FE7 HHM tier list unranked/efficiency v3

[Inui]

Geitz owns Harken in supports... He can start building them sooner and they all want him and tend to be available. Harken's partners are almost always full and they start later.

[CATS]

I posted something about Pent, I don't care enough to strongly oppose it though.

Also, what does everyone think about Geitz vs Harken?

The question is how good is Geitz during those extra maps? He's not doing much on Ch 24 due to positioning, and he's certainly not above average on Ch 25 if only because that whole map is such a joke. The enemies are so failure that even if Geitz were rly good here, he wouldn't be necessary. Someone like Lowen can still one-round mostly everything on the map. I guess Geitz would be useful for Brave Bow'ing Pascal, though.

Then when Harken joins, he's better than Geitz for likely the rest of the game. To match Harken's base Str, Geitz needs to be L11, to match his Spd, he needs to be L13, and it looks like he'll never match Harken's base Def even at max level. I lean towards Harken, but it seems like a fairly subjective match-up, so meh.

[Colonel M]

Serra loses some of her level lead. Priscilla loses her godlike Experience rank contributions. Seems pretty balanced to me. Either way, neither of them deserve top tier at all. They're both promoting later and don't have the Experience rank to buff them on a tier list.

Pretty much. To be honest I'm with Reikken on whether they should be over the Cavs, but one day I was willing to try to put Ozzy in Top (his Movement constraints are only a minor issue under some circumstances IMO), but if we remove some of the tiers then it likely allows me not to really care about arguing it yet.

[frat_tastic]

Eh, Geitz is only there for 2 chapters so he's not building them longer for it to really matter, and then who really wants Geitz at this point? Maybe Dorcas I guess if we're still using him at this point, but I don't know who else isn't already taken. Harken can at least definitely get Isadora.

[Inui]

Geitz can also definitely get Isadora. And Dart and Dorcas. We don't care about Funds rank anymore, so Dart's top 5 offense is now awesome.

[frat_tastic]

I forgot about Dart, so point there.

I dunno, I would still say that Harken's better performance is worth more than Geitz's 2 chapters worth of use beforehand, especially since Geitz has kinda slow-ish supports (at least compared to Harken/Isadora),

[Reikken]

I don't really like this sort of logic. Are you saying that if there was only one, that one would be fine in Top tier?

YES

If you had 20 thieves from the start, Matthew would not be top tier. If Isadora, Geitz, and Vaida all joined from the start, Marcus would not be top tier. Offering something unique is what puts these chars so high.

If you had only like 2 combat units, one of which was Bartre, he too would be top tier. (make the rest healers/dancers or something)

edit: actually, given how huge your top tier is and how exp rank DNE, Marcus might still be top tier in that scenario. lol

Edited March 8, 2010 by Reikken

[Florete]

That idea sounded better in my head.

Still, I don't think having only one more can devalue them too much since staff utility is still really useful for a lot of this game. Even if they do drop I can't see them going very low.

[Reikken]

Well, like I said, after ch 18, it's two more rather than just one. That's... (1/2 of 14), 15, 16, 17, 17x, 18 = 5.5 chapters out of ~30? That's a rather short period of time. It's less than twice the time that Serra is the only healer, which you don't seem to value very highly at all.

[Mekkah]

Geitz can also definitely get Isadora. And Dart and Dorcas. We don't care about Funds rank anymore, so Dart's top 5 offense is now awesome.

Geitz (and Harken) join way too late to do anything support related for efficiency imo. 0+2 supports no thanks.

[-Cynthia-]

Harken only needs 10 turns for a C Isadora, but other than that supports take too long. Isadora's chances of being in play are only fair anyway.

[Narga_Rocks]

For them in the official list...without either you have to use vulneraries/elixirs to keep yourselves alive which sucks a lot, but of course if you have either then the other isn't worth a whole lot (kind of like with Matt/Legault). I think there's something to say for it.

I don't really like this sort of logic. Are you saying that if there was only one, that one would be fine in Top tier? Why is that? No matter which one I use I'm getting Top tier performance, so why should they be any lower than that? Because you might not need both? That's why I said earlier that it's best to focus on one with the other around as occasional backup. This easily gives the best performance out of either one.

It's like, if Karel was magically better and ended up just as good as Harken to the point where it could barely, if at all, be determined who wins, and it was agreed that either alone are High tier worthy, would they drop to Upper Mid for canceling each other out? Obviously Serra and Priscilla isn't exactly the same, but it isn't a whole lot different either.

YES

If you had 20 thieves from the start, Matthew would not be top tier. If Isadora, Geitz, and Vaida all joined from the start, Marcus would not be top tier. Offering something unique is what puts these chars so high.

If you had only like 2 combat units, one of which was Bartre, he too would be top tier. (make the rest healers/dancers or something)

So, to preface my argument, I'll ask a question. Say on chapter 1 in PoR, you had a choice to make. You either recruit Titania or Tiamat. Ignoring the story, let's make one blue-haired, the other red-haired. They are otherwise identical. For whatever reason you only get one of them. Choosing Tiamat has the opportunity cost of losing Titania, and choosing Titania has the opportunity cost of losing Tiamat. Since they are otherwise equal, do they both have 0 overall utility? Would they end up below any unit that contributes positively and above any unit that is never positive? Or do you stick them both in the highest tier at the top?

Now, one might think that Serra and Pris are a different situation because you have both at the same time, but I suggest it has strong similarities.

That's why I said earlier that it's best to focus on one with the other around as occasional backup. This easily gives the best performance out of either one.

This hasn't been countered, so I have to assume it has been conceded by the opposition (or that they are so opposed to this idea that they think it is ridiculous and thus a counter is unnecessary, but that would mean the two sides will never agree so I'll ignore that possibility for now). Basically, if you "choose" Serra, then any time you can have either healer heal, you choose Serra. You only choose Pris when there are two things to heal in one turn or there is something that Serra's lower move leaves her unable to reach. In effect, you just have Serra for any turns in which you only have one unit to heal (or when you can wait an extra turn on the other unit if it won't die soon, since that again allows more focus on Serra). This is reasonable since it is better to have one healer at 20/1 and the other at level 8 than it is to have both at level 14. I should think the why of this is obvious. So having two healers should not significantly devalue the contributions of either healer, because when ranking them you assume them to be used to their fullest.

In the examples of multiple (say 3) thieves or prepromotes, since you don't really care if one gets 30 steals/kills or 10 each, this argument wouldn't apply, and thus their contributions would be devalued by having multiple sources. This especially applies to things like the Silver Card, since even if you did care about their experience gains, stealing the silver card is no different from stealing a vulnerary, so even if you wanted to focus exp on one of them, you can still get exp for the one you are focusing on raising while another thief steals the silver card.

(And if you don't like Titania and Tiamat being identical, just give one of them +1 str and the other +1 def or something. They are still clearly both top tier, and now based on what extra stat you feel is more important you can even place one above the other. Now, if you would stick Titania + Tiamat in mid tier or something, then this entire argument will, of course, have zero effect.)

[Interceptor]

The lesson here, is that ranking dancers/thieves/healers is still as asinine in 2010 as it was when our prehistoric ancestors were painting tier lists on cave walls.

[Narga_Rocks]

The lesson here, is that ranking dancers/thieves/healers is still as asinine in 2010 as it was when our prehistoric ancestors were painting tier lists on cave walls.

That would be neat. It's like tier lists on gamefaqs since you can't edit the first post. But what are they tiering? Maybe the usefulness to the tribe of various members. It's obvious how to tier the hunters. Whoever brings home the most food. But how do you tier the guy who fixes up the hunters that got stabbed by the boar's tusks? Or that guy who pilfers pointy sticks from the neighbouring tribe? Why can't he just steal meat to make our lives easier?

(The guy who wastes all his time painting the list on the wall better be the chief, otherwise bottom tier.)

Um, as for the multiple healers ~= 1 healer issue, thoughts?

[-Cynthia-]

I think there's enough enemy density and team members with questionable durability that having 2 healers doesn't really diminish from the other all that much in this sitaution.

Now at Endgame if we have Serra/Priscilla/Erk/Lucius/Pent/Athos/Renault as available healers, we probably do not need 6 units healed every player phase, so someone like Renault who is inferior statistically isn't much use at all.

Edited March 8, 2010 by -Cynthia-

[Interceptor]

Um, as for the multiple healers ~= 1 healer issue, thoughts?

My official position: tiering the contributions of a non-combatant -- in a list where 90% of the other people are ranked based on their ability to kill shit and avoid dying -- is a fool's errand. The fact that they eventually do acquire offensive prowess only makes it more complicated, it does not invalidate my point.

My unofficial position: I can't speak to it from PE -- because I have never been able to overcome how boring this game is long enough to actually play and complete HHM -- but what you said does make sense. I can't say, to make an example from another game, that I would greatly change where Rhys was on the efficiency list if Mist was an Armor: having a second healer is not earth-shattering enough, though clearly it does make some difference. Since we're ostensibly tiering characters based on what they do, I don't see the problem.

[CATS]

The lesson here, is that ranking dancers/thieves/healers is still as asinine in 2010 as it was when our prehistoric ancestors were painting tier lists on cave walls.

Exactly how do you come to the conclusion that it is pointless to rank these units, Interceptor? Forgive me, but I do not see the evidence or the reasoning behind your seemingly arbitrary viewpoint. Do help me to understand.

[Progenitus]

It's just int trolling rather than doing anything constructive.

Anyway, Harken > Geitz. Having way better stats >>> 1-2 more chapters of being around

So, to preface my argument, I'll ask a question. Say on chapter 1 in PoR, you had a choice to make. You either recruit Titania or Tiamat. Ignoring the story, let's make one blue-haired, the other red-haired. They are otherwise identical. For whatever reason you only get one of them. Choosing Tiamat has the opportunity cost of losing Titania, and choosing Titania has the opportunity cost of losing Tiamat. Since they are otherwise equal, do they both have 0 overall utility? Would they end up below any unit that contributes positively and above any unit that is never positive? Or do you stick them both in the highest tier at the top?

0 overall.

Now, one might think that Serra and Pris are a different situation because you have both at the same time, but I suggest it has strong similarities.

No, it does not have "strong" similarities. Serra and Prissy don't exclude each other; you can choose to field both, and I believe many people do that (though some may eventually drop one or even both healers, depending on RNG, team structure, w/e). In your example, you can never field both Titania and Tiamat simultaneously.

your example is far more akin to something like Harken vs Karel (assuming Karel was actually any good of course).

Edited March 8, 2010 by Andrew W.K.

[Rewjeo]

In response to Narga's question, you would tier them as "Titania/Tiamat" as it makes no impact at all on gameplay no matter who you choose.

[CATS]

It's just int trolling rather than doing anything constructive.

Indeed, that seems to be the case. I find it difficult to understand why he would come into the tier list and post his opinion to everyone, without bothering to explain why his viewpoint is relevant, valid or worthy of any consideration. I can only conclude that he did not expect anyone to take him seriously.

[Progenitus]

In response to Narga's question, you would tier them as "Titania/Tiamat" as it makes no impact at all on gameplay no matter who you choose.

I suppose you could do this too.

[Narga_Rocks]

Exactly how do you come to the conclusion that it is pointless to rank these units, Interceptor? Forgive me, but I do not see the evidence or the reasoning behind your seemingly arbitrary viewpoint. Do help me to understand.

So now asinine = pointless?

http://thesaurus.com/browse/pointless

Not according to them.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pointless

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/asinine

That doesn't flow either.

0 overall.

So you'd seriously stick the two best units in the game in mid tier simply because of the circumstances of their recruitment? That seriously diminishes the value of the list as a means of showing which units best contribute to an efficient playthrough. It implies they really don't.

No, it does not have "strong" similarities. Serra and Prissy don't exclude each other; you can choose to field both, and I believe many people do that (though some may eventually drop one or even both healers, depending on RNG, team structure, w/e). In your example, you can never field both Titania and Tiamat simultaneously.

So, I take it you disagree with RFoF and My statements that it is superior to have a 20/1 Serra with a level 8 Pris (or a 20/1 Pris with a level 8 Serra) over the two level 14 healers? Because what I get from your statement is an implicit statement that it is better to have the two of them at level 14 than getting one of them promoted. May I ask why you feel that way? (this is, of course, assuming you actually understood the argument in the first place. I cover the (strong) possibility that you didn't below.) Anyway, two level 14 healers seems vastly inferior to me.

So, for the ones that missed the point the first time around:

My statement relies on the understanding that if you are focusing on raising one to promotion ASAP, they are basically the only healer whenever it is safe to act that way. Once you make that assumption, the rest follows. The fact that both are being fielded doesn't really affect this truth.

See, it's hilarious that you didn't even seem to understand all that the first time. You say "you can choose to field both", when my statements should make it glaringly obvious that I was assuming both were fielded, but only one was being seriously raised. Did you miss that, or something? Why state what I already had assumed as if it was some huge case-destroying point? The similarity is based on efficient play. Choosing Tiamat means you aren't using Titania. Choosing Serra means you aren't seriously raising Priscilla. Sure, Priscilla is still there, but whenever possible you treat her as if she isn't in order to speed up Serra's growth. This is especially important for the higher exp giving staves like Torch and Restore and Physic. If you only have one special staff, why would you give it to the unit you aren't seriously raising? Healers take long enough to reach promotion as is. Their 20/1 stats are much better if you can get them there 4 or 5 chapters sooner.

Since you clearly missed it the first time around:

Basically, if you "choose" Serra, then any time you can have either healer heal, you choose Serra. You only choose Pris when there are two things to heal in one turn or there is something that Serra's lower move leaves her unable to reach. In effect, you just have Serra for any turns in which you only have one unit to heal (or when you can wait an extra turn on the other unit if it won't die soon, since that again allows more focus on Serra)

How could you possibly think I wasn't fielding both? Do you think I make Pris magically appear only for turns in which I need to heal two units? And then somehow make her disappear on turns I only need one healer? It makes no sense how you could possibly think that pointing out you can field both units in any way diminishes my argument when my argument, in the first place, assumes they are both fielded.

But all that doesn't really matter if you want to stick the (two) best unit(s) in PoR in mid-tier or lower. If you are just going to do that anyway, then it wouldn't matter if you accept the focusing on one healer at a time argument. Since you can focus on either, the two options would cancel each other out.

Oh, and if you want Tiamat and Titania to have 0 overall utility, would you please be consistent and take the time to attempt to argue down Lalum and Elphin in fe6? They are very similar to my Tiamat and Titania example.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Narga_Rocks

[Interceptor]

Exactly how do you come to the conclusion that it is pointless to rank these units, Interceptor? Forgive me, but I do not see the evidence or the reasoning behind your seemingly arbitrary viewpoint. Do help me to understand.

I actually said it was "asinine". If you forgot that, in the time period between clicking reply and stringing together your needlessly wordy response, you DID quote it.

Anyway, it was an observation, not an argument. Narga's screed brought the issue to the forefront, once again: healers, much like dancers and thieves, are in the awkward position of being ranked alongside units that operate completely differently than they do. The best that you can generally do is plop them somewhere based on some gauzy idea of their overall worth. The significance of this is that they get pushed around by people who are particularly adept at defining whatever arbitrary place that they've drawn the line.

[Progenitus]

So you'd seriously stick the two best units in the game in mid tier simply because of the circumstances of their recruitment? That seriously diminishes the value of the list as a means of showing which units best contribute to an efficient playthrough. It implies they really don't.

Harken prevents me from using Karel.

Karel prevents me from using harken.

Both units are punished accordingly (Harken not so much because Karel is terrible, while Karel is punished more because Harken is actually good).

Comprende?

now, explain to me why your titania/tiamat example is more closer to this silly serra/prissy stuff than an ingame example like Harken/Karel.

So, I take it you disagree with RFoF and My statements that it is superior to have a 20/1 Serra with a level 8 Pris (or a 20/1 Pris with a level 8 Serra) over the two level 14 healers? Because what I get from your statement is an implicit statement that it is better to have the two of them at level 14 than getting one of them promoted. May I ask why you feel that way? (this is, of course, assuming you actually understood the argument in the first place. I cover the (strong) possibility that you didn't below.) Anyway, two level 14 healers seems vastly inferior to me.

wtf? Why would one healer randomly be at a much higher level than the other? Having Serra heal soemthing isn't going to stop Prissy from healing soemthing else. You're not going to have only one injured unit per turn.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Andrew W.K.

[Narga_Rocks]

Indeed, that seems to be the case. I find it difficult to understand why he would come into the tier list and post his opinion to everyone, without bothering to explain why his viewpoint is relevant, valid or worthy of any consideration. I can only conclude that he did not expect anyone to take him seriously.

He just doesn't like tiering units that can go up or down based on the subjective values of the best debater. It's hard to argue what the value of stealing some physic staves in fe9 is compared to the value of healing a bunch of your units compared to the value giving another unit an extra turn compared to the value of Brom killing stuff without ever dying. Sometimes it gets to people. Personally I like having them on the list since they exist and help out a whole lot.

Besides, it's clearly not an argument to remove healers/thieves/dancers from tier lists. Trolling isn't the same as making a comedic post to display displeasure at something a person finds irritating about certain units on tier lists in general.