FE: Awakening Lunatic Mode Tier List

[Legault!]

OP Rankings are placeholders.

What does "easier to complete" mean in practical terms?

More reliable statistical completion. As a silly example, imagine Unit A has a 60% chance to defeat a boss in one turn, while Unit B has a 90% chance to defeat a boss in three turns. So long as those three turns fit into the parameters, Unit B will be considered a better unit for that map.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Legault!

[Lord Raven]

So I'm going to let that whole argument run its own course before I dis/credit it. It's a solution, but I don't know if it's a positive or negative solution to the problem. But while I feel like your example isn't the best, I can see what you mean in practical terms and it boils down to the argument.

All in all Legault, I think 4-6 (I forget which was decided on) turns above minimum is an okay sort of metric, but I don't think it will significantly alter discussion so much as there's just a little less intuition involved in the matter. It really becomes a convenient argument and I don't see it as any more or less arbitrary than in other threads.

Just my two cents. Carry on, I'm just giving a hypothesis and I wish to wait before I jump to any conclusions based off of facts that aren't there.

[Interceptor]

More reliable statistical completion. As a silly example, imagine Unit A has a 60% chance to defeat a boss in one turn, while Unit B has a 90% chance to defeat a boss in three turns. So long as those three turns fit into the parameters, Unit B will be considered a better unit for that map.

Then what's the tiebreaker if two units have basically identical statistical chances of completion? This seems like a situation that will be pretty common with generous turncount limitations.

[Legault!]

Then what's the tiebreaker if two units have basically identical statistical chances of completion? This seems like a situation that will be pretty common with generous turncount limitations.

This sounds like a cross-that-bridge situation, but assuming this does happen, then long-term potential will be considered. Here's a very real situation: Frederick can reliably one-turn the Prologue boss, but Avatar can also kill the boss and, with the proper support setup, negate any chance of a critical. This usually takes around two turns with some Freddy help. Because the boss kill odds are both around 100% (if something goes horribly wrong and Avatar misses several ~90% true hit odds, Freddy can still clean up), Avatar getting the kill means more as his long-term potential is greater.

In short, if Unit A and Unit B can both deal with Situation X equally as effectively and Unit B deals with the following Situation Y better, Unit B will be considered better.

[Paperblade]

lowest turn count possible while never getting into a nonzero% chance of death situation

also no restarts, ironman this shit

I think that qualifies for brisk.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Paperblade

[Redwall]

lowest turn count possible while never getting into a nonzero% chance of death situation

also no restarts, ironman this shit

I think that qualifies for brisk.

well, enemy crits notwithstanding. But yeah, I would prefer this over "LTC + 4 turns" or whatever.

[Paperblade]

A majority of enemy crits can be worked around by being careful (have a unit that can tank a crit fight them, or attack them at a range they can't counter from), but yeah.

[Blademaster!]

lowest turn count possible while never getting into a nonzero% chance of death situation

So... like any ordinary LTC run. Just set Brisk as less than 10 turns per chapter...

[Legault!]

lowest turn count possible while never getting into a nonzero% chance of death situation

This sounds like Turtle Central right here.

[Paperblade]

So... like any ordinary LTC run. Just set Brisk as less than 10 turns per chapter...

No, most LTC runs have very high chances of failure, people just restart until things go properly.

This sounds like Turtle Central right here.

>lowest turn count

>turtling

what

[Legault!]

>while never getting into a nonzero% chance of death situation

Even with true hit, the one-in-a-million is going to be hard to phase out without hella turtling.

[Paperblade]

You missing should not instantly spell your death. Missing sucks but you should be able to play around it.

[grandjackal]

As to remove subjectivity from this tier list, I recommend that the following characters be dropped from the list entirely.

Stahl

Miriel

Vaike

Nowi

Lucina (Everyone else)

Henry

Everyone in D tier not Basilio and Flavia

Arguing about them in Lunatic is essentially a waste of time.

Libra and Anna should probably be in A tier because they allow us the ability to 1 turn bossrush maps. Since this is unarguable non-subjective fact, the list should reflect that.

Lonqu, Sumia, Cordelia and Lucina should drop to B tier and B tier should pretty much be the cast that isn't the playmakers. Since they aren't making the plays, they should be under the ones that do make the plays.

I say remove the whole turnbank thing entirely if you wish to remove subjectivity because having a turnbank is too subjective and sounds like an excuse to have grey area in one's debate (I still get this result because I still beat it in this turnbank count, so there is no penalty to my argument even though I wasted time on purpose because you allowed me to do so).

So now that we have perfectly set in stone the idea that this list is "God Tier, A Tier, Everyone Else Not Worth Wasting Words", who agrees with Fred over Avatar? Without Fred, Avatar's nonsense wouldn't even be possible, so Fred should get all the credit for allowing you to do it in the first place. It's inarguable fact, so the list should reflect it.

Edited March 27, 2013 by grandjackal

[Legault!]

You missing should not instantly spell your death. Missing sucks but you should be able to play around it.

99 displayed chance of hitting.

99 displayed chance of second hit.

99 displayed chance of third hit.

99 displayed chance of fourth hit.

...

99 displayed chance of ninety-ninth hit.

According to your standard, this isn't good enough. Yes I am being intentionally obstinate here, but "non-zero" is an *incredibly* difficult standard to hold up, especially on Lunatic (where units like Vaike, who are not very good and have low hit, are considered as used for tiering purposes) with its killer enemies.

As to remove subjectivity from this tier list,

...

Arguing about them in Lunatic is essentially a waste of time.

how does this follow

So now that we have perfectly set in stone the idea that this list is "God Tier, A Tier, Everyone Else Not Worth Wasting Words", who agrees with Fred over Avatar? Without Fred, Avatar's nonsense wouldn't even be possible, so Fred should get all the credit for allowing you to do it in the first place. It's inarguable fact, so the list should reflect it.

oh i see you're trying to be clever

In the comparison between "Necessary to complete four maps" and "Breaks half of the game single-handedly," the latter is going to win out due to greater contributions over longer periods of time.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Legault!

[grandjackal]

In the comparison between "Necessary to complete four maps" and "Breaks half of the game single-handedly," the latter is going to win out due to greater contributions over longer periods of time.

Yet he can't break the game single handedly without Fred there because he is, as you stated, necessary. I'd imagine there are several ways of which you can beat the game that don't involve Avatar ripping it apart on his own, but no matter which route the player takes, you will always need Fred to even get anywhere.

[Legault!]

Necessary Tier

3DS

Awakening game cart / digital download

Vision

Working hands

Sentience

Frederick

Pretty Good Tier

Avatar

In case you couldn't tell, I find "necessary therefore best" arguments incredibly stupid. By that logic, most lords would be at the top of top tier, as seizing is necessary to complete the game. And what would we do with healers? Healing isn't strictly necessary to complete Awakening, but offense is. Should we move them to bottom because they aren't strictly necessary?

Character rankings are based on contributions. Frederick contributes in the first four maps to an incredible degree, but what Avatar does for the rest of the game is more valuable on the whole, as it spans a longer period of time. (P.S. The first four maps can technically be solo'd with any set of Paired Up units if you get enough Dual Guard rolls, so Frederick is never completely necessary.)

Edited March 27, 2013 by Legault!

[grandjackal]

In case you couldn't tell, I find "necessary therefore best" arguments incredibly stupid. By that logic, most lords would be at the top of top tier, as seizing is necessary to complete the game. And what would we do with healers? Healing isn't strictly necessary to complete Awakening, but offense is. Should we move them to bottom because they aren't strictly necessary?

If it's unarguable fact that they are worse than necessary, then yes because there is no grey matter involved.

Character rankings are based on contributions. Frederick contributes in the first four maps to an incredible degree, but what Avatar does for the rest of the game is more valuable on the whole, as it spans a longer period of time. (P.S. The first four maps can technically be solo'd with any set of Paired Up units if you get enough Dual Guard rolls, so Frederick is never completely necessary.)

Fred contributes a possible playthrough that does not rely on bordering impossible luck. This is the strongest contribution one can give.

[Florete]

Fred contributes a possible playthrough that does not rely on bordering impossible luck. This is the strongest contribution one can give.

And yet Edward and the Black Knight still aren't topping the Radiant Dawn tier list.

Legault's logic here is pretty commonly used across FE tiering.

[grandjackal]

And yet Edward and the Black Knight still aren't topping the Radiant Dawn tier list.

Legault's logic here is pretty commonly used across FE tiering.

There is a huge difference here. Those games are still possible without said characters, they just happen to provide your fastest route.

With Fred, it's so the game can just be possible.

[Paperblade]

And yet Edward and the Black Knight still aren't topping the Radiant Dawn tier list.

Legault's logic here is pretty commonly used across FE tiering.

I proved that you can beat 1-P without Edward, it just takes like 20 extra turns. I doubt 1-1 would be harder.

I'm pretty sure that you can also beat 1-9 without the BK, it just involves a ton of grinding and luck on Micaiah's part.

Will think about Legault's response to my post, tired.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Paperblade

[Espinosa]

I proved that you can beat 1-P without Edward, it just takes like 20 extra turns. I doubt 1-1 would be harder.

I'm pretty sure that you can also beat 1-9 without the BK, it just involves a ton of grinding and luck on Micaiah's part.

Will think about Legault's response to my post, tired.

Micaiah's combat proficiency is actually necessary for LTCing that chapter. In this video, she's at L13 in a continuous efficient run with slightly above average stats and Resolve. Needs some luck to survive but still.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Espinosa

[Quick]

Lonqu, Sumia, Cordelia and Lucina should drop to B tier and B tier should pretty much be the cast that isn't the playmakers. Since they aren't making the plays, they should be under the ones that do make the plays.

Am I the only person who used Lon'qu as my main attacker and Panne as a support unit? I swear he is one of the best offensive units for the majority of the game (I can think of like, 4 chapters where it's not a good idea to just rely on him and those are some of the last chapters in the game)

[Legault!]

There is a huge difference here. Those games are still possible

Awakening is also possible without Frederick if you get lucky, so I fail to see the difference. Even if you are going to rank "absolutely necessary" characters at the very top, Frederick fails to qualify.

Also, some more thoughts about the non-zero chance of failure approach Paperblade suggested: if I'm wrapping my mind around this correctly, it would mean treating all non-100 displayed hit values for the player as 0 and all non-0 displayed hit values for the enemy as 100.

[grandjackal]

Awakening is also possible without Frederick if you get lucky, so I fail to see the difference. Even if you are going to rank "absolutely necessary" characters at the very top, Frederick fails to qualify.

Really, you're fighting my argument with "If the player is lucky"? Anything can work "if I'm lucky enough". The thing with Fred means there is no luck required.

As for fails to qualify, try doing the first set of chapters without using him at all and tell me he's not necessary to even begin the game. Then again, apparently the game gives you dual guards at every turn, so I guess we can't argue with the luckmaster, can we?

Also, some more thoughts about the non-zero chance of failure approach Paperblade suggested: if I'm wrapping my mind around this correctly, it would mean treating all non-100 displayed hit values for the player as 0 and all non-0 displayed hit values for the enemy as 100.

Assuming the worst is usually a good idea when random factor can completely destroy a strategy. Less luck involved, the better, though your statement takes it to extremes because middle ground doesn't seem to exist in your vocabulary.

[Recondite]

Awakening is also possible without Frederick if you get lucky, so I fail to see the difference. Even if you are going to rank "absolutely necessary" characters at the very top, Frederick fails to qualify.

Also, some more thoughts about the non-zero chance of failure approach Paperblade suggested: if I'm wrapping my mind around this correctly, it would mean treating all non-100 displayed hit values for the player as 0 and all non-0 displayed hit values for the enemy as 100.

I'd like to see someone beat the prologue under these restrictions (hint: you can't)

And have fun never using the silver lance

Edited March 27, 2013 by Recondite