Legault!

I think it's probably worth mentioning that, in fairness, this kind of sexualization seems very common in contemporary Japanese animation. It's not just Mr. Kozaki.

Obviously I was being sarcastic, in response to Interceptor's profound idiocy.

Second person implying I'm a pedophile because I'm not a unbathed, unemployed loser who pretends to be smart on the internet. She's wearing stripper boots and very little clothing. She plays house. Nowi says she's been around the block thousands of times. You, the player, can marry her. She has a child. She has a confession scene. She is sexualized. BrightBow you should be banned from this site You are clearly a PROJECTING PEDOPHILE

Most people would consider stripper boots, no shirt, her wink, and that pose to be sexualized. Please stop trying to defend a game with embarrassing art design.

http://serenesforest.net/fe13/img/nd_nono.jpg "Not sexualized"

I agree, but don't forget her personality: she plays house. She has the mind of a preteen.

I believe this is less a matter of "Puritans" and more a matter of "I'm not a fat sweaty weeaboo who needs sexualized children in my strategy RPG title." Awakening's designs are less "bad" and more just.. embarrassing.

I've used General!Frederick on Lunatic challenge runs before, and he's excellent. Speed potions and pairing up exist, and this probably won't even be necessary against lolHard enemies.

That guy got downvoted to death even though he's absolutely right. Reddit, ladies and gentlemen.

You are arguing that Frederick is absolutely necessary to complete the earlygame. Frederick is not, in fact, absolutely necessary to complete the earlygame. He makes the earlygame much easier, yes, which is why he gets credit for that performance. You can. It's just a hilariously suboptimal strategy. The point is that even if we're operating under the silly standard that necessary = top of the list, Frederic is not strictly necessary. Please tell me how else to interpret "non-zero chance of failure"

Awakening is also possible without Frederick if you get lucky, so I fail to see the difference. Even if you are going to rank "absolutely necessary" characters at the very top, Frederick fails to qualify. Also, some more thoughts about the non-zero chance of failure approach Paperblade suggested: if I'm wrapping my mind around this correctly, it would mean treating all non-100 displayed hit values for the player as 0 and all non-0 displayed hit values for the enemy as 100.

Necessary Tier 3DS Awakening game cart / digital download Vision Working hands Sentience Frederick Pretty Good Tier Avatar In case you couldn't tell, I find "necessary therefore best" arguments incredibly stupid. By that logic, most lords would be at the top of top tier, as seizing is necessary to complete the game. And what would we do with healers? Healing isn't strictly necessary to complete Awakening, but offense is. Should we move them to bottom because they aren't strictly necessary? Character rankings are based on contributions. Frederick contributes in the first four maps to an incredible degree, but what Avatar does for the rest of the game is more valuable on the whole, as it spans a longer period of time. (P.S. The first four maps can technically be solo'd with any set of Paired Up units if you get enough Dual Guard rolls, so Frederick is never completely necessary.)

99 displayed chance of hitting. 99 displayed chance of second hit. 99 displayed chance of third hit. 99 displayed chance of fourth hit. ... 99 displayed chance of ninety-ninth hit. According to your standard, this isn't good enough. Yes I am being intentionally obstinate here, but "non-zero" is an *incredibly* difficult standard to hold up, especially on Lunatic (where units like Vaike, who are not very good and have low hit, are considered as used for tiering purposes) with its killer enemies. how does this follow oh i see you're trying to be clever In the comparison between "Necessary to complete four maps" and "Breaks half of the game single-handedly," the latter is going to win out due to greater contributions over longer periods of time.

>while never getting into a nonzero% chance of death situation Even with true hit, the one-in-a-million is going to be hard to phase out without hella turtling.

This sounds like Turtle Central right here.

This sounds like a cross-that-bridge situation, but assuming this does happen, then long-term potential will be considered. Here's a very real situation: Frederick can reliably one-turn the Prologue boss, but Avatar can also kill the boss and, with the proper support setup, negate any chance of a critical. This usually takes around two turns with some Freddy help. Because the boss kill odds are both around 100% (if something goes horribly wrong and Avatar misses several ~90% true hit odds, Freddy can still clean up), Avatar getting the kill means more as his long-term potential is greater. In short, if Unit A and Unit B can both deal with Situation X equally as effectively and Unit B deals with the following Situation Y better, Unit B will be considered better.

Note that some of the one-turns are going to be a little misleading, as the Lunatic list won't be assuming hardcore Rescue and Galeforce strategies. We might have to bump those up more. I've also gotten a six-turn completion on Ch.23 with two Nosferatanks, so that seems like an interesting case where "safe strategies" actually save the player turns.

OP Rankings are placeholders. More reliable statistical completion. As a silly example, imagine Unit A has a 60% chance to defeat a boss in one turn, while Unit B has a 90% chance to defeat a boss in three turns. So long as those three turns fit into the parameters, Unit B will be considered a better unit for that map.

Once those are established, the rest should be easy. Using all available turns is both accepted and encouraged, which will hopefully nullify lingering questions like "Is Dark Knight better than Sorcerer since the latter takes more turns, even if it's more reliable?" Better units are those that make the game easier to complete within the parameters.

Chapter-by-chapter. It makes things simpler (and simple is good): the turn counts per chapter will be plenty generous, and it avoids conversations about rushing through earlygame so you can "stock up" on turns later on. There's a separate topic that's been made about figuring this out and I encourage everyone to give it a look and participate.

That might help un-clutter this topic. I'd appreciate it.

I'm assuming those are the maximum turns we'll be allowing, not the minimum.

No restrictions on Pairing Up here.

Premonition: There is absolutely no reason for this map to take any more than two turns. Even on Lunatic, Chrom + Silver Sword one-rounds Validar. The rest sound good. I'd probably bump Ch.2 up to 10 considering that RNG plays a role here. Talking about a tier list is, in fact, meant to be discussed in a tier list topic. I've been contacted by a moderator who encouraged me to make this topic and explained that tier list philosophy is perfectly acceptable in general (just not in SDS's topic, where his mind is set). This topic has a different lead and a different approach. Please stop with these off-topic posts.

Seeing as no resolution was reached and arguments for a more defined criteria were hand-waived and insulted, 30+ pages wasn't enough. Thankfully, we're already making some progress here with some nice suggestions, and I'm sure this will be resolved quickly enough. If you'd like to criticize my approach further, I'd encourage PMing rather than telling me here. It's very off-topic.