Jump to content

Alternative tiering suggestion: Maximum BEXP


Recommended Posts

Having just finished another run through of this game, and having read the thread on the FE General board about Jeigans (which morphed into a discussion of tier lists), I thought about the possibility of creating a tier list for something that isn't simply focused on a low turn count. Before I start criticizing LTC, I do want to point out that turn count is an important criterion, and one that intuitively makes sense as a criterion to be used in any tiering discussion. A turn count criterion adds challenge to the game that otherwise isn't present while not imposing arbitrary, hard caps on your options (in contrast to, say, a max-Funds run). However, I do think that using a low turn count as the exclusive criterion is misguided. There are three primary concerns I have with using LTC as the basis for a tier list:

1. Strategy games are meant to be non-formulaic, or in other words, meant to be played and beaten with multiple strategies. Games that require a player to use one specific strategy to win may require some original thought to discover the strategy, but once it's found, there is no purpose to continue playing; it's like playing the same Sudoku puzzle over after having already beaten it. By definition, to get the lowest turn count, there is one possible strategy to employ, with immaterial changes in the details. (For instance, if a chapter were to require a 9-move unit to rescue the Lord and carry to the finish, you could use different members of the same 9-move class interchangeably, but the actual strategy is the same -- you're just calling the same variable in the formula by a different name.) In other words, low turn count changes a strategy game, meant to use multiple strategies, into a puzzle game, with only one. There's no problem with that necessarily, but as someone who views the Fire Emblem franchise as a strategy franchise instead of a puzzle franchise, I would personally prefer for a tier list for its games to act upon the former premise.

2. My perception is that the vast majority of Fire Emblem players don't care about LTC. While a majority of them would probably recognize lower turn counts as a measure of higher skill at the game, and perhaps a majority even strive to minimize turn counts in and of themselves, lowest turn count strategies simply lack popular appeal. While it's true that a possible explanation of this phenomenon is that the majority of Fire Emblem players lack the skill to do an LTC, I opt for an alternative explanation that is more charitable to the majority of the player base: the player base probably has views that align with the sentiment I expressed in (1) above. They may never have actively expressed the strategy-to-puzzle concept that I mentioned, but the simple fact is that the FE franchise is billed as a strategy franchise, and so the player base for it plays it as a strategy game. Playing it as a puzzle game may (as I've heard one person put it) seem "gimmicky" or otherwise not how it's "supposed" to be played. (And while I disagree profusely with the notion that there is any set way that a game is "supposed" to be played, I understand the sentiment; I do feel that my moves are gimmicky when I'm focusing primarily on Rescues and Shoves and the actual combat is the side-bar. Understand that this feeling is simply my feeling and not part of my criticism.) I think that a tier list should strive to be accessible and usable for the majority of Fire Emblem players. Hence, a focus on a more strategy-oriented tiering criterion instead of LTC would improve the tier list's applicability to the entire player base.

3. The lowest turn count criterion provides no objective, material benefit to the player. Using Path of Radiance as an example, the actual turn count itself only shows up on a screen during the Epilogue and provides no tangible benefit for a lower count. In fact, the game doesn't even record turn counts, so unless you write it down, keep track mentally or videotape your game as you play, you won't even know what your count is, let alone receive any objectively-measured benefit from it. LTC's biggest benefit in terms of actually rewarding the player is in whatever bragging rights one can get for finishing the game that quickly, whether being able to show off to friends who play FE or being able to get your score recorded on an all-time list on a forum somewhere. It's typically agreed upon that efficiency should be the goal of a tier list, but when we define efficiency in terms which convey no actual innate benefit or loss, the meaning of efficiency itself is lost. If I said I didn't value LTC and elected to play a slower game, then outside of the circular definition of efficiency as LTC, could we actually say I'm playing less efficiently? The answer is no.

Hence, I propose an alternative criterion for tiering characters in an effort to maintain turn count as a relevant criterion (due to its undeniable intuitive value) while tying it to a material benefit which appeals to a wider player base and allows for more strategic gameplay. That criterion is maximizing bonus experience. Anyone who cares enough to try to tier characters seriously will already understand BEXP's connection to lower turn counts, so let me instead address how it resolves the other concerns.

1. A player can maximize his or her bonus experience on a given map by completing it in a set number of turns. That set number of turns is, to my knowledge, always less stringent than the LTC requirement. Less stringent turn count requirements allow the player to employ multiple strategies while satisfying the criterion. The core element of strategy gaming -- being able to use your own creative planning to meet your objectives in a set time frame -- returns, and with it, Fire Emblem feels like a strategy franchise again. LTC strategies can still be employed, as a matter of fact, so this shift causes no harm to those who do value LTC as the ultimate end. It may render LTC strategies suboptimal, if we're allowed to use more powerful characters (and thus improve the reliability of our strategies) due to the increased flexibility... but that shouldn't be considered a harm unto itself. If this criterion is indeed adopted as superior, and a previously-optimal strategy is rendered suboptimal, that's the problem of the strategy and not the criterion.

2. The average player likes bonus experience, and will seek to gain more of it than less, ceteris paribus. By centering the tiers on a criterion that the player base at large values, the tier list's relevance to the player base is increased. I'm aware not everyone will value this benefit, but I personally consider it a reasonable goal for the tier list, and so see this as a definite improvement.

3. Aiming for maximum bonus experience provides an objective, material benefit to the player, namely "maximum bonus experience." Gaining as much bonus experience as possible boosts the overall strength of the party. Bonus experience is actually more valuable than normal experience, because it is not locked to a single character. Though the amount of normal experience available in a chapter fluctuates, I believe it can be said that maximizing bonus experience provides the party with more total experience, even though it invariably comes at the price of a reduction in normal experience. Like I said before, if we base efficiency on LTC, we're left with nothing more but a circular definition to defend it as efficient. It's possible to construct strategies which do not result in the lowest possible turn count but which do not incur any material losses. It is definitionally impossible to construct the same for maximum BEXP strategies. We can thus define efficiency in terms of maximum BEXP for non-circular reasons, which must be valuable, if only for purposes of epistemology.

For these reasons, I would propose that we attempt to create a tier list that does not rely on LTC, but instead on MBE.

tl;dr:

1. LTC, though intuitively useful, is a suboptimal criterion because it removes the strategy aspect of the game, is not widely popular and provides the player no tangible benefit (and thus leads us to define efficiency in a circular manner).

2. "Maximizing BEXP" is a better criterion because it allows for more flexibility in planning (read: strategy, not puzzle), has widespread appeal and provides a tangible benefit and non-circular definition of efficiency.

3. Therefore I propose creating a new tier list based on maximizing BEXP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For Christ's sake, lowest turn count is never used for tier lists. How many times must this be explained? And the reason it isn't used is basically the reason you gave, that it generally requires one specific strategy and just isn't interesting for playing or discussing once it is known. We tier characters based on how well and reliably they allow us to lower the turn count in general.

The idea of a BEXP based tier list is not a bad one by any means, but it likely wouldn't end up much, if any different than the current list because most maps end up being played the same but allowing the player to take a bit longer. The one potentially big change I can think of is that the player would have plenty of time to collect any and all special items from chests and such that might not normally be acquired. Also, how would you propose the list treat Chs 8 and 13 where BEXP is awarded for not sending units into battle (effectively meaning, iirc, one must deploy no one but Ike to achieve max BEXP)?

Edited by Red Fox of Fire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For Christ's sake, lowest turn count is never used for tier lists. How many times must this be explained? And the reason it isn't used is basically the reason you gave, that it generally requires one specific strategy and just isn't interesting for playing or discussing once it is known. We tier characters based on how well and reliably they allow us to lower the turn count in general.
That's a distinction without a difference; whether we're talking absolutely lowest-turn-count or "how low can this character get the turn count," the point is the same; minimal turn count is the criterion. It's still faulty for the reasons I gave, and thus (in my opinion) not worth using.
The idea of a BEXP based tier list is not a bad one by any means, but it likely wouldn't end up much, if any different than the current list because most maps end up being played the same but allowing the player to take a bit longer. The one potentially big change I can think of is that the player would have plenty of time to collect any and all special items from chests and such that might not normally be acquired.

It may or may not look significantly different -- I'd imagine a lot more units become more viable, but whether that changes their relative positioning is indeterminable until we actually do it. And even if the results were the exact same, this would still get us the same results under a better (if for the moment we accepted the premise as true) criterion, which would still be an improvement.

Also, how would you propose the list treat Chs 8 and 13 where BEXP is awarded for not sending units into battle (effectively meaning, iirc, one must deploy no one but Ike to achieve max BEXP)?

Probably the same way the current tier list handles it -- namely, by using a different criterion for evaluating units in those specific chapters. Incidentally, they're both Survive chapters, where your turn count can't actually be reduced beyond a certain point due to game hardcoding. In any case, thanks for pointing this out, I'd forgotten about that specific quirk of those chapters and it is a factor.

Edited by PresidentEden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a distinction without a difference; whether we're talking absolutely lowest-turn-count or "how low can this character get the turn count," the point is the same; minimal turn count is the criterion. It's still faulty for the reasons I gave, and thus (in my opinion) not worth using.

Some of what you said:

Games that require a player to use one specific strategy to win may require some original thought to discover the strategy, but once it's found, there is no purpose to continue playing
By definition, to get the lowest turn count, there is one possible strategy to employ, with immaterial changes in the details

Simply doesn't apply to our tier lists. The lists wouldn't have any activity if what you're saying about them was true. Your whole #2 is irrelevant because the casual player doesn't care about tier lists in the first place. #3 can be said of basically any tiering criteria because, at the end of the day, the game doesn't care how you beat the game, only that you do. Any challenges aside from that, including ranks, turns, BEXP, etc. is player-induced.

I don't want to clog this topic up with tiering philosophy because I hate tiering philosophy, so I'll leave it at that.

Probably the same way the current tier list handles it -- namely, by using a different criterion for evaluating units in those specific chapters. Incidentally, they're both Survive chapters, where your turn count can't actually be reduced beyond a certain point due to game hardcoding. In any case, thanks for pointing this out, I'd forgotten about that specific quirk of those chapters and it is a factor.

Technically your turn count can be reduced in Ch 13 by opening all the Chests and killing every enemy (for a minimum of 7 turns), but that doesn't matter either way since turns have no impact on BEXP in those maps. I brought it up because Ike soloing two maps doesn't seem reasonable, but if it's the only way to achieve the goal of the list, it will have to be explained somehow.

Edited by Red Fox of Fire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply doesn't apply to our tier lists.

Yes, it does. I may not have explained it perfectly, but you're handwaving it for no discernible reason. The last thing on the FE9 tier list thread was a multi-page debate about how Mia > Zihark because she can receive a thousand-odd BEXP to promote early and shove Ike a few times on Ch9, thereby saving a turn. It's that kind of minutia that is only relevant because of the emphasis on turn count above all else. (And yes, I understand the Mia/Zihark comparison is already close enough to warrant looking at the minutia... but would anyone care about this perk of Mia's if not for the a priori definition of efficiency around lower turn count? No.)

Your whole #2 is irrelevant because the casual player doesn't care about tier lists in the first place.

I never said "casual," I said "average." Factoring out the individuals who don't care about performance at all (maybe they prefer appearance or personality of characters for their 'tiers' -- truly 'casual' play if ever there were such a thing), I would say almost every Fire Emblem player is concerned with sorting the good from the bad... which tiers are designed to do. I would estimate that even if the average player didn't necessarily care about the tiers at present, s/he certainly cares about the function they're supposed to provide -- namely ranking the characters good to bad. In fact, that the average player doesn't care about tier lists at present is evidence of a problem and not dismissal of one. We could even focus this more specifically if you like; it'll probably be useful for this discussion anyway. I'll bet that the average Serenes Forest member/viewer cares about sorting good characters from bad. There are a lot of SF members. The impact of more accessible tiers is certainly appreciable.

#3 can be said of basically any tiering criteria because, at the end of the day, the game doesn't care how you beat the game, only that you do. Any challenges aside from that, including ranks, turns, BEXP, etc. is player-induced.

Sorry if this comes off as rude, but if this is your interpretation of #3, you need to reread it, because you're not following the point. Sure, ultimately, any ranking effort can be rendered absolutely futile by a certain player with a certain disposition on how the game should be played. That doesn't mean that we can't identify relatively superior methods of evaluating character performance in tiers. I happen to think that a method whose criterion is focused on concrete material gains is better than one which does not.

Technically your turn count can be reduced in Ch 13 by opening all the Chests and killing every enemy (for a minimum of 7 turns),
beyond a certain point
but that doesn't matter either way since turns have no impact on BEXP in those maps. I brought it up because Ike soloing two maps doesn't seem reasonable, but if it's the only way to achieve the goal of the list, it will have to be explained somehow.

It could be argued that it is impossible to solo with Ike in Ch8 and Ch13 and achieve maximum BEXP in other chapters. In fact, I think that's actually pretty likely (though I've never attempted and frankly, wouldn't bother with it). All this means is that the maximum bonus EXP attainable is not the maximum bonus EXP theoretically possible. This would invoke an interesting set of side discussions on whether or not bringing a certain unit into those chapters is worth the sacrifice in BEXP. You'd be attempting to solve the map using a minimal number of units instead of a minimal number of turns. And, once that number is determined, the debate becomes "Who gets the spot in those chapters?"

And, again, even if that conclusion is unsatisfying, that's still only an issue for two chapters. The benefits that this system conveys for the other 28 outweigh its issues in 2, in my estimation.

EDIT: Missed arguably the most important comment in your last post, sorry.

I don't want to clog this topic up with tiering philosophy because I hate tiering philosophy, so I'll leave it at that.

I hate to have to say it, then, but this particular thread is fundamentally a philosophy of tiers thread. The actual tier list thread following this criterion would be separate so as to avoid this "clutter." (It would indeed be clutter in an actual tier list thread, but it's necessary discussion beforehand, so I don't really consider it clutter per se.)

Edited by PresidentEden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it does. I may not have explained it perfectly, but you're handwaving it for no discernible reason. The last thing on the FE9 tier list thread was a multi-page debate about how Mia > Zihark because she can receive a thousand-odd BEXP to promote early and shove Ike a few times on Ch9, thereby saving a turn. It's that kind of minutia that is only relevant because of the emphasis on turn count above all else. (And yes, I understand the Mia/Zihark comparison is already close enough to warrant looking at the minutia... but would anyone care about this perk of Mia's if not for the a priori definition of efficiency around lower turn count? No.)

And are you aware that the argument didn't go through pretty much precisely because of your criticisms explained here? The typical tier debater does away with such an argument because it's too restrictive. The fact that an argument exists is not evidence of it being considered good. I fear you are saying a lot of what you have said without having all the relevant information.

I never said "casual," I said "average." Factoring out the individuals who don't care about performance at all (maybe they prefer appearance or personality of characters for their 'tiers' -- truly 'casual' play if ever there were such a thing), I would say almost every Fire Emblem player is concerned with sorting the good from the bad... which tiers are designed to do. I would estimate that even if the average player didn't necessarily care about the tiers at present, s/he certainly cares about the function they're supposed to provide -- namely ranking the characters good to bad. In fact, that the average player doesn't care about tier lists at present is evidence of a problem and not dismissal of one. We could even focus this more specifically if you like; it'll probably be useful for this discussion anyway. I'll bet that the average Serenes Forest member/viewer cares about sorting good characters from bad. There are a lot of SF members. The impact of more accessible tiers is certainly appreciable.

Casual, average, whatever. People only care about what they think of good and bad, not making a comprehensive list of every character in the game. Many people aren't really aware of how the tier lists are handled because the concept doesn't interest them. It's not that common for people to be turned away because they don't like our standards, and when it does happen it is usually the people who want an even stricter, more defined standard rather than a more casual, flexible one.

Sorry if this comes off as rude, but if this is your interpretation of #3, you need to reread it, because you're not following the point. Sure, ultimately, any ranking effort can be rendered absolutely futile by a certain player with a certain disposition on how the game should be played. That doesn't mean that we can't identify relatively superior methods of evaluating character performance in tiers. I happen to think that a method whose criterion is focused on concrete material gains is better than one which does not.

That's nice and all, but it's something that really applies to this game and Radiant Dawn. Sacred Stones and Awakening, for example, have nothing resembling ranks or BEXP to encourage the player to play towards a goal further than just beating the game. (Awakening, ironically, gives you your turn count for each map upon completion)

beyond a certain point

Two possibilities here:

1. You didn't realize that Ch 13 is a 10-turn Survive map that can be brought down to 7.

2. By this quoted line I thought you meant the technical survive limit and not any other number it could be reduced by.

Anything else you said about the actual tier list idea is fine by me for the time being. As I said, I think the idea itself is fine if not possibly redundant. I just don't like the false information you're using to justify it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And are you aware that the argument didn't go through pretty much precisely because of your criticisms explained here? The typical tier debater does away with such an argument because it's too restrictive. The fact that an argument exists is not evidence of it being considered good. I fear you are saying a lot of what you have said without having all the relevant information.

My reading of the thread suggests otherwise. There was no change in position, but the argument clearly gained traction (and the lack of change of position was due to inertia instead of a rejection of the argument). I'm reading through the thread again to locate it specifically. Suffice to say that the typical tier debater does not do away with an argument on that basis; the argument went on for a few pages.

Casual, average, whatever. People only care about what they think of good and bad, not making a comprehensive list of every character in the game. Many people aren't really aware of how the tier lists are handled because the concept doesn't interest them. It's not that common for people to be turned away because they don't like our standards, and when it does happen it is usually the people who want an even stricter, more defined standard rather than a more casual, flexible one.

Again, your response is evidence of a problem and not dismissal of it. Average players don't look at the tier lists because they're not interested in how the tiers are handled. Incidentally, most tier debaters themselves (as far as I can see) openly acknowledge that the style of play assumed in tier debating is not representative of the average player's style of play. From what I can tell, you're concluding that the former results in the latter (that is, average players don't care about tiers, so of course tiers don't represent their style of play, so why bother changing the tier structure?) when it seems rather clear to me that the latter results in the former (that is, the tiers use an unrepresentative style of play which turns off average players).

That's nice and all, but it's something that really applies to this game and Radiant Dawn. Sacred Stones and Awakening, for example, have nothing resembling ranks or BEXP to encourage the player to play towards a goal further than just beating the game. (Awakening, ironically, gives you your turn count for each map upon completion)

...which is why I posted it here instead of on the Sacred Stones or Awakening boards. I do think my criticisms still land on the other games, but there's no incentive structure like in Path of Radiance to supply a potentially superior tier criterion, so I didn't bother to raise it there because I don't have a solution for those games.

Two possibilities here:

1. You didn't realize that Ch 13 is a 10-turn Survive map that can be brought down to 7.

2. By this quoted line I thought you meant the technical survive limit and not any other number it could be reduced by.

I guess it's #2? Because it certainly isn't #1. I'm not sure what you interpreted it as saying, so I don't know if it's #2 or not, and I feel it would be presumptuous for me to speculate about your thoughts. But I'm well aware that Ch13 can be shortened by three turns. (Ironically, this disappointed me slightly in my last playthrough, because I wanted more EXP from beating up reinforcements instead of having the crows flee. Were it not for a self-imposed pseudo-LTC [that is, LTC with a certain party that isn't designed for real LTC runs like Olwen's 114-turn one], I'd have no incentive to end the chapter early.)

I just don't like the false information you're using to justify it.

I'm not using any false information. With due respect, your posts are coming off slightly condescending and rather unduly defensive, and I feel it's unwarranted. Is there a problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My reading of the thread suggests otherwise. There was no change in position, but the argument clearly gained traction (and the lack of change of position was due to inertia instead of a rejection of the argument). I'm reading through the thread again to locate it specifically. Suffice to say that the typical tier debater does not do away with an argument on that basis; the argument went on for a few pages.

I'll admit I didn't read every word myself, but it's a method I definitely do not agree with and is typically rejected in tier discussions. It going on for a few pages just suggests that people were arguing the validity of it, not the effects of it. At most that kind of argument might end up a tiebreaker if there's really nothing else separating them, but it's not something that should be used otherwise.

And in the event that I'm wrong about it, this is one example out of potentially hundreds. This would the exception to the rule that has seemingly already been rectified, not common practice.

Again, your response is evidence of a problem and not dismissal of it. Average players don't look at the tier lists because they're not interested in how the tiers are handled. Incidentally, most tier debaters themselves (as far as I can see) openly acknowledge that the style of play assumed in tier debating is not representative of the average player's style of play. From what I can tell, you're concluding that the former results in the latter (that is, average players don't care about tiers, so of course tiers don't represent their style of play, so why bother changing the tier structure?) when it seems rather clear to me that the latter results in the former (that is, the tiers use an unrepresentative style of play which turns off average players).

Because the concept doesn't interest them. Your average player doesn't give a damn how a collective community wants to order the characters, they just want to play and use the characters they like using. It doesn't matter how tier lists end up handled for these people. At most they might glance at it every now and then to get an idea of who is collectively considered good or bad, but in a game like FE, just seeing that usually isn't enough to know why no matter what the standards are.

Our tier standards were developed with the goal of using a method as close as possible to common play while keeping in line with a criteria that would allow tiering to exist at all. There's no way we can tier based on how anyone plays because there are too many ways to play the game, thus we must put restrictions in place if a tier list is to go anywhere. You can't please everyone, and someone out there won't like it. This is inevitable. Has this gone too far and resulted in unrealistic methods like the Mia thing you mentioned? Yes, of course. But that idea is not representative of how we run tier lists in general. Ironically it is Mia again, but on the FE10 list she once went way too high because of methods one could employ to make her amazing but that, in the end, aren't representative enough of common play due to being extremely specific.

The thing is, the more we discuss and play the games, the better we get at them, and the more ways we can think of to use characters that could effect their positioning. I'll agree that using too-specific methods is a bad thing, but stifling advancement and trying to keep them 100% relevant for the "average" player is also bad. Tier lists for any game assume a level of competency, resulting in the so-called "average" player usually not being able to make much use of it because it's being maintained by people who have just simply studied it and played it so much more.

tl;dr The "average player's" tier list is a slippery slope that usually either falls apart or turns into what we already have.

I'm not using any false information. With due respect, your posts are coming off slightly condescending and rather unduly defensive, and I feel it's unwarranted. Is there a problem?

Yes, there's a problem. I'm sick of people criticizing our tiering standards, especially when it's based on false information (and yes, I believe it is, in fact, false information). I mean, at least you attempted to propose an alternative, something most don't do, but it's still extremely annoying when you criticize us for doing things we don't do or, when we do them, it is usually called out or eventually rectified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll admit I didn't read every word myself, but it's a method I definitely do not agree with and is typically rejected in tier discussions. It going on for a few pages just suggests that people were arguing the validity of it, not the effects of it. At most that kind of argument might end up a tiebreaker if there's really nothing else separating them, but it's not something that should be used otherwise.

And in the event that I'm wrong about it, this is one example out of potentially hundreds. This would the exception to the rule that has seemingly already been rectified, not common practice.

You've gotten bogged down in the example and not responded to the actual point. The major question asked about each character in the tier list at present is "How many turns does this character save us?" I submitted that this focus on lowest turn count (if not in the explicit one-strategy-only LTC most commonly referenced by that phrase) is inherently flawed. One of the arguments I made against it was that it is unduly inflexible, which is contrary to the purpose of a strategy game. To date your response was to handwave the objection altogether, including a specific example of exactly what I'm describing.

Our tier standards were developed with the goal of using a method as close as possible to common play while keeping in line with a criteria that would allow tiering to exist at all. There's no way we can tier based on how anyone plays because there are too many ways to play the game, thus we must put restrictions in place if a tier list is to go anywhere. You can't please everyone, and someone out there won't like it. This is inevitable.

So what's the problem with what I said, exactly? I submit that common play doesn't ask "How many turns does this character save us?" at all, let alone use it as the criterion for ranking characters. While not everyone will care about BEXP, it is a far more reliable method, because it provides objective, material benefits that turn count does not.

The thing is, the more we discuss and play the games, the better we get at them, and the more ways we can think of to use characters that could effect their positioning. I'll agree that using too-specific methods is a bad thing, but stifling advancement and trying to keep them 100% relevant for the "average" player is also bad. Tier lists for any game assume a level of competency, resulting in the so-called "average" player usually not being able to make much use of it because it's being maintained by people who have just simply studied it and played it so much more.

You're unintentionally straw-manning my argument at this point (I assume, anyway), so I'll reiterate. I'm not trying to create the everyman's tier list. I'm trying to create a tier list that asks a more proper question. Part of doing this is considering the everyman. It's not diluting the tier list down to your-5-year-old-cousin-can-use-this level. It's simply avoiding diluting the tier list down to the Mia/Zihark type arguments I mentioned earlier. Those specific arguments may be rare, but they are a logical conclusion of the question. That is problematic. If it can be replaced by something that isn't as problematic, then it ought to be.

Yes, there's a problem. I'm sick of people criticizing our tiering standards, especially when it's based on false information (and yes, I believe it is, in fact, false information). I mean, at least you attempted to propose an alternative, something most don't do, but it's still extremely annoying when you criticize us for doing things we don't do or, when we do them, it is usually called out or eventually rectified.

I'm suggesting a way to improve the tier list. It's not based on false information; your accusations of it have completely failed to hold any muster. The question "How many turns does this character save us?" is innately the wrong question for the reasons I stated. "How much will this character help in getting maximum bonus experience?" is a better standard, for the reasons I've already outlined: it maintains turn count as a reasonable objective, while making the game more strategy-oriented, the tiers more accessible, and the definition of efficiency more viable. I'm frankly amazed at your hostility toward a suggestion for improvement... if you find it "extremely annoying" to hear alternative tiering suggestions, why did you click a thread explicitly titled "alternative tiering suggestions"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. LTC, though intuitively useful, is a suboptimal criterion because it removes the strategy aspect of the game,

... how is this even remotely true

if i can sleepwalk though the game and meet the BEXP requirements, how does that restore the strategic aspect of the game

in any case y'all like reinventing the wheel or something because a lot of people lately have been coming up with "new ideas" that have already been argued to death before. the turn limit for max BEXP is too generous to create a discrete ranking of units rather than an amorphous melange of units that more or less can achieve the same goal. that's the fundamental problem with your idea and why it can't work.

Edited by dondon151
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, when I first saw this topic being posted, my initial thought was to run and hide, because I knew exactly what was going to happen (as did everyone else, I think). But I feel like I might take a stab at it anyway just so it isn't you two going back and forth.

PresidentEden, I really think that you, like the other people who are opposed to tier lists, really exaggerate the LTC aspect of it. There is not a single LTC tier list on the forum as far as I know, and that's because it would work like this:

S Tier: Every character that can potentially save turns, ordered by how many they save.

F Tier: Every other unit in the game.

Simply put, most units do not save turns. However, they are still ranked, because tier lists are based on efficiency, not LTC. I agree with RFoF; people who believe that ranking units based on efficiency is a bad idea probably don't want to rank units at all, beyond something like "I like units a,b,c,d, and other units are bad". I really think this is the case for most casual/average players, and tiering on a different metric will not suddenly make tiering appealing to the masses. For people who aren't like that, I just don't see how they can think of a better metric. If you disagree with ranking on efficiency, but you don't have a better metric, then it's the ranking in general that you most likely have a problem with. In regards to this topic though, we do have an alternative suggested, but I don't see how this is better. In terms of the actual concepts themselves (efficiency vs bexp), bonus experience seems like a ridiculously arbitrary thing to rank units by. Your claim is that it's a superior metric because it is something that provides a tangible benefit, but I really don't see why that even matters. In a turn-based strategy game, beating the game quickly seems like just the most blatantly obvious measure by which we can determine skill in the game without placing arbitrary restrictions. Now, in terms of practice, as in the actual implementation of such a tier list, things aren't much better. Bonus experience is required by beating the chapters in a certain amount of turns, and a few other really arbitrary things like not hurting the sellswords in that once chapter, or deployment requirement in the two chapters previously mentioned. Obviously, the units that are already good at efficient play are going to be helpful here, but the claim is that with a bit more wiggle room, other units will be better able to accomplish the goals at a lower level of risk. However, the key problem here, and I'll bold it for emphasis, is that the units that are good when playing efficiently also happen to be the strongest fighters. This is not always true, it's a fact of this game. Oscar, Kieran, Jill, Astrid, this game is as mount-dominated as FE4. There are very few foot units that are worth using, and they find their use in efficient play anyway. So, basically, a tier list based on this metric would look the exact same as the efficiency tier list that already exists. While I don't believe that's the most important aspect of this discussion, it is the biggest reason why such a tier list would be pretty much pointless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm frankly amazed at your hostility toward a suggestion for improvement... if you find it "extremely annoying" to hear alternative tiering suggestions, why did you click a thread explicitly titled "alternative tiering suggestions"?

Like what the actual fuck.

The idea of a BEXP based tier list is not a bad one by any means
Anything else you said about the actual tier list idea is fine by me for the time being. As I said, I think the idea itself is fine if not possibly redundant. I just don't like the false information you're using to justify it.
it's still extremely annoying when you criticize us for doing things we don't do

The rest of the arguing is just going in circles so I won't bother but how can you misinterpret my words so badly?

To spell it out further, I do not have and have not displayed any problem with your suggestion of an alternative tiering method, just what you're saying about the current one. I even tried to help it along in a few ways by asking for clarification on certain important points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... how is this even remotely true

if i can sleepwalk though the game and meet the BEXP requirements, how does that restore the strategic aspect of the game

If you can, then it clearly wouldn't; the implicit assumption was that the BEXP requirements aren't that trivial. My understanding is that this is the case for most people or most members here. If that understanding is wrong, then yeah, it wouldn't change anything. The idea I was arguing, under that assumption (which again may or may not hold), is that the more lax requirements give you a wider range of options to complete the game, and might lend themselves to a nontrivial shakeup in the list as a result.

I want to point out, though, that the tier list operates under the assumption of a certain basic level of competency. I haven't been around long, but my estimation is that dondon-level competency is most certainly not average-player-level competency. So while you might be able to breeze through to max BEXP, if the average player/assumed-competency player can't, then the assumption still holds.

in any case y'all like reinventing the wheel or something because a lot of people lately have been coming up with "new ideas" that have already been argued to death before.

For my edification if nothing else (because I don't doubt this), has this specific suggestion been discussed before? Because I'd be interested in seeing any previous discussion on the subject. I plan to make my own tier list based on this criterion (even if I don't end up doing anything with it) because it's a fun exercise, and any input on strengths and flaws of this criterion

the turn limit for max BEXP is too generous to create a discrete ranking of units rather than an amorphous melange of units that more or less can achieve the same goal. that's the fundamental problem with your idea and why it can't work.

I'd grant that it's likely not to be as discrete, but I don't innately see this as a problem. We do this on some level already... that's why we have tiers in the first place. Sure, the lowest unit in a tier isn't a perfect substitute for the highest unit in a tier, but then I don't see that happening on this other one either, because I don't see the standard being as generous as you do, I suppose. (That seems to be the root of the disagreement.) If the requirements were lax enough that we ended up with really distorted tiers then sure, I see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure that it happens this way. (Which is why I asked for previous discussion in the response above -- if this already exists to disavail me of this notion, then I'd drop it.)

Your claim is that it's a superior metric because it is something that provides a tangible benefit, but I really don't see why that even matters. In a turn-based strategy game, beating the game quickly seems like just the most blatantly obvious measure by which we can determine skill in the game without placing arbitrary restrictions.

How? Turn count is itself an arbitrary restriction. It's a determinant of skill, but I fail to see how it's any less arbitrary than any other arbitrary determinant of skill, like max-Funds or whatever have you. I think it's a better system, but that doesn't mean it's less arbitrary. Bonus EXP provides a tangible benefit, which makes it less arbitrary than a standard which provides no tangible in-game benefit. It's not absolutely non-arbitrary -- everything is arbitrary to some extent -- but it is certainly less so because we can clearly see how Bonus EXP provides a concrete benefit to the player.

So, basically, a tier list based on this metric would look the exact same as the efficiency tier list that already exists.

It may. I actually expect it would be more similar than it is different. But as I noted originally, even if it came out exactly the same, the less arbitrary, more applicable and more flexible standard would make it a superior list.

The rest of the arguing is just going in circles so I won't bother but how can you misinterpret my words so badly?

I didn't. Proposing an alternative requires a demonstration as to why it's superior to the existing system. If your alternative is worse than the existing system, there's no point to proposing it. Therefore, in any thread suggesting an alternative to a standard, you should expect a criticism of the standard, and it's rather unbecoming, thus, to enter one and then start chewing people out for criticizing the standard and accusing them -- falsely, at that -- of lying about the standard to justify their alternative.

---

And since it's apparently necessary, I'll go ahead and make the addendum that I don't think the existing system is bad, merely flawed, and that the solution I proposed would improve it. Just so that's clear.

Edited by PresidentEden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In response to that one point of mine, I didn't make that very clear. When I said "determine skill in the game without placing arbitrary restrictions" I meant things like 0% growths runs, which clearly demonstrate a high amount of skill but are unrelated to the normal game. That's what I meant by restrictions. I do think that turncount is less arbitrary because it seems like an inherently obvious measure in a "turn-based" strategy game. The fact that bonus experience provides a tangible benefit doesn't make it a better metric. I think that the grand overall question when ranking characters is "how much easier is the game with this character?" or some variation thereof. With that in mind, efficiency addresses that because units are ranked higher on their reliability in executing strategies, but they are also ranked highly if they can beat the game quicker, because honestly at the end of the day you can beat any Fire Emblem game with any team of characters, it just seems intuitively obvious to me that if they can beat the game faster, they are better units in a turn-based game. If we're talking about ranking units based on a criteria that provides a tangible benefit to those units or to your team overall, then we could by the same argument make a tier list based on recruitment. Maybe Caeda is top-tier material in FE11 because she can recruit so many units; obviously more units means we have a stronger army as a whole (obviously Caeda is already top-tier under the current setting, but that's just an example).

I really wish I could formulate a better argument about turncounts being the superior metric but I'm really inhibited by the fact that it just seems so intuitive to me in a turn-based game that I just can't conceive of why other metrics could be considered better. Maybe when it's not 4am I'll be able to do a better job of it.

Also, RFoF is annoyed not because she's over-protective of tier lists as they are, but because you have been misrepresenting them from your very first post, by believing that they are all about LTC, they remove the strategy from the game, they are based on literally one optimal way to play through each game that does not allow for variation, etc, etc. The fact that you are using "false information" doesn't mean that you're lying, it just means that you are misinterpreting what the current tier lists are about.

Edited by Hawkeye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PresidentEden, I really think that you, like the other people who are opposed to tier lists, really exaggerate the LTC aspect of it. There is not a single LTC tier list on the forum as far as I know, and that's because it would work like this:

S Tier: Every character that can potentially save turns, ordered by how many they save.

F Tier: Every other unit in the game.

I disagree with this statement, because it's difficult to measure the turn-saving. If you remember the recent discussing about "Mia saving a turn", it was questioned what sort of actions exactly constitute the turn(-s) saved. An LTC playthrough isn't a magical unattainable run of some sort, as healers healing damaged units provide reliability (I don't see why an explicitly stated LTC tier list would avoid this as an existing criterion for assessment) and characters' ability to ORKO/take enemy hits/move in a steady manner would still receive the acclaim it deserves.

There's the old example of having two units who are exact clones of each other. Let's say you have two Seths. None of them saves a turn ever because the other Seth can do the exact same thing, yet when used, their competence is observable very clearly.

The line between efficiency and LTC is an unclear one, and most current tier lists are relevant to LTC context as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay yes I may have exaggerated too much on that point, but the fact still remains that a lot of units would be strictly unusable in an absolute LTC playthrough, but we don't pile all those units in the bottom tier and leave it at that, because that's not what the tier list is about. And of course efficiency is relevant to LTC, because they're both about beating chapters quickly. LTC is efficiency taken to its extreme, emphasizing speed at the cost of reliability.

Generally speaking, the top of the tier list is where most of the LTC elements come to light. The discussion about mid and low tier units generally doesn't discuss these elements at all because in LTC they are just ignored or maybe not even recruited in the first place.

Edited by Hawkeye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay yes I may have exaggerated too much on that point, but the fact still remains that a lot of units would be strictly unusable in an absolute LTC playthrough, but we don't pile all those units in the bottom tier and leave it at that, because that's not what the tier list is about. And of course efficiency is relevant to LTC, because they're both about beating chapters quickly. LTC is efficiency taken to its extreme, emphasizing speed at the cost of reliability.

I think LTC is still distinct from TASing, if you ask me. A "maximum efficiency" (lowest turns humanly possible) playthrough of FE6 HM, for instance, will be nothing but a TAS run, as even blessed Roy and Thany will simply be incapable of raping the game. Rigging of perfect level-ups, dodging an enemy phase of accurate attacks and critting with single-digit percent chances off already inaccurate attacks will be some of the things seen in an absolute-lowest turn run of the game. But to my knowledge, LTCers don't TAS and TASers just pick the lowest difficulty to make strategies actually possible. For example, an HM TAS will not be as easy on (rigged) Thany than a NM TAS.

Generally speaking, the top of the tier list is where most of the LTC elements come to light. The discussion about mid and low tier units generally doesn't discuss these elements at all because in LTC they are just ignored or maybe not even recruited in the first place.

It's still up for argument. Gilliam with a speed proc is mandatory for a 2-turn clear of chapter 4 in FE8, and Lute can theoretically perform staff duty as well as Artur. Most characters will have some utility when given a chance in LTC context. Even Dart can contribute to some kills in his join chapter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be frank, 'being measurable' isn't a strong point of a maximum BEXP tier list. Combat experience if also measurable, as you can add it up every time you see (and you'll have to do the same for BEXP unless you hoard all of it, as it exists to be used). To maximise combat experience gained, you would take extra time in chapters, beating up reinforcements and abusing the bosses. Continuing your idea, PresidentEden, a goal of your playthrough could be getting every single character to 20/20. This wouldn't be a new invention either, but most people here wouldn't be interested in doing it unless it were for the purposes of transferring stats to RD, let alone an ambiguous tier list for such a playthrough.

I believe there is a logical issue in your arguments, namely mixing up cause and effect, tool and desired outcome. BEXP is a useful feature, something needed to beat the game. When doing tier list discussions, we are interested in beating the game more efficiently - in less time, with less effort (once figured out that is) and resets. However, accumulation of BEXP is not the goal of the game, and cannot be one as it is merely a tool to accomplish other aims.

Then there is another claim you make, that using max BEXP over turns as criterion makes the game more strategic. You get max BEXP out of chapter 7, for example, by completing it in 11 turns and under. This is very liberal and your 11-turn completion is likely to be very lax and mindless. Olwen 4-turned the map with properly trained (under strict limits) Titania/Oscar/Boyd/Ike. I 5-turned the same map just barely with no growths. Explain how taking 6-7 extra turns makes it more strategic and complicated. Unless you want to join Snowy and preach freedom; we've heard that the game can be played in a multitude of ways (giving Sothe combat experience, or seeing how many 70% accurate attacks Ilyana can dodge in a row are all valid ways of playing the game before you want to argue said playstyle against general efficiency) and have no issue with the statement before you challenge the idea of speed (measured in terms)/efficiency/reliability as the current criterion.

BEXP is important, nobody is arguing against it. Without BEXP, Marcia, Jill and Tormod would be mediocrities.

Then there's the question of what maximum BEXP over turns would change. Instead of taking 5 turns to complete chapter 21, I can now take 18. What do I do in those surplus 13 turns? Get all the treasure? Sure, let's get Volke a knife that we won't be using because Volke is bad for combat. Let's get wonderful skills like Parity. Characters, items, weapons are all tools to help you complete the game. BEXP is just one of such tools. At the end of PoR, all you'll care about is having 20/20 Ike with Resolve and maybe Wrath/Adept. If you care about turns, you'll employ some strategy featuring Reyson, shoving, Rescue staff, rescuedropping, etc. If not, how does that enrich our playthrough? Why would that keep us interested in playing the game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't we start with max bexp until people noticed you could cut those turncounts in half (sometimes with craziness, so down to 2 thirds is imo better, but sometimes you can even go down to 1 third without craziness) and decided that tiering should reflect the faster pace?

Of course, even back then you had things like smash waiting for the soldiers in RD 1-7 to leave and using the extra 4 to 6 turns beyond the 10 "limit" to build supports with his beloved Zihark. But that was mostly not accepted by others. And on the flipside, you had people saying that 3-8's 20 turn limit was a joke and needed to be completed faster.

Edited by Narga_Rocks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to point out, though, that the tier list operates under the assumption of a certain basic level of competency. I haven't been around long, but my estimation is that dondon-level competency is most certainly not average-player-level competency. So while you might be able to breeze through to max BEXP, if the average player/assumed-competency player can't, then the assumption still holds.

i'm flattered that i'm still the benchmark for top-notch competency at fire emblem, but there are quite a few users nowadays who have caught up or surpassed me in that respect.

For my edification if nothing else (because I don't doubt this), has this specific suggestion been discussed before? Because I'd be interested in seeing any previous discussion on the subject.

to my recollection i don't recall a specific topic on it, but it's definitely been talked about before in the past somewhere in the swamps of tier list discussions.

I'd grant that it's likely not to be as discrete, but I don't innately see this as a problem. We do this on some level already... that's why we have tiers in the first place. Sure, the lowest unit in a tier isn't a perfect substitute for the highest unit in a tier, but then I don't see that happening on this other one either, because I don't see the standard being as generous as you do, I suppose. (That seems to be the root of the disagreement.) If the requirements were lax enough that we ended up with really distorted tiers then sure, I see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure that it happens this way. (Which is why I asked for previous discussion in the response above -- if this already exists to disavail me of this notion, then I'd drop it.)

espinosa answered this more eloquently than i have

although i will add that you can consider an analog to FE6 rankings, where you had like 600 turns to finish the game with an A rank in tactics. a 0% growths run can finish FE6 HM in 187 turns. so with those extra 413 turns, you could dick around and do almost anything you wanted to fulfill those other 4 ranks.

Edited by dondon151
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you guys think Mia vs. Zihark is such a ridiculous debate? One turn isn't that significant, but I don't see why it's so unimportant that she can't go over Zihark and only Zihark.

If the purpose of tier lists is efficiency, which is low turns and high reliability, why can't we go for the lowest number of turns with the best reliability? Red Fox seems to suggest an arbitrary line between casualness and efficiency for tier lists. Taken literally, tier lists should aim for the lowest number of turns with the highest reliability.

Edited by Olwen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I'm not using any false information. With due respect, your posts are coming off slightly condescending and rather unduly defensive, and I feel it's unwarranted. Is there a problem?

Would that all posters were as courteous as you! I wish that the Serenes Forest community was more receptive to alternative tiering philosophies. I think it healthy to challenge one's assumptions every now and again. A new topic is absolutely the place to make such suggestions.

Your criticisms of a LTC tier list are well-argued. A LTC tier list necessarily limits the scope of the discussion to certain strategies. As you explain is point (1), this is displeasing in an aesthetic sense. It is also less interesting for most people, as you note in point (2). I would clarify that the population that plays the game is not the relevant population, but the population that debates how valuable certain units are. That latter population embody the people who might contribute to a unit tier list.

I think point (3) is the weakest of your criticisms. A goal of any FE game is to complete it. Units need to do certain things to complete the game (defeat enemies, reach certain locations, etc...). From those premises, we can evaluate how valuable each unit is towards completing the game. But there are innumerable ways to complete the game, so this is a very fuzzy metric. One way (perhaps not the best way) to solidify the metrics on which to judge unit value is to introduce a third premise: completely the game more efficiently (swiftly, reliably, and with less resource expenditure) is better. This is a defensible metric for a tier list, I think. A LTC tier list solidifies the efficiency metric further by: (a) simplifying swiftness with the number of turns it takes to complete a chapter and (b) placing little or no value on reliability and resource expenditure.

However, I believe that the FE:PoR tier list is still an efficiency tier list. There is a conflict between more concrete metrics and interesting discussion. Over time, we have trended towards more solidification of the tiering metrics, but it is not yet a LTC tier list. I think an efficiency tier list avoids some, but not all, of your criticisms.

Why do you guys think Mia vs. Zihark is such a ridiculous debate? One turn isn't that significant, but I don't see why it's so unimportant that she can't go over Zihark and only Zihark.

If the purpose of tier lists is efficiency, which is low turns and high reliability, why can't we go for the lowest number of turns with the best reliability? Red Fox seems to suggest an arbitrary line between casualness and efficiency for tier lists. Taken literally, tier lists should aim for the lowest number of turns with the highest reliability.

The purpose of a tier list, in large part, is to promote interesting discussion. A tier list where only one or two strategies per chapter is considered does not promote interesting discussion.

Also, it's been explained many times that "turns saved" is a non-sensical metric for judging a unit's worth in an efficient playthrough. The ridiculousness of "turns saved" is laid bare in scenarios like the 6-turn C9 strategy where at least 7 units are essential to the strategy. Do they all save a turn? Only if the other 6 units are being used. Is their contribution equivalent? The "turns saved" metric would indicate that it is. That is a ridiculous conclusion, though, because all Rhys, Mia, and Boyd do is shove Ike a couple squares while Titania clears over half the map of enemies and transports Ike 9 squares to the seize square.

Mia should get some credit for her potential contributions in C9, but not in the form of some mythical "turn saved" by shoving in accordance with one extremely restrictive strategy.

Edit: I didn't realize how old this topic was until after I posted. Whoops.

Edited by aku chi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

only 12 days old. Not a problem. The response to Olwen is kind of off-topic and more suited to the general purpose thread that I made in General FE. This thread is geared more towards the first part of your post, discussion about Eden's issues with the current tier lists and his proposal.

Granted that the Mia/Zihark thing may be a large part of Eden's issues, but still.

Edited by Narga_Rocks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't understand why there's such animosity towards a new tier list. So what if it's wrong? It's just a tier list. I don't think this idea was meant to say 'every way the FE community currently tiers characters is wrong.' I just don't get why people have taken this seriously. I think it's a cool idea, and doesn't it make sense that characters have different values depending on how you play? I wouldn't care if we had an efficiency tier list(That's the right word for the current one, correct?) a super LTC list, a MAXBEXP list, and a tier list that reflected efficiency based on real time played.(that's how I used to play FE, maximize time available and focus on characters' level development over turncount)

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...