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

[Othin]

This.

Is.

Not.

About.

Seth.

As I have said so many times before: Seth is an example, nothing more.

[Narga_Rocks]

This.

Is.

Not.

About.

Seth.

As I have said so many times before: Seth is an example, nothing more.

What are you even talking about now? Raven told Purple Knight that Seth isn't soloing. You said nobody is claiming that Seth is soloing, despite Purple Knight clearly having that misinterpretation. I told you that your claim is wrong. And now you say this isn't about Seth. But this particular thread of thought that you jumped into is very much about Seth. Don't you get it? You jumped into a discussion between Snowy, Raven, Purple Knight, and myself. You don't get to define the conversation when you aren't the one that started it.

[Othin]

Narga:

Othin, I don't understand what your problem with a "No Seth" and a "Seth" tier list, especially because using Seth as you're suggesting basically places Seth above Franz in the No Seth tier list ~_~

[Narga_Rocks]

Narga:

Forgot his post. How about you answer his query, though?

Also, if it's not about Seth, explain again what it is about? There's not very many examples of splitting tier lists in twain. There's route splits (which nobody seemed to object to), warpskip (which I don't think y'all objected to), and there's Seth (which y'all object to lots). So, what's your problem (in general), and what's your problem with the Sethskip/Sethless tier lists?

[Anouleth]

Forgot his post. How about you answer his query, though?

Also, if it's not about Seth, explain again what it is about? There's not very many examples of splitting tier lists in twain. There's route splits (which nobody seemed to object to), warpskip (which I don't think y'all objected to), and there's Seth (which y'all object to lots). So, what's your problem (in general), and what's your problem with the Sethskip/Sethless tier lists?

Also ranked vs unranked.

[Othin]

Forgot his post. How about you answer his query, though?

Also, if it's not about Seth, explain again what it is about? There's not very many examples of splitting tier lists in twain. There's route splits (which nobody seemed to object to), warpskip (which I don't think y'all objected to), and there's Seth (which y'all object to lots). So, what's your problem (in general), and what's your problem with the Sethskip/Sethless tier lists?

My complaint is about having strategies pretty much set in stone, such that you simply determine the one strategy that will reliably get you through the least turns and assume that strategy must be in use.

Seth acts as an example because in order for "Sethskip" and "Sethless" to have a difference, we must be assuming that if Seth is even allowed, he must be used as part of that one strategy, and that he must stomp the 90% or so of enemies in the game as dictated by that one strategy.

That is, it's not the split that's the problem, but the circumstances that would give us cause to make the split in the first place.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Othin

[Lord Raven]

But anybody who does such a thing is not taken seriously, so I don't see what your complaints are.

Seth being used in an efficiency run is different, because not using him is vastly inefficient compared to using him. It's like not using Titania in FE9, except to a greater extent.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Mercenary Raven

[Othin]

But anybody who does such a thing is not taken seriously, so I don't see what your complaints are.

Apparently they are, if we have an entire tier list that assumes "Sethskip".

[Lord Raven]

Sethskip is a tongue-in-cheek description, but that is basically what any efficiency run of FE8 entails. If you aren't using Seth or minimizing use of Seth, then that changes the game too significantly for a tier list of FE8 to be called an FE8 tier list; at this point, it's called a "No Seth" tier list.

Even with Seth as our head killer, it is completely possibly for (far) more than one strategy to exist. That is the general idea of the strategy, but that is not *the* strategy. To add more to this, it would be incredibly hard to rank characters based on a cross between "Seth used" and "Seth not used," because Seth's existence is *that* large a factor to the game.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Mercenary Raven

[Defeatist Elitist]

False. Let's look at the implications of the two definitions:

1) If my team happens to contain Seth, then I will stomp shit with him.

2) My team must contain Seth in order to stomp shit with him in the one precise most stompable way.

There's a world of difference there.

I think you're missing my point.

The first assumption is what the community operates under. Sometimes, in the pursuit of it, we'll see things that look like the second assumption.

Now, if Sethskip tier list was literally the only tier list for FE8, and all the other FEs had a similar thing going, then your point would start to make sense, but considering the fact that that couldn't be further from the truth, I'm not sure where you're seeing this.

Basically, what I'm saying is that by having a Sethskip tier list and a non Sethskip tier list, what they're doing is the first assumption. The Sethskip tier list represents what happens when Seth is used to his most efficient degree, and the non Sethskip tier list represents what happens when he isn't.

[Anouleth]

My complaint is about having strategies pretty much set in stone, such that you simply determine the one strategy that will reliably get you through the least turns and assume that strategy must be in use.

Seth acts as an example because in order for "Sethskip" and "Sethless" to have a difference, we must be assuming that if Seth is even allowed, he must be used as part of that one strategy, and that he must stomp the 90% or so of enemies in the game as dictated by that one strategy.

There are variations on Sethskip. It's a gross exagerration to say that there's only one way to play it. Obviously, it's more limited than playing the game normally, but that doesn't make it completely linear.

[Progenitus]

The current argument seems to remind me of this...

me

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=30440&view=findpost&p=1857505

narga

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=30440&view=findpost&p=1857514

raven

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=30440&view=findpost&p=1857559

me

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=30440&view=findpost&p=1857711

most notably...

The whole point is not being so rigid in the assumptions of the tier list. Each factor should just be a part of the tier list. For example, if Saleh > Lute when Seth is assumed to blaze through maps (thus Lute has no time to gain levels or supports), then that's good. But the tier list should also examine cases where Seth isn't soloing half the map and Lute does have that time to gain levels or supports.

Well, if Seth is rushing towards the boss, that's usually the path that will have the most enemies, and so in his run to the boss he'll be clearing out most of the enemies anyway. And if you say "well Seth is actually accompanied by a bunch of people too", then that doesn't actually make it much different than a normal playthrough (where you want a team that just goes straight for the boss) and so I don't really see how that entails having two separate tier lists.

As for warp, it should be available as a possibility. No one chapter should be assumed that it's warpskipped or not, but it should be available as an option. For example, suppose you're arguing two units and so far you assumed that no chapters were warpskipped. Unit A has 6 spd over the enemies while B has 4 spd. While both units can double, the fact that chapters CAN be warpskipped, and thus units could possibly have a lower level, should be considered, because B cannot double if he is short on levels, which is an advantage for A as he can have 2 less spd and still be fine, and so by using unit A you CAN warpskip a few chapters and he can still double. On the flip side, you should not assume that certain chapters ARE warpskipped and thus B is never doubling. (There's also the possibility of unit B getting RNG screwed, but that's beside the point).

This also applies to "sethskip", or like everything in general. If X unit has great stats while Y unit has stats that are just enough to get by, the fact that Seth CAN blaze through maps and cut into units' exp gains and supports should be brought up against Y's case.

If a map can be completed in X turns using the best units, you should not assume that the map is always being done in X turns, as again that implies the best units are only being used. When lower tiers are being considered, this map could be considered to be completed in X + Y turns, or even X + Y + Z turns, so that these lower tiers have more things to do in the map. But again, the fact that the map CAN be done in X turns, and thus these lower tiers could possibly have lower stats, should be considered.

And like what has been said multiple times in thsi topic, turns should not be the only factor (or the driving factor). For example, if by taking 1 extra turn, I could instead use generic weapons instead of forges/silvers and save gold, I may want to do that. Or maybe sometimes I don't care about the gold and want that 1 turn faster. Sure, in a game with a lot of gold, the 1 turn will usually be better, but the option to have a tradeoff should exist.

If I extend, say, 2-E by a certain number of turns, I have an opportunity to gain those extra statboosters and items in the map and exp for the team. And I may want to do that. or maybe I don't need them and will just fast clear 2-E with Haar (or whoever is critical for the fast clear).

And like I said earlier and the SF niche agreed, that not every turn is equal, that a turn in a short map like 1-P is not the same as a turn in a long map like 4-4, and so I think it's fair game to say that some tradeoffs between turns and other resources available can be considered throughout the game, especially if you can prove that the traded turns are not significant.

This, of course, brings up a lot of subjective factors to the debate. "how often are we warpskipping and how often is B going to have this 4 spd? How often are we beating the map in X turns, or X + Y turns, or X + Y + Z turns?" Ranked topics of old had things like "What weight do we give each rank?" and such. This is what I find to be interesting in debating. I'm not saying to have no standards, as that would cause chaos, but the standards should be flexible enough to allow for more things to be talked about and not constrict the player to specific playstyles.

The point being that we should not assume that "Seth used efficiently = we're blazing through maps". Maybe Seth is just used to meatshield, or maybe only in certain maps will you want Seth to blaze through it and not every map. Going back to the Lute vs Saleh example I had, you can do an initial stat comparison between the two assuming that Seth does not break any maps in half and Lute gains her levels and supports normally (or maybe Seth isn't even in play), then examine the size of the leads between the two, then say "well now if Seth breaks X maps in half and thus Lute's levels/supports/etc. are this much lower, now she is worse than Saleh". If you don't like this particular example (Raven implied he thought it was a bad example), then choose another one, say... Franz vs Duessel. Or Raven vs Harken, then replace "Seth" with "Marcus". Or say Soren vs Calill, then replace "Seth" with "Titania". Or maybe not specific matchups, like take FE10 2-E. Examine what happens to relevant units when the map is extended as long as needed, then examine when the map is fast cleared. The point remains the same.

Of course I did say that having two separate tier lists, one with assuming Seth is used at 100% capacity and another assume isn't, but that's because it's clear that we can't reach an agreement and there's no real point in continuing it.

There's also one more thing...

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.

To expand snowy's example further, tier lists on SF require the player to know what resources to give what units (not just BEXP). For example the FE10 tier list assumes the player (almost) always gives Mia adept, Haar speedwing, etc. Apparently FE9 Marcia also receives a huge BEXP dump too. Now whether or not they use those given resources the best (even though this definition is vague) would not be the point, but rather the fact that this shoehorns the player into a more specific style.

[Narga_Rocks]

My complaint is about having strategies pretty much set in stone, such that you simply determine the one strategy that will reliably get you through the least turns and assume that strategy must be in use.

Seth acts as an example because in order for "Sethskip" and "Sethless" to have a difference, we must be assuming that if Seth is even allowed, he must be used as part of that one strategy, and that he must stomp the 90% or so of enemies in the game as dictated by that one strategy.

That is, it's not the split that's the problem, but the circumstances that would give us cause to make the split in the first place.

Sethskip isn't setting any strategy in stone.

It is saying, basically, that since the goal of all our tier lists tend to be, "use the units on your team to their most efficient", and if you use Seth on your team then by using him efficiently you will, in essence, sethskip the game. If you don't use him to his most efficient then you get "Sethless". It's not an even split, as there are many more ways to use him inefficiently, but I don't see that as a problem. Nor is there a set in stone way of completing chapters quickly. When I look at dondon's 0% growths chapter 5, I notice that his method is quite different from my method, but we both get 3 turns, all villages. Also he didn't even get the energy drop in chapter 7. I did, still 4 turns. And our strategy, aside from Seth attacking the boss, is completely different. I dropped Seth on turn 2 in the middle, he dropped Seth on turn 3 near the boss. I had Chad waterwalk in order to get the energy drop. My other units ran right to get exp. He sent Moulder, Franz, and Josh north. Now, as you cut turns, there are fewer and fewer strategies to complete something, but the idea behind Sethskip is the number of turns is rather low. If you can achieve x turns without rushing Seth to the boss and thus get more exp to everyone else, great. Then for chapter y there is even more strategies. But in most cases, send Seth at boss is the difference between Sethskip and non Sethskip. There isn't any other big difference.

" if Seth is even allowed, he must be used as part of that one strategy, and that he must stomp the 90% or so of enemies in the game as dictated by that one strategy."

I'll ignore the "one strategy" dealie, since I've just showed there are minimum 2, and I'm sure General Horace used different strategies. But I'll rewrite this quote to how I see sethskip

"if Seth is even allowed, he must be used to his most efficient, as all characters are, and thus he must stomp the 90% or so of bosses in the game as dictated by that one goal (being used to his most efficient)"

I take it you still object, though?

Also, I don't see a "one strategy" thing happening anywhere else, either.

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=29894, for example.

[Aethereal]

The only thing a Sethskip tier list assumes is that you use Seth the same way you use EVERY unit. That is, to the best of your abilities, and to best help you accomplish whatever goals you have set in place. In an efficiency tier list that means using him efficiently. There is nothing about this that should be considered wrong. In an efficiency tier list, people assume you use your units efficiently. Efficient use of Seth, by the parameters set forth by the tier list, is letting him break the game over his knee. This is not a scenario in which you assume one strategy, so much as it assumes the hypothetical player would be using Seth to accomplish his goals. If you want to make an "All units get equal EXP" tier list, whatever, Seth doesn't need to kick the game's ass. But that's not the goal of an efficiency tier list, which is what the Sethskip tier list is. I don't see how this is such a problem.

[Anouleth]

The whole point is not being so rigid in the assumptions of the tier list. Each factor should just be a part of the tier list. For example, if Saleh > Lute when Seth is assumed to blaze through maps (thus Lute has no time to gain levels or supports), then that's good. But the tier list should also examine cases where Seth isn't soloing half the map and Lute does have that time to gain levels or supports.

Oh, but we created a whole separate tier list to examine those cases in. So you should be perfectly happy.

This also applies to "sethskip", or like everything in general. If X unit has great stats while Y unit has stats that are just enough to get by, the fact that Seth CAN blaze through maps and cut into units' exp gains and supports should be brought up against Y's case.

Except what is the default position? If Artur > Lute when they're 20/10 and Lute > Artur when they're 15/5, what takes priority? Both are reasonable things to assume, depending on how heavily you used Seth. Why should the default position be "don't use Seth?" Why is Sethskip being relegated to being merely a tiebreaker?

If I extend, say, 2-E by a certain number of turns, I have an opportunity to gain those extra statboosters and items in the map and exp for the team. And I may want to do that. or maybe I don't need them and will just fast clear 2-E with Haar (or whoever is critical for the fast clear).

It's 2 turns, by the way. The amount that you need to extend 2-E by. The main only reason to extend it beyond that is for exp. And while it's cool that you can take extra turns in 2-E and give units extra experience, it's nothing that can't be done in other chapters like 3-2 and 3-5. So I'm grouping this under "unimportant".

The point being that we should not assume that "Seth used efficiently = we're blazing through maps".

But that is the efficient way to use Seth. And indeed, we have a whole tier list devoted to not assuming that. I could understand if people felt frustrated and annoyed because there was no way to discuss FE8 without people saying "just skip with Seth", but we have an entire tier list purely to forestall that philosophy. If you don't want to talk about Seth blazing through the game, you don't have to!

To expand snowy's example further, tier lists on SF require the player to know what resources to give what units (not just BEXP). For example the FE10 tier list assumes the player (almost) always gives Mia adept, Haar speedwing, etc. Apparently FE9 Marcia also receives a huge BEXP dump too. Now whether or not they use those given resources the best (even though this definition is vague) would not be the point, but rather the fact that this shoehorns the player into a more specific style.

Well, that's how tier lists work! An SSBB tier list will assume you know how to play Meta Knight, a SFIV tier list will assume you know how to play Sagat, a pokemon tier list will assume you know how to build your Nidoran into a lean mean fighting machine, a D&D tier list assumes you know how to twink out your Wizard and rule the entire cosmos at level 13, the AW tier list assumes that you know how to abuse Mechs for fun and profit. What you are talking about seems to me to be /no different from how every other tier list on the face of the earth works/.

[Defeatist Elitist]

a D&D tier list assumes you know how to twink out your Wizard and rule the entire cosmos at level 13

Somebody missed the memo that Pun Pun is buildable at level 1.

[Lord Raven]

The whole point is not being so rigid in the assumptions of the tier list.

My honest problem with this is that, without rigidity, a part of the argument is trying to weigh certain factors against each other; apples and oranges arguments, so to speak. More rigidity may encourage less discussion on a tier list.. but it also rids us of the irritation that certain arguments present. For example, arguments dealing with the exact purpose of the tier list (since "ranking characters based on quality" is *very* vague). Of course, I think "efficiency" is the perfect amount of rigidity, because if we go slower units become closer to one another and if we go too fast, we lose some of our playthroughs. Many units can be used efficiently, but it's a matter of characters that result in things being done quicker and more reliably, while being worth their input being ranked higher.

[Snowy_One]

Well... Then... Maybe try to make a tier list that contains several factors that are *technically* independent of each other. For my rating topic I had three criteria (Speed, flexibility, and customization) that were, technically, independent of each other. Speed focused mainly on how fast a character could complete a chapter, flexibility dealt with how they handled across many variations and styles of play (from simple team-changes to outright shooting/not shooting for different goals), and customization dealt with how well they could take advantage of resources. I will admit, it wasn't perfect by a loooong shot, but it was also the first time I've even seen that sort of thing handled and hoped to get things more ironed out via discussion as the list progressed. Maybe something similar for tier-lists?

Ergo, have one rating for sheer speed, one for power, and one for resource use or whatever else you want with the sum total deciding their location on the 'list'. Like, for example, FE9 Lethe is REALLY good when it comes to speed/effeciency since she comes early, is powerful, and doesn't *really* start to falter compared to the rest of your team until silver becomes available, but pretty much needs the demi-band (limiting what you can do with your team) and doesn't really make a good use of resources on the whole which might give her a high score (5) in one area but low scores (1's and 2's) in others.

[Aethereal]

Why is that better than separate lists for each criteria? In a rating topic like yours you encompass three standards, and the result doesn't accurately represent any of the three. Well, at least not necessarily. When any one does a run they aren't interested in the criteria and standards for different styles of play than the one they use.

For example, I'm sure people who don't play for efficiency don't care about how good Thany is at rescue-dropping, and they don't care that Fir takes up some time and resources to become a good unit. Conversely, I'm sure efficiency minded players love Thany's flexibility and availability, and dislike Fir's lack of concrete durability and resource requirements, just to be a worse-Rutger. In a list like yours, those two units could be right next to each other. Each 'good' by one standard, and 'bad' by another. Does a list where they are both middle of the road reflect that? An efficiency tier list and a seperate non-efficiency tier list represents both units more accurately.

Edit: I get that my descriptions of the units are overly-simplified, and that there is probably a case to be made that Fir isn't really 'bad'. Just an example.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Aethereal

[Anouleth]

Maybe instead of a one-dimensional tier list, we need a two dimensional tier matrix?

[aku chi]

To expand snowy's example further, tier lists on SF require the player to know what resources to give what units (not just BEXP). For example the FE10 tier list assumes the player (almost) always gives Mia adept, Haar speedwing, etc. Apparently FE9 Marcia also receives a huge BEXP dump too. Now whether or not they use those given resources the best (even though this definition is vague) would not be the point, but rather the fact that this shoehorns the player into a more specific style.

I agree with you, to an extent. When we rank a particular unit, we should absolutely consider the most efficient way to use that unit (what resources they could optimally be gifted, how they could efficiently be used on each map, etc...). But when we consider a unit, we do ourselves a disservice by assuming that all other units will be used and used optimally. Then we get a tier list that approaches an optimal playthrough 'tier list' - which isn't condusive to debate. The ideal solution, in my opinion, is to make no (or very limited) unit deployment assumptions - but assume efficient play at every other level (resource distribution and chapter strategy). So when we consider tiering Boyd (FE10), we shouldn't assume that the 1-E and 2-3 Speedwings are always going to Titania and Haar - even though they use them best. We should consider playthroughs where Titania and/or Haar are not used - in which case Boyd just might be the best candidate for a Speedwing (maybe). Under this logic, I have no qualms with seperate Seth-skip and Seth-less tier lists for FE8. In this game (it would seem), using Seth efficiently is so transformative to the contributions of other units that it dwarfs other substantive issues.

[Snowy_One]

Why is that better than separate lists for each criteria? In a rating topic like yours you encompass three standards, and the result doesn't accurately represent any of the three. Well, at least not necessarily. When any one does a run they aren't interested in the criteria and standards for different styles of play than the one they use.

I included each, individual, rating separate from the whole, total rating (which was used to give them their actual position). That way, if someone disagreed with one particular style of play, they could just ignore all the points or see where a specific character really shown through as great. If they liked/disliked a certain character the could even sit down and, at a glance, tell what was good/bad about them just by the rating without having to work through pages of tier-listing via the scores. I won't say it was perfect, it was a singular rating topic, not a tier list for one, but it does seem more of a step in the right direction than simply one singular list focused on LTC/efficiency/cookingskill/whatever.

Maybe instead of a one-dimensional tier list, we need a two dimensional tier matrix?

HolycrudAnnyandIagreeonsomething!

[Aethereal]

I included each, individual, rating separate from the whole, total rating (which was used to give them their actual position). That way, if someone disagreed with one particular style of play, they could just ignore all the points or see where a specific character really shown through as great. If they liked/disliked a certain character the could even sit down and, at a glance, tell what was good/bad about them just by the rating without having to work through pages of tier-listing via the scores. I won't say it was perfect, it was a singular rating topic, not a tier list for one, but it does seem more of a step in the right direction than simply one singular list focused on LTC/efficiency/cookingskill/whatever.

Mkay, I can agree that more information is good. Why wouldn't we just do this with two/three/however many separate tier lists? Just separately marking them (like you did) is all fine and good; but you're basically just making multiple tier lists in one topic. That's really not a big deal, especially in your case where it's less of an active debate as it is your opinion, but it would be less organized and efficient(lol) than just a few separate topics.

[Snowy_One]

Every time the notion of making a tier list that isn't LTC/efficiency/draft-focus comes up it tends to get outright mocked. I, personally, have seen the argument that, without turn counts, it's impossible to tier characters at all (which I highly disagree with). That aside, first it would need to be decided as to what each tier list even represents. I don't expect my three criteria to remain (at least not without being challenged) and there would need to be a consensus on what the terms of the other list even were. Customization, for example, dealt with the notion of how well a character could do. Does that mean that we are talking about 'maximum power with the best skills' or 'how well do they use these skills'? How do other units factor in. FE9 Mia with Wrath may be awesome (and, for the sake of argument, the best use of wrath), but so is practically anyone who can take it. Should we assume every unit can access the best skills? What about Zihark? Does he suffer because he would be taking wrath away from Mia if he was used? While most of these questions have been answered in the past, every one would need to be re-answered again and again; hence why people tend to shy away from new lists.

Though, I would be more curious about another factor. It's been several years since the older FE's were released. Would people welcome a new tiering standard/method and debate it, or shy away from it in favor of the pre-existing? That alone may shut down any attempt at any change regardless of how good/bad the change is.

[Seven Deadly Sins]

My quick thoughts:

Characters need some metric to be measured on, and the reason that low turncounts are especially good for that metric is because it tends to emphasize use of the characters that are exceptional in the circumstances that the game throws you into. The characters that are top tier in LTC are going to still be super top tier in any other turncount situation, and also in casual play, with the exception of characters like Lena in Shadow Dragon or the Staff h4x tier in FE5's ranked tier list. Characters like Seth, Marcus, Titania, or even the christmas cavaliers are exceptional in LTC runs because they possess attributes that make them exceptional when applied in that situation - high starting stats, high movement, and usable growths. Even when not rushing the game, these arguments are still in force. Characters that have more movement will still be more versatile on the battlefield and be able to be in the Right Position more often than characters with lower movement. Characters with higher starting stats will still be excellent units- the fact that you can more easily train up replacements on casual runs does not change the fact that they will always be "good" units. There will be a time when they're not the best, but they're still excellent units for 100% of the game, something that very, very few other characters can do.

Nino is the other side of the same coin. Nino will always be bad. In LTC, it's because she is simply not usable. On any other playthrough, it's less that she's not usable and more that to turn her into a usable unit it requires more resources and effort than any other character in the game, such that she is still a bad unit even when she is a "Good Unit" after effort. Same goes for characters like Amelia, Rebecca, Est, and any other members of that archetype. There's plenty of examples in between, but power is relative no matter what.

LTC discussion is preferred because it's simple and generates extensible metrics for evaluating characters in *all* playthroughs. These strategies represent the optimal play when adhering to a specific ideal, but do not represent the optimal play for all players. Tier Lists are simply a guideline that defines relative power. They are neither an argument nor a justification for LTC play.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Seven Deadly Sins