OMG it's a tier list

[PKL]

If anything, I think Nailah should drop to where Tibarn is. Preferably below him.

Laura should probably go down. I guess her healing is a bit nice in 1-3, but I never find myself wanting a healer desperately in the rest of Part 1. And then Micaiah promotes, gets Physic and Laura's even more benched. Unless we're pretending to be bad at this game now, if so, she should stay there. Marcia(T) should rise, but I'm still not sure exactly where she should be, above Laura could be a starting point. I feel she's probably more useful overall than no transfer Oscar and Elincia too. Nephenee(T)>Mia indeed means that Mia should do down and not Neph going up btw. Sorry to not be clear on that. She's definetely not better than Nolan or anyone above them. I just feel Mia was in the wrong spot. Mia should move down below Nephenee(T). Still better than Shinon. Speaking of Shinon, Boyd(T) vs Shinon seems complicated >_>. Boyd is a monstrous combat unit after he overcomes his initial spd problem. Transfers help with that. Despite Shinon obviously being better than him at join, I find it hard to justify giving him a permanent spot in the team. He's still a bowlocked unit after all :/

[Baldrick]

@cynthia. Red fox said we could start there. If we go faster, but not all-out LTC, we run into the intuition problem; everyone has a different idea of what is 'efficient', so it's difficult to exactly quantify the difference between Jill and Nolan, among others.

@pkl. Shinon is bow-locked, but he has two important things going for him; he is high-levelled so he doesn't need to see a lot of combat, and there are so many powerful units in the GMs his lack of EP isn't as much of a liability compared to units like Oscar and Mia. Plus he can spam the best bows because if he can't hold down a spot, what bow-user can?

[Snowy_One]

Not to mention Shinon's potential with the bowgun/disarm/Heather combo. Maybe it's not tier-worthy, but it's worth at least mentioning, especially since it makes a unit who can easily be used for weapon training and the like.

And Laura-down? Really? Until Micaiah promotes Laura is, literally, the ONLY unit who can use staves in the DB meaning, unless you fancy shelling out G/spending turns chugging vulneraries, having Micaiah sacrifice (which really doesn't do anything beyond move the damage to Micaiah) Laura will be your only healer. Ilyana can heal as well, but that requires promotions and Ilyana can switch sides. Just the fact that Laura *can* heal will make her very useful to the DB. Especially since her base healing is a whopping 18 with a heal staff (Micaiah doesn't even have that many hitpoints to sacrifice) and, when trained, she's at LEAST as capable as a sage in combat. Yea. I don't see why Laura should move anywhere.

Also, Mia moving down? Maybe base-Mia, but really? Why should she move down as she's a very, very, strong fighter no matter how you look at it.

[Florete]

If anything, I think Nailah should drop to where Tibarn is. Preferably below him.

In what context is Tibarn > Nailah?

@cynthia. Red fox said we could start there. If we go faster, but not all-out LTC, we run into the intuition problem; everyone has a different idea of what is 'efficient', so it's difficult to exactly quantify the difference between Jill and Nolan, among others.

For the record, I said that when I was trying to take the list in a new direction, before I got fed up with nobody giving it the time of day (except, like, you).

[PKL]

In what context is Tibarn > Nailah?

For the record, I said that when I was trying to take the list in a new direction, before I got fed up with nobody giving it the time of day (except, like, you).

Almost the same amount of maps, except Tibarn's are harder and he flies. Nailah has 1-8 and 1-E though I guess, so maybe she should still be above Tibarn.

Edited October 9, 2013 by PKL

[Florete]

Tibarn's maps are easier. 4-1 is in FoW with you fighting on 3 fronts while 4-2 is just big. And then 4-5 can be done in one turn, and I've never seen a 1-turn strategy that uses Tibarn.

[nflchamp]

Tibarn's maps are easier. 4-1 is in FoW with you fighting on 3 fronts while 4-2 is just big. And then 4-5 can be done in one turn, and I've never seen a 1-turn strategy that uses Tibarn.

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=20956&p=1253213

[XeKr]

I don't know why you say I'm being reasonable right after saying that I am saying something that is completely unreasonable. But I'm not saying "You're wrong, I'm right." All I've been saying is that I want to try something. Is it going to work? I don't know.

I simply didn’t (and still don’t) like how, in some of your posts, you seem to be dodging certain (fundamentally crucial) points as if they don’t matter and instead bring up tangentially related points. I understand why you did so, I just don't like it in an environment where we at least somewhat try for logic-based discussions.

However, you’re also being “reasonable” in the sense that your posting style often (but not always, given recent bitterness) appears to be refreshingly accommodating and optimistic (particularly given the oftentimes snarky opposition).

If we go faster, but not all-out LTC, we run into the intuition problem; everyone has a different idea of what is 'efficient', so it's difficult to exactly quantify the difference between Jill and Nolan, among others.

You are correct in that it is subjective. However, it is still less difficult to deal with than when also introducing more arbitrariness like “intuitive resource allocation”.

(This is also why some of us prefer a more technical and statistical description of efficiency.)

In addition, arbitrarily setting a turncount cutoff at the bexp limit does little to help resolve character differences. The idea of efficiency (or similar standards) works because it’s an exercise in optimization, something helps complete a chapter relatively faster, or more reliably, and thus we choose to consider it better. What is the actual metric in your proposal of meeting the bexp limits? What makes a unit better than another? (I pretty sure every character can technically meet the bexp limits, quite consistently, and regardless, a binary distinction is not useful)

though at this point we're reiterating every "efficiency" discussion since forever. The topic is well-argued, I think, among many topics in FE history (and even some recent ones.

btw I agree with PKL on most things, except I would consider Nailah > Tibarn. Her 1-8 and 1-E are really nice as well.

Edited October 9, 2013 by XeKr

[PKL]

Yeah, upon further thinking, I do think Nailah>Tibarn. Disregard that part of my previous post. But I still do consider 4-2 a harder map than lol4-1 but 4-4 is harder than 4-5 for sure. And nailah has 1-8 and 1-E. Red Fox, if 4-2 is easier its because of Tibarn. Do it without Tibarn and see how rage-inducing it is. 4-1 is pretty chumpy, what with Ragnell!Ike being there.

[Baldrick]

@red fox. Ok. In that case, I don't think my arguments will hold enough to be convincing.

What is the actual metric in your proposal of meeting the bexp limits? What makes a unit better than another?

Being stronger, more durable, more reliable, all in the name of using as few resources as possible to achieve the goal. That's another form of efficiency. I prefer it to turn-based efficiency because it's closer to my style and is less likely to favour certain classes, but that may not be enough to base a tier list on it.

And its being established is why no-one misinterprets "efficiency"

@pkl. But what about tibarn's lack of 2- range? One of the dragon knights would do the real work on that chapter.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Huck Finn

[Snowy_One]

In what context is Tibarn > Nailah?

For the record, I said that when I was trying to take the list in a new direction, before I got fed up with nobody giving it the time of day (except, like, you).

It is currently 1:38 P.M. EST as of the writing of this message. And I'd gladly take this list in another direction. I'm just not sure what that direction is beyond that I'd like it more casual-friendly/less reliant on specific strategies.

As for 'what makes a unit better', here is my suggestion. We ban rescue/drop and other movement-related things, at least in the context of 'cutting turns'. Yes, I know these are valid strategies and the like, but if we're putting unit X over unit Y because of how good they are with Smite or because some strategy that isn't obvious unless you're shooting for a low turn-count, we're losing the spirit of the list. Like I said earlier, low turn-counts should be a side-effect of units being good, not units being good because of low turn-counts.

[nflchamp]

As for 'what makes a unit better', here is my suggestion. We ban rescue/drop and other movement-related things, at least in the context of 'cutting turns'. Yes, I know these are valid strategies and the like, but if we're putting unit X over unit Y because of how good they are with Smite or because some strategy that isn't obvious unless you're shooting for a low turn-count, we're losing the spirit of the list. Like I said earlier, low turn-counts should be a side-effect of units being good, not units being good because of low turn-counts.

The question, of course, is why is moving people around not good? The herons (and dancers in other games) entire ability is essentially allowing people to move around more and that's considered amazing.

[Da Bear]

@pkl. Ike can't be everywhere at once.

Also you're severely overstating the difficulty of non-Tibarn 4-2. It simply requires a larger number of combat units and a physic staffer.

Edited October 9, 2013 by JSND Has A Dragon Boner

[Florete]

I simply didnt (and still dont) like how, in some of your posts, you seem to be dodging certain (fundamentally crucial) points as if they dont matter and instead bring up tangentially related points. I understand why you did so, I just don't like it in an environment where we at least somewhat try for logic-based discussions.

It's because I admit I don't have all the answers just yet. That's why I said I wanted to "play it by ear" to see where it goes. But instead of rolling with a new idea or at least asking me to expand a bit past the word "intuition," people immediately signed it off as not being worthwhile.

And that's what prompted me to say I know how the FEFF people felt, because they always said the SF tier community was a bunch of hotheads who aren't accepting of any ideas they aren't used to.

Forgive me if I'm a little bitter about it.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Red Fox of Fire

[Snowy_One]

The question, of course, is why is moving people around not good? The herons (and dancers in other games) entire ability is essentially allowing people to move around more and that's considered amazing.

I'm fully of the opinion that the herons should have their own separate tier, if only because refreshing is of such fluxuatible value between players. That aside the reason is simple. It's a slippery-slope for starters. Maybe on a map or two where it's clearly a help/needed (like the ship-chapter in PoR) it's not, but most of the time 'well, Marcia can rescue, so maybe she should be a bit higher... except her rescue-drops are amazing on XYZ chapters... So maybe a bit higher... and here a rescue-drop cuts of 5 turns if done JUST right, so maybe a little bit higher... MARCIA IS DA BEST! Wait? Her stats? I dunno a thing about them or how good she is in combat. She's amazing just because of rescue-drops'.

Secondly, it's not something that says anything in regards to the value of the unit in question, in combat or otherwise, but of OTHER units entirely differently. Not to mention nullifying a large portion of why the list exists simply because units will be rescue-dropped for chapter-completes before anything good or bad can really be noted. Plus, if you're REALLY gonna rank one unit over another simply because of something like SMITE and ignore skills or actual combat stats, or even things to keep you from dying, you've got serious LTC tunnel vision.

Edit: I should clarify. I don't hate shoving/smiting and have found them useful at times. I just believe that far too much emphasis is being given to the one/two possible extra move that a unit might get from them than is actually worth it.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Snowy_One

[-Cynthia-]

I think Tibarn is fine where he is personally. Compared to Caineghis/Giffca, he really only has 4-2 to his name, since we can easily clear 4-5 without him. He's already a full tier above them as is.

Speaking of hawks, I think Ulki/Janaff may be a bit overrated. They join in 3-7 which is an unimportant chapter, and so have 3-8, 3-10, 3-11, and 3-E (where they don't affect the clear here either). Then they have 2 Part 4 chapters and I doubt we're using them for 4-E because they're just not that good there. For only having ~5 relevant maps, I don't think their performance is particularly amazing due to dealing with gauge, 1 range lock, and inconsistent ORKOing in Part 4. I think they should move down near the bottom of High tier, below Nephenee(T) at least.

[nflchamp]

I'm fully of the opinion that the herons should have their own separate tier, if only because refreshing is of such fluxuatible value between players. That aside the reason is simple. It's a slippery-slope for starters. Maybe on a map or two where it's clearly a help/needed (like the ship-chapter in PoR) it's not, but most of the time 'well, Marcia can rescue, so maybe she should be a bit higher... except her rescue-drops are amazing on XYZ chapters... So maybe a bit higher... and here a rescue-drop cuts of 5 turns if done JUST right, so maybe a little bit higher... MARCIA IS DA BEST! Wait? Her stats? I dunno a thing about them or how good she is in combat. She's amazing just because of rescue-drops'.

And what's the problem? If we can do AMAZING things using rescue-drops, why shouldn't we reward the character that makes it possible? If it's useful, we should make note of it and give credit for it. If that alone can make a unit top tier then their movement is obviously extremely valuable.

Secondly, it's not something that says anything in regards to the value of the unit in question, in combat or otherwise, but of OTHER units entirely differently. Not to mention nullifying a large portion of why the list exists simply because units will be rescue-dropped for chapter-completes before anything good or bad can really be noted. Plus, if you're REALLY gonna rank one unit over another simply because of something like SMITE and ignore skills or actual combat stats, or even things to keep you from dying, you've got serious LTC tunnel vision.

It says everything about the value of a unit. Movement and gaining an advantageous position is important. If you told me flying food and medicine to Berlin during the cold war didn't show the value of various Air Forces of the world I'd call you insane.

Rather than saying rescue-drops nullify why the list exists, I'd say they show how unimportant combat ability can truly be. Combat ability past the point where I can obtain victory has zero value. For example, BK's invincibility and 2-range auto-death for all enemies is phenomenal... unless he can't get to the fight. Similarly, being able to help fight those 30 enemies to the north is unimportant if those enemies will never reach us because we can out-move them somehow.

Edit: I should clarify. I don't hate shoving/smiting and have found them useful at times. I just believe that far too much emphasis is being given to the one/two possible extra move that a unit might get from them than is actually worth it.

And I think you're underestimating just how much extra movement can change the landscape of battles. I'd argue unbalanced movement is the biggest flaw in Awakening. If a player can abuse the (comparatively) extreme movement of that game it becomes too easy. If the can't it becomes too hard.

For other examples look no further than the myriad of ways to 1-turn 4-5 in this game. You can't reach and kill Izuka in 1-turn with normal movement, but the task is so trivial that it's commonplace to consider 4-5 1-turned.

[PKL]

I think Tibarn is fine where he is personally. Compared to Caineghis/Giffca, he really only has 4-2 to his name, since we can easily clear 4-5 without him. He's already a full tier above them as is.

Speaking of hawks, I think Ulki/Janaff may be a bit overrated. They join in 3-7 which is an unimportant chapter, and so have 3-8, 3-10, 3-11, and 3-E (where they don't affect the clear here either). Then they have 2 Part 4 chapters and I doubt we're using them for 4-E because they're just not that good there. For only having ~5 relevant maps, I don't think their performance is particularly amazing due to dealing with gauge, 1 range lock, and inconsistent ORKOing in Part 4. I think they should move down near the bottom of High tier, below Nephenee(T) at least.

I agree the hawks should move down, I think I was the one that brought it up. But probably not below Neph(T). Actually, I could see that happening...maybe. Neph T has more availability than them and none of the laguz problems,..but Janaff Ulki with Adept+Tear have good offense and fly...they just take a turn to do so and lack 1-2 and all the usual laguz issues :/. It's not gonna be easy finding where they should be in the tier list.

[Snowy_One]

And what's the problem? If we can do AMAZING things using rescue-drops, why shouldn't we reward the character that makes it possible? If it's useful, we should make note of it and give credit for it. If that alone can make a unit top tier then their movement is obviously extremely valuable.

No. We shouldn't reward them. If we did we would be rewarding the person who thought up the strategy that allowed them to become useful, not the unit itself. If a units entire value is in their ability to rescue-drop, something that not everyone who uses the unit will employ or in that manner, we aren't making a tier-list. We're making a LTC guide. That is what we need to avoid doing. Low turn-counts should be a result of a unit being good, good units are not the result of low turn-counts.

It says everything about the value of a unit. Movement and gaining an advantageous position is important. If you told me flying food and medicine to Berlin during the cold war didn't show the value of various Air Forces of the world I'd call you insane.

Good thing FE10 isn't the Cold War and Berlin doesn't exist in Tellius. If a units value is being decided solely by an ability whose use is both situational (units won't always need a shove or be able to put it to use), doubly so for smite (a unit needs to hit a target 2 spaces farther than they can reach, but not 3 or more or 1 space), then you aren't rating the unit. You're rating an ability and a strategy. Especially in this game since, IIRC, smite can be shuffled about.

Rather than saying rescue-drops nullify why the list exists, I'd say they show how unimportant combat ability can truly be. Combat ability past the point where I can obtain victory has zero value. For example, BK's invincibility and 2-range auto-death for all enemies is phenomenal... unless he can't get to the fight. Similarly, being able to help fight those 30 enemies to the north is unimportant if those enemies will never reach us because we can out-move them somehow.

So you think a unit like Fiona, despite outright sucking, is better than the BK since she can reach the fight while the BK might not, despite Finoa outright sucking in combat and the BK being about as close to invincibility as possible for any unit in the game? This is what's wrong with the list in the first place. People who go 'well, we can to X rescue-drop strategy to beat the game super-fast, so being good at combat doesn't matter' making the list irrelevant to anyone who doesn't know these strategies and plans. Maybe doing something like souping up Jill isn't the most intuitive, but it's a *lot* easier to understand, especially to someone who isn't going to read all the arguments, than 'Jill is good because she can preform rescue-drops in these locations on these chapters and if we have her rescue-drop these units you can beat the chapter a full turn faster!'.

Units like Elincia and Haar can rescue-drop, but rescue-dropping isn't what makes them good. It's their ability to fight. You could totally remove their ability to rescue-drop and I feel certain it would have 0 impact on their tier standards. If a unit is so dependent on rescue-drops for their tier-placement, shouldn't it at least be considered where they would be placed if they didn't rescue-drop as opposed to assuming EVERY player who uses the list WILL rescue-drop, especially in the fashion/strategy that makes that unit good (as opposed to a meaningless rescue-drop).

[-Cynthia-]

Units like Elincia and Haar can rescue-drop, but rescue-dropping isn't what makes them good. It's their ability to fight. You could totally remove their ability to rescue-drop and I feel certain it would have 0 impact on their tier standards. If a unit is so dependent on rescue-drops for their tier-placement, shouldn't it at least be considered where they would be placed if they didn't rescue-drop as opposed to assuming EVERY player who uses the list WILL rescue-drop, especially in the fashion/strategy that makes that unit good (as opposed to a meaningless rescue-drop).

If there aren't any units you feel are too high due to rescue dropping this entire line of discussion seems pretty pointless.

Edited October 9, 2013 by -Cynthia-

[Snowy_One]

I do feel that there are units who did get ranked 'unnaturally' high though due to their rescue-dropping or units who got ranked 'unnaturally low' due to the assumption of fast chapter completes involving such things. For example: Marcia. Additionally, this discussion does directly relate into how we rank Jill since, I am fairly certain, at least a portion of her ranking has come from rescue-drops. I'd *like* to see that I'm wrong in this case as I happen to particularly like Jill in both PoR and RD as both a unit and character, but we aren't discussing PoR right now and I'm still a relative newcomer to the RD lists (since I didn't get the game until well-after tiering on the Gamefaqs forum had largely died down).

[PKL]

Marcia in FE9 isn't only good because of rescue. She kinda like, flies in a game with lots of terrain and has ridiculous combat for a Pegasus. And FE10 Marcia never ferries anything so it's not relevant. In fact, not a lot of maps require ferries in FE10. The only one I can think of after Marcia joins is 3-11, but that's Haar's show.

EDIT: No, Jill is good at combat, not rescue dropping.

Edited October 9, 2013 by PKL

[dondon151]

the canonical example of a unit whose tier position is largely attributed to rescuing roles is FE6 shanna. very few other fliers are ranked highly because of rescuing (it's much better for them to fight).

[-Cynthia-]

The only time Jill rescue drops things is 1-6(2) and there are a lot of other factors with Jill that make her rescuing ability is more of a footnote. Well I guess she might also help ferry Micaiah in 1-7 and 1-E but that's not really important.

I don't know how many times we need to repeat that FE9 Marcia isn't just good for rescue dropping. If she had really shitty combat we'd just use another flier to ferry Ike when necessary and she'd be a low tier unit like Ulki.

Edited October 9, 2013 by -Cynthia-

[Espinosa]

the canonical example of a unit whose tier position is largely attributed to rescuing roles is FE6 shanna. very few other fliers are ranked highly because of rescuing (it's much better for them to fight).

Vanessa and Tana in runs with Seth come to mind. Very hard to train them.