Jump to content

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


Kngt_Of_Titania
 Share

Recommended Posts

The problem with saying that a tier list needs a 'defined' meteric is that it has a tendency to become an 'absolute' metric. Ergo, instead of using turncounts to define how good a unit is, a unit becomes defined by their turncounts (if that makes sense). Not to mention it gives rise to the fallacy that all metrics need to be defined in order to even be used. If that were true a tier list would be a simple matter of setting up the criteria for success then running through the game to record turncounts until an average was reached. Debate wouldn't be focused on characters, but on the criteria for a fast run and seeing how the characters fit into said criteria.

Also, while you are right that some units who are high will remain high under most standards and some units who are low will remain low as well, this does not apply to every unit. Franz fluctuates wildly on the FE8 tier lists based on if Seth is in play or not alone, never mind a style of tiering not focused solely on LTC. Lethe is VERY good for speed runs because of her high mobility and stats, but is inflexible and suffers from horrible weapons later in the game and would likely drop with different standards.

Also, they are very much an argument for the standard so long as there is not even a valid attempt to make a tier list that doesn't use turncounts as a measurement. If I said I treated all races equally, but hired only white people in movies even for non-white parts, people would be on my ass for racism in a heartbeat regardless of the circumstances. Likewise, if you're going to say that LTC lists 'are only a guideline' but then only talk about them, it might as well be law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 650
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Also, they are very much an argument for the standard so long as there is not even a valid attempt to make a tier list that doesn't use turncounts as a measurement. If I said I treated all races equally, but hired only white people in movies even for non-white parts, people would be on my ass for racism in a heartbeat regardless of the circumstances. Likewise, if you're going to say that LTC lists 'are only a guideline' but then only talk about them, it might as well be law.

What benefit do you have from a measurement other than turncount? Stats aren't everything, and there is no other real objective metric. A subjective one just introduces a lot of nonsense going on. I would challenge you to find any metric in which a: definitions don't wildly vary, b: results are applicable to game formats across all types of play, and c: actually provides some sort of tangible difference to an accepted standard.

As I said, characters that are good at low turns are usually even better at high turncounts, or at the very least provide a high return on effort put in and effectiveness coming out. As I said, the fact that effort can be spent on units that would be considered worse to make them better than units considered higher on the tier list does not change the fact that you spent resource x (be it EXP, BEXP, stat boosters, or just things as simple as time or effort) to improve that character, nor the fact that said resources would not have been spent on the "better" unit. Efficiency can say that resource X goes to character Y for optimal efficiency, but that doesn't mean that when resource X is suddenly available to go to character Z, that makes character Z better. All it means is that we spent resources sub-optimally to get a sub-optimal outcome.

There may be some scattered situations (like maybe Lethe, but she has a unique situation of scaling poorly, such that she never really gets "bad" but is comparatively worse when other characters get good" but that's still the Marcus conundrum. He's going to be amazing for 3/4 of the game and usable for the last 1/4, the addition of more turns and more resources just means that more units will better about 1/2 the time, but that is so far outstripped by the 1/2 where Marcus is dominant that it still doesn't invalidate his presence.

The Seth argument is also an outlier simply because of how overbearing Seth is on the tier list, but that has largely been solved by the introduction of a Sethless tier list, acknowledging that there are 2 distinct sets of viable strategies and that Seth is the difference between the two. Both are efficient, but it acknowledges that Seth himself warps efficiency so significantly that his presence should be considered optional not because efficiency dictates, but for diversity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are your views on characters that are very useful in low turns but very very "eh" in high turns?

Like? The only ones I can think of are staffers, specifically warpers but staffers of any kind.

EDIT: After talking to Raven about examples, he brought up Tormod (FE9) and Thany.

Tormod is good in faster playthroughs for two reasons: Soren/Ilyana blow on LTC and he has 8 move (+ siege tomes). However, this doesn't change the fact that even on non-LTC, he's still very usable with the use of BEXP, and Soren/Ilyana still aren't that good. The result is that Tormod is basically Soren that substitutes BEXP for existence in order to level. Soren not being especially good during the time when he's available makes the comparison essentially the same. There's CEXP and effort spent to handhold Soren into being usable that isn't spent on Tormod, and other units can substitute Soren's share of the CEXP for any share of BEXP they would get, leaving enough for Tormod to come up to speed. The comparison isn't perfect, but it's not especially inconsistent.

As for flightbots like Thany, I'm not a fan of them being *that* high anyway. Then again, I hate tiering utility units- that's why theres a Utility List on my FE12 list. Staff users, Thieves, flightbots, etc. These characters all have utility completely irrelevant to their stats or even how "good" they are in-game, and that's something I'd like to see duplicated or attempted in other lists. In playthroughs where that utility is not desired, those lists can be completely ignored, and the combat list can still be relied on as fully relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What benefit do you have from a measurement other than turncount? Stats aren't everything, and there is no other real objective metric. A subjective one just introduces a lot of nonsense going on. I would challenge you to find any metric in which a: definitions don't wildly vary, b: results are applicable to game formats across all types of play, and c: actually provides some sort of tangible difference to an accepted standard.

Let me turn that question around. What do I get by using turncounts as a measurement? All I really seem to obtain is a method of ranking characters in one style of gameplay that penalizes any unit who isn't instantly awesome and/or lacks high movement. There is no truly 'measurable' quality in sports either. Miami is the only team to have a 100% undefeated season in football, but that doesn't mean that the Miami Dolphins from that season will win against the Detroit Lions as there are many factors (otherwise the entire thing could happen via a computer simulation and sports-gambling would be non-existent). That doesn't mean I can't say one team is better than another. Also, isn't the whole point of a tier-list/debate topic to discuss the various differences between characters to decide which is better in the first place?

As I said, characters that are good at low turns are usually even better at high turncounts, or at the very least provide a high return on effort put in and effectiveness coming out. As I said, the fact that effort can be spent on units that would be considered worse to make them better than units considered higher on the tier list does not change the fact that you spent resource x (be it EXP, BEXP, stat boosters, or just things as simple as time or effort) to improve that character, nor the fact that said resources would not have been spent on the "better" unit. Efficiency can say that resource X goes to character Y for optimal efficiency, but that doesn't mean that when resource X is suddenly available to go to character Z, that makes character Z better. All it means is that we spent resources sub-optimally to get a sub-optimal outcome.

You're definition of 'sub-optimal' is suspect here as it is defined via turncounts. Ergo 'spending BEXP on Soren instead of Tormod is sub-optimal because Tormod has higher movement and Soren isn't too good because he lacks that'. That's a very bad thing for any tier list to do regardless of its focus.

There may be some scattered situations (like maybe Lethe, but she has a unique situation of scaling poorly, such that she never really gets "bad" but is comparatively worse when other characters get good" but that's still the Marcus conundrum. He's going to be amazing for 3/4 of the game and usable for the last 1/4, the addition of more turns and more resources just means that more units will better about 1/2 the time, but that is so far outstripped by the 1/2 where Marcus is dominant that it still doesn't invalidate his presence.

The Seth argument is also an outlier simply because of how overbearing Seth is on the tier list, but that has largely been solved by the introduction of a Sethless tier list, acknowledging that there are 2 distinct sets of viable strategies and that Seth is the difference between the two. Both are efficient, but it acknowledges that Seth himself warps efficiency so significantly that his presence should be considered optional not because efficiency dictates, but for diversity.

The problem isn't the Seth/Seth-less tier lists. It's the tiering philosophy that caused the needs for two separate lists in the first place. That all units will always be used for a LTC run in a optimized manner all the time basically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miami is the only team to have a 100% undefeated season in football, but that doesn't mean that the Miami Dolphins from that season will win against the Detroit Lions as there are many factors (otherwise the entire thing could happen via a computer simulation and sports-gambling would be non-existent). That doesn't mean I can't say one team is better than another. Also, isn't the whole point of a tier-list/debate topic to discuss the various differences between characters to decide which is better in the first place?

This analogy is terrible and makes no sense.

Let me turn that question around. What do I get by using turncounts as a measurement? All I really seem to obtain is a method of ranking characters in one style of gameplay that penalizes any unit who isn't instantly awesome and/or lacks high movement.

You say this like we should be rewarding bad starts and low movement. The fact of the matter is that you just don't like how much it penalizes them, which is fine. But understand that all the metric does is penalize things that are bad, and reward things are good, like every other metric. The answer to the question is "a metric by which we can actually discuss things"

The problem isn't the Seth/Seth-less tier lists. It's the tiering philosophy that caused the needs for two separate lists in the first place. That all units will always be used for a LTC run in a optimized manner all the time basically.

Holy shit, dude. No one assumes this. The only thing that any one assumes is that people use Seth the same way they would use every other unit. Every one has said this. The fact is, when you use Seth the way you would use every unit, it changes every other units' performance to an incredible degree. Instead of getting a disorganized list and discussion topic that doesn't reflect either side of the debate but some vague subjective middle ground, you get two different and organized lists and topics. You don't even have to worry about weighing the two sides against each other, and which playstyle is more important.

Edited by Aethereal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me turn that question around. What do I get by using turncounts as a measurement? All I really seem to obtain is a method of ranking characters in one style of gameplay that penalizes any unit who isn't instantly awesome and/or lacks high movement.

So you're butthurt about units being punished for being bad?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're butthurt about units being punished for being bad?

Maybe we should have a metric where knights' movement helps their score, or where having Lilina-like durability and start makes you top tier. I think that's the suggestion here anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we just need an upside down tier list.

(real talk: awesome units with high movement are good, less awesome units with less move are less good and thus lower tier, bad units being punished for being bad is the heart of any tier list and a tier list that rewards units for being bad is of little value to anyone)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This analogy is terrible and makes no sense.

*facepalm* In sports you can predict which team will win based on a multitude of factors, but when the actual game day comes, it's anyones ball. In SSBB you can predict which characters will likely win or lose, but in the end, it comes down to personal skill. In FE... neither are true so long as you are assuming average stats. Strategies are cut and dry for tier lists, little variation is present, and so long as horrible screwing/immense blessing (which typically doesn't happen in a FE tier list), the game will likely be the same each and every time through. There is no human element in the FE tiers. Just strategy.

You say this like we should be rewarding bad starts and low movement. The fact of the matter is that you just don't like how much it penalizes them, which is fine. But understand that all the metric does is penalize things that are bad, and reward things are good, like every other metric. The answer to the question is "a metric by which we can actually discuss things"

That is not what I said. Let's assume we have two units, Seth and Seth2. Seth2 is similar to Seth in every way (same supports and such) except that Seth2 has foot-soldier movement. Now, I'm not complaining that Seth > Seth2. However, because of his lower movement, Seth2 would probably end up noticeably lower in the tiers despite otherwise statistical identity to Seth (I'd wager he'd end up in high) due to the LTC focus of the lists.

Holy shit, dude. No one assumes this.
What benefit do you have from a measurement other than turncount? Stats aren't everything' date=' and there is no other real objective metric.[/quote']

If 'optimized manner' wasn't assumed, using turn-counts as a tiering standard would be useless since even a slight lack of optimized use could result in wildly divergent turncounts (thusly making using it as a metric useless).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, Seth2 is a worse character. That's why he's lower. Less move means less turncount help in LTC (thus not getting to bosses as quickly, which is part of the big draw of Seth, and it also means less versatility and less "being in the right place" in higher turncount. This also means that the unit with less move will probably see less combat since he is lagging behind your mounted units or simply out of position, meaning lower stats in the long run. So yes, unit 2 will be lower than unit 1 because that unit is worse. TIERING!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take note that you also assumed that, because the unit has lower movement, he instantly is lower tiered. The majority of that post is you saying how bad it is to have lower movement before resorting to a non-descript 'unit 1' and 'unit 2' where you said unit 2 would be lower (presumably because of lower movement) than unit 1.

Also, what sort of statistical advantage is needed to overcome a movement lead anyways? I'm sure you wouldn't say that a level 1 flier with less than 10 in every stat is better than a level 20/20 general with at least 25 points in every stat in the final map of the game after all. So where is the line drawn, according to you?

Edited by Snowy_One
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, what sort of statistical advantage is needed to overcome a movement lead anyways? I'm sure you wouldn't say that a level 1 flier with less than 10 in every stat is better than a level 20/20 general with at least 25 points in every stat in the final map of the game after all. So where is the line drawn, according to you?

Can the general be picked up by a unit capable of rescue dropping, or is he too fat? If he's too fat (25 con is a lot, btw), then yes, the flier is better because he/she can at least carry a low move unit with good stats closer to the action and then drop him. Or heck, if it's the final map and the unit doesn't need to stay alive, he/she can just pull a kamikaze rescue drop and doesn't even need to do the traditional drop.

Now, if the general can actually be carried by a mounted unit, then sure he's better (unless there's a giant gap or desert to fly across, then the flier might still be better).

In a game without rescuedropping or the rescue staff? They both suck. Who cares which one is better. The general never fights anything because stuff is dead before he gets there, and the flier can't do squat it'll just die.

Edited by Narga_Rocks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*facepalm* In sports you can predict which team will win based on a multitude of factors, but when the actual game day comes, it's anyones ball. In SSBB you can predict which characters will likely win or lose, but in the end, it comes down to personal skill. In FE... neither are true so long as you are assuming average stats. Strategies are cut and dry for tier lists, little variation is present, and so long as horrible screwing/immense blessing (which typically doesn't happen in a FE tier list), the game will likely be the same each and every time through. There is no human element in the FE tiers. Just strategy.

Sports and SSBB are poor choices for analogies. I'm not even interested in comparing them, and I doubt any one else is. If you think about it for two seconds, you'll realize why.

That is not what I said. Let's assume we have two units, Seth and Seth2. Seth2 is similar to Seth in every way (same supports and such) except that Seth2 has foot-soldier movement. Now, I'm not complaining that Seth > Seth2. However, because of his lower movement, Seth2 would probably end up noticeably lower in the tiers despite otherwise statistical identity to Seth (I'd wager he'd end up in high) due to the LTC focus of the lists.

.... Um:

You say this like we should be rewarding bad starts and low movement. The fact of the matter is that you just don't like how much it penalizes them, which is fine. But understand that all the metric does is penalize things that are bad, and reward things are good, like every other metric.

So, again, you just don't like how much people care about movement. All I'm getting is that the metric doesn't fit your personal playstyle. I'm sure your vague "all encompassing" ideology doesn't work for a ton of people.

Also, what sort of statistical advantage is needed to overcome a movement lead anyways? I'm sure you wouldn't say that a level 1 flier with less than 10 in every stat is better than a level 20/20 general with at least 25 points in every stat in the final map of the game after all. So where is the line drawn, according to you?

I'm sure this seemed like a "HAHA GOTCHA" type of question, but it's not. A statistical advantage overcomes a mount in the case that the statistics contribute more towards efficiency than the mounted movement+rescuing+canto'ing does. This isn't that difficult to understand. Characters don't exist in a vacuum, where a certain amount of other stats makes up for movement. If a flier is constantly moving people over mountains and shit, and the general's combat is overkill, or he can't get rescue dropped, maybe the flier's higher. If the flier doesn't have great opportunities to fly people around, the general would definitely be higher. I feel like you're just asking these questions to be difficult, because you (should) know the answer to them.

Edited by Aethereal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take note that you also assumed that, because the unit has lower movement, he instantly is lower tiered. The majority of that post is you saying how bad it is to have lower movement before resorting to a non-descript 'unit 1' and 'unit 2' where you said unit 2 would be lower (presumably because of lower movement) than unit 1.

Also, what sort of statistical advantage is needed to overcome a movement lead anyways? I'm sure you wouldn't say that a level 1 flier with less than 10 in every stat is better than a level 20/20 general with at least 25 points in every stat in the final map of the game after all. So where is the line drawn, according to you?

oopsy i assumed a character that is equal to another character except for being better in a specific stat is better than that character

Newsflash: having lower movement doesn't magically make you better. If movement is the only difference between 2 units, then the unit with lower movement is worse by every single metric.

As for the line, your arbitrary example is pretty dumb. Flight utility is hard to tier, but there are cases where it contributes to combat, such as being able to engage specific enemies or ignore terrain issues on nasty maps. Plus there's the thing that fliers also tend to be mounts. Fliers have other advantages, such as allowing you to shop more easily, or reinforce areas that may be separated by impassable terrain, or draw off enemy forces at an awkward angle. They do, however, have that dumb "archer vulnerability" thing which makes their benefit sometimes a little questionable.

So your answer is "there is no line". It's dependant on a lot of things, like terrain, enemy composition, stats, direct competition, etc. It's game-specific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*facepalm* In sports you can predict which team will win based on a multitude of factors, but when the actual game day comes, it's anyones ball. In SSBB you can predict which characters will likely win or lose, but in the end, it comes down to personal skill. In FE... neither are true so long as you are assuming average stats.

Tier lists are not meant to be inerrant predictors of absolute fact. When Haar or Ike are at the top of the tier list, that is not because they are /always/ good and because they always have their average stats, it's because they are far more likely to have good stats than their competitors.

Strategies are cut and dry for tier lists, little variation is present, and so long as horrible screwing/immense blessing (which typically doesn't happen in a FE tier list), the game will likely be the same each and every time through. There is no human element in the FE tiers. Just strategy.

Prove it. Go on. Prove that the tier lists work this way. Because they don't.

That is not what I said. Let's assume we have two units, Seth and Seth2. Seth2 is similar to Seth in every way (same supports and such) except that Seth2 has foot-soldier movement. Now, I'm not complaining that Seth > Seth2. However, because of his lower movement, Seth2 would probably end up noticeably lower in the tiers despite otherwise statistical identity to Seth (I'd wager he'd end up in high) due to the LTC focus of the lists.

Yes, which just goes to show that turn counts are a good metric.

If 'optimized manner' wasn't assumed, using turn-counts as a tiering standard would be useless since even a slight lack of optimized use could result in wildly divergent turncounts (thusly making using it as a metric useless).

It's obvious to any observer of even the meanest intellect that almost irrespective of what other units are in play, Ike with stats reasonably close to his averages will save turns in 4-1. Mia and Gatrie might save turns, but it's not as likely since they don't 1-round as reliably; so they are lower on the list than him. It's even less likely for someone awful, like Brom or Kieran; the tier list reflects that.

Also, what sort of statistical advantage is needed to overcome a movement lead anyways? I'm sure you wouldn't say that a level 1 flier with less than 10 in every stat is better than a level 20/20 general with at least 25 points in every stat in the final map of the game after all.

Obviously that depends entirely on the context. Characters are, after all, gauged upon what they DO, not what numbers are on their screen. Perhaps the level 1 flier is still strong enough to 1-round enemies? Perhaps we can use BEXP to make the flier usable? Perhaps the General can be rescue-dropped into the action? Perhaps there are 200 other flying units who are all better than this level 1 flier?

Edited by Anouleth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to note, Seth2 is better than Seth in Snowy's example if every single tile becomes desert. Which is really just in support of the "situation matters" camp by turning things on their head.

That's not actually entirely true. Seth2 doesn't have canto after rescuing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not what I said. Let's assume we have two units, Seth and Seth2. Seth2 is similar to Seth in every way (same supports and such) except that Seth2 has foot-soldier movement. Now, I'm not complaining that Seth > Seth2. However, because of his lower movement, Seth2 would probably end up noticeably lower in the tiers despite otherwise statistical identity to Seth (I'd wager he'd end up in high) due to the LTC focus of the lists.

If such a unit like Seth2 exists, then what's the problem with Seth2 being noticeably lower than Seth1? Lower move means less flexibility and allows for less opportunities to use Seth2's good stats. Seth1's advantage is enormous, so there's nothing wrong with Seth1 being noticeably higher.

You also seem to think that we just automatically put high move units into the high tiers but this isn't true. Rutger is the near the top of the FE6 list and he's a myrmidon. Thany is in High tier and is a pegasus knight. Thany is a tier lower than Rutger is despite her movement advantage because of various factors like her poor durability, offense, difficulty in training, Rutger's WTF bosskilling and offense, etc. Context is quite important in judging units by any sort of criteria, and in the context of FE6, Rutger's bosskilling abilities and possessing consistent and high offense is much more in line with our goals than Thany's unparalleled ability to rescue drop and ignore terrain.

If 'optimized manner' wasn't assumed, using turn-counts as a tiering standard would be useless since even a slight lack of optimized use could result in wildly divergent turncounts (thusly making using it as a metric useless).

Not really. It's generally assumed if a unit does something faster (aka, takes less turns) to do something, then he is considered better. So Ike being able to ORKO almost the entirety of the enemies in 4-1 and other chapters makes him more useful than Mia, who has unreliable offense and if one of her skills does not activate, she can miss a ORKO and needs to take an extra turn to kill it (or someone else has to spend their turn killing it). So turncounts still play a role as a metric in unit quality, it's just less obvious.

Also, what sort of statistical advantage is needed to overcome a movement lead anyways? I'm sure you wouldn't say that a level 1 flier with less than 10 in every stat is better than a level 20/20 general with at least 25 points in every stat in the final map of the game after all.

Base level Thany is the third most useful character in chapter 14 of FE6. More useful than tools like Dieck.

As for the whole great Seth debate, it seems like the people arguing against the idea of a Sethskip list seem to simply want the Sethskip tier list but with Seth on it. Which would put him at the top because Seth is just that epic. That's fine, but I don't see why the existence of a Sethless tier list is a bad thing.

Oh and since i just noticed this:

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.

Nobody shits on people for making tier lists different from the others on this site. Unless you're dondon.

Basically the vibe I'm getting here can be summed up like this:

Stop-liking-what-I-dont-like.jpg

Edited by Dark Sage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hate doing this. I had you guys on ignore until I realized that part of me wanted to ignore everyone involved in your lists and I didn't want to give that part any power at all.

Can the general be picked up by a unit capable of rescue dropping, or is he too fat? If he's too fat (25 con is a lot, btw), then yes, the flier is better because he/she can at least carry a low move unit with good stats closer to the action and then drop him. Or heck, if it's the final map and the unit doesn't need to stay alive, he/she can just pull a kamikaze rescue drop and doesn't even need to do the traditional drop.

The fact that you're willing to place a unit that is, all around, inferior to even some units who come before the tenth chapter of a game (movement aside) above a unit who would likely be OMGWTFOPED (movement aside again) in most games tells me your tiering philosophy is a little bit less than trustworthy.

So, again, you just don't like how much people care about movement. All I'm getting is that the metric doesn't fit your personal playstyle. I'm sure your vague "all encompassing" ideology doesn't work for a ton of people.

I would wager it works for a ton more of the average players than yours.

If a flier is constantly moving people over mountains and shit, and the general's combat is overkill, or he can't get rescue dropped, maybe the flier's higher. If the flier doesn't have great opportunities to fly people around, the general would definitely be higher. I feel like you're just asking these questions to be difficult, because you (should) know the answer to them.

When making a tier list, the answer should be 'most likely the general would be better unless I need to do a LOT of rescue-dropping because otherwise the flier will get MAULED considering it's the last chapter and all'.

oopsy i assumed a character that is equal to another character except for being better in a specific stat is better than that character

Newsflash: having lower movement doesn't magically make you better. If movement is the only difference between 2 units, then the unit with lower movement is worse by every single metric.

I never said otherwise. I said you replaced Seth and Seth2 (who would likely be a great unit were it not for his movement), who are both VERY strong statistically with a non-descript Unit 1/2 (who could have great or aweful stats).

Yes, which just goes to show that turn counts are a good metric.

It shows that it is a metric. Cubits are also a metric, that is reliable, can be used for measurement, and... isn't used at all. Some people will say that inches/feet/yards/miles are also poor metrics despite being used currently in at least one first-world nation.

Prove it. Go on. Prove that the tier lists work this way. Because they don't.

Jill vs. Marcia. FE9. Of the many factors you could have picked to decide who was better (join time, stats, etc), the tierers focused on which saves them a single turn more.

Tier lists are not meant to be inerrant predictors of absolute fact. When Haar or Ike are at the top of the tier list, that is not because they are /always/ good and because they always have their average stats, it's because they are far more likely to have good stats than their competitors.

Okay then. Specific strategies are very close to absolute fact, so out they go. Since rescue-dropping was a large part of that it loses a lot of value, units with mounted movement drop, units without it rise... Oh-hey. Completely different tier lists and arguments.

It's obvious to any observer of even the meanest intellect that almost irrespective of what other units are in play, Ike with stats reasonably close to his averages will save turns in 4-1. Mia and Gatrie might save turns, but it's not as likely since they don't 1-round as reliably; so they are lower on the list than him. It's even less likely for someone awful, like Brom or Kieran; the tier list reflects that.
Prove it. Go on. Prove that the tier lists work this way. Because they don't.

Why did I ever bother remembering? How could you know how many turns Ike saves over Mia or Gatrie without this planning or a focus on LTC? You might have gotten away with it if you had omitted the 'saves turns' bit, I would probably have even agreed with you, but then you went and contradicted yourself for me.

Obviously that depends entirely on the context. Characters are, after all, gauged upon what they DO, not what numbers are on their screen. Perhaps the level 1 flier is still strong enough to 1-round enemies? Perhaps we can use BEXP to make the flier usable? Perhaps the General can be rescue-dropped into the action? Perhaps there are 200 other flying units who are all better than this level 1 flier?

Is it just me, or did all of you ignore the 'final map of the game' bit? Unless this is a VERY short game, the flier will likely be dealing no damage, can't dodge, and will die in one hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Who's better X or Y?"

"Depends on context"

"WRONG X, YOU GUYS ARE STUPID STUPIDHEADS THAT ARE STUPID"

"You should make tier lists my way, and not your stupid way."

"Your version doesn't work for a lot of people. You don't like ours because it's not the your personal style, and every other reason is fake."

"No, my way is more popular!"

"Seth 1 vs Seth 2. Seth 2 has less move. Why is Seth 2 lower?"

"Because they're exactly the same, except unit 2 has less move."

"WOW! I can't believe you'd assume he's worse!"

"That's how tiering works."

"No No no! You changed the topic of dicussion to some random units with no information except one has less move than another"

Seven Deadly Sins never changed the topic off of Seth1&Seth2. Using the terms unit 1 and unit 2, he was talking about the same hypothetical you brought up, and you're very well aware of that fact. You're just being difficult, and an ass.

Please stop. We get it, you don't like LTC. You should probably go deal with that somewhere else, because nothing you ever bring up would make the community here think that LTC is a bad metric. Maybe there's some evidence or thought process that makes sense, but yours doesn't.

Edit: LOL, I missed the part where you said this;

How could you know how many turns Ike saves over Mia or Gatrie without this planning or a focus on LTC? You might have gotten away with it if you had omitted the 'saves turns' bit, I would probably have even agreed with you, but then you went and contradicted yourself for me.

Yes. Killing things faster could never "save turns", unless you use a specific strategy! Especially not on a route map!

And, let's just be perfectly clear. Anouleth said that even when you do not have an optimized run, Ike still kills shit better than some other units, and thus saves more turns than those units, and should be ranked higher. Since he brought up how turn counts work as a metric, when discussing turn counts as a metric, he is contradicting himself? No, Snowy. He's contradicting your statement, and his example is completely accurate.

Edited by Aethereal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jill vs. Marcia. FE9. Of the many factors you could have picked to decide who was better (join time, stats, etc), the tierers focused on which saves them a single turn more.
You have literally ignored fucking everything if you keep bringing this up. Seriously, are you that fucking stupid that you can't read shit on why that was the case? Because they're such similar fucking units that you almost had to bring those up because of how similar they are! And because they're that good you need to be incredibly meticulous when making a judgment about who's better. Might I mention again that I keep bringing this up and you guys choose to selectively ignore this and use it to boost your own argument?

Notice how it was just Marcia vs Jill, and not Marcia vs Oscar and Marcia vs fucking Largo or some shit. It was strictly Marcia vs Jill.

PS: Snowy, your signature isn't deep. It more or less screams "I HAVE A VICTIM COMPLEX"

Edited by Mercenary Raven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hate doing this. I had you guys on ignore until I realized that part of me wanted to ignore everyone involved in your lists and I didn't want to give that part any power at all.

And I thought smash could be a little ridiculous with ignore.

The fact that you're willing to place a unit that is, all around, inferior to even some units who come before the tenth chapter of a game (movement aside) above a unit who would likely be OMGWTFOPED (movement aside again) in most games tells me your tiering philosophy is a little bit less than trustworthy.

what part of context within the game do you not understand?

ignoring this, there's also the argument that usually, a general's low movement means he might not get to see much action because he can't go very far. If a flier is able to rescue drop him into a horde of enemies, she gets partial credit for his work because she was the one able to make it possible in the first place.

I would wager it works for a ton more of the average players than yours.

:smug:

When making a tier list, the answer should be 'most likely the general would be better unless I need to do a LOT of rescue-dropping because otherwise the flier will get MAULED considering it's the last chapter and all'.

implying units should be judged based on the last chapter of the game.

Furthermore, if the rest of my team can also kick ass and take names like the general can, then the general is worse off because of his bad move, which means he would be able to kick less ass and take less names than his friends. The level 1 flier however could allow him to play catch up or allow my other units to kick ass and take names that much sooner.

Or suppose the map is a defeat boss map (as it almost always is in the final chapter of FEs) and the flier is able to transport a unit I have who can ORKO the boss or can help transport a unit who can aid in killing the boss so that I can end the map in one turn? Obviously the flier is better than the general because the flier is able to allow us to defeat the boss sooner.

I never said otherwise. I said you replaced Seth and Seth2 (who would likely be a great unit were it not for his movement), who are both VERY strong statistically with a non-descript Unit 1/2 (who could have great or aweful stats).

Actually, you didn't say that. At least, I didn't see you saying that.

Also stop spelling awful incorrectly.

Jill vs. Marcia. FE9. Of the many factors you could have picked to decide who was better (join time, stats, etc), the tierers focused on which saves them a single turn more.

Didn't Raven already explain to you that Marcia and Jill are practically the same character, to the point where we'd need to be anal about 1 turn differences to put one higher than the other?

Okay then. Specific strategies are very close to absolute fact, so out they go. Since rescue-dropping was a large part of that it loses a lot of value, units with mounted movement drop, units without it rise... Oh-hey. Completely different tier lists and arguments.

Uh, you need some form of absolute fact to judge units. Otherwise you could have an FE9 tier list with Bastian at the top and it'd be as valid a one as one with Titania at the top.

And I'm pretty sure you only object to using specific strategies because people do that with units you don't like. Besides, isn't the whole point of FE to strategize? If a unit can contribute to a good and specific strategy, then that should be a point for the unit.

Why do I get the feeling you're just butthurt over units like Ilyana and Mia being under Titaina?

Why did I ever bother remembering? How could you know how many turns Ike saves over Mia or Gatrie without this planning or a focus on LTC? You might have gotten away with it if you had omitted the 'saves turns' bit, I would probably have even agreed with you, but then you went and contradicted yourself for me.

If a unit can ORKO things and another unit doesn't, the unit that doesn't ORKO needs to take an extra turn to KO the enemy in question. Obviously you think ORKOing>2RKOing, and that's using turns as a metric. OH SHIT!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

I never said sethskip should be the tiebreaker.

There should be no "default" position. Many situations exist. If we use your Lute and Artur example, them being at 20/10 and them being at 15/5 are only two of many possible situations that could happen during a playthrough. At this point you just argue which situation happens more often and/or is more relevant to whatever you are trying to argue, as well as argue how big their leads are (for example, if the gap between Artur>Lute when they're 20/10 is twice the gap between Lute>Artur when they're 15/5, but them being 15/5 happens four times as often as them being 20/10, I would probably give the win to Lute for this). Debates usually focus only on a few situations (or only just one) to be simple, but that doesn't mean more situations exist.

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".

That wasn't the point.

My point doesn't care about how exactly many turns you need to extend 2-E by to get whatever you want. My point was that a tradeoff exists, that sometimes the player may want the fast clear, and sometimes the player wants to extend the map and get extra stuff (be it items, exp, or whatever). This was not just about 2-E. You could apply this to any other situation in any other FE. Pick any random map in any FE and examine the differences between "fast clearing it" and "extending it but getting X resources in the process", then the argument becomes how often will the player want to fast clear it, and how often does he want to extend the map (and extend it by how much).

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!

That wasn't the point. Reread what you didn't quote there.

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/.

I am not saying the player is an idiot or doesn't know how to play the game, but rather things like resource distribution and strategies should not be set in stone, because once you do you start veering towards "how to play manual", "LTC", etc., which is again the whole point of this topic.

Edited by IMPrime
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...