Frustrations concerning tier list topics

[Vykan12]

My main gripe about tier lists topics currently is when people make void statements. For instance, they say things with what seems like a brief justification, but is ultimately rather meaningless. I’ll give random examples just to clarify.

Also I think that Ilyana should be closer to Soren <__<

Why? You can’t simply make bold assertions without evidence. Or, in the words of Solid Sense, “Anything you argue for must be substantiated with logic.”

Barst makes an amazing Mercenary. It takes Ogma like ten level ups to catch up to Barst in Str.

Would it kill you to provide numbers to prove your claim about Ogma’s strength in relation to Barst?

Decided to move Midia to the top of the bottom tier paladins, as vs Arran and Roshe, it's a matter of a good Endgame and a sucky everything else versus a bad endgame and a sucky everything else."

Very generalized statements. No effort to explain which he thinks has more value and why, and basically refuses to examine their performances in a non-half assed way because he likes to instead use broad terms such as “they suck”. For instance, I have no idea how either character would compare to each other in the midgame, or any subtle advantages one has over the other.

Hunter----->Hero Bord has decent strength/defense, and can reach 19 AS by endgame. Plus he has Ogma/Barst/Marth/Cord support for +40 Avoid/+20 Crit.

Decent strength/defence relative to what? What does this say of his durability? How does reaching an arbitrary amount of speed by the final chapter say anything about whether he can double consistently before that?

Why is Darros so high then? He suffers from the exact same problems Bord does, only Bord can get awesome support bonuses(and support Cord and Barst) and can actually hit things with axes.

Actually hit thing with axes… where did you ever establish Bord’s poor hit rate, or how much better Darros’ hit is in comparison?

no

I said it's just making unit A overkill, and that it won't save unit B.

...Do I really have to say why unit B sucks? Are you THAT fucking lazy? Fine, here.

Draug at lvl 8: 5.8 AS

8 AS isn't doubling crap. It does nothing for him.

For all we know, Draug can 1HKO every enemy in the game with his strength, or is impossible to kill, or can use staves. Claiming he sucks because he can’t double says nothing about his actual performance.

These void remarks can be found almost anywhere. I’m just looking through topics randomly and finding tons of them.

Not to mention that a level 10 Katua is going to be better than a level 20 Sheeda in every single way.

I'd say bord above Lorenz and Samson

Merric can actually take hits

I thought we agreed on lower mid because of his accuracy.

Edward should be lower.

Soren should be higher.

Volke, Bastian, and Stefan should be mid tier.

Astrid should be atleast low tier (she is really underrated).

Aran should be a bit higher.

Meg starts crap and can only ever become average.

why Giffca middle? I always thought of him as a lower tier

Zihark seems pretty high for someone who's availability is pretty limited. I'd say he should go under Shinon.

Actually, nevermind, I see why he should stay. Though I don't see how he's better than Sothe.

Again, I don't know what's with all the Rolf hate around here. Rolf is a good unit when used well.

Reyson is great, yes, but not great enough to be at the very top. If going by a Top, High, Mid, Low, Bottom tier list, he's be at the bottom of Top Tier.

And this isn’t the only forum where these void arguments are introduced. Every forum I’ve been to (gfaqs, FEP, FESS, FEF, here, etc) has this type of nonsense in massive doses. In some places you’d be lucky to see a single stat comparison in over 100 posts or anything resembling the detail you see in a character vs character debate. And with the quality of the statements being made, one could counter any one of these arguments with a clever CATS line, “ok how about i say the opposite now, it will sound equally convincing."

I don’t mind seeing void statements once in a while if there’s really no need to prove what people already know (eg/ Gatrie is a lot more durable than Rhys), but when they’re used this frequently, then we begin to make changes in a tier list that doesn’t even remotely reflect a unit’s utility relative to others. I know part of the reason these things happen is people only debate tiers for fun and thus don’t see much need for in-depth analysis, but I would still at least want to see some changes on the way people approach tiers so that they aren’t just a topic getting riddled with useless remarks.

Now, this would just be senseless complaining if I didn’t offer some samples of what thorough tier debating should look like…

Ellen vs Gonzales

Look at everything that’s covered in one post:

-A paragraph each devoted to explaining why Gonzales won’t land any supports while Ellen will.

-Putting into perspective the cost of a missed hit.

-Also putting the value of healing utility into perspective, which is not only supported by logical statements but also examples of its application.

-Thoroughly covers the value of Ellen being auto-deployed for a few chapters whereas Gonzales isn’t.

-Mentions how Gonzales needs a bad character fielded in order to be recruited

-Actually quantifies Gonzales’ hit problems not just compared to Ellen but also a sample of HM enemies

-Covers why Ellen will continue leveling faster than your other units.

And then Mekkah’s counter can also be shown to be rich with content.

Or Solid’s opener here

-In the second line of his opener, he’s already showing all of Mordecai’s statistical leads over Kieran, and analyzing the value of each lead.

-Provides a beautiful defense for why the smite skill is an amazing asset for Mordecai.

-Shows that Mordecai is the most durable unit on the team even when untransformed, and explores the value of that.

-Compares the characters again at midgame to establish that nothing’s really changed.

-Covers all the details involving Mordy’s supports vs Kieran’s.

-Defends Mordy getting a speedwing based on intelligence resource consumption and goes over all the consequences this would have on Mordy. He also gives Kieran a speedwing in one of the comparisons to show that it wouldn’t make a difference.

-Yet another comparison covering their lategame.

And then of course, you can look at all of Solid’s subsequent posts. He produces gold such as:

Mordecai has better stats than Kieran, you've already admitted this. Now, he has perpetual Smite. Kieran only has an advantage in "countering on Enemy Phase" when Mordecai is untransformed. So Mordecai's advantage (Smite) lasts for the whole time, Kieran's only lasts until Mordecai transforms. Perpetual advantage >>> temporary advantage. A lot of units have that temporary advantage, in fact. All non-Laguz.

Mordecai, however, is doing something no one else can do at that point. And it's h4x in usefulness. Chapter 10 was already mentioned (full BEXP ftw). Then, what if Mist or Rhys wanted to heal someone, but could only do so in the range of an enemy? Easy, heal, then Smite them out of the way. What if you wanted Jill or Marcia to go out and reach a Thief or a Long-Range Magic user? Easy, Smite them forward. Or what if you wanted your tanks to be able to reach that crucial position for walling in a bunch of enemy Cavs (like in Chapter 11)? Yes, again, Smite. There are numerous situations where Smite is awesome.

He’s not only giving reasons for smite being better than Kieran’s move and non-transform-issue advantages, he’s showing its application with numerous examples.

Speaking of weapons, Mordecai uses less money than Kieran, as his weapon is free. It's also infinite-durability, so moar w1n for not having to care about usage. He can carry weapons for others in his inventory. Mini-storage during battle? Yes, please.

Pointing out fairly subtle advantages that Mordecai has to demonstrate he requires less maintenance.

Etc…

Of course, I do know that character debates are based on persuasion, so people will exaggerate certain leads, omit important details against the character they’re defending, etc. and that these kinds of posts take quite a while to write, but they’re nonetheless infinitely more valuable than saying “bottom tier cuz of sucky AS”. I do not expect people to start making tier arguments that resembles Reikken, Solid or Cats’ strength in a debate, but there’s no harm in aspiring towards such a thing.

Tl;dr, all I’m saying is I would love to see some middle ground between void arguments and amazing logic in a tier thread.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

Why not simply request more detail/elaboration from the people who posted? I would think that some of those statements are made like that because you can just simply go to something like... FEP for the averages.

[Vykan12]

Why not simply request more detail/elaboration from the people who posted? I would think that some of those statements are made like that because you can just simply go to something like... FEP for the averages.

I'd have to do that constantly though.

I just skimmed through this topic. First 7 pages were nothing but either one liners, very brief (and usually standalone) paragraphs or reposting part of the list. I feel as though I might not even find one in the full 70 pages, and most tier threads I visit are almost exactly like this.

[Florete]

As much as I do agree with you, it can become pretty troublesome comparing one character to, like, every other character in the game. This is why I think somewhat more ambiguous statements are fine in a tier list topic, at least until someone challenges it.

Take FE10 for example, where characters are often on different teams. It's useless comparing Mist and Laura directly because they have different allies and fight different enemies. It can be annoying to have to compare them to every other character on their team just to decide who's better in one simple scenario. When it comes to an actual 1-on-1 debate, that's where those need to be included.

Basically, what I'm saying is if someone thinks Joe is bad because of low accuracy and Bob is good because of awesome AS, those can be left until someone challenges them and gives reasons as to why that isn't good/bad enough or completely false even. Especially if we're comparing two characters right next to each other on a list, it can often be something very simple that sets them apart. Like with Caineghis and Giffca.

I do hate it when someone just says "Move Edward down, he sucks" without giving a single reason as to why, though.

And CATS sounds like a pretty smart guy.

Overall, I agree with you, but to a lesser extent.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

I'd have to do that constantly though.

Wouldn't a constant "Why's that" or "Care to elaborate on that?" as soon as you see the post be easier than compiling them and making "tl;dr" posts likes this? >_>

I agree with you to an extent but I've done my share of 1 liners in tier topics but that's because I don't see an explanation necessary (seeing as how a well known source for average stats exists) unless requested.

Edited January 27, 2009 by Levin

[Father Wood]

I know what you mean man. I'm not a big fan of arguing, but I had to do this argumentative paper in English the other day and you're absolutely right. You have to give logic and evidence or else no one's gonna side with you.

[Vykan12]

As much as I do agree with you, it can become pretty troublesome comparing one character to, like, every other character in the game. This is why I think somewhat more ambiguous statements are fine in a tier list topic, at least until someone challenges it.

I’m not asking to compare each character with each other (lol at 73 factorial comparisons in FE10), just for it to at least be done occasionally to prove a point. Comparisons are mainly for characters that intuitively look close, such as Kent vs Sain or Dieck vs Alan, since you’d obviously be wasting time comparing Tibarn to Pelleas, for instance.

Another thing is that when comparisons get out there, people have more data they can easily turn to. If you want to show that oh I dunno, the GMs have less durability issues than the DB, you’ll have plenty of data for that since you would have all this “Ike vs enemies” and “Mia vs enemies” data that’s readily accessible, versus having to do it all yourself to prove a point. Or if someone asks why x > y, you can just re-quote a comparison instead of giving a summarized answer that’s equally as void as the stuff I’m complaining about.

Take FE10 for example, where characters are often on different teams. It's useless comparing Mist and Laura directly because they have different allies and fight different enemies. It can be annoying to have to compare them to every other character on their team just to decide who's better in one simple scenario. When it comes to an actual 1-on-1 debate, that's where those need to be included.

The problem is the games that don’t have route splits or other such intricacies follow this trend of lazy tier-age.

Wouldn't a constant "Why's that" or "Care to elaborate on that?" as soon as you see the post be easier than compiling them and making "tl;dr" posts likes this? >_>

I’ve been talking about FE on forums for a good year or two, this is the only time I’ve ever felt the urge to make this type of a topic :P

I agree with you to an extent but I've done my share of 1 liners in tier topics but that's because I don't see an explanation necessary (seeing as how a well known source for average stats exists) unless requested.

Yeah but the person’s own laziness in regards to not posting the averages is at the expense of everyone else who has to do it themselves to verify the result instead of just reading a done comparison. Also, it takes a rather long time to factor in weapons, hit rates, avoid and supports (among other things) into a comparison, so just looking at spreadsheets won’t give you all the answers.

[Mekkah]

Wouldn't a constant "Why's that" or "Care to elaborate on that?" as soon as you see the post be easier than compiling them and making "tl;dr" posts likes this? >_>

Many flies, one catch, that kind of stuff.

[Rei Rei]

I really don't like "character x vs character y" debates. I just see no point in comparing an Armour with a Pegasus Knight.

Debates like "should character x move higher on the tier list?" with two guys debating on mentioned character, would look better to me.

[Don Draper]

Pahn's position is interesting. I don't know what to think of this guy but when you get him, he's pretty much your only thief who has any fighting capability at all, he has tons of movement stars and can steal off enemies better than Rivis and Lara IIRC.

Dagda's way too awesome for low. What would eg/ Hicks do over the course of the game to beat Dagda's earlygame capture-fest?

In what universe are Tanya and Ronan better than Eyvel, or even Shanam's discounts?

Hmmm....

Everybody makes these "void statements" once in awhile (even you), so while it does happen pretty often, there are still many logical arguements as well. Shadow Dragon is still new, and people don't have a whole lot to go by for the tier list. Thats why statistics are brought up less

[Mekkah]

I would say that statistics have to be brought up _more_ if there's a new game with less to be assumed.

I really don't like "character x vs character y" debates. I just see no point in comparing an Armour with a Pegasus Knight.

Debates like "should character x move higher on the tier list?" with two guys debating on mentioned character, would look better to me.

The catch in this faulty, but nonetheless common way of arguing is that your class makes no difference for your purpose. Both of these units are combat units. Their classes provide some attributes to their fighting, such as the fact that Gilliam can weild swords, lances and axes, while Vanessa has just lances, and that Vanessa has Pierce. However, at the end of the day, they are both units meant to kill enemies. What their class is makes no further difference besides what the statistics show. Since those statistics are available - indeed, a centerpoint of debate - it is useless to bring up class any further. It is about as helpful as comparing Eliwood to all people with red hair and Hector to all people with blue hair, and then see which one is relatively better among the people with the same hair colour.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Mekkah

[Rei Rei]

I see, Mekkah. But still I just can't like it.

And for upping someone on tier lists, I mean upping someone Mid Tier or below to higher positions.

[TheEnd]

The catch in this faulty, but nonetheless common way of arguing is that your class makes no difference for your purpose. Both of these units are combat units. Their classes provide some attributes to their fighting, such as the fact that Gilliam can weild swords, lances and axes, while Vanessa has just lances, and that Vanessa has Pierce. However, at the end of the day, they are both units meant to kill enemies. What their class is makes no further difference besides what the statistics show. Since those statistics are available - indeed, a centerpoint of debate - it is useless to bring up class any further. It is about as helpful as comparing Eliwood to all people with red hair and Hector to all people with blue hair, and then see which one is relatively better among the people with the same hair colour.

That's a fallacy. It's like comparing a goal keeper with a striker in a soccer team. Different classes have different functions - both when killing enemies and when not, especially in games where those roles are enforced through caps and whatnot.

You don't make barricades with Pegasus Knights. You don't send armors to save faraway villages with useful items. Your mage probably won't be able to getting that nifty item the boss holds, and your thief won't normally manage to kill said boss.

If you lose sight of those different functions and stick only to stats, you aren't debating strategy. You're debating bruteforcing.

[Camus The Dark Knight]

Considering each unit has their own job in your party, it kind of becomes hard to make an accurate tier list, especially for a single player game.

For example, who would be a higher tier? Oswin, or Erk? They have completely different jobs, and it becomes subject to which is better at what. You can't make an accurate tier list. See in fighting games, each character has the same role, to kill their opponent, so you can develop tier lists for them.

Back to Fire Emblem. Now, if you make a tier list per role, you may do better, such as "Who makes the best tank", or "Who is the most lethal unit" (As in kills the most enemies the fastest). Doing it by class may not be too great either, you have many paladins, but they obviously have different rolls, Lowen: Tank, Sain: Killer, etc.

Making a good tier list would have to be broken down in to at least Tanks, Healers, Offensive units. Although I personally think it could be broken down a little further, like separating archers, melee, and mages in the offensive units.

[Seph]

You don't make barricades with Pegasus Knights. You don't send armors to save faraway villages with useful items. Your mage probably won't be able to getting that nifty item the boss holds, and your thief won't normally manage to kill said boss.

You think that's not thought of?

Making a good tier list would have to be broken down in to at least Tanks, Healers, Offensive units. Although I personally think it could be broken down a little further, like separating archers, melee, and mages in the offensive units.

Tier lists are based on general efficiency in every chapter and how well the character performs during the entire game. I think that is completely unneeded.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Alvis

[Camus The Dark Knight]

Tier lists are based on general efficiency in every chapter and how well the character performs during the entire game. I think that is completely unneeded.

Maybe so, but because of the difference in roles you will never get a fully accurate list.

[Seph]

Maybe so, but because of the difference in roles you will never get a fully accurate list.

The roles are considered. In the end, it all comes down to general performance during the game.

And tier lists are made that way.

[Camus The Dark Knight]

The roles are considered. In the end, it all comes down to general performance during the game.

And tier lists are made that way.

That is correct, however my point still stands.

[TheEnd]

You think that's not thought of?

Tier lists are based on general efficiency in every chapter and how well the character performs during the entire game. I think that is completely unneeded.

And that might be a good reason why they're about completely useless. Except for drama making.

You think that's not thought of?

I think that, sometimes, you dig so deep into a subject that you lose sight of obvious things along the way. That's how human knowledge works: one can't know everything, so selective ignorance is needed. However, sometimes, some discarded knowledge makes you get locked into a bubble, distancing yourself from reality and from what really matters.

From what I read from Mekkah's quote, the class reasoning was probably "surpassed" through artificial means (read: logical fallacies) in the "debating community".

edit: now with 10% less Engrish

Edited January 28, 2009 by TheEnd

[Seph]

Making a good tier list would have to be broken down in to at least Tanks, Healers, Offensive units

That doesn't show how well a character performs during the entire game. Tanks fail most of the time if you talk about knights, and healers are very useful. Offensive units also differ in usefulness.

It doesn't show that healers > tanks, etc. It also doesn't compare the efficiency of every single character during the game, merely the characters in their groups. It doesn't show that some offensive units > some tanks, for example.

like separating archers, melee, and mages in the offensive units.

Melee is generally > mages and archers. Archers really fail. They need to be compared with every single character. Your tier list method can't accomplish the fact that tier lists need to show efficiency during the whole game.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Alvis

[Camus The Dark Knight]

Melee is generally > mages and archers. Archers really fail. They need to be compared with every single character. Your tier list method can't accomplish the fact that tier lists need to show efficiency during the whole game.

Umm yeah it does. Think of it like this.

FE7 Tier tank list, I will limit it to merely the 2 generals for the time being for the sake of simplicity.

I would say Oswin is a better then Wallace because not only does he have overall better growths, but because he also comes much earlier and is around for many more chapters.

Erk vs. Nino vs. Pent

Erk I would say is a higher tier then Nino because of his joining time, despite his lower growths. Pent would take more time to debate, but is certainly higher then Nino. Pent comes with solid stats, a little later on, so the debate would be Erk vs. Pent. In my personal opinion, Erk would be higher because his stats turn out roughly on-par with Pents, but he comes at an earlier point and you have him for that time helping you and training him. This is also ignoring other offensive magic units such as Canas or Lucius (For the sake of keeping it simple for the example)

Also remember pent could qualify in the healer tier list because of his A in staffs at joining.

It's no different then yours, except for the fact it is split up in to several depending on role.

Also NES and SNES Archers + Snipers would like to have a word with you. Again, slo depends on the game.

That doesn't show how well a character performs during the entire game. Tanks fail most of the time if you talk about knights, and healers are very useful. Offensive units also differ in usefulness.

Knights are not the only tanks, for example Harken, a hero, makes a decent tank for his solid HP, fair defense, and nice Avoid. Hell Swordmasters can be a tank if you want, but considering their stats are focused more on offense, we can agree (I hope) that they are not "tanks". All a tank is is someone who can hold off enemies for prolonged time.

It doesn't show that healers > tanks, etc. It also doesn't compare the efficiency of every single character during the game, merely the characters in their groups. It doesn't show that some offensive units > some tanks, for example.

So why a healer > tank? You need healers, tanks, perhaps you don't need them for the easier walkthrough difficulties, but you will need "tank" units when playing for ranks or harder difficulties. Each has it's place.

And again, tank role isn't limited to armors and bishops (mage tanking). You also need to factor in evasion total HP and crit-evasion.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Izuka

[Seph]

FE7 Tier tank list, I will limit it to merely the 2 generals for the time being for the sake of simplicity.

I would say Oswin is a better then Wallace because not only does he have overall better growths, but because he also comes much earlier and is around for many more chapters.

Erk vs. Nino vs. Pent

Erk I would say is a higher tier then Nino because of his joining time, despite his lower growths. Pent would take more time to debate, but is certainly higher then Nino. Pent comes with solid stats, a little later on, so the debate would be Erk vs. Pent. In my personal opinion, Erk would be higher because his stats turn out roughly on-par with Pents, but he comes at an earlier point and you have him for that time helping you and training him. This is also ignoring other offensive magic units such as Canas or Lucius (For the sake of keeping it simple for the example)

Everything there is true. Yet, it fails to combine every unit in the game and compare everyone's usefulness.

In the end, they're all fighting units. They're more efficient than one and the other. Why not show that?

Also NES and SNES Archers + Snipers would like to have a word with you. Again, slo depends on the game.

I said "generally" for a reason.

Knights are not the only tanks, for example Harken, a hero, makes a decent tank for his solid HP, fair defense, and nice Avoid. Hell Swordmasters can be a tank if you want, but considering their stats are focused more on offense, we can agree (I hope) that they are not "tanks". All a tank is is someone who can hold off enemies for prolonged time.

I know, that's why I said "if you talk about knights".

Tanks and offensive units are pretty damn similar really. You could even put them in the same group. Why would you use a really fragile melee unit? It's pretty risky. Just rank them on efficiency.

So why a healer > tank? You need healers, tanks, perhaps you don't need them for the easier walkthrough difficulties, but you will need "tank" units when playing for ranks or harder difficulties. Each has it's place.

I don't want to start a bigger debate, but healers have a special function instead of fighting. They allow your best units to fight more instead of fighting themselves and help prevent deaths. It's why Serra, Priscilla, Natasha, Moulder and Clarine are considered to be really good.

I know this isn't SSB, but a tier list should show which character is better than the other:

http://super-smash-bros.wikia.com/wiki/Tier_list

See? No groups, nothing. Efficiency.

We could put Marth and Fox in "speedy" and Bowser and Ganondorf as "tanks" but what good would it be?

Edited January 28, 2009 by Alvis

[Camus The Dark Knight]

Everything there is true. Yet, it fails to combine every unit in the game and compare everyone's usefulness.

Which is the point I am trying to make. Because of the difference in roles, you will never have an accurate list because of all the variables caused by meshing everyone together.

I could say Erk is more useful then Priscilla (I don't think so, but I'm making a point) because he can bolting key targets if needed (Pesky thieves, that Ballista archer, another bolting user, etc). But then we could say Priscilla is more useful because she could heal your units, but then I could say Oswin is more useful, since he can protect Priscilla and keep her alive so she can do her job, but then I can say Priscilla is more useful because she will just keep Oswin going. I think you get my point.

Your units are working as a team, each relies on another (Again I am excluding pathetically easy ones like FE8 where 1 unit can solo the game), so each is useful in their own right, their own role... So it comes down to who is the best for each role, which is, if you feel the need to have one, the tier list would be.

See? No groups, nothing. Efficiency.

That's because every character has the same role! To kill the other!

A healers role is healing, a sword masters is killing. 2 completely different jobs.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Izuka

[Lord Raven]

That's a fallacy. It's like comparing a goal keeper with a striker in a soccer team. Different classes have different functions - both when killing enemies and when not, especially in games where those roles are enforced through caps and whatnot.

I find it odd how you're comparing Fire Emblem to Soccer in a debate where you're trying to refute the fact that comparing two classes [with supposedly different fundamentals] is a fallacy. In which case, Fire Emblem and Soccer have completely different fundamentals; Knights and Pegasus Knights have essentially the same fundamentals (to do and take damage). Any Knight is capable of going to a village; you just prefer the send the pegasus because it's a lot easier. Meaning the Pegasus can do it better.

Output also trumps input.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Nathan Graves

[Seph]

Which is the point I am trying to make. Because of the difference in roles, you will never have an accurate list because of all the variables caused by meshing everyone together.

Because of making the groups "mages", "archers", etc. you can never know how archers are doing compared to melee units and healer units.

Which do you prefer, really?

I could say Erk is more useful then Priscilla (I don't think so, but I'm making a point) because he can bolting key targets if needed (Pesky thieves, that Ballista archer, another bolting user, etc). But then we could say Priscilla is more useful because she could heal your units, but then I could say Oswin is more useful, since he can protect Priscilla and keep her alive so she can do her job, but then I can say Priscilla is more useful because she will just keep Oswin going. I think you get my point.

I do, but that's why we constantly debate about things and make decisions based on them, and it makes things more interesting. The Internet has many, many, many debates about such things and news spreads pretty quickly, right?

Your units are working as a team, each relies on another (Again I am excluding pathetically easy ones like FE8 where 1 unit can solo the game), so each is useful in their own right, their own role... So it comes down to who is the best for each role, which is, if you feel the need to have one, the tier list would be.

Best for each role. Let's narrow this down.

Take melee, mages and archers. They all come down to fighting, right? So that goes to the fighting role.

Then we have dancers, healers, etc. While they're not fighters, they can be combined with the fighting role as such: General usefulness.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Alvis