Tell me how wrong this person is

[Inui]

Actually, that is one of the chapters that comes to mind where Seth was actually absurdly useful back when I still used him a ton. I was tired of just flat out defending for all those turns, so I had him and Myrrh go find Riev, and they slaughtered him. It made the chapter SO much easier. Come to think of it, I have NO idea how I'll manage that this time around because I'm on chapter 15 with Seth at level 5...

Um... Even a 20/10 Seth can have issues in that chapter in hard mode. Were you playing some n00b mode> >_>;

[Luna]

Um last I checked Seth is a prepromote so a 20/10 seth is impossible... and back then he wasn't level 5 I'm talking about my current playthrough where he is level 5... sorry if that post was misleading the seth that destroyed the defend chapter in rausten was probably like level 16

[Inui]

Um last I checked Seth is a prepromote so a 20/10 seth is impossible...

don't be a faggot, you know what I meant

and back then he wasn't level 5 I'm talking about my current playthrough where he is level 5... sorry if that post was misleading the seth that destroyed the defend chapter in rausten was probably like level 16

There are many images I'd like to post right now, but this place has a few rules that are about as smart as Peter Griffin when he's drunk, so I can't without getting warnings.

Sigh...

[Narga_Rocks]

And so as a result you won't even say what your issue is at all?

[Florete]

There are many images I'd like to post right now, but this place has a few rules that are about as smart as Peter Griffin when he's drunk, so I can't without getting warnings.

Sigh...

You should read the rules more often.

[Narga_Rocks]

You should read the rules more often.

Like the update giving new rules about how to use images without getting warned?

[Hatchet]

could be another person with prepromotephobia

it's possible.... sounds like something one of the "mini-bosses" would say. like, "unleash Fear". hahah i guess it really depends on who's saying it. hope that helps!

[Inui]

You should read the rules more often.

Like the update giving new rules about how to use images without getting warned?

WELL OKAY THEN I WILL

I was gone for a while, sorry

[Excellen Browning]

True, people on this site seem to like jumping on unsuspecting one-pips.

It doesn't have to be played that way, but it must be assumed to be played that way if we are to gauge how good units are, especially in relation to each other, with any accuracy at all. Think: if you want to figure out if a unit is "good", will you weigh their performance when you're playing to win with emphasis on efficiency and turncount, when every detail is critical, or when you're playing slowly and casually, when the differences between units are blurred by babying and such? Obviously the former.

Then tell me why almost every FE7-and-beyond character guide on gamefaqs bases ratings mostly on 20/20 stats. There are a ton of facets of a character that make up his or her usefulness, and it is ultimately up to you to decide which of those facets you actually use to determine someone's usefulness. And of course how heavily you weigh each facet is very important, too. It doesn't mean that what you believe to be "good" or "mediocre" is wrong, but only applicable within the set of facets and circumstances -- each with attached value -- you use to compare. It is completely and totally irrelevant outside of that. And above all of this, tier lists apply only in theoretical realm(if not fixed mode) because stat gains are dependant on statistical chance. While it IS true that stats and the such tend to follow averages, it is far more likely for them to deviate from averages (to a certain probable extent) than to completely adhere to them. I understand that average stats are the only viable way of measuring theoretically, but they do not apply beyond that.

Or else tell me why I should use my fail 20/-- Hector who has 8Str, 11Def and low skl and spd. Theoretically Hector is good; one of the best characters, even. But practically, he is utter crap AND a liability to my team. So sure, in the in-the-end theoretical tier list, PEMN does not apply; but it DOES in practice. So quit yammering on about PEMN this PEMN that.

Attaching different values and such is also the reason why a good amount of people here don't agree with, say, FE10!Sothe getting a 9.0 in Red fox' ratings.

Now, this is a mindset that really annoys me. Some number of casual players always seem to assume that competitive, or in this case, efficient players, by explaining to a less-informed casual player what makes a unit good or bad, are forcing "their way of playing" on the casual player (in quotes, because I understand the basic theory of efficiency and like to share my knowledge, but it's far from my preferred way of playing, I like limitation runs), or at least implying that efficient play is the "correct" way. Some assholes do this, but hey, read the page. Not all of us are like that.

Then you wonder to yourself why anyone would even bother responding to bias.

Terms like "good" or "mediocre" in the context of Fire Emblem units, refer to a unit's overall usefulness because they are objective words by definition. That's why we have need for words like "fun" and "opinion". Anyway, in the field of unit evaluation, facts matter, opinions do not. Do not assrape the English language by trying to tell us "Seth is a mediocre unit" means "I don't enjoy using Seth". Calling Seth "mediocre" would be incorrect. Note that this is what Luna did at first before revising his point, and this original statement is what people have been calling bullshit on, even though that continued after the point was changed for some reason. Lol people who only read the first post. Not a single person has attacked him for saying Seth isn't fun to use. but I'm sure Lumi thought about it

Is murder good? Is murder in self defense good? Is murder in war good? Three questions, different answer per person. Rules of relativity apply yet again. It is you with your own set of preferences, circumstances and whatnot who makes the decision what is good or not and it applies only to you. The words good, mediocre and their entire line are as subjective to opinion as they come.

I think people should stop praising the tier lists so high in the air, they are undeserving of such devotion.

[Inui]

Tier lists are just guidelines. They aren't the gospel. Who is saying they are the gospel?

You can beat almost all FE games using whatever you want, anyways.

Edited December 6, 2010 by Inui

[Naglfar]

Then tell me why almost every FE7-and-beyond character guide on gamefaqs bases ratings mostly on 20/20 stats.

Because the GameFAQs FE community is composed almost entirely of idiots.

There are a ton of facets of a character that make up his or her usefulness, and it is ultimately up to you to decide which of those facets you actually use to determine someone's usefulness. And of course how heavily you weigh each facet is very important, too. It doesn't mean that what you believe to be "good" or "mediocre" is wrong, but only applicable within the set of facets and circumstances -- each with attached value -- you use to compare. It is completely and totally irrelevant outside of that. And above all of this, tier lists apply only in theoretical realm(if not fixed mode) because stat gains are dependant on statistical chance. While it IS true that stats and the such tend to follow averages, it is far more likely for them to deviate from averages (to a certain probable extent) than to completely adhere to them. I understand that average stats are the only viable way of measuring theoretically, but they do not apply beyond that.

So you're saying that theory is different from practice? Of course it is. We all play differently, and certain units may be more or less useful depending on how we choose to play, but unless you're playing some crazy swords-and-lances-are-banned playthrough, Seth isn't going to drop from "best unit in the game" to "mediocre". Tier lists are based on theory and averages to give us the most accurate representation of unit rankings our collective debating ability can manage, as Inui said (oh jesus I'm agreeing with Inui), they're not the gospel and nobody treats them as such. And yes, average stats do apply beyond theory. Compare the stats of your units from any playthrough to their averages, subtracting stat boosters. I guarantee that a good chunk, even the majority of your units' stats, will be fairly close to their average values.

You're telling us things we already know. We all play Fire Emblem and we all know averages are averages, not constants. That's why we call them averages. By the way, even if Seth never gains any stats, he's never mediocre because of his earlygame.

Or else tell me why I should use my fail 20/-- Hector who has 8Str, 11Def and low skl and spd. Theoretically Hector is good; one of the best characters, even. But practically, he is utter crap AND a liability to my team. So sure, in the in-the-end theoretical tier list, PEMN does not apply; but it DOES in practice. So quit yammering on about PEMN this PEMN that.

Did you even read my fucking post? Let me cook up some copypasta:

"Personal experience means nothing" could be extended to "personal experience means nothing in an argument", which is the context it is always mentioned in. Of course personal experience matters during the specific playthrough it occurs in. Don't be pedantic.

In other words, we "yammer on" about PEMN exclusively in tier lists and similar discussions. It's a rule of debate, and it stays where it belongs.

Attaching different values and such is also the reason why a good amount of people here don't agree with, say, FE10!Sothe getting a 9.0 in Red fox' ratings.

Maybe. I don't think his earlygame is worth quite that much, either. But that's her rating thread and she can do what she likes. If it were a tier list, we'd debate the issue. Rating threads and tier lists cannot be compared.

Is murder good? Is murder in self defense good? Is murder in war good? Three questions, different answer per person. Rules of relativity apply yet again. It is you with your own set of preferences, circumstances and whatnot who makes the decision what is good or not and it applies only to you. The words good, mediocre and their entire line are as subjective to opinion as they come.

...Dude...

...This is fucking Fire Emblem...

We debate the significance of numbers, pretty much. A purely logical procedure with which we can draw sound theoretical conclusions. Moral dilemmas are a completely different matter. Note the context I directly pointed out in that section of my post.

I think people should stop praising the tier lists so high in the air, they are undeserving of such devotion.

We don't say Seth is good because he's at the top of the list, he's at the top of the list because he's good. We don't steer clear of Amelia because she's at the bottom, we steer clear because she's a complete liability which just happens to put her at the bottom. Understand that. Tier lists exist because they're a more-or-less reliable ranking system. We don't think they're perfect, that's why there are hundreds of pages of debate on every list.

It's hard to figure out what to say to you. It seems you're a hardcore tier list hater who just rocked up from Smashboards. Your points consist of complete bullshit like "the FE7 tier list unreliable because there's an extremely small chance Hector will turn out bad". This is the reason PEMN exists. For every person whose Hector is awful, another person's is unstoppable. Actually, considering the nature of Hector, for every useless one there are probably ten godly ones. Does any of this change the fact that Hector is awesome? No. Most of the time, units can be counted on to turn out reasonably close to their averages in most stats. If that weren't true, we wouldn't bother.

The strangest part is how you're attacking tier lists, which take a lot of factors into account, solely by saying that average stats have no bearing on practical gameplay, when they do in fact have a limited influence. In a thread about Seth, who probably cares the least about stat gains amongst all the FE8 units.

If you're going to tell us tier lists aren't worthy of the attention they get, fix your argument and tell us how and why units consistently turn out significantly differently to their averages. Then tell us why join time is irrelevant, why it doesn't matter what class a unit is, why resource sinks are just as good as efficient units, why underlevelled units aren't liabilities and why we shouldn't give a shit about affinities and support options.

[Rewjeo]

Generally, arguing against something by making the exact same arguments as someone who supports it doesn't work very well.

Unless you're saying that your Hector being bad affects any other game.

[Florete]

Attaching different values and such is also the reason why a good amount of people here don't agree with, say, FE10!Sothe getting a 9.0 in Red fox' ratings.

I don't recall many people disagreeing with that.

[Anouleth]

I don't recall many people disagreeing with that.

I think he should have gotten higher.

[dondon151]

[/b]While it IS true that stats and the such tend to follow averages, it is far more likely for them to deviate from averages (to a certain probable extent) than to completely adhere to them. I understand that average stats are the only viable way of measuring theoretically, but they do not apply beyond that.

Averages, when actually significant, are usually treated as the minimum or maximum acceptable boundary for a stat. If we took a very simple scenario, an average of a stat (say, str) with 50% growth and 10 base after 2 levels, we'd obtain the following simple distribution:

25% 10 str

50% 11 str

25% 12 str

and there is a 75% chance that the unit has at least made average in that stat. Similarly, there is a 75% chance that the unit made or was below average in that stat. You can include as many level ups as you want, but regardless of what you assume, a unit will be at or above average over 50% of the time or at or below average 50% of the time, and this statistic makes average comparisons more valid.

Oh, and by the way, 20/20 averages are not immune to statistical fluctuations. Barring the ones that cap early, they are actually more prone to deviating from average than the snapshots that we take when debating characters in an in-game context.

PEMN does not apply; but it DOES in practice. So quit yammering on about PEMN this PEMN that.

No it doesn't. You're making a statement of Hector in general, that he is a crappy unit, but mathematics dictates that he's good more often than not. Furthermore, your claim is self contradicting - what if your next playthrough, you got a Hector that was blessed in the same magnitude? Would Hector be good or bad? He obviously can't be both at once.

Attaching different values and such is also the reason why a good amount of people here don't agree with, say, FE10!Sothe getting a 9.0 in Red fox' ratings.

I find it kind of amusing that you'd make this statement, considering that not only do a handful of people didn't agree with RFoF's FE10 Sothe rating because they thought it was too low, but 90% of Sothe's performance is completely independent of his growths and statistical averages.

Edited December 7, 2010 by dondon151

[Florete]

I think he should have gotten higher.

I find it kind of amusing that you'd make this statement, considering that not only do a handful of people didn't agree with RFoF's FE10 Sothe rating because they thought it was too low, but 90% of Sothe's performance is completely independent of his growths and statistical averages.

Why do I not remember any of this in the actual topic? I gave Sothe 9.5 in my first rating topic and practically got flamed for it. What am I, Reikken?

[Anouleth]

Why do I not remember any of this in the actual topic? I gave Sothe 9.5 in my first rating topic and practically got flamed for it. What am I, Reikken?

Well, my opinion has changed over time. Mainly due to using Sothe way more in my latest playthrough.

[dondon151]

Well, I thought I'd get flamed too. I didn't have the evidence to back myself up yet.

[Salad Utensil]

Because the GameFAQs FE community is composed almost entirely of idiots.

Now this seems pretty cruel considering such guides are usually just submissions of advice in hopes of making the game enjoyable for people who are even less familiar with the game than the submitter. Consider someone who has played every fire emblem ever and has done multiple 0% growth PTs and the newcomer just starting the series, obviously the veteran can ignore the advice, whereas the newcomer can gain some insight and see if it can apply to their own experiences. There certainly isn't harm...only benefit. If the advice completely is detrimental, just start over, since it's just a game--an activity to waste free-time--so there isn't really a consequence as far as I can tell.

So you're saying that theory is different from practice? Of course it is. We all play differently, and certain units may be more or less useful depending on how we choose to play, but unless you're playing some crazy swords-and-lances-are-banned playthrough, Seth isn't going to drop from "best unit in the game" to "mediocre". Tier lists are based on theory and averages to give us the most accurate representation of unit rankings our collective debating ability can manage, as Inui said (oh jesus I'm agreeing with Inui), they're not the gospel and nobody treats them as such. And yes, average stats do apply beyond theory. Compare the stats of your units from any playthrough to their averages, subtracting stat boosters. I guarantee that a good chunk, even the majority of your units' stats, will be fairly close to their average values.

It seems pretty unfair one can only apply terms like "mediocre" and "good" in tier lists without getting flamed for one is the sole purpose I posted in this topic. I'm not seeing why by using these terms that suddenly Luna is suddenly given the burden to show that his view is objective and will have to be implemented into tier lists and ranking topics (as you imply that these are the only places these terms can be used in the context of FE). I personally have my own criteria for what characters I find good and mediocre without being solely based on efficiency PT standards, Luna was pretty clear when justifying to other people he wasn't instigating a coup d' etat of tier lists.

You're telling us things we already know. We all play Fire Emblem and we all know averages are averages, not constants. That's why we call them averages. By the way, even if Seth never gains any stats, he's never mediocre because of his earlygame.

Maybe some people care less about earlygame opposed to lategame...the story starts to matter more so it is more memorable/enjoyable?

Did you even read my fucking post? Let me cook up some copypasta:

In other words, we "yammer on" about PEMN exclusively in tier lists and similar discussions. It's a rule of debate, and it stays where it belongs.

This doesn't really apply to you, but I personally tend to notice a lot of people spam PEMN indiscriminately when an opinion pops up that goes against the theoretical criteria that make characters good. In one post I read earlier in this topic just repeated PEMN in response to Luna instead of actually considering that Luna wasn't looking for a debate or trolling (probably). Besides the context it is used in seems rude if used outside of the context of evaluating whether a character is good solely in terms of minimizing turncount in any given FE. Of course this is just my opinion, but it seems rather condescending and doesn't really clarify anything.

Maybe. I don't think his earlygame is worth quite that much, either. But that's her rating thread and she can do what she likes. If it were a tier list, we'd debate the issue. Rating threads and tier lists cannot be compared.

...Dude...

...This is fucking Fire Emblem...

We debate the significance of numbers, pretty much. A purely logical procedure with which we can draw sound theoretical conclusions. Moral dilemmas are a completely different matter. Note the context I directly pointed out in that section of my post.

I think while the example seemed too serious the point isn't exactly refuted. He was suggesting that statistical procedure is not the only way to draw sound conclusions. I think Seth looks like a sex-depraved existentialist who is looking at Eirika's breasts whenever they are in the same cutscene and prefer Duessel because he looks like a badass. I gave a claim and backed it up with a warrant thus a valid argument with a sound conclusion.

We don't say Seth is good because he's at the top of the list, he's at the top of the list because he's good. We don't steer clear of Amelia because she's at the bottom, we steer clear because she's a complete liability which just happens to put her at the bottom. Understand that. Tier lists exist because they're a more-or-less reliable ranking system. We don't think they're perfect, that's why there are hundreds of pages of debate on every list.

It's hard to figure out what to say to you. It seems you're a hardcore tier list hater who just rocked up from Smashboards. Your points consist of complete bullshit like "the FE7 tier list unreliable because there's an extremely small chance Hector will turn out bad". This is the reason PEMN exists. For every person whose Hector is awful, another person's is unstoppable. Actually, considering the nature of Hector, for every useless one there are probably ten godly ones. Does any of this change the fact that Hector is awesome? No. Most of the time, units can be counted on to turn out reasonably close to their averages in most stats. If that weren't true, we wouldn't bother.

The strangest part is how you're attacking tier lists, which take a lot of factors into account, solely by saying that average stats have no bearing on practical gameplay, when they do in fact have a limited influence. In a thread about Seth, who probably cares the least about stat gains amongst all the FE8 units.

Once again, the my original point has nothing to do with rejecting tier list, because it is just an activity like FE that people do to kill time. This topic isn't about debating characters in the context of their contributions to clearing the game in the lowest amount of turns, it is just a topic meant to pit members of a forum with a predicable mindset against the minority with a different mindset and method to evaluate characters (seriously just look at the topic title).

If you're going to tell us tier lists aren't worthy of the attention they get, fix your argument and tell us how and why units consistently turn out significantly differently to their averages. Then tell us why join time is irrelevant, why it doesn't matter what class a unit is, why resource sinks are just as good as efficient units, why underlevelled units aren't liabilities and why we shouldn't give a shit about affinities and support options.

Not that this is addressed to me, but I'd like to respond to this as well. Tier lists are just another way to evaluate characters in a game. It isn't any more valid than any other method to evaluate the game, but due to its predominance in the forum and user preferences it gives this illusion of being more relevant when people use words like 'mediocre' and 'good' when describing characters.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Brighton

[Thor Odinson]

Now, if you're playing casually, I suppose tier lists are not all that important, since most characters can be usable especially with the statboosters and all. However, as I have mentioned before, FE, is, ultimately, a strategy game, and thus, tier lists and the statistical averages are the only fair way to judge a character's worth due to the nature of FE RNG. While the algorithm is not truly random, unless you've memorized every goddamn number in that string, it's random enough. It can favor one person or unit this day and completely give the finger to another based on the way the numbers are generated and, well, there's nothing you can do about it besides live with it or RNG Abuse (which is kinda defeats the purpose).

Therefore, if personal opinion mattered, somebody may suddenly come in, with, say, a naturally-SKL-capped Gonzales without statboosters or RNG abuse and argue that he has awesome skill. Yes, for that particular run, he does, but on average? It's like flipping a fair coin. You can get many heads in a row, but in the long run, it's going to average out to ~50% chance of either happening.

And honestly, 20/20 is not that easy to achieve for every member of your team unless you arena abuse. I honestly suck at being efficient, but yet, whenever I run through FE8 with a normal team and not having Seth solo the mofo, he's still the only person who can reach 20 promoted. (with the exception of my SethxEirika runs, but those are easier than playing the game normally anyway). Maybe FE8 wasn't the best example, since it's so short, but it's the same on FE7. Take Lucius for example. I love Lucius and I love using him, but I've never gotten him to 20/20 even though he's one of my most-used units. It's usually 17/18 or 20/16 or something like that. Even in non-efficient runs, 20/20 averages really don't do much. It's much fairer and makes more sense to use level average comparison, join time, utility, whatever they use on tier lists, to accurately describe how useful the character really is, especially taken the strategical side of FE into consideration.

Plus, if I was Eirika I'd totally want Seth looking at me like that. Hell yes. Hot paladin interested in me? Hot paladin is godly and solos the game? Hot paladin is hot? Yes please. <3

I bet Eirika likes it too.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Luminescent Blade

[Narga_Rocks]

Or else tell me why I should use my fail 20/-- Hector who has 8Str, 11Def and low skl and spd. Theoretically Hector is good; one of the best characters, even. But practically, he is utter crap AND a liability to my team. So sure, in the in-the-end theoretical tier list, PEMN does not apply; but it DOES in practice. So quit yammering on about PEMN this PEMN that.

So sometimes he's below average and isn't as good. Instead of an 8 he's a 7. Or whatever. Guess what, sometimes he's like my Hector was and gets spd blessed by 4 or more and starts doubling nearly everything. 22 spd at level 20/10. Gave him a speedwing (could have gone with body ring but wanted to still be able to carry him just in case) and he doubled the final boss. In these cases he's a 9 instead of an 8. So instead of having these different ideas over how good Hector is, we say that in general he's an 8.

No it doesn't. You're making a statement of Hector in general, that he is a crappy unit, but mathematics dictates that he's good more often than not. Furthermore, your claim is self contradicting - what if your next playthrough, you got a Hector that was blessed in the same magnitude? Would Hector be good or bad? He obviously can't be both at once.

Schrödinger's Hector can, though. Totally.

[dondon151]

Schrödinger's Hector can, though. Totally.

That is, until one observes Hector, so Hector can only be good and bad at once if the player doesn't look at the screen.

[Salad Utensil]

Now, if you're playing casually, I suppose tier lists are not all that important, since most characters can be usable especially with the statboosters and all. However, as I have mentioned before, FE, is, ultimately, a strategy game, and thus, tier lists and the statistical averages are the only fair way to judge a character's worth due to the nature of FE RNG. While the algorithm is not truly random, unless you've memorized every goddamn number in that string, it's random enough. It can favor one person or unit this day and completely give the finger to another based on the way the numbers are generated and, well, there's nothing you can do about it besides live with it or RNG Abuse (which is kinda defeats the purpose).

Therefore, if personal opinion mattered, somebody may suddenly come in, with, say, a naturally-SKL-capped Gonzales without statboosters or RNG abuse and argue that he has awesome skill. Yes, for that particular run, he does, but on average? It's like flipping a fair coin. You can get many heads in a row, but in the long run, it's going to average out to ~50% chance of either happening.

And honestly, 20/20 is not that easy to achieve for every member of your team unless you arena abuse. I honestly suck at being efficient, but yet, whenever I run through FE8 with a normal team and not having Seth solo the mofo, he's still the only person who can reach 20 promoted. (with the exception of my SethxEirika runs, but those are easier than playing the game normally anyway). Maybe FE8 wasn't the best example, since it's so short, but it's the same on FE7. Take Lucius for example. I love Lucius and I love using him, but I've never gotten him to 20/20 even though he's one of my most-used units. It's usually 17/18 or 20/16 or something like that. Even in non-efficient runs, 20/20 averages really don't do much. It's much fairer and makes more sense to use level average comparison, join time, utility, whatever they use on tier lists, to accurately describe how useful the character really is, especially taken the strategical side of FE into consideration.

Plus, if I was Eirika I'd totally want Seth looking at me like that. Hell yes. Hot paladin interested in me? Hot paladin is godly and solos the game? Hot paladin is hot? Yes please. <3

I bet Eirika likes it too.

I don't really want to disagree since I tend to try to play efficient PT occasionally too, but I was just suggesting that this game can still be played like an RPG with grinding and what not. I enjoy the game just as much for the RPG elements as the strategy elements. After all, why is there so much FE fanart out there...I mean there is something for everyone, take this one for example: lolis (Myrrh), mature women (Syrene), timid girls (Neimi), innocents (Amelia), chaste (Natasha) all of anime-esque appearances so you don't have to deal with issues of race and many other attractions in this game and other FE 1-13. On the other end of the spectrum we have bishonens (too many to count), buff men (Gerik), shota (Ross), Manly (Gilliam, Garcia), older (Duessel), and marty stu (Seth).

Thats also why I must use Ray in FE6 because he has a twin and looks like he want to take over the world even if he is a pretty mediocre character efficiency-wise, he is a cool character personality-wise. Same with using Duessel except everyone thinks he's good anyway.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Brighton

[Naglfar]

Now this seems pretty cruel considering such guides are usually just submissions of advice in hopes of making the game enjoyable for people who are even less familiar with the game than the submitter. Consider someone who has played every fire emblem ever and has done multiple 0% growth PTs and the newcomer just starting the series, obviously the veteran can ignore the advice, whereas the newcomer can gain some insight and see if it can apply to their own experiences. There certainly isn't harm...only benefit. If the advice completely is detrimental, just start over, since it's just a game--an activity to waste free-time--so there isn't really a consequence as far as I can tell.

No, really. That site isn't known for being full of smart people.

It seems pretty unfair one can only apply terms like "mediocre" and "good" in tier lists without getting flamed for one is the sole purpose I posted in this topic.

We're not even talking about that anymore, and tier lists have nothing to do with the matter raised in this thread. But if you insist, one, no flaming has occured, and two, there has been so much disagreement with the statement "Seth is mediocre" because it's alarmingly wrong. Not because of what Luna was trying to do, whatever that may have been, but because the statement was incorrect.

I'm not seeing why by using these terms that suddenly Luna is suddenly given the burden to show that his view is objective and will have to be implemented into tier lists and ranking topics (as you imply that these are the only places these terms can be used in the context of FE).

...What...? When did I say that? I remember saying that saying a unit is "good" or "mediocre" refers to their usefulness, as anyone with a grasp on modern English would know, and you shouldn't twist the meaning of those words.

I personally have my own criteria for what characters I find good and mediocre without being solely based on efficiency PT standards, Luna was pretty clear when justifying to other people he wasn't instigating a coup d' etat of tier lists.

Stop vaguely referring to this other criteria and please tell us exactly what the hell this criteria is that deserves neutral context more than the simple object of beating the game. What are you trying to defend, anyway? Luna or his point? If it's the former, I think he's fine. If it's his point, stop trying to dispute something that's accepted as fact by playing the personal preference card.

Maybe some people care less about earlygame opposed to lategame...the story starts to matter more so it is more memorable/enjoyable?

Are you seriously trying to tell me that Seth's earlygame utility is somehow less important because the plot picks up late in the game?

This doesn't really apply to you, but I personally tend to notice a lot of people spam PEMN indiscriminately when an opinion pops up that goes against the theoretical criteria that make characters good. In one post I read earlier in this topic just repeated PEMN in response to Luna instead of actually considering that Luna wasn't looking for a debate or trolling (probably). Besides the context it is used in seems rude if used outside of the context of evaluating whether a character is good solely in terms of minimizing turncount in any given FE. Of course this is just my opinion, but it seems rather condescending and doesn't really clarify anything.

The criteria that make characters good are not theoretical, they're based on their significance in practice. But anyway, provide this post so I know what you're talking about here.

I think while the example seemed too serious the point isn't exactly refuted. He was suggesting that statistical procedure is not the only way to draw sound conclusions. I think Seth looks like a sex-depraved existentialist who is looking at Eirika's breasts whenever they are in the same cutscene and prefer Duessel because he looks like a badass. I gave a claim and backed it up with a warrant thus a valid argument with a sound conclusion.

You have provided reasoning as to why you prefer Duessel over Seth. Your progress towards making a sound argument for Duessel being a better unit than Seth: 0%. Statistical procedure may not be the only way to draw a conclusion, but it's the only way to draw a conclusion on how useful a unit is.

Once again, the my original point has nothing to do with rejecting tier list, because it is just an activity like FE that people do to kill time.

You say you have your own criteria, and now you say you don't reject the tier lists. You can't have both.

This topic isn't about debating characters in the context of their contributions to clearing the game in the lowest amount of turns, it is just a topic meant to pit members of a forum with a predicable mindset against the minority with a different mindset and method to evaluate characters (seriously just look at the topic title).

Yeah, that's sad, but that really has nothing to do with what I said.

Not that this is addressed to me, but I'd like to respond to this as well. Tier lists are just another way to evaluate characters in a game. It isn't any more valid than any other method to evaluate the game, but due to its predominance in the forum and user preferences it gives this illusion of being more relevant when people use words like 'mediocre' and 'good' when describing characters.

I really wish just one person who didn't agree with tier lists would explain why their method of evaluation is just as good. This really irritates me. People deconstruct every factor that affects a unit's usefulness in excruciating detail to make these lists, but oh no, logic is just one of many ways to evaluate units in a game that is 100% logic-based. What is this mysterious other method? It seems to be based on enjoyability and 20/20 stats, which is all well and good until these people start to reject tier lists because their favourite characters are near the bottom. All of a sudden, Seth is unspectacular because his sprite stares at Eirika's breasts and Edward is great because his stats are better than Mia's at max level. What is this reasoning?

"Edward is the best Trueblade because he is the best at 20/20/20."

"No he isn't, because he can't get there and has a shaky earlygame."

"Edward is still the best Trueblade because I like him."

...Something like that. This is what I think when someone says "guy who rejects tier lists". This is why I get mad. Please tell me otherwise. I would be very happy to learn what these ideas of yours are so we could actually have a chance of an interesting discussion arising, instead of continuing to have my mental image of idiots adamant to reject reality reinforced.

[Salad Utensil]

No, really. That site isn't known for being full of smart people.

It doesn't really matter anymore since I already voiced my opinion on this...

We're not even talking about that anymore, and tier lists have nothing to do with the matter raised in this thread. But if you insist, one, no flaming has occured, and two, there has been so much disagreement with the statement "Seth is mediocre" because it's alarmingly wrong. Not because of what Luna was trying to do, whatever that may have been, but because the statement was incorrect.

...What...? When did I say that? I remember saying that saying a unit is "good" or "mediocre" refers to their usefulness, as anyone with a grasp on modern English would know, and you shouldn't twist the meaning of those words.

My point has been repeated once already and reinforced kind of by Keiran, I don't really want to repeat it again, because this argument will just go on and on. The simplest terms are this doesn't have anything to do with the game itself per-say rather to the reaction to any criteria other than efficiency, it isn't really for anyone's sake to be honest, but rather just my general belief on how discussions should be (no I'm not trying to be condescending).

Stop vaguely referring to this other criteria and please tell us exactly what the hell this criteria is that deserves neutral context more than the simple object of beating the game. What are you trying to defend, anyway? Luna or his point? If it's the former, I think he's fine. If it's his point, stop trying to dispute something that's accepted as fact by playing the personal preference card.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that Seth's earlygame utility is somehow less important because the plot picks up late in the game?

The criteria that make characters good are not theoretical, they're based on their significance in practice. But anyway, provide this post so I know what you're talking about here.

Once again it's clear you understand my point, yet why this discussion still hasn't ended is a mystery to me. Whether my own criteria about Seth and Duessel was actually a joke or not doesn't matter anymore, that issue is no longer relevant. It is the mindset that efficiency tier list are the only way to define a character is what I can not wrap my mind around.

Let me explain:

FE is a SRPG game and yet we are on a forum discussing the merits between very similar imaginary characters that plays zero influence on our real lives. FE is a series of relatively unknown games in the US and the only reason I play is because it is fun and gives me a distraction from my college applications. As a human using certain characters due to my own inherent biases likely influenced by my environment and values will decrease my idea of fun from playing the game, whereas using certain other characters instead increase my net happiness. Therefore depending on my mood, I may find that using certain characters are better because by using them they increase my satisfaction from playing the game. Games like FE exist to make people happier (because there is zero competitive value for careers or sports). If FE make me happy it fulfills its job. By using characters that increase my happiness they are thus better because I derive more satisfaction which is tangible. Tier lists exist so people are advised in certain characters and in theory derive more satisfaction in the game by beating it quicker(?), this criteria is not incorrect either. However, FE has non-strategic elements (i.e. anime artstyle, plot, supports, and literature, etc) which is another area people can derive satisfaction from as well. In the end, the main reason tier lists exist is because 1. they are interesting to discuss, 2. they make the game more interesting for SOME people if followed.

In the end realize most people don't strictly only use characters on a tier list because this would cause a tangible loss of happiness and satisfaction in many people because the game might become boring to them, yet they are scared to voice that the character they like is good because they lack a criteria besides happiness. However, the point of a tier list is to promote happiness as well, through beating the game in a certain way.

In a totally random example lets say I like Gilliam because using him in the game makes me happier, he is thus a good character. Seth is also a good character because using him makes others happy too.

Even for Luminescent Blade if Seth's name got changed to 42i3rugly, got stuck with a portrait so ugly that it made people's eyes bleed and was giving a personally so horrible that babies cry when he approaches and say Ewan was giving a joining situation so he became usable, given a cooler name, a portrait that would even make the guys fall for him, no longer a shota, and the best personality ever I'm betting that even if 42i3rugly is still great from efficiency standpoints, it would make a ton of people unhappy to use him, thus some might even call him a bad character (or die from loss of blood from bleeding). I'm betting people will suddenly think Ewan is a better character because using him in the game makes it more pleasurable to play.

You have provided reasoning as to why you prefer Duessel over Seth. Your progress towards making a sound argument for Duessel being a better unit than Seth: 0%. Statistical procedure may not be the only way to draw a conclusion, but it's the only way to draw a conclusion on how useful a unit is.

You realize this is an innocent joke right? well not really that innocent...

Also you subtly changed the term from 'good' and 'mediocre' to 'useful' I see

Yeah, that's sad, but that really has nothing to do with what I said.

This is probably one the reasons I bothered to start posting again.

You say you have your own criteria, and now you say you don't reject the tier lists. You can't have both.

I really wish just one person who didn't agree with tier lists would explain why their method of evaluation is just as good. This really irritates me. People deconstruct every factor that affects a unit's usefulness in excruciating detail to make these lists, but oh no, logic is just one of many ways to evaluate units in a game that is 100% logic-based. What is this mysterious other method? It seems to be based on enjoyability and 20/20 stats, which is all well and good until these people start to reject tier lists because their favourite characters are near the bottom. All of a sudden, Seth is unspectacular because his sprite stares at Eirika's breasts and Edward is great because his stats are better than Mia's at max level. What is this reasoning?

"Edward is the best Trueblade because he is the best at 20/20/20."

"No he isn't, because he can't get there and has a shaky earlygame."

"Edward is still the best Trueblade because I like him."

...Something like that. This is what I think when someone says "guy who rejects tier lists". This is why I get mad. Please tell me otherwise. I would be very happy to learn what these ideas of yours are so we could actually have a chance of an interesting discussion arising, instead of continuing to have my mental image of idiots adamant to reject reality reinforced.

Now why can't I personally have both?

I enjoy reading about tier lists for the discussion and the sake of it as an activity in itself (like school activities), but don't believe personally that it is the only method to determine which characters are the best. Using rhetoric, persuasion, statistical analysis, and cost-benefit analysis is very interesting as those fields are interesting to discuss together, even better it applied to a game which I personally enjoy. I definitely see the logic in tier lists and never did I actually say they were bad ways to measure characters, but assuming other methods can't work erks bothers me.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Brighton