormal way. It really doesn't get much similar than that.

But there are very few LTC lists. Can you link me to one? The FE9 and FE10 lists are both efficiency.

Even going by an 'efficient' standard heavily implies that most people play by a 'inefficient' means.

How?

2) It's inflexible. Let's use the FE:SS tiers for this example. We currently have two of them and they are VERY different depending on if you decide to use Seth a lot or bench him. I understand the reasoning behind this, but it does make me raise one question. What if I were to just use Seth like an ordinary unit?

If you were to use Seth like an ordinary unit; i.e., to the best of his ability, it would be no different from a Sethskip tier list.

I think you mean if you were to use Seth but not use him to beat the chapters any more quickly than you could do otherwise. In which case, since Seth is not saving you any turns or making any difference, he might as well not exist for the purposes of tiering every other character.

When I first played SS I noticed how powerful Seth was, but I felt wrong in powering up one unit alone in a game that is supposed to be about teamwork and tactics. Beforehand I hadn't considered Seth as much more than a powerful unit, but hadn't showed him any true favoritism or disdain. Afterwords the only change was that I simply made sure that he wasn't outclassing my other units by huge leaps and bounds. So which tier is accurate for me? I still used Seth and he was still the best unit in the game, so the Seth lists should reflect that, right? But at the same time I didn't use him to mangle my way through the game ASAP, so the Sethless list then? I know someone more skilled in the FE8 debates than me will probably say 'Sethless lists' but that's really not the point. In FE9, what if I used the paladins, but didn't take much advantage of their high movement? What would the list look like then?

That's stupid. You might as well ask how good Tethys would be if you didn't take advantage of her dancing ability. Tier lists assumed that characters are used to their best potential; in other words, Paladins will be using their great movement, Ellen will not be used for her melee combat skills, and Garca will promote to Hero instead of Warrior. I don't think tier lists should be concerned with how shit a character can be if the player hamstrings them, they should be concerned with how much ass a character can kick if the player knows how to use them right. When talking about a SSBB tier list, you assume the player knows how to use the character. Maybe Ganondorf can beat Meta Knight if the players are both noobs who have never used those characters before, or if the MK player didn't take advantage of [whatever it is that makes MK so great]. But the tier list doesn't really care.

How does the FE10 list apply if I don't use BEXP optimally? I'm not saying every little variation on playstyle should be handled in a tier list, but that a list can't really handle such a minor change at all seems... counter-productive.

I agree that the scope of tier lists should be broad rather than narrow, but the FE10 tier list doesn't really assume any strategies that are reliant on 100% optimal BEXP distribution. The only thing I can think of is that BEXP reliant characters such as Jill, Oscar, Nephenee, and Soren would move down since we won't be able to afford to give them as many levels.

[Quintessence]

I agree that the scope of tier lists should be broad rather than narrow, but the FE10 tier list doesn't really assume any strategies that are reliant on 100% optimal BEXP distribution. The only thing I can think of is that BEXP reliant characters such as Jill, Oscar, Nephenee, and Soren would move down since we won't be able to afford to give them as many levels.

Would this mean that Elincia is, as well, dropping down?

[Othin]

When rating Seth, Seth should be assumed to be used at least reasonably well. When rating Franz, there's no need to assume that Seth is being used well, or even at all.

[dondon151]

Of course there is. Units in Fire Emblem do not exist in a vacuum; they exist alongside other units, most of whom directly have an effect on their performance.

I don't understand why it's bad to have a tier list be "inflexible." I think it's actually a good thing because it drives the tier list to one end objective.

[Snowy_One]

How?

If something is the norm there is very little reason to state it. If I say that a tier list is 'female only' that would imply that your average list and player does not use only female characters. Even if, by some strong of luck, they did it would make the distinction pointless. The Sethless tier list makes the assumption that every player both uses Seth and uses him in such a way as to be a huge difference in the game for example. If he was being used like just a normal unit there wouldn't be a need for such a distinction.

If you were to use Seth like an ordinary unit; i.e., to the best of his ability, it would be no different from a Sethskip tier list.

I think you mean if you were to use Seth but not use him to beat the chapters any more quickly than you could do otherwise. In which case, since Seth is not saving you any turns or making any difference, he might as well not exist for the purposes of tiering every other character.

But he does exist, he's helping me clear the chapters, he is there and fighting, I'm just not using him to bash through enemies to the endpoint ASAP. A Sethless tier doesn't apply as he is there, but neither does a Seth list because I'm not using him to beat chapters in quick bursts.

That's stupid. You might as well ask how good Tethys would be if you didn't take advantage of her dancing ability. Tier lists assumed that characters are used to their best potential; in other words, Paladins will be using their great movement, Ellen will not be used for her melee combat skills, and Garca will promote to Hero instead of Warrior. I don't think tier lists should be concerned with how shit a character can be if the player hamstrings them, they should be concerned with how much ass a character can kick if the player knows how to use them right. When talking about a SSBB tier list, you assume the player knows how to use the character. Maybe Ganondorf can beat Meta Knight if the players are both noobs who have never used those characters before, or if the MK player didn't take advantage of [whatever it is that makes MK so great]. But the tier list doesn't really care.

Anouleth. Though we fight often, I would think you would know me enough to know I hate using dancers and using one as an example is a poor choice if you want me to be convinced of any point.

That aside, here's the thing you're missing. Really missing. The character is being used, but at the same time is not being placed in a position where they can blast through enemies and rip up chapters as fast as humanly possible. Coincidentally this also answers your earlier question about where there is a LTC tier list. You said so yourself, just now, when you basically said that a paladin's edge is using their high move to beat a chapter.

Also, a SSBB tier? There is a huge difference between SSBB and FE tiers. A human element. I know how to use my characters and use them well. I've won every local tournament with Zelda and even when fighting against people online I win by a considerable majority when my net doesn't cut out. I won't say I'm the best, but I am certainly skilled. Yet I can't beat my best friend who mains Ganon because he is simply better than me at the game. These are not two opponents in a void, they are two people in multiple and varied situations. It's one thing to say that MK has an advantage on Ganon, it's another to say that MK is more efficient and will always win. In FE tier lists you usually debate what the absolutely most efficient use of a character is. The two are VERY different.

I agree that the scope of tier lists should be broad rather than narrow, but the FE10 tier list doesn't really assume any strategies that are reliant on 100% optimal BEXP distribution. The only thing I can think of is that BEXP reliant characters such as Jill, Oscar, Nephenee, and Soren would move down since we won't be able to afford to give them as many levels.

The point is that the tier list assumes you are using BEXP to the best of your ability. If someone were to not do so for whatever reason the list becomes unreliable at best.

Of course there is. Units in Fire Emblem do not exist in a vacuum; they exist alongside other units, most of whom directly have an effect on their performance.

I don't understand why it's bad to have a tier list be "inflexible." I think it's actually a good thing because it drives the tier list to one end objective

When I tier/rank characters I assume the rest of the team is full of non-descript units of average stats (barring supports). I would be saying 'Seth is much better than average and Franz is really good if raised' not 'Franz sucks because Seth completes maps too fast to train him'.

[BBM]

I don't know why some people are drawing such huge differences between LTC and Efficiency. Every time someone uses the term "LTC Tier List", someone says that there are no/few LTC Tier Lists. As I see it (correct me if I'm wrong), Efficiency is simply LTC without RNG abuse to ensure turn counts that might otherwise be unrealistic. Characters are still used in the same manner, and what makes a character good in one is what makes them good in the other. A mounted character is still, unless their stats are just really crap, or whatever, inherently better than a character with maybe better stats, but no mount. If I am correct in this, LTC Tier Lists would differ very little from Efficiency Tier Lists, so unless we're talking specifically about RNG abuse, the two seem fairly synonymous to me.

There also seem to be two very differing ideologies here when considering how characters should be ranked. One is that if worse characters are to be used, they should get further preferential treatment to allow them to be usable, whereas the other is that is worse characters are to be used, the better characters deserve the preferential treatment to become even better. In my opinion, if you're talking about a bad unit, using him and not giving him what he needs to be good (statboosters, BEXP, whatever it might be) is very little better than just not using the unit at all. Yes, it should be factored in that the bad unit needs these extra things, and does not make as good use of them as the better unit. That's why the worse unit is worse. But IMO, if you're debating two bad units, and X is better than Y without any statboosters, but worse when they are both given statboosters, saying that since both X and Y suck, they are not getting anything; therefore X > Y, is dumb. Giving them the boosters might be slower than not doing so, but if you don't, why even use them? Just don't bother even ranking them.

However, I might be coloured by my bias of preferring to make the units I am using closer together in usefulness, whatever that might take, as opposed to raising the best more. It is also why I normally play FE7 with 10-12 units instead of 6-8, and make it much harder for myself.

Edited March 22, 2012 by BigBangMeteor

[Kngt_Of_Titania]

I don't know why some people are drawing such huge differences between LTC and Efficiency. Every time someone uses the term "LTC Tier List", someone says that there are no/few LTC Tier Lists. As I see it (correct me if I'm wrong), Efficiency is simply LTC without RNG abuse to ensure turn counts that might otherwise be unrealistic. Characters are still used in the same manner, and what makes a character good in one is what makes them good in the other. A mounted character is still, unless their stats are just really crap, or whatever, inherently better than a character with maybe better stats, but no mount. If I am correct in this, LTC Tier Lists would differ very little from Efficiency Tier Lists, so unless we're talking specifically about RNG abuse, the two seem fairly synonymous to me.

I'd imagine a LTC tier list would value things like earlier access to killers (which are obscenely good in LTC) and favor growth units a bit more, but many of the qualifiers for a good unit in efficiency also work for LTC.

[Aethereal]

You purposefully perform worse than you can to train other units, like Franz. That's fine, if that's how you want to play. Play for fun, blahblahblah. But it's an inaccurate representation of how good Franz is when Seth is used. That's talking about a player who purposefully makes the game harder and slower than they can with the units they chose to use. If Seth is used the way a player would use most units, to the best of their abilities, and to help them clear all stated objectives as best as that unit can, Franz is much much worse than when Seth is not used. The difference is freakin' ridiculous.

Besides, if we're just ignoring what Seth can do when talking about performance, why aren't we just talking about a Sethless run? The way you and Othin describe using Seth, the difference is probably negligible.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Aethereal

[Anouleth]

If something is the norm there is very little reason to state it. If I say that a tier list is 'female only' that would imply that your average list and player does not use only female characters.

I don't really get that implication. Just because a tier list chooses to address a specific type of playthrough doesn't imply anything, since after all the breadth of different kinds of playthroughs is huge. There is no type of playthrough that is the "norm", is what I'm saying.

But he does exist, he's helping me clear the chapters, he is there and fighting, I'm just not using him to bash through enemies to the endpoint ASAP. A Sethless tier doesn't apply as he is there, but neither does a Seth list because I'm not using him to beat chapters in quick bursts.

The DEFINING quality of Seth is that he can bash through chapters and trivialise the game. If he is not doing that, there is not much point in going through all this rigmarole to let him exist. Which is why I think your "Seth-lite" list would not be any different from a "Sethless" list. Er. I guess Ephraim/Duessel/Joshua would be lower...

Anouleth. Though we fight often, I would think you would know me enough to know I hate using dancers and using one as an example is a poor choice if you want me to be convinced of any point.

Well, you would be wrong. I don't have a little notebook in which I keep track of all your irrational likes and dislikes.

That aside, here's the thing you're missing. Really missing. The character is being used, but at the same time is not being placed in a position where they can blast through enemies and rip up chapters as fast as humanly possible. Coincidentally this also answers your earlier question about where there is a LTC tier list. You said so yourself, just now, when you basically said that a paladin's edge is using their high move to beat a chapter.

What does high movement have to do with LTC? It's true that high movement saves turns, but so does promoting Garcia to Hero instead of Warrior, or having Ellen heal. In fact, I can name a huge number of things that save turns. LTC strategies often have to use all available resources in order to achieve their goals; which is part of the reason I find them interesting. I remember having to use a level 20/8 Nolan in Part 4 in FE10 for supplementary offense; and a level ~5 Laura for healing; and Kyza for shoving. Even Sanaki shaved two turns in Part 4.

Indeed, I could have named practically anything. I chose to mention Paladins since well, you brought them up.

Also, a SSBB tier? There is a huge difference between SSBB and FE tiers. A human element. I know how to use my characters and use them well. I've won every local tournament with Zelda and even when fighting against people online I win by a considerable majority when my net doesn't cut out. I won't say I'm the best, but I am certainly skilled. Yet I can't beat my best friend who mains Ganon because he is simply better than me at the game. These are not two opponents in a void, they are two people in multiple and varied situations. It's one thing to say that MK has an advantage on Ganon, it's another to say that MK is more efficient and will always win. In FE tier lists you usually debate what the absolutely most efficient use of a character is. The two are VERY different.

I don't really see how the two are different at all. The SSBB tier lists take a small portion of potential SSBB games; games that are in a tournament setting, with tournament level players, and based on which characters are most likely to win, the characters are ranked. Characters are assumed to be used to their fullest potential, that is. In a similar way, FE tier lists assume that units are used to their fullest potential. Ellen is more useful as a healer than as a tank. Thany is more useful for ferrying units than for pure combat. These are simple examples, but there are others. It would be wasteful to give someone like Ilyana an Energy Drop. Giving her that would make her worse, in fact, since she cannot possibly make up for the opportunity cost. It would be ridiculous to use Sue to fight Armours. She is better off attacking Soldiers and Wyverns. This really goes hand in hand with assuming an intelligent player... and I don't think it's unreasonable at all to assume that.

The point is that the tier list assumes you are using BEXP to the best of your ability. If someone were to not do so for whatever reason the list becomes unreliable at best.

I don't think that's really true. For example, even if you did not use BEXP properly, Haar would still be the best unit in the game, followed by Sothe/Titania/Ike/whoever. I can't think of any character whose position would change majorly if they couldn't use BEXP.

When I tier/rank characters I assume the rest of the team is full of non-descript units of average stats (barring supports). I would be saying 'Seth is much better than average and Franz is really good if raised' not 'Franz sucks because Seth completes maps too fast to train him'.

The problem is that both are true. It's true that Franz is made redundant by Seth, and also that if you train Franz he's a very good character. That's why I like having two tier lists; it tells both stories.

I don't know why some people are drawing such huge differences between LTC and Efficiency. Every time someone uses the term "LTC Tier List", someone says that there are no/few LTC Tier Lists. As I see it (correct me if I'm wrong), Efficiency is simply LTC without RNG abuse to ensure turn counts that might otherwise be unrealistic. Characters are still used in the same manner, and what makes a character good in one is what makes them good in the other. A mounted character is still, unless their stats are just really crap, or whatever, inherently better than a character with maybe better stats, but no mount. If I am correct in this, LTC Tier Lists would differ very little from Efficiency Tier Lists, so unless we're talking specifically about RNG abuse, the two seem fairly synonymous to me.

This is because you don't argue tier lists.

Look at the FE10 tier list. Who is in position #6? Mia. And Mia is not very useful in a strict LTC playthrough, barely at all in fact. She's certainly worse than a lot of units below her. Or, to take another example, Shinon, who is also trash. Nephenee is in Upper Mid. This is despite the fact that in an LTC playthrough, she makes meaningful contributions in only one chapter in the entire game, meaning that she should rightfully be below Geoffrey. How about Tanith who is never going to be trained and should therefore be below Sigrun?

Or, the favourite example of smash to argue why LTC lists are stupid; Edward. Edward single-handedly saves about 20 turns in 1-P. Technically, that would put him in Top Tier. Note how Edward is very definitely not in top tier.

[BBM]

I was just thinking that it was silly for people to correct someone when they said LTC instead of efficiency when in most cases, it seemed (to me) like there wasn't a difference. If there is, then fair enough.

My only real problem with playing for a low turn count other than that I can't do it is the attitude that was expressed several times in this thread, notably by dondon, that it is more "serious" than other ways of playing the game, or that characters should be judged for their contributions to such playthroughs above all other ones.

[Othin]

You purposefully perform worse than you can to train other units, like Franz. That's fine, if that's how you want to play. Play for fun, blahblahblah. But it's an inaccurate representation of how good Franz is when Seth is used. That's talking about a player who purposefully makes the game harder and slower than they can with the units they chose to use. If Seth is used the way a player would use most units, to the best of their abilities, and to help them clear all stated objectives as best as that unit can, Franz is much much worse than when Seth is not used. The difference is freakin' ridiculous.

Besides, if we're just ignoring what Seth can do when talking about performance, why aren't we just talking about a Sethless run? The way you and Othin describe using Seth, the difference is probably negligible.

Hey, I haven't said anything about how to use Seth. All I've said is that you shouldn't be assuming that whole swaths of enemies will be irrelevant because Seth will be used and in a very specific way and he will kill those enemies. When you're planning out what you'll do with the whole rest of your team so specifically, you aren't tiering a game. You simply aren't. All you're doing is tiering one, specific playthrough.

Characters do not exist in a vacuum, indeed. But there's no reason to assume that the characters around them will be specific ones. It's my understanding that there are some tier lists based around drafts. I'm not too familiar with these lists, but presumably they can't assume such specific strategies just because you don't know what units you'll wind up with. This is the sort of mindset tier lists should have: you should not "know" you will have a specific strategy available, so you should prepare for multiple ways you might need to use a character.

[Lord Raven]

Then you are still using Seth in a way that's not too different to not using him at all. You also provide a flimsily defined standard of play; not that plays should be defined so rigidly, but it seems hard to say "Seth will be used but only sometimes," especially in a game like FE8 where Seth can literally trivialize a whole group of enemies. You don't need him to beat the game, but he still has the potential to beat the game by himself; it's hard to find some sort of weird gray area and make it work.

[Colonel M]

I merely posted so I could see my badge.

...Okay I'm kidding.

It's my understanding that there are some tier lists based around drafts. I'm not too familiar with these lists, but presumably they can't assume such specific strategies just because you don't know what units you'll wind up with. This is the sort of mindset tier lists should have: you should not "know" you will have a specific strategy available, so you should prepare for multiple ways you might need to use a character.

Except that, in some units' scenarios, they assume strategies that revolve around the character being argued to begin with in draft tier lists (if applicable). Efficiency Tier Lists can't painfully assume that we're going all masochistic and using Ike + Low Tier scrubs all the time, either, since that defeats the purpose of being efficient to begin with (for the most part). Sure we can assume that maybe a character is missing or two, but chances are if you're taking away certain character (i.e. FE10 Haar), you're probably not being efficient to begin with.

And thus stems the gigantic vineyard that stretches to the nether realms of the fabled Garden of Eden. It's a difficult battle to argue with, but for the most part I have yet to see a more effective way of arguing characters based on a line of game play (i.e. not 20/20/20/20 stats like Snowy does).

[Anouleth]

I merely posted so I could see my badge.

...Okay I'm kidding.

Except that, in some units' scenarios, they assume strategies that revolve around the character being argued to begin with in draft tier lists (if applicable). Efficiency Tier Lists can't painfully assume that we're going all masochistic and using Ike + Low Tier scrubs all the time, either, since that defeats the purpose of being efficient to begin with (for the most part). Sure we can assume that maybe a character is missing or two, but chances are if you're taking away certain character (i.e. FE10 Haar), you're probably not being efficient to begin with.

Well, it depends on the game. In FE8 or FE10, you don't have a whole lot of units to pick from to begin with, so it's more likely that you end up using the top tier people. Whereas FE6 or 7 have huge casts.

Personally, I think that it's kind of silly to assume particular deployments. The last time I played FE10, I didn't use Haar, yet my playthrough was still efficient. And I made many "suboptimal" unit choices like Rolf T over Shinon, Edward over Zihark, and Boyd T over Mia (although in transfer player Boyd T is probably better anyway).