FE6 HM Tier List

[Narga_Rocks]

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?"

why? Because that's what it was created to be. At least, as near as I could tell from all the arguments over the last year (and the positions of many of the units). That's a pretty tough reason to get past. The list was created with thing A in mind, so because of you we should do thing B instead because you like it more? Don't think so.

Also, because of what RF said.

None of your reasoning actually matters when you consider that you seem to be arguing about a different list entirely.

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?

But that's not Wendy's contribution. There are two types of lists. I've told you this before. Just a few posts ago. One is where you look at how they do when used. We are rating how well they do for turncounts when used. The other list is when you only deploy them when forced unless they are the best. That didn't used to be the type of list this is. How is that so hard for you to understand? It's like you are trying to convince a company that used to make rubber balls that they should be making stamps. How is that logical?

Until Colonel M says he'd rather have the list that sees Walt > Oujay, etc etc, and makes those changes, I'd recommend you stop trying to change what the list is about and just get over it.

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.

No, I don't think it's impossible to be objective and present an objective viewpoint. I just think you are WRONG. Get over it. Pretending that I think it's impossible to be objective in order to feel better about me saying you aren't doesn't cut it.

Like I said, I think the most logical way to rate their contributions is to see what they do when deployed. You think the most logical way to rate their contributions is to limit them to their forced chapters unless they are better than other options. I think you are wrong. You think I am wrong. I can actually live with there being two answers. You seem hell bent on proving that there is only one "objective" path. Why is that? Is it impossible for two different paths to be reasonable/logical/objective?

I present, x² = 4. There are two answers to "what is x?". Can you deal with that?

Edited June 25, 2010 by Narga_Rocks

[Anouleth]

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?

Perhaps this is just me being old-fashioned, but if deploying Wolt or Marcus is bad for efficiency, then guess what - that means that Wolt and Marcus are BAD CHARACTERS. What the hell else is your definition of a bad character?

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.

So if we bench Wolt for the entire game and field Rutger instead, does this suddenly make Wolt = Rutger because Wolt is freeing up a deployment slot for Rutger to use? It's one thing to penalise early-joining characters for taking up a slot in many chapters, but to imply that Wolt can take credit for what happens when we don't use him is fucking ridiculous.

In other words, characters should not be tiered on the basis that 'we can bench them and use someone better'.

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?"

Is there a reason we shouldn't that doesn't rely on your opinions?

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.

Fine, but you'd have to change the rules to specify that certain characters are assumed not to be deployed, and then remove them from the tier list because a character that isn't deployed cannot be tiered (for obvious reasons).

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.

Any tier list is based upon a set of rules, which a person came up with because in his subjective opinion these were the best rules for making a tier list. Just because you think your particular set of rules is somehow more objective than another set of rules (as if you could even measure how subjective or objective a set of rules for a tier list is), does not make it so.

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.

I agree with this. I know that I don't debate here because I have some ideal of one day creating a One True Tier List. I do it because I enjoy it. If that means that the 'objectivity' of the tier list is compromised, so what.

(If I have to go to Hell forever to listen to arguments about whether Merlinus is eligible for tiering, so be it.)

Edited June 25, 2010 by Slowking

[Dark Sage]

This is ridiculous. If we're going to create an accurate tier list that lists everyone's contributions, you have to assume the unit is used. End of discussion.

[Renall]

Well, you actually can measure how objective/subjective a tier list's rules are, it all depends on the rule. Examples:

We rank characters based on their contributions during the game when they are deployed. This is fairly subjective, as defining "contributions," especially non-numerically, is difficult.

We rank characters based on who has the most base HP. This is completely objective.

[Rewjeo]

Last I checked, this list did not assume the best possible team forever. It measures how much the units contribute to an efficient playthrough if the player actually uses them as part of the team. This means they'll be used in almost any chapter. They only WON'T be used in chapters if we simply don't have enough slots to put them in.

And, again, you could just have "utility" spots for units that only contribute for a decent period of time. Yes, that requires them to actually help us for at least a few chapters. And then you'd have their normal spots where we assume they're used as a part of the team.

[CATS]

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.

why? Because that's what it was created to be. At least, as near as I could tell from all the arguments over the last year (and the positions of many of the units). That's a pretty tough reason to get past. The list was created with thing A in mind, so because of you we should do thing B instead because you like it more? Don't think so.

Also, because of what RF said.

None of your reasoning actually matters when you consider that you seem to be arguing about a different list entirely.

Here we have the ultimate force-of-presence argument, so I will admit, you are right; no amount of reasoning can ever get past "This is what we like, there's more of us than there are of you, and we're not going to budge." I think that's a terrible attitude to have in any discussion, on any issue, but oh well. We're obviously not going to convince each other, so I'll just take your recommendation and get over it now.

[Narga_Rocks]

Here we have the ultimate force-of-presence argument, so I will admit, you are right; no amount of reasoning can ever get past "This is what we like, there's more of us than there are of you, and we're not going to budge." I think that's a terrible attitude to have in any discussion, on any issue, but oh well. We're obviously not going to convince each other, so I'll just take your recommendation and get over it now.

Okay, you act like this is somehow bad. It's two entirely different types of tier lists. How does it make sense to try to "reason" people into arguing about one type of tier list when they are trying to argue about another? You seem to think choosing the parameters of a tier list is a terrible thing, and yet I have no idea why.

[Florete]

Here we have the ultimate force-of-presence argument, so I will admit, you are right; no amount of reasoning can ever get past "This is what we like, there's more of us than there are of you, and we're not going to budge." I think that's a terrible attitude to have in any discussion, on any issue, but oh well. We're obviously not going to convince each other, so I'll just take your recommendation and get over it now.

Okay, you act like this is somehow bad. It's two entirely different types of tier lists. How does it make sense to try to "reason" people into arguing about one type of tier list when they are trying to argue about another? You seem to think choosing the parameters of a tier list is a terrible thing, and yet I have no idea why.

Seriously, what Narga said. Is there something wrong with doing our hobby the way we want to? It's like a group of friends playing Monopoly under their own rules. Sure, you might be able to find a way you're technically "supposed" to play it, but in the end it's all about fun and this is the way we like it the most.

[Narga_Rocks]

Seriously, what Narga said. Is there something wrong with doing our hobby the way we want to? It's like a group of friends playing Monopoly under their own rules. Sure, you might be able to find a way you're technically "supposed" to play it, but in the end it's all about fun and this is the way we like it the most.

To be honest, I'd go with more:

A group of friends is trying to play Monopoly. One of the friends is telling them how much better Risk is and that true Board Game Players would be playing Risk. They don't want to play Risk. They want to play Monopoly.

Let us have fun with Monopoly if we want to without trying to make us feel like we are "terrible" for playing Monopoly (of course, at any moment Colonel M can decide we are playing Risk instead, but then some of us might abandon him and play Monopoly elsewhere (though perhaps come by and play a bit of Risk now and then, though)).

[Florete]

To be honest, I'd go with more:

A group of friends is trying to play Monopoly. One of the friends is telling them how much better Risk is and that true Board Game Players would be playing Risk. They don't want to play Risk. They want to play Monopoly.

Let us have fun with Monopoly if we want to without trying to make us feel like we are "terrible" for playing Monopoly (of course, at any moment Colonel M can decide we are playing Risk instead, but then some of us might abandon him and play Monopoly elsewhere (though perhaps come by and play a bit of Risk now and then, though)).

That works as well.

What's funnier is that about a week ago my friends and I were playing Monopoly quite often. Very recently (like yesterday) we've started playing Risk.

Are you stalking me?

[Narga_Rocks]

Are you stalking me?

Only on Tuesdays.

Seriously, though, I just link Monopoly and Risk in my head. They are like the top tier of board games (to me). Any other board game is just lesser.

so anyway, how do people feel about Thany > Echidna in Ilia? I'm fine with Echidna remaining in High Tier for Ilya. she is quite good and based on what I'm told about enemy speed there I'm sure she's fine (and like always there are benefits to having her around for after the route split. Especially if she's getting some kind of booster for Ilia). But Thany is still the Ferry Queen.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Narga_Rocks

[Dark Sage]

But Echidna has WTA.

[Narga_Rocks]

But Echidna has WTA.

I'm not suggesting Thany > Echidna for her combat abilities.

Actually, this is similar to dancer against combat unit, or healer against combat unit. I still think it's true, but it's one of those really tough to argue things.

[CATS]

Okay, you act like this is somehow bad. It's two entirely different types of tier lists. How does it make sense to try to "reason" people into arguing about one type of tier list when they are trying to argue about another? You seem to think choosing the parameters of a tier list is a terrible thing, and yet I have no idea why.

I don't see the parameters as being an entirely separate issue from the list's positions and conclusions (as you seem to), since one directly influences the other. To continue your Monopoly example: I see this like a group of people playing Monopoly, and at one point in the game, 4 of the 5 players decide that they don't like the 5th player holding a certain group of properties, and decide to make a house rule which voids that property group. And when the 5th player protests, he gets "But we just like playing this way better. Why should we follow the rules if we like doing things this way instead?'"

Now, you would likely hold that you honestly and truly "like playing this way better"; and to continue the example, the 4 out of 5 players in the Monopoly game might also honestly like their new rule and think it's a good one that all Monopoly games should use. They're still making up an arbitrary rule to suit their own preferences, the motive behind it doesn't really change the fact of what they're doing. To relate it back to tier lists: In this particular case, I see the "rules" as being the FE games themselves, how they work and what they give you, whereas you guys seem to see the "rules" as "whatever we want them to be, with the FE games used as a starting point." Obviously we're not seeing the same picture here, and we likely never will; so like I said, I'll just get over it.

I also find it interesting that the analogy to a board game suggests a closed group with a small number of players.

[Narga_Rocks]

I don't see the parameters as being an entirely separate issue from the list's positions and conclusions (as you seem to), since one directly influences the other. To continue your Monopoly example: I see this like a group of people playing Monopoly, and at one point in the game, 4 of the 5 players decide that they don't like the 5th player holding a certain group of properties, and decide to make a house rule which voids that property group. And when the 5th player protests, he gets "But we just like playing this way better. Why should we follow the rules if we like doing things this way instead?'"

sorry, we've been doing it this way since before you showed up (here) with GE and started trying to rain on our parade. It's more like the "house rule" is that a set of 3 properties don't exist. Make them "free space" on the board. But it would be done before the game starts. Now, maybe the Green is chosen. Maybe the green is person #5's favourite property group. But if 4 of the 5 want those 3 to be "free space", too bad. If person #5 doesn't like it, he can try to go play Monopoly elsewhere. Changing the rules mid-game is not what is happening in this tier list. In fact, it's kinda what you are trying to do. It's as if person #5 landed on the green properties, said "can I buy them anyway", the others said "sure, why not?" and then once he got all 3 he said "Hey, let's change the rule so that these work again".

Um, no.

Now, you would likely hold that you honestly and truly "like playing this way better"; and to continue the example, the 4 out of 5 players in the Monopoly game might also honestly like their new rule and think it's a good one that all Monopoly games should use. They're still making up an arbitrary rule to suit their own preferences, the motive behind it doesn't really change the fact of what they're doing. To relate it back to tier lists: In this particular case, I see the "rules" as being the FE games themselves, how they work and what they give you, whereas you guys seem to see the "rules" as "whatever we want them to be, with the FE games used as a starting point." Obviously we're not seeing the same picture here, and we likely never will; so like I said, I'll just get over it.

Now, if those 4 of 5 really really like having free spaces on the board, I ask you why they should be FORCED to play with those spots active. Don't you think if they are told "you cannot play Monopoly unless you use those spaces as they were intended" that perhaps they wouldn't play at all? Why are you now the fun police deciding that "if you don't do it how I say is right then you are 'terrible' if you try to do it your way"?

I also find it interesting that the analogy to a board game suggests a closed group with a small number of players.

And I suppose we could extend it to Monopoly tournaments or something to prevent a max of 8 players. The example wasn't exactly complex so I'm sure Red Fox didn't feel the need to make it a 1 to 1 correspondence in order to prevent you from accusing us of limiting the number of potential players. But then, she's probably forgotten that you seem to enjoy accusing us of that type of thing.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Narga_Rocks

[CATS]

sorry, we've been doing it this way since before you showed up (here) with GE and started trying to rain on our parade. It's more like the "house rule" is that a set of 3 properties don't exist. Make them "free space" on the board. But it would be done before the game starts. Now, maybe the Green is chosen. Maybe the green is person #5's favourite property group. But if 4 of the 5 want those 3 to be "free space", too bad. If person #5 doesn't like it, he can try to go play Monopoly elsewhere. Changing the rules mid-game is not what is happening in this tier list. In fact, it's kinda what you are trying to do. It's as if person #5 landed on the green properties, said "can I buy them anyway", the others said "sure, why not?" and then once he got all 3 he said "Hey, let's change the rule so that these work again".

None of these issues were clearly defined when tier lists first appeared here; it took quite a lot of discussion for people to work out exactly what they like (and it's still not very clear, for that matter--it's more like what people don't like has been made clear). You'll recall the business with the "gross system," and how that too had to be cast aside when people realized that they didn't like its implications either, and etc. So I disagree with the rule being stated at the beginning. Like I said earlier, it started with just "ranking characters based on their contributions towards a low turncount." This stuff about "optimal deployment sucks!" came later. I also notice that there's nothing said about the rules being "whatever we want them to be, with the FE games used as starting point," so I'm assuming that's the case. That's where the difference really lies; I always worked under the assumption that the game itself was the tier list's inherent rule set, not whatever artificial version of the game most people preferred to play. I guess I was mistaken.

And I suppose we could extend it to Monopoly tournaments or something to prevent a max of 8 players. The example wasn't exactly complex so I'm sure Red Fox didn't feel the need to make it a 1 to 1 correspondence in order to prevent you from accusing us of limiting the number of potential players. But then, she's probably forgotten that you seem to enjoy accusing us of that type of thing.

I'm sure it's not done on purpose, but it seems to be the community's trend. There aren't many new faces around here, and the ones that do pop up don't seem to stay around very long (see: GE, Solid, etc). Likewise, there's a certain circle of people who have been posting in these topics since they started, and are obviously very averse to voices from outside the group coming in and disagreeing with their way of doing things.

Edited June 26, 2010 by CATS

[Narga_Rocks]

None of these issues were clearly defined when tier lists first appeared here; it took quite a lot of discussion for people to work out exactly what they like (and it's still not very clear, for that matter--it's more like what people don't like has been made clear). You'll recall the business with the "gross system," and how that too had to be cast aside when people realized that they didn't like its implications either, and etc. So I disagree with the rule being stated at the beginning. Like I said earlier, it started with just "ranking characters based on their contributions towards a low turncount." This stuff about "optimal deployment sucks!" came later.

Meh. I figure the relative positions of units like Wolt/Bors/Oujay/Barth are pretty clear indications of what interpretation of the bolded rule we have been running with forever. I wasn't around at the start of the fe6 tier list, but I'm betting that this list has never ever had Wolt > Oujay/Barth. Longtime fe6 debaters correct me if I'm wrong.

Considering Oujay has only chapter 8, and can't even do much in chapter 8, would you disagree with Wolt > Oujay? Wolt has chapters 1, 2, 3, 4 (didn't do all that much in 5). And I've found him quite helpful in those chapters while attempting to reach the turncounts of dondon/Aquilae. I drop him as soon as I can, of course, but that's irrelevant.

Barth and Oujay aren't exactly good in chapter 8, and they are quite clearly not optimal for any chapter beyond that. They get stomped on by Wolt, quite frankly, if you are playing the optimal deployment card.

I also notice that there's nothing said about the rules being "whatever we want them to be, with the FE games used as starting point," so I'm assuming that's the case. That's where the difference really lies; I always worked under the assumption that the game itself was the tier list's inherent rule set, not whatever artificial version of the game most people preferred to play. I guess I was mistaken.

I tried to answer that issue before. You didn't like it then, why would you accept my explanation now? The rule for "ranking characters based on their contributions towards a low turncount" needs to be interpreted in order to apply it to the tier list. You've seen (and ignored) a bunch of other people's posts about why they feel that units need to be deployed in order to accurately weigh their contributions. It's not that we are tossing in various rules in order to make a list we like. We are just interpreting the cardinal rule differently from how you are interpreting it. Apparently it's 'terrible' to disagree with you in this way.

I apologize for being terrible.

[Dark Sage]

LOL Wolt>Oujay. Oujay has WTA 8x-12x and Barth has defense. Wolt has potshots. Woop-dee friggin doo. The most a level 3 Wolt can do in Chapter 4 is to do 1 damage to cavaliers. Wolt is clearly helping efficency there.

[Narga_Rocks]

LOL Wolt>Oujay. Oujay has WTA 8x-12x and Barth has defense. Wolt has potshots. Woop-dee friggin doo. The most a level 3 Wolt can do in Chapter 4 is to do 1 damage to cavaliers. Wolt is clearly helping efficency there.

Are you trying to tell me that Oujay/Barth are optimal in 8x to 12x? That you can't load up your entire team with units that will help you more?

Wolt doesn't even need chapter 4, though are you sure about his damage? It thought he was doing more in that chapter. Anyway, 1 to 3 is already more than 8, and he's more helpful there. If you desperately want another sword unit in 9 to 12x, Fir has 13 spd to his 9 and 9 str to his 7 and access to Wo Dao. she also beats his spd growth by 10. Granted he beats her str growth by 15, but he's still 5 levels away from her base. Also she has much better skill. Only significant win he has is luck, but hers will be okay before long.

[CATS]

Meh. I figure the relative positions of units like Wolt/Bors/Oujay/Barth are pretty clear indications of what interpretation of the bolded rule we have been running with forever. I wasn't around at the start of the fe6 tier list, but I'm betting that this list has never ever had Wolt > Oujay/Barth. Longtime fe6 debaters correct me if I'm wrong.

My mentality was "those positions need to be changed going by the tier list's goal," as usually, that is what one does when posting in a tier list--try to correct inconsistencies and inaccuracies. I didn't jump to the conclusion that "those positions must be there for a reason, I bet there's an extra rule somewhere that justifies it, so I'll just let it be," and I don't think I should have. Granted, by this point, months later, I probably should've figured that out somewhere along the way, and it probably shouldn't have taken me this long to realize that it's really a moot point, no matter how strongly I feel about it. But I've realized that now, so it's all good.

Considering Oujay has only chapter 8, and can't even do much in chapter 8, would you disagree with Wolt > Oujay? Wolt has chapters 1, 2, 3, 4 (didn't do all that much in 5). And I've found him quite helpful in those chapters while attempting to reach the turncounts of dondon/Aquilae. I drop him as soon as I can, of course, but that's irrelevant.

Barth and Oujay aren't exactly good in chapter 8, and they are quite clearly not optimal for any chapter beyond that. They get stomped on by Wolt, quite frankly, if you are playing the optimal deployment card.

I wouldn't disagree with it at all. The fact that you found him helpful in attempting to reach known low turncounts and etc simply supports the idea that he contributes more to efficiency. "Maximum efficiency," at least.

I tried to answer that issue before. You didn't like it then, why would you accept my explanation now? The rule for "ranking characters based on their contributions towards a low turncount" needs to be interpreted in order to apply it to the tier list. You've seen (and ignored) a bunch of other people's posts about why they feel that units need to be deployed in order to accurately weigh their contributions. It's not that we are tossing in various rules in order to make a list we like. We are just interpreting the cardinal rule differently from how you are interpreting it. Apparently it's 'terrible' to disagree with you in this way.

I apologize for being terrible.

Apology accepted.

[Narga_Rocks]

My mentality was "those positions need to be changed going by the tier list's goal," as usually, that is what one does when posting in a tier list--try to correct inconsistencies and inaccuracies. I didn't jump to the conclusion that "those positions must be there for a reason, I bet there's an extra rule somewhere that justifies it, so I'll just let it be," and I don't think I should have. Granted, by this point, months later, I probably should've figured that out somewhere along the way, and it probably shouldn't have taken me this long to realize that it's really a moot point, no matter how strongly I feel about it. But I've realized that now, so it's all good.

Well, the question is "why is a unit low". For example, Thany used to be so low because of a lack of understanding of flying utility. That's something to be corrected because it doesn't reflect how much she contributes if you use her right. And thus it needed to be changed. But for those other guys, the answer was about deployment ideals.

And again, for those other guys, it's not an "extra rule". It's a question of interpretation of the only existing rule. "Maybe they are interpreting it differently than I would". Of course, if I had to guess, I'd say that dondon would perhaps like the optimal deployment style. There are a number of others that have voiced their opinion on why they wouldn't like it, so it makes it tough that we may have a near even split. Colonel M indicated a willingness to go for Optimal Deployment. smash has always raged against people assuming you are only using top/high tiers (even when they weren't and that was just his misinterpretation, and in other situations he kinda forgot he was supposed to hate optimal deployment since when it hurts units like Nephenee he talks about all those "better" GMs) so (unless there is some unit he wants to push down on this list that would suffer from Optimal Deployment) I'd bet that he would be against it, too. Not that it matters now that he can't post here, but still.

Really, it might be better to make another topic with the optimal deployment assumption. I'm sure it would get a fair amount of activity for the first few days to get better positions for units that only ever get deployed in their starting chapters or as long as they are better than the rest. I think dondon or someone made an "optimal deployment per chapter" type of list somewhere. The optimal deployment tier list would likely assume units only get deployed in a chapter if they are on that list. Then you can place them on the list based on how much they do when out there. (obviously the units in each chapter list could be argued about, too)

Edited June 26, 2010 by Narga_Rocks

[Anouleth]

There was an optimal deployment list by dondon for FE8. FE8 Optimal Deployment is hilarious, since it basically means 'Seth/Duessel kill everything'. However, I don't think it's very interesting to discuss, and it died after a few weeks.

[Narga_Rocks]

There was an optimal deployment list by dondon for FE8. FE8 Optimal Deployment is hilarious, since it basically means 'Seth/Duessel kill everything'. However, I don't think it's very interesting to discuss, and it died after a few weeks.

Found it.

It only goes up to 19 sacae, and it ignores Bartre rout as well as Ilia. It could still assist in forming the basis of an optimal deployment tier list. (not that dondon is necessarily 100% correct, but I notice a distinct lack of Oujay/Barth in any chapters, Dark Sage.)

Edited June 26, 2010 by Narga_Rocks

[Dark Sage]

I didn't say they were good, I just said they were better for what they do than Wolt. Anyway on Join, Oujay does suck, as does Barth, but if you want me to go in depth about it later I will.

[Narga_Rocks]

I didn't say they were good, I just said they were better for what they do than Wolt. Anyway on Join, Oujay does suck, as does Barth, but if you want me to go in depth about it later I will.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy with Barth/Oujay > Wolt in a tier list that lets sucky to decent units get deployed and show their stuff. I don't disagree with you on that one. But if they are only deployed when optimal, they only have chapter 8 to strut their stuff. Wolt has chapters 1 through 5. He easily does more in those 5 chapters (even if he starts really sucking in 4 and 5) than they do in 8. And hence, Wolt > them on an optimal deployment only tier list.