Lapis in comparison to Chloe and Kagetsu. Why I think Lapis is better or at least just as good.

[samthedigital]

2 minutes ago, Skyteppelin said:

But that still wouldn't make Lapis bad if she can compare to the best if Lapis and Chloe save the same turns when they are both around then both should be basically the same tier. In a LTC setting anyway. 

She's not comparing to the best in this example. She's either having a more modest positive contribution or is losing 2 turns if she wants to replicate another unit's utility; the former is better and should be used to assess how good the unit is relative to others.

4 minutes ago, Skyteppelin said:

I don't think I am, I think that any game is about far more then one aspect of it. Everything comes as a whole, focusing on only one metric no matter how important only surveys to narrow are view and not give us the full picture. 

If we're still talking about an efficiency context (and I hope that we are) then turn counts and reliability are the two most important factors in evaluating units; they're pretty much the full picture. If you really want to get into the weeds of the thing it's not going to help move this along.

[Skyteppelin]

3 hours ago, samthedigital said:

She's not comparing to the best in this example. She's either having a more modest positive contribution or is losing 2 turns if she wants to replicate another unit's utility; the former is better and should be used to assess how good the unit is relative to others.

If we're still talking about an efficiency context (and I hope that we are) then turn counts and reliability are the two most important factors in evaluating units; they're pretty much the full picture. If you really want to get into the weeds of the thing it's not going to help move this along.

While I don't agree that Chloe is better even if she was that doesn't mean there should necessarily be a big tier difference between them. To me that is very miss informative and is not at all what tier list should do. A tier list should show the person who is look at how characters do if they are used compare to every other character. So if lapis has utility and strength that are similar to Chloe and Kagetsu. She should not be far separated from them, if she was imo that giving so much misinformation and completely missing the point of a tier list. 

Indeed and in that context I think lapis is amazing. Which you don't agree. Then we repeat. We both have done nothing to convince the other, and quite frankly we don't need to. At this point I just want the take away to anyone still reading this is try Lapis out I think you will be surprised. If not then that's fine to. The real problem with moving this along is just that we simply have a very different view on how these things work. 

[samthedigital]

3 hours ago, Skyteppelin said:

While I don't agree that Chloe is better even if she was that doesn't mean there should necessarily be a big tier difference between them. To me that is very miss informative and is not at all what tier list should do. A tier list should show the person who is look at how characters do if they are used compare to every other character. So if lapis has utility and strength that are similar to Chloe and Kagetsu. She should not be far separated from them, if she was imo that giving so much misinformation and completely missing the point of a tier list. 

Do you agree or disagree with what I said; do you want to compare Lapis in a vacuum or when other characters also exist that we are free to use at the same time?

 

3 hours ago, Skyteppelin said:

Indeed and in that context I think lapis is amazing. Which you don't agree. Then we repeat. We both have done nothing to convince the other, and quite frankly we don't need to. At this point I just want the take away to anyone still reading this is try Lapis out I think you will be surprised. If not then that's fine to. The real problem with moving this along is just that we simply have a very different view on how these things work.

If you do then we should agree on some level. We don't give Lapis preferential treatment (aka lose time) as in the example I gave above to compare her to other units. We assume that we're already playing efficiently and letting her build experience naturally. If you don't agree that this is how we should tier characters then rank her in another way and don't try using the word the way you feel it should be used when evaluating her.

Edited March 21, 2023 by samthedigital

[asm335]

You know you can just like to use a character that isn't S-tier without contorting yourself into a pretzel trying to justify it by claiming she's as good as a unit that's basically a Jeritza that you could recruit him in chapter 4 of Crimson Flower, right?

[Skyteppelin]

4 hours ago, samthedigital said:

Do you agree or disagree with what I said; do you want to compare Lapis in a vacuum or when other characters also exist that we are free to use at the same time?

 

If you do then we should agree on some level. We don't give Lapis preferential treatment (aka lose time) as in the example I gave above to compare her to other units. We assume that we're already playing efficiently and letting her build experience naturally. If you don't agree that this is how we should tier characters then rank her in another way and don't try using the word the way you feel it should be used when evaluating her.

I think comparing character is fine, that's how tier list work. But that doesn't mean similar characters get rated way far apart from each other just cause the other is a thing. Like I don't want to get off topic again but that's never how any game has worked and I have no reason to believe that fire emblem shouldn't be like that.  No one rates yang low in SF4 cause Yun exist and is better. No one rates dormammu in MVC3 low just cause doom is a overall better support.  Goes to card games as well no one rates machine blood in shadowveres low just cause vampire blood is the better blood deck. All these characters or decks are still considered top of the game regardless if they are a "worse" version then a better thing because they themselves are still good. It has nothing to do with putting them in vacuum, it just that they really aren't all that different from there counter parts aside from minor ups and downs. 

I think were both using the words we want to use to tier cause be believe those are what matters when tiering, I see no reason why giving any characters extra kills especially if doesn't slow you down all that much for a good pay off is a bad thing. Especially when the difference is minor in the long run. 

[Skyteppelin]

1 hour ago, asm335 said:

You know you can just like to use a character that isn't S-tier without contorting yourself into a pretzel trying to justify it by claiming she's as good as a unit that's basically a Jeritza that you could recruit him in chapter 4 of Crimson Flower, right?

Trust me I know what ""bad"" units are, my fav unit in echos is delthea, my fav unit in 7 is nino another is rebbeca, my fav unit 6 is Lilian and Zeiss, my fav 9 unit is Mia, one of my fav 10 units is edward. I know what a bad unit is, I just simply believe that Lapis isn't that. Of course I have more investment in it then saying some other unit is good cause I like her a lot. But its only cause I truly believe she is actually amazing, and has very little to do with wanting one of my favs to do good. If I wanted to show that I like good units I would just talk about how much I love Cormag, or Palla, or Cedia, or Selphie, or Jill, or FE 10 ike etc...

[samthedigital]

3 hours ago, Skyteppelin said:

I think comparing character is fine, that's how tier list work. But that doesn't mean similar characters get rated way far apart from each other just cause the other is a thing. Like I don't want to get off topic again but that's never how any game has worked and I have no reason to believe that fire emblem shouldn't be like that.  No one rates yang low in SF4 cause Yun exist and is better. No one rates dormammu in MVC3 low just cause doom is a overall better support.  Goes to card games as well no one rates machine blood in shadowveres low just cause vampire blood is the better blood deck. All these characters or decks are still considered top of the game regardless if they are a "worse" version then a better thing because they themselves are still good. It has nothing to do with putting them in vacuum, it just that they really aren't all that different from there counter parts aside from minor ups and downs

If you want to use fighting games as an example most tier lists are done by pros and do not factor in things like "ease of use". They're ranking characters based off of how they perform when top players use them. The thing is that in most fighting games characters do exist in a vacuum, so if I want to use whatever character you listed it means I'm not using another one. I don't know anything about current the meta of current card games, but it would be similar to rating individual general use cards than deck archetypes. The comparison breaks down because people would just use the better card (think Twin Twisters to MST), and the slightly worse one only has a use case when we need that much more of the same effect instead of assuming it's always used. If we used Fire Emblem as the example you do get to use Lapis, but we can also use other units, and spending time training her is not assumed.

3 hours ago, Skyteppelin said:

I think were both using the words we want to use to tier cause be believe those are what matters when tiering, I see no reason why giving any characters extra kills especially if doesn't slow you down all that much for a good pay off is a bad thing. Especially when the difference is minor in the long run. 

Efficiency has a specific definition when it comes to Fire Emblem and it does not involve rating characters when we slow down even if it's "not all that much". If you feel that I'm using words the way I want then prove it. Find a quote that says that we can evaluate a unit's contributions when slowing down in either Vykan or ColonelM's FAQ. If you're going to claim that slowing down to train Lapis is better in the long run then the burden of proof proof is on you too. You've done nothing but explain to me why you think Lapis is a good unit while providing nothing as evidence. We have several LTCs to go by that show that using Lapis does not in fact save time in that setting, and it should be enough to show that the same is true in an efficiency playthrough. If you happen to watch ColonelM's first few chapters some of the strategies he uses can be consistent too, so it's not as if it's a radically different game type than an efficiency playthrough. It's also infinitely more than what you've provided so far.

Edited March 22, 2023 by samthedigital

[Dark Holy Elf]

29 minutes ago, samthedigital said:

Efficiency has a specific definition when it comes to Fire Emblem

I don't think I agree with this statement at all; I actually think "efficiency" defined rather vaguely. I'd say it tends to be used as a shorthand for a set of values that high-end players broadly agree on, like we want to go reasonably fast (though how fast is vague) and have strategies which are reasonably reliable (though again, how reliable is vague), and we like units who consume fewer resources relative to the quality of their performance (hence, efficiency)... but again there is vagueness here because of the relative cost of different types of investment, for instance. Basically, the whole concept is deliberately a bit vague, but that's a good thing - it fosters debate, and individual players (even good players who participate in these conversations) don't all have identical playstyles, even if they may be similar.

Regarding comparisons to fighting games: I don't find them terribly appropriate. Fighting games have a very clear goal - to defeat other human players one on one. And in many cases it can basically be proven that some characters do this better than others. One-player games do not have anywhere near as clear a goal: we all agree that we want to win, usually on the highest "official" difficulty. but there are so many ways to do that. So tier lists often try to put on some other arbitrary constraints, but by nature of the fact that they are arbitrary, we disagree on what those constraints should be.

Now, it turns out that most constraints produce broadly similar tier lists, so it doesn't matter too much - e.g. to bring this post back to being on-topic, I don't really think there's a reasonable set of criteria which will actually push Lapis above Chloe or Kagetsu myself, because in my view regardless of what we value or how fast we go we will basically always find Lapis needs more "work" or "investment" (turns, kill feeding that could go to others, etc.) to do what Chloe and Kagetsu do. I do think the specific criteria can definitely influence how close Lapis is to them, though.

[Skyteppelin]

1 hour ago, samthedigital said:

If you want to use fighting games as an example most tier lists are done by pros and do not factor in things like "ease of use". They're ranking characters based off of how they perform when top players use them. The thing is that in most fighting games characters do exist in a vacuum, so if I want to use whatever character you listed it means I'm not using another one. I don't know anything about current the meta of current card games, but it would be similar to rating individual general use cards than deck archetypes. The comparison breaks down because people would just use the better card (think Twin Twisters to MST), and the slightly worse one only has a use case when we need that much more of the same effect instead of assuming it's always used. If we used Fire Emblem as the example you do get to use Lapis, but we can also use other units, and spending time training her is not assumed.

Efficiency has a specific definition when it comes to Fire Emblem and it does not involve rating characters when we slow down even if it's "not all that much". If you feel that I'm using words the way I want then prove it. Find a quote that says that we can evaluate a unit's contributions when slowing down in either Vykan or ColonelM's FAQ. If you're going to claim that slowing down to train Lapis is better in the long run then the burden of proof proof is on you too. You've done nothing but explain to me why you think Lapis is a good unit while providing nothing as evidence. We have several LTCs to go by that show that using Lapis does not in fact save time in that setting, and it should be enough to show that the same is true in an efficiency playthrough. If you happen to watch ColonelM's first few chapters some of the strategies he uses can be consistent too, so it's not as if it's a radically different game type than an efficiency playthrough. It's also infinitely more than what you've provided so far.

no its literally the same thing you chose to use one character over another based on how you feel vs every other character. They do not exist in a vacuum the whole point of a tier list is to compare characters to other characters and see how they do vs them by definition it can not exist in vacuum. Even still if you wanted to marvel is a team game so you do actually chose options over others. I don't think MST is bad card, twin twisters is a better card but MST is not a bad one and to think other wise is insane. Granted that is how most yu-gi-oh players think which is crazy. Not to mention when more then one back row removal is used when back row decks are heavy in the meta, been plenty of case where people run both twin twisters and cosmic cyclone. But I digress. 

I don't think efficiency has a specific definition if it did then this argument wouldn't pop up in the fire emblem community all the time. I'm also going to be honest you have done nothing to say why I should think Lapis is worse. You have done nothing to prove anything to me why what you should say should matter more. It can matter more to you sure but we have a fundamental difference in what should matter for a tier list.  We have gone in circles for days now on about how we value different things which is not something iv had to do with anyone else if with those that disagree with me that Lapis is good cause we have come to some form of mutual understanding of the other persons view point. So I don't feel I have to prove to you anything. Although I was going to get prof I just said I was in school so I can't do that run right away, and i'm still going to do ot cause it sounds fun but you don't exactly make me want to share it you. So I think ill just call it here, ill post it once I can actually get the chance to do it. 

Edited March 22, 2023 by Skyteppelin

[Skyteppelin]

22 minutes ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

I don't think I agree with this statement at all; I actually think "efficiency" defined rather vaguely. I'd say it tends to be used as a shorthand for a set of values that high-end players broadly agree on, like we want to go reasonably fast (though how fast is vague) and have strategies which are reasonably reliable (though again, how reliable is vague), and we like units who consume fewer resources relative to the quality of their performance (hence, efficiency)... but again there is vagueness here because of the relative cost of different types of investment, for instance. Basically, the whole concept is deliberately a bit vague, but that's a good thing - it fosters debate, and individual players (even good players who participate in these conversations) don't all have identical playstyles, even if they may be similar.

Regarding comparisons to fighting games: I don't find them terribly appropriate. Fighting games have a very clear goal - to defeat other human players one on one. And in many cases it can basically be proven that some characters do this better than others. One-player games do not have anywhere near as clear a goal: we all agree that we want to win, usually on the highest "official" difficulty. but there are so many ways to do that. So tier lists often try to put on some other arbitrary constraints, but by nature of the fact that they are arbitrary, we disagree on what those constraints should be.

Now, it turns out that most constraints produce broadly similar tier lists, so it doesn't matter too much - e.g. to bring this post back to being on-topic, I don't really think there's a reasonable set of criteria which will actually push Lapis above Chloe or Kagetsu myself, because in my view regardless of what we value or how fast we go we will basically always find Lapis needs more "work" or "investment" (turns, kill feeding that could go to others, etc.) to do what Chloe and Kagetsu do. I do think the specific criteria can definitely influence how close Lapis is to them, though.

Second point is why I didn't want to get to off topic I just wanted to highlight how I view characters in comparison to one another in that characters that are close in gameplay should stay close on tier list regardless of which the final better of the two. 

Aside from turns which I sitll have to test bunch I really don't think Lapis is being kill feed, I think there is difference between feeding kills and just getting them because you are good at getting them. Someone like Anna is being kill fed cause she needs enemys to be brought low for her to kill. While Lapis can ppush towards any given objective and kill anything. Now if you do take turns into account then she won't be getting as much XP so Id have to see how she would compare to kagetsu with that context which I will still do. Although someone like Chloe also needs to be feed lots of kills in LTCs to actually get to a good point so I don't think that should be that much of detriment tp Lapis regardless of who is the overall better one. But like I said I plan to do test all this once I get the chance. 

[samthedigital]

2 hours ago, Skyteppelin said:

no its literally the same thing you chose to use one character over another based on how you feel vs every other character. They do not exist in a vacuum the whole point of a tier list is to compare characters to other characters and see how they do vs them by definition it can not exist in vacuum. Even still if you wanted to marvel is a team game so you do actually chose options over others.

You can deploy more than one character in a map, and you're also misrepresenting my meaning when I say that characters don't exist in a vacuum. If you like I can go over what I am saying if you don't think it's clear enough. I am also sick of examples of games I know nothing about, but your comparison doesn't really work here. It would be similar to comparing the relative use of each individual character in the team and what they contribute than to the cast as a whole. Assuming I use Morrigan in MvC2 I'm not going to give other units credit for what she brings to the table; as far as I'm aware she does most of the work and the other units are support. I don't know anything about the game though, so if I'm wrong about the specifics we don't need to go into the weeds on that specific example if it doesn't translate. Melee is the only fighter I know something about, and examples in that game don't work.

Quote

I think efficiency has a specific definition if it did then this argument wouldn't pop up in the fire emblem community all the time. I'm going to be honest you have done nothing to say why I should think Lapis is worse. You have done nothing to prove anything to me why what you should say should matter more.

I've provided examples and you have either ignored or questioned their legitimacy, so your claim that I've provided none is false (likely because it doesn't support your narrative); it doesn't work both ways here. You're also conveniently not providing me any evidence that I'm wrong when you could easily do so if you had a quote provided it exists.

Quote

Although someone like Chloe also needs to be feed lots of kills in LTCs to actually get to a good point so I don't think that should be that much of detriment tp Lapis regardless of who is the overall better one.

It's important to note that we're feeding Chloe kills while also not wasting any turns in an LTC context; there's more time to do that when warp doesn't exist.

2 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

Basically, the whole concept is deliberately a bit vague, but that's a good thing - it fosters debate, and individual players (even good players who participate in these conversations) don't all have identical playstyles, even if they may be similar.

2 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

I don't really think there's a reasonable set of criteria which will actually push Lapis above Chloe or Kagetsu myself, because in my view regardless of what we value or how fast we go we will basically always find Lapis needs more "work" or "investment" (turns, kill feeding that could go to others, etc.) to do what Chloe and Kagetsu do.

I think that you might actually agree with me; I certainly don't disagree with most of what you've said in any case, and I'm pretty sure that I made a similar point earlier:

Quote

This isn't of much concern in an efficiency setting. We're not so much trying to be meticulous about the turn count so much as having a general idea of what's better; a turn here and there is not going to have a drastic impact on rankings.

When I am saying that efficiency has a specific meaning it's referring to the idea that taking time to kill enemies isn't what we would consider efficient play and that units don't get credit for efficient play if it means being more inefficient to get to that point. Everything has been muddied though because it's been practically impossible to stick to one topic, and I have no idea if he agrees with me on certain things making it impossible to make progress without addressing old points.

Edited March 22, 2023 by samthedigital

[Skyteppelin]

54 minutes ago, samthedigital said:

You can deploy more than one character in a map, and you're also misrepresenting my meaning when I say that characters don't exist in a vacuum. If you like I can go over what I am saying if you don't think it's clear enough. I am also sick of examples of games I know nothing about, but your comparison doesn't really work here. It would be similar to comparing the relative use of each individual character in the team and what they contribute than to the cast as a whole. Assuming I use Morrigan in MvC2 I'm not going to give other units credit for what she brings to the table; as far as I'm aware she does most of the work and the other units are support. I don't know anything about the game though, so if I'm wrong about the specifics we don't need to go into the weeds on that specific example if it doesn't translate. Melee is the only fighter I know something about, and examples in that game don't work.

I've provided examples and you have either ignored or questioned their legitimacy, so your claim that I've provided none is false (likely because it doesn't support your narrative); it doesn't work both ways here. You're also conveniently not providing me any evidence that I'm wrong when you could easily do so if you had a quote provided it exists.

It's important to note that we're feeding Chloe kills while also not wasting any turns in an LTC context; there's more time to do that when warp doesn't exist.

I think that you might actually agree with me; I certainly don't disagree with most of what you've said in any case, and I'm pretty sure that I made a similar point earlier:

When I am saying that efficiency has a specific meaning it's referring to the idea that taking time to kill enemies isn't what we would consider efficient play and that units don't get credit for efficient play if it means being more inefficient to get to that point. Everything has been muddied though because it's been practically impossible to stick to one topic, and I have no idea if he agrees with me on certain things making it impossible to make progress without addressing old points.

I could use melee as a example cause its what I play which id prob go to fox and falco but I wont' for the sake of everyone. Ill just say I'm not giving anyone credit for what another character does. What I'm saying is two characters that are similar in a lot of context are rated similarly regardless of which one is number 1 or the "better" one. Obviously characters like Marth and Roy have a world difference between them despite being clones.  But other cases you have characters like Yun and Yang who are also clones of one another to some degree but are rated much closer together. Lapis and Kagestu are not Marth and Roy to me anyway, they are much more like Yun and Yang. That's my mindset. 

I layed out why I thought Lapis was better, the wyv stuff, the chapters she has over him, the access to part 1 emblems. You just like you are saying to me just don't accept them cause in your own words "they don't fit your narrative." But I don't care about who is trying shape what narrative I'm not here to play a blame game and point fingers and who's "fault" it is that this isn't going anywhere. Iv seen your points and I agree with them I acknowledge that they are a thing. Kagestu has better overall stats, takes less effort to get going, Lapis lose more turns (to me yet to be seen ill do my own testing as said) in ""efficiency setting" or LTC setting whatever you prefer to call it. But I weighed those things vs what I said and don't agree that it makes kagetsu better as I value what Lapis brings more. Just as you value what Kagestu brings more., and like I get where you are coming from I don't fully agree but I don't see that as a problem. And I can admit that i'm frustrated that I seemingly can't get through to you, which is just how it is. All I can really take away from it is to work on my presentation and what not, but like I said I'm not out here to play the blame game. 

Sure

That ill being said I will post the stuff I do for what is basically a LTC run. I won't be able to do it now cause I'm busy with school and other things but that doesn't mean I won't just will take a little bit. But when I do will have more stuff to talk about if we are both feeling up to it. 

Edited March 22, 2023 by Skyteppelin

[samthedigital]

2 minutes ago, Skyteppelin said:

I could use melee as a example cause its what I play which id prob go to fox and falco but I wont' for the sake of everyone. Ill just say I'm not giving anyone credit for what another character does. What I'm saying is two characters that are similar in a lot of context are rated similarly regardless of which one is number 1 or the "better" one. Obviously characters like Marth and Roy have a world difference between them despite being clones.  But other cases you have characters like Yun and Yang who are also clones of one another to some degree but are rated much closer together. Lapis and Kagestu are not Marth and Roy to me anyway, they are much more like Yun and Yang. That's my mindset. 

Look; I agree with how we rank fighters, but I don't have any other way to say that this is not what I'm getting at when comparing characters in Fire Emblem than what I've said already, but more on that below and we can stop using fighting games as an analogy as it doesn't convey the meaning.

18 minutes ago, Skyteppelin said:

Iv seen your points and I don't agree with them I acknowledge that they are a thing. Kagestu has better overall stats, takes less effort to get going, Lapis can't match up to him in """Efficiency setting""" or LTC setting whatever you prefer to call it.

The key here is something I said earlier, but I'll paraphrase. We can tier Lapis in two different ways. One where she's being used in a setting where she's meant to be the carry and takes some time to get there initially, and the other where we already have a carry and don't need to take the time to train her for that role. They are still the same character, but as units they are different especially earlier on.

Quote

I layed out why I thought Lapis was better, the wyv stuff, the chapters she has over him, the access to part 1 emblems. You just like you are saying to me just don't accept them cause in your own words "they don't fit your narrative."

No, it's that I don't agree that Lapis should be getting credit for what she provides in your examples because of what I've outlined above. If I were to rank characters your way then I still would still put Lapis below Chloe, but she would definitely have more of an argument when comparing her to Kagetsu. You're free to disagree that she should be tiered in the way that I've described, but that's how I (and a lot of other people) tier characters.

[Skyteppelin]

1 hour ago, samthedigital said:

Look; I agree with how we rank fighters, but I don't have any other way to say that this is not what I'm getting at when comparing characters in Fire Emblem than what I've said already, but more on that below and we can stop using fighting games as an analogy as it doesn't convey the meaning.

The key here is something I said earlier, but I'll paraphrase. We can tier Lapis in two different ways. One where she's being used in a setting where she's meant to be the carry and takes some time to get there initially, and the other where we already have a carry and don't need to take the time to train her for that role. They are still the same character, but as units they are different especially earlier on.

No, it's that I don't agree that Lapis should be getting credit for what she provides in your examples because of what I've outlined above. If I were to rank characters your way then I still would still put Lapis below Chloe, but she would definitely have more of an argument when comparing her to Kagetsu. You're free to disagree that she should be tiered in the way that I've described, but that's how I (and a lot of other people) tier characters.

I really don't see the difference in why FE characters should be ranked differently then every other game. They all do tier list the way fighting games do them, be it card games, board games, RTS. I have no idea why fire emblem would be any different. 

The key for me Is I don't think Lapis takes any time to become a carry she comes out of the gate able to one round anything with just a master seal like that is not taking time. You can use her the whole game and have her carry regardless if Kagetsu is better or not or Chloe or whoever. 

Hey man I'm just using your own words, why is me disagreeing trying to "fit things into my narrative" but for you its just that you disagree? But yes I do disagree with the way pretty much all fire emblem tier list are done, which is something I think can create interesting discussion in which a lot of places it has.  

[samthedigital]

1 hour ago, Skyteppelin said:

The key for me Is I don't think Lapis takes any time to become a carry she comes out of the gate able to one round anything with just a master seal like that is not taking time. You can use her the whole game and have her carry regardless if Kagetsu is better or not or Chloe or whoever.

1 hour ago, Skyteppelin said:

I really don't see the difference in why FE characters should be ranked differently then every other game. They all do tier list the way fighting games do them, be it card games, board games, RTS. I have no idea why fire emblem would be any different. 

I don't care about what your opinion of Lapis is at the moment. What I need to know is whether you understand how I'm ranking the character. You should also be able to understand that fighting game characters are not the same as Fire Emblem ones; the analogy doesn't work when one character can perform in a vastly different way depending on the context. It's static in a fighting game.

1 hour ago, Skyteppelin said:

Hey man I'm just using your own words, why is me disagreeing trying to "fit things into my narrative" but for you its just that you disagree?

Is there any reason I shouldn't assume that you're just trying to troll?

Edited March 22, 2023 by samthedigital

[Anathaco]

1 hour ago, Skyteppelin said:

I really don't see the difference in why FE characters should be ranked differently then every other game. They all do tier list the way fighting games do them, be it card games, board games, RTS. I have no idea why fire emblem would be any different. 

Totally gonna jump into this discussion out of nowhere, but the way I see it is that characters in FE are completely different to something like a fighting game. In a fighting game, you pick one character and use them for a match, and their options, matchups, playstyles and overall ease of use combine to create a likelihood of obtaining victory with that character. Characters who are more likely to bring their players victory get tiered higher (normally measured through tournament placings and stuff), but there are a lot of factors that determine that. I think that's the reason similar characters in fighting games tend to be ranked in similar tiers- there's no real redundancy to them because they could have slightly different matchups, or could work better with different playstyles, that change their usefulness in a tournament setting.

In FE, you want an army to be as well rounded as possible, so overloading on one particular unit type is actively a bad thing (unless its 3H, in which case wyverns all the way babyyyyy). This is the main issue with Lapis in the eyes of most tier list makers I've seen. Sure you can make her a hard carry, but Chloe can do the same and comes earlier, so many players will give her the XP and resources to make that happen, and you simply have no need of Lapis. Or maybe you do use her, but Kagetsu comes in a few chapters later and is just better, so players tend to prefer using him and Lapis unfortunately hits the bench as a result. She's in an awkward in-between where she's neither the earliest joining speedy frontline type, nor the one with the highest stats.

 

[asm335]

16 hours ago, Skyteppelin said:

Trust me I know what ""bad"" units are, my fav unit in echos is delthea, my fav unit in 7 is nino another is rebbeca, my fav unit 6 is Lilian and Zeiss, my fav 9 unit is Mia, one of my fav 10 units is edward. I know what a bad unit is, I just simply believe that Lapis isn't that. Of course I have more investment in it then saying some other unit is good cause I like her a lot. But its only cause I truly believe she is actually amazing, and has very little to do with wanting one of my favs to do good. If I wanted to show that I like good units I would just talk about how much I love Cormag, or Palla, or Cedia, or Selphie, or Jill, or FE 10 ike etc...

I don't think anyone is saying that Lapis is a bad unit (and if they are, they're wrong. She's genuinely too fast to be bad in a game where speed is so important and strength deficiencies can be patched through class changes). However, Kagetsu is so clearly the best physical offensive unit in the game that trying to argue that Lapis is just as good as he is makes you sound absurd.  I really like Hubert as a unit and character in Three Houses, but I'm also not going to try to argue that actually, he's just as good as Lysithea is.

[Skyteppelin]

8 hours ago, samthedigital said:

I don't care about what your opinion of Lapis is at the moment. What I need to know is whether you understand how I'm ranking the character. You should also be able to understand that fighting game characters are not the same as Fire Emblem ones; the analogy doesn't work when one character can perform in a vastly different way depending on the context. It's static in a fighting game.

Is there any reason I shouldn't assume that you're just trying to troll?

I understand how you are ranking them and I don't agree simple as that. Fighting games characters are not the same but it doesn't have to be fighting game characters simply how I believe all characters in any game should be ranked. I don't think the analogy breaks down at all, if characters can do very similar things they are ranked similarly or a card or a piece or a weapon or a item or a skill. Cause that's just it I don't believe Lapis is all that different from kagetsu, I'm sorry that after all this you haven't convinced me otherwise. If you want to blame that on me go ahead, but I ain't going to change the way I feel just for sake of ending an argument if I don't feel I have any reason to change my stance.     

You can assume whatever you want, Is me telling you I'm not trolling really going to make you understand what I'm trying to say?  Probably not cause we really have a fundamental disagreement here. Would this end if I said Lapis is worse then Kagetsu when I don't believe that? At this point I get your arguments and can see why someone would view Kagetsu as better. Regardless if I disagree. 
 

8 hours ago, Anathaco said:

Totally gonna jump into this discussion out of nowhere, but the way I see it is that characters in FE are completely different to something like a fighting game. In a fighting game, you pick one character and use them for a match, and their options, matchups, playstyles and overall ease of use combine to create a likelihood of obtaining victory with that character. Characters who are more likely to bring their players victory get tiered higher (normally measured through tournament placings and stuff), but there are a lot of factors that determine that. I think that's the reason similar characters in fighting games tend to be ranked in similar tiers- there's no real redundancy to them because they could have slightly different matchups, or could work better with different playstyles, that change their usefulness in a tournament setting.

In FE, you want an army to be as well rounded as possible, so overloading on one particular unit type is actively a bad thing (unless its 3H, in which case wyverns all the way babyyyyy). This is the main issue with Lapis in the eyes of most tier list makers I've seen. Sure you can make her a hard carry, but Chloe can do the same and comes earlier, so many players will give her the XP and resources to make that happen, and you simply have no need of Lapis. Or maybe you do use her, but Kagetsu comes in a few chapters later and is just better, so players tend to prefer using him and Lapis unfortunately hits the bench as a result. She's in an awkward in-between where she's neither the earliest joining speedy frontline type, nor the one with the highest stats.

 

See I get what your saying but I just don't think it apply's. Especially cause with Lapis she like you mention with different match ups or works better with different play styles does matter. Has Benefits over Kagestu, earlier Wyvern, Part 1 emblem access, more chapters to help. Also has benefits over Chloe, high base strength on average, better defenses, and doesn't need any training.  Which of course the reveres is true but that just shows that redundancy isn't a factor for them. Also when it comes to redundancy I don't think its a big deal, it doesn't matter if Yang is redundant he is still good. If Yun is S tier does it make sense for Yang to be D tier when they are so similar? Does it make more sense for Yang to suddenly jump from D to S tier if Yun was removed or banned or whatever, or does it make more sense for Yang to just already be in A or S tier (below Yun in this case.) 

Cause we don't like the fighting game example will just use FE. Does it make sense for Kagetsu to be S tier and Lapis to be D tier? Just for Lapis to jump into S tier if Kagetsu was removed? I know everyone will say "but chloe is in the game to" So okay then if Chloe was gone does lapis suddenly Jump up 5 whole tiers? Or does it make more sense for her to just already be close to them in the first place. Which becomes even crazier when you do factor in that Lapis does have benefits over both of them. This is what makes this insane to me, units should always assume they are being used to there fullest potential and to me these 3 are very similar when used that way. 

 

3 hours ago, asm335 said:

I don't think anyone is saying that Lapis is a bad unit (and if they are, they're wrong. She's genuinely too fast to be bad in a game where speed is so important and strength deficiencies can be patched through class changes). However, Kagetsu is so clearly the best physical offensive unit in the game that trying to argue that Lapis is just as good as he is makes you sound absurd.  I really like Hubert as a unit and character in Three Houses, but I'm also not going to try to argue that actually, he's just as good as Lysithea is.

Idk putting her in C tier while Kagetsu is in S is pretty insane to me. But again its cause I just genuinely believe that Lapis  is as good, to me she does all the things Kagetsu does but sooner and keeps up with him perfectly and has other benefits like the early wyv and part 1 skills over him. I know it will stook a fire saying that but I just simply believe that in this case.  

[asm335]

16 minutes ago, Skyteppelin said:

Idk putting her in C tier while Kagetsu is in S is pretty insane to me. But again its cause I just genuinely believe that Lapis  is as good, to me she does all the things Kagetsu does but sooner and keeps up with him perfectly and has other benefits like the early wyv and part 1 skills over him. I know it will stook a fire saying that but I just simply believe that in this case.

 

You can believe whatever you want I guess. Just don't be surprised when no one else agrees considering that she has worse strength, worse speed, worse accuracy, worse crit ability, and worse defense when given similar class paths and treatment.

[Skyteppelin]

11 minutes ago, asm335 said:

 

You can believe whatever you want I guess. Just don't be surprised when no one else agrees considering that she has worse strength, worse speed, worse accuracy, worse crit ability, and worse defense when given similar class paths and treatment.

I ain't all that surprised I knew it would be a uphill battle. Although with all those differences I do think they are very minor to the point of basically not effecting there performance all that much given how the game works. Although of course its not a battle I have to win per say at the end of the day I will always use her over kagetsu cause I like her more. Just thought it would be fun to put my take out there and for the most part it has. 

[samthedigital]

41 minutes ago, Skyteppelin said:

I understand how you are ranking them and I don't agree simple as that. Fighting games characters are not the same but it doesn't have to be fighting game characters simply how I believe all characters in any game should be ranked. I don't think the analogy breaks down at all, if characters can do very similar things they are ranked similarly or a card or a piece or a weapon or a item or a skill.

If that's what you got out if it you did not understand the analogy. The fact of the matter is that the way we play earlier chapters can have a direct affect on how useful a character is later on. Are you going to claim that Fox is the same character as Falco? They're not the same character, and that's the problem with the analogy. Lapis can be more useful depending on how quickly we play. In your case you play more slowly and Lapis is better or the same as Kagetsu somehow, but that's not the case if we're playing faster.

 

41 minutes ago, Skyteppelin said:

Would this end if I said Lapis is worse then Kagetsu when I don't believe that?

There are multiple ways to "end it", but if you truly do understand my perspective there would be no cause for argument. Lapis simply does not have the time to match Kagetsu depending on how fast we play especially if we give her no stat boosters as you suggested originally. She also does not perform better than Chloe, and this is evidenced by the myriad of LTCs and playthroughs that have not used Lapis to save time. I could again point to several runs, but it also hasn't convinced you already. You have also admitted to not having done an LTC and the turn counts you've listed several days ago do not match the ones that we can expect to see in either an LTC or efficiency playthrough anyway. If you don't agree with me I don't really care; I've stated that already, but it would be interesting to know why you don't agree when you aren't even sure in the first place given your lack of experience.

Edited March 22, 2023 by samthedigital

[Skyteppelin]

1 hour ago, samthedigital said:

If that's what you got out if it you did not understand the analogy. The fact of the matter is that the way we play earlier chapters can have a direct affect on how useful a character is later on. Are you going to claim that Fox is the same character as Falco? They're not the same character, and that's the problem with the analogy. Lapis can be more useful depending on how quickly we play. In your case you play more slowly and Lapis is better or the same as Kagetsu somehow, but that's not the case if we're playing faster.

 

There are multiple ways to "end it", but if you truly do understand my perspective there would be no cause for argument. Lapis simply does not have the time to match Kagetsu depending on how fast we play especially if we give her no stat boosters as you suggested originally. She also does not perform better than Chloe, and this is evidenced by the myriad of LTCs and playthroughs that have not used Lapis to save time. I could again point to several runs, but it also hasn't convinced you already. You have also admitted to not having done an LTC and the turn counts you've listed several days ago do not match the ones that we can expect to see in either an LTC or efficiency playthrough anyway. If you don't agree with me I don't really care; I've stated that already, but it would be interesting to know why you don't agree when you aren't even sure in the first place given your lack of experience.

I was never claiming anyone was the same character my guy just that they are similar. Don't tell me I don't get the analogy then misrepresent it. Fox and Falco's shine are not the same but they are similar. Fox and Falco's lasers are not the same but they are similar. There back airs are even more similar but they still aren't the same, this is what I mean. Lapis and Kagestu to me are not Marth and Roy they are Fox and Falco. They have tons of similarity but there differences have real debate depending on what players value. 

understanding does not mean I have to agree I can view another sides perspective with out agreeing on it. I have a lot of problems with the you are going about defining 'fast" "efficient" you are so insanely hyper focused on one way to play the game that fits a very narrow perception of what you think it means to play the game "well". And even still people can use Chloe cause that's what they want to do but that doesn't mean Lapis can't match up. You could swap Lapis for Chloe and they would operate the exact same for the rest of the game. Not to mention including things like DLC or different objective runs that change the land scape wildly. What if instead of just strike LTC you do LTC but you have to get all items? Is that any less valid then just a strict LTC? But I digress ill just stick to the LTC example cause that's what you want, I said id get you your damn evidence I just haven't had the time. 

[asm335]

2 hours ago, Skyteppelin said:

I ain't all that surprised I knew it would be a uphill battle. Although with all those differences I do think they are very minor to the point of basically not effecting there performance all that much given how the game works. Although of course its not a battle I have to win per say at the end of the day I will always use her over kagetsu cause I like her more. Just thought it would be fun to put my take out there and for the most part it has. 

You know you can just use them both right? There's plenty of room for both of them on a team. Chloe too!

[Skyteppelin]

23 minutes ago, asm335 said:

You know you can just use them both right? There's plenty of room for both of them on a team. Chloe too!

Ye I use both Chloe and Lapis all the time, don't use Kagetsu as much cause I already have Lapis and Chloe and unit slots are pretty limited in engage if you want to use all your favorite units. 

[samthedigital]

21 minutes ago, Skyteppelin said:

I was never claiming anyone was the same character my guy just that they are similar. Don't tell me I don't get the analogy then misrepresent it. Fox and Falco's shine are not the same but they are similar. Fox and Falco's lasers are not the same but they are similar. There back airs are even more similar but they still aren't the same, this is what I mean. Lapis and Kagestu to me are not Marth and Roy they are Fox and Falco. They have tons of similarity but there differences have real debate depending on what players value.

You again missed the point. This is comparing Lapis A to Lapis B and not Kagetsu to Lapis.

22 minutes ago, Skyteppelin said:

understanding does not mean I have to agree I can view another sides perspective with out agreeing on it. I have a lot of problems with the you are going about defining 'fast" "efficient" you are so insanely hyper focused on one way to play the game that fits a very narrow perception of what you think it means to play the game "well". And even still people can use Chloe cause that's what they want to do but that doesn't mean Lapis can't match up. You could swap Lapis for Chloe and they would operate the exact same for the rest of the game. Not to mention including things like DLC or different objective runs that change the land scape wildly. What if instead of just strike LTC you do LTC but you have to get all items? Is that any less valid then just a strict LTC? But I digress ill just stick to the LTC example cause that's what you want, I said id get you your damn evidence I just haven't had the time.

If you haven't already done the run why are you adamant that you're right? In any case when we tier characters in a fighting game we do not base it off of how the average player plays the game in much the same way that we wouldn't do it for Fire Emblem.

Quote

You could swap Lapis for Chloe and they would operate the exact same for the rest of the game.

Except for the early game, and you value it for Lapis over Kagetsu, but not for Chloe over Lapis.