OMG it's a tier list

[Redwall]

A penalty can (and must, due to the fact that characters are ranked relative to each other) exist even if a deployment slot is assumed. If, using the same deployment spot, Abel does X better than Bob does, both Abel and Bob receive credit for doing X--Abel just receives more.

[General Banzai]

Guys, I've already said units are assumed their deployment slot for free, so even if someone sucks after a certain point they won't get penalized for continuing to be used.

They could potentially be penalized for sucking dick and costing turns or in general being liabilities

BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO DEPLOY THEM SO THAT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN

1) It creates a 'benched' tier for all units who aren't the best. Since any unit who isn't good enough to be part of the main team will be benched, and all benched units contribute the same amount, any unit who is not part of the main team is equal to any other unit not part of the main team, regardless of anything.

2) It causes legitimate problems with gauging a units power as we can only focus on the 'good' chapters and can't focus on their problems.

3) It hamfistedly assumes that a certain team will ALWAYS be used (or else the unit couldn't always be known to be worse). This isn't the case by ANY means, even in draft-play (about as close as one can reasonably get to absolute LTC play without throwing tiers out the window entirely in favor of the absolute lowest turncount setups).

Since tiers are verging closer and closer to so-called perfect play and complete maximization of resources, then why are any of these things a problem

Edited October 6, 2013 by General Banzai

[Florete]

A penalty can (and must, due to the fact that characters are ranked relative to each other) exist even if a deployment slot is assumed. If, using the same deployment spot, Abel does X better than Bob does, both Abel and Bob receive credit for doing X--Abel just receives more.

That's not a penalty, that's just one unit being better than another.

They could potentially be penalized for sucking dick and costing turns or in general being liabilities

BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO DEPLOY THEM SO THAT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN

This should never happen. If a unit is an active detriment in a map, it should only be because the unit makes up for it later.

[General Banzai]

This should never happen. If a unit is an active detriment in a map, it should only be because the unit makes up for it later.

Exactly. We don't slog Jagen into every map up to endgame just because we used him for the first few chapters, and we don't tier him under the assumption that some magical force compels us to bring him into every map if we decide to use him in even one chapter.

Meanwhile, we do tier Caeda or Barst or whoever (it doesn't really matter because almost everyone in this game starts out as a liability in some way or another) with the times when they suck in mind, because it is necessary to use those units when they suck in order to use them when they don't suck. In fact, how long a unit sucks before not sucking is a critical element of FESD tiering (or really tiering in general).

[shadykid]

Exactly. We don't slog Jagen into every map up to endgame just because we used him for the first few chapters, and we don't tier him under the assumption that some magical force compels us to bring him into every map if we decide to use him in even one chapter.

Meanwhile, we do tier Caeda or Barst or whoever (it doesn't really matter because almost everyone in this game starts out as a liability in some way or another) with the times when they suck in mind, because it is necessary to use those units when they suck in order to use them when they don't suck. In fact, how long a unit sucks before not sucking is a critical element of FESD tiering (or really tiering in general).

lies, Caeda is just fine in 0% growths

[Refa]

lies, Caeda is just fine in 0% growths

Yeah, but she's pretty bad until Chapter 4.

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

Yeah, but she's pretty bad until Chapter 4.

She doubled stuff

10/10

In all seriousness isn't FE11 one of the least helpful to "Start weak, ends strong" unit?

I imagine a Tier List for SD would basically goes to Sheeda and Rena >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wendell, Hardin, Cain, Abel, Jeigan, Barst, Ogma, Wolf, Sedgar, Staffbot > everything else

Edited October 6, 2013 by JSND

[Espinosa]

Dondon said Maria is important in warpskip. But yeah, 'staffbot' works.

Edited October 6, 2013 by Espinosa

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

I think more about Boah tbh

EDIT: Although Jeigan and Wendell also count as Staffbot I guess

Edited October 6, 2013 by JSND

[Espinosa]

Jeigan has more important things to do I think.

[dondon151]

In other words, "If the logic is truly such that Caeda would need to go down, I would agree that she should go down." Not "A Wing Spear forge is not intuitive enough and shouldn't be assumed."

I even said before all this that I think simply using Caeda with the Wing Spear is intuitive enough. You're the one who said it isn't.

the only logic involved here is that caeda's wing spear forge facilitates the lowest turn clears. that's it. and though i do suspect that with enough effort and stat/crit rigging, some skilled players will be able to duplicate the strategies without caeda, let me tell you that it's a hell of a lot more difficult without her (good luck on chapters 4 and 6).

whether or not i think that forging a +6 MT wing spear on caeda is intuitive is somewhat irrelevant. the point that i was making was that most important long-term decisions tend to not be intuitive simply because it involves a lot of foresight wrt what the game will throw at you and a lot of confidence in a big investment. caeda's forge costs you almost all of the money that you have by chapter 4. marcia's investment costs you most of your BEXP or all of your stat boosters. marcus's investment basically ensures that everyone else is not going to grow nearly as quickly.

these decisions, as has been shown in the past, are difficult to justify without the results. but the results are in! so should we dumb down this tier list simply because not everyone plays this way (keeping in mind that the broad concept of efficiency is generally antithetical to how most people play, so screw efficiency as well), all the while ignoring strategic discoveries and innovations that the community has made along the way?

In all seriousness isn't FE11 one of the least helpful to "Start weak, ends strong" unit?

yeah, and i would almost argue for wolf and sedgar to be even weaker than you suggested, but fortunately for them, they have their niche despite starting out super weak.

[Snowy_One]

Exactly. We don't slog Jagen into every map up to endgame just because we used him for the first few chapters, and we don't tier him under the assumption that some magical force compels us to bring him into every map if we decide to use him in even one chapter.

Meanwhile, we do tier Caeda or Barst or whoever (it doesn't really matter because almost everyone in this game starts out as a liability in some way or another) with the times when they suck in mind, because it is necessary to use those units when they suck in order to use them when they don't suck. In fact, how long a unit sucks before not sucking is a critical element of FESD tiering (or really tiering in general).

Except there isn't a single unit in all FE history who is such a detriment to the team that cannot make up for it in some way later on that they should need to be benched unless you are so obsessed with getting a low-turncount that a tier-list is meaningless. Not to mention that this makes a unit like Lyre equal to someone like Marcia or Aran since none *have* to be deployed. Possibly even 'better' since Marcia and Aran need to fight for at least one chapter while Lyre joins in an out-of-combat event IIRC (it's been a long time and Lyre didn't leave that big an impression on me). So Lyre > Marica and Aran!

Also, at the risk of sounding really blatant here... This is not SD. This is RD. While I'm sure you'd like to think that the two should be tiered similar, they are not the same game and need to be handled differently. RD has its team-switching and, generally, all units are usable with no special effort. Just some of them are nowhere near as good as others without it.

Edited October 6, 2013 by Snowy_One

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

yeah, and i would almost argue for wolf and sedgar to be even weaker than you suggested, but fortunately for them, they have their niche despite starting out super weak.

I actually think they are on those "start strong" group

The first Master Seal is on Minerva's chapter, which is held by a Hero

Thats.... how many chapter of Wolf and Sedgar having a niche?

[dondon151]

they're mildly useful in chapters 6, 7, 9, and 10. not like, jagen-quality or anything, either.

[General Banzai]

Except there isn't a single unit in all FE history who is such a detriment to the team that cannot make up for it in some way later on that they should need to be benched unless you are so obsessed with getting a low-turncount that a tier-list is meaningless. Not to mention that this makes a unit like Lyre equal to someone like Marcia or Aran since none *have* to be deployed. Possibly even 'better' since Marcia and Aran need to fight for at least one chapter while Lyre joins in an out-of-combat event IIRC (it's been a long time and Lyre didn't leave that big an impression on me). So Lyre > Marica and Aran!

Also, at the risk of sounding really blatant here... This is not SD. This is RD. While I'm sure you'd like to think that the two should be tiered similar, they are not the same game and need to be handled differently. RD has its team-switching and, generally, all units are usable with no special effort. Just some of them are nowhere near as good as others without it.

dude what are you babbling about

if someone starts as a detriment to the team but becomes worth it, you aren't benching them, that's the entire point

but if someone starts good for the team and becomes a detriment later, there is nothing stopping you from benching them rather than allowing them to fester on the map

"all units are usable with no special effort" snrk

also if you want an RD example, Tormod and Muarim. Great in Part 1, unusable in Part 4. But guess what, we don't need to use them in Part 4! So they shouldn't be penalized for that.

(Only being usable in 3 chapters still grants them a spot in shit tier)

[Baldrick]

(Only being usable in 3 chapters still grants them a spot in shit tier)

But why? If we're not penalising units for being freshly-squeezed bench juice, we certainly shouldn't penalise them for not existing. Being in only a few chapters doesn't decrease the quality of what they do when they're around in part 1.

(On reading back, it sounds like I'm ridiculing the theory, but I'm honestly not.)

[General Banzai]

But why? If we're not penalising units for being freshly-squeezed bench juice, we certainly shouldn't penalise them for not existing. Being in only a few chapters doesn't decrease the quality of what they do when they're around in part 1.

(On reading back, it sounds like I'm ridiculing the theory, but I'm honestly not.)

It's like marking down Bastian or some other pretty good 3rd tier prepromote who is only around for the final more or less

Yeah, Bastian's good, but his availability minimizes his contributions

This at least puts them above people like Lyre/Meg/Fiona, who will always be awful even though they are usable for a long amount of time

(I personally don't feel availability should be taken into account when judging unit worth in non-RD games, but availability is such a critical factor in FERD I don't think it can be ignored. Units who are amazing or even invaluable for 2 or 3 chapters but are otherwise unusable tumble out of every orifice of this game, the true standout units can benefit the team consistently)

Edited October 6, 2013 by General Banzai

[Florete]

whether or not i think that forging a +6 MT wing spear on caeda is intuitive is somewhat irrelevant. the point that i was making was that most important long-term decisions tend to not be intuitive simply because it involves a lot of foresight wrt what the game will throw at you and a lot of confidence in a big investment. caeda's forge costs you almost all of the money that you have by chapter 4. marcia's investment costs you most of your BEXP or all of your stat boosters. marcus's investment basically ensures that everyone else is not going to grow nearly as quickly.

It doesn't need to be +6 (maybe it does for the best turn counts, but not for the weapon to function well). It's obvious enough after just using Caeda to see that forging some MT on her Wing Spear will be well worth the investment. You don't need foresight, you just need to see that the game throws a lot of mounts and armors at you.

these decisions, as has been shown in the past, are difficult to justify without the results. but the results are in! so should we dumb down this tier list simply because not everyone plays this way (keeping in mind that the broad concept of efficiency is generally antithetical to how most people play, so screw efficiency as well), all the while ignoring strategic discoveries and innovations that the community has made along the way?

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: What's the point of continuing to do them the way they were? No one wants to anymore. Everyone who used to participate in them is gone or bored with them and you're much more likely to find people who hate the way they were done. If the tier list is gonna continue to exist at all, it needs to change. In my opinion, taking an approach with a wider scope is a good place to start. Make tier positions stand on their own.

[Dark Sage]

When did we ever accuse them of tiering according to their biases? How is that what I'm doing or what Narga was even suggesting I'm doing?

whenever smash starts a new tier list, you and narga and interceptor basically barge in and start a flame war about it and it inevitably results in one of you guys accusing him of tiering according to his biases and ignoring arguments. Which is pretty much exactly what you're doing since you're refusing to raise Jill despite the results of her investment clearly showing she's top tier under some handwavy bullshit about it not being intuitive, despite the fact that we've raised units like FE9 Marcia and Caeda and Mia because of "unintuitive decisions" for years. In fact, I vaguely remember Interceptor saying that the argument against Mia getting Adept and her resources partially because of it being unintuitive is bullshit. The only difference between this situation and smash threads is that nobody here has underhandedly insulted your intelligence.

I mean nobody has never said that Jill taking a lot of resources doesn't have a cost, but until you show that the next best alternative for those resources (Nolan or Zihark) can match Jill with them, then the cost of her taking the resources should not prevent her from going into top tier.

[Florete]

whenever smash starts a new tier list, you and narga and interceptor basically barge in and start a flame war about it and it inevitably results in one of you guys accusing him of tiering according to his biases and ignoring arguments. Which is pretty much exactly what you're doing since you're refusing to raise Jill despite the results of her investment clearly showing she's top tier under some handwavy bullshit about it not being intuitive, despite the fact that we've raised units like FE9 Marcia and Caeda and Mia because of "unintuitive decisions" for years. In fact, I vaguely remember Interceptor saying that the argument against Mia getting Adept and her resources partially because of it being unintuitive is bullshit. The only difference between this situation and smash threads is that nobody here has underhandedly insulted your intelligence.

I mean nobody has never said that Jill taking a lot of resources doesn't have a cost, but until you show that the next best alternative for those resources (Nolan or Zihark) can match Jill with them, then the cost of her taking the resources should not prevent her from going into top tier.

You clearly haven't read a single post in this thread.

[Dark Sage]

You clearly haven't read a single post in this thread.

really now. It's possible I could have misunderstood your posts; could you show me what exactly I'm misunderstanding? Because if I'm proved wrong, I'm willing to bite my tongue on this.

(although on another note, ignoring strategic discoveries and innovations because "nobody likes it" is dumb and hypocritical. When did that reasoning stop us before? Everyone who hates the way they're done are still probably going to hate the way it's done and you're likely not going to attract back former tier debaters or people who haven't paid attention before. So basically all you'd be doing is just making the list inconsistent in the name of making it more appealing to people when the most likely result is not a single person is going to care or be attracted back).

[Baldrick]

My view is that when judging units, you should look at their competition for spots/ Cexp. Really, the LEA aren't the best example to make the point, not only do they not stand out when you have Sothe/Volug/Nailah/BK and the others, the enemies aren't threatening enough for their contribution to even be that vital. Bastian is mostly the same, 4-5 is good but then he's competing with the entire roster for an endgame slot. But I feel units who dominate for the entirety of their short careers, with no "suck zone" or need for resources (like Tibarn) are undervalued.

[Snowy_One]

dude what are you babbling about

if someone starts as a detriment to the team but becomes worth it, you aren't benching them, that's the entire point

but if someone starts good for the team and becomes a detriment later, there is nothing stopping you from benching them rather than allowing them to fester on the map

"all units are usable with no special effort" snrk

also if you want an RD example, Tormod and Muarim. Great in Part 1, unusable in Part 4. But guess what, we don't need to use them in Part 4! So they shouldn't be penalized for that.

(Only being usable in 3 chapters still grants them a spot in shit tier)

Yes, they should. They should be penalized BIG TIME for that. We can't just go and cherry-pick the chapters where units are 'good' and assume that they're benched in favor of 'better' units after. That's not what a tier list is in even the most deluded sense of a list. Maybe a guide, but not a list. First off doing so is VERY unfair to units who are forced to be on the map. Lyre > Micaiah since Lyre can be benched almost all (all?) of the time while Micaiah needs to struggle with low speed and being squishy and can't be benched. Secondly, this is cherry-picking the chapters where they are good and outright ignoring the ones in which they aren't the best. This is outright stupid, especially since, unless the unit is one of those few who are ALWAYS the best (like Ike) things simply get horrible and impossible to tier.

So no. No unit gets the benefit of the bench. They don't have to compete for their spot as their spot is free, but being bad in a chapter isn't an excuse to bench them.

[General Banzai]

My view is that when judging units, you should look at their competition for spots/ Cexp. Really, the LEA aren't the best example to make the point, not only do they not stand out when you have Sothe/Volug/Nailah/BK and the others, the enemies aren't threatening enough for their contribution to even be that vital. Bastian is mostly the same, 4-5 is good but then he's competing with the entire roster for an endgame slot. But I feel units who dominate for the entirety of their short careers, with no "suck zone" or need for resources (like Tibarn) are undervalued.

What I don't get is why Nailah is near the top of high tier while Tibarn is in midrange Upper Mid when Nailah's only around for two more chapters than Tibarn

Yes, they should. They should be penalized BIG TIME for that. We can't just go and cherry-pick the chapters where units are 'good' and assume that they're benched in favor of 'better' units after. That's not what a tier list is in even the most deluded sense of a list. Maybe a guide, but not a list. First off doing so is VERY unfair to units who are forced to be on the map. Lyre > Micaiah since Lyre can be benched almost all (all?) of the time while Micaiah needs to struggle with low speed and being squishy and can't be benched. Secondly, this is cherry-picking the chapters where they are good and outright ignoring the ones in which they aren't the best. This is outright stupid, especially since, unless the unit is one of those few who are ALWAYS the best (like Ike) things simply get horrible and impossible to tier.

So no. No unit gets the benefit of the bench. They don't have to compete for their spot as their spot is free, but being bad in a chapter isn't an excuse to bench them.

in no universe is Lyre > Micaiah

Micaiah can Thanibomb for MASSIVE DAMAGE and becomes a capable healbot later

hell even if all Micaiah could do was use staves she'd be better than Lyre

also stop using the word "cherry-pick" is it like your favorite word or something

we only "cherrypick" times when units are good for tiering purposes because WE ONLY HAVE TO USE THEM WHEN THEY ARE GOOD, unless we have to use them when they are bad in order to get them to be good, which is why the "suck zone" is taken into account into tiers

Edited October 6, 2013 by General Banzai

[a.f.k.a. Howard Hughes]

Hi people in this thread, be more civil thank you. No need for anyone (that includes you) to get pissy, it just derails this shit. Do I have anything to say about the whole argument(s)? No, but this is getting less about tier list and more about throwing arguments. Never tough I would be the one to ask people to be more civil...