[ITT I rank the characters]

Artur

Artur is like Lucius, if he was a guy traded overkill pow for supports that give durability.

Artur isn't too bad earlygame. 8 base spd is fine. 10 att hitting res isn't too bad. With 50% mag (good) and 40% spd (okay), his offense should remain decent for the entire game (watch out for spd screwage though).

Durability is a different story, however. He has an incredibly massive 2 base def, with 2 lck so he's actually worried about getting critted. While he can 1-2 range to avoid most counters on player phase, he still can only take 1 hit.

However, supports help his durability a lot, and is pretty much exactly what he needs; def, avo, and crit eva, and every support other than Joshua gives full avo. Lute in particular is very fast, so that's a fairly easy A, and he has Tethys/Cormag/Joshua/Neimi all as backup options. He's still rather frail (for example, 20/1 Artur with A Lute vs 20/1 Joshua with no supports is 1 def + 16 res vs 9 HP, and Joshua isn't known for his durability, let alone unsupported Joshua), but with 1-2 range and being able to use staves post-promotion help that problem.

Promotion choice: Bishop. It has +1 mage over Sage (while sage gets +1 HP and res), and you get slayer and C staves vs C anima and D staves. Anima is nice, but you get some compensation with bishop (+1 mag and slayer) but most importantly you get a head start in building staff rank. A-rank warp may be out of reach, but B-rank physic/rescue and the status staves aren't.

So Artur has decent offense for the entire game. His durability is garbage, though with supports it alleviates that issue (it's still fairly bad though, so he can't solo half the map). Post promotion he gets to also play with staves. A good unit overall.

8/10

[The Great LTC Debate Thread (Yay? Nay? Burn in Hell?)]

Try rereading my post. You're missing the primary distinction - one subjective metric is used to establish a ceiling on the value of a handful of units that are required to beat the game; the other is the primary basis for the tier list.

Now, please realize, once again, that shoveling Edward, Brom, Geoffrey, etc. into top tier just because the player is forced to use them in a couple of chapters does not convey any useful information.

Regardless of what purpose the metric is used for, or whether or not this metric is "required", the fact is that there is STILL something subjective being used.

We're discussing the merits of pixels and bits in a fantasy game. What a high calling. Don't try pulling the life card here. CATS is as much of a failure at life as any of us for wanting to discuss this game.

How is that even pulling the life card? I was simply saying that the discussion/debating is more worthwhile than achieving the goal, and I simply quoted CATS because I'm not the only one who shares that viewpoint.

[The Great LTC Debate Thread (Yay? Nay? Burn in Hell?)]

At this point we're going in circles. You all know that multiple tier lists using different standards HAVE already been tried out, right? and how they all got trolled to the ground? Of course you're going to make excuses, or maybe say how it wasn't trolling, but the fact is that other tier lists have been tried out and, for whatever reason, were not successful. Saying "you should make other tier lists" isn't really going to help, particularly because the majority of the people who still even semi-regularly debate are part of the SF niche, who advocate for a much different style of tiering units than the rest of the community do.

@ Aethereal

Reread what Othin said. He's pretty much said anything I could've on the matter, only better.

The player is pigenholed into using these characters for certain maps in the first place; the tier list would not be particularly informative if a handful of chapters were solely responsible for the placement of some characters, hm? Surely even you realize this?

Your arbitrary distinctions are elastic in a particular way that makes discussion impossible. Currently we all agree that Edward, Brom, Geoffrey, etc. are valuable in their exclusive maps, and we all know exactly what they do. Contrast this to a gimped Seth tier list, where the degree to which Seth cannot be used is always a point of contention that significantly affects the placement of other characters. Or contrast this to a "casual player" tier list, which can't even get off the ground because the debaters cannot agree on what a "casual player" can and cannot do.

Except that's the problem. How much worth do people like Edward exactly get for their contributions in their maps where deployment is limited? There's at least SOME subjectivity in their worth, which, according to you, is bad.

Well, yeah. I believe that there is a final outcome for a tier list. I suppose some of you want tier lists for the discussion, but I personally find no value in a reference tool that changes daily based on the whims of the participants.

"How good they are" is atleast partially subjective, though. Furthermore, if your only objective is to obtain the "right" or "correct" tier list, then kudos to you. I thought about that once, and then considered the fact that were that my mentality, I'd be pursuing the absolute truth......of what? Of a tier list ordering of fictional characters in an obscure SRPG game? What a high calling. I find that these topics are worthwhile for the actual discussion that they provide, not for pursuit of whatever cheap sense of satisfaction one might acquire if the "finalized, correct" tier list was ever actually achieved.

The Serenes community abolished the established "rules" for FE7 and FE6 tier lists and insisted that "pure efficiency" be the standard instead of ranks. How is this any different?

[The Great LTC Debate Thread (Yay? Nay? Burn in Hell?)]

Didn't you used to be an advocate of not every turn has equal worth? A turn in chapter A vs a turn in chapter B don't necessarily mean the same thing?

Gee whiz, you might almost think that the FE10 tier list isn't based purely on LTC principles!

Do neither of you seriously understand the point?

The point wasn't to criticize exactly the standards the SF niche use (I know you don't adhere 100% to LTC, but you're damn close to it, but that's beside the point). The point was to show the contradiction in dondon's statement. He complained that the people who try to bring up alternatives do not clearly define the standards they propose. However, the standards the SF niche currently use are not clearly defined either, since clearly, the fact that Edward's 1-P and BK's 1-9 are worth less than the turns they save shows that there's some other factors involved that the SF niche have not elaborated or defined. In other words, why doesn't he also criticize the standards the SF niche use? Why doesn't he say that the standards the SF niche use is a problem?

Isn't it, though? Units would bounce up and down based on someone arguing for Tactics being more important and then someone else (successfully) argues for Exp to be more important like a month later and the change made a month ago is unmade? I don't mind a tier list where units move around here and there, but I'd rather not be watching a slip-and-slide. Surely it's not that hard to (arbitrarily) decide the value of each rank for the list and argue units from there.

That sounds pretty terrible if the tier list criteria is so loose that whoever's in top tier is determined largely by who has the most passionate fanboys who are willing to push for it hardest.

That's the point. People could never agree on the exact value of each rank. It would depend entirely on how well each person could debate. And when people actually bring up good, sound points to defend their argument, that's what made debating fun.

By the way anouleth, do you even know how the old gamefaqs and FEFF tiers were run? They were community based where changes were made based on a consensus of sorts, so in fact unit placements were based on "whoever has the most passionate fanboys". Only, the old debaters weren't fanboys. They used logical arguments, they were willing to listen to other people, and were willing to compromise. Things that I have not seen on this site.

I'd hardly think that no-Seth is rigid in any way. There are lots and lots of ways to play that one. Even Sethskip allows for lots of arguing about the value of other characters.

No-seth completely eliminates one character that is available in every chapter from being used at all. It also implies a negative connotation; that no-seth is inferior than seth-skip in terms of efficiency.

And really, Seth isn't the only example. FE7, FE9 and 10 are other examples where things like "the jeigans rampage through the maps and half the team are just getting scraps" are being assumed. Unfortunately, the fact that they don't have separate tiers (or when they did, they were trolled to the ground) doesn't really help your case either.

Also, do you disagree with this statement

"any tier list that forays into middle ground will be plagued with endless arguments regarding how Seth can be used rather than where the other characters should go."

If so, how would you resolve that potential problem?

It's not a significant problem as long as...

1) People can bring up good arguments and points to make the debate interesting.

2) People are willing to listen and compromise.

In addition, if you have something to mention that involves using Seth, go to the Sethskip list. I don't see seperate tier lists as killing discussion as much as keeping discussion ordered.

I think it's really bizarre that nobody ever objected to separate tier lists for different routes, different difficulties, different criteria, even putting the same character in two different positions based on his route, yet Sethless and Sethskip has everyone's panties in a bunch.

The difference is that things like different routes, difficulties, etc. are hardcoded, physical differences in the game, while Sethless vs Sethskip are player and playstyle-driven. The difference between, say, Sacae and Ilia, are a few completely different characters being recruited (even if the characters aren't really good) and very different styles to tackle them (Sacae has tons of high mobility, high accuracy enemies, while Ilia is... a bunch of joke pegs or something, been awhile since I actually argued about Ilia). Assuming Sacae or Ilia also means some of the units on the team are tailored towards it (obviously, Shin and/or Sue are being trained heavily while the pegs are neglected to reach Sacae, etc.). Even then, the choice between Sacae and Ilia heavily alters how debate tournaments work; do you assume that Ilia will be the route because it's the easier route, or do you use Sacae because it's the harder route and thus the unit that helps more on the harder route is the superior unit? This is something that can be agreed upon before the debate tournament, or can be argued as a focal point in a debate. Again, as long as the points are sound and everyone is civil (and also doesn't consume the entire debate), it only makes the debate more interesting.

The difference between abusing Seth and not using Seth at all only has the effect the debaters give it. It is only your opinion that the only way to use Seth is to have him break the game, or that his impact is so significant that it alters the way the game is played. It is, however, not an opinion that Sacae and Ilia alter the way the game is played.

[The Great LTC Debate Thread (Yay? Nay? Burn in Hell?)]

We've been through this argument many times before...

The problem with tier lists that assume something being partially and arbitrarily restricted is that there is never an acceptable justification for why the restriction is in place.

So that there's more to talk about in tier lists than just one rigid playstyle (LTC) while still remaining efficient.

Here's something else to ponder; if LTC (or just what the SF niche use for their tier lists, including you) isn't an arbitrary restriction, why are there exceptions such as Edward's 1-P or the BK's 1-9? If LTC was truly objective, then Edward and the BK would shoot up because of those two chapters where they save so many turns. The fact that they are not topping the tier list (or at least high tier) implies that the standards the SF niche use have arbitrary factors considered.

So, why is it ok that the SF niche use arbitrary restrictions in their tier lists while whenever someone else tries to come up with some other arbitrary measuring stick, it's suddenly not acceptable?

The same arguments can slide characters around just because the tiering ideology can subtly change from one day to the next.

You make it sound like a bad thing, when Othin (or maybe it was Paperblade) brought up the fact that when rank tiers were discussed, the value of each rank would constantly change, and thus units would jump up and down the list.

In the specific case of FE8 tier lists involving Seth, we've settled at 2 logical extremes (use Seth as much as possible, or don't use Seth at all), and any tier list that forays into middle ground will be plagued with endless arguments regarding how Seth can be used rather than where the other characters should go.

That's exactly the problem that has been brought up 9001 times. Assuming ONLY two possible situations (which then have to be divided into two different tiers) assumes a rigid playstyle and kills discussion.

[The Great LTC Debate Thread (Yay? Nay? Burn in Hell?)]

To the extent of writing completely separate writeups of how a unit's performance at chapter X at different levels? Maybe not. But I'll generally say something along the lines of "well if unit X is at a lower level for whatever reason, then this and this happens to its performance" or "if unit Y happens to obtain this resource, then this and this happens".

[The Great LTC Debate Thread (Yay? Nay? Burn in Hell?)]

Are we talking tier list or one on one debate, now? Well, maybe it doesn't matter.

As far as I'm concerned, debating tiers and a debate tournament use the same standards (unless specified otherwise). The only difference is that a tier is trying to attain the truth, while a debate tournament is just trying to prove why the character you're defending is better.

Their levels are still determined by the amount of use Seth is getting. If you want to talk 20/1 in chapter 10 or something, we are going to have to agree to go Sethless, probably. If you want to assume Seth, then they might be 10/1 then or whatever. Really, it doesn't matter. They can be debated no matter how much Seth is used, and chances are the two people will be willing to come to some agreement of what kind of Seth-use they are talking about. quite frankly, this happens everywhere on a debate between two units in fe8. If the debators don't happen to know how much Seth breaks the game if you take his chains off, then there is an implicit agreement to go with chained seth or sethless, depending on the levels they like. I don't see how the "overall abuse of overpowered characters" is causing any kind of death in this instance.

Or you can not assume that only one scenario will happen.

You can say "if seth doesn't rampage the maps then these units will have A levels at chapter X", and then also say "if Seth DOES rampage maps, then these units instead will have B levels at chapter X", and consider what happens in both scenarios.

What's killing tiers is that you are only assuming 1 of those scenarios (having Seth rampage) because doing the other (not having Seth rampage or not fielding Seth at all) is "inefficient", or even attempting to consider the inefficient scenario requires that you make a completely separate tier about it. This restricts what there is to talk about.

EDIT: What Othin also just said.

Also, have you ever played Shining Force 2?

No.

[The Great LTC Debate Thread (Yay? Nay? Burn in Hell?)]

First off, he doesn't solo maps. He just goes to the boss as fast as he can (which is really damn fast) and kills it, because he can. He's not soloing anything because other units still run around to open chests, visit houses, and kill whatever scraps they can as well as killing stuff that is in Seth's way. It's just being efficient. So instead of that, you want a cuffed Seth? Why would you ever do that in an efficiency tier list? How is it efficient to have Seth kill scrubs in random parts of the map while your other units turtle their way to the boss? Even in one of YOUR tier lists, your claim is

"solo maps" is an obvious hyperbole, but he is still doing the majority of the work, according to you and the rest of the SF niche.

If it was a debate between Seth vs some random dude, then the fact that Seth can solo maps because he's that good can be brought up and will make Seth win the debate.

If it's something like Franz vs Vanessa, the fact that Seth can solo maps shouldn't matter. The fact that "well if Seth doesn't solo the map you're not playing efficiently so why are you doing that" implies that low and mid tiers can never be fielded because using them ever is inefficient, because if the player will have Seth solo the map because doing otherwise is deemed to be inefficient, then likewise the player will not field these bad units because doing otherwise is deemed to be inefficient.

This is exactly why discussion regarding LTC, and the overall abuse of the overpowered characters, is dying out.

The fallacy can be dealt with by attempting to establish a reasonable working definition of the term at play or by showing that the other party is being unreasonable and avoiding the argument.

Show me where that happened. I'm pretty sure I pointed out that it wasn't defined.

Reread the topic, and paperblade's post about it.

You're taking the analogy a bit too far here. I just don't take you seriously enough to consider the arguments you make to be credible, as I would anyone who might say 2 + 2 = 5.

You didn't make yourself look any better with thsi excuse.

"Spreading?" I know you've mentioned some, but if this is really going to be your reasoning, start focusing your arguments on where the SF influence is infecting other sites. I don't post anywhere else anymore, and if it's all here anyway, it shouldn't matter to you.

And if you wanted to talk to people at SF not part of the SF niche...isn't that kind of pointless? I mean, we are at SF.

The SF niche is int, narga, you, dondon, nflchamp, etc.

I enjoy the arguments. I don't troll him. Come on.

Saying "I just don't take you seriously enough to consider the arguments you make to be credible, as I would anyone who might say 2 + 2 = 5." tells another story. Just saying.

[The Great LTC Debate Thread (Yay? Nay? Burn in Hell?)]

No, I'm basically saying what Revan explained. I look at what he says, but I take it all with a grain of salt.

could've fooled me.

No, it's not. It was not defined to what extent the player makes mistakes with the exception of it once saying "maximal," which actually does assume the player may make a lot of mistakes and probably is really stupid. It didn't say something like "up to two mistakes per map," and you can't very well quantify the difference between no mistakes on a map and ten fatal mistakes on a map into the same list. This is why efficiency tier lists assume the player is competent and doesn't make such mistakes as accidentally putting your Heron in the way of Snipers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki%27s_Wager

I do see people arguing your points, though. But again, what Revan said. If you were to try to convince me that 2 + 2 = 5, I would not bother to explain why you're wrong.

So what you're saying is that all of my arguments have the same logical groundwork as 2+2=5.

In other words you have already deemed yourself to be the winner of any argument I could come up, that your points and arguments you have are supposedly "common knowledge" (as is 2+2=4) with and are thus content on dismissing it instead.

Cool

Story

Bro

I don't wonder, actually. I understand that people don't like our way of doing things and don't think there's anything wrong with that. Different communities do things differently. If something can't get popular here, it's not our fault for not wanting to do it. What, are we supposed to like alternate ways of doing things just because others do? And if so, why don't you like our way of doing things, too?

Again, people have tried making separate tier lists.

Why do you even still post here?

Because I want to talk to people not part of the SF niche, and here you are spreading lies around that could negatively influence the people not part of the SF niche.

[The Great LTC Debate Thread (Yay? Nay? Burn in Hell?)]

Do you understand why people flame each other?

[The Great LTC Debate Thread (Yay? Nay? Burn in Hell?)]

It would be really nice if you would just stop using the word in a context it doesn't belong in.

Except it is.

Yeah, if I said "Guy X is a pedophile, therefore he doesn't know anything about pruning apple trees", that would be poisoning the well, but saying "Guy X has a history of academic misconduct and poor scientific method, therefore we will no give him significantly less credence" isn't, it's just doing what makes sense, and, by the way, is how the entire scientific community functions, and the scientific community is pretty much at the cutting edge of "how to do things logically and reasonably".

So how about in future posts, I dismiss everything you and the SF niche have to say? Because from my point of view, you're the ones who don't understand the arguments no matter how often I bring them up, just like from your point of view it looks like I'm the one who doesn't understand.

It might be flaming, sure, but the two words mean completely different things, and implying that your opponents are just trolls represents a significantly greater attempt to discredit and delegitemize their arguments than implying they are flaming you does.

People flame because they want to illicit negative emotions from the other person, i.e. to troll them.

[The Great LTC Debate Thread (Yay? Nay? Burn in Hell?)]

How is that behavior considered "trolling?" You immediately use that term--which has lost all its meaning--to refer to anyone who disagrees with you.That's really all they did, and you can't come to terms with it.

How about Gafgarion who explicitly just stated that it's retarded that people like Fox dismissed my points because it was made by me?

Again, if dismissing someone's points just because of their reputation is NOT trolling, what is?

I don't know enough about this situation to make a judgement on it, but this idea in general isn't really that retarded. If somebody has a history of making silly unreasonable claims, and they make another claim, there's nothing wrong with thinking it's silly and unreasonable, as long as you do still look at it. This is why, for example, most scientists don't go around civilly debating creationists and don't need to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

None of this shit is trolling. Even a google search will bring up the correct definition of trolling which is posting content purely to evoke a strong emotional response. If they're not just trying to piss you off (hint, they aren't) then they aren't trolling, by definition.

How is "I forgot this was Smash we were dealing with... " NOT trolling?

Or if you don't want to call it trolling, how about "flaming" instead?

[The Great LTC Debate Thread (Yay? Nay? Burn in Hell?)]

You are ignoring the reasons for a separate tier list. I don't see the other list as inferior at all. It's just that the difference between having Seth and not having Seth are so great that you can't reconcile the two thoughts onto the same list. Just take a moment to jump off your high horse and take a look at the two lists. How would you suggest we reconcile the two? We are talking about cutting the number of turns in half or something crazy like that. This isn't a minor change like using Haar or not.

I happen to like both lists and see them both as meaningful and information givers.

Having Seth can still result in "not have Seth solo maps" and thus can still be incorporated into the main tier list. Assuming that Seth is fielded, thus he HAS to be soloing maps (because if he's not doing that, the "impact between having Seth and not having Seth" is in fact not significant to the point that a separate tier list has to be made to consider such a situation) goes back to my first post - that the SF niche playstyle is abusing the fuck out of the overpowered units, and that anything that doesn't conform to that playstyle has to be directed to a different tier list than the ones the SF niche argue.

You are laughable. I'm pretty sure the creator of it even admitted later that he was just trolling. The time around when it happened and some of the things on the list (Lyn at the bottom) make it obvious.

That still doesn't change the fact that no one actually tried to refute any of his arguments. What solide actually believes in (which means even if he was trolling when he made that list) doesn't weaken any of his points which the SF niche dismissed.

Yes, flaws in logic. The OP says: --This list assumes that there is room for player error (tactically bad decisions resulting in death, ideal supports less viable, not always using the perfect team or strategy, etc.) It is not trolling to point out what is wrong with that. And I'm pretty sure at first it said something like "maximal error," which makes it easy to assume extremes like everyone except Ike dying. Which is pretty retarded.

Smash, we are not trolling because we point out flaws in logic, nor are we trying to get rid of any kind of thinking we don't already follow. We didn't like ranked discussion at first, but the FE7 ranked list ended up getting a lot of discussion.

It is a strawman - and by extension trolling - to stretch "tactically bad decisions" into "the player is a complete retard".

This is only an example of us being against you, not anything we don't already do. If someone else had posted it, we would have either argued it normally or closed it because we have another. We all know you and now none of us are able to take you seriously, try as we might. I'd say this is mostly your fault.

Yeah, so instead of arguing the points the TC brings up, it's ok to flame him because of his reputation.

CSB

It's not our fault that non-LTC/efficiency topics don't get popular.

And you wonder why the people outside of the serenesforest niche do not like debating with your kind anymore.

...So when people agree with me, I should consider the possibility that they are actually trolling me? What is the point of this line?

And you wonder why we don't take you seriously.

Just because they agree with you doesn't mean they are not trolling me.

Was it really that hard to comprehend?

You have some ridiculously thin--thin as in a rack of ribs smoked for a whole week--skin if you consider that to be flaming and trolling.

It is still trolling, and quite severe one at that (completely dismissing or insulting someone just because that someone is hated among the majority of the community).

Tell me; if that isn't trolling, what is?

Would you be so kind as to provide your operating definition for "trolling"? As I understand the word, creating a tier list (as you did) to try to incite a hostile reception is more fitting of "trolling" than recognizing an effort as such.

google "trolling" if you want a definition.

I suggested an alternative means of evaluating poor units in an efficiency tier list, which seemed especially relevant to the topic at hand (ergo: not a tangent). How such an effort could be construed as "trolling" is a matter beyond my understanding.

Because you completely dismissed what I argued anyway.

There was some condescension in that topic (as there is in most tier lists), but it was far from the majority of the content.

Doesn't change the fact that several people posted in that topic just to troll it.

[The Great LTC Debate Thread (Yay? Nay? Burn in Hell?)]

You seem to have a persecution complex. The only person who trolled this topic was AndoSan, a known GameFAQs troll. I'd suggest that you were actually disappointed with how seriously people took this tier list thread that you created to stir up controversy over LTCing as a standard for tiering.

For starters, people who trolled the list simply because it was made by me. For example, you.

aku chi

Posted 4/19/2011 6:25:15 PM

Albin0 posted...

Am I the only one who noticed that smash just posted a tier list that goes against everything he looks for in tiering? Seriously guys, smash isn't posting this tier list so we can debate it: he's posting it to satirize LTC play. Are we just going along with it? Surely I can't be the only one to have noticed this.

You are not the only one to notice. I'm not sure how to respond when smash fanatic behaves like this, because I don't know what he hopes to accomplish. So I'll continue to ignore such posts until I figure it out.

Edit: I also saw zero trolling in this topic: http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/920189-fire-emblem-path-of-radiance/59086384. We had a short discussion on how to evaluate low tier units, and that was the end of it. I readily admit that I was critical of the lower portion of your tier list, but that is far from trolling.

How about the fact that you didn't even address what my post said about tiering low tier units and you instead went off on your own tangent blabbling?

There are also a lot of serious posts from people who normally debate LTC efficiency in this thread: http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=20833&st=80.

For starters, int.

I think you posted an example of me allowing for a non-ideal situation, that is Sethless. Good job. Thanks for the evidence and reminding everyone.

Yeah, by saying anyone who considers the non-ideal situation should bring it up on a separate tier list, implying that they will be making a tier list that is inferior to the one you adhere to.

I don't think "trolled to the ground" is the same thing as "pointing out logical inconsistencies in what doesn't agree with LTC."

k

Obvious troll list.

His arguments were sound and consistent. The only reason why it was closed is because it didn't adhere to what the SF members had already deemed to be true or false.

Was taken pretty seriously, though we had to point out the serious flaws in logic. Even Revan (who normally doesn't debate and isn't part of the "niche") stepped in on that much.

How about all the trolling saying that CATS was apparently assuming the player is completely retarded and frothing at the mouth for starters? Did you even read the topic?

You call that trolling? Did you post that just so people would agree with it and praise your genius?

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=19003&view=findpost&p=851658

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=19003&view=findpost&p=851707

These are examples of me being flamed in the first page. Again, did you even read the topic? I know you posted sometimes to troll me unnecessarily, but surely you didn't miss all the other times of other people trolling as well.

Just wasn't popular.

because it wasn't LTC.

Smash, when will you learn that people disagreeing with you is not the same as trolling?

Fox, when will you learn that people agreeing with you is not the same as not trolling?

[The Great LTC Debate Thread (Yay? Nay? Burn in Hell?)]

I like how narga only starts seriously posting the moment I enter. I feel so popular. One has to wonder when int will join in the flame war fun.

Here's what I don't understand. Most discussion of turn counts happens in tier lists specifically created for that discussion. Every one is upset about there not being much discussion other than turn count play. No one would be upset with these people creating topics or tier lists to discuss the playstyle they enjoy. Why don't you DO that? Why not go make a tier list about all these different ways of playing besides the hated Efficiency/LTC? If that kind of play is appealing enough to the forum members, then people will discuss it. If it's not appealing enough, it's not the LTC players fault. If LTC players came in and started bashing the tier lists on the basis that "Not LTC u r nub", I'm positive mods would step in, or the poster would just get bashed from the rest of the community. For all this talk of LTC players stifling discussion, I've never seen another discussion to begin with.

Whenever someone that isn't part of the serenesforest niche makes a separate tier list, it either gets trolled to the ground or outright closed.

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=18866

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=19097&st=0

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=19003

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=20833

There are a handful of other examples that exist even on other sites; the serenesforest niche will deliberately go to other sites to troll down tier lists that don't conform to their standards.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/932999-fire-emblem-radiant-dawn/53510935/589695202

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/920189-fire-emblem-path-of-radiance/59086384

Do you honestly think people haven't tried before? The fact is that the serenesforest niche will only accept LTC.

Quote

Relevant story: A few years ago, I recall watching a debate on FEFF. I don't remember who was involved, but I know it was Oscar vs. Boyd. One of the debaters pointed out in his opening statement that his intent was not to prove that the other character was terrible, but rather that if a player, for whatever reason, had filled every other slot on their team and was choosing between those two for the last slot, then the player would get more of an advantage from picking his chosen character. There was an agreement that those two were two of the best characters in the game, and that an ideal team would include both of them. But the situation being considered was not an ideal situation. It didn't have to be. This is an idea much of the current Serenes community appears to have lost, whether discussing LTC or not.

What's your point? Are you saying that we are not considering non-ideal situations anymore?

Sorry, but it's hard to envision playing FE8 while you place handcuffs on Seth. If he's going to be fielded and used, take off his chains and let him go to work. It has the unfortunate consequence of many growth units becoming utter trash, but that's just the reality of the game. Either make a list where he is assumed to not be used at all (Sethless, it is there) or make a list where he is used fully (Sethskip). I question the meaning of a "Cuffed Seth" tier list.

Even in fe10, if Haar can reliably end a map in half the time it takes anybody else to do so, how is it in any way "efficient" to not do so?

idk narga what do you think

EDIT: Here's another example. The funny thing is that the list was actually about LTC, but the serenesforest members still trolled it to the ground simply because it was made by me.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/932999-fire-emblem-radiant-dawn/58835420

[Some of my past Ideas for the Fire Emblem series]

The tactician idea is kinda boring and lame.

The good/evil things would require IS to actually write a decent story.

The weapon leveling idea also seems clunky. As it is right now, it's pretty easy to go through an entire weapon's uses in 2-3 chapters. Are these weapons going to have hundreds of uses or something or what?

Endless FE game wouldn't be FE anymore, it would be more like an MMORPG, minus the online, so it's just boring.

[The Great LTC Debate Thread (Yay? Nay? Burn in Hell?)]

The serenesforest debaters having only one major playstyle - abuse the fuck out of the overpowered units - is what is killing tiering. This style just achieves the low turn counts. What happens with this style is that the merits of low tier characters - and even mid tiers - are ignored, and what these debaters instead care about is what scraps these units can pick up while the top tiers rampage through the maps. This style limits what there is to talk about the game, and personally it's not fun to debate, and given how many of the old vets hate that style too, I'm not the only one.

The other thing about LTC is that the turns are not equal. 1 turn spent in FE10 1-P is not the same as 1 turn spent in 4-4. I have brought this point up multiple times, and while the serenesforest debaters have agreed that indeed not every turn is equal, they never elaborate anything further and prefer to flame me instead.

I would add more, but anything I could say at this point is something paperblade or othin already said.

[fewest number of changes that would make bad units endgame worthy]

If you're just talking about endgame, everyone can actually become good enough to destroy it.

If you're talking about performance over the entire game, then that's a completely different story. Enemies would first have to be stronger so that having extra stats sometimes mnatters over extra move (whereas enemies are so weak right now that having a bunch of fliers/pallies lol @ everything is the easiest and fastest way to beat the game).

The other problem with trying to balance any FE game is that under the current mechanics, the only stats that really matter are str/spd/def (with other stats like skl and con being situational) as well as mobility/availability. Thus if you want units to be balanced, there's going to be very little variety between the units.

[Franz, Forde and Kyle : which promotion should I choose?]

You don't go GK for the stat caps, you go GK because of the axes + better promotion bonuses (sans move of course). IIRC it's like +1 str/spd/def and +2 con if you go GK instead of pally.

I used to promote GK over pally, but then I realized that actually I was just getting RNG screwed everytime and that enemies actually suck really hard, and so the +2 move is better than the other stat bonuses.

[Foot soldiers vs. Mounted knights]

Mounted knights, because IS has no idea how to balance anything, so what usually happens is the mounted units have the same or better stats than foot soldiers, on top of the mobility

[Introducing Strat (in development)]

this could be interesting, i'll look into it later

[Top 30 Fire Emblem Characters of ALL TIME Countdown]

what exactly is fiona capable of 1-ranging?

[Top 30 Fire Emblem Characters of ALL TIME Countdown]

There's not a whole lot you can say about Seth other than "HEY LOOK AT HOW BADLY HE RAPES EVERYONE"

[Top 30 Fire Emblem Characters of ALL TIME Countdown]

A speedwing is usually enough for part 3, but he still has to watch for spd screwage, he's not actually that good at BEXP abuse, and even speedwing'd Haar might have trouble doubling in part 4 so he might need an additional one.

Still I think #4 is fine for Haar. Haar with no stat boosters is still the best unit in FE10 anyway.

[HM S Rank + Efficency Playlog]

Besides, he seems somewhat different now.

I used to take the internets seriously, until I took an arrow to the knee had too much irl problems to deal with and realized I needed to lighten up.

In this case, though, I'd argue that GE is assuming a ranked tier list in which you restrict the arena and massively cut the allowed number of turns.

I'm not sure why a ranked tier list would put certain restrictions that make certain ranks harder than normal, but not do anything for the other ranks.

Of course there's no point in speculating anymore without having GE tell us directly.