FE6 HM Tier List

[Dat Nick]

"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."

Please point me to the standards in this topic where such idiologicaly is accepted. For that matter, point me to the standards on any tier list that isn't the FEDS Warpskip tier list that apply to these standards. Didn't find any? That's what I thought.

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.

It means. EXACTLY what I just said. Even you can see that Wendy>Treck sandbags Treck. A ton.

[CATS]

Please point me to the standards in this topic where such idiologicaly is accepted. For that matter, point me to the standards on any tier list that isn't the FEDS Warpskip tier list that apply to these standards. Didn't find any? That's what I thought.

I already posted them. I guess your eyes skipped over the post for some reason. Here it is again:

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."

[Dat Nick]

Okay, and since you apparently can't read, I'll ask YOU to find a tier list that isn't the warpskip list that actually abides by this rule to the point where such extremes like Wendy>Treck are actually considered.

Edited March 6, 2010 by s Portsman

[-Cynthia-]

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."

That doesn't say anything about only using the absolute best characters at any given time, you just assumed that for some reason.

In fact it also says "You only account for the contributions a character provides when they are playable. If a character starts off as say, an enemy before being recruited, then the actions that character takes as an enemy will not be held against his/her ranking."

So yes it says to tier characters based on what they contribute while playable. Hpow can you determine this if they are not even being played?

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).'"

No, you made shit up and that's what started this whole mess. Your lack of reading comprehension formulated the idea that "efficiency" means only using the best units possible. If you had ever even glanced at any efficiency tier lists already in existence, it would be abudantly clear that this is not the case. The implications you're talking about don't actually exist.

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?

I find it really sad that you quote the tier list faq in this post and yet you clearly didn't read it. It mentions contradictory ranks right in there!

Asking for another definition of a very basic concept? I think it's pretty clear how something like Exp and Tactics contradict each tother, it means we can't use the units that would clear chapters the fastest, since they often yield less Exp. Funds is contradictory with pretty much every other rank since it values the player not actually using their decent items etc.

[dondon151]

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.

We (as a community) have been through this stage already. What qualifies a unit as being "good?" I think that "good" is either defined as having a lower opportunity cost than benefit (i.e. the best unit to use in a given situation) or as having any sort of benefit. If we drew the line somewhere in the middle, then the list would be rife with inconsistencies with regard to availability. Why would one unit be considered "good" while another would be considered "bad," thereby reversing the impact of availability, if both are sub-optimal?

[CATS]

Okay, and since you apparently can't read, I'll ask YOU to find a tier list that isn't the warpskip list that actually abides by this rule to the point where such extremes like Wendy>Treck are actually considered.

What's your point? The fact that such arguments are disregarded hardly means that they aren't logically valid. Rather, it only means that the tier list is inconsistent.

That doesn't say anything about only using the absolute best characters at any given time, you just assumed that for some reason.

Certainly it does say that. Not directly, but it is the obvious implication. Characters are compared based on how they contribute towards an efficient playthrough. Are bad or mediocre units being used on an efficient playthrough? No, they aren't. If it said "characters are compared based on how they contribute towards a semi-efficient playthrough, or a sort of efficient playthrough, or a playthrough where the player uses bad units but otherwise makes good choices," that would be different, but that is clearly not what is stated.

Efficiency is defined as low turncount; hence, when one refers to an "efficient run," it can be assumed that one is referring to a playthrough where the player aims to achieve the lowest turncount, and using the best units is part of that. Without any additional qualifications given, it is blatantly contradictory to say that the player is playing "efficiently" and then turn around and claim that they will also make poor choices which hinder the goal of low turncount, such as fielding bad or mediocre units.

In fact it also says "You only account for the contributions a character provides when they are playable. If a character starts off as say, an enemy before being recruited, then the actions that character takes as an enemy will not be held against his/her ranking."

So yes it says to tier characters based on what they contribute while playable. Hpow can you determine this if they are not even being played?

How are they not being played? Wendy certainly gets played. She participates in Ch 8. Nowhere is it stated that "played" means that a unit must be deployed in every chapter possible.

How can you accuse me of making shit up, then turn around and repeatedly insist on something that is not stated, defined or supported anywhere? I plainly don't understand.

I find it really sad that you quote the tier list faq in this post and yet you clearly didn't read it. It mentions contradictory ranks right in there!

I read it. It says the exact same thing that you originally said. Indeed, each rank hinders the accomplishment of the other ranks. So what? It is implied that standards with multiple goals are undesirable; I don't understand why.

[Narga_Rocks]

Is everyone forgetting why the tier list FAQ was created? It wasn't created to make a set of rules for the debaters to follow, or to help define what a list is. It was created because Superbus went on a rant about how tier lists are ruining a community because people that spend 30+ turns a chapter milking reinforcements and proceeding cautiously and possibly arena abusing come in tier list topics, talk about how amazing Nino is and get told that their "opinion" is wrong, blah blah blah, and that people should be allowed to like who they want (despite how we never told people they can't like/use Nino). I can link you to the topic if you like. It was locked but not deleted.

The FAQ is basically a compromise to attempt to minimize the number of people that come onto tier list topics and make dumb arguments and end up complaining about it. (Whether or not it is working is not the purpose of this post.) It was not created by multiple people spending time to discuss what is and isn't efficient play, or anything like that. It was just about the basics, but it was never (I don't think, anyway) meant to be some kind of tier list bible. Pulling stuff from the tier list FAQ and attempting to use it for saying why Wendy > Treck is a logical consequence of our tier list standards is pointless.

[-Cynthia-]

Is everyone forgetting why the tier list FAQ was created? It wasn't created to make a set of rules for the debaters to follow, or to help define what a list is. It was created because Superbus went on a rant about how tier lists are ruining a community because people that spend 30+ turns a chapter milking reinforcements and proceeding cautiously and possibly arena abusing come in tier list topics, talk about how amazing Nino is and get told that their "opinion" is wrong, blah blah blah, and that people should be allowed to like who they want (despite how we never told people they can't like/use Nino). I can link you to the topic if you like. It was locked but not deleted.

The FAQ is basically a compromise to attempt to minimize the number of people that come onto tier list topics and make dumb arguments and end up complaining about it. (Whether or not it is working is not the purpose of this post.) It was not created by multiple people spending time to discuss what is and isn't efficient play, or anything like that. It was just about the basics, but it was never (I don't think, anyway) meant to be some kind of tier list bible. Pulling stuff from the tier list FAQ and attempting to use it for saying why Wendy > Treck is a logical consequence of our tier list standards is pointless.

Exactly, the tier list faq doesn't say anything about maximizing efficiency by not fielding the units we're comparing. Just because the current tier lists do not fit the view of efficiency that CATS pulled out of his rear does not mean they are logically inconsistent.

Edited March 6, 2010 by -Cynthia-

[CATS]

You are arguing that there are additional qualifications to the definition of efficiency, beyond only the achievement of low turncounts, when previously such additional qualifications did not exist, had no logical basis, and were not stated anywhere. Realize that, prior to this discussion, the OP of this list had no guidelines in it whatsoever.

Since those guidelines now do exist, let's examine the guidelines Colonel M edited into the OP.

"When Arguing With Units, You Are to Assume The Unit Is Being Used"

This is to delete the recruitment costs of a unit to prevent sandbagging certain units from their more correct tier placements. This statement also promises that the unit will be used throughout the entire game or, in utility unit's cases, until either their positives are less profound or they become a negative to the team. I will not assume that a Unit will be used in Gaiden Chapters; however, due to the restrained deployment slots in most, if not all of them. A unit that is forced is considered a positive under most circumstances with the rare occassion that they make the Chapter(s) completely inefficient. For example, while Ward is considered a positive throughout his earlygame chapters due to what amount of damage counts, units such as Wendy can have profound negatives because they have major negatives that outweigh their minor positives. This is also to prevent auto-toping Roy due to not taking up a unit slot.

From this, I'm getting several things.

1. Recruitment costs are disregarded entirely.

2. Units who have no appreciable utility are used throughout the entire game for purposes of comparison to each other. Units who do have significant amounts of utility if used only during certain periods are not forced into play throughout the game, and presumably they are ranked higher than units who have no or much less utility. I'm making this assumption because Marcus is still really high, almost high tier, so correct me if I'm wrong.

3. The exception is Gaiden chapters, where bad units aren't fielded due to low numbers of deployment slots.

4. Forced deployment utility is still a positive for characters who have it.

So for an example of how this would apply to comparisons, I'll take Ward vs Treck.

Neither one is ever getting used outside forced chapters, so it can be assumed that neither one has any appreciable utility; hence for purposes of comparison, it is assumed that both are used in every chapter possible.

Ward does have a few forced chapters where he's helpful without any cost of deployment, so that counts in his favor. If they're pretty close throughout the rest of the game, the fact that Ward gets a few forced chapters might tip the scales in his favor. If Treck is much better throughout the rest of the game, then he still wins; the team that uses Ward is better off in those early chapters where he's forced, but the team that uses Treck is better for the rest of the game.

Recruitment costs are ignored, so the difficulty of Treck's recruitment does not count against him.

Neither one is getting used in Gaiden chapters, so while doing comparisons between the two, those are ignored.

These guidelines also produce the desired Treck > Wendy conclusion.

Is this correct and acceptable, Colonel M? I'm just trying to clarify this stuff so that this discussion need not occur again in the future.

[Colonel M]

Sounds about right. Again, I am the first to admit that I am not perfect, so there could be kinks in the rules that can be tweaked. But, from what you stated, that sounds about where I was going and, hopefuuly, what tier lists before were going into.

Maximum Efficiency is why I hate lists such as the FEDS Warpskip Tier Lists which seems nothing more but the list similar to dondon's (which is ran by Rody) probably looks like in that spectrum. Even if I was forced to call the other list (well if I had ownership of it anyway) semi-efficiency just to make that list completely disappear, I would do so. Maximum Efficiency, literally, kills discussion and then most of the list can become an availibility-fest. Again, though, I'm just voicing my opinion and just making sure that conjectures such as Wendy > Treck are not assumed (because in most instances we'd favor Treck because he can amount to something if used, for example). It probably works backwards in other instances, but I guess we'll have to see about that.

When I read smash's topic, this was something that kind of flew into my head, so it's not precisely "the solution" that you and / or others were looking for, but, IMO, it's fairly close.

If you were to apply it to Marcus vs. Eliwood, because Marcus has a greater period of positive utility than Eliwood's wins lategame are, it can likely prove Marcus > Eliwood. The tier difference can use that as well as minimum needs to make Marcus a good unit (no Knight Crest, solid weapon ranks) and has shortcuts to fix his minor doubling propblems (Brave Weapons, Speedwing). Granted that both come at an opportunity cost, but he can use the items to their fullest potential. Meanwhile, Eliwood's only advantages vs. Marucs is possibly a better lategame, some chapters that have him forced (C26 for example), and a faster leveling speed. Due to Marcus's bases; however, it would still take Eliwood a while to either surpass or tie Marcus in his offensive and defensive parameters. Even when you total up Eliwood's advantages to Marcus's, you can (hopefully) see a tier difference between the two in Marcus's favor.

So yeah, my little spheal. A crappy Pokemon, yes, but hopefully driving down the points wanted to be seen from the tier community. Admitting that my logic isn't perfect, but hoping that I made a positive effort toward the tier list.

[CATS]

It seems pretty solid to me. It's totally arbitrary, but it gives clearly defined parameters for discussion (which is really all I wanted to see), so I'm fine with it.

[Inference]

Well, my proposal went about as well as could be expected.

You know, you guys could save yourselves a lot of trouble if you stopped arguing about arbitrary bullshit like "free slots" and everything because even if a unit is forced earlygame, if you know it has low growth potential, you'll make a conscious effort to use it only when necessary and keep it from getting kills and wasting experience. This tier list should be assuming that any character you seriously plan on using will be used long-term (this game is team-based, that's the entire point) and how much their performance will stack up with their investment.

Units like Sophia and Wendy are bad because they come in at extremely inconvenient bases and levels with no outstanding growth potential. Treck is easy to recruit and any attempt to argue otherwise is splitting hairs. What really matters is that his stats are perfectly average for a cavalier with more of an emphasis on tanking. You pull up some averages, decide that Lance and Alan are way better, so he shouldn't be anywhere near as high as them. Then you continue the comparisons from there.

This is not a speedrun tier list, so you're capable of using whoever you want at your own volition, regardless of their competition. What matters is whether or not the unit is viable in its own right, as well as how useful they will be in completing the game. From most of the arguments I've seen in this thread, people tend to assume the latter rather than the former, when they should be assuming both.

"Fir is better than Lot because both are comparably easy to train for their time, but Fir has greater statistical averages, as well as the swordmaster crit bonus."

Bam, see how easy that was? These are the kinds of arguments that should decide where a unit places on the tier list. It doesn't matter if a unit is free if it's going to be useless for more turns, as well as require more training when X unit can come in later in the game with awesome bases and growths. Percival is a living testament to that fact.

Also, shouldn't there be a separate tier list for Hard Mode? A lot of units receive considerable boosts in their favor by virtue of the fact that they start off as enemies and get a free couple of points to every stat. Rutger and Fir could definitely move a place or two higher for their Hard Mode bonuses.

[Rewjeo]

Doesn't this list assume HM?

[dondon151]

You know, you guys could save yourselves a lot of trouble if you stopped arguing about arbitrary bullshit like "free slots" and everything because even if a unit is forced earlygame, if you know it has low growth potential, you'll make a conscious effort to use it only when necessary and keep it from getting kills and wasting experience. This tier list should be assuming that any character you seriously plan on using will be used long-term (this game is team-based, that's the entire point) and how much their performance will stack up with their investment.

But this completely circumvents the fact that opportunity costs exist and are considered in every other decision-making process in real life.

[Florete]

Also, shouldn't there be a separate tier list for Hard Mode? A lot of units receive considerable boosts in their favor by virtue of the fact that they start off as enemies and get a free couple of points to every stat. Rutger and Fir could definitely move a place or two higher for their Hard Mode bonuses.

Doesn't this list assume HM?

Yeah, this list is already for HM.

[-Cynthia-]

"Fir is better than Lot because both are comparably easy to train for their time, but Fir has greater statistical averages, as well as the swordmaster crit bonus."

I think the debate about Lot seems to come from two camps, one who thinks he's useless before Fir joins, and another group who thinks he contributes positively. For the first group it's clear FIr> Lot, for the second it's trying to balance her superior post-promotion performance against his earlygame utility.

Edited March 7, 2010 by -Cynthia-

[dondon151]

I think the debate about Lot seems to come from two camps, one who thinks he's useless before Fir joins, and another group who thinks he contributes positively. For the first group it's clear FIr> Lot, for the second it's trying to balance her superior post-promotion performance against his earlygame utility.

Pretty sure that in either case Lot > Fir, because barring logical inconsistencies, Fir is as, if not more, useless than Lot when she joins.

[Inui]

Pretty sure that in either case Lot > Fir, because barring logical inconsistencies, Fir is as, if not more, useless than Lot when she joins.

Yup, top 5 offense when she joins = useless. Lot being bottom in offense forever is awesome.

[Colonel M]

Yup, top 5 offense when she joins = useless. Lot being bottom in offense forever is awesome.

Fir being pretty low on durability isn't that great either. She just has it on her pretty axe users or if she camps in a forest in Ilia. Nothing special really.

[-Cynthia-]

Pretty sure that in either case Lot > Fir, because barring logical inconsistencies, Fir is as, if not more, useless than Lot when she joins.

Meh, she's worse at jointime, but does surpass Lot eventually.

[dondon151]

Yup, top 5 offense when she joins = useless. Lot being bottom in offense forever is awesome.

Once again:

Well, Roy, Marcus, and Zealot are pretty much automatically deployed. Rutger beats Fir's offense without question. 1 to 2 healers are guaranteed to be deployed. Dieck also has superior offense as long as he doubles, but he can pull out a Steel Blade anyway. Astohl has superior offense and 1 more move. Alan, Lance, and Noah are all mounted, so even if their offense is worse, they still contribute more towards efficient completion (Lance doubles all enemies and Alan/Noah double Steel Axe fighters). There you go, that's at least 10 units with higher deployment priority than Fir. Lilina is required for 10E and Gonzo is available for 11E, plus Thany is a pretty good choice there too.

Zealot, Dieck, Rutger, Astohl all have superior offense to Fir. Shin does as well. Alan and Noah win offense if they double. At this point in the game, we don't need a 5th string (at best) combat unit. If the general strategy is to use mounted units to set up kills on enemy phase (for non-mounted units), then you really don't need that many excellent combat units to perform cleanup duty. You already have Dieck, Rutger, and Astohl for that job.

[Colonel M]

Meh, she's worse at jointime, but does surpass Lot eventually.

Define surpassing though. If you mean offensively, then okay that's something I might agree on. If it's durability, then I'm sorry to say but Fir is way out of Lot's league to be honest. Granted, I'm willing to show it in the upcoming debate with Inui and I so *shrug*. I'm just saying Fir's side is not exactly looking at the other side, and I guess it's possible Lot's side isn't completely looking at Fir either.

Lot's durability gives him more exposure on the Enemy Phase. This means that he can participate in two phases rather easily and not be a major offensive liability because of it. That's something that is being sorely missed here.

Also before you say "dondon's argument is hinging against my rule with deployment", what he's trying to say is that her offense isn't that special during her deployment until ~after promotion where she gets the +30 Crit to help her offense.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Tyranel M

[Reikken]

Yup, top 5 offense when she joins

yeah, just too bad that she doesn't have top 5 offense when she joins

Add Chad to that list of units beating Fir in offense. I dunno why he's not listed. He's awesome in western isles, especially with a B Lugh. 15/0 Chad w/ B Lugh is rocking 20 spd and 11 base atk. and a billion and a half avo.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Reikken

[Narga_Rocks]

yeah, just too bad that she doesn't have top 5 offense when she joins

Add Chad to that list of units beating Fir in offense. I dunno why he's not listed. He's awesome in western isles, especially with a B Lugh. 15/0 Chad w/ B Lugh is rocking 20 spd and 11 base atk. and a billion and a half avo.

You know, before this latest edit when you were talking about how you didn't read far enough past his post and he was already shot down...every post that counters Inui and is by someone he knows on FEF is a good thing because it makes it look less like the people at SF alone are against what he's saying. So even if one time you happen to see 6 or 7 regular debaters from SF counter (or attempt to counter) a point made by Inui, feel free to chime in should you also disagree with Inui (and obviously, chime in if you agree with him, too).

(Now, when I say "chime in", I of course mean something like the post you just made, rather than an "I agree with _____" or something. Not that I think you'd do that, but it's just something I have to say now.)

[GreatEclipse]

I agree completely with Inference. Tier topics where pointless fun before all this pseudo-intellectual talk of “opportunity cost”. Under the current system, Treck can be on the front lines making meaningful contributions every turn, and still accumulate “negative utility” simply because someone slightly better is sitting on the bench. This is absurd, and is not how you view things when you actually play the game. Treck is not suddenly giving a worse performance than he would normally because you dropped Dieck in order to deploy him.

As for Fir vs. Lott, I would consider Bartre and Noah supports to be perfectly viable. Both are as good if not better than Lott when they exist, and all three are capable of making meaningful contributions on there own, so deployment is a non-issue for me.