FE9 Hybrid Tier List

[Snowy_One]

Hi everybody!

This is a unique tier list, experimental even, that I have decided to attempt to create. In current/prior tier lists there has been a focus made on 'efficient' playstyles which focus largely on completing the game at a fast pace. While that is all well and good, I have felt throughout my time playing Fire Emblem, this sort of tier list is not representative of playing as a whole. It tends to focus a lot on high movement and strategies focused on minimizing turncounts. This may be good for the player who desires to play in such a manner, but does not hold up in a broader spectrum of play.

The goal of this tier list is not to subvert tier lists focused on efficient play, but rather to try and create a tier list that can be more universally applicable as well as providing details on why a unit is good or bad beyond simply sticking them above or below other units. In order to do this I decided that the best method of approach would be to provide each unit with three distinct categories of ranking, Stats/Combat, Efficiency/Speed, and Utility/Flexibility. Each unit will be ranked on a scale of 1-10 (decimal points included) in each of these categories and an average score will be posted to determine their position on this tier.

There are some things and rules that need to be understood before using this tier list though.

1) A low score does not mean a bad unit. Assume a unit had amazing stats, but wasn't around for almost the entire game (such as the Laguz Kings). It would likely get a score of a 10/0/0 which would mean it's overall score is a 3.33. To assume this is a bad unit and should be ignored would be foolish as, for the time they are around, they are STRONG! Just offering nothing in the way of efficiency or flexibility.

2) The Overall score is NOT the be-all end-all of a unit. It is merely the average of their three categories and is used only to determine placement on the list. It does not mean any unit is better or worse just because of a better or worse score. Be sure to look up the individual numbers to determine why.

3) PEMN yet PEME. Personal Experience Means Nothing. Just because X unit did good on your playthrough does not mean that they will be good on everyone elses playthroughs. However, when you get down to it, no matter how perfect the tier list, at the end of the day you need to play the game. When that happens things can end up happening quite differently than on the tier lists. Don't be confined by the lists just because we say a unit is a good unit, but is doing bad for you, or we say a unit is bad, but is doing good for you.

4) Feel free to disregard any one category if you so desire. Don't care about unit power, but only fast completion? Focus on efficiency scores. Don't care about fast completion? Disregard the efficiency scores. It's that easy.

Now, rules.

1) There are three categories, each focused on different aspects of the character. Stats/Combat focuses on how well the unit does in fights throughout their career and NOTHING ELSE. This category is for people looking for a strong team, but not necessarily the fastest. It doesn't matter if a unit has 0 movement or 1000 movement, the only focus here is on combat skills. Efficiency/Speed focuses on completing the game fast and little more. Units with high movement or unique abilities that can allow for completing the game in less turns than normal get ranked higher here. Utility/Flexibility is focused on things that the unit brings to the team to help it out as a whole. Supports, healing abilities, and the like belong here.

2) The categories are independent of each other. It doesn't matter if Gatrie is unlikely to fight or not because of his low movement when we rate him by stats, or how good Elincia's combat is when we rate her utility/flexibility. This does not mean that they are not related however. Having good supports DOES help in combat as does other things. They are correlated, but independent.

3) There is no such thing as a negative score. The lowest a unit can get is a 0.

4) All units have equal and access to resources. Gatrie is as likely to get vantage/wrath as Nephenee/Mia. HOWEVER! Being able to achieve better results and/or the same results with less resources is a POSITIVE!

5) Hard mode is implied, but not assumed. We simply don't have much data on easy/normal enemies so those modes cannot be accounted for. However, if a unit does good only on one mode, it should at least be noted even if it doesn't end up affecting their score in any way.

6) There is a quick tidbit explaining the reason for the scoring after each score. If one of these needs updating ask or PM me about it. They are meaningless in terms of tiering and only there so people can know what's good/bad about a unit without going through multiple pages of text.

7) A 5 is average, not bad. Don't get mad because your guy got an average of a 6. That's still an above-average score.

The List!

[spoiler=The List] The List

[spoiler=Titania : 8/9/7.5 : 8.16]

Stats/Combat: 8: Titania is a all-around solid fighter. Very strong at the start of the game, but fades down to 'average' by the end, resulting in an 8 overall.

Efficiency/Speed: 9: Titania is virtually essential for speed-playthroughs due to her early-game dominance and high movement.

Utility/Flexibility: 7.5: Titania offers a very strong support list with several characters who are willing to support her, but her element of Light does not mesh well with most of them.

[spoiler=Oscar 8/8.5/7.5 : 8]

Stats/Combat: 8: Oscar offers good, solid, combat throughout the game as well as very good defenses and avoid thanks to his supports.

Efficiency/Speed: 8.5: Oscar's early-game high movement, combined with his solid combat, allow for him to be very good for achieving low turn-counts, despite a somewhat slower start.

Utility/Flexibility: 7.5: Oscar offers all-around wonderful supports to his entire support list, bolstering evade immensely with his earth-element and matching up well with his entire list.

Overall: 8

[spoiler=Jill 8/8.75/5.5 : 7.42]

Stats/Combat: 8: Jill starts off as a fairly decent fighter and ends with solid, all-around good, stats.

Efficiency/Speed: 8.75: Jill is a very good choice for rescue-dropping and her strong stats allow her to be a good fighter behind enemy lines.

Utility/Flexibility: 5.5: Though Jill sports a small support list, it is also a good support list with her offering both a good element and good, all-around, supports to her few supporters.

Overall: 7.42

[spoiler=Ike 7.75/6.5/7.5 : 7.25]

Stats/Combat: Ike is an all-around solid fighter. His only real draw-back is being locked to swords for the entire game.

Efficiency/Speed: 6.5: Aside from his solid combat stats, Ike is about average in terms of speed-play focus. As he is the lord, he is required for completing several chapters.

Utility/Flexibility: 7.5: Ike offers a great support to a wide variety of characters (widest in the game) and meshes well with at least half of them.

Overall: 7.25

[spoiler=Kieran 8.25/8.25/5 : 7.17]

Stats/Combat: 8.25: Kieran offers very strong attack power right off the bat, complete with early-game axes and attack-boosting supports. However, he does end up less defensive than his counterpart, Oscar.

Efficiency/Speed: 8.25: Kieran's high movement, combined with his solid combat, allow for him to be very good for achieving low turn-counts. However, he misses the early-game, resulting in a lower score overall.

Utility/Flexibility: 5: Kieran has an average-sized support list with many early joiners. He meshes well with Oscar, but Rhys and Marcia much less-so.

Overall: 7.17

[spoiler=Boyd 8/6.5/7 : 7.17]

Stats/Combat: Boyd boasts high attack power and high health, but ends up struggling a bit in speed, making him a solid fighter all-around.

Efficiency/Speed: 6.5: Aside from his solid combat stats, Boyd is about average in terms of speed-play focus.

Utility/Flexibility: 7: Boyd offers a great support element to an average number of people who mesh well with him.

Overall: 7.17.

[spoiler=Marcia : 7/9/5 : 7]

Stats/Combat: 7: Marcia's combat is fairly solid on the whole, though she will end up being a flying swordsmaster without the crit-bonus, but with lances. The lances boost her score up to a 7. Unfortunately she does not get much from her supports in the way of offensive power.

Efficiency/Speed: 9: Marcia's flight allows her to be super-good at rescue-dropping and her early join time and solid stats allow her to preform this task very well on the whole. Near-essential for speed-playthroughs.

Utility/Flexibility: 5: Marcia has a average support-list on the whole, with her good supports evened out by weaker supports. She does not mesh terribly well with any of them though beyond potentially Tanith. Kieran will like her support, but it isn't an amazing pairing.

[spoiler=Reyson 0/10/10 : 6.66]

Stats/Combat: 0: Reyson cannot fight and is very frail.

Efficiency/Speed: 10: Reyson's ability to refresh units and allow them extra turns to clear enemies is, downright, the most useful thing for chapter clearing.

Utility/Flexibility: Reyson has a average-sized support list. Though he does not mesh the best with two of them, his supports are not negligible. Additionally, his refreshing ability is amazing for team utility and flexibility.

[spoiler=Tanith 5.5/7.5/7 : 6.66]

Stats/Combat: 5.5: Though Tanith suffers from a low STR stat, she more than makes up for it with solid bases and a high-enough MAG stat to be one of the few good users of the magic weapons. The high evade she can get from supports is also helpful.

Efficiency/Speed: 7.5 : Despite her late joining, Tanith offers both a flying rescue-drop and the ability to summon targets with her reinforce ability.

Utility/Flexibility: 7: Tanith offers good supports to her entire list. However she only meshes well with one unit. Her reinforce ability does offer a degree of unique flexibility as well.

Overall: 6.66

Astrid

Makalov

Lethe

Muarim

Mordecai

Nephenee

Mist

Calill

Tormod

Soren

Ilyana

Stefan

Zihark

Mia

Rhys

Volke

Sothe

Haar

Gatrie

Geoffrey

Brom

Devdan

Janaff

Elincia

Largo

Ranulf

Shinon

Tauroneo

Ulki

Bastian

Rolf

Lucia

Nasir

Ena

Giffca

Tibran

Naesalsa

Note: I stopped after Tanith as I felt that I was underqualified to write the entire list on my own. I am hoping that, as this list progresses and becomes more defined, that the remaining units will get ranked properly. I will also do my best to make an update log.

11/06/2012: Tier List Started. Most units left unranked and open for debate.

[-Cynthia-]

Not sure how the mounted/flying units don't have better utility/flexibility scores, as being able to move more spaces (without regard for terrain in the case of fliers) and moving after they attack seems like the very definition of flexible. Being able to transport allied units also seems like it offers more utility than say, shoving for most foot units.

[Snowy_One]

Not sure how the mounted/flying units don't have better utility/flexibility scores, as being able to move more spaces (without regard for terrain in the case of fliers) and moving after they attack seems like the very definition of flexible. Being able to transport allied units also seems like it offers more utility than say, shoving for most foot units.

This was a hard thing but I decided that fit a bit better under Efficiency/speed as the main use would be for reducing turncounts. You are right that it should have a reflection in that other score though, I'm just not sure how much it should be. Also, remember, the 'reasons' are just a quick blurb meant to give a general idea for why the score exists. They do not encompass everything about the unit (Ike's Aether isn't mentioned in his combat even though it is something that did affect his score there).

[Constable Reggie]

Making one third of the score based solely on supports seems like a pathetically bad idea. No way in hell that support choice rivals effiency/combat equally when considering combat units.

[Anouleth]

1) There are three categories, each focused on different aspects of the character. Stats/Combat focuses on how well the unit does in fights throughout their career and NOTHING ELSE. This category is for people looking for a strong team, but not necessarily the fastest. It doesn't matter if a unit has 0 movement or 1000 movement, the only focus here is on combat skills.

That doesn't make any sense though. If a character had 0 movement, they'd have very poor combat because they'd be unable to engage many enemies on the enemy phase, and because they can't engage enemies, they'd end up underlevelled. So movement definitely has an impact on combat ability, just as combat ability has an effect on movement.

I also don't really understand the utility category. Why does Marcia get only a 5 when she has amazing rescuing and dropping ability, which is certainly more useful than Boyd's, or in fact, anyone's support abilities (since supports aren't really very useful). And why is it given equal weight to the other categories? I think it's ridiculous that Jill is being put underneath Oscar for having, of all things, worse supports. I'd say the 0.25 gap between them for Efficiency is too low and the 2.0 gap between them for supports is too high. Why does Kieran have 0.5 Combat over Ike when Ike has better stats in every area for the entire game? It's true that Kieran has Hand Axes, but those are only useful for saving turns.

[Snowy_One]

Making one third of the score based solely on supports seems like a pathetically bad idea. No way in hell that support choice rivals effiency/combat equally when considering combat units.

Supports are not a minor thing, first off. With properly meshing supports a unit could end up with a combination of up to +5 attack, + 5 defense, and substantial amounts of avoid and hit. The attack alone is basically like upgrading your normal weapon to a forged version just by being in-range of the right units. So yea, not minor.

Secondly, it's not based only on supports. Utility/flexibility is based on a multitude of factors. The main thing as of now is I was unsure if shoving/rescuedropping should be included in efficiency or utility. I gave it more weight in the speed category because I felt that the main purpose for those would be in turn-count reduction. However, as I stated, though the catagories are independent, they are correlated.

That doesn't make any sense though. If a character had 0 movement, they'd have very poor combat because they'd be unable to engage many enemies on the enemy phase, and because they can't engage enemies, they'd end up underlevelled. So movement definitely has an impact on combat ability, just as combat ability has an effect on movement.

The stats/combat category is focused entirely on how well the unit preforms when it comes down to the actual fights. If there is some skill that allows a units stats to be changed because of higher/lower movement, then feel free to bring it up.

Why does Kieran have 0.5 Combat over Ike when Ike has better stats in every area for the entire game? It's true that Kieran has Hand Axes, but those are only useful for saving turns.

Kieran also has access to axes, which Ike does not. Kieran is at a WTA, while Ike is at a WTD. If you wish to challenge a rating to improve/reduce a score, feel free to do so though.

[Constable Reggie]

Supports are not a minor thing, first off. With properly meshing supports a unit could end up with a combination of up to +5 attack, + 5 defense, and substantial amounts of avoid and hit. The attack alone is basically like upgrading your normal weapon to a forged version just by being in-range of the right units. So yea, not minor.

Secondly, it's not based only on supports. Utility/flexibility is based on a multitude of factors. The main thing as of now is I was unsure if shoving/rescuedropping should be included in efficiency or utility. I gave it more weight in the speed category because I felt that the main purpose for those would be in turn-count reduction. However, as I stated, though the catagories are independent, they are correlated.

All of your reasonings for utility for the combat units you've rated are primarily based off supports. Ergo, support options is the most important thing you're basing utility on for combat units. And again, minor bonuses (which fluctuate in availability) are in no way comparable to raw stats, high movement, and whatnot.

The main issue with your tier list is assuming that combat, efficiency, and utility are all comparably equal. for all characters, when they aren't. Availability plays a huge role in tiering too. Reyson's stats are completely irrevelent to how useful he is. Marcia's combat isn't as important as her rescue/dropping ability and flight from a very early chapter. Boyd's movement isn't as important as his combat and his availability. Kieran's support list isn't as important as his combat and efficiency.

You assume all 3 categories are equal in importance. They're not.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Davinatorman

[Anouleth]

Supports are not a minor thing, first off. With properly meshing supports a unit could end up with a combination of up to +5 attack, + 5 defense, and substantial amounts of avoid and hit.

That's impossible. No character in the game can get +5 attack and defense, let alone get avoid and hit bonuses on top of that. Moreover, supports only kick in towards the end of the game. We do not judge combat based purely on how good a unit is in the last chapter. At the same time, we should not judge supports based solely on their impact in the last chapter.

Fact is, supports do not have as great an impact as combat does. Even if Sothe had Earth supports with everyone in the game, he would still never be considered better than Ike even if Ike had no supports.

The attack alone is basically like upgrading your normal weapon to a forged version just by being in-range of the right units. So yea, not minor.

Yes, it is minor. Boyd supports Titania, Mist, Brom, and Ulki. He gives them more attack power, which is good, right? Because you gave it a 7? Except that Mist doesn't want more attack power, and Ulki hits fairly hard anyway and just has awful problems with speed and transformation so even +3 attack doesn't really improve his damage output, and Brom hits like a truck anyway and all of these supports take a while to set up, and Titania has a ton of other options and probably won't be in range anyway. And yet, apparently, these bonuses which ARE minor are so important that they make Boyd overall better than Marcia? I can't really imagine what kind of person thinks that being able to FLY is less "good" than giving bonuses to Titania late in the game.

Like, I can understand if you think that Boyd having better combat than Marcia is more worthy of mention in the tier list than her flight. But better supports? Really? Can you really imagine using Boyd if he couldn't fight and you just wanted him for his "support utility"?

Secondly, it's not based only on supports. Utility/flexibility is based on a multitude of factors. The main thing as of now is I was unsure if shoving/rescuedropping should be included in efficiency or utility. I gave it more weight in the speed category because I felt that the main purpose for those would be in turn-count reduction. However, as I stated, though the catagories are independent, they are correlated.

Then they're not independent.

The stats/combat category is focused entirely on how well the unit preforms when it comes down to the actual fights. If there is some skill that allows a units stats to be changed because of higher/lower movement, then feel free to bring it up.

It's not a skill, it's a core game mechanic. Characters with bad movement find it harder to enter combat, and thus end up with bad combat, just as characters with bad availability find it harder to enter combat and thus end up with bad combat, like, say, Tormod.

Kieran also has access to axes, which Ike does not.

Ike has access to Aether, Kieran doesn't. Ike gets stat boosts from his supports, Kieran doesn't. Ike eventually gets Ragnell. They should at least get the same score.

Kieran is at a WTA, while Ike is at a WTD. If you wish to challenge a rating to improve/reduce a score, feel free to do so though.

Ike should really get an 8.25. I don't believe his combat is worse than Oscar's or Jill's either.

Also, I think Reyson should get a 10 in combat. He can chant another unit and use them to kill an enemy, with almost limitless flexibility to always choose an ally that can ORKO. In fact, when he transforms, he can kill four enemies a turn, which is pretty impressive.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Anouleth

[Snowy_One]

That's impossible. No character in the game can get +5 attack and defense,

Mordi A/B Mist/Ulki. +5 attack and +5 DEF. And several characters can net bonuses of +4 and +3 which is far from minor.

Moreover, supports only kick in towards the end of the game.

Ike can get an A Oscar in 11 chapters. That's a duel-Earth support right there. In 11 chapters.

We do not judge combat based purely on how good a unit is in the last chapter. At the same time, we should not judge supports based solely on their impact in the last chapter.

I was unaware I was stating that at any point in this tiering. Though you seem to have the notion that supports only complete on the last chapter, which is highly detrimental to accurate tiering.

Fact is, supports do not have as great an impact as combat does. Even if Sothe had Earth supports with everyone in the game, he would still never be considered better than Ike even if Ike had no supports.

Indeed. Sothe's problems come from a poor weapon type and the inability to promote. I won't conjecture out how good Sothe would be if he could access better weapons and promote, because that doesn't matter. As of now, Sothe has not been rated. Why do you assume he will have a high score in combat?

Yes, it is minor. Boyd supports Titania, Mist, Brom, and Ulki. He gives them more attack power, which is good, right? Because you gave it a 7? Except that Mist doesn't want more attack power, and Ulki hits fairly hard anyway and just has awful problems with speed and transformation so even +3 attack doesn't really improve his damage output, and Brom hits like a truck anyway and all of these supports take a while to set up, and Titania has a ton of other options and probably won't be in range anyway. And yet, apparently, these bonuses which ARE minor are so important that they make Boyd overall better than Marcia? I can't really imagine what kind of person thinks that being able to FLY is less "good" than giving bonuses to Titania late in the game.

And here I've become convinced that you haven't read a single thing that's been posted. Here. My second post in the topic.

View Post-Cynthia-, on 06 November 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

Not sure how the mounted/flying units don't have better utility/flexibility scores, as being able to move more spaces (without regard for terrain in the case of fliers) and moving after they attack seems like the very definition of flexible. Being able to transport allied units also seems like it offers more utility than say, shoving for most foot units.

This was a hard thing but I decided that fit a bit better under Efficiency/speed as the main use would be for reducing turncounts. You are right that it should have a reflection in that other score though, I'm just not sure how much it should be. Also, remember, the 'reasons' are just a quick blurb meant to give a general idea for why the score exists. They do not encompass everything about the unit (Ike's Aether isn't mentioned in his combat even though it is something that did affect his score there).

To restate it. I did originally count rescue-dropping in support/utility, but dropped it when I started to feel that the use was more orientated towards speed-play than it was in direct utility. I also agreed that it should reflect in the utility though since, even though they are independent, they are correlated (Units with good movement are good in speed-play, and units with good movement would be good in utility, but being good in one does not mean being good in the other. Correlated, but independent).

It's not a skill, it's a core game mechanic. Characters with bad movement find it harder to enter combat, and thus end up with bad combat, just as characters with bad availability find it harder to enter combat and thus end up with bad combat, like, say, Tormod.

Does it affect how well they do in combat? Yes or no?

If movement gives a unit a boost, ANY BOOST, in combat, sure. Prove that it helps out in even the most miniscule of ways, provides even one point of crit evasion, and I will consider it in the stats/combat. Otherwise, it does not and belongs in one of the other two categories.

Ike has access to Aether, Kieran doesn't. Ike gets stat boosts from his supports, Kieran doesn't. Ike eventually gets Ragnell. They should at least get the same score.

Ike can indeed get some stat-boosts from his supports. How much and does it make up for Kieran's axes + second weapon type? Also, Ragnell is only around for two chapters. It's not weak, sure, but Kieran can also use the Tomahawk at an earlier point in the game.

Ike should really get an 8.25. I don't believe his combat is worse than Oscar's or Jill's either.

Both of them have access to better weapon types. Jill gets lances while Oscar gets his pick of axes, bows, and swords in addition to his own lances. While Ike gets 2 more STR over the course of the game, is that really enough to call him 'better'? Oscar will have a WTA and be at a WTD far less often after all.

Also, I think Reyson should get a 10 in combat. He can chant another unit and use them to kill an enemy, with almost limitless flexibility to always choose an ally that can ORKO. In fact, when he transforms, he can kill four enemies a turn, which is pretty impressive.

And that is why he got a 10 in both efficiency/speed and utility/flexibility. He can't fight on his own though and is frail, so he gets a 0 in combat. He has no combat, so he gets a 0. Is that really that hard to understand?

Also, something else I don't get, when I made the topic yesterday asking about interest, one of the primary concerns seemed to be that this would NOT be much different from the current tier list. Well, all the characters aren't even tiered yet and, shockingly, people are now mad at me that this tier list, which uses different standards than the other tier list... is... shocking... different! It's almost as if, ya know, the criteria for this tier list isn't the same as the other one!

All of your reasonings for utility for the combat units you've rated are primarily based off supports. Ergo, support options is the most important thing you're basing utility on for combat units. And again, minor bonuses (which fluctuate in availability) are in no way comparable to raw stats, high movement, and whatnot.

Most of the units I ranked are very similar in their playstyle. Namely because, in order to ensure I didn't accidentally forget someone, I copied the current tier list and started to work my way down it. The units near the top are fairly similar as the things valued by that tier list were similar, so it's no shock that they end up with fairly similar scores and reasons for their stats.

The main issue with your tier list is assuming that combat, efficiency, and utility are all comparably equal. for all characters, when they aren't. Availability plays a huge role in tiering too.

I know. I fully expect late-joiners to end up with lower scores in the efficiency/flexibility categories when we get around to them.

Reyson's stats are completely irrevelent to how useful he is.

Which is why he got a 0 in combat, but 10's in the other two categories. He's the only unit here with 10's ATM.

Marcia's combat isn't as important as her rescue/dropping ability and flight from a very early chapter.

Which is why she got a 9 in efficiency/speed, but only a 7 in combat.

Boyd's movement isn't as important as his combat and his availability.

And he got high scores in his combat, but came in as only 'slightly above average' in his efficiency/speed.

Kieran's support list isn't as important as his combat and efficiency.

And he netted high scores in the latter two, and a mere 'average' in the supports/utility. I'll grant that it might need a boost, but for that to happen I'll need to see justification that rescue-dropping happens enough when not involved in LTC-style play for it to be considered in Flexibility/Utility.

You assume all 3 categories are equal in importance. They're not.

I actually do agree. However, in my eyes, that means that utility/flexibility needs to be improved, not removed. This is not the other tier list. It should not have to conform to the same standards that it does.

[Anouleth]

I won't conjecture out how good Sothe would be if he could access better weapons and promote, because that doesn't matter. As of now, Sothe has not been rated. Why do you assume he will have a high score in combat?

No, I mean that if Ike gets a 8 in combat and a 7 in support, that implies that a unit with really really good supports but literally no combat ability is just as good as a unit with combat ability but literally no supports. Which is misleading. Do you really want to tell players that supports are just as important as being able to fight?

To restate it. I did originally count rescue-dropping in support/utility, but dropped it when I started to feel that the use was more orientated towards speed-play than it was in direct utility. I also agreed that it should reflect in the utility though since, even though they are independent, they are correlated (Units with good movement are good in speed-play, and units with good movement would be good in utility, but being good in one does not mean being good in the other. Correlated, but independent).

Well, quite aside from your bizarre choice to disregard rescue-dropping even though it can help get BEXP, which any player should be keen to get, you completely missed my point. Boyd has a 7.17 and Marcia has a 7. It's fine if you think, for whatever reason, that Boyd's combat is part of him being better, but it's crazy to suggest that his supports have more weight in this decision than his combat.

Does it affect how well they do in combat? Yes or no?

Yes, it does. Movement affects their EXP gain, which affects their combat.

If movement gives a unit a boost, ANY BOOST, in combat, sure. Prove that it helps out in even the most miniscule of ways, provides even one point of crit evasion, and I will consider it in the stats/combat. Otherwise, it does not and belongs in one of the other two categories.

It does give a boost in combat. I found that Marcia, for example, had some of the best combat abilities in the game because it was so easy to overlevel her with BEXP and CEXP.

Ike can indeed get some stat-boosts from his supports. How much and does it make up for Kieran's axes + second weapon type? Also, Ragnell is only around for two chapters. It's not weak, sure, but Kieran can also use the Tomahawk at an earlier point in the game.

The Tomahawk is only useful in low turn count playthroughs. It doesn't actually improve combat ability. Enemies are no less dead when you kill them from 2 range than 1 range.

Both of them have access to better weapon types. Jill gets lances while Oscar gets his pick of axes, bows, and swords in addition to his own lances. While Ike gets 2 more STR over the course of the game, is that really enough to call him 'better'? Oscar will have a WTA and be at a WTD far less often after all.

2 more strength is enough to overcome the gap in the strengths of their respective weapon types, and Ike wins in virtually every other statistical area as well as having a better mastery.

And that is why he got a 10 in both efficiency/speed and utility/flexibility. He can't fight on his own though and is frail, so he gets a 0 in combat. He has no combat, so he gets a 0. Is that really that hard to understand?

Yes, because he does have combat, he just fights through other units. Is that really that hard to understand? What does not being able to fight on his own matter? If it was necessary for Boyd to be on the field in order to use Oscar, does that mean that Oscar gets no credit for fighting? Why is it that Oscar gets a boost to his combat rating for his high avoid, even though it requires other units to be on the field, but Reyson doesn't get a boost to his combat rating for his Galdr ability because it requires other units to work? Does this mean that Rolf and Shinon will also get a zero because if they fight on their own, they'll be surrounded and trapped?

Also, something else I don't get, when I made the topic yesterday asking about interest, one of the primary concerns seemed to be that this would NOT be much different from the current tier list.

It's not a concern I raised.

Well, all the characters aren't even tiered yet and, shockingly, people are now mad at me that this tier list, which uses different standards than the other tier list... is... shocking... different! It's almost as if, ya know, the criteria for this tier list isn't the same as the other one!

Or, perhaps, it might be that it is because you haven't put much thought into the criteria in this list. I would probably be okay with this if you just got rid of the ridiculous "utility" rating which makes no sense and you clearly haven't thought about at all, even though it would produce a different list.

Most of the units I ranked are very similar in their playstyle. Namely because, in order to ensure I didn't accidentally forget someone, I copied the current tier list and started to work my way down it. The units near the top are fairly similar as the things valued by that tier list were similar, so it's no shock that they end up with fairly similar scores and reasons for their stats.

I think the problem is that the units so far have utility scores that are way too high for units whose only form of utility is giving situational support bonuses late in the game. Like Boyd, for instance, getting a 7/10 for... giving Titania a +1 attack boost, when we might not even be using her that late in the game.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Anouleth

[Constable Reggie]

You're misunderstanding what I meant. I said that because certain aspects for characters are not as important as others, they should not be considered equal. Giving a 0 for Reyson, and considering it equal to his other aspects makes him seem much less useful than he actually he is. Lowering Titania's score because her support list isn't the best undercuts Titania's actual usefulness and makes her seem less useful than she actually is. Again, I can't stress how stupid it is consider a combat unit's support list as important as their combat and whatnot.

It's not that your tier list is different that's troublesome, but the reasoning behind the idea and the scores that is.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Davinatorman

[Chiki]

Different is good only if you do it right.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Aeine

[nflchamp]

Snowy, yesterday the concerns were twofold:

1) The list would look exactly like the efficiency one, rendering it pointless.

2) The list would fail to represent anything meaningful because of how scores are given.

As you'll note, the current problem is 2). I fear that once we get past 2), we'll only end up in 1), but, alas, we're not there at the moment.

[Snowy_One]

Snowy, yesterday the concerns were twofold:

1) The list would look exactly like the efficiency one, rendering it pointless.

2) The list would fail to represent anything meaningful because of how scores are given.

As you'll note, the current problem is 2). I fear that once we get past 2), we'll only end up in 1), but, alas, we're not there at the moment.

A fair enough point. I'm trying to make this a unique tier-list that does not need to conform to the current tier list.

Alright, Anny, let's put the Kieran/Ike thing aside for a moment. I think it is important, but we should focus on one thing at a time and getting the criteria for these categories ironed out so we know what we're debating is more important.

Now, the main issue you have brought up is one of movement affecting combat. In particular that units with higher movement will have more EXP and a higher level. I have stated in the past though that movement is not taken into consideration in combat as it simply does not affect it. Stats/Combat is merely a measurement of how well the unit does in battle. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you are worried units will end up underleveled, than I will remind you that there are ways to get leveled without fighting at all. Namely BEXP. Maybe the rules should be altered in that case so that any unit below the average level of the party will be given EXP to bring them up to the average level to be compared at, save units with large level leads, of course.

[Elieson]

Soo....units that enter combat more than others are not entitled to bexp?

[Life]

The problem here is that your way of giving scores is flawed. Hear me out though.

Supports... don't actually mean much. There are very few enemies that someone like Brom (someone who supports with Boyd that got a 7 in Utility) now 1HKOs even with +3 Attack (this is before assuming that Boyd is beside him, of course) but only 2HKOs without it. Supports (and especially Attack) are pretty much negligible since you will have a team that pretty much 2RKOs or ORKOs the game with no support help, no matter and +2 Attack won't make a significant difference at all.

The next problem is you attempting to separate Efficiency/Speed from Stats/Combat. The thing is that a man like Boyd (who has the most ridiculous offense ever) does affect efficiency in a positive way because he can help with routs and taking down bosses. I can rescue/drop him and put him in range of... let's say Gashilama in Chapter 14 and Boyd will guarantee me a 2RKO (which requires 31 Attack) when nobody else can (short of overleveled promoted units). Efficiency has a toe in the door of Combat, like it or not. And vice versa.

Lastly, your Utility category is a bad idea. To have this category and completely disregard flier utility is asking for problems.

Seriously man. Give it a rest at this point. Do this stuff in Microsoft Word, at least it won't criticize you on mistakes in your basic way of thinking.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Mr. Wanker

[Vicious Sal]

7) A 5 is average, not bad. Don't get mad because your guy got an average of a 6. That's still an above-average score.

Efficiency/Speed: 6.5: Aside from his solid combat stats, Boyd is about average in terms of speed-play focus.

Before anything, stay consistent.

[Hawk King]

Snowy there are so many things wrong with this.

This is not a tier list. Tier lists place characters based off of how well they perform at meeting the criteria of the list (most cases LTC, FE7 has an S-rank tier list, etc). Your list is just the average of 3 arbitrary categories.

Everyone's combat is rated too low. Boyd and Jill have only an 8? Boyd and Jill are definitely 2 of the best in terms of raw stats. On a list like this the best should have a 10, and the worst should have a 1 (or a 0), and everyone else should fall somewhere in between.

The 3rd category is retarded. The fact that Marcia and Tanith support each other should give them a 10 if you think about it.

This is more of a character ratings guide, and a pretty poor attempt at that...

Although, the list it sounds like you want IS a rating guide. Try that with the categories of: Combat, Durability, Availability, and Movement.

A list like that will be different than the tier list and I think you might like the way it looks.

[Constable Reggie]

The 3rd category is retarded. The fact that Marcia and Tanith support each other should give them a 10 if you think about it.

Hell, the fact that Tanith has a unique and very useful ability should give her a 10 alone.

[Snowy_One]

Soo....units that enter combat more than others are not entitled to bexp?

There is no entitlement to any resources.

This is not a tier list. Tier lists place characters based off of how well they perform at meeting the criteria of the list (most cases LTC, FE7 has an S-rank tier list, etc). Your list is just the average of 3 arbitrary categories.

And the other tier list is just the ranking of characters based off the arbitrary criteria of LTC. Your point?

Everyone's combat is rated too low. Boyd and Jill have only an 8? Boyd and Jill are definitely 2 of the best in terms of raw stats. On a list like this the best should have a 10, and the worst should have a 1 (or a 0), and everyone else should fall somewhere in between.

What's wrong with an 8? It's a very good score. Well above average, but not perfect. I will admit, I dislike giving out 10's, especially since I'm trying to focus on 5 being 'average', not a 7.

The 3rd category is retarded. The fact that Marcia and Tanith support each other should give them a 10 if you think about it.

Why? They don't get a huge boost from it and it's only one support, nowhere on par with things that can help the team out on the whole (like healing).

[Elieson]

Actually, you just said there was, when you suggested bexp be handed out to those behind in levels, rather than those leading in levels.

Which I disagree with. I'm not feeding bexp to say, Volke, to catch him up if I do not value his combat. Even said, I value his utility, but the levels and stats and combat prowess matter less than utility because he is my thief. I would rather feed it to a unit like Oscar or Marcia, who enter plenty of combat, to boost their survivability.

[Snowy_One]

Actually, you just said there was, when you suggested bexp be handed out to those behind in levels, rather than those leading in levels.

Which I disagree with. I'm not feeding bexp to say, Volke, to catch him up if I do not value his combat. Even said, I value his utility, but the levels and stats and combat prowess matter less than utility because he is my thief. I would rather feed it to a unit like Oscar or Marcia, who enter plenty of combat, to boost their survivability.

The point of this statement is to keep it so that the focus is on combat, not on 'oh, this unit has super high movement! So they fight all the time and get mondo-high levels and clean up in combat because they have a high level! Meanwhile that other unit suuuucks! Not because his combat stats are bad or anything, but because they can't move as far to fight other units so they'll be underleveled'.

[Dr. Silent]

If this isn't solely based on speed playthroughs, then why is Titania still no. 1?

She's too mediocre during the latter half of the game to be no. 1.

No. 1 is Oscar. Get him to around level 10 - 12 and his stats will practically be the same as Titania's. Then he be just as useful. After that he's flying.

Assume we're talking Difficult here. Easy/Normal can be beaten quite easily using just about anyone. Yep, so I'm thinking Difficult here.

Titania is top for speed playthroughs. Otherwise no.

Excuse odd typing. Currently high.

[Anouleth]

If this isn't solely based on speed playthroughs, then why is Titania still no. 1?

She's too mediocre during the latter half of the game to be no. 1.

No. 1 is Oscar. Get him to around level 10 - 12 and his stats will practically be the same as Titania's. Then he be just as useful. After that he's flying.

Oscar won't reach 20/12 until very late in the game. That's like, Chapter 25 or 26 or something.

[Snowy_One]

If this isn't solely based on speed playthroughs, then why is Titania still no. 1?

She's too mediocre during the latter half of the game to be no. 1.

No. 1 is Oscar. Get him to around level 10 - 12 and his stats will practically be the same as Titania's. Then he be just as useful. After that he's flying.

Assume we're talking Difficult here. Easy/Normal can be beaten quite easily using just about anyone. Yep, so I'm thinking Difficult here.

Titania is top for speed playthroughs. Otherwise no.

Excuse odd typing. Currently high.

First off, the majority of characters are not rated yet.

Second off, while Oscar starts off good, it's no comparison for how good Titania is in the earlier parts, even when not playing by speed. Oscar starts good and ends good. Titania starts amazingly strong and ends up merely 'slightly below average'.