Tier list!!!

[dondon151]

Isadora at join time is about the same stat-wise compared to any other of the cavaliers, but she starts losing fast as the cavs gain EXP faster and still have to get their promotion bonuses. She also faces perpetual AS loss from everything heavier than an Iron Sword (interesting to note that the only 6 WT melee weapon is a Poison Sword).

Realistically, Isadora isn't seeing supports from anyone other than Marcus, Lowen or Harken. But her Harken support is one of the fastest in the game and gives full crit, helping her poor offense, while her supports with the Pherae knights makes her viable in a whole bunch of support triangles with decent units that all share good mobility.

And she doesn't require a Knight Crest, of which there are only 2 in HHM.

[grandjackal]

And now I know more. Thank you FE7 tier list. I shall be off now. You guys have fun continuing what you do here.

[Mekkah]

To be honest, Isadora is so fast that she doesn't mind losing some Spd - she'll still DA, and have more power. Spd is a better stat than con. The problems start when she is losing significant amounts of avo. She can fix that with WTA and/or supports, but not always, and that's why she's not looking at any very good position.

[grandjackal]

Well that's better explained. Just don't give her anything like steel axes and lances and she'd be fine. Just she comes with baggage.

Thanks Mekkah and others.

[dondon151]

To be honest, Isadora is so fast that she doesn't mind losing some Spd - she'll still DA, and have more power.

Isadora WILL lose the ability to double certain enemies later on with an Iron Axe. Other than that, poor con is not much of a problem.

[riariadne]

if only strength was used for AS like in FE9/10. Hector would be even better than he already is, Isadora wouldn't be as bad, Eliwood and Lyn could double better with Durandal/Sol Katti...

Edited February 15, 2009 by Reinfleche

[Mekkah]

Isadora WILL lose the ability to double certain enemies later on with an Iron Axe. Other than that, poor con is not much of a problem.

--/10 Isadora with Iron Axe still has 16-17 AS. The only things in Victory or Death she no longer doubles with Iron Axe when she could with like Iron Sword are full Spd Heroes (15-17 Spd), and she wasn't going to be using Iron Axe on those anyway. Well, and that Swordmaster now definitely doubles her when he had a hard time otherwise (24 AS). And maybe she struggles with Warrior (one I see has 13 Spd, but then again he also mains a Devil Axe). Maybe one of the WLs/Paladins.

[dondon151]

I was referring to chapters a bit earlier than that. Though I can't quite remember what enemies, but I do remember that they were enough to discourage me from giving Iron Axes to Isadora because the extra damage against enemies that she always doubles didn't help at all.

On ch29, putting Isadora at --/7, she'll get doubled by roughly half of the valks (19 AS), and if she's at any lower level than that, she'll have a chance at not being able to double the 11 AS sages/druids/bishops (as well as taking 2x Thunder from like ever valk on the map).

Edited February 15, 2009 by dondon151

[Dat Nick]

Wasn't it being talked about that efficient play is a more accurate way to define tiers ahead of rankings?

In that case, wouldn't Dart and possibly Farina skyrocket up? Raw funds aren't an issue by then. Dart at least wouldn't be bottom tier anymore. Farina's a bit more sketchy but even she's better off than she used to be.

Edited February 15, 2009 by Sweet Tooth

[Lord Raven]

They would still probably be mid at best. Maybe Dart high.

You get about 300-350K to spend anyway, which is plenty so it isn't too much a factor for Dart or Farina (both cost 50K when you hit promotion). Dart has some problems starting out though.

Edited February 15, 2009 by Nathan Graves

[dondon151]

Would you rather follow aribitrary criteria or play according to the game's expectations (and get a 5-star result screen)?

I'm sure it's the former, but it gets you nothing aside from a fast completion. Evidently the S-rank requirements are funky, but they're still the "ultimate goal" of the game, whereas another arbitrarily efficient completion is not.

[Rodykitty]

I'm sure it's the former, but it gets you nothing aside from a fast completion.

If fast completion is the sole goal, then Marcus is auto-top tier and most of the cast will be in bottom.

"Overall usefulness" is the criteria. We're looking for.

[dondon151]

"Overall usefulness" is the criteria. We're looking for.

Sounds like an incredibly vague criterion.

[Rodykitty]

Just because it's vague doesn't mean it's a worse criteria

[Vykan12]

I'm sure it's the former, but it gets you nothing aside from a fast completion. Evidently the S-rank requirements are funky, but they're still the "ultimate goal" of the game, whereas another arbitrarily efficient completion is not.

Whether you consider it arbitrary or not, most of what we measure through a tier list is through inequality, so having a set measuring bar is not required. Instead of saying Kent is 12% more efficient than Isadora in helping the combat rank, we just state he has better combat parameters and leave it to interpretation how significant his offensive leads are. Similarly, we could say Kent’s mobility lead vs Wallace would let him be more beneficial towards tactics, but again we only need to interpret the significance of the lead, not quantify it to “saving x amount of turns” or something.

Think of it this way: you’re comparing units based on how well they promote efficient playstyles. Ranks don’t have anything to do with this, though even assuming ranks, a unit who’s helping lower your turn count well below the max turn count limit is giving you more flexibility in how you carry out your playstyle. Considering that, can’t you see how ranks are completely removable in terms of measuring a unit’s worth, and how it can even be a hindrance in doing so? For instance, Raven being good for the exp rank is meaningless since there’s nothing to be gained from the act of growing a unit if ranks didn’t exist. The fact that Raven would level up faster compared to Marcus is already accounted for in comparisons.

[Dat Nick]

Don't forget funds, which require hoarding gems, stat boosters, and even the S ranks, equaling inefficient play.

Anyway...where's the latest list, again? I'll see where I can argue Dart.

Edited February 16, 2009 by Sweet Tooth

[Vykan12]

Hmm well there’s a lot of lists to consider.

Mekkah posted this one on page one:

-Top-

Matthew

Serra

Ninian

Guy

Raven

Hector

-High-

Sain

Kent

Lowen

Erk

Oswin

Priscilla

Eliwood

Marcus

Pent

Geitz

Harken

-Mid-

Florina

Dorcas

Lucius

Lyn

Legault

Fiora

Athos

Canas

Isadora

-Low-

Rebecca

Rath

Karel

Jaffar

Bartre

Dart

Hawkeye

Wil

Louise

Heath

Vaida

-Bottom-

Nino

Farina

Wallace

Renault

Karla

Then apparently Reikken has this one:

Top-

Matthew

Ninian/Nils

Serra

Raven

Guy

-High-

Priscilla

Erk

Oswin

Lowen

Sain

Kent

Marcus

Pent

Harken

Eliwood

-Upper Mid-

Lucius

Florina

Geitz

Hector

Legault

Lyn

Fiora

-Lower Mid-

Heath

Hawkeye

Vaida

Dorcas

Jaffar

Canas

Rebecca

Isadora

Rath

-Low-

Karel

Bartre

Louise

Renault

Wil

Nino

-Bottom-

Dart

Farina

Wallace

Karla

And on FEP Mekkah had a topic on FEP concerning non-ranked runs and gave the following list:

-Top-

Marcus

Matthew

Hector

Ninian

-High-

Serra

Raven

Guy

Lowen

Sain

Kent

Erk

Eliwood

Pent

Oswin

Priscilla

Florina

Geitz

Harken

-Mid-

Legault

Dorcas

Lucius

Fiora

Canas

Athos

Lyn

Rebecca

Isadora

Hawkeye

Dart

-Low-

Jaffar

Karel

Bartre

Rath

Louise

Vaida

Heath

-Bottom-

Farina

Wil

Wallace

Renault

Karla

Nino

Edited February 16, 2009 by Vykan12

[dondon151]

Whether you consider it arbitrary or not, most of what we measure through a tier list is through inequality, so having a set measuring bar is not required. Instead of saying Kent is 12% more efficient than Isadora in helping the combat rank, we just state he has better combat parameters and leave it to interpretation how significant his offensive leads are. Similarly, we could say Kent’s mobility lead vs Wallace would let him be more beneficial towards tactics, but again we only need to interpret the significance of the lead, not quantify it to “saving x amount of turns” or something.

I don't believe anyone approaches debating FE7 like this, even when considering ranking parameters. Converting stat leads into combat rank or tactics rank leads is very tedious and is not likely to result in any agreement over how much a unit contributes to a certain rank.

Think of it this way: you’re comparing units based on how well they promote efficient playstyles. Ranks don’t have anything to do with this, though even assuming ranks, a unit who’s helping lower your turn count well below the max turn count limit is giving you more flexibility in how you carry out your playstyle. Considering that, can’t you see how ranks are completely removable in terms of measuring a unit’s worth, and how it can even be a hindrance in doing so? For instance, Raven being good for the exp rank is meaningless since there’s nothing to be gained from the act of growing a unit if ranks didn’t exist. The fact that Raven would level up faster compared to Marcus is already accounted for in comparisons.

The ranks set the "efficient playstyle" goal? Yeah, lowering turn count is a goal that the ranks and the arbitrary goal have in common, as well as improving combat efficiency and unit survival, which just leaves EXP and funds, as you've stated before on FEPlanet. The point being argued then, is whether to create a tier list that reflects how useful units are in achieving a goal implemented by the developers or a goal implemented by players. Both are equally arbitrary, but the former yields the cool 5-star S-rank screen while the latter just yields "285 turns" or something in the chapter turn count summary. I'm not disagreeing that the ranking parameters are counterintuitive to the meaning of "efficiency," but I think that where rankings exist, they should be placed on higher priority than just "efficient playstyle."

I should also point out that when considering EXP rank, there's less conflict in assuming if lower tier units will be played because a majority of units pretty much have to be played to some extent.

And if need be, just make separate tier lists.

Don't forget funds, which require hoarding gems, stat boosters, and even the S ranks, equaling inefficient play.

Anyway...where's the latest list, again? I'll see where I can argue Dart.

Gems can be sold (buy stuff with the Silver Card), stat boosters are usually hardly relevant in tier placements considering they can be used on all characters, S rank weapons are less efficient than killer weapons and can only be used for fractions of Final anyway. Funds is more or less just get all the stuff and don't waste money recruiting/promoting 4 characters in the whole cast.

Edited February 16, 2009 by dondon151

[Dat Nick]

stat boosters are usually hardly relevant in tier placements considering they can be used on all characters

Um, I never said that.

What I DID say is that ranks are going to make you hoard stat boosters and not give them to anybody, a worse scenario than being able to give them to somebody.

[dondon151]

Um, I never said that.

What I DID say is that ranks are going to make you hoard stat boosters and not give them to anybody, a worse scenario than being able to give them to somebody.

That's great, but how does that affect the tier list in any way, shape, or form? It's basically a non-issue.

[Dat Nick]

It doesn't. It effects the matter of efficient play.

[Vykan12]

That's great, but how does that affect the tier list in any way, shape, or form? It's basically a non-issue.

Stat boosters, like any aspect of directly related to FE gameplay, is relevant to a tier list. If there were >9000 speedwings available but only 1 energy drop, then that plays heavily in favor of units like Oswin than it would for someone like Lyn. In other words, units with high str and crap spd would have a realistic means of doubling, which would undoubtedly allow them to be superior to units fitting the low str, high spd archetype. Of course, this is a heavily exaggerated example and there's more to a comparison than just str and spd, but you get the point.

[Vykan12]

The point being argued then, is whether to create a tier list that reflects how useful units are in achieving a goal implemented by the developers or a goal implemented by players. Both are equally arbitrary, but the former yields the cool 5-star S-rank screen while the latter just yields "285 turns" or something in the chapter turn count summary.

What value is there in getting “the cool 5-star S-rank screen”? To me at least, that seems as ridiculous a reason to support rankings in tiering than it is to require each unit to finish the game with an even number of kills and an inventory that’s exactly half full.

I'm not disagreeing that the ranking parameters are counterintuitive to the meaning of "efficiency," but I think that where rankings exist, they should be placed on higher priority than just "efficient playstyle."

This is just a difference of opinion then. Personally, I’d rather use tiering standards that conform to every FE game, not that rankings should be entirely dismissed from discussion since they offer new and concrete parameters to debate under.

I should also point out that when considering EXP rank, there's less conflict in assuming if lower tier units will be played because a majority of units pretty much have to be played to some extent.

However, that also means every individual unit gets less playtime, which really screws up the possibility of gaining supports. In fact, some of us believe that supports are almost nonexistent on a ranked run, particularly for odd pairings (healer x thief, cavalier x healer, etc), which would make some rather sizeable shifts in the current ranked lists which assume supports that grow rather quickly.

And if need be, just make separate tier lists.

There’s no issue with that. However, people should not automatically assume ranks are in play when making a list, which seems to be the case on most sites I visit.

Gems can be sold (buy stuff with the Silver Card), stat boosters are usually hardly relevant in tier placements considering they can be used on all characters, S rank weapons are less efficient than killer weapons and can only be used for fractions of Final anyway. Funds is more or less just get all the stuff and don't waste money recruiting/promoting 4 characters in the whole cast.

Ok… funds still have a huge impact on the position of Matthew, Dart and Farina, among others, they amplify the value of not needing a promo item (so ppl like Geitz might move down) and decrease the probability of units getting special weapons (hurts ppl like Dorcas who can heavily improve his performance with reaver weapons). I see the effect as being pretty substantial.

[dondon151]

Stat boosters, like any aspect of directly related to FE gameplay, is relevant to a tier list. If there were >9000 speedwings available but only 1 energy drop, then that plays heavily in favor of units like Oswin than it would for someone like Lyn. In other words, units with high str and crap spd would have a realistic means of doubling, which would undoubtedly allow them to be superior to units fitting the low str, high spd archetype. Of course, this is a heavily exaggerated example and there's more to a comparison than just str and spd, but you get the point.

There's only like a maximum of 3 of any one kind of stat booster available. But yeah, I get the point, it's just that there's few stat boosters with many units who might want one and thus the boost it actually confers relative to the tier list (since favoritism is to be avoided) is very small or nonexistant in some cases.

What value is there in getting “the cool 5-star S-rank screen”? To me at least, that seems as ridiculous a reason to support rankings in tiering than it is to require each unit to finish the game with an even number of kills and an inventory that’s exactly half full.

The game congratulates you for doing the former and doesn't for doing the latter. Pokemon congratulates you for removing all 6 of your opponent's Pokemon and not for defeating opponents using a mono-type group with Pokemon that only have moves with base PP not divisible by 10. SSBM congratulates you for removing all of your opponent's stocks and not for using only the control pad. Etc.

This is just a difference of opinion then. Personally, I’d rather use tiering standards that conform to every FE game, not that rankings should be entirely dismissed from discussion since they offer new and concrete parameters to debate under.

However, that also means every individual unit gets less playtime, which really screws up the possibility of gaining supports. In fact, some of us believe that supports are almost nonexistent on a ranked run, particularly for odd pairings (healer x thief, cavalier x healer, etc), which would make some rather sizeable shifts in the current ranked lists which assume supports that grow rather quickly.

Yes, I'll leave it at a difference of opinion. I'm going to say, however, that 41-turn supports might only see C in the efficient non-ranked run, which is pretty much the only difference, and that unit selection interfering with building supports in ranked runs is easily dealt with by deploying units that can support over deploying units that can't support.

Ok… funds still have a huge impact on the position of Matthew, Dart and Farina, among others, they amplify the value of not needing a promo item (so ppl like Geitz might move down) and decrease the probability of units getting special weapons (hurts ppl like Dorcas who can heavily improve his performance with reaver weapons). I see the effect as being pretty substantial.

IMO I don't think weapon selection really hurts funds unless it's an S-rank weapon or an A-rank tome. Eliwood and Hector's weapons are 6000 G each and no one recommends not using them in a ranked run, and Dorcas isn't going to be using up a Swordreaver every chapter anyway. A lot of units want killer weapons too, some to kill tough stuff and some just to kill period. Everything else you said I agree with.

Matthew is kind of top tier because of funds.

Edited February 17, 2009 by dondon151

[Vykan12]

The game congratulates you for doing the former and doesn't for doing the latter. Pokemon congratulates you for removing all 6 of your opponent's Pokemon and not for defeating opponents using a mono-type group with Pokemon that only have moves with base PP not divisible by 10. SSBM congratulates you for removing all of your opponent's stocks and not for using only the control pad. Etc.

The game congratulates you, want a cookie?

Matthew is kind of top tier because of funds.

I’m aware of that, but without funds, getting the silver card and certain other goodies has much less of an impact. Since his positioning is so heavily dependant on funds and exp ranks, he’d be one of the units subject to a sizeable drop in a non-ranked list.