FE6 HM Tier List

[Dr. Tarrasque]

Yes, ma'am.

I already cried myself dry when you posted it. And now you want me to cry again!? You're so mean!

2. Please avoid making one-line posts, unless it adds something new or interesting to a discussion. Likewise, do not just quote another member and simply write "I agree", "quoted for truth", "no", etc. In these cases, make sure to at least explain why you agree or disagree. Anna says, "Care to expound on that thought?"

AKA Spam/off-topic response. If you have any questions, PM me or any other member of the staff. Don't do it here.

I agree, and when did anyone even say this was supposed to be a maximum efficiency tier list?

Came up after the "Wendy > Treck" thing by the same person.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Speedwagon

[Florete]

Came up after the "Wendy > Treck" thing by the same person.

But then what prompted that in the first place?

[Dr. Tarrasque]

But then what prompted that in the first place?

The Lot and Fir discussion which talked about how Lot's got some free slots in the earlygame chapter while Fir's got some competition for them soon as she comes in as well as being worse than the average Lot at that point which only Inui seems to disagree with.

Wendy > Treck

If we desire maximum efficiency, both will sit on the bench for the entire game. If Fir of all people is having problems with "LOL unit slots" then whatever Treck could have accomplished in comparison to Wendy is irreverent, because the opportunity cost of deploying him over someone better exceeds anything he can do on his own. However, Wendy has a free recruitment, so she can still sit on the bench for free. Treck requires you to sacrifice maximum efficiency for two turns or more just to be recruited, so he has an opportunity cost to even sitting on the bench.

Read around those posts.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Speedwagon

[CATS]

If this isn't maximum efficiency, then this entire tier list needs an overhaul. Sue being at bottom in the Illia Route of all places is pretty laughable. I have my reservations about the whole of the tier list and what it's based on, but it appears that even the general consensus is clueless. Therefore, I propose a simple formula: unit's performance = A+B+X+Y+Z

A = Base (relative to recruitment Ch. and starting lv.)

B = Growth (statistic potential)

X = Performance (overall)

Y = Consistency (longevity)

Z = Utility (overall usefulness and contribution to the team)

A few examples to demonstrate how this system works:

Lance

A = 9

B = 9

X = 10

Y = 10

Z = 10

48

Alan

A = 8

B = 9

X = 10

Y = 10

Z = 10

47

Dieck

A = 9

B = 7

X = 10

Y = 10

Z = 10

46

Wendy

A = 1

B = 5

X = 1

Y = 2

Z = 0

9

Top Tier =

High Tier =

High Mid =

Low Mid =

Low

Bottom = 1-10

The key principle is assigning numeric values based on the unit's performance and overall usefulness from the time it starts throughout the rest of the game. Relying on a selective group or higher-up to make arbitrary changes doesn't seem to be working and causes increased tension regarding the basis of a character's placement and their overall value relative to one another. I figured this system wold be more simplistic, effective, and help reduce the amount of senseless arguing.

Thoughts/comments?

imo post stuff like this in general FE, it's more an overall tier list concept idea than something specific to FE6

[Colonel M]

To be honest, that's what it seriously looked like: more whining about Fir. And once again I am going to state this as clear as a bell: I never said Fir cannot get a unit slot. If you seriously think that this Lot vs. Fir thing is around that, then I'm sorry to say but it isn't. Far from it. It was never a "maximum efficiency tier list" to begin with.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Tyranel M

[grandjackal]

That, and if you were to make a maximum efficiency deal, wouldn't one think that it would be best to have a turn-by-turn walkthrough instead?

[Colonel M]

Putting it bluntly: if this was a maximum efficiency tier list, just about everyone from Lower Mid down (and select Upper Mids) would just be bottom tier with some of the Low Mid units making it into a Utility Tier or something.

[CATS]

So, since it's not maximum efficiency, can you define exactly what the standards are?

[Colonel M]

So, since it's not maximum efficiency, can you define exactly what the standards are?

Yes I can. I just need a little time to do so. Is that alright?

Like a day or two.

[soundecho]

Why not go with the ambigious 'who helps me beat the game better', sure it's subjective but everything about a tierlist is subjective and stops crap like Wendy > Treck or some stuff.

[Colonel M]

Why not go with the ambigious 'who helps me beat the game better', sure it's subjective but everything about a tierlist is subjective and stops crap like Wendy > Treck or some stuff.

As much as I'd like to go the easy route, I'd just get more shit for doing so. Might as well go overboard with it.

[soundecho]

As much as I'd like to go the easy route, I'd just get more shit for doing so. Might as well go overboard with it.

I don't see how anyone could disagree with the premise, of the better unit = the one that helps me to beat the game better. It might be unclear as to what constitutes, helping to beat the game, but if multiple people agree, (or majority) I don't see how it would fail.

Edited March 6, 2010 by soundecho

[Reikken]

Why not go with the ambigious 'who helps me beat the game better'

"Maximum efficiency" has this as its goal.

[soundecho]

Maximum efficiency is more like who can help be beat the game the fastest, and who can make the most pot shots while they have a free unit slot or some crap like that.

It's hard to explain, but look at S Ranking. A single unit isn't required to S rank the game, but a individuals help more than others.

[Reikken]

Indeed, "who can help be beat the game the fastest". And also do so the most reliably. In other words, who can help be beat the game the best. Which is exactly what you said.

[Snowy_One]

Because that isn't what he said Reikken. Maximum efficiency and low turn counts do not coincide. It may be more efficient to hang out on one level and get EXP for later on than to beat it in one to two turns and have trouble later on because you are now lacking in level. FE10 has some nice examples of this IIRC. In terms of units, one that helps you beat the game better may be a weak unit who has a high DEF stat and is great for luring out some power enemy or such (never played FE6, so I don't know if that happens here) over a unit who may have lower defense to the point of risking death, but kills the foes faster.

[Dat Nick]

Here's the difference between Maximum Efficiency and "Normal" Efficiency:

In "Normal" Efficiency, the most effective units are placed near the top, which is...pretty much the only positive of the Maximum Efficiency list?

In "Maximum" Efficiency, everybody who isn't part of the top 12 cast or isn't forced or isn't super helpful like Zealot gets sandbagged to death. Fir, alongside 3/4ths of the rest of the cast, would all get shoved into low tier. There's really no point in creating such awful standards.

Edited March 6, 2010 by s Portsman

[CATS]

Here's the difference between Maximum Efficiency and "Normal" Efficiency:

In "Normal" Efficiency, the most effective units are placed near the top, which is...pretty much the only positive of the Maximum Efficiency list?

In "Maximum" Efficiency, everybody who isn't part of the top 12 cast or isn't forced or isn't super helpful like Zealot gets sandbagged to death. Fir, alongside 3/4ths of the rest of the cast, would all get shoved into low tier. There's really no point in creating such awful standards.

"The most effective units are placed near the top?" And here we see that the definition of "Normal Efficiency" is still incredibly vague and not actually defined at all.

I find it ironic that so many people think these standards are so horrible, when it was this community that came up with the idea and decided to implement it over ranks.

[-Cynthia-]

I'm not sure any tier list has ever implemented "maximum efficiency" as you seem to define it, instead it's something you decided to manufacture because there isn't a concrete definition of efficiency we can point to.

There are various reasons we avoid ranks, for one the ranks themselves can contadict each other (IE Exp and Tactics). Plus, some games do not have ranks, so we have to measure them somehow.

[Dat Nick]

And here we see that the definition of "Normal Efficiency" is still incredibly vague and not actually defined at all.

If this quote has any actual meaning, then please enlighten me on said meaning. The reason you don't see a more detailed elaboration of "Normal Efficiency" is because the goal of that post was not to describe what "Normal Efficiency" is, but rather, that Normal Efficiency accomplishes the only point of a "Maximum Efficiency" list perfectly well, and doesn't sandbag the lower tiers in contrast.

[Colonel M]

Maximum Efficiency can still mean more things than just "time". For example, wouldn't it be more efficient to train Dieck in the arena to 20/0, promote him, and have him + Alan + Lance sweep the rest of the game? You can add Rutger after C11, Clarine after C8, and usuals like Lalum / Elphin, Percival, and Miledy. And like I said, following max efficiency would make it look like this:

-Used-

Lance

Alan

Dieck

Rutger

Miredy

Percival

Clarine

Lalum

Elphin

-Utility-

Marcus

Zealot

Niime

Echinda

Lot

Ward

Chad

Astohl

Cecilia

Bartre

Klein

Thany

Garret

Walt

Bors

Ward

Fa

-Not Used-

Everyone Else

Something to that extent. Maximum Efficiency is a completely different list from a regular efficiency list because normal efficiency, while it recognizes good units, also ensumes that the Lower Tiers will be played as long term units or as utility units, pending on which either one recommends or has the most positives. Treck would likely be used as a long term unit while Wendy would be used as for her one chapter and just basically become a deadweight because she can not amount to much. Treck can at least become an average joe and become a decent unit when trained.

There is a ruleset added. Likely going to get attacked with it, so guess I'm prepared.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Tyranel M

[CATS]

I'm not sure any tier list has ever implemented "maximum efficiency" as you seem to define it, instead it's something you decided to manufacture because there isn't a concrete definition of efficiency we can point to.

There are various reasons we avoid ranks, for one the ranks themselves can contadict each other (IE Exp and Tactics). Plus, some games do not have ranks, so we have to measure them somehow.

Manufacture? The only one who manufactured it was the person who decided to define efficiency by turncount and by this, from ye olde tier list FAQ:

"Characters are compared based on how they contribute towards an efficient playthrough."

Under such standards arguments such as Wendy > Treck are perfectly logical. No tier list has taken the implications of this to its full extent, but that's only because people have strong negative opinions of certain conclusions drawn by those implications, and subsequently ignore or disregard them even though they are logically valid. If you want to be inconsistent because your personal opinions don't line up with some of the logically valid positions, that's cool; but at least acknowledge that that's what's happening and don't accuse me of making shit up, when in reality it's you who is making things up when you post stuff like "You don't seem to grasp the concept of the tier list. It's not 'how do you finish the game as efficiently as possible' it's 'how do you finish the game as efficiently as possible, while using unit X (when unit X is the one being tiered).'"

The ranks contradict each other? What do you mean by "contradict" each other? Are you suggesting that it's always desirable to have only a single goal as opposed to several goals?

If this quote has any actual meaning, then please enlighten me on said meaning. The reason you don't see a more detailed elaboration of "Normal Efficiency" is because the goal of that post was not to describe what "Normal Efficiency" is, but rather, that Normal Efficiency accomplishes the only point of a "Maximum Efficiency" list perfectly well, and doesn't sandbag the lower tiers in contrast.

The point is that you have no clear definition for "Normal Efficiency" beyond a general sense that it "doesn't sandbag the lower tiers."

[Inui]

Not bad. I like seeing "effort" added to the efficiency stuff, so now more than just turn count matters. Percival up! That son of a bitch comes with 20/15 stats at 20/5 with no cost or effort. :D

But then there's that availability stuff being hyped again... Being there + being good is all that should matter. Being there + being sucky/mediocre shouldn't automatically entitle some unit to more than a later joiner that's much better.

[Dat Nick]

Under such standards arguments such as Wendy > Treck are perfectly logical.

What you constantly fail to realize is that these standards are retarded.

The point is that you have no clear definition for "Normal Efficiency" beyond a general sense that it "doesn't sandbag the lower tiers."

Why not? Because I didn't try to make one. Why not? BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT THE POINT OF MY POST. The point of my post was to illustrate that a "Normal Efficiency" list is basically the exact same thing as a Maximum Efficiency list; the difference is, the lower tiers don't get sandbagged to death.

[CATS]

What you constantly fail to realize is that these standards are retarded.

I agree that standards which produce such arguments are undesirable. That's why I linked to smash's topic where he proposed a solution. That doesn't change the fact that, under the currently accepted standards (or atleast, what was accepted and defined at the time), such arguments are indeed perfectly logical, no matter how "retarded" you might think they are.

Why not? Because I didn't try to make one. Why not? BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT THE POINT OF MY POST. The point of my post was to illustrate that a "Normal Efficiency" list is basically the exact same thing as a Maximum Efficiency list; the difference is, the lower tiers don't get sandbagged to death.

OKAY, AND THAT WAS NOT THE POINT OF MY POST, EITHER.

The point of my post was to point out that "the lower tiers don't get sandbagged" is an incredibly vague standard by which to judge their performance. What is meant by "they don't get sandbagged?" It's not clear at all.

Edited March 6, 2010 by CATS