Frustrations concerning tier list topics

[TheEnd]

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 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.

The fallacy is saying that classes are irrelevant in a character comparison, by reducing the characters' importance to "taking and dealing damage". Like you just did, by the way.

Oh, and I find it interesting that two games based on teamwork to beat a different team seemingly have "completely different fundamentals", too.

By the way, the fundamental of a pegasus knight isn't taking damage, but avoiding it (with high speed/luck/mobility).

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.

Just like a knight is better at making a barricade. Now compare those two abilities.

Output also trumps input.

Ideally, yes. However, sometimes you can't help but be in a disadvantageous scenario and have to play defensive. Brute force isn't always an option.

Edited January 28, 2009 by TheEnd

[Lord Raven]

The fallacy is saying that classes are irrelevant in a character comparison, by reducing the characters' importance to "taking and dealing damage". Like you just did, by the way.

That's pretty much what it is.

If the Pegasi have better defense than the Armors, then you're more likely to form a barricade with them than with the Armors. It boils down to how well the individual character does, not how well the class does as a whole. In which case, the typical armor unit has lower move, no canto, and lower speed whereas the typical flier has high speed, high resistance, lower defense, etc. FE10 contradicts this pretty well though, because Gatrie has high everything but move, whereas Sigrun has average everything but generally low speed. What happened to classes mattering now?

Also the classes are irrelevant because it has nothing to do with their stats unless you're playing FE DS or FE4. or FE10. Because FE DS changes your stats around (growths and bases) depending on what class you chose; FE4 has class bases + personal bases for stats, and some classes, with their caps, are shy of doubling enemies in FE10. This is not really the case in 6-8 (well, in limited cases it is the case in FE6; unless there actually isn't a class with 23 speed). And once again, Gatrie/Sigrun.

I also don't know about you but I think I'm more safe barricading with Ike and Oscar in FE10 than like Brom and Gatrie. Ike/Oscar have this sexy +45 evasion that allows them to be better than, well, Brom/Gatrie having a 4 higher cap. Notice how class is nothing to do with this; it's the fact that the individual units have access to this advantage that makes them better for barricades.

Oh, and I find it interesting that two games based on teamwork to beat a different team seemingly have "completely different fundamentals", too.

Such as how two units whose job is based upon taking and dealing attacks are completely different?

Pegasus Knights take attacks. They attack back. They visit villages whenever nearby, if it's reasonable to do so.

Armor knights take attacks. They attack back. They visit villages whenever nearby, if it's reasonable to do so.

Both do the same things. Both have different ways of doing so; typically a pegasus knight doubles and evades, the armor does a lot of damage and takes little. However, this doesn't necessarily apply to every unit of that class, which is a fault of their own and is irrelevant to the class.

The Pegasus Knight normally visits a village because it's more practical than letting anyone else do it. It's rather self-explanatory why, but it's not its built-in role to do so. Nor is it an armor's built-in role to build barricades and protect units. It depends on the unit's stats, not on their class.

Ideally, yes. However, sometimes you can't help but be in a disadvantageous scenario and have to play defensive. Brute force isn't always an option.

And armors aren't the only way to do so. It depends entirely on the individual unit's ability to defend, not on their class.

Healing is a different role altogether. I have thoughts on how to fit this into a tier list, but I need some time to think of it and my head hurts like hell.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Nathan Graves

[Camus The Dark Knight]

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?

See further down...

V

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?

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

Very well...

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

Did I not say that in my original post? I said to break it up if you want to cut out more opinion. Obviously casters and sword masters will have some major differences, most apparent being they each attack a separate defense system. Archers, while much more similar to melee then casters, still have a different style of use, one that I would say just barely warrants it's own group. A few examples being ranged (apparent), access to ballistas, far easier time killing fliers, ignoring the weapon triangle, etc.

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

Sure go if you want, but general usefulness is so vague and variable, that it will not yield the results you want for a good tier list.

General usefulness depends on how you use them, breaking it up in to groups yields more accurate results because it's going off how they are used, not how you use them.

Oswin can be used as an offensive units or a tank, depends on how someone wants to use him, so his usefulness is subject to opinion, as is most, but when you break up jobs, then there is less room for opinion because it is far less vague.

Same goes for Pent, he can be an offensive magic unit, or you can use him as a healer, two completely different roles. Breaking them up allows you to look at both.

This way we can come up with what is generally the best for each role, if you want to then take a look at that and mesh them together to get something, be my guest, but it becomes more and more vague, and more and more subject to opinion because of the different play styles the more you mesh them together.

This is not a game where a tier list can be formed, in this game, you pick who is good for what, and you use them for what they are good for.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Izuka

[Lord Raven]

Did I not say that in my original post? I said to break it up if you want to cut out more opinion. Obviously casters and sword masters will have some major differences, most apparent being they each attack a separate defense system.

A defense system that is typically lower for the Mage than the Swordmaster. This increases the Mage's damage output in relative terms. It's this output that's relevant, not the fact that they're a Mage or a Swordmaster.

Archers, while much more similar to melee then casters, still have a different style of use, one that I would say just barely warrants it's own group. A few examples being ranged (apparent), access to ballistas, far easier time killing fliers, ignoring the weapon triangle, etc.

Being ranged and only ranged. Other classes have access to range and melee at the same time, which is a point for that class. Not a point against Archers.

It's a point against Archers that they only have range because, generally, in every fire emblem game most of the things you're defending against are Melee units. Therefore Archers are hindered because they can't generally attack on the enemy phase, while everyone else can. This is a weapon thing, that hinders the unit because they're locked to Bows.

Sure go if you want, but general usefulness is so vague and variable, that it will not yield the results you want for a good tier list.

Which is why classes aren't relevant?

Oswin can be used as an offensive units or a tank, depends on how someone wants to use him, so his usefulness is subject to opinion, as is most, but when you break up jobs, then there is less room for opinion because it is far less vague.

Tiers factor both in.

Same goes for Pent, he can be an offensive magic unit, or you can use him as a healer, two completely different roles. Breaking them up allows you to look at both.

Pent being a Healer puts him higher, because doing well in offense and being a good healer > just doing well in offense.

This way we can come up with what is the best for each role, if you want to then take a look at that and mesh them together to get something, be my guest, but it becomes more and more vague, and more and more subject to opinion because of the different play styles the more you mesh them together.

The tier list determines who is best in an overall perspective. This factors in each "role."

This is not a game where a tier list can be formed, in this game, you pick who is good for what, and you use them for what they are good for.

Tiers are stupid in this game, but I have too much time to kill.

[Seph]

Did I not say that in my original post? I said to break it up if you want to cut out more opinion. Obviously casters and sword masters will have some major differences, most apparent being they each attack a separate defense system. Archers, while much more similar to melee then casters, still have a different style of use, one that I would say just barely warrants it's own group. A few examples being ranged (apparent), access to ballistas, far easier time killing fliers, ignoring the weapon triangle, etc.

General usefulness depends on how you use them, breaking it up in to groups yields more accurate results because it's going off how they are used, not how you use them.

More accurate results how? It doesn't show that, for example, archers <<<<< melee units.

Anyway, in a tier list, it not assumed "use however you want". It's generally assumed that you want to play as efficiently as possible, using the best strategy possible, using the best supports possible, and it shows why those character should be used in order to be as efficient as possible.

Hey, if you have a complaint about that, don't tell me, ask someone else.

if you want to then take a look at that and mesh them together to get something, be my guest, but it becomes more and more vague, and more and more subject to opinion because of the different play styles the more you mesh them together.

And then this happens.

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.

[TheEnd]

That's pretty much what it is.

If the Pegasi have better defense than the Armors, then you're more likely to form a barricade with them than with the Armors. It boils down to how well the individual character does, not how well the class does as a whole. In which case, the typical armor unit has lower move, no canto, and lower speed whereas the typical flier has high speed, high resistance, lower defense, etc. FE10 contradicts this pretty well though, because Gatrie has high everything but move, whereas Sigrun has average everything but generally low speed. What happened to classes mattering now?

Good luck rescue-fleeing units with Gatrie!

Also the classes are irrelevant because it has nothing to do with their stats unless you're playing FE DS or FE4. or FE10. Because FE DS changes your stats around (growths and bases) depending on what class you chose; FE4 has class bases + personal bases for stats, and some classes, with their caps, are shy of doubling enemies in FE10. This is not really the case in 6-8 (well, in limited cases it is the case in FE6; unless there actually isn't a class with 23 speed). And once again, Gatrie/Sigrun.

I also don't know about you but I think I'm more safe barricading with Ike and Oscar in FE10 than like Brom and Gatrie. Ike/Oscar have this sexy +45 evasion that allows them to be better than, well, Brom/Gatrie having a 4 higher cap. Notice how class is nothing to do with this; it's the fact that the individual units have access to this advantage that makes them better for barricades.

Caps and stats aren't everything. No matter how much you cry, Rutger isn't going to fly and reach that hidden shop among the mountains.

Also, while a class doesn't fully define an unit's role, it plays an important role. Why do Wendy and Meg suck? Isn't it exactly because they're Armors without defense (and, therefore, without tanking ability)?

Either way, avoid is often a good option when you're superior to your opponent - otherwise, it'll just be cancelled with superior skill and whatnot. When you're in disavantage, you need to rely on defense. That's perhaps why Part I of RD is considered hard: you're facing superior forces without somebody who can absorb damage.

Such as how two units whose job is based upon taking and dealing attacks are completely different?

Pegasus Knights take attacks. They attack back. They visit villages whenever nearby, if it's reasonable to do so.

Armor knights take attacks. They attack back. They visit villages whenever nearby, if it's reasonable to do so.

Both do the same things. Both have different ways of doing so; typically a pegasus knight doubles and evades, the armor does a lot of damage and takes little. However, this doesn't necessarily apply to every unit of that class, which is a fault of their own and is irrelevant to the class.

The Pegasus Knight normally visits a village because it's more practical than letting anyone else do it. It's rather self-explanatory why, but it's not its built-in role to do so. Nor is it an armor's built-in role to build barricades and protect units. It depends on the unit's stats, not on their class.

A studies (Law). A works (as a clerk). A has a hobbie (origami).

B studies (Pharmacy). B works (delivering newspapers). B has a hobbie (playing the guitar).

They clearly do the same thing, right? So, we should compare them, independently of their chosen professions!

Pegasus Knights evade attacks/attackers or die. Armor Knights tank them.

Pegasus Knights may attack from unreachable places/hit-and-run, but for reduced damage. Armor Knights will have to withstand the next turn's counterattack, but will probably deal more damage by themselves.

Pegasus Knights visit the village beyond the river in one turn. Armor Knights take 4 turns to reach it, while a random Bandit will destroy it in 3.

Of course, there are variations due to stats that may change an unit's role. But to say the class doesn't influence it, and that directly comparing a default Pegasus Knight to a default Armor Knight is SUREFINE? That's ignoring the reality and producing useless texts.

And armors aren't the only way to do so. It depends entirely on the individual unit's ability to defend, not on their class.

You talk as if they're completely unrelated. They aren't.

[Seph]

That's perhaps why Part I of RD is considered hard: you're facing superior forces without somebody who can absorb damage.

Prologue: Eddie

1: Nolan

The rest: Sothe, Volug and Tauroneo

[Camus The Dark Knight]

Being ranged and only ranged. Other classes have access to range and melee at the same time, which is a point for that class. Not a point against Archers.

OK, I guess I can agree here, but remember, archers have their own use (which to be honest has just gotten worse and worse in the past FEs, back in the older ones being an archer was a good thing). Grouping them with melee is fine as far as damage output is concerned, and I agree with that, my point is that you are not going to use them like melee, so they can't be classified as the same.

It's a point against Archers that they only have range because, generally, in every fire emblem game most of the things you're defending against are Melee units. Therefore Archers are hindered because they can't generally attack on the enemy phase, while everyone else can. This is a weapon thing, that hinders the unit because they're locked to Bows.

Above^

Which is why classes aren't relevant?

If you notice, I never kept classes and characters separate, I have been factoring classes to the characters.

Tiers factor both in.

As was I

Pent being a Healer puts him higher, because doing well in offense and being a good healer > just doing well in offense.

He can't do both at the same time, while he can fight and heal, when it comes time for him to take his turn, he either has to do one or the other. But I will agree, in a healer debate he holds the upper hand because of it, but when we bring him over to the damage debate, it gets a little more "debatable". All healers after promotion will be able to counter on the enemy turn, so eventually they all get to even groud as far as performing as a healer.

Pent's issue is coming late (hence not being around to heal for all that earlier time) vs. much better offensive start then a newly promoted priest/troubadour.

The tier list determines who is best in an overall perspective. This factors in each "role"

Aware of it, but that's my point, factoring in everything leads to vagueness which leads to how someone uses each unit, which leads to opinion.

Tiers are stupid in this game, but I have too much time to kill.

I can agree 100% here

More accurate results how? It doesn't show that, for example, archers <<<<< melee units.

Anyway, in a tier list, it not assumed "use however you want". It's generally assumed that you want to play as efficiently as possible, using the best strategy possible, using the best supports possible, and it shows why those character should be used in order to be as efficient as possible.

Hey, if you have a complaint about that, don't tell me, ask someone else.

Make it clear then "Tier list for ranked runs" or such, I can agree in that case, you can form a more substantial list (Which in that case would be broken up in to merely good, usable, and ignore groups), but really, it still comes down to personal play-style, which is why my original point still stands. You can't make a tier list for a game like fire emblem, their is just too many variables that are effected by personal playing skill, opinion, play style, random number generator, among other things.

And as for your last part, you were the one that responded to me, not the other way around.

And then this happens.

So you agree that each has their own purpose and can't accurately fit in to a global tier?

[Lord Raven]

Good luck rescue-fleeing units with Gatrie!

It's a point for Pegasus to be able to do that.

Caps and stats aren't everything. No matter how much you cry, Rutger isn't going to fly and reach that hidden shop among the mountains.

Probably because the programmers didn't give him wings of any sort.

Also, while a class doesn't fully define an unit's role, it plays an important role. Why do Wendy and Meg suck? Isn't it exactly because they're Armors without defense (and, therefore, without tanking ability)?

Meg and Wendy suck because they suck starting out, and they're average later on. They're armors isn't even part of it. They lack defense, they lack offense, they lack everything. Maybe if they started out a lot better and had better in every stat then yeah they'd be good. Defense is not the main reason.

Some chars becoming fighters in FE DS is a bad option because they have 0% defense growth, regardless of the fact that they "shouldn't tank." Having little defense is a point against you no matter what class you are.

Either way, avoid is often a good option when you're superior to your opponent - otherwise, it'll just be cancelled with superior skill and whatnot. When you're in disavantage, you need to rely on defense. That's perhaps why Part I of RD is considered hard: you're facing superior forces without somebody who can absorb damage.

But what if enemies don't have high skill? What if the evasion is high enough that you don't need to worry? This is where individual enemy stats come in as well. But that has nothing to do with my point.

In FE10 I'm pretty sure Ike x Oscar A gets like 20% hits off of most enemies anyway. I got 0% hits in 4-1 because Ike had 32 Speed, but on average he'd have like 28 and it wouldn't be too much higher.

A studies (Law). A works (as a clerk). A has a hobbie (origami).

B studies (Pharmacy). B works (delivering newspapers). B has a hobbie (playing the guitar).

They clearly do the same thing, right? So, we should compare them, independently of their chosen professions!

Add in the parentheses, instead of making it seems irrelevant.

A studies Law. A works as a clerk. A has a hobbie, origami.

B studies Pharmacy. B works delivering newspapers. B has a hobbie, playing the guitar.

Now, let's compare Armors and Pegasi.

A gets attacked by unit. A attacks unit. A can move.

B gets attacked by unit. B attacks unit. B can also move.

Basically the same fundamental. Obviously their damage output, as well as the damage they receive themselves, differs, but it's the same exact concept.

Pegasus Knights evade attacks/attackers or die. Armor Knights tank them.

A built up Meg can evade attacks because of decent speed. A built up Sigrun can't really because of bad speed. Note how they both contradict your point.

Pegasus Knights may attack from unreachable places/hit-and-run, but for reduced damage. Armor Knights will have to withstand the next turn's counterattack, but will probably deal more damage by themselves.

Pegasus Knights visit the village beyond the river in one turn. Armor Knights take 4 turns to reach it, while a random Bandit will destroy it in 3.

Of course, there are variations due to stats that may change an unit's role. But to say the class doesn't influence it, and that directly comparing a default Pegasus Knight to a default Armor Knight is SUREFINE? That's ignoring the reality and producing useless texts.

Uh... yeah. They're both combat units.

You talk as if they're completely unrelated. They aren't.

They are in any game not named Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragons.

Enemy-wise it matters because each class has its own base and growth, character wise class only matters when you want to get HM boosts, promotion items (6-8), and branch promotions (8). And when caps are relevant (4 and 10's endgames, which probably makes up 10-20% of the entirety of the game.)

Edited January 28, 2009 by Nathan Graves

[Seph]

Make it clear then "Tier list for ranked runs" or such, I can agree in that case, you can form a more substantial list (Which in that case would be broken up in to merely good, usable, and ignore groups), but really, it still comes down to personal play-style, which is why my original point still stands. You can't make a tier list for a game like fire emblem, their is just too many variables that are effected by personal playing skill, opinion, play style, random number generator, among other things.

I thought real tiers didn't exist for unranked runs?

And besides, efficiency is definitely preferred over not being efficient. There wouldn't be too much of a difference really. Dart being higher, but that's mostly it.

So you agree that each has their own purpose and can't accurately fit in to a global tier?

I'd rather have a tier list in which I can see which units are the most useful to have around (who cares about archers, and what if mages aren't anything too great like in FE6).

But I don't care for tier lists since even in the hard modes I use my favorites.

[Lord Raven]

I thought real tiers didn't exist for unranked runs?

FE1-3, 9-11, and FE5's tiers typically don't give a shit about SSS rank.

9-11 takes statistics into account, not class. Because classes only matter in debates when

A) a stat is capped (which it is during endgame, something that typically makes up 10-20% of the game anyway)

B) FE DS

In which case, being a Pegasus Knight is not a statistic. Being immune to almost all terrain (closed village doors = one of the few non immunities), having 20 Speed, and having 8 move are. The latter are the basics which matter; the former is not. To say that class directly influences role is blasphemy - it may appear that way, but it's not directly that way.

Some aspects are influenced. Aforementioned caps, promotion gains and weapon. The rest is irrelevant, and purely dependent on output. Marcia with 20 in every stat and Silver Lance is doing better than Gatrie with 18 in every stat and silver lance, and class has little to do with this other than the very fact that they're equipped with a silver lance and such.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Nathan Graves

[Camus The Dark Knight]

I thought real tiers didn't exist for unranked runs?

idk all I ever see is "Tier list"

And besides, efficiency is definitely preferred over not being efficient. There wouldn't be too much of a difference really. Dart being higher, but that's mostly it.

I'd rather have a tier list in which I can see which units are the most useful to have around (who cares about archers, and what if mages aren't anything too great like in FE6).

Again I must point out, what's "efficient" comes down to play style.

But I don't care for tier lists since even in the hard modes I use my favorites.

I agree, accept in my case, it's generally semi-random characters (For example, deciding to use only Fire affinity characters for a ranked run to see what I can get).

SSS rank

Not even I have attempted to get this... I'm wondering what the chances of gettign it without save states are...

Edited January 28, 2009 by Izuka

[Seph]

FE1-3, 9-11, and FE5's tiers typically don't give a shit about SSS rank.

First off,

And besides, efficiency is definitely preferred over not being efficient. There wouldn't be too much of a difference really. Dart being higher, but that's mostly it.

Secondly, in 9 and 10 there is a tactics rank - getting max bexp.

Leaving 1-3. No one really cares about those anymore.

11, I can understand.

But 5.. there are certain times in which you have to rush. Chapter 9 and 13 are examples.

Not even I have attempted to get this... I'm wondering what the chances of gettign it without save states are...

http://www.fireemblem.net/fe/FE5/fe5-sssW/sss.htm

Someone called YayMarsha got it on console.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Alvis

[Camus The Dark Knight]

No one really cares about those anymore.

Blasphemy!!!

(Whips out very sharp knife)

[Lord Raven]

Five's tiers should have like a B rank attached.

Not even I have attempted to get this... I'm wondering what the chances of gettign it without save states are...

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=D1775AF8C2291864

Oh yeah the FE3 thing, I'm working on stats (currently on Final Chapter Part 1) and averages (I've done like 20% of the cast over the past three days or something) so we can do it soon.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Nathan Graves

[Camus The Dark Knight]

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=D1775AF8C2291864

Very interesting... I wish I had more free time to attempt it one of these times, always wanted to.

I noticed some +move level abuse. Hmm...

Edited January 28, 2009 by Izuka

[Mekkah]

I will just respond to this because Nathan says a lot of what I want to say and I'm too tired to make any other argument...but if this keeps up we'll prolly have to make a new thread since this one wasn't about class roles at all.

Why do Wendy and Meg suck? Isn't it exactly because they're Armors without defense (and, therefore, without tanking ability)?

No. I won't comment on Meg since I lack FE10 experience, but Wendy sucks because she has low movement, bad offense and bad durability. Her class name doesn't excuse her or make it worse for her that she has these flaws - simply these three aspects of her make her suck so much. Consider her polar opposite, Lance. He rules because he has high movement, great offense and great durability. His class assigns him some of these attributes, such as high movement and weapon triangle control, but in the end what made him pull it off was the whole picture of his stats, and not the "cavalier" name tag.

[TheEnd]

FE1-3, 9-11, and FE5's tiers typically don't give a shit about SSS rank.

9-11 takes statistics into account, not class. Because classes only matter in debates when

A) a stat is capped (which it is during endgame, something that typically makes up 10-20% of the game anyway)

B) FE DS

In which case, being a Pegasus Knight is not a statistic. Being immune to almost all terrain (closed village doors = one of the few non immunities), having a bunch of Speed, and having 8 move are. The latter are the basics which matter; the former is not.

Because SSS rank is less about skill and more about savestate abuse, it's said.

Either way.

It's a point for Pegasus to be able to do that.

It gives the pegasus knights a different ability that can't be properly compared to others' on a numerical scale - a tactical edge. As such, they have different possibilities open to them, even if their stats make them less efficient killers.

So, in a tier list, they would generally rank low because of their lower killing efficiency. Does that mean they should be ignored in favor of the higher tier units? Is Gatrie a better choice than Sigrun for a desert chapter? If the answer is no, congrats, you have made a (tier) list without any usefulness at all, as it measures in a numeric level things not easily mensurable/comparable.

Meg and Wendy suck because they suck starting out, and they're average later on. They're armors isn't even part of it. They lack defense, they lack offense, they lack everything. Maybe if they started out a lot better and had better in every stat then yeah they'd be good. Defense is not the main reason.

Some chars becoming fighters in FE DS is a bad option because they have 0% defense growth, regardless of the fact that they "shouldn't tank." Having little defense is a point against you no matter what class you are.

It should. As Fox said in another thread: Wendy sucks because she's a Pegasus Knight with Armor Knight caps. The same is valid for Meg: she has high growths for her stats with low caps (Spd/Res), and low growths for those with high caps (HP/Str/Def). Her combined growths are only 5% below Edward's, and her starting stats aren't exactly worse. Yet, Edward is considered one of the better Mook Brigade members, while Meg is the worst.

But what if enemies don't have high skill? What if the evasion is high enough that you don't need to worry? This is where individual enemy stats come in as well. But that has nothing to do with my point.

In FE10 I'm pretty sure Ike x Oscar A gets like 20% hits off of most enemies anyway. I got 0% hits in 4-1 because Ike had 32 Speed, but on average he'd have like 28 and it wouldn't be too much higher.

As I said, it's situational. If you have the upper hand (lolsety), evade may be a much better option. But, sometimes, it isn't an option at all. I hear it isn't even reliable in FE1/3/11, for instance.

A built up Meg can evade attacks because of decent speed. A built up Sigrun can't really because of bad speed. Note how they both contradict your point.

Sigrun, the worst PK, and Meg, the worst AK?

They are in any game not named Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragons.

Enemy-wise it matters because each class has its own base and growth, character wise class only matters when you want to get HM boosts, promotion items (6-8), and branch promotions (8). And when caps are relevant (4 and 10's endgames, which probably makes up 10-20% of the entirety of the game.)

There are four endgames in FE10 and two in FE4.

[Mekkah]

It gives the pegasus knights a different ability that can't be properly compared to others' on a numerical scale - a tactical edge. As such, they have different possibilities open to them, even if their stats make them less efficient killers.

So, in a tier list, they would generally rank low because of their lower killing efficiency. Does that mean they should be ignored in favor of the higher tier units? Is Gatrie a better choice than Sigrun for a desert chapter? If the answer is no, congrats, you have made a (tier) list without any usefulness at all, as it measures in a numeric level things not easily mensurable/comparable.

Just because it cannot be compared on a simple numerical scale does not make them incomparable. Sigrun has the advantage of flying all over the place in the desert, Gatrie is not. Congrats, she has more mobility. But mobility, like all other things pretty much, is a stat, something that can be compared to others. Not directly, but neither can you compare concepts like "Dieck supports two God tier units" vs "Alan is available for one more chapter".

[TheEnd]

Just because it cannot be compared on a simple numerical scale does not make them incomparable. Sigrun has the advantage of flying all over the place in the desert, Gatrie is not. Congrats, she has more mobility. But mobility, like all other things pretty much, is a stat, something that can be compared to others. Not directly, but neither can you compare concepts like "Dieck supports two God tier units" vs "Alan is available for one more chapter".

And then measure them in a semi-arbitrary way in order to make a list with questionable usefulness.

[Lord Raven]

Except we weigh things together and compare them between units. It's not even semi-arbitrary.

It should. As Fox said in another thread: Wendy sucks because she's a Pegasus Knight with Armor Knight caps. The same is valid for Meg: she has high growths for her stats with low caps (Spd/Res), and low growths for those with high caps (HP/Str/Def). Her combined growths are only 5% below Edward's, and her starting stats aren't exactly worse. Yet, Edward is considered one of the better Mook Brigade members, while Meg is the worst.

Edward's considered one of the lower-middle Pawn (not Mook) Brigade units. And that's because you have really really crappy characters below him.

Growth "total" is irrelevant, it's how it's spread out. If you have 500% growth in HP and 0% in every other stat, you fail horrendously (assuming your bases are like... Edward's bases, once again).

Finally, Meg sucks because her bases fail for that point in time. Later on it's because she cap rams her low cap rams her low classes, assuming you get her there in the first place.

As I said, it's situational. If you have the upper hand (lolsety), evade may be a much better option. But, sometimes, it isn't an option at all. I hear it isn't even reliable in FE1/3/11, for instance.

In FE1/3, Avoid isn't reliable because you can cap avoid at 40 where enemies have around 100 Hit. At best you're capping at 60, but enemies will still have a bunch of hit on you. That's what makes it unreliable in those games; too high hit with too little evade to go around. FE5's in a similar boat.

Unless you do that four way support with Bord/Cord/Barst/Ogma that gives +40% evade to someone. I forget the exact details, but you can probably get like 80 evade this way which makes it pretty reliable.

In FE9-10, an Ike/Oscar support gives +45 Evade (Well, Ike and Oscar get +42 avoid assuming ideal supports [in FE9], with is B with each other and A with Soren/Kieran respectively) which, in a game where avoid is reliable enough due to it being 2*AS + Luck, it dodges almost everything in the game.

Similar cases apply to FE6-8 only not nearly as applied, because they get 20 less evade. However, they can get potentially more defense.

Sigrun, the worst PK, and Meg, the worst AK?

Them being the "worst" doesn't make it any less a contradiction. Edited January 29, 2009 by Nathan Graves

[Florete]

As Fox said in another thread: Wendy sucks because she's a Pegasus Knight with Armor Knight caps. The same is valid for Meg:

I actually said that about Meg...I don't remember what I said exactly, but yeah, it's like what Nathan said. She sucks because her bases suck at her joining time and her caps later hinder her greatly. Low move, bad offense, bad defense. My analogy was just that; an analogy. What makes her really suck is her performance compared to other characters on her team, not how she pulls off her class stereotype.

[TheEnd]

Except we weigh things together and compare them between units. It's not even semi-arbitrary.

Using which criteria...? In the end, it's arbitrary, as you're ordering units that do different things in one list.

Edward's considered one of the lower-middle Pawn (not Mook) Brigade units. And that's because you have really really crappy characters below him.

I prefer the term Mook Brigade, personally, as they're basically mooks with faces. (Hell, Leonardo's base str/hp are lower than a generic archer! Can it get any more mook than that?) But I digress.

Growth "total" is irrelevant, it's how it's spread out. If you have 500% growth in HP and 0% in every other stat, you fail horrendously (assuming your bases are like... Edward's bases, once again).

If you have high growths in your low-capped stats and low growths in your high-capped, then... it means you suck because of your class.

Finally, Meg sucks because her bases fail for that point in time. Later on it's because she cap rams her low cap rams her low classes, assuming you get her there in the first place.

Her bases fail at that point of time because her level is low for that point of time.

In FE1/3, Avoid isn't reliable because you can cap avoid at 40 where enemies have around 100 Hit. At best you're capping at 60, but enemies will still have a bunch of hit on you. That's what makes it unreliable in those games; too high hit with too little evade to go around. FE5's in a similar boat.

Unless you do that four way support with Bord/Cord/Barst/Ogma that gives +40% evade to someone. I forget the exact details, but you can probably get like 80 evade this way which makes it pretty reliable.

In FE9-10, an Ike/Oscar support gives +45 Evade (Well, Ike and Oscar get +42 avoid assuming ideal supports [in FE9], with is B with each other and A with Soren/Kieran respectively) which, in a game where avoid is reliable enough due to it being 2*AS + Luck, it dodges almost everything in the game.

Similar cases apply to FE6-8 only not nearly as applied, because they get 20 less evade. However, they can get potentially more defense.

Don't think that I'm a defense fanboy here, though; I prefer avoid (lolsety, swordmasters and speedy in general + lolabuse) and don't generally don't use armor knights at all. It was playing RD that I noticed how much a group can suffer without a defense tank, as the Mook Brigade characters have no durability. At all. (And then face superior opponents in Part III, and the nightmare potentially begins anew.)

Either way, if an unit can dodge AND take a hit (lol greil mercs), it's clearly superior to one that can only take hits - you can compare that. Just like you can say that Haar blows both the generic armor and the default pegasus out of the water by being a flying tank. However, comparing the speedy non-durable flier to the solid slow tank and putting them in a single list?

Them being the "worst" doesn't make it any less a contradiction.

It does, because they don't properly fulfill the roles their classes allow them to have.

I actually said that about Meg...I don't remember what I said exactly, but yeah, it's like what Nathan said. She sucks because her bases suck at her joining time and her caps later hinder her greatly. Low move, bad offense, bad defense. My analogy was just that; an analogy. What makes her really suck is her performance compared to other characters on her team, not how she pulls off her class stereotype.

If you say her caps hinder her greatly, and that she has bad offense and defense, that's pretty much the same of saying that she's bad because she doesn't fit the armor knight stereotype.

[Lord Raven]

I prefer the term Mook Brigade, personally, as they're basically mooks with faces. (Hell, Leonardo's base str/hp are lower than a generic archer! Can it get any more mook than that?) But I digress.Wolt is even more of a mook than Leonardo. His stats are worse than the Archer's in the chapter he starts in too!

If you have high growths in your low-capped stats and low growths in your high-capped, then... it means you suck because of your class.

Probably. I don't think anyone denied that this is where class comes in.

Her bases fail at that point of time because her level is low for that point of time.

Renault's level is high and he fails

Don't think that I'm a defense fanboy here, though; I prefer avoid (lolsety, swordmasters and speedy in general + lolabuse) and don't generally don't use armor knights at all. It was playing RD that I noticed how much a group can suffer without a defense tank, as the Mook Brigade characters have no durability. At all. (And then face superior opponents in Part III, and the nightmare potentially begins anew.)

Part 3 with Mercs. :D

Either way, if an unit can dodge AND take a hit (lol greil mercs), it's clearly superior to one that can only take hits - you can compare that. Just like you can say that Haar blows both the generic armor and the default pegasus out of the water by being a flying tank. However, comparing the speedy non-durable flier to the solid slow tank and putting them in a single list?

It depends on how well they do either job.

First off, the flier has more move. Therefore she can move more, keep up with the group and help get chapters done faster. You have to stay behind for the armor. She's winning there.

But how non-durable is she? How durable is the slow tank? How well are they doing on offense? Compare these, weight them and see where it takes you. If the flier happens to have really good evade, it could be argued that they are winning durability - they're evading more, and the one attack they take in a blue moon makes up for the fact that they have very little defense. However, if this hit is near fatal, if not fatal, and the Armor takes literally zero damage from every attack, I'd put the lead towards the Armor.

See? This is why individual unit capability is more important than class. Until you hit stat caps anyawy, and even then very few times are those stat caps even relevant; 10 is one of the places where they are.

It does, because they don't properly fulfill the roles their classes allow them to have.

They're apart of their class. It contradicts your generalization.

If you say her caps hinder her greatly, and that she has bad offense and defense, that's pretty much the same of saying that she's bad because she doesn't fit the armor knight stereotype.

Her bad offense and defense aren't caused by her caps.

[Florete]

If you say her caps hinder her greatly, and that she has bad offense and defense, that's pretty much the same of saying that she's bad because she doesn't fit the armor knight stereotype.

Her caps later. As in, when she reaches her cap. Granted, this happens pretty fast in second and third tier, and like Nathan said, it's one of very few instances where class actually means something, since caps come with class and not the character. Point being, her stats suck upon joining compared to the rest of her team and she is never better than anyone (except when Fiona joins). This is why she sucks. It's not because she's an armor with low defense, it's because she's meant to fight but has bad durability offense, and mobility. Class has nothing to do with it. Her purpose on the field of battle is the same as Edward's, Aran's, Nolan's, etc.; to kill things and stay alive. She sucks because she fails to do either.