FE7 HHM tier list unranked/efficiency v3

[dondon151]

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.

There are at least 2 Speedwings: chapter 27 and 28x. Chapter 30's Speedwing is too much of a hassle to get. With just +1 spd on base, Vaida doubles every sniper in chapter 31 and only takes 6 HP damage from the Silver Bow snipers with a Delphi Shield. With +2 spd on base, Vaida doubles every WK in chapter 32 and 2HKO with a Killer Lance. +3 spd on base (so Speedwings and a spd proc), she doubles WLs and paladins, 3HKOing the former with Killer Lance (about a 70% chance of ORKO) and 2HKOing the latter with Silver Lance.

Clearly a better choice than either Marcus or Hawkeye, considering she has higher str, better durability, and flying.

I also strongly disagree with using rout as a minimum criterion of efficiency for at least 2 reasons. One is that it's completely arbitrary and really does not represent any of the game's goals (other than, obviously, rout maps). You're just picking it because you're apprehensive about the way that efficiency is going. Reactionary, if you will. The other is that it's not going to solve any of the problems that you've identified with the current tier list. Instead of fulfilling a chapter's objectives in the least turns possible, it's now going to be routing a chapter in the least turns possible. All you're doing is changing the composition of the "most efficient team," but you're not actually removing the notion of a "most efficient team;" in fact, the new criterion only serves to strengthen that notion because routing is much more intensive on movement, offense, and durability.

I suppose it's a convenient way to say "unit x gets a promotion item free of cost," but that's just a convenience that skirts a problem that you don't want to deal with.

[Florete]

Then what about instances such as Cog of Destiny where reinforcements spew out every single turn?

That's already a rout map.

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).

No way. How fast can it be beaten normally, 4 turns? On my ranked run I could have finished it by turn 7 (and yes, this was charging through). You may need someone really dodgy like Lyn (part of why I love her so much), but it's very possible.

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.

Then what do you suggest? Also, did you even read the part where I said it's not technically required? Because it doesn't seem like you did. Honestly, there are very few maps where routing will take a significant amount of extra turns over a quicker clear if we're not blitzing.

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.

I don't know why you're getting so worked up over it in the first place. In the end, this won't be much, if any, different from what we've been doing all along.

There are at least 2 Speedwings: chapter 27 and 28x. Chapter 30's Speedwing is too much of a hassle to get. With just +1 spd on base, Vaida doubles every sniper in chapter 31 and only takes 6 HP damage from the Silver Bow snipers with a Delphi Shield. With +2 spd on base, Vaida doubles every WK in chapter 32 and 2HKO with a Killer Lance. +3 spd on base (so Speedwings and a spd proc), she doubles WLs and paladins, 3HKOing the former with Killer Lance (about a 70% chance of ORKO) and 2HKOing the latter with Silver Lance.

Funny. For some reason I remembered there only being one. Point taken.

Instead of fulfilling a chapter's objectives in the least turns possible, it's now going to be routing a chapter in the least turns possible.

Have I really just not explained it well enough?

All you're doing is changing the composition of the "most efficient team," but you're not actually removing the notion of a "most efficient team;" in fact, the new criterion only serves to strengthen that notion because routing is much more intensive on movement, offense, and durability.

How the hell does it strengthen it? Your methods (for lowest turn counts) that I've seen are generally completely reliant on often very specific strategies and team setups, at least as far as I can tell. I don't want that because I want the tier list to encompass what any unit can do to help the player in a variety of team structures and strategies; you know, the reason we created our definition of "efficiency" in the first place.

Edited December 13, 2010 by Sadistic Fox

[dondon151]

How the hell does it strengthen it? Your methods (for lowest turn counts) that I've seen are generally completely reliant on often very specific strategies and team setups, at least as far as I can tell. I don't want that because I want the tier list to encompass what any unit can do to help the player in a variety of team structures and strategies; you know, the reason we created our definition of "efficiency" in the first place.

Do you think that I just arbitrarily pick 9 units and go on chapter 29? It literally took me days to figure out how to avoid the reinforcement triggers while maintaining turncount, manipulate enemy movements such that Marcus could run ahead and assassinate a valkyrie, figure out how to set up diversions so I could neutralize the heroes, determine the positioning Harken needed to solo the northwest valkyries and still reach Linus, rescue Hector after recruiting Vaida, etc.

I tried that map originally with Isadora instead of Marcus. Didn't work. Then I used Isadora and Marcus, but no Florina. Didn't work. I had Raven before I found out that didn't work and replaced him with Hawkeye. Then when I put in Hawkeye I realized I needed Florina, and removed Isadora. I had Fiora instead of Ninian because I was worried about the long range tomes, but that proved to be too slow. Then I replaced Heath with Ninian, but Fiora's offense wasn't good enough, so I replaced Fiora with Heath.

If you think routs are the equivalent of bumrushes, you're horribly mistaken. They require more specific team setups than any other sort of map objective. Because now, instead of having to eliminate a very specific group of enemies, like in defense or seize maps, you have to spread units out to every part of the map. It's like trying to do 2 or 3 simultaneous seize objectives with half a team each. One wrong move, one weak link, and your turncount is screwed.

Edited December 13, 2010 by dondon151

[Florete]

If you think routs are the equivalent of bumrushes, you're horribly mistaken. They require more specific team setups than any other sort of map objective.

.....

Wtf was all that? When did I say routs are the equivalent of bumrushes (never mind that I've been trying to argue against bumrushing/blitzing)? If anything that post only strengthened my argument because you really did need a very specific team and strategy to reach the minimum possible turn count, which is exactly what my problem is. If you weren't going for "absolute minimum," your team setup would not need to be nearly as specific. Hell, I once practically duo'd that map with Rebecca and Lyn in ~17 turns, and that was with letting all the reinforcements appear (obviously I'm not suggesting that, I'm just saying).

[Balcerzak]

How the hell does it strengthen it? Your methods (for lowest turn counts) that I've seen are generally completely reliant on often very specific strategies and team setups, at least as far as I can tell. I don't want that because I want the tier list to encompass what any unit can do to help the player in a variety of team structures and strategies; you know, the reason we created our definition of "efficiency" in the first place.

I feel I have to disagree with this. Experience with draft runs, which are basically a scattershot sampling of partially random mid and low-tier team selection surrounding and complementing a one or two top-tier character core, leads me to the belief that given pretty much any cross-section of teams you can usually pull of very competitive turn counts, assuming of course that you're already at the point t where you have full access to what can reasonably be called a team, and aren't partially soloing). Yes, you'll probably end up pulling high compared to the absolute minimum on some maps, but I don't expect it to be that much more than a handful of turns here and there.

Now, maybe I'm completely wrong because I haven't sat down and done a strict chapter-by-chapter, turn-by-turn comparison. Perhaps I'll spend some time later tonight and look into that.

[Florete]

I feel I have to disagree with this. Experience with draft runs, which are basically a scattershot sampling of partially random mid and low-tier team selection surrounding and complementing a one or two top-tier character core, leads me to the belief that given pretty much any cross-section of teams you can usually pull of very competitive turn counts, assuming of course that you're already at the point t where you have full access to what can reasonably be called a team, and aren't partially soloing). Yes, you'll probably end up pulling high compared to the absolute minimum on some maps, but I don't expect it to be that much more than a handful of turns here and there.

Now, maybe I'm completely wrong because I haven't sat down and done a strict chapter-by-chapter, turn-by-turn comparison. Perhaps I'll spend some time later tonight and look into that.

I'm so confused. First dondon doesn't seem to quite get what I was saying, now I can't tell how you're disagreeing with me. Once again, your post should only serve to strengthen what I've been arguing.

Is my choice of words today really so terrible?

Edited December 13, 2010 by Sadistic Fox

[WeaponsofMassConstruction]

I think the problem here is that we're only defining tier lists along the bounds of efficiency. As it stands, I think max efficiency is the best representation of efficiency, based on the given generality, and those that promote a more casual approach come across very much like they are saying, "we tier this way because we don't like that way." However, I also think those who promote a more casually efficient approach are actually influenced by a different factor, ease, as in which characters make the game easiest to beat. Thus casual efficiency is a cross between the fastest way and the easiest way to beat the game.

This mindset probably arises from the early days of FE characters comparison, and while I was not there, I can imagine tier lists started with a question like, "If there's a bunch of enemies in the area ahead, who should I send in to take care of them?"

[dondon151]

.....

Wtf was all that? When did I say routs are the equivalent of bumrushes (never mind that I've been trying to argue against bumrushing/blitzing)? If anything that post only strengthened my argument because you really did need a very specific team and strategy to reach the minimum possible turn count, which is exactly what my problem is. If you weren't going for "absolute minimum," your team setup would not need to be nearly as specific. Hell, I once practically duo'd that map with Rebecca and Lyn in ~17 turns, and that was with letting all the reinforcements appear (obviously I'm not suggesting that, I'm just saying).

Here, let me show you a quote that you agreed with earlier in the topic:

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?

So if your problem was that we were taking a minimum turncount while achieving easier chapter objectives, how would taking a minimum turncount while achieving more difficult chapter objectives solve the problem?

[Anouleth]

I think the problem here is that we're only defining tier lists along the bounds of efficiency. As it stands, I think max efficiency is the best representation of efficiency, based on the given generality, and those that promote a more casual approach come across very much like they are saying, "we tier this way because we don't like that way." However, I also think those who promote a more casually efficient approach are actually influenced by a different factor, ease, as in which characters make the game easiest to beat. Thus casual efficiency is a cross between the fastest way and the easiest way to beat the game.

This mindset probably arises from the early days of FE characters comparison, and while I was not there, I can imagine tier lists started with a question like, "If there's a bunch of enemies in the area ahead, who should I send in to take care of them?"

The problem is that under 'maximum efficiency', many characters that would otherwise be good are screwed by the lack of experience and predominance of mounted units. And I can understand why many people feel that for example, putting Eliwood as worse than Dorcas (as dondon did in his character ratings) does not accurately reflect the reality of the situation, which is that if you are not playing in this extremely fast, highly aggressive style, Eliwood is far better than Dorcas due to better all-round stats.

[Florete]

Here, let me show you a quote that you agreed with earlier in the topic:

So if your problem was that we were taking a minimum turncount while achieving easier chapter objectives, how would taking a minimum turncount while achieving more difficult chapter objectives solve the problem?

First off, I did not completely agree with CATS, which should be evidenced by the fact that the "criteria" was changed just a few posts later (I suggested something different, then he added some). Second, we're already past such a simple view on things. Please at least keep up with my arguments.

[dondon151]

First off, I did not completely agree with CATS, which should be evidenced by the fact that the "criteria" was changed just a few posts later (I suggested something different, then he added some). Second, we're already past such a simple view on things. Please at least keep up with my arguments.

Uh, I'm pretty sure I have been keeping up with your arguments. Nowhere did you not expressly state that your new criteria did not include lowest turncount. Since CATS's post was the last post on that subject, I'm assuming it's been implicitly agreed with (not to mention that if you disagreed with it, you never offered an alternative turncount criteria).

[WeaponsofMassConstruction]

The problem is that under 'maximum efficiency', many characters that would otherwise be good are screwed by the lack of experience and predominance of mounted units. And I can understand why many people feel that for example, putting Eliwood as worse than Dorcas (as dondon did in his character ratings) does not accurately reflect the reality of the situation, which is that if you are not playing in this extremely fast, highly aggressive style, Eliwood is far better than Dorcas due to better all-round stats.

I'm not supporting outright maximum efficiency. I think under the current label of plain "efficiency," it is the most accurate interpretation, which is why I think a cross between ease and efficiency, or even eliminating efficiency altogether is a better idea.

[Florete]

Uh, I'm pretty sure I have been keeping up with your arguments. Nowhere did you not expressly state that your new criteria did not include lowest turncount. Since CATS's post was the last post on that subject, I'm assuming it's been implicitly agreed with (not to mention that if you disagreed with it, you never offered an alternative turncount criteria).

In that case, I think you're just taking the idea of "lower turn count" (not necessarily lowest) too far. You have to take a more casual approach here; we're not spending a week to come up with a perfect strategy, and we're not using the same team setups every time. There's not going to be a set turn count to reach; that both can't happen and isn't the point anyway.

[WeaponsofMassConstruction]

In that case, I think you're just taking the idea of "lower turn count" (not necessarily lowest) too far. You have to take a more casual approach here; we're not spending a week to come up with a perfect strategy, and we're not using the same team setups every time. There's not going to be a set turn count to reach; that both can't happen and isn't the point anyway.

How about tiering with less regards to efficiency?

[Florete]

How about tiering with less regards to efficiency?

That all depends on your definition of the word.

[WeaponsofMassConstruction]

That all depends on your definition of the word.

In this case, what everyone has taken to mean approximately how fast you clear the game.

[Balcerzak]

I'm so confused. First dondon doesn't seem to quite get what I was saying, now I can't tell how you're disagreeing with me. Once again, your post should only serve to strengthen what I've been arguing.

Is my choice of words today really so terrible?

Naw, that's probably mostly my bad this time, I was typing in a hurry and didn't cover everything I needed to.

I was disagreeing with the notion that "methods for lowest turn count" are as rigidly flexibly as people seem to be making them out to be. The reason dondon's teams and strategies seem like they have to be so specific is, IMO, due directly to the extra self-imposed challenge of zero-growths. The fact that with a different self-imposed challenge, relying on taking a much less optimal team, but one that allowed growths allows for completion of the same chapter in the same, or nearly the same turn count (e.g. his Cog at 9 vs my Cog at 10, his Dragon's Gate at 7 vs mine at 8) serves to illustrate that team choice isn't that crippling a determination in efficiency. Yes, maybe you'll be screwed out of a turn here or there. That gives you something to work with in assigning tier positions. It's by no means an absolute factor, guaranteeing that some units never or always see play. There is no real absolute factor, besides (arguably) every team starting out leaning on Marcus heavily.

On a separate note, I suppose I should mention that some of my disagreement was left unstated, and dealt with your conclusions, that we should change the criteria to require collecting all (significant) treasure, because quite frankly some treasures are just not worth the loss in efficiency (Ch17 Silver Sword, etc.). Moving in the direction of routing, or near routing on non-rout objective maps also strikes me as a bit silly.

[grandjackal]

The problem is that under 'maximum efficiency', many characters that would otherwise be good are screwed by the lack of experience and predominance of mounted units.

That's just how the game is. If the game is dominated by mounted units, what good does trying to help "good units" do but only serve to take experience away from these said dominant units? Or better yet, why is EXP the problem? If we're caring about efficiency here, what does EXP matter unless it's going to those who put it to the best use? Fact of the matter is, the game is dominated by mounts. Short of hacking, that's not changing any time soon. Saying we should measure them on the basis of "using mounts less" or "giving others more of what they normally wouldn't get" is silly, as it would not be an accurate measure of their performance.

Games can be imbalanced, this is one of them. If mounts rule for efficient use, then the list should reflect that. End of story.

And I can understand why many people feel that for example, putting Eliwood as worse than Dorcas (as dondon did in his character ratings) does not accurately reflect the reality of the situation, which is that if you are not playing in this extremely fast, highly aggressive style, Eliwood is far better than Dorcas due to better all-round stats.

Why not play highly aggressive if you can get away with it? If it gets us through quicker, I don't see the problem.

But if we're gonna measure that way, when does Eliwood get these socalled "better all-round stats" that Dorcas seems to lack? Let's first point out that not only does Dorcas have a level lead with Lyn's Mode (Lvl 6 or 7 is possible), and Eliwood starts off as absolute balls in combat.

7/0 Dorcas: 33.2 HP, 9.4 Str, 8.6 Skl, 6.8 Spd, 4.6 Lck, 4 Def, 0.6 Res

17 mt with Iron, 21 with Steel, and access to hand axes.

Base Eliwood: 18 HP, 5 Str, 5 Skl, 7 Spd, 7 Lck, 5 Def, 0 Res

Access to Rapier...and that's it. The Rapier when it hits slayer, is only 2 more might stronger than Dorcas is with an iron axe, and considering all armors and most cavaliers have lances? This actually cancels out, and they do the same exact damage. Since they have nearly the same speed, Eliwood is not doubling anything that Dorcas isn't. On the other hand, Dorcas can counter or just hit with range, and is astoundingly more durable with his 15 HP lead, and axes more often than not giving him a defensive advantage early on.

Let's check him out at level 12. I'll be generous to the Wood and give him level 8.

Dorcas: 37.2 HP, 12.4 Str, 10.6 Skl, 7.8 Spd, 6.6 Lck, 5.25 Def, 1.35 Res

Eliwood: 23.6 HP, 8.15 Str, 8.5 Skl, 9.8 Spd, 10.5 Lck, 7.1 Def, 2.1 Res

If we're talking Iron, that's 21 Str to 13. Even if Eliwood doubles and Dorcas doesn't, he still outdamages if the enemy has more than 4 Def. Considering that this is probably around the Dread Isle, I'd say that's a pretty safe bet to make. If Eliwood equips Steel, he does less than Dorcas because Eliwood loses quite a bit of speed equipping Steel, and Dorcas by now has access to stuff like the Pole Axe and Hammer (At least I think access to the Pole Axe is around now. If he doesn't, no biggy), of which could help Dorcas avoid counters with one shotting. Looking into chapter 21 stats (that is, later than how I would measure these levels), Dorcas can OHKO pegasi with Steel, so I can make a basis that he can do that now. If he can get A axes by now, he may even have Silver for 28 mt, which I'm positive will OHKO mages on the dread isle (any of them). Dorcas still has range, Dorcas is still more durable. 6 avoid's hardly gonna do much help in Eliwood's favor.

I would measure further, but why bother? Dorcas is gonna get dropped for better units eventually, and Eliwood's still gonna suck at combat while getting a horse after promotion in order to taxi Hector around. Saying I'm promoting Eliwood for the "Better all-round stats" would be a lie when that's not the thing that will make him suddenly outperform Dorcas (it will, but it still won't be good. 20/1 Eliwood is tieing Lvl 7 Marcus wingless, which by the time Eliwood is 20/1, Marcus should be a lot higher than that. Hell, Eliwood doesn't even beat HM Legault until promotion. Looking at some stats (specifically 28x), a 20/6 Eliwood is getting 4-3RKOd, cannot ORKO basic wyvern riders even with Silver (WTD makes it just miss even the weakest one). This offense is on par with a Lvl 9 Isadora without an Energy Ring, and she still has weapon control over Eliwood despite him being more durable.

So yeah, I would agree with dondon in that Eliwood would score lower than Dorcas, and would ask he drop to Isadora's level. He's underperforming Dorcas early on, and has to promote just to catch up to Isadora, both of these people having showed up for free to dish out utilic justice. Eliwood's "Better all-rounded stats" don't show up until waaaaaaaay later it seems.

Though looking at the list, I have to ask if Jaffar really deserves to be that low below Bartre. I'm aware that Jaffar doesn't have a lot of time, but his base stats look perfectly fine. Bartre's of minor help early on, I could consider Jaffar could be of minor help in route maps, or maps where there's action close by to help clear the way for your mounts. Not saying Jaffar should rise I guess, but rather maybe Bartre could drop to Jaffar's level?

[Florete]

On a separate note, I suppose I should mention that some of my disagreement was left unstated, and dealt with your conclusions, that we should change the criteria to require collecting all (significant) treasure, because quite frankly some treasures are just not worth the loss in efficiency (Ch17 Silver Sword, etc.). Moving in the direction of routing, or near routing on non-rout objective maps also strikes me as a bit silly.

Sorry, but I've re-stated this part more than once now:

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.

Stop using the word "require." Everyone. I stated since the beginning these things would not be required as though we're trying to fulfill the Funds rank or something. My problem comes when dondon says certain items will not be acquired because they take something like 1-2 extra turns past the bare minimum, especially when getting them will arguably help in the long run even if they don't specifically shave off the turns taken to get them. Items that are less likely to be obtained at all (like that Silver Sword) just have an even lower chance of being acquired, especially in the case of a (somewhat) generic weapon like that one.

I'm beginning to think we should just have two tier lists: Maximum efficiency and Casual efficiency. The only real problem is, "What comes next?" Either that or we need redefine what "efficiency" actually means for us.

[-Cynthia-]

Jaffar's stats are decent, but he just doesn't have the attributes to be a very useful lategame unit. He has average Mov and no 1-2 range options, which is problematic given the chapters he's available for.

Actually looking at things, I'm not sure how Jaffar>Louise really. Her auto A helps Pent quite a bit and she's got some chapters of availability over him. Not like Louise has much Player Phase either, but her range is a little longer due to bows.

Edited December 14, 2010 by -Cynthia-

[Balcerzak]

Sorry, but I've re-stated this part more than once now:

I'm beginning to think we should just have two tier lists: Maximum efficiency and Casual efficiency. The only real problem is, "What comes next?" Either that or we need redefine what "efficiency" actually means for us.

Oh, that's probably why I left it unstated then. I knew I should have waited longer until the wine wore off before posting...

*shrug*

Still, I hope I managed to clarify the rest of my previous mess.

[Seven Deadly Sins]

Just for sillytimes and shit, I decided to do an efficient LM run with the sole purpose of feeding Sain bosskills and seeing if I could promote him using Wallace's Knight Crest in Lyn Mode. The end result is that I matched Gergeshwan's turncounts almost entirely, and ended up 2 turns behind him due to a slower Ch9 and Ch10 since I fed the bosses to Sain.

But here's the kicker. Sain ended up promoting AT LEVEL 14, and then gaining a level off of killing Lundgren. So when Chapter 16 rolls around, I'll end up with a 14/2 Sain in the bottom corner of the map and an extra Knight Crest to use on someone like Lowen or Kent earlier.

I basically didn't use anyone other than Lyn/Sain/Kent/Florina (just like usual), and here are my levels:

Sain: 14/2.12

Kent: 8.75

Florina: 6.21 (+Robe and Ring)

Lyn: 6.82

Pretty standard, pretty awesome. Kent could probably pull the same thing off, meaning that there's the potential for an efficient LM clear AND a promoted high-level cav in Lyn Mode.

Also, just for the record, Sain is basically at this point a hypercharged Marcus, losing only in Skill and Resistance, but tying or winning everywhere else.

Edited December 26, 2010 by Seven Deadly Sins

[Mekkah]

Well, Sain also has worse weapon levels, for all that matters.

[Seven Deadly Sins]

Eh, on promo he now has B Lances and C Swords, which is pretty nice.

[Seven Deadly Sins]

Double posting to request that Sain be moved immediately below Marcus. With a Lyn Mode promotion and coming out at 14/2, he's startlingly similar to base Marcus stat-wise (wins notably in STR, ties in DEF and SPE but wins those later, and only loses in SKL and RES), and while he does come a couple of maps later he's still around for the lion's share of the game. Kent can stay where he is because of his mediocre Strength causing issues for his ability to ORKO (and if we're playing efficient LM it takes 3-4 extra turns for Kent to kill Lundgren for the /2 level and still get the Energy Ring, while Sain can just blow through Lundgren), but Sain should almost always get that LM promo and end up as basically a second Marcus for the entirety of the game.