FE7 HHM tier list unranked/efficiency v3

[Mekkah]

The same argument would also rise Hector to Top Tier at the very least, considering it applies like five times as often in the game.

[Dat Nick]

Let's say Bartre was forced the entire game. This would not make him Top tier.

[Rodykitty]

Let's say Bartre was forced the entire game. This would not make him Top tier.

Yet since he is forced, this special property would make people think he's top tier regardless.

People seem to have a mindset of, "Oh, this unit has a property that makes them different than every other unit. TOP TIER."

Edited March 18, 2010 by FE3 Player

[Florete]

Yet since he is forced, this special property would make people think he's top tier regardless.

People seem to have a mindset of, "Oh, this unit has a property that makes them different than every other unit. TOP TIER."

It isn't "different from every unit" at all. If someone had the ability to turn all your Silver Swords into Iron Swords, I really doubt that would be used to move him up. In this case, it's the fact that always forced-Bartre has 0 opportunity cost of deployment; he, unlike most others, does not force any other unit out of a unit slot, so while the team without, say, Kent just replaces him with Lowen, the team without Bartre effectively has no one in that spot. I personally don't agree with this auto-topping units, but the logic makes some sense to a certain extent.

[Rodykitty]

Okay, but that's not auto-top tier. Nobody, while playing the game, is going to think that Bartre is top tier while attempting to use him. They only think these things when trying to discuss tier criteria while sitting at a dinner table, sipping fine wine while eating tiny hot dogs attached to toothpicks.

Basically, if a character isn't giving top tier performance, then that character isn't top tier.

Edited March 18, 2010 by FE3 Player

[CATS]

I also dislike this argument. I find Eliwood to be pain early on free deployment or not, and later forced chapters tend to have more slots anyway. At times I even have more than I need on efficiency runs, since no EXP rank allows for smaller teams.

I dislike the fact that Marcus is top of top because his low Exp gains don't matter on efficiency. I think that's stupid and that it's bullshit. But the question is, why should anyone else care what I think about that?

The same argument would also rise Hector to Top Tier at the very least, considering it applies like five times as often in the game.

Yep. No one should bother trying that, though. That one'll get rejected on the same basis that seizing arguments or recruitment arguments are rejected; too many people have a negative personal opinion of it, and thus the objective logic of the argument is overruled in favor of catering to the majority opinion.

Let's say Bartre was forced the entire game. This would not make him Top tier.

Can you explain why, or are you just making this up? More importantly, how is it relevant to the point at hand?

Okay, but that's not auto-top tier. Nobody, while playing the game, is going to think that Bartre is top tier while attempting to use him. They only think these things when trying to discuss tier criteria while sitting at a dinner table, sipping fine wine while eating tiny hot dogs attached to toothpicks.

Basically, if a character isn't giving top tier performance, then that character isn't top tier.

So you're saying tier lists should be based on an analysis of what someone's opinion of a character will be while he's playing the game? If so, why, and why should we care what you personally think a tier list should be? If not, then what's your point?

[Rodykitty]

If you didn't get my point, then no explanation will ever get to you.

[Dat Nick]

Can you explain why, or are you just making this up? More importantly, how is it relevant to the point at hand?

You actually need me to explain to you how Bartre is not a Top tier unit?

[CATS]

You actually need me to explain to you how Bartre is not a Top tier unit?

It is obvious why the real version of Bartre is not a top tier unit. It is not obvious why Bartre Who Is Always Forced is not top tier, nor is the relevance of that question obvious. Perhaps it is obvious to you, but keep in mind that not everyone shares your opinions or thinks the same way as you.

If you didn't get my point, then no explanation will ever get to you.

Ah, of course. Obviously I am too stupid to ever possibly comprehend your point of view, thus there is no need for you to defend yourself nor any point in you doing so. I should accept the superiority of your opinion without question. Can you please forgive me for ever questioning your infinite wisdom?

Edited March 18, 2010 by CATS

[nflchamp]

Just because you don't have an opportunity cost for deployment doesn't mean you're good. If you can barely rack up positive regardless you're still going to be low (FE10 Sanaki).

[Colonel M]

Being forced does not give you an excuse to suck. Hector faces the reality of not being able to promote when the rest of the team does ansd many other circumstances that keeps him from being the best unit. You can still build negatives as a forced unit as otherwise Boris would be over Barth just because he's forced for 5 chapters.

[Mekkah]

Yep. No one should bother trying that, though. That one'll get rejected on the same basis that seizing arguments or recruitment arguments are rejected; too many people have a negative personal opinion of it, and thus the objective logic of the argument is overruled in favor of catering to the majority opinion.

I believe seizing arguments are rejected in favor of promoting (or not stifling) discussion, and in addition they're often written off as a storyline event, not simply because of popular opinion. Recruitment? I believe only counting a unit's value once he's been turned into a blue unit is being counted for them, and recruiting other characters merely nets you their inventory, but all the credit of their actions are for that character to claim credit for. Maybe you're referring to the whole Karla deal, but otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anouleth]

Being forced does not give you an excuse to suck. Hector faces the reality of not being able to promote when the rest of the team does ansd many other circumstances that keeps him from being the best unit. You can still build negatives as a forced unit as otherwise Boris would be over Barth just because he's forced for 5 chapters.

The idea is that in say, Hector vs Raven, Hector's not taking up a unit slot so his team can deploy an additional unit, so it's really Hector + some other unit vs Raven.

(I don't think it's that important here, since in an efficiency playthrough we probably won't fill all our deployment slots anyway since it's more efficient to concentrate EXP into a smaller number of characters.)

[Colonel M]

The idea is that in say, Hector vs Raven, Hector's not taking up a unit slot so his team can deploy an additional unit, so it's really Hector + some other unit vs Raven.

(I don't think it's that important here, since in an efficiency playthrough we probably won't fill all our deployment slots anyway since it's more efficient to concentrate EXP into a smaller number of characters.)

I understand the thesis here. What I'm saying is that does not always equate to a positive result. Hector not taking up a unit slot does not suddenly play the game of assuming Hector's team has two units to use vs Raven's one. Its still Hector vs Raven, not Hector + Unit vs Raven. Taking up a unit slot isn't that big of a deal anyway IMO except under special circumstances (FE10's 4-E should only assume that you are going to contribute positively to the team without being a detriment yourself. That's why we don't assume Bastian going to endgame for example). You can still have the positive of not taking up a unit slot, but that doesn't mean I can't find negatives to overplay the positive. Comparing Hector to the team earlygame he's fine, but by Midgame when everyone is promoting chances are he doesn't compare as well to the team as say Raven who, despite taking a slot, can either compare or outperform teammates.

[dondon151]

It's actually Hector vs. Raven - unit.

[Dat Nick]

And this brings us back to Eliwood: "Availability lol" is NOT a valid justification for him being a tier above Harken/Pent/Geitz by itself, because despite existing he is still a very poor unit for most of this time. Of course, you just put your hands over your ears every time I try to explain to you how being poor for most of your availability diminishes the positive impact of availability so I've no interest in discussing the issue with you, but since most people realize that availability is not the sole positive factor in a unit, I'll gladly bring it up with someone who grasps the concept.

[CATS]

Just because you don't have an opportunity cost for deployment doesn't mean you're good. If you can barely rack up positive regardless you're still going to be low (FE10 Sanaki).

By itself, no, it doesn't mean you're good; but it does make it much, much easier to contribute positively, and it also means that you effectively can't be negative.

I believe seizing arguments are rejected in favor of promoting (or not stifling) discussion, and in addition they're often written off as a storyline event, not simply because of popular opinion. Recruitment? I believe only counting a unit's value once he's been turned into a blue unit is being counted for them, and recruiting other characters merely nets you their inventory, but all the credit of their actions are for that character to claim credit for. Maybe you're referring to the whole Karla deal, but otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about.

In the case of seizing, I agree, these are fairly legitimate points, and ofcourse I'm not saying Hector should auto-top because of seizing. I'm just talking in general about logically valid arguments that get rejected on an irrational basis; by recruitment arguments, yes, I'm referring to units like Karla and Treck, and there's other examples of this sort of stuff (as Colonel M so conveniently pointed out, Bors is somehow below Barth on the FE6 list despite both sucking and Bors having alot more forced chapters). My point is simply that unconventional arguments are generally rejected just because people dislike them, and an attempt to argue Hector into top tier based on the fact that he's always forced would likely fall victim to this tendency. However, the fact that it won't be accepted does not mean that it is invalid or wrong, and thus it is not a convincing point against Eliwood > Pent.

Being forced does not give you an excuse to suck. Hector faces the reality of not being able to promote when the rest of the team does ansd many other circumstances that keeps him from being the best unit. You can still build negatives as a forced unit as otherwise Boris would be over Barth just because he's forced for 5 chapters.

Inconsistencies from other tier lists don't necessarily prove or disprove anything. You could go and edit Marcus into bottom tier on the ranked list just because you feel like it; it wouldn't mean that he should follow suit on this list, unless you could adequately explain why he was moved.

Hector's a bad example, since he doesn't suck even when he's capped his level. It's unranked; Exp gains don't matter, so it doesn't matter that Hector isn't gaining Exp. He can still fight and he can do it quite competently. His durability is still top tier, and he still owns anything he can double, which is a fair bit of the enemies in FE7. If you send a max level Hector up against that swarm of cavaliers in Ch 25, he can one-round all of them and he'll never die (with his Eliwood support the strongest ones will only do 1 damage to him), and then the Wolf Beil gives him strong offense against Pascal. etc.

[Dat Nick]

By itself, no, it doesn't mean you're good; but it does make it much, much easier to contribute positively, and it also means that you effectively can't be negative.

Not being negative and being good are not the same thing. Being one does not automatically qualify you for the other. Like Eliwood.

[CATS]

And this brings us back to Eliwood: "Availability lol" is NOT a valid justification for him being a tier above Harken/Pent/Geitz by itself, because despite existing he is still a very poor unit for most of this time. Of course, you just put your hands over your ears every time I try to explain to you how being poor for most of your availability diminishes the positive impact of availability so I've no interest in discussing the issue with you, but since most people realize that availability is not the sole positive factor in a unit, I'll gladly bring it up with someone who grasps the concept.

Likewise, you seem to put your hands over your ears when faced with the fact that a unit without an opportunity cost of deployment does not need to be superior in order to contribute positively. You like to explain that units like Kent or Sain are superior to Eliwood during his earlier forced chapters, yet no one has ever claimed otherwise; can you explain how this changes the fact that Eliwood contributes significantly more than Pent during these chapters?

Edited March 19, 2010 by CATS

[Dat Nick]

Likewise, you seem to put your hands over your ears when faced with the fact that a unit without an opportunity cost of deployment does not need to be superior in order to contribute positively.

Gordin 6RKOs everything in C6 with a Steel Bow and gets ORKOd back by everything.

Athena doesn't exist yet.

Gordin is a complete combat failure and nobody truly cares that he exists, because he does basically nothing during the time that he does exist.

[Colonel M]

Well yes, Hector is not the greatest example (though assuming Wolf 0Beil is still around is a bit hard to belie ve). I am merely stating that not costing a deployment is everything. That isn't always an inconsistency either (it was merely an example), but you can apply it to Bors vs Noah and the results would likely still end in Noah's favor. Though I do wonder how Barth > Bors came about, but I'm assuming it has to do with the Knight Crest (and lol at him taking that).

EDIT; Er, in C6 Ill give you that. Still, C1 Gordin has the most accurate 2 range for the time being. Of course later on Gordin sucks but he still contributes. Its just positive for a short time.

Edited March 19, 2010 by Tyranel M

[CATS]

Gordin 6RKOs everything in C6 with a Steel Bow and gets ORKOd back by everything.

Athena doesn't exist yet.

Gordin is a complete combat failure and nobody truly cares that he exists, because he does basically nothing during the time that he does exist.

Assuming that he is forced deployment, Gordin still contributes more than Athena, correct? Obviously he does.

You can certainly still argue Athena > Gordin overall based on Athena making significant positive contributions over Gordin after she joins, but this does not transfer over to Pent/Harken vs Eliwood for a couple of reasons.

First, Gordin is a poor example when you are trying to explain why Eliwood's availability is insignificant. While he is not a superior unit, Eliwood is not nearly as bad as Gordin, either. He is not a "complete combat failure" by any means. If Eliwood 6RKO'd enemies and got ORKO'd back, you would have a convincing point. This is not the case. There is a very large difference between "I'm Worse Than Top Tier Units" and "I Suck So Much That I Can't Contribute Anything," yet the line between those two levels of performance seems to be quite blurred in your mind.

Second, Athena will be much better than Gordin while both exist. This is not true of Harken/Pent vs Eliwood; these two will, at best, only be marginally better than Eliwood while both exist.

Well yes, Hector is not the greatest example (though assuming Wolf 0Beil is still around is a bit hard to belie ve). I am merely stating that not costing a deployment is everything. That isn't always an inconsistency either (it was merely an example), but you can apply it to Bors vs Noah and the results would likely still end in Noah's favor.

Assuming that you use both Bors and Noah for the long-term, then yes, probably Noah would win. Unfortunately, this is an ambiguous and often inconsistent premise (as displayed by the discussion in the Normal Efficiency topic). There seems to be little logical basis for it beyond an irrational desire to justify certain tier list positions, prevent certain arguments from being valid, etc. It's not relevant to Pent vs Eliwood anyways, as once again, Pent is only slightly better than Eliwood while both exist, if he's any better at all.

Though I do wonder how Barth > Bors came about, but I'm assuming it has to do with the Knight Crest (and lol at him taking that).

Me too. I don't know what Knight Crests have to do with it, since they both use them.

[Colonel M]

Barth's was with an early sealing. Though when I see two units I generally look at their long-term performance with rare exceptions. I'd say FE6 Marucs is one of them, but if we went back to Zealot vs Lugh, Lugh would eventually beat Zealot in combat performance, but obviously you cannot ignore Zealot's contributions when he exists and Lugh's performance before Zealot exists, etc. I understand it isn't completely valid in the current discussion, but I'm bored at work and like to ramble.

[Narga_Rocks]

Me too. I don't know what Knight Crests have to do with it, since they both use them.

I remember GJ trying to move him up with an early crest, but I don't actually know precisely where he was before the crest. He may have already been above Bors before. Plus, I'm not certain he actually moved even from GJ's argument, so his current position may have nothing to do with crests whatsoever.

Anyway, Bors needs 9 levels before he could promote. Barth needs only one. In other words, it's a lot easier and less costly to make Barth even able to promote, whereas Bors probably doesn't have a prayer.

I'll never know why they created armor knights and then gave them such bad def growths. Like, Arden's def growth was no better than Sigurd, Noishe, and Dew. Sure, he had a better base, but still. And Cuan and Lex had better def growths (even though that was only because of holy blood). Compare fe9 Gatrie and Brom (and big T) to every other beorc (that aren't "never there Shinon"). Gatrie has 60%, Brom has 55%. 4 units have 45%, a full 10 points lower, and all the rest have 40% or less. Of the 5 non-armor beorc units with >40% def growth, 4 of them are promoted, and 1 (Makalov) has a base def only 2 higher than your peg and shows up 5 chapters later. And two of the promoted ones have a base of 11 or lower.

If they are going to make them so slow moving and have such little spd, they should at least make half the enemies tink and take like 3 or 4 from the others.

[nflchamp]

Assuming that he is forced deployment, Gordin still contributes more than Athena, correct? Obviously he does.

Someone tell me why I need to assume forced deployment for this to be true. When a unit exists, whether or not it takes a deployment slot, it is either positive and out-contributing someone who isn't there or negative and being more of a hindrance then someone who isn't there. Those are the only two options that I can see.