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

[Anouleth]

I know what you were saying, Smash, but I wasn't like Anouleth and twisting it to mean something stupid like that.

Except that I didn't twist anyone's words. smash made it pretty clear that FEFF lists are based on what units are most likely to be deployed (he spoke of them being "fielded", and "filling slots"), and I point out that the units that are most likely to be deployed aren't what most people would consider "better". It's fine as a rule of thumb, that breaks down when a unit is forced or if we have enough slots for everyone. In the same way turncounts also serve as a good rule of thumb; in my opinion, a significantly better rule of thumb.

It's good to see that he's recanted this and his new definition is better; in other words, he wants to tier characetrs based on what they do. An intelligent player is more likely to have a character that can do useful things do things. Which is exactly what I've been saying.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Anouleth

[Dark Sage]

Okay so here's the thing with Sue. For one chapter, sure, let's say Shin is super-necessary and so she gets a deployment rating of 1.00 (100%). Then for the rest of the game, she's not so good, so she gets a rating of, I dunno, 0.30. Now, let's look at her availability. I'm not going to count up how many chapters she's around for; fuck if I care about the exact number. Le's call it 25. So what's her overall rating? Well, she's got a rating of 1.00 for one chapter and a rating of 0.30 for the other 24. So let's take the average.

(1.00 x 1 + 0.30 x 24) / 25 = 0.328

So, ultimately, how much is that one deployment going to change her tier rating? Going from 0.30 to 0.328 (because fuck consistent decimals) might bump her up a spot or two, but no more. If she would be in Low Tier without the recruitment, it's not going to make her jump to High Tier. If she's in Upper Mid, maybe it would. I don't know her current tier position and I don't care to check, but I'm guessing it's not so great if a jump to High Tier would be such a bizarre occurrence.

And does this not make sense? After all, if you want Shin that much, then of course you want to deploy Sue to recruit him. So using her means you can bring her for that one chapter without having to give up the space of a unit you're using for combat for one you aren't. So it makes sense that she could get a small bonus, just not something huge.

Just so you know, recruitment of characters is generally not seen as a reason why people are better on tier lists. This is because recruiting a character is only considered valuable if we're using them. Since using the recruiter does not mean we're necessarily using the recruited character, it does not really affect the recruiter's performance.

@Epinosa: WTF man. As somebody who has played cello for 4 years (I quit 2 years ago), recorder for 6, and guitar for 2 years, I can say you are absolutely wrong on all counts.

[Aethereal]

Okay so here's the thing with Sue. For one chapter, sure, let's say Shin is super-necessary and so she gets a deployment rating of 1.00 (100%). Then for the rest of the game, she's not so good, so she gets a rating of, I dunno, 0.30. Now, let's look at her availability. I'm not going to count up how many chapters she's around for; fuck if I care about the exact number. Le's call it 25. So what's her overall rating? Well, she's got a rating of 1.00 for one chapter and a rating of 0.30 for the other 24. So let's take the average.

(1.00 x 1 + 0.30 x 24) / 25 = 0.328

So, ultimately, how much is that one deployment going to change her tier rating? Going from 0.30 to 0.328 (because fuck consistent decimals) might bump her up a spot or two, but no more. If she would be in Low Tier without the recruitment, it's not going to make her jump to High Tier. If she's in Upper Mid, maybe it would. I don't know her current tier position and I don't care to check, but I'm guessing it's not so great if a jump to High Tier would be such a bizarre occurrence.

And does this not make sense? After all, if you want Shin that much, then of course you want to deploy Sue to recruit him. So using her means you can bring her for that one chapter without having to give up the space of a unit you're using for combat for one you aren't. So it makes sense that she could get a small bonus, just not something huge.

Marcus, Zealot, Lance, or Alan all have a less than 100% chance of being deployed on that chapter, and Sue would get deployed every time, just because of Shin. Despite Sue sitting in the back and not doing crap, and one of those 4 potentially dominating the chapter, your system would have Sue being more valuable in that chapter. Anouleth's right, but you're putting the cart before the horse.

[Othin]

Just so you know, recruitment of characters is generally not seen as a reason why people are better on tier lists. This is because recruiting a character is only considered valuable if we're using them. Since using the recruiter does not mean we're necessarily using the recruited character, it does not really affect the recruiter's performance.

As you know, I couldn't care less about convention.

Regarding your reasoning, that's something we can still take into account. I was responding to Anouleth's example of Shin being so super-important to recruit that Sue would get a 1.00 rating for the chapter for needing to be brought for him, but you're right that that tends to not follow reality. I don't know or care how good Shin is currently considered, but you're right that recruiting him might not be such a big deal, and Sue's rating for the chapter could drop to 0.90, 0.80, or less, corresponding with how much we actually care about recruiting Shin. That's all possible to take into account with this system.

Personally, I'm more surprised people aren't up in arms about the obvious implications of the fact that I decided to take the average rather than simply adding. That's the other key part of this.

Marcus, Zealot, Lance, or Alan all have a less than 100% chance of being deployed on that chapter, and Sue would get deployed every time, just because of Shin. Despite Sue sitting in the back and not doing crap, and one of those 4 potentially dominating the chapter, your system would have Sue being more valuable in that chapter. Anouleth's right, but you're putting the cart before the horse.

You're correct to observe that Sue may well be the most valuable unit for that one chapter. I already took that into account and explained (and mathematically demonstrated) how that alone would not change her rating enough for her to be considered better than those other units. Where's the problem? You've failed to show any basis for the assertion that Anouleth is in the right on this matter.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Othin

[dondon151]

I don't think Sue is a good example of whatever we're trying to quantify.

The problem with higher tier = more likely deployment is that not every map is the same, therefore they don't require the same unit skills necessary for completion. Thief deployment in FE6 is a better example; there are only a select few maps in the game where treasure exists at all (and when they do, they exist in large quantities). Pretend for a second that FE6 didn't have Chest Keys and you were required to deploy thieves to unlock treasure chests. Then they'd be very likely to be deployed on those maps, but they will never be deployed on maps where there are no chests (OK, Astohl in the Western Isles is an exception).

It's a more accurate statement to say that units that are more likely to be deployed will generally be in a higher tier, but it's incorrect to say that units in a higher tier will unequivocally be deployed more often. That is to say, you're not supposed to look at a tier list and say, "oh, this unit is in high tier so I'll field him 80% of the time, and this unit is in low tier and I'll field him 20% of the time." You don't just roll dice to figure out who you're going to deploy.

[BBM]

Also, how does this apply to say, a ranked HHM tier list? IIRC, Matthew is ranked top there pretty much only for stealing the Silver Card in Chapter 19. Even if you didn't deploy him any other chapter, or after you get Chest Keys, that Silver Card is essential enough for 5 star Funds that at the very least, his score would under-represent his value.

[Paperblade]

Matthew's spot in HHM is debatable because the Silver Card is extremely useful but at the same time it's a single action in a single chapter

[BBM]

Matthew's spot in HHM is debatable because the Silver Card is extremely useful but at the same time it's a single action in a single chapter

And I don't agree with it either- I'm just stating his current position on that tier list, and that that position would not hold well at all with this style of tiering. Possibly that means we should drop Matthew, I dunno.

[Naglfar]

There seems to be a logic issue here. I'm reading tier position = chance of deployment. It's more like overall quality = tier position and immediate relevance + a bit of overall quality = chance of deployment. High tier placing and high chance of deployment are symptoms of the same factor, but they aren't directly related and shouldn't be treated as such.

Matthew's spot in HHM is debatable because the Silver Card is extremely useful but at the same time it's a single action in a single chapter

Isn't it completely unnecessary outside of ranked?

[Paperblade]

Maybe you should go read the post I was responding to

[Naglfar]

welp

[Aethereal]

You're correct to observe that Sue may well be the most valuable unit for that one chapter. I already took that into account and explained (and mathematically demonstrated) how that alone would not change her rating enough for her to be considered better than those other units. Where's the problem? You've failed to show any basis for the assertion that Anouleth is in the right on this matter.

I guess I can spell out the point: I don't see how Sue can possibly be the most valuable person in a chapter, when other units trivialize it, and Sue does not necessarily contribute anything.

Furthermore, this method implies that since we want to recruit Shin, Sue is the best unit for this chapter. If Sue is unlikely to do anything else, Sue is being given some credit for Shin's future contributions. That seems silly, after all we can just give Shin credit for Shin's future contributions.

Your method determines that because a unit is more likely to be deployed they are more valuable. However, we don't need to try to quantify value with likelihood of being deployed, because each units' contributions are what help you finish the game in the first place, and not the deployment of the unit. The contributions are, therefore, what should be evaluated in order to demonstrate the worth of a unit.

Also, your method gives equal weight to contributions in each chapter, and I'm sure you can see why that's a problem. Unless you think all chapters have the exact same difficulty.

[Othin]

I guess I can spell out the point: I don't see how Sue can possibly be the most valuable person in a chapter, when other units trivialize it, and Sue does not necessarily contribute anything.

Furthermore, this method implies that since we want to recruit Shin, Sue is the best unit for this chapter. If Sue is unlikely to do anything else, Sue is being given some credit for Shin's future contributions. That seems silly, after all we can just give Shin credit for Shin's future contributions.

Your method determines that because a unit is more likely to be deployed they are more valuable. However, we don't need to try to quantify value with likelihood of being deployed, because each units' contributions are what help you finish the game in the first place, and not the deployment of the unit. The contributions are, therefore, what should be evaluated in order to demonstrate the worth of a unit.

Also, your method gives equal weight to contributions in each chapter, and I'm sure you can see why that's a problem. Unless you think all chapters have the exact same difficulty.

If you want Shin so much that you'd be more likely to deploy Sue just for his sake than you would be to deploy Alan or Lance for their insane combat, then the one conversation of recruiting Shin is a valuable contribution. Sue doesn't need to take credit for the things Shin might do later, but if you want Shin, Sue makes that possible. If Sue helps you complete the game by making Shin available, that is a contribution that must be evaluated, if only in the context of that one chapter. Shin's actions do not exist in a vacuum: they are only possible because of Sue's brief use.

You appear to be stuck with this notion that conversations cannot be a contribution. Unfortunately for you, that notion is completely wrong. It's like having a Thief open a chest and get a Brave Lance. The Thief doesn't have to get credit for every enemy to die from that Brave Lance, but he gets credit for making it possible.

You're right that equal weight may not be the best method. But that is not an inherent part of my method; the weighting can be adjusted as appropriate.

@dondon: It doesn't have to be a matter of rolling dice. Say we rated Astohl as Mid Tier under those conditions, to convey that he's good to bring sometimes but not all the time. A player could see the list, understand this, and easily recognize when he's useful to bring, then bring him in those chapters and not in other chapters. Brief explanations of each characters' reasons for placement could also establish this sort of thing clearly for a tier list.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Othin

[Anouleth]

If you want Shin so much that you'd be more likely to deploy Sue just for his sake than you would be to deploy Alan or Lance for their insane combat, then the one conversation of recruiting Shin is a valuable contribution. Sue doesn't need to take credit for the things Shin might do later, but if you want Shin, Sue makes that possible. If Sue helps you complete the game by making Shin available, that is a contribution that must be evaluated, if only in the context of that one chapter. Shin's actions do not exist in a vacuum: they are only possible because of Sue's brief use.

While that's true, it's a truth that most people do not care about. You will be hard pressed to get a tier list that rewards characters for recruiting units anywhere.

You appear to be stuck with this notion that conversations cannot be a contribution. Unfortunately for you, that notion is completely wrong.

Again with this arrogance. There is not a "wrong" or a "right" way to tier characters. Ultimately, what makes units "good" and "bad" is a subjective notion; not an objective one like you claim. It's true that you could count conversations as a contribution; unfortunately, most people don't want to.

@dondon: It doesn't have to be a matter of rolling dice. Say we rated Astohl as Mid Tier under those conditions, to convey that he's good to bring sometimes but not all the time. A player could see the list, understand this, and easily recognize when he's useful to bring, then bring him in those chapters and not in other chapters.

But he could interpret it in other ways. Maybe he interprets it as Astohl not being worth using over Fir; therefore, he brings Fir to every chapter instead of Astohl. The best way to play would be to bring Fir to most chapters, but replace her with Astohl in those chapters with chests, but an ordered list alone cannot convey that information.

Brief explanations of each characters' reasons for placement could also establish this sort of thing clearly for a tier list.

Or just make a character guide.

[Othin]

While that's true, it's a truth that most people do not care about. You will be hard pressed to get a tier list that rewards characters for recruiting units anywhere.

As I have already explained, I haven't the slightest concern for conventions, and I have already demonstrated that convention to be completely illogical.

Again with this arrogance. There is not a "wrong" or a "right" way to tier characters. Ultimately, what makes units "good" and "bad" is a subjective notion; not an objective one like you claim. It's true that you could count conversations as a contribution; unfortunately, most people don't want to.

Most people haven't been exposed to my brilliant mind and logic.

Let's not talk about most people. Let's talk about you. In the face of my explanations about how bringing an otherwise unused unit is a small cost that is removed if you use them, and that recruiting characters is akin to opening chests, can you or can you not come up with a justification for excluding recruitment considerations from the small weight I have proposed they should have on tier lists?

But he could interpret it in other ways. Maybe he interprets it as Astohl not being worth using over Fir; therefore, he brings Fir to every chapter instead of Astohl. The best way to play would be to bring Fir to most chapters, but replace her with Astohl in those chapters with chests, but an ordered list alone cannot convey that information.

Hence the explanations.

Regardless, I can't imagine that many players would refuse to bring a thief to chapters with chests, especially when thieves are the only characters able to open those chests.

Or just make a character guide.

This method combines all the best aspects of a tier list with a guide: the simplicity and clarity of a tier list, and the core vital information of a guide to interpret that list.

Besides, my standpoint is that Othin Tier > Serenes Tier. It is not affected by whether or not Guide > Othin Tier.

[aku chi]

Othin, a single ordered list cannot convey the type of information you want it to (whom is best to deploy in each chapter). Let's take FE9 as an example, because it demonstrates a couple important dilemmas.

FE9 has a bunch of units that have poor starts but become great->excellent with a large Bexp dump (Marcia, Jill, Astrid, and Makalov most prominently). Marcia and Jill are among the most valuable units in the game if they get a large Bexp dump. However, it's generally optimal to focus on training only one of these units (because they need a lot of Bexp, and two trained fliers before C18 has marginal use). How can you possibly convey this in a linear list. If you give Marcia a large Bexp dump and Jill none, Marcia is one of the best units to deploy and Jill a poor choice on most maps. If you give Jill a large Bexp dump and Marcia none, Jill is one of the best units to deploy and Marcia a poor choice on most maps. If you give both units a large Bexp dump, they are both among the best units to deploy. If you give neither of these units Bexp, they are both occasionally useful to deploy in chapters where a flying ferry is useful. How do you demonstrate this in a linear list?

FE9 also has units that are considerably more valuable in early chapters and units that are more valuable in later chapters. Take the example of Lethe and Mist. Lethe is pretty valuable right off the bat. She's one of the best units to deploy for several chapters. But her value tapers off in lategame as her Atk doesn't scale up with the beorc. Mist, on the other hand, has an unspectacular start as a 5-mov staff user with low stats. She's one of the worst units to deploy in her early chapters. Whenever you promote Mist, she becomes considerably better (8-mov staff user with canto, a higher staff rank, and passable stats). Mist might further become better as higher level staves like Physic, Rescue, and Sleep become available. Mist can even take some lategame resources (most prominently, the Sonic Sword) to become a good combat unit on top of everything else. Mist can be one of the best units to deploy in later chapters. How do you demonstrate this in a linear list?

Besides, my standpoint is that Othin Tier > Serenes Tier. It is not affected by whether or not Guide > Othin Tier.

Your style of tier list may very well be better at informing people which units to deploy in each chapter. But this is a hollow victory considering that isn't the purpose of a Serenes Forest tier list. A Serenes Forest tier list is a linear ranking of units' contributions towards some goal (commonly, completion efficiency or rank). It too, is an imperfect medium for the task at hand, because a unit's contributions are not independent of which other units are deployed and how resources are distributed. But it comes closer to this goal than any ordered list can become a concise unit guide.

Edited April 5, 2012 by aku chi

[Othin]

So we average different ways the characters could go and weight them appropriately, offering a few sentences for each character below the list to dispel any likely misunderstandings.

A linear list offers some important information in a simplified form, but it will always be missing details like that unless supported with brief explanations, as it always should be.

[Anouleth]

As I have already explained, I haven't the slightest concern for conventions, and I have already demonstrated that convention to be completely illogical.

Well, fine. Go and make this tier list if you want, but don't be surprised when nobody wants to discuss it. With all the complaining and bitching you do here, you could have made a hundred lists in that time.

Let's not talk about most people. Let's talk about you. In the face of my explanations about how bringing an otherwise unused unit is a small cost that is removed if you use them, and that recruiting characters is akin to opening chests, can you or can you not come up with a justification for excluding recruitment considerations from the small weight I have proposed they should have on tier lists?

"Because neither I, nor the majority of the tiering community (such as it is), wants to discuss it." And that's really what tier lists are about.

Moreover, for all that you blither about how tier lists should be servicable as a guide, do tell me how having Sue above Shin on the tier list "because she recruits him" is a helpful thing to tell a new player?

Regardless, I can't imagine that many players would refuse to bring a thief to chapters with chests, especially when thieves are the only characters able to open those chests.

If the player is smart enough to figure out which characters to deploy on their own, then surely there is no point in the tier list telling them which ones to deploy?

This method combines all the best aspects of a tier list with a guide: the simplicity and clarity of a tier list, and the core vital information of a guide to interpret that list.

Except that it si exactly the same as a character guide, since almost all character guides also provide lists of how characters compare to each other, or at least provide numerical scores for each unit.

And if you admit that a character guide is better than your idea for a tier list, then make that. The Serenes tier lists can stay, because their purpose is just for discussion and not to be a guide; but there's no point in trying to make a combination of the two since it would not really achieve either goal.

[Othin]

Well, fine. Go and make this tier list if you want, but don't be surprised when nobody wants to discuss it. With all the complaining and bitching you do here, you could have made a hundred lists in that time.

but that would violate rule #386

"Because neither I, nor the majority of the tiering community (such as it is), wants to discuss it." And that's really what tier lists are about.

boring

Moreover, for all that you blither about how tier lists should be servicable as a guide, do tell me how having Sue above Shin on the tier list "because she recruits him" is a helpful thing to tell a new player?

I have never proposed having Sue be above Shin. As I said, if we give Sue a rating of 0.30 for the rest of the game, then the one chapter of being awesome would only bump her up to an overall rating of about 0.33. And if recruiting Shin really is that important, I suspect his rating must still be much higher.

If the player is smart enough to figure out which characters to deploy on their own, then surely there is no point in the tier list telling them which ones to deploy?

Not everything is so obvious.

Except that it si exactly the same as a character guide, since almost all character guides also provide lists of how characters compare to each other, or at least provide numerical scores for each unit.

I envision it as having more rating and less guiding than a regular guide. But if not, what does it matter?

And if you admit that a character guide is better than your idea for a tier list, then make that. The Serenes tier lists can stay, because their purpose is just for discussion and not to be a guide; but there's no point in trying to make a combination of the two since it would not really achieve either goal.

but i don't want to make a guide

except for berwick saga but you guys get all whiny whenever i bring that up

[dondon151]

@dondon: It doesn't have to be a matter of rolling dice. Say we rated Astohl as Mid Tier under those conditions, to convey that he's good to bring sometimes but not all the time. A player could see the list, understand this, and easily recognize when he's useful to bring, then bring him in those chapters and not in other chapters. Brief explanations of each characters' reasons for placement could also establish this sort of thing clearly for a tier list.

A player cannot understand that just from looking at a tier list because the tier list conveys no such information. What about the less obvious cases like Klein or Shin in chapter 12? If you make the assumption that the player always knows exactly when to deploy a unit, then doesn't that defeat the "higher tier = more likely to be deployed" generalization, anyway?

There are plenty of brief and lengthy explanations for character placement scattered throughout tier list history. A good place to summarize that would be a character guide.

[Hawk King]

My two cents.

Tier lists are not meant for players who are new/unfamiliar with a game. Tier lists are for crazy fanatics (no offence intended) who have played the game many times. They are for players who dont need to be told that thieves main uses are stealing and opening chests/doors.

Guides however, ARE meant to teach and inform inexperienced players.

[Aethereal]

If you want Shin so much that you'd be more likely to deploy Sue just for his sake than you would be to deploy Alan or Lance for their insane combat, then the one conversation of recruiting Shin is a valuable contribution. Sue doesn't need to take credit for the things Shin might do later, but if you want Shin, Sue makes that possible. If Sue helps you complete the game by making Shin available, that is a contribution that must be evaluated, if only in the context of that one chapter. Shin's actions do not exist in a vacuum: they are only possible because of Sue's brief use.

You appear to be stuck with this notion that conversations cannot be a contribution. Unfortunately for you, that notion is completely wrong. It's like having a Thief open a chest and get a Brave Lance. The Thief doesn't have to get credit for every enemy to die from that Brave Lance, but he gets credit for making it possible.

The conversation contributes in the form of Shin doing things later on in the game. Shin does not exist in a vacuum, but I don't see why what he does counts as a positive for both characters. If we say that Shin is good because he's good at killing dracoknights, and Sue is good for recruiting Shin, Shin's contributions are being counted twice. Furthermore, there's much more ridiculous examples. Roy recruits Clarine, who recruits Rutger and Klein, and Klein recruits Tate. So Roy gets credit for 4 other units' contributions, based on one conversation? Tate's contributions would be given credit four times over, once to herself, Klein, Clarine, and Roy. You're not seeing what's wrong with that?

You're right that equal weight may not be the best method. But that is not an inherent part of my method; the weighting can be adjusted as appropriate.

And you would make these weightings based on the contributions in the actual chapter? Because that sounds like you're just evaluating the contributions anyways. Except in a very roundabout, and unnecessary way.

How does this work when the amount of unit slots available relative to the amount of units you have changes? This system gives characters much more credit for being available when there are high amounts of deployment slots than normal, and punishes you for being around with a low amount. The biggest flaw with this is that more likely to be deployed in those chapters=/=more likely to contribute substantially. Especially when there will be more competition to contribute in those chapters.

Again, we don't need to quantify value with likelihood of being deployed, because the contributions are what help you complete the game. Therefore what should be evaluated is the contributions, not the act of being deployed. I said this before, and you ignored it, but w/e. You've failed to demonstrate how likelihood of being deployed is more important consideration than actual contributions.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Aethereal

[BBM]

But if Roy recruits, directly or indirectly, Clarine, Rutger, Klein, and Tate, his score doesn't become the sum of all of them. It's just like +1 point for netting you some useful characters. You're not quadruple counting Tate if you give units a small credit for recruiting; you're just giving them a +1 (or whatever value) bonus point. I agree with Othin on this point; units should get some small recognition for recruiting characters.

[Anouleth]

I have never proposed having Sue be above Shin. As I said, if we give Sue a rating of 0.30 for the rest of the game, then the one chapter of being awesome would only bump her up to an overall rating of about 0.33. And if recruiting Shin really is that important, I suspect his rating must still be much higher.

Well then, let's take another of my examples. Is it really helpful to a new player to leave Eliwood or Roy off the tier list entirely because you cannot think of a "meaningful" way to tier them? Is it really helpful to put Edward in bottom tier because his contributions in Part 1 and Part 3 cannot be counted? Is it really useful to indicate to a player that Sothe should not be used since his deployment is either forced or free in every chapter except for 4-E-4 and 4-E-5? Or Syrene in Top because she is practically guaranteed to be deployed in all four of her chapters? I do like Syrene, but not that much.

You are fond of telling us that we should assume that the game is never reset, and characters that die are allowed to stay dead. But if too many characters die, the number of deployment slots will exceed the number of units, even with a fairly moderate rate of attrition (say, 1 unit per chapter). Even if it's not quite the case that so many units die, the pressure of competition would still be greatly less. Certainly, someone like Niime would be practically guaranteed deployment if your other dedicated casters like Saul, or Ellen died.

except for berwick saga but you guys get all whiny whenever i bring that up

I think it would be good to see a guide for Tear Ring Saga. There's a tier list, but that doesn't really carry any information, and in general, it's a game that doesn't see a lot of discussion.

But if it doesn't interest you, it doesn't interest you! It's silly for people to have romantic notions about creating a tier list that's objectively accurate, or perfect. In the end, tier lists merely reflect what the community considers to be "good" or "bad", and above that, what people are interested in talking about. For the SSBB community, a good unit is one that performs under tournament conditions in the hands of skilled players... but there are many other definitions, and they're no more or less valid, it's just that they don't interest the kind of hardcore community that works on tier lists.

But if Roy recruits, directly or indirectly, Clarine, Rutger, Klein, and Tate, his score doesn't become the sum of all of them. It's just like +1 point for netting you some useful characters. You're not quadruple counting Tate if you give units a small credit for recruiting; you're just giving them a +1 (or whatever value) bonus point. I agree with Othin on this point; units should get some small recognition for recruiting characters.

In a way, they do, in the same way they get credit for being forced; they're there anyway, so they can gain experience or make combat contributions, but they're not rewarded for being there. If Fiona recruited Caineghis, she wouldn't get any credit since even assuming her deployment, she can't do anything.

And really, it would get very silly with Roy. He recruits, or indirectly recruits, about half the cast of FE6. Clarine, Rutger, Klein, Tate, Treck, Zealot, Sue, Shin, Noah, Fir, Bartre, Karel, Dayan, Geese, Cath, Hugh, and depending on how you define it, even Miredy and Zeiss. In fact, you can't even get the best ending without using Roy since you cannot get either version of 20x.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Anouleth

[Progenitus]

Like I said earlier, recruitment is only worth as much as saving a unit slot for that map.