New tier list criteria

[Chiki]

I remember Anouleth saying something like Edward should be top tier on LTC tier lists because he saves more turns than anyone else on the prologue chapter, which gave me the idea for this topic.

Think of Nolan just killing stuff in 1-1 to cut turns--he must save a bunch of turns right? So he should be at least high tier. But we know Nolan really doesn't cut it at all after a certain point without babying, simply because he's too weak after 1-5. Yet he cuts more turns than units like Ike, who just is intuitively more useful. What can solve this problem?

I propose a new criteria in addition to reliability and turn cuts: chapter complexity. A unit's turn cut in 4-4 would be more useful than a turn cut in 1-1. While it's true that they're both just one turn in the end, it's much more complicated to conceive of a turn cut in 4-4 than in 1-1, hence why I introduce this concept.

In this way, Jeigans like Titania whose usefulness goes down as early game ends would be penalized, and units like Marcia would be awarded for helping us complete more complex chapters.

[Snowy_One]

If your new criteria were to be adopted, how would chapter complexity be judged?

[Espinosa]

Reminds me of the old argument about FE6 Marcus being better than Seth because his game is harder to play without him.

I find fault with your explanation though; isn't chapter 1-1 only easy because Nolan exists there? Remove Nolan and the difficulty goes up a lot (Edward's no tank and the other two can't counter enemies to save their lives). However, Ike isn't exactly doing such unbelievable things in 4-4 that other units wouldn't be able to replicate (Nolan/Boyd with forged Hand Axes or whatever).

[Chiki]

If your new criteria were to be adopted, how would chapter complexity be judged?

Good question. I don't know of a way to make it completely objective.

I guess it'd be some mix between enemy numbers and strength, your own units, and chapter size and terrain.

Reminds me of the old argument about FE6 Marcus being better than Seth because his game is harder to play without him.

I find fault with your explanation though; isn't chapter 1-1 only easy because Nolan exists there? Remove Nolan and the difficulty goes up a lot (Edward's no tank and the other two can't counter enemies to save their lives). However, Ike isn't exactly doing such unbelievable things in 4-4 that other units wouldn't be able to replicate (Nolan/Boyd with forged Hand Axes or whatever).

There's a diff between easiness and complexity (I make that mistake too). Complexity is my attempt to make it objective with enemy numbers, map size and such; easiness is subjective.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Olwen

[WallJump_Ninja]

In FE11, Normal mode is easier than H5. That's not subjective.

[Chiki]

In FE11, Normal mode is easier than H5. That's not subjective.

Yes it is. Easy itself is a subjective term; just because everyone says it's easier doesn't make it true in the laws of nature.

[Just call me AL]

Yes it is. Easy itself is a subjective term; just because everyone says it's easier doesn't make it true in the laws of nature.

And may I ask how requiring less thought than other difficulties is "subjective"? You're talking as if it's comparable to one person does certain jobs faster than another when it clearly isn't.

I mean, come on! Finding FE11 Normal harder than FE11 Merciless? How exactly does that work? Nevermind the fact that for someone to find FE11 Normal hard in the first place, he or she would have to be completely inexperienced at the game.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Little Al

[Dark Sage]

Reminds me of the old argument about FE6 Marcus being better than Seth because his game is harder to play without him.

I find fault with your explanation though; isn't chapter 1-1 only easy because Nolan exists there? Remove Nolan and the difficulty goes up a lot (Edward's no tank and the other two can't counter enemies to save their lives). However, Ike isn't exactly doing such unbelievable things in 4-4 that other units wouldn't be able to replicate (Nolan/Boyd with forged Hand Axes or whatever).

I think it might be impossible to clear 1-1 without Nolan, at least on Hard Mode.

[Chiki]

And may I ask how requiring less thought than other difficulties is "subjective"? You're talking as if it's comparable to one person does certain jobs faster than another when it clearly isn't.

I mean, come on! Finding FE11 Normal harder than FE11 Merciless? How exactly does that work? Nevermind the fact that for someone to find FE11 Normal hard in the first place, he or she would have to be completely inexperienced at the game.

I find normal mode harder because it's too boring; whereas H5 keeps me on my toes and keeps me engaged.

Is it really that hard to understand that what is easy for some may not be true for others?

And 1-1 can be done without Nolan; even if it can't that isn't a counterargument.

[Constable Reggie]

I find Fe6 to be the most boring game in the series, therefore it is the easiest. Fe3 keeps me on my toes and keeps me engaged more than Fe6, therefore it is harder than Fe6.

[Chiki]

I find Fe6 to be the most boring game in the series, therefore it is the easiest. Fe3 keeps me on my toes and keeps me engaged more than Fe6, therefore it is harder than Fe6.

I know you're trying really hard to be witty to make me look dumb, but the point of a subjective argument is that _all opinions are just as valid_. Even what people think may be stupid opinions--all are equally valid. So your fake opinion is just as valid as any other. You're helping my argument.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Olwen

[GreatEclipse]

The problem with judging characters based on how many turns they can cut in this or that chapter under optimal conditions, is that Fire Emblem is a game where units are designed to function as a team, and how much they can contribute is almost always dependent on the contribution of other units. Many examples could be given, but start with this: how many turns does a healer or dancer ever save? All their contributions to completing the map are through allowing other units to continue doing their job, so credit for any turns saved would need to be shared with whoever they happened to heal or dance for. Or suppose a thief grabs hold of a weapon they cannot personally use, but which dramatically empowers another unit with superior combat skills. And then a flier rescues and drops that more powerful unit over some difficult terrain, and he kills the boss 3 turns faster than if he had walked up to him. Even standard combat units are affected by this kind of analysis, because enemies often require more than one round to kill, and multiple units are also needed to absorb blows on enemy phase for everyone to come out alive.

The reason contributions for early chapters are so difficult to judge is because this fact about the game becomes really obvious when you are badly under-manned. The map was designed around the assumption that you would be using everyone available, in contrast to later ones that assume a greater familiarity with the game mechanics and allow for the viability of many different units and strategies. This is why it looks so counter-intuitive to place Edward over a later-joining unit who appears better in absolute terms, but is more easily replaced at his time of joining. They were made for different parts of the game, and where never meant to be compared in the first place.

Edited February 21, 2013 by GreatEclipse

[Constable Reggie]

I know you're trying really hard to be witty to make me look dumb, but the point of a subjective argument is that _all opinions are just as valid_. Even what people think may be stupid opinions--all are equally valid. So your fake opinion is just as valid as any other. You're helping my argument.

Measuring the difficulty of the Fe games is not a subjective argument. You can objectively measure the resources given to you and compare it to the obstacles thrown at you (or some other similar stuff). No one gives a shit if you feel Fe10 is boring, because that's completely irrelevant to measuring it's difficulty.

No one argues Ninja Gaiden 1/2 is much easier than Ninja Gaiden 3 just because they found 1/2 to be much more boring.

[Narga_Rocks]

Measuring the difficulty of the Fe games is not a subjective argument. You can objectively measure the resources given to you and compare it to the obstacles thrown at you (or some other similar stuff). No one gives a shit if you feel Fe10 is boring, because that's completely irrelevant to measuring it's difficulty.

No one argues Ninja Gaiden 1/2 is much easier than Ninja Gaiden 3 just because they found 1/2 to be much more boring.

For once I actually kind of agree with Olwen. Easy is subjective. Even comparing H5 to normal mode, if easy/hard is rated based on your ability to keep units alive, H5 can be easier if you don't pay attention due to boredom on normal. If you don't count squares and look at how many units can attack yours, you could get more deaths on an "easy" mode where you don't pay attention compared to a "hard" mode where you will.

Also, you are completely messing up his argument. The more boring one is harder, not easier. You keep saying the more boring one is easier. Huge difference. Boring makes it more difficult because it's harder to get through. How could boring make something easier? But like Olwen said, an opinion is an opinion. What makes sense to me may not make sense to you. Maybe to you something that is boring actually is easier to you. Easy could perhaps make something boring. I understand that. But the other direction seems odd.

[Constable Reggie]

All that proves is that you think the map's harder because you train of thought wasn't on the same level if it were playing another game. In a series where it's extremely simple to objectively measure the elements in the game, you can't just shrug objectivity and use feelings as your proof.

Easiness as a broad term is subjective. Difficulty of a certain strategy game over another is not. You don't factor bullshit like "how do I personally feel when I'm using windex compared to how I feel when using oxyclean" when comparing usefulness of windex vs oxyclean.

[Chiki]

Difficulty of a certain strategy game over another is not.

How can you use a subjective term when claiming something is objective? :P

[Espinosa]

I think we should at least assume the same level of engagement on behalf of the player if we want to compare which game is objectively harder. What if I had a hard day at work and I open my Lunatic Reverse file and fall asleep in the middle of it? Boring game huh, must be quite easy? Or maybe I'm just that tired.

Also, nobody will tell you shut up for voicing your opinion (besides a couple gentlemen), but if you have an opinion and you want to continuously insist upon it, at least have the courtesy to back it up with some evidence, referral to personal experience and whatnot.

[Constable Reggie]

Comparative difficulty in a strategy game series as simple as Fe can be proven with numbers and statistics, ergo not subjective. You can objectively prove that the enemies on average far outmatch you in Fe6 than in Fe3.

It's clear you're just arguing this for the sake of arguing, so I'm going to stop posting here.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Chiki]

at least have the courtesy to back it up with some evidence, referral to personal experience and whatnot.

There's no evidence for this--one has to think.

Let's consider two statements:

1. Sodium has one outer electron. (True)

2. 1+1=2 (True)

I'm sure you'll agree so far. Both are objective facts proved by science and mathematical proofs. Even I can do the second one myself.

3. Killing is bad. (???)

4. FE10 Hard Mode is hard. (???)

I don't think killing is bad in every single situation. What if you had to save the life of a child?

I don't find FE10 HM hard at all.

See how a very clear line separates objective statements like 1 and 2 and subjective statements like 3 and 4?

[cyron]

I fail to see how subjective difficulty based on attentiveness relates to objective difficulty based on your party, resources, terrain, and the opposition(all of which are expressed in #s) it doesn't connect however I do like the concept of chapter complexity, however this would require the creation of a system to decide on chapter complexity and some sort of representation of it

I think an interesting way to create the tier list is to create one tier list for each chapter and have units ranking in the prior listing factor into how many resources a unit is assumed to receive in the chapter following and then in the end all of the placings a unit received would be done out of 100 and averaged after being averaged the unit with the highest average would be 1st, 2nd would be 2nd, ect

Edited February 21, 2013 by Ignis Draco

[Espinosa]

There's no evidence for this--one has to think.

Let's consider two statements:

1. Sodium has one outer electron. (True)

2. 1+1=2 (True)

I'm sure you'll agree so far. Both are objective facts proved by science and mathematical proofs. Even I can do the second one myself.

3. Killing is bad. (???)

4. FE10 Hard Mode is hard. (???)

I don't think killing is bad in every single situation. What if you had to save the life of a child?

I don't find FE10 HM hard at all.

See how a very clear line separates objective statements like 1 and 2 and subjective statements like 3 and 4?

Well, a necessary action can still be bad.

I understand the difference between objective and subjective well enough; however, if we go deeper than 1+1, then we'll have to agree on definitions and notions. E.g. what is killing, does it include manslaughter? What is "bad" and what source do we draw our moral judgment from? What is "hard" and how do we measure it? Is something to be called "hard" just because one is having difficulty with it? Non-verbal people have difficulty in social situations and the illiterate folk will find it hard to read a sign.

This community tends to share experience to a certain extent, and can therefore argue about whether one thing is harder than another. As long as there's background knowledge involved, and as long as people are ready to invest time and effort rather than nitpicking on some meaningless parts of arguments and spending time overreacting about them. Just one of the countless ways to fail to achieve productive discussions, of course, there's tons more.

[Chiki]

I fail to see how subjective difficulty based on attentiveness relates to objective difficulty

It doesn't; that was just my attempt to explain how something can be more difficult than something that is so obviously more difficult to others.

My post above does a better job explaining that concept.

I believe that this discussion is all on topic, as we need to establish this before moving on to decide what complexity is.

I understand the difference between objective and subjective well enough; however, if we go deeper than 1+1, then we'll have to agree on definitions and notions. E.g. what is killing, does it include manslaughter? What is "bad" and what source do we draw our moral judgment from? What is "hard" and how do we measure it? Is something to be called "hard" just because one is having difficulty with it? Non-verbal people have difficulty in social situations and the illiterate folk will find it hard to read a sign.

Even if killing does include manslaughter and such, it differs from objective things in the way that we have no way of knowing _for sure_ that it's bad. For example, while E=mc^2 may be a law of nature (let's just assume it is for the sake of argument, so I can get my point across) there is no way we can establish that manslaughter is bad. If every living being on Earth died and there was nothing left alive in the universe, the laws of nature would still hold whereas morality would be nonexistent.

So morality can't be empirically tested, verified and etc. whereas objective truths can. That is where they differ.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Olwen

[Elieson]

When comparing enemy stats versus playable unit stats and growth rates, FE10 Hard Mode is verifiably more challenging to complete than FE11 Normal Mode.

More simply.

A 1 inch rectangular block will be more challenging to squeeze into a 1 inch wide rectangular hole, compared to squeezing a 1 inch cylindrical tube into a 2 inch wide cylindrical hole.

I prefer rectangles to cylinders, but that has no bearing on the challenge offered by the task at hand.

It doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to figure that comparison out.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Elieson

[Chiki]

When comparing enemy stats versus playable unit stats and growth rates, FE10 Hard Mode is verifiably more challenging to complete than FE11 Normal Mode.

Let's analyze your argument.

1) FE10 HM has stronger enemies than FE11 NM.

---

2) Therefore, FE10 HM is harder to play than FE11 NM.

Premise 1 is true, because stronger isn't a subjective term and they really do more damage and have more bulk, especially in relation to the respective game's player units.

The problem is going from the premise to the conclusion. You can't claim that FE10 HM is harder to play than FE11 NM simply because it has stronger enemies. One person's definition of difficulty may include weak enemies as opposed to strong.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Olwen

[Yoshikage Kira]

Pointless arguments aside, I agree with the original post. Later chapters are harder, so units that have better endgame stats and more overall usefulness are better than Jeigans. Think of it this way: to cut turns at the end, you need a better overall team, and you do that by feeding units other than Jeigans. So while a Jeigan may save you many turns early on, due to their lack of lategame usefulness and the fact that they're experience sinkholes, they actually take some of that 'profit' back by taking experience from stronger lategame units, costing you some turns later on. So yeah, he has a point.