FE6 HM Tier List

[WeaponsofMassConstruction]

Deploying Marcus lategame has no disadvantage to not deploying him under free deployment spot rules. 1. If you can't keep him out of trouble you suck and 2. He can just strategically die at any point if that's the best you can get out of him.

[CATS]

These optimal deployment arguments are still going around in the same circles? It's been established that the idea of optimal deployment makes logical sense, and the counter-argument of "but then you can only tier the top 10 units and that's stupid" is arbitrary and subjective, and based simply on one's personal opinion of what is or isn't "stupid."

All that needs to be done is for people to decide that the tier list is objective (or rather, attempts to be) and that personal opinions such as "I think that's a stupid way to do the tier list!" have no place in it. The list can't afford to cater to each individual's perception of what feels intuitive in a tier list. If it does attempt to cater to everyone's personal opinions, these types of arguments will go on forever, and no real progress will be made to get past them. I guess you could try that if you want to, but I would think it better to simply make the objective choice, and tell the people who think it's stupid to get over it, maybe make their own list if they so badly want their own personal opinions of what's intuitive to be represented.

[Colonel M]

Honestly, optimal deployment makes perfect sense, and I must say that I do agree with CATS on the premise that we obviously cannot cater to every single individual's problems with it. The biggest thing is that we use these opportunity costs every day, and that it does not mean only the top 10 units are being listed obviously. Conversely, things such as Treck > Wendy cannot happen since under an efficient spectrum Treck will contribute more to an efficient stand point than Wendy does ever (fails in time spectrum due to shitty movement and not clearing enemies quickly, takes many resources to even get close to par, and let's not get started on her accuracy issues either). It also doesn't instigate a negative penalty on a unit that is unoptimal, since already the unoptimal unit is unlikely to be fielded. You can still argue units like Fir can be optimal deployment when trained with minimal resources while Walt's optimal deployment is limited to his forced chapters, or other contributing factors.

I mean, let's seriously ask ourselves here. Okay, we've used Fir from time to time. Though tell me the last time anyone has seriously used Oujay for example.

[Narga_Rocks]

These optimal deployment arguments are still going around in the same circles? It's been established that the idea of optimal deployment makes logical sense, and the counter-argument of "but then you can only tier the top 10 units and that's stupid" is arbitrary and subjective, and based simply on one's personal opinion of what is or isn't "stupid."

All that needs to be done is for people to decide that the tier list is objective (or rather, attempts to be) and that personal opinions such as "I think that's a stupid way to do the tier list!" have no place in it. The list can't afford to cater to each individual's perception of what feels intuitive in a tier list. If it does attempt to cater to everyone's personal opinions, these types of arguments will go on forever, and no real progress will be made to get past them. I guess you could try that if you want to, but I would think it better to simply make the objective choice, and tell the people who think it's stupid to get over it, maybe make their own list if they so badly want their own personal opinions of what's intuitive to be represented.

But what is the idea behind a tier list? Optimal deployment can result in units that clearly suck above units that are decent. If the sucky unit has 3 or 4 forced chapters (or even 1 like happens in fe6 a few times) and the decent unit never does, or has little opportunity in its free chapter, then sucky > decent. It depends on what you want the list to show. If you want the list to show who contributes the most when you use only the best in any given situation to plow through the game then fine, optimal deployment works. If you want to show how useful characters can be if you use them a bit more, your self-proclaimed "objective" opinion doesn't really work for a list like that.

Here's the thing: just because you like your opinion doesn't mean it is "objective". It's just what you think is "objective". Wanting something to be objective doesn't make it objective.

[Anouleth]

These optimal deployment arguments are still going around in the same circles? It's been established that the idea of optimal deployment makes logical sense, and the counter-argument of "but then you can only tier the top 10 units and that's stupid" is arbitrary and subjective, and based simply on one's personal opinion of what is or isn't "stupid."

All that needs to be done is for people to decide that the tier list is objective (or rather, attempts to be) and that personal opinions such as "I think that's a stupid way to do the tier list!" have no place in it. The list can't afford to cater to each individual's perception of what feels intuitive in a tier list. If it does attempt to cater to everyone's personal opinions, these types of arguments will go on forever, and no real progress will be made to get past them. I guess you could try that if you want to, but I would think it better to simply make the objective choice, and tell the people who think it's stupid to get over it, maybe make their own list if they so badly want their own personal opinions of what's intuitive to be represented.

Well, that depends on what kind of rules you want to use as a basis for a tier list - which is really a matter of personal opinion. Some people prefer to argue optimal deployment, some people prefer to argue with more than one team being considered. We're not on some sort of appointed task to make a 100% objective tier list (if that's even possible). If we want to change the rules of the list because we feel that they produce a tier list that does not reflect the reality of what happens in the game, we can.

[dondon151]

But what is the idea behind a tier list? Optimal deployment can result in units that clearly suck above units that are decent.

A counterintuitive principle is not necessarily incorrect. It seems counterintuitive that a firm not making a positive economic profit should not close down, but it is still true nonetheless.

[Narga_Rocks]

A counterintuitive principle is not necessarily incorrect. It seems counterintuitive that a firm not making a positive economic profit should not close down, but it is still true nonetheless.

It's not counterintuitive at all if you know why they aren't closing. There are generally fixed costs that won't simply go away. If they are losing less money than they would if they simply shut down, they stay open. If they are losing more money than they would if they shut down, they shut down. There is a threshold.

sanaki > Bastian is perhaps the firm that should stay open to minimize losses.

sanaki > stefan is the firm that should shut down.

(I wish I had a good fe6 example)

[dondon151]

Exactly. Isn't this much the same case? It is not counterintuitive if you know why a statistically superior character is considered worse due to greater deployment competition.

[CATS]

But what is the idea behind a tier list? Optimal deployment can result in units that clearly suck above units that are decent. If the sucky unit has 3 or 4 forced chapters (or even 1 like happens in fe6 a few times) and the decent unit never does, or has little opportunity in its free chapter, then sucky > decent. It depends on what you want the list to show. If you want the list to show who contributes the most when you use only the best in any given situation to plow through the game then fine, optimal deployment works. If you want to show how useful characters can be if you use them a bit more, your self-proclaimed "objective" opinion doesn't really work for a list like that.

The deciding factor is the goal of the tier list, you're right. Last I checked, the goal was to rank units based on contributions towards a low turncount--correct me if I'm wrong here. That's where the issue lies. I guess some people just don't think the tier list has any sort of goal, and that the point of the list is simply up for grabs--shockingly, that's not actually the case at all, and the tier list has had a defined goal from day one. So why are people allowed to barge in, pretend that the mission statement isn't there, and then try to substitute their personal opinions for it?

Now, working from this goal, it is entirely possible to reach objective conclusions. Yes, a unit with 5 forced chapters and bad stats will contribute more towards a low turncount than a unit with no forced chapters and better stats, but still not good enough stats to earn a deployment slot. If there is something subjective at work there, and some way in which my personal opinions are influencing that conclusion and twisting the facts, you will have to explain it to me, because I don't see it. Maybe it is counter-intuitive; but I don't see that it's illogical or incorrect, and that's all the list should be concerned with.

Here's the thing: just because you like your opinion doesn't mean it is "objective". It's just what you think is "objective". Wanting something to be objective doesn't make it objective.

That's the problem, you don't seem to think an objective position exists. Everyone's viewpoint is "just their opinion" (or at least, you obviously think this of me--I'm going to therefore give everyone else the benefit of the doubt, and assume you would apply the same standard to anyone else). With that mindset, it's no wonder that these discussions simply chase their own tails around forever. If no one can be right, then why bother arguing at all?

Well, that depends on what kind of rules you want to use as a basis for a tier list - which is really a matter of personal opinion.

Yes. So, if someone could define a standard other than the so-called "maximum efficiency" which is entirely quantifiable and internally consistent, and then hold a poll in which the majority of voters wanted to use that standard over "maximum efficiency," then I'd say the tier list should adopt that new standard and alter its mission statement accordingly. That has never happened, though. Instead, these arguments about the tier list's standards have mostly consisted of people attempting to shove their personal views on what's intuitive down everyone else's throats, which they should have no right to do.

[Narga_Rocks]

The deciding factor is the goal of the tier list, you're right. Last I checked, the goal was to rank units based on contributions towards a low turncount--correct me if I'm wrong here. That's where the issue lies. I guess some people just don't think the tier list has any sort of goal, and that the point of the list is simply up for grabs--shockingly, that's not actually the case at all, and the tier list has had a defined goal from day one. So why are people allowed to barge in, pretend that the mission statement isn't there, and then try to substitute their personal opinions for it?

Low turncounts under what conditions? Where only the best are ever deployed? How about looking at what units can do for you when they are deployed? That still has the tier list as "contributions towards a low turncount". When they are used, how do they do?

Now, working from this goal, it is entirely possible to reach objective conclusions. Yes, a unit with 5 forced chapters and bad stats will contribute more towards a low turncount than a unit with no forced chapters and better stats, but still not good enough stats to earn a deployment slot. If there is something subjective at work there, and some way in which my personal opinions are influencing that conclusion and twisting the facts, you will have to explain it to me, because I don't see it. Maybe it is counter-intuitive; but I don't see that it's illogical or incorrect, and that's all the list should be concerned with.

But that only works when you decide that the list assumes that only the best are ever deployed for any given situation. Like I said in what you quoted from me,

"If you want the list to show who contributes the most when you use only the best in any given situation to plow through the game then fine, optimal deployment works. "

I never denied that your viewpoint is the objective conclusion if you make the list with the bolded in mind. I just think that the tier list wasn't set up to be that way, and hence your "objective" conclusion is not the actual logical/objective conclusion.

"If you want to show how useful characters can be if you use them a bit more"

Clearly, you don't like that type of tier list. That's fine. Colonel M can, I suppose, decide which type he'd like his tier list to be and if I don't like it I can make my own (not that I'd bother).

That's the problem, you don't seem to think an objective position exists.

As long as the guidelines aren't clear-cut, no, an objective position can't exist. Once the type of tier list this wants to be is defined, sure, there can be one.

Everyone's viewpoint is "just their opinion" (or at least, you obviously think this of me--I'm going to therefore give everyone else the benefit of the doubt, and assume you would apply the same standard to anyone else). With that mindset, it's no wonder that these discussions simply chase their own tails around forever. If no one can be right, then why bother arguing at all?

You are basing your "objective" conclusion off what you (seem to) think is (subjectively) the best type of list for a turncount based tier list. Hence, I think your viewpoint is just your opinion.

Yes. So, if someone could define a standard other than the so-called "maximum efficiency" which is entirely quantifiable and internally consistent, and then hold a poll in which the majority of voters wanted to use that standard over "maximum efficiency," then I'd say the tier list should adopt that new standard and alter its mission statement accordingly. That has never happened, though. Instead, these arguments about the tier list's standards have mostly consisted of people attempting to shove their personal views on what's intuitive down everyone else's throats, which they should have no right to do.

Okay, so you see the problem. Unfortunately, your solution appears to be "go my way". Granted, mine is "go my way", as well, but that just means you and I will never see eye to eye on this one. This is why I kinda like giving the tier list OP at least some power.

[CATS]

Low turncounts under what conditions? Where only the best are ever deployed? How about looking at what units can do for you when they are deployed? That still has the tier list as "contributions towards a low turncount". When they are used, how do they do?

That's not still "contributions towards a low turncount." That's "contributions towards a low turncount with an arbitrary condition imposed upon the player which contradicts the primary goal." "Contributions towards a low turncount," with nothing else tacked onto the end, is synonomous with "low turncounts under the condition that only the best are deployed." Why do you think of these two as entirely separate ideas? One is inherently used as a means to achieve the other. Getting the lowest turncount involves using the best units, and the best units are deployed for the same reason that you end Alan and Lance's turns adjacent to each other whenever you can, and that you give Rutger Killing Edges instead of Slim Swords. What makes optimal deployment so different from anything else that's done with the intention of furthering the player's goal? If using the best weapons and the best tactical choices to clear the chapter are inherent in attempting to achieve a low turncount, then why not using the best units, as well?

This is specifically what I'm referring to when I say that I'm trying to make the objective choice. There is absolutely no objective reason for unit deployment to have been singled out in this way.

I never denied that your viewpoint is the objective conclusion if you make the list with the bolded in mind. I just think that the tier list wasn't set up to be that way, and hence your "objective" conclusion is not the actual logical/objective conclusion.

"If you want to show how useful characters can be if you use them a bit more"

Clearly, you don't like that type of tier list. That's fine. Colonel M can, I suppose, decide which type he'd like his tier list to be and if I don't like it I can make my own (not that I'd bother)

I have no problems with that type of tier list; I simply don't think it's the type that was intended, and I think elements of it have been unnecessarily and undesirably forced into the tier list by certain vocal individuals. Since all this junk about "what the tier list means" and etc has come up, the topics have had a hard time making up their minds on what type of list they are; but in the beginning, the tier list's goal was very simple and clear-cut. I have no idea why people were allowed to muddle that original goal based on nothing more than their personal opinions. More baffling than that, though, is why the issue still hasn't been resolved. If the mission statement does have to change because people don't like the original one, it should at least be done with some degree of organization, as I outlined in my previous post. Instead of cleanly changing the mission statement from one consistent and defined goal to another, people just made it all really blurry; which has lead us to where we are now, going on in circles about what type of tier list we have (with no end in sight), instead of actually debating positions.

You are basing your "objective" conclusion off what you (seem to) think is (subjectively) the best type of list for a turncount based tier list. Hence, I think your viewpoint is just your opinion.

I'm basing my conclusion off what I think to be the list's original goal, not what I like. If I were going to push what I like, I'd be advocating that the list be based on lowest turncount in combination with killing all enemies on the map and simultaneously acquiring all items from chests/villages/etc, because I'm a perfectionist. You'll notice that's absolutely not what I'm advocating, and hopefully you can understand the distinction I'm making.

Back to the list's goals, at this point the actual goal is no longer clear, as made apparent by the fact that we're even having this discussion; but that only means that attempts to find a viable alternative to the original have failed, which leaves us with a choice between continuing to go in circles like this forever, or going back to the original goal and sticking to our guns this time, no matter where it might take us. There's a subjective element in making that choice, I guess, maybe someone would actually prefer to continue these circular discussions and never arrive at a consistent tier list. But it seems like a pretty clear-cut choice to me.

Okay, so you see the problem. Unfortunately, your solution appears to be "go my way". Granted, mine is "go my way", as well, but that just means you and I will never see eye to eye on this one. This is why I kinda like giving the tier list OP at least some power.

Out of curiosity, what is "your way?"

I would agree with OP having power over the tier list's conditions and standards; no problem with each person being able to make his or her own list, if they want to, and others simply taking their business elsewhere if they don't like it. My problem with OP-power is when it's used to control the character positions on the list, or control the discussions taking place (for example, when FE3 Player "banned" Grandjackal from the FE11 list back in the day).

Edited June 24, 2010 by CATS

[Narga_Rocks]

This is specifically what I'm referring to when I say that I'm trying to make the objective choice. There is absolutely no objective reason for unit deployment to have been singled out in this way.

Why not? We aren't rating "killing edge" or anything. We are rating characters. And we are rating how they do, so why don't they get to be deployed more?

That's not still "contributions towards a low turncount." That's "contributions towards a low turncount with an arbitrary condition imposed upon the player which contradicts the primary goal." "Contributions towards a low turncount," with nothing else tacked onto the end, is synonomous with "low turncounts under the condition that only the best are deployed." Why do you think of these two as entirely separate ideas? One is inherently used as a means to achieve the other. Getting the lowest turncount involves using the best units, and the best units are deployed for the same reason that you end Alan and Lance's turns adjacent to each other whenever you can, and that you give Rutger Killing Edges instead of Slim Swords. What makes optimal deployment so different from anything else that's done with the intention of furthering the player's goal? If using the best weapons and the best tactical choices to clear the chapter are inherent in attempting to achieve a low turncount, then why not using the best units, as well?

I don't think they are synonymous.

"contributions towards a low turncount" doesn't actually say anything about whether Wendy gets deployed the whole game or if she sits on the bench for the whole game. It doesn't clearly state whether it is her contributions "if she is fielded" or her contributions "if she is only fielded in chapter 8". It says nothing about "under the condition that only the best are deployed", nor does it say "under the condition in which she is fielded". How is Wendy even contributing if she's never on the field? I'd actually lean toward "under the condition the unit is fielded" as being the default conclusion from the statement "contributions...".

Oh, and the completionist in me likes your tier list idea. The bored person in me, however, might get bored or annoyed if I'm trying to rout chapter 14 in fe6. I suppose yours, though, would definitely not mesh with "contributions towards a low turncount". However, yours does work with "contributions towards completing the game in the fewest turns". Reason? Completion could be defined as "killing everything you meet and getting everything there is to get". However, it still leaves up for debate the question of deployment. And my statement earlier was to indicate that I believe you think the optimal deployment rout is the best way to make a low turn count tier list. I didn't mean to indicate that you think bosses need to be killed asap and seizing as quickly as you can. Just that when making the tier list, only the best of the best are ever deployed.

Anyway, my idea is unfortunately the harder to define one. If you truly suck (wendy/sofiya here, Lyre in fe10) then you don't get to be fielded outside your free chapters. If you don't, you can be fielded. It's harder to state how bad you have to suck before you don't get to go out there. If there isn't a huge difference between the xth best unit on a team of x units and the unit we are trying to place on a tier list, the unit we want to place should be able to be fielded throughout without facing some massive cost (or be forbidden completely).

[Florete]

I have no problems with that type of tier list; I simply don't think it's the type that was intended

Wait, you think maximum efficiency was the original intention? I, at least, have never known that to be the case in any of this forum's tier lists. As far as I've seen, people here generally don't like the idea that only the best units are deployed. Yes, we've had a lot of arguments regarding how unit deployment works, but I don't think anyone ever assumed absolute maximum efficiency.

[Narga_Rocks]

Wait, you think maximum efficiency was the original intention? I, at least, have never known that to be the case in any of this forum's tier lists. As far as I've seen, people here generally don't like the idea that only the best units are deployed. Yes, we've had a lot of arguments regarding how unit deployment works, but I don't think anyone ever assumed absolute maximum efficiency.

To add to this, most of the "discussions" about deployment didn't actually start becoming rampant until GE and CATS started posting about things like Wendy > Treck. Until that time, most of us were either happy with it or keeping silent about any issues we had with it ("it" being the more relaxed deployment style that allows you to actually use Oujay).

I'd think the status of most of these lists would indicate this, actually. How else do you explain Oujay, Barth, etc > Walt? If maximum efficiency or "optimal deployment only" was the assumption for these lists, I suspect many of them would look quite a bit different than they do.

[Anouleth]

Yes. So, if someone could define a standard other than the so-called "maximum efficiency" which is entirely quantifiable and internally consistent, and then hold a poll in which the majority of voters wanted to use that standard over "maximum efficiency," then I'd say the tier list should adopt that new standard and alter its mission statement accordingly. That has never happened, though. Instead, these arguments about the tier list's standards have mostly consisted of people attempting to shove their personal views on what's intuitive down everyone else's throats, which they should have no right to do.

Well, a tier list can still have efficiency as it's goal and reconcile that with Treck > Wendy. It just wouldn't assume optimal deployment. That's the bit that people object to - I don't think anyone here has a problem with efficiency as a criterion.

And nobody's shoving anything down anyone's throats. It's provable when that compared over the course of the entire game, Treck is better than Wendy, yet 'optimal deployment' would not reflect that. It is that kind of discrepancy between the 'optimal deployment' list and what really happens in the game that people object to.

I think it's perfectly acceptable for the rules of a tier list to be constructed in such a way as to encourage activity - such as various characters not auto-topping on the basis that the game is impossible without them, or refusing to credit characters for inventory or recruitment, or even to forbid certain tactics such as abuse of the FEDS Warp staff.

[dondon151]

Wait, I don't understand this Treck > Wendy discrepancy at all. Under what conditions is Treck < Wendy?

Edited June 24, 2010 by dondon151

[Rewjeo]

This is a another reason the "utility" would be helpful. Units with several forced chapters but are very far from optimal past that could get a utility slot on the tier list and another slot where we assume they're used probably every chapter.

[Colonel M]

Wait, I don't understand this Treck > Wendy discrepancy at all. Under what conditions is Treck < Wendy?

Ask GreatEclipse. Something to the extent that Wendy doesn't cost a turn for recruitment while Treck does (and if we were being highly probable with recruitment cost, Treck carries Roy to safety and saves multiple turns or restarts in conjunction by keeping Roy out of the way. You don't want Zealot being detered from the front lines defense either).

Wendy > Treck made absolutely no sense.

Edited June 24, 2010 by Colonel M

[Anouleth]

I'm using it as my example because I can't think of a more appropiate one, and I recall it being thrown about in similiar discussions. How about Bors > Zeiss? Zeiss has clearly better stats, in addition to the ability to fly, but Bors has a few chapters in which he's forced, so under optimal deployment Bors would be considered better.

(hey, I just notice the new name for graveyard tier!

I admit it - I lol'd.)

Edited June 24, 2010 by Slowking

[dondon151]

I don't think Bors vs. Zeiss is conflicting either. Bors may be around and be free for longer, but he really doesn't do anything. I think Zeiss being deployed just for flying in a select few chapters still saves more turns than Bors being free.

[-Cynthia-]

How about something like Wolt> Oujay then? Wolt has more forced chapters, his contributions in these are probably better than Oujay's one forced chapter. But if we were to deploy them while not forced, Oujay is much better.

I see nothing wrong with assuming deployment of the unit in question. The goal of the tier list is then to assess "which units are best while being used?" rather than "Whih units complete the game fastest?"

[grandjackal]

I don't think Bors vs. Zeiss is conflicting either. Bors may be around and be free for longer, but he really doesn't do anything. I think Zeiss being deployed just for flying in a select few chapters still saves more turns than Bors being free.

Well, I'd just have to ask how often you'd really fly so many people. Is a fourth really necessary. Granted it helps, but he doesn't really save turns as much as he helps make things a bit easier by bringing a fourth unit for transport.

Boris has times where he helps as well, such as going to get Lou by himself so everyone else can just focus on blitzing through the fort, or helping be a wall/hard shell rescue for if someone's in danger in chapter 5 when going through the door (fly Marcus to southern fort, equip ranged weapon, have him take care of the immediate pain in the ass enemies there before opening the door, of which ultimately will end up faster than going around the long way, Boris having lances and good defense helps tank the mercs and nomads that appear and whittle away with Marcus stabbing from behind.), and being vaguely decent in chapter 4 since he starts at frontlines in a chapter where the mainly cav enemy army comes to you so his move is not much an issue here.

Both these guys I feel won't "save turns" but rather have the power to make things a bit easier for times. Boris has 3 chapters where I feel he actually contributes positively (or at least is capable) when he's forced, while Zeiss eases things up by bringing a fourth unit for what was formerly three man flying team.

Ehh...I'd probably go for Zeiss too, since if you are using him for his flying utility, he'll be hepling vaguely or more for longer than Boris is, despite Boris's forced status during the couple of chapters he's actually capable of being helpful in. That, and getting Zeiss to promotion levels and giving him a whip, his 14 AS with his monsterous strength can actually pull off decent combat. Not great, but decent.

[Renall]

Ideally, the starting criteria for a tier list would permit an objective tiering of all characters through the conditions set in the instant case. As an example, look at that silly "gold efficiency tier list" discussion in the FE10 forum. It's theoretically possible to set up a tier list that's based on cost-in-gold that objectively ranks the characters on who will consume more gold than whom. That's harder when discussing things like utility, as while there are obviously things which definitively produce an appreciable effect (Warp skipping), few of them can be easily quantified and the quantification doesn't always matter (if two units both complete a given chapter in 3 turns, but one is 5HKO'd by enemies and the other is 4HKO'd yet they never take enough hits in 3 turns for that to matter, can we really say the first one is "more efficient?").

But regardless of whether a tier list has an objective quantification to it, it is an accurate list so long as it meets the goals that have been set. So the Treck > Wendy argument isn't even relevant until the preconditions for the list are set in stone. Because it's impossible to know if Treck > Wendy is accurate until those conditions are set for comparison.

[CATS]

Why not? We aren't rating "killing edge" or anything. We are rating characters. And we are rating how they do, so why don't they get to be deployed more?

I don't follow your line of reasoning there. Characters must be deployed for the entire game, because they are the items being rated on the tier list? What's the connection between those two?

As for "why not," let's start with the fact that the player is aiming for a low turncount, and that deploying Marcus in every chapter (or Wolt in every chapter, or almost anyone, really) directly hampers that goal. Why do we assume that the player is doing something which contradicts his stated goal? The condition of deploying a unit in every chapter is inconsistent with the first and primary condition of the list. Weren't Ranked lists abandoned for exactly this reason, because the game's rankings had multiple and contradictory conditions?

Moving on, how about the fact that it's not an accurate representation of the actual game and how its mechanics work? The game allows you (actually, it forces you) to bench a certain number of units each chapter--it's flatly inaccurate to tier Marcus or Wolt as if the option to bench them doesn't exist. It's the same as if everyone suddenly decided that the tier list should rank units under the condition that only E Rank weapons can ever be used, except where higher level weapons are absolutely necessary in order to progress (such as the final boss), and then reached the conclusion that Dorcas > Guy. Well, it's not the same, but the only difference is simply that people have favorable opinions towards one, but would get their feelings hurt if the other were enacted. In both cases, a non-existent version of FE is being tiered; in one case, a version where the game limits the player's deployment options, in the other, a version where the game limits his weapon choices. In reality, the game does not limit either one.

Now that I've named some reasons why not, it's my turn to ask, why? Why should we rate characters as if they're deployed constantly? Is there a reason that doesn't rely purely on people's opinions, or is it just because "that's what people like?"

"contributions towards a low turncount" doesn't actually say anything about whether Wendy gets deployed the whole game or if she sits on the bench for the whole game.

Sure it does. Efficient play (i.e. low turncount) is denoted as the goal which the player is working towards--that can be used to deduce the player's actions, without need of any qualifying conditions tacked onto the end. Is Wendy used only in chapter 8, or in every chapter? Go back to the player's goal--a low turncount. With that goal in mind, which would he choose? The former. And so forth.

If you think that unit deployment is left ambiguous by that goal, then mostly everything else is left ambiguous as well, correct? The goal doesn't clearly state whether it is "contributions if a unit is allowed to use the best weapons available," "contributions if a unit is only allowed to use Slim weapons," or anything in between. The goal doesn't clearly state whether it is "contributions if units attempt to gain supports whenever possible," or "contributions if the player ignores supports completely." Yet when we debate Kent vs Guy, we assume that Kent will have a Sain support, and we assume that Guy will have access to Killing Edges. So why is it such a problem to stay consistent with that, and also make the assumption that units will only be deployed when they're optimal?

And my statement earlier was to indicate that I believe you think the optimal deployment rout is the best way to make a low turn count tier list. I didn't mean to indicate that you think bosses need to be killed asap and seizing as quickly as you can. Just that when making the tier list, only the best of the best are ever deployed.

I simply think the optimal deployment rout is where the tier list would've gone if it had taken its initial goal of "ranking contributions towards a low turncount" to its logical conclusions, without allowing subjective dislike of those conclusions to get in the way, and is therefore the "objective" path. Now, I also happen to think that it's best to be objective. If my opinion is that it's best to be objective, am I still just as subjective as anyone else? I'm assuming you would say yes; in which case, as you said earlier, we'll probably just never see eye-to-eye on this point. Our fundamental difference would be that you seem to think it's impossible for a person to be objective and present an objective viewpoint, or even present a viewpoint that is just less subjective than the others; whereas I think that objectivity is not a fictional concept.

Edited June 25, 2010 by CATS

[Florete]

Now that I've named some reasons why not, it's my turn to ask, why? Why should we rate characters as if they're deployed constantly? Is there a reason that doesn't rely purely on people's opinions, or is it just because "that's what people like?"

You talk as if that isn't the reason we post here in the first place. What are we doing here? Working? Have we something to prove? I've never been paid for a tier list argument, that's for sure. We're only here because we enjoy this, so it makes perfect sense that we'd argue under conditions we like.

I could swear I've said this before.