Why FE6 Karel is actually very high tier

[AnonymousSpeed]

FE6 Karel has pretty functional stats. Give him a durandal and he kills dragons good. But he comes so late that most people put him as low tier.

However, what is the purpose of a tier list?

It tells you which units you should use. Perceval is high tier and Wendy is low tier, so its pragmatic to use Perceval instead of Wendy. However, that decision only matters when both units are available.

So, if the purpose of tier lists is to say which unit should generally be chosen over another, availability should not matter aside from factoring in levels gained.

Of course this is false because we know the real purpose of tier lists is to spark arguments on the internet.

[Florete]

15 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

So, if the purpose of tier lists is to say which unit should generally be chosen over another, availability should not matter aside from factoring in levels gained.

I actually mostly agree with this.

But Karel still isn't high tier lol.

[Interdimensional Observer]

I think you just enjoy being contrarian. Although on certain sites, you are correct about tier lists being mating rituals for males who, by virtue of their personalities, will never find a mate.

 

Availability isn't everything, a forever of mediocrity can be dethroned by a lesser availability of pure gloriousness. FE6 Marcus, the most perfectly Jageny of Jagens to fit the Jagen idea and not exceed it, is a case of this. Benching past like C15 at the very latest, in a way he stops being "available", does not make his earlier contributions irrelevant.

Yet, Karel does nothing when I'm crying my heart out in Chapter 7, or any other chapter besides the last two for that matter. I quite dislike ""X is godly, why do you need anything else!" if X comes five seconds from the ending" arguments, because they do nothing for allllllll the game beforehand, where I may be more frustrated. And given the ease of the final chapter of Binding Blade, it's hard not to see how the frustration wouldn't be earlier.

If you have an open slot with nobody better, sure, Karel is good for filling it. Except, it is very possible you will have all your character slots filled by better people already, and Durandal has no shortage of potential good users. Marcus on other the other hand came in a bunch of tough early fights with a guaranteed slot for several of them and strong claim due to lack of trained powerhouses to a deployment slot when they first become a thing.

Edited September 3, 2020 by Interdimensional Observer

[AnonymousSpeed]

12 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

I think you just enjoy being contrarian.

Yes. Doesn't mean I'm wrong.

12 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Yet, Karel does nothing when I'm crying my heart out in Chapter 7

Neither does Perceval but he's still higher than Dorothy.

12 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

I quite dislike ""X is godly, why do you need anything else!" if X comes five seconds from the ending" arguments, because they do nothing for allllllll the game beforehand, where I may be more frustrated. And given the ease of the final chapter of Binding Blade, it's hard not to see how the frustration wouldn't be earlier.

Yeah, but you don't need to choose between X and something else until the last five seconds. The lack of X means you look at what's the best thing you have available, not the best thing there is.

[Interdimensional Observer]

3 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Yeah, but you don't need to choose between X and something else until the last five seconds. The lack of X means you look at what's the best thing you have available, not the best thing there is.

There is a limited number of deployment slots, a lot of units need EXP, a limited resource, to keep up. EXP also enables units to exceed those who come later. Dorothy has a harder time generating a greater net return than Perceval on these investments.

If an FE had no EXP whatsoever and units were totally static, perhaps Karel would be better. Perhaps he would be better with limitless deployment slots. Making FE more puzzle-like perhaps?

Even if I don't argue well, and you may say not without reason that I don't, I don't do it a lot, I wouldn't call Karel bad, he doesn't hinder others. Karel is a net positive, just a small net positive. Percy and Lance can rack up a lot more total net positive and remain statistically better than Karel; and if you have enough units statistically better than Karel when he shows up, very likely given his last chapter availability why use him?

[AnonymousSpeed]

1 minute ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

There is a limited number of deployment slots, a lot of units need EXP, a limited resource, to keep up. EXP also enables units to exceed those who come later. Dorothy has a harder time generating a greater net return than Perceval on these investments.

Perceval can't even get EXP in Chapter 7. Not that it matters, since you don't need to pick between him and Dorothy until he joins.

1 minute ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Karel is a net positive, just a small net positive. Percy and Lance can rack up a lot more total net positive and remain statistically better than Karel; and if you have enough units statistically better than Karel when he shows up, very likely given his last chapter availability why use him?

1 hour ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

availability should not matter aside from factoring in levels gained.

 

[Baldrick]

This argument would be better geared towards someone like Athos or FE5 Sety. Aside from a great level up, Karel isn't notably stronger than where your other units will likely be at.

[jumpy23]

Karel is actually low tier because you shouldn't use him in 24 because he joins too late for 15 move

[AnonymousSpeed]

15 minutes ago, jumpy23 said:

Karel is actually low tier because you shouldn't use him in 24 because he joins too late for 15 move

aw heck, I have been served once again.

[Hello72207]

Karel op because bases<growths. Karel has best growths in series. Therefore Karel OP.

[gringe]

Karel is not bad but by the time you get him Rutger and/or Fir are probably much better and you probably will not need another Durandal/Wyrmslayer wielder for the last chapter, especially considering how deadly Manaketes can be at close range. For that reason, and also because you need to deploy either Bartre or Fir to get him at all, I would rank him much lower than, say, Athos.
 

Personally I would rank Karel at C or so. Disregarding availability, I can see Athos being S rank, for comparison.

[ping]

12 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

However, what is the purpose of a tier list?

It tells you which units you should use. Perceval is high tier and Wendy is low tier, so its pragmatic to use Perceval instead of Wendy. However, that decision only matters when both units are available.

So, if the purpose of tier lists is to say which unit should generally be chosen over another, availability should not matter aside from factoring in levels gained.

(emphasis by ping)
Honestly, I disagree with that premise. Tier lists are an awful format to convey that kind of information, because no matter how you cut it, you will always reduce a truckload of information into a single number, which will always be misleading in some way.

Take the trio of Marcus, Garret, and Lance:

• Earlygame, Marcus and Lance are available and Marcus is by far the more helpful unit. Using Lance is still advisable, but ignoring/benching him makes far less of a difference than not using Marcus. So, Marcus > Lance.
• If Lance is on your active roster, there is little reason to replace him with Garret once he joins. Full weapon triangle control, more mobility, you name it. Lance > Garret, for sure.
• But if the question is between Marcus and Garret? Well, Marcus has more utility outside of combat, thanks to rescue/drop with high Aid and Canto, but Garret will blow him out of the water in terms of combat, axelock be damned. So, Garret ≥ Marcus???

How do you put that into three numbers? A proper character guide needs to say how good a character is at what point of the game, where the utility lies, how to get the most value out of a character. Putting a single number on that and pretend that it's a summary of all that is only a distraction and doesn't help a new player at all.

--

A tier list is just a format for players who already played the game to discuss what attributes are the most helpful for beating the game, and how much certain characters contribute to (or detract from) it. If you want to be helpful to newer players, stay away from the format.
(unless you want the Youtube clicks, I guess)
(and I do enjoy Mekkah's tier list as a background noise when doing chores, no shade intended, I just wouldn't point a new player towards them)

Edited September 4, 2020 by ping

[Whisky]

I think tier lists are completely worthless without a very clear explanation for exactly why each unit is where they are. Character Ratings shouldn't tell the player which units are better than which others or which ones should be used over others. They shouldn't say "use this unit", "don't use this unit",  "Always promote this unit first", "never promote this unit". A unit rating should provide players with all relevant information they need to make an informed decision. Is Roy good? Is Roy bad? Is Marcus good? is Marcus bad? is Karel good? Is Karel bad? The answer to all of these questions is potentially yes. The only way for a tier list or unit rating to be useful for anyone is to explain all of the strengths and weaknesses of each unit, and what they are capable of doing at different points in the game to allow players to make their own informed decisions.

 

On 9/3/2020 at 9:01 PM, gringe said:

Karel is not bad but by the time you get him Rutger and/or Fir are probably much better

This isn't really true, unless you are referring to them having used Boots to increase their Move. Their stats will probably be kind of similar and Karel might be stronger if Rutger isn't high enough level. If Karel can kill dragons, then you can't consider him much worse than Rutger. Also, you don't need to give him the Durandal. You can give him a Wrymslayer and hope for a Crit. It's not the most reliable or safest method, but it's a way for Karel to be useful with no investment and with someone else using the Durandal.

 

On 9/4/2020 at 1:54 AM, ping said:

If Lance is on your active roster, there is little reason to replace him with Garret once he joins. Full weapon triangle control, more mobility, you name it. Lance > Garret, for sure.

Not necessarily. Garret is better at killing most enemies than Lance is. Even if Lance doubles, Garret will be more likly to Crit with a single attack than Lance is to Crit once with his two attacks. 30% Crit bonus is pretty big.

On 9/4/2020 at 1:54 AM, ping said:

How do you put that into three numbers? A proper character guide needs to say how good a character is at what point of the game, where the utility lies, how to get the most value out of a character. Putting a single number on that and pretend that it's a summary of all that is only a distraction and doesn't help a new player at all.

I couldn't agree more. I've seen someone say that the only value of a tier list is the discussion around it. I did find a tier list made by Dondon one time that actually explained why each unit was rated how they were and what each unit was able to do to be useful. It was the best tier list I've ever seen. I'm surprised more tier lists don't do this. In defense of Mekkah's tier list videos, he talks about units for hours in his videos while making the tier list, explaining why he is placing them where he is.

Edited September 10, 2020 by Whisky