FE7 HHM tier list unranked/efficiency v3

[Gergeshwan]

First off, from what I can tell, we're not even disagreeing on the positions of the healers. Which means the only point behind this argument is a tier list philosophy disagreement (again), and there are more qualified people out there to argue that than me. So I'll stay out of the philosophy debate. But yeah, you could say I'm looking at the game through a dondon lens.

Anyway, on to less subjective stuff...

Plus, it might not even take an extra turn if you just have Matthew steal and then someone else kill. If you position him right he can steal from the south square, someone like Marcus can go around the west and if you need one more there's another spot to his right. I tend to be very careful trying to kill him anyway due to his crit with Luna.

I'm 85% sure that it has to cost a turn. In order for Matthew to steal on turn 3, which is when Marcus can kill, he has to be 6 squares away from the boss's east side (closer one). That's only one square behind the farthest Marcus can be at that point, so he's going to get targeted by a Nosferatu shaman on Enemy Phase. That shaman will be in the way, preventing Marcus and Matthew from reaching the boss. Since Florina would have brought Matthew down in this scenario, if she could ORKO that shaman, then the path is clear to steal and kill. But with 21 HP, 4 def, and 17 atk that heals, that would pretty much require a crit.

Got a video or anything? Because I've never been able to beat the map nearly that fast. There are too many enemies, the map is too cramped, and your units aren't yet at the point where they can always reliably ORKO and live when faced with too much.

Soon. As in, maybe tomorrow, maybe two days. It's the next chapter in my playlog, so whenever I have time to record it.

[CATS]

Yes, "maximum efficiency" as it's called has been strongly opposed at almost every turn; there's no longer any doubt that this tier list is not that. It's just that the question of "What does the tier list measure, then?" still seems to be unanswered. There are some vague ideas as to what it would ideally measure, as you outlined, but they're just that, vague. "A reasonably low turn count" is desired, but how low is too low, and how high is too high? It's difficult to make accurate measurements without more specific standards, some calls will have to be made by pure individual judgment (either by the topic poster, or by the majority of the participants). Maybe that's the whole point of it, though, to give personal opinions some weight.

Hopefully there's some kind of play style or goal-set out there which would provide a consistent and specific standard to use, as opposed to the "complete the game efficiently, but not too efficiently" method. Maybe a tier list based on routing every chapter while simultaneously completing the chapter goal (such as seizing) in the fewest number of turns, recruiting all characters, and obtaining all items? Since people do seem to lean towards the perfectionist side of things when it comes to recruiting and obtaining items, arguments against a character based on their recruitment costs are often frowned upon, and it's frequently assumed that every chest is opened and every village visited (with an example of this mentality being present on this very page, where Fox considers it worthwhile to spend a turn or two getting promo items). With the requirement that every enemy on the map has to be killed before seizing, there should be more room for units who are unused under "maximum efficiency" to contribute as well, since units like Marcus and Harken can't be everywhere at once.

Or maybe not; just some thoughts.

Edited December 11, 2010 by CATS

[Balcerzak]

I don't know when the mentality became "get the absolute lowest minimum turn count," but that's never been the way we've done it as long as I've been around (which has been forever as far as this forum is concerned). If it takes an extra turn to get a useful item like this (during which time you'll also get more experience, etc.), I'd say it's worth it, granted it will be used reasonably. Plus, it might not even take an extra turn if you just have Matthew steal and then someone else kill. If you position him right he can steal from the south square, someone like Marcus can go around the west and if you need one more there's another spot to his right. I tend to be very careful trying to kill him anyway due to his crit with Luna.

The 3 turn clear, with a stolen Guiding Ring would require Marcus rescues Matt turn one, so he can drop him at the red mark on turn 2, so he can steal on turn 3. This would preclude stealing the Whip, and may be practically impossible, due to Marcus halving his AS and probably getting clogged on the shamans.

[[Edit: I forgot about Florina... Disregard this point.]]

And wait, FFO only takes 2 turns? What the hell? How are you treating this tier list? This is not dondon's rating topic where it's minimum turn count or bust.

Lloyd's map shouldn't take longer than 4, period. I personally think the 2 turn is a little hard, so settled for 3 myself.

Got a video or anything? Because I've never been able to beat the map nearly that fast. There are too many enemies, the map is too cramped, and your units aren't yet at the point where they can always reliably ORKO and live when faced with too much.

Dragon's Gate in 8 turns. Might have been easier if I were allowed to use healers, and Kent and Lowen as well.

I'm sure dondon will have his own videos soon. Gergeshwan looks like he's currently playing that chapter as we speak from his log thread.

Edited December 11, 2010 by Balcerzak

[Junkhead]

Don't forget Barrier and Pure Water.

It's all settled then!

Heath > Rath

Not to mention, Heath's combat is better, and he can counter-attack.

And I can't believe I overlooked at the fact that flyers > archers.

[dondon151]

Due to the low power of my team, I had Oswin go up the middle to draw away the enemies while Marcus's group went through the room with the broken wall. Still 7 turns, though.

[grandjackal]

Consider me a bit late on these arguments, but I'd figure I'd toss a couple opinions out there.

I'd agree that Pent>Eliwood easily, I can't see him dropping too low (someone mentioned dropping him to Lower Mid below wtfBartre). Mainly due to Rapier being a decent weapon early on (as compared to Bartre, the only man in FE7's universe to be doubled early on), and the fact you only have to seriously get him to lvl 10 at worst to promote him for Horse transportation for Hector (not all maps are flier important for transport. Cog of Destiny comes to mind, I'd like all my best fighters at the ready to mow the way forward for that, so letting Eliwood do the taxi driving sounds perfectly fine). So whoever said he should be among failures like Bartre...Uhhh, no.

I'd certainly agree to Heath rising up.

But lastly, for Dart...I would check enemy stats to see his combat early on, bbut for all his early chapters there is not a single chapter of data for it until chapter 21, which by then his early portion is most likely over.

[-Cynthia-]

If Eliwood is that high off of horse transport, then why is he an entire tier above Isadora? She has a horse for longer and should have better combat since it's hard for Eliwood to level.

Bartre both hits harder and has better durability in the earlygame (11 HP>1 Def), the only thing even keeping Eliwood in is the fact that Bartre gets doubled once in a while. This doesn't actually happen that often. In C12, Bartre gets doubled by the Mercs, the boss, and maybe one of the Brigands. Most Brigands are in the 5-6 AS range.

The point of the Bartre comparison wasn't Bartre>Eliwood, but rather to show how Eliwood compares to someone two tiers below him at base. I don't really see how potential horse by C26 puts him where he is, he should probably be near the bottom of the next tier down.

[Florete]

It's just that the question of "What does the tier list measure, then?" still seems to be unanswered. There are some vague ideas as to what it would ideally measure, as you outlined, but they're just that, vague. "A reasonably low turn count" is desired, but how low is too low, and how high is too high? It's difficult to make accurate measurements without more specific standards, some calls will have to be made by pure individual judgment (either by the topic poster, or by the majority of the participants).

It's also hard to make specific standards in the first place (without going the full mile, of course). There's not really any way to avoid this because everyone plays differently and sees the list differently. This is why we do "team" comparisons, aka Raven's "team" vs Marcus' "team." Whichever can be proven to ultimately help their team more in dropping the overall turn count reliably wins. There isn't a set goal for turn counts per se, but if you always go for the absolute minimum, the lower down the list you go the more difficult it gets to judge units because they are less and less likely to find themselves helping out at all. It can also lead to stupid things like Rebecca > Harken because of her forced maps, when it's clear that Harken should win due to Rebecca sucking for a long time and Harken always being good. In the end it doesn't lead to an accurate comparison of unit ability.

Now I realize I actually did little in the way of explaining the list standards itself, but I think explaining the flaws in another method still goes some of the way to justifying what may not be a completely perfect standard, especially if you consider truly "perfect" standards to be impossible, which I do. Although that is something nice about ranks, since standards are much more clearly defined.

Personally I feel like the way we do things works just fine, it's just hard to explain, and I can't seem to do it right. Looking back, we had at least a year and a half under this same mentality with very few problems as to tier list philosophy, and that only changed when people like you, Inui, etc. came in and weren't used to our methods (I'm not calling you out or anything, that's just how it happened). I think what I'm trying to say is that lower turn counts should be seen as a goal as opposed to a requirement.

Maybe that's the whole point of it, though, to give personal opinions some weight.

Yeah, that works.

Maybe a tier list based on routing every chapter while simultaneously completing the chapter goal (such as seizing) in the fewest number of turns, recruiting all characters, and obtaining all items? Since people do seem to lean towards the perfectionist side of things when it comes to recruiting and obtaining items, arguments against a character based on their recruitment costs are often frowned upon, and it's frequently assumed that every chest is opened and every village visited (with an example of this mentality being present on this very page, where Fox considers it worthwhile to spend a turn or two getting promo items). With the requirement that every enemy on the map has to be killed before seizing, there should be more room for units who are unused under "maximum efficiency" to contribute as well, since units like Marcus and Harken can't be everywhere at once.

Doesn't sound like a bad idea at all, though it can still run into some problems. Would you have to collect every item, even things like stealable Vulneraries? Would you have to wait a while for things like the reinforcements in Dragon's Gate (which last until like turn 25 or something)?

Although I do think you're on a good track. Perhaps something more along the lines of collecting every item that isn't buyable in normal shops (or in the case of something like early Silver weapons, no shops for a long while) and routing every enemy that starts on the map but not necessarily any reinforcements. Although I do like the freedom to argue things like that as well, it could at least be something to go off for any normal comparison. Like, going back to Raven's team vs Marcus' team, maybe an advantage for Marcus' team could be that he doesn't need to take the time to acquire any Hero Crest's or something, but it's still normally assumed that the item is acquired. Either that or Marcus' team can sell it, or what have you. I'm not sure if this would have a very large effect on the list since I think that's what we tend to do anyway, and that may very well be a good thing.

If things still end up vague, I think that's fine. As you said, it gives people the right to argue their own way, which is the entire point of a tier list topic in the first place.

I hope all of the above made some sense, because I am honestly not sure how much of it did. Tier list philosophy is one of those annoying topics that always has me second-guessing myself and going back to change something.

As for the actual list itself, any opposition to:

Heath > Rath

Eliwood dropping down a tier

?

[grandjackal]

I can see him dropping to Isadora's tier, but you could have just done a comparison between him and Isadora, of which you did rather simply. Then there wouldn't have been a misunderstanding of Bartre being involved in this for some reason.

[CATS]

Doesn't sound like a bad idea at all, though it can still run into some problems. Would you have to collect every item, even things like stealable Vulneraries? Would you have to wait a while for things like the reinforcements in Dragon's Gate (which last until like turn 25 or something)?

Only requiring that every non-buyable item is acquired could work, yes. Another idea I had is that every item of significant value be acquired, with "significant value" being defined as anything worth more than 1000G: This includes killer and silver weapons, reavers, stat boosters, promo items, etc, but excludes the random stealable vulneraries. As for reinforcements, no, I would assume that you don't have to sit around and spawnkill them. The idea I had in mind was, when the map is entirely clear of enemies, you can seize; reinforcements that have already spawned need to be killed, but those that haven't spawned yet don't count.

[Anouleth]

Yes, "maximum efficiency" as it's called has been strongly opposed at almost every turn; there's no longer any doubt that this tier list is not that. It's just that the question of "What does the tier list measure, then?" still seems to be unanswered. There are some vague ideas as to what it would ideally measure, as you outlined, but they're just that, vague. "A reasonably low turn count" is desired, but how low is too low, and how high is too high? It's difficult to make accurate measurements without more specific standards, some calls will have to be made by pure individual judgment (either by the topic poster, or by the majority of the participants). Maybe that's the whole point of it, though, to give personal opinions some weight.

Hopefully there's some kind of play style or goal-set out there which would provide a consistent and specific standard to use, as opposed to the "complete the game efficiently, but not too efficiently" method. Maybe a tier list based on routing every chapter while simultaneously completing the chapter goal (such as seizing) in the fewest number of turns, recruiting all characters, and obtaining all items? Since people do seem to lean towards the perfectionist side of things when it comes to recruiting and obtaining items, arguments against a character based on their recruitment costs are often frowned upon, and it's frequently assumed that every chest is opened and every village visited (with an example of this mentality being present on this very page, where Fox considers it worthwhile to spend a turn or two getting promo items). With the requirement that every enemy on the map has to be killed before seizing, there should be more room for units who are unused under "maximum efficiency" to contribute as well, since units like Marcus and Harken can't be everywhere at once.

Or maybe not; just some thoughts.

I can think of two possible criteria that could be used:

'rout all maps in the quickest turncount possible' would be a good criteria, because it both prevents the tier list gravitating towards a 'optimum strategy only' style, but still lays out a clear, easily measurable objective (and it's also quite easy to measure people's contributions to it).

Alternatively, just a regular 'lowest turncount' criteria could be used with the caveat that an optimum team is not assumed. For example, if Marcus is not always going to be used, we cannot say that the earliest chapters will be steamrolled with just him and there are no opportunities for others to be useful, but at the same time, when tiering Marcus, his ability to do that isn't ignored.

Or just do like Fox and try to collect all valuable items, recruit all characters etc.etc. But would this include going to all Gaidens? After all, there are some valuable items in 19xx, which is generally avoided.

[Narga_Rocks]

Alternatively, just a regular 'lowest turncount' criteria could be used with the caveat that an optimum team is not assumed. For example, if Marcus is not always going to be used, we cannot say that the earliest chapters will be steamrolled with just him and there are no opportunities for others to be useful, but at the same time, when tiering Marcus, his ability to do that isn't ignored.

This has major problems though. First off, not using Marcus early on is akin to shooting yourself in the foot. That aside, in order to rate how good a growth unit is, you'd now have to guess what % of the time the tier player uses Marcus and what % of the time you don't. If, say, 40% of the time Marcus is used, then 40% of the time that growth unit is going to suck. 60% of the time that unit can actually scrape up the exp to be good. Then attempt to calculate their tier position based on that information. But even if Arguer A thinks that Marcus is used 40% of the time, what if Arguer B thinks Marcus is only used 30% of the time? And Arguer C says 60%?

Or just do like Fox and try to collect all valuable items, recruit all characters etc.etc. But would this include going to all Gaidens? After all, there are some valuable items in 19xx, which is generally avoided.

Well, going to 19xx has the problem of most definitely making Lyn mode not lowest turncount. Which leads to the problem of what the units from Lyn's mode will look like if you spent turns taking Nils to level 7.

[Anouleth]

This has major problems though. First off, not using Marcus early on is akin to shooting yourself in the foot. That aside, in order to rate how good a growth unit is, you'd now have to guess what % of the time the tier player uses Marcus and what % of the time you don't. If, say, 40% of the time Marcus is used, then 40% of the time that growth unit is going to suck. 60% of the time that unit can actually scrape up the exp to be good. Then attempt to calculate their tier position based on that information. But even if Arguer A thinks that Marcus is used 40% of the time, what if Arguer B thinks Marcus is only used 30% of the time? And Arguer C says 60%?

What approach do we take now to deployment? I mean, this isn't optimal deployment only, so there must be some kind of solution that people have used thus far to produce this list. This kind of question exists for any character in the game, after all. The existence of Legault affects if Matthew can use the Fell Contract. The existence of other fliers not only makes competition for Farina because after a certain critical mass, fliers aren't that useful, but they also provide direct competition for the Elysian Whips. The existence of Harken affects whether Isadora can get her favoured supports. Marcus is just an extreme case, like FE8 Seth, because he has a larger impact on how the game is played than any other individual character.

So basically, I don't know. I think both should be considered. But I don't know how to do it.

Well, going to 19xx has the problem of most definitely making Lyn mode not lowest turncount. Which leads to the problem of what the units from Lyn's mode will look like if you spent turns taking Nils to level 7.

I wanted to go to 19xx, I just grinded Nils to level 7, but I felt that using that time to abuse for experience would have been cheating. I guess that's one solution, to just assume that Nils will be grinded to level 7 once everything is dead in Chapter 10.

Incidentally, is there a consensus on LHM stat boosters/knight crest? Keep for the White Gem or use?

Although I do think you're on a good track. Perhaps something more along the lines of collecting every item that isn't buyable in normal shops (or in the case of something like early Silver weapons, no shops for a long while) and routing every enemy that starts on the map but not necessarily any reinforcements. Although I do like the freedom to argue things like that as well, it could at least be something to go off for any normal comparison. Like, going back to Raven's team vs Marcus' team, maybe an advantage for Marcus' team could be that he doesn't need to take the time to acquire any Hero Crest's or something, but it's still normally assumed that the item is acquired. Either that or Marcus' team can sell it, or what have you. I'm not sure if this would have a very large effect on the list since I think that's what we tend to do anyway, and that may very well be a good thing.

I think that most people are pretty happy with the current tier list... so if something doesn't have a large effect on it, that's probably a good thing? I think that to a certain extent, a tier list should conform to the kind of intuition that good players have about units - for example, if by some obscure criteria it could be shown that Dorcas > Raven or something equally nonsensical, it's probably best to change that criteria.

As for the actual list itself, any opposition to:

Heath > Rath

Eliwood dropping down a tier

?

Isn't Rath used for some stupendously fast clear of Genesis? I mean, I don't recall anything particularly valuable in the chests, but if there's no pressing reason to go through the whole chapter that I'm missing, I think he should get credit for it.

Edited December 11, 2010 by Mr. Know-it-all-Anouleth

[Florete]

I wanted to go to 19xx, I just grinded Nils to level 7, but I felt that using that time to abuse for experience would have been cheating. I guess that's one solution, to just assume that Nils will be grinded to level 7 once everything is dead in Chapter

I think the further problem with 19xx is killing Kishuna. That and getting Nils to level 7 is probably too much efficiency to sacrifice for one map.

Incidentally, is there a consensus on LHM stat boosters/knight crest? Keep for the White Gem or use?

Definitely use the stat boosters. If dondon can play through the game fine without even using the Silver Card, we can stand a loss of 5k for an extra booster. I wouldn't use the Knight Crest, but I'd be open to arguments for it.

Isn't Rath used for some stupendously fast clear of Genesis? I mean, I don't recall anything particularly valuable in the chests, but if there's no pressing reason to go through the whole chapter that I'm missing, I think he should get credit for it.

I don't know how reliable that is, but even if it works, does it outweigh being better everywhere else? And if we do adopt that "killing everything" standard, a quick clear isn't happening. But even aside from that, why even go to Genesis if you just get a quick clear (and by using someone like Rath, no less)? This isn't ranked, so we aren't cutting turns off with it, and if we just clear it in 2-3 turns anyway why not just skip it? You'll end up with maybe a few hundred extra experience overall, no items, no units, etc.

[Anouleth]

I think the further problem with 19xx is killing Kishuna. That and getting Nils to level 7 is probably too much efficiency to sacrifice for one map.

Is it really a concern how much time we spend in Lyn Mode?

And even if it is, if we're willing to sacrifice turns to access valuable items, then it should also be acceptable to sacrifice turns in order to go to all the Gaiden chapters. It's simply a matter of taking completionism a step further. Do we assume that we fulfil the requirements for Genesis even though it might be quicker to let Pent tear apart Living Legend?

Definitely use the stat boosters. If dondon can play through the game fine without even using the Silver Card, we can stand a loss of 5k for an extra booster. I wouldn't use the Knight Crest, but I'd be open to arguments for it.

Okay, just wondering.

I don't know how reliable that is, but even if it works, does it outweigh being better everywhere else? And if we do adopt that "killing everything" standard, a quick clear isn't happening. But even aside from that, why even go to Genesis if you just get a quick clear (and by using someone like Rath, no less)? This isn't ranked, so we aren't cutting turns off with it, and if we just clear it in 2-3 turns anyway why not just skip it? You'll end up with maybe a few hundred extra experience overall, no items, no units, etc.

Most Gaidens are assumed, even if it increases our overall turn count without saving turns later.

Still, it's probably the case that even with Genesis under his belt, an earlypromoted Rath is pretty awful in comparison to Heath. Heath has a sizeable strength and durability lead, plus flight plus not needing to use crappy swords in close combat.

And aside from Genesis I can't ever see Rath being better than Heath.

[Florete]

Is it really a concern how much time we spend in Lyn Mode?

And even if it is, if we're willing to sacrifice turns to access valuable items, then it should also be acceptable to sacrifice turns in order to go to all the Gaiden chapters. It's simply a matter of taking completionism a step further. Do we assume that we fulfil the requirements for Genesis even though it might be quicker to let Pent tear apart Living Legend?

I guess it probably wouldn't be a big deal if the extra turns taken are strictly for getting Nils to level 7 and nothing else, but killing Kishuna in one turn on HHM is stupid. I'm pretty sure you'd have to overlevel some highly accurate unit (Spd doesn't matter because no one is doubling his 24 AS) with good crit to stand any sort of chance of killing him.

It's not even really a matter of sacrificing turns, it's a matter of "is it even possible?" And you should be able to fulfill the 700 experience for Genesis even with Pent running around. You just need Ninian, 1-2 healers, and a flier or two. An uncapped Hector also helps.

Most Gaidens are assumed, even if it increases our overall turn count without saving turns later.

That's completely dependent on how things are run. If the idea is to 2-3 turn clear Genesis, I'd be on the side saying to skip it. There's just no point.

But anyway, Heath > Rath.

[Anouleth]

It's not even really a matter of sacrificing turns, it's a matter of "is it even possible?"

That's okay if it's more about the difficulty of killing Kishuna. The chapter has stupid requirements anyway.

[dondon151]

I don't know how reliable that is, but even if it works, does it outweigh being better everywhere else? And if we do adopt that "killing everything" standard, a quick clear isn't happening. But even aside from that, why even go to Genesis if you just get a quick clear (and by using someone like Rath, no less)? This isn't ranked, so we aren't cutting turns off with it, and if we just clear it in 2-3 turns anyway why not just skip it? You'll end up with maybe a few hundred extra experience overall, no items, no units, etc.

You get a Berserk. That's worth going to chapter 23x for. It's hilarious when you have Athos use it in Final because he can berserk almost anything on the map. I like to unlock Lloyd's room and turn 2 and berserk him so he and Linus kill each other.

Also, the fast clear is more like 6 turns. I'm pretty sure clearing the map in 3 turns is impossible. You get a bunch of EXP from the promoted units here too... It's like the difference between a --/2 and a --/4 Raven in chapter 24, for example. Even more if you're using unpromoted units.

Edited December 11, 2010 by dondon151

[Life]

If I'm reading what dondon and Gergeshwan are saying correctly, then if a unit requires extra turns on a map to be taken, they better damn well be able to save that many turns in the future.

In that case, I call for Karla to have her own tier at the bottom of the list. She requires us to not only field Bartre until he hits a minimum level of 10/5 but also to use a Hero Crest, which in turn adds more turns to a run since we then have to go out of our way to get another one (check out don's rating of Bartre for proof).

[Gergeshwan]

Raising Bartre is a pain, but as for the Hero Crest, the tier list doesn't likely assume a 3 turn clear of chapter 21 (Both routing and visiting all the villages wouldn't be happening), so you could steal one off Oleg.

[Anouleth]

If I'm reading what dondon and Gergeshwan are saying correctly, then if a unit requires extra turns on a map to be taken, they better damn well be able to save that many turns in the future.

In that case, I call for Karla to have her own tier at the bottom of the list. She requires us to not only field Bartre until he hits a minimum level of 10/5 but also to use a Hero Crest, which in turn adds more turns to a run since we then have to go out of our way to get another one (check out don's rating of Bartre for proof).

Surely Wallace is also time-consuming to recruit? I thought that Lloyd's chapter was easy to complete in just one or two turns because it's Kill Boss.

In any case, I don't think units should be penalised for taking turns to recruit.

[dondon151]

I think Renault can go above Wil. He saves turns in chapter 32 by being a Warp user that the player doesn't have to be concerned about rescuing because you recruit him near the end of the map. Although his staff range is only 6, it's enough to both not trigger the northeast reinforcements and to warp in someone like Vaida who, with Filla's Might, cleanly 4HKOs Limstella with a Brave Lance.

In chapter 32x, he could potentially be one of the staff users who performs a 1 turn clear, by having enough staff range to warp Nils into Kishuna's room after the door has been opened automatically.

In final, the quickest way to finish that map is to abuse Hammerne, Rescue, and Fortify, and Renault can do all of that.

Vaida, too, can probably go up to mid. There's a 2 tier gap between her and Harken - granted, Harken does have an extra 2 chapters, but Vaida has flying and absolutely killer offense and physical durability (she needs a Speedwings).

Edited December 12, 2010 by dondon151

[Colonel M]

WRT your efficient goal, I disagree with using routs as part of the criteria. While I'm indifferent with items and what not, and I will admit routing makes most comparisons a bit easier than normal, you also have to remember that routing things is heavily inefficient in the first place. With items... there's a cost for the benefit from the item (so for the example, the Hero Crests that are possibly missed), and I'm fine with assuming the player is getting the more expensive treasures (but getting stuff like Vulneraries when everyone and their mother starts with one is a big no no). So now we would have to evaluate what items we would be obtaining through the chapter (if all or just valuables), then how many turns it will cost to obtain everything on the map.

Just, please, no routing. I'd sooner go for maximum efficiency than fucking routing a map.

(I'd also not include 19XX. The big pains are that your most reliable units are anything with that Killing Edge of Guy's that you have left over, and IIRC the hit rates aren't that great.

Edited December 13, 2010 by Tyranel M

[Florete]

I think Renault can go above Wil. He saves turns in chapter 32 by being a Warp user that the player doesn't have to be concerned about rescuing because you recruit him near the end of the map. Although his staff range is only 6, it's enough to both not trigger the northeast reinforcements and to warp in someone like Vaida who, with Filla's Might, cleanly 4HKOs Limstella with a Brave Lance.

In chapter 32x, he could potentially be one of the staff users who performs a 1 turn clear, by having enough staff range to warp Nils into Kishuna's room after the door has been opened automatically.

In final, the quickest way to finish that map is to abuse Hammerne, Rescue, and Fortify, and Renault can do all of that.

Vaida, too, can probably go up to mid. There's a 2 tier gap between her and Harken - granted, Harken does have an extra 2 chapters, but Vaida has flying and absolutely killer offense and physical durability (she needs a Speedwings).

I think I can run with Renault > Wil, but is Vaida really high enough priority for the one and only Speedwings? Especially considering we have units like Marcus and Hawkeye out there, going up to Mid based on that seems pretty high when she has what may as well only be two maps, 3 if she makes it to Light. If it's a comparison to Harken, he may need to go down.

Just, please, no routing. I'd sooner go for maximum efficiency than fucking routing a map.

What's the big deal? If you have a decently sized team, then as long as you aren't blitzing it's rather easy to kill every enemy within a reasonable time frame. The only real issue would be reinforcements that appear behind you faster than you might be able to clear the map, like the Cavaliers in Whereabouts Unknown.

Plus, read this:

Although I do like the freedom to argue things like that as well, it could at least be something to go off for any normal comparison. Like, going back to Raven's team vs Marcus' team, maybe an advantage for Marcus' team could be that he doesn't need to take the time to acquire any Hero Crest's or something, but it's still normally assumed that the item is acquired. Either that or Marcus' team can sell it, or what have you.

Substitute the Hero's Crest for experience. The idea works for both. These criteria aren't so much of a requirement as they are a goal (if they are implemented). If you don't need them, you're at an advantage, but if you do, it's not necessarily a bad thing.

Oh, and I agree with CATS's idea about collecting items of significant value. Not too sure about the reinforcements thing, since that can be annoying on some maps.

[Colonel M]

What's the big deal? If you have a decently sized team, then as long as you aren't blitzing it's rather easy to kill every enemy within a reasonable time frame. The only real issue would be reinforcements that appear behind you faster than you might be able to clear the map, like the Cavaliers in Whereabouts Unknown.

Then what about instances such as Cog of Destiny where reinforcements spew out every single turn? Honestly, I don't mind the occasional slow down of a turn or two to catch someone up, but with routing it takes much longer than that. Take a random chapter such as 17X. To clear it without doing anything takes very minimal amount of turns. To clear it with all the enemies dead requires not only an excruciating amount of turns, but also possible calculated risks of death (though to be fair, this chapter is one of the few exceptions with the latter). Why should I waste... maybe 10 turns over what can be accomplished in a chapter in, say, 5? You might as well go back to max BEXP requirements in FE10 and call smash_fanatic efficient now, since his play style is not much different from routing all over the place with the occasional "okay I can skip chapters". Routing just seems like a stubborn excuse to get away from LTC play through and dredging our feet for nothing whatsoever, or "inefficient" if you will.

I participated in Tier Lists to at least advocate the middle road between maximum efficiency and inefficiency where a medium could be reached, hence the approach of "Casual Efficiency". I didn't come here to play "MaxKnight's Inefficiencies 2.0" . I apologize for sounding rude, but I look at routing a map pretty much the opposite of efficiency when efficiency's definition is all about minimal input -> maximum output.

*Sigh*.

Edited December 13, 2010 by Tyranel M