Jump to content

OMG it's a tier list


Florete
 Share

Recommended Posts

And this is why that Pure Water from Part 1 isn't actually as useless as people think.

The annoying part is that there is only one, it only has 3 uses, and you can't buy another for a while. But yes, Haar with Nullify and a pure water probably survives a crit. Ike at least has a much higher chance of dodging in the first place. Also I suppose he can use one of a fair number of +crit/cev bonds.

And dondon, as far as I know, considers Sothe's part 1 contributions to be so great that part 3 and 4 don't really matter for his tier position. He's just that good in part 1?

Edited by Narga_Rocks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 9.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

He's just that good in part 1?

This is the kind of logic that would put the Black Knight or Eddie in Top tier for their respective 1-9/1-P performances. Beyond that, for two or three of Sothe's Part 1 deployments he isn't even the best unit on the field, so it's a hard sell that he's just "that good".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the kind of logic that would put the Black Knight or Eddie in Top tier for their respective 1-9/1-P performances. Beyond that, for two or three of Sothe's Part 1 deployments he isn't even the best unit on the field, so it's a hard sell that he's just "that good".

Not saying I agree, just saying that's the feeling I get from some of his posts. He does have fun turn cutting places like 1-8 where his forged 1-2 range and bushwalking ability save you a few turns. I'll admit that BK and Eddie are problems for this, but at least Sothe has quite a number of awesome chapters rather than just one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 2-E Nullify is basically uncontested for, and Haar really is the biggest beneficiary from it. Once he has that he laughs at Thunder Mages.

Since we are assuming efficiency (and thus killing Ludveck on the first/second turn with Haar and/or Elincia), who exactly is getting the Nullify for Haar to use?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we are assuming efficiency (and thus killing Ludveck on the first/second turn with Haar and/or Elincia), who exactly is getting the Nullify for Haar to use?

Haar. It's not that hard to kill the General holding Nullify. And, in all honesty, even if you waste one turn getting it, it's still worth it in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we are assuming efficiency (and thus killing Ludveck on the first/second turn with Haar and/or Elincia), who exactly is getting the Nullify for Haar to use?

There is nothing wrong with sticking around in 2-Endgame for another turn or two to pick up the various freebies available.

The point of ranking characters in a tier list by efficiency -- a point that the Turncount Clown Company doesn't ever seem to comprehend -- is that playing efficiently tends to tease out the concrete differences between units. Going faster is more difficult than just turtling your way across every map. When you floor the accelerator, it exposes the actual flaws of a unit like Eddie, and makes offense/durability mean something real. To the extent that this list has survived RFoF's reign of terror, it is basically a reflection of that idea.

I don't see how crit-killing Ludveck on Turn 1 qualifies as anything but interesting trivia. We're not talking about buttoning down for the entire 15 turn duration and feeding every kill to Nephenee, here. Every useful item except perhaps for the Dracoshield is pretty readily available, doesn't make you go out of your way, and gives you flexibility in Part 3 + 4 without dragging things out forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps there should be two separate tier lists then? One for Effiency and one for Maximum Turncounts.

I've brought this up before, it went over like a lead balloon. Specifically I've suggested that dondon run it, but his response is one of either silence, or cries of victimization.

Personally I think it's a good idea. The people who want a list that reflects the parameters of a perfect playthrough with optimal deployment and minimal turncount, would now have their own clubhouse to discuss important matters. Things like how big Zero Utility tier will be, or how much blatant RNG-abuse and crit-rigging is kosher. This soldier would rather spend a hundred years doing the backstroke in an Olympic-size swimming pool filled with thumbtacks, but to each their own.

Maybe they find the perfect solution and then die of boredom. Maybe the list forks when there's a disagreement on whether or not to use 0% growths, and the pope is overthrown. Maybe someone discovers that Lyre is mathematically better than Oliver, and the entire thread collapses into a gravitational singularity. I know not.

I do know, however, that there must exist somewhere in this world, a home for someone who thinks that three-turning 2-Endgame matters two shits.

Maximum turn counts might be impossible. I don't know if the game even has a cap.

:dry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've brought this up before, it went over like a lead balloon. Specifically I've suggested that dondon run it, but his response is one of either silence, or cries of victimization.

Personally I think it's a good idea. The people who want a list that reflects the parameters of a perfect playthrough with optimal deployment and minimal turncount, would now have their own clubhouse to discuss important matters. Things like how big Zero Utility tier will be, or how much blatant RNG-abuse and crit-rigging is kosher. This soldier would rather spend a hundred years doing the backstroke in an Olympic-size swimming pool filled with thumbtacks, but to each their own.

Maybe they find the perfect solution and then die of boredom. Maybe the list forks when there's a disagreement on whether or not to use 0% growths, and the pope is overthrown. Maybe someone discovers that Lyre is mathematically better than Oliver, and the entire thread collapses into a gravitational singularity. I know not.

I do know, however, that there must exist somewhere in this world, a home for someone who thinks that three-turning 2-Endgame matters two shits.

Well, certainly, being able to tear your way through 2-E fast enough to reliably kill Ludveck on turn 3 is a good indicator of competence, both on the part of the player and on the parts of the units that do so, but I wouldn't assume it for the purposes of a tier list. Maybe it's worth considering, but not with a great deal of weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maximum turn counts might be impossible. I don't know if the game even has a cap.

Well it would depend how long the game can go on in turn count for chapter where you do not have a turn limit. Then add the chapters max turn count for chapter were you have a turn limit and there you have it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Effiency by definition is minimum expenditure of time and effort but the Effiency FAQ says its based on turn counts & costs, there are differences in both.

That is the same FAQ, not updated for two and a half years, that tells us that tier breaks are "aesthetic". At best it's a resource for people not familiar with FE nomenclature.

Well, certainly, being able to tear your way through 2-E fast enough to reliably kill Ludveck on turn 3 is a good indicator of competence, both on the part of the player and on the parts of the units that do so, but I wouldn't assume it for the purposes of a tier list. Maybe it's worth considering, but not with a great deal of weight.

It is already taken into consideration. Haar's impact in 2-Endgame isn't anything special if all you're doing there is buttoning down for 15 turns and free-farming experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Effiency by definition is minimum expenditure of time and effort but the Effiency FAQ says its based on turn counts & costs, there are differences in both.

This is probably the best post in this topic since whenever my last post was

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Efficiency wouldn't be the absolute minimum. Otherwise things couldn't be more or less efficient than other things. There's a difference between efficient use of turns (and money, EXP, etc.) and the most efficient use of turns (or money, EXP, etc.)

Edited by Rewjeo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Little subject change for a sec, but how exactly is Mia ranked higher than the Herons? They're all fragile, but I would find it difficult to believe that Mia can save more turns than Reyson...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Little subject change for a sec, but how exactly is Mia ranked higher than the Herons? They're all fragile, but I would find it difficult to believe that Mia can save more turns than Reyson...

Reyson used to be above her, and in the other tier. Must have dropped a while back. Wasn't here when that happened. This is interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Little subject change for a sec, but how exactly is Mia ranked higher than the Herons? They're all fragile, but I would find it difficult to believe that Mia can save more turns than Reyson...

You may as well be asking why dogs chase cats, because you find it difficult to understand why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch. One thing has nothing to do with the other. This is an efficiency tier list. If it was solely based on turns saved, Eddie would be God tier. Mia is ranked where she is largely because of things like offensive reach, synergy with Ike, etc.

The herons (and the healers, and the thieves) ought to be ranked in the same part of the list that we rank Biorhythm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Interceptor, define Fire Emblem-esque Efficiency.

There is no universally-accepted set of guidelines for what efficiency means in terms in Fire Emblem; if you asked five people you'd get six different answers. It's subjective, which is part of the point of discussing things in tier list threads in the first place. You make arguments and back them up.

It's like debating, except not boring and stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no universally-accepted set of guidelines for what efficiency means in terms in Fire Emblem; if you asked five people you'd get six different answers. It's subjective, which is part of the point of discussing things in tier list threads in the first place. You make arguments and back them up.

It's like debating, except not boring and stupid.

So, the arguments focus on what? The units contributions to the team? Is LTC a contribution, or is lowest chance of death each level, or any other style of playthrough. My answer is that the factors which make up the unit must be focused on some central goal, and efficiency is a terrible term for it.

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...