FE6 Ranks

[Florete]

The whole Wendy > Treck this was just a joke to show how absurd it is to punish someone for consuming a unit slot. If we adopted a standard where units are judged on their performance under the assumption they are seriously used, that argument would never fly. Treck costs you a single turn to exist, and Wendy costs you dozens of turns just to get anywhere at all.

But it really isn't absurd, at least not the logic behind it. If I have to replace someone like Gonzales to field Wendy, that's going to hurt my overall progress and performance in that map, and Wendy is to blame for kicking Gonzales out. This doesn't mean we assume bad units are never fielded (That would be stupid imo) but they do need to receive a penalty depending on how bad they are. If it's someone like Wendy who has bottom tier performance, it will mean a good deal. If it's someone with Mid tier performance like Bartre, I don't think I'd hold it against the unit too much.

However, if you don't punish units for the taking of a unit slot, that goes into Gross mode, which is mostly an availability contest and doesn't make as much sense. That's where CATS' famous Rebecca > Harken argument came from.

[Colonel M]

The problem with ranks in this game is that tactics is so lenient you can spend dozens of turns arena abusing Allen and Dieck to 20/1 in chapter 7 and still have a perfect score by the time you can check your progress.

Yeah. Even add Rutger in the mix and just have the other one promote when the second Hero Crest comes. It's also really easy to abuse the arena in this game when you have supports helping you out (Rutger probably won't have his Bs by the first arena, but the second it's very possible and he'll just steamroll through the arena with few problems).

I think it's fair to assume that we can at least make an exception to the arena. OR, another idea I had was to make our own Tactics Rank. By this, we create the limits to the amount of chapters (just no - Turn chapters like they did in FE7). This way you don't completely ban the arena and we can still discuss the game without giving leeway to stupid hype like Barth > whatever unit due to not caring about the turncount (Movement is a big penalty against these guys. Yes there's also the Combat Rank too) or having major leeway to abuse the chapters for CEXP | etc. I think by pressing more on the turncount you cover most of the bigger "jokes" with this game and make it a more respectable ranked game.

@Red Fox, it's his opinion. I know you don't like it, but next time just ignore it. I'm not trying to hate on you (obviously) since you and I are more liking of the other list, but *shrug*. The best thing to do with a child is to be the bigger person and not get taunted into it. The person wasn't directed to Eclipse, btw. I just meant the comment with "WTF is this shit".

Edited March 6, 2010 by Tyranel M

[Florete]

I think it's fair to assume that we can at least make an exception to the arena. OR, another idea I had was to make our own Tactics Rank. By this, we create the limits to the amount of chapters (just no - Turn chapters like they did in FE7). This way you don't completely ban the arena and we can still discuss the game without giving leeway to stupid hype like Barth > whatever unit due to not caring about the turncount (Movement is a big penalty against these guys. Yes there's also the Combat Rank too) or having major leeway to abuse the chapters for CEXP | etc. I think by pressing more on the turncount you cover most of the bigger "jokes" with this game and make it a more respectable ranked game.

Actually, I think that's a really good idea. Banning the arena doesn't make as much sense because even in FE7 we still assume some use of it.

@Red Fox, it's his opinion. I know you don't like it, but next time just ignore it. I'm not trying to hate on you (obviously) since you and I are more liking of the other list, but *shrug*. The best thing to do with a child is to be the bigger person and not get taunted into it. The person wasn't directed to Eclipse, btw. I just meant the comment with "WTF is this shit".

I thought it was obvious I was responding to Inui, but yeah.

My beef comes with him saying "more lame." I don't care which one he prefers, but acting like one is better than the other when both are just a set of written up rules is pretty childish imo.

[Inui]

I'm like 2-3 years older than all of you, lol. >_>; Maybe what I said was "childish" but it's certainly my opinion and I stand by it. The availability and opportunity cost arguments in the "efficiency" list, as well as inconsistent standards (Lugh > Zealot, but no Fir > Lot), totally killed my interest in it. There is no real set of rules for the efficiency list atm. It's full of messed up standards and inconsistencies. The ranked one has rules within the game to abide by. If the unranked one didn't have such issues (that I sadly don't care enough to try to fix) then I'd probably enjoy it more.

I hope you don't get an infraction for that image, since imo it's way more awesome and fun than just words, but this place can be pretty gay about that stuff for some reason, so eh.

I'm not in favor of creating our own Tactics requirements... I'd sooner argue about arena "abuse" before that.

[Florete]

I'm like 2-3 years older than all of you, lol. >_>; Maybe what I said was "childish" but it's certainly my opinion and I stand by it. The availability and opportunity cost arguments in the "efficiency" list, as well as inconsistent standards (Lugh > Zealot, but no Fir > Lot), totally killed my interest in it. There is no real set of rules for the efficiency list atm. It's full of messed up standards and inconsistencies. The ranked one has rules within the game to abide by. If the unranked one didn't have such issues (that I sadly don't care enough to try to fix) then I'd probably enjoy it more.

You do realize you can pretty much make the same exact arguments (opportunity cost of deployment, etc.) in a ranked list, right? Who is the victim of it and the weight of the argument might change, but the logic can easily still exist.

And once again, I don't care which one you prefer. That is your opinion. However, I don't view "Ranked > unranked" as just an opinion, and that's why I have a problem with it.

[Inui]

I'm aware it can exist, but the weight is obviously less since ranked lists are far more forgiving to lesser units and stuff like Experience rank can give units like Fir and Shin priority for kills. Apparently them having rapetastic insane stats isn't enough on the other list to feed 'em a few kills so they can rape stuff later.

With the current backwards fucked up standards turning that unranked list into a shitfest...the ranked one definitely is "better" right now. I suppose once Colonel M lays down some real consistent standards or something then I won't say a such thing, but until then, lol... Colonel M may be stubborn jerk at times, as am I, but he's not an idiot, so I think he'll get something done.

[dondon151]

I'm aware it can exist, but the weight is obviously less since ranked lists are far more forgiving to lesser units and stuff like Experience rank can give units like Fir and Shin priority for kills.

You still don't get it.

[Colonel M]

(Lugh > Zealot, but no Fir > Lot)

First off, Zealot is over Lugh.

Second, there is little inconsistency about it. Their arguments between each other are actually irrelevant to the other side. Zealot vs. Lugh consists of Zealot's utility period vs. Lugh's earlygame + lategame period, and seeing who has the advantage there. Lot vs. Fir has Lot's earlygame + their comparison between each other throughout the game since they will both be long term units. I really don't see what is so inconsistent about it.

[Inui]

You still don't get it.

I guess not. Oh well.

First off, Zealot is over Lugh.

Second, there is little inconsistency about it. Their arguments between each other are actually irrelevant to the other side. Zealot vs. Lugh consists of Zealot's utility period vs. Lugh's earlygame + lategame period, and seeing who has the advantage there. Lot vs. Fir has Lot's earlygame + their comparison between each other throughout the game since they will both be long term units. I really don't see what is so inconsistent about it.

Yeah, maybe now, but he wasn't at first.

Here is the inconsistency: Lugh's lategame wins over Zealot were considered better than Zealot's earlygame and midgame wins, while Fir's midgame and lategame wins over Lot were considered less than Lot's earlygame existence. Lugh's "earlygame" is nothing but suck for the most part, so whatever @ him existing.

[GreatEclipse]

If units are punished for consuming a unit slot that someone better could have filled, then it makes perfect sense to assume that bad or simply average units are never fielded. The net utility system we use now is the one that creates an availability contest of sorts, because unit slot are a non-issue at first and gradually become more contested as the number of worthwhile units available increases. It actually makes a poor performance acceptable so long as it comes free.

For example, Wolt can take a bunch of weak potshots in the first 5 chapters and then be dropped, so his overall contribution ends up positive because no one better could take his place. If Wendy is punished for being astronomically worse than Gonzales, then Treck must also be punished for being moderately worse than Gonzales. Perhaps not to the same degree, but he still accumulates “negative utility” every chapter you field him if Gonzales is sitting on the bench. His overall contribution is negative, regardless of whatever he can accomplish on his own. Even if we allow Treck > Wendy because his opportunity cost to deployment is much lower, Wolt is still easily better because a small positive > a small negative.

[CATS]

You do realize you can pretty much make the same exact arguments (opportunity cost of deployment, etc.) in a ranked list, right? Who is the victim of it and the weight of the argument might change, but the logic can easily still exist.

And once again, I don't care which one you prefer. That is your opinion. However, I don't view "Ranked > unranked" as just an opinion, and that's why I have a problem with it.

What is the empirical evidence that unranked lists are better than ranked lists?

You can do that, but then it isn't really "Ranks," it's "Ranks w/out arena."

Fine with me. I see it as the exact same case as removing the warp staff in FE11. It's a very simple amendment and significantly broadens discussion. Arguments like "Barth's move doesn't matter because of tactics" still wouldn't work, btw. Saving turns is still better, it's just that without the arena, it's no longer the absolute most important thing.

[Colonel M]

I'd sooner set our own standards of a Tactics Rank than ban the arena. Banning the arena sort of contradicts two things: why the game gave the thing to us and a FE7 Ranked Tier list, which despite its hastier Turn Count requirements, people still use the Arena.

At the same time CATS, there is no proof that a Ranked List is better than an Unranked List.

[Inui]

I'd sooner allow the arena than create our own Tactics rank requirements...since we're supposed to talk about the rankings the game provides.

The "proof" is that ranked tier lists automatically come with standards the programmers put in and they can't be argued based on opinion. A lot of unranked lists have awful standards and inconsistent crap. I suppose if some good standards were agreed upon, unranked could be better in my mind, but Idk yet.

[CATS]

At the same time CATS, there is no proof that a Ranked List is better than an Unranked List.

Indeed there isn't. However, I'm not the one who claimed that the issue is more than that of just opinion.

I'd sooner set our own standards of a Tactics Rank than ban the arena. Banning the arena sort of contradicts two things: why the game gave the thing to us and a FE7 Ranked Tier list, which despite its hastier Turn Count requirements, people still use the Arena.

Altering the game's tactics requirements doesn't qualify as changing what the game gave to you, or as being inconsistent with the FE7 list (which doesn't alter the game's tactics requirements)?

Meanwhile:

1. Altering the tactics requirements is alot more complicated than just banning arena. It's alot more work for theoretically the same effect. You have to go chapter-by-chapter and pick out reasonable turncounts for all of them. Who is willing to try and figure that out? Not me, atleast. If you ban the arena, all you have to do is edit "Arena is b7" into the OP and you're done, takes about five seconds.

2. Altering the tactics requirements means that you have to hack your ROM to play with these standards actually in place, or in the event that someone happens to have an actual cart of FE6, they're just screwed. With banning the arena this isn't the case. You can just ignore the arena without needing to alter the game's coding.

Edited March 6, 2010 by CATS

[Colonel M]

I'd sooner allow the arena than create our own Tactics rank requirements...since we're supposed to talk about the rankings the game provides.

The "proof" is that ranked tier lists automatically come with standards the programmers put in and they can't be argued based on opinion. A lot of unranked lists have awful standards and inconsistent crap. I suppose if some good standards were agreed upon, unranked could be better in my mind, but Idk yet.

That's fine that we allow the rest of the ranks. I have no issue continuing with these other ranks. But now you get very tilted arguments such as 20/1 Dieck by Chapter 8, and to be honest you can't really compete against it. You're right that we are not the programmers of the game, but that does not mean that we cannot change the rules. If we weren't, Unranked Tier Lists probably wouldn't exist in the first place.

Actually, Barth would get some freedom to the leniency of the Rank. His biggest weakness being Movement is now completely tossed out of the equation, and this didn't abide by efficienct standards in the first plance, only the ranks given to us. He technically only hurts one rank: Combat, and it's not like the dude has a CoD against him under circumstances. If we said "Ranks + Efficiency", then we'd have to nail turncounts all over again because who cares about playing it efficient when I have ~25 turns per chapter to do whatever the hell I want, and I can assure you that even with Ranks you can beat those chapters faster than 25 turns and still net EXP in the process.

All I ask is that we actually have a trial with the turn count thing. We abide by everything else the game gives us but the Tactics Rank, which we sort of create on our own to reflect something similar to the FE7's Tactics Rank. Now you're given a certain turn limit so that you don't waste time within the chapter arena abusing and basically making almost all other ranks irrelevant or a joke (The Arena only hurts two things: Tactics and possibly Survival) at the benefit of EXP, Power, Funds, and Combat. It can also help indirectly with Survival and Tactics later on in the game when we're clearing chapters faster with mini-solos. If we put a limit on a turncount and abide a little bit of an efficiency rule it prevents things like "Barth up for almost no reason" and banning the Arena in general. I don't see why I should completely ban the Arena when it is allowed in just about every game (just not abused). All we need is someone who's actually played the game Ranked at a "efficient" pace and have their turncounts recorded. Banning the Arena does not solve everything either.

[Inui]

No, Barth is not forgiven for having 4-5 Mov. His wasted turns could have been used in the arena.

Dieck can't automatically be 20/1 in Chapter 8. Why? Rutger, Alan, Lance, Lugh, and others can also use the arena easily with massive benefits. Even Lugh can curbstomp the arena if he's rocking C Chad/C Ellen or B Chad at that point, and the benefits are amazing since he's typically hard to raise up. The arena can't be a resource only for Dieck. There's not enough turns for everyone to use it, either.

[CATS]

How does banning the arena not solve the problem, and why is it desirable to alter tactics rank requirements instead? I still don't see it. It's allowed in every game? Sure. And in FE7 the tier list doesn't alter the game's tactics requirements, either. Either way you're changing something that is a part of the original game.

Actually, Barth would get some freedom to the leniency of the Rank. His biggest weakness being Movement is now completely tossed out of the equation, and this didn't abide by efficienct standards in the first plance, only the ranks given to us. He technically only hurts one rank: Combat

No, finishing in fewer turns still matters. Reikken already said this. Here it is again:

Possibly struggle to beat later chapters with heroes and wyvern lords and junk fast enough without risking anyone dying, or spend a few less turns in some earlier chapter and have a few extra to work with later? Or have a few extra to spend babying, say, Lilina and Cath in some later chapter to boost up your exp rank. Or etc.

[Colonel M]

EDIT: Hold up, I want to see something out of this actual table real fast before I do anything with it.

Well well, I might be able to just go with my route anyway. I just noticed the table in Here, and while some of the requirements are still absurd for turn count, it can still be something that one can follow. Looks like C8 has 25 max, C11 Lalum has 25 max, 13 has 20 max, 17A has 20 max, 17B has 20 max, etc. We can just follow these then and not alter the turn count nor ban arena. We just follow what the game gives us.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Tyranel M

[Tangerine]

What is the empirical evidence that unranked lists are better than ranked lists?

What? She didn't say unranked was better than ranked, she said that the idea of one being inherently better than the other is stupid.

[Colonel M]

Okay, so here are your "max" turn counts here:

Cool stuff

Since this is what the game gives us, that is how long we are allowed to use the arena in that chapter. We just follow the requirements in that chapter and not have to worry about much. Guess some of the people will 6 Star Tactics, but ah well.

[CATS]

The way the system works is that it tallies up the total requirements for all chapters combined and measures them against the total number of turns that you spent. So if you have 4 chapters with a requirement of 20 turns each, and there's an arena in chapter 4, what you do is blitz through Ch 1-3 as fast as possible and build up alot of extra turns to use in Ch 4.

If you're proposing that we just disallow people from spending more turns in a chapter than that chapter's individual requirement, sounds like an effective solution to me.

What? She didn't say unranked was better than ranked, she said that the idea of one being inherently better than the other is stupid.

Did she? That's not what I read. Could you perhaps quote where she said that? I guess I might have missed it.

[dondon151]

That's not ranked; that's ranked with an arbitrary turncount quota on certain chapters.

[Colonel M]

Okay, sounds good. Let's start with the argument presented. I think Marcus should be a little lower on this list. Not much lower since his direct result is helping the Combat Rank and leaving enemies with low HP to reap EXP for the lower scrubs. I think in both lists Shin, Fir, and Gonzales A should be over Marcus here. Lot is debatable, but I can sort of see how his Combat problems are magnified here (unlike in the other list where his occasional miss was somewhat forgivable with his durability lead). Tate should maybe peak up on that too, but again I could be overrating the issue with EXP here. Dunno where I placed Lugh yet so that I'm not sure yet. Probably still have Zealot Low Mid on this list... probably wouldn't interject with him in Upper Mid, but then again Marcus's big wins are being there in C1-pre C7.

That's not ranked; that's ranked with an arbitrary turncount quota on certain chapters.

I'm only putting a quota on the Arena chapters and maybe assuming that we use some of it in a much later chapter or something. Since the maximum turn count is listed in the game, we can just follow that with those chapters. Obviously you can shave turns from the earlier chapters and even the later chapters and reap more benefits from the arena; however, by doing so I have to, once again, go through banning the Arena vs. Arbitrary Turn Count, and the latter is actually presented in the game.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Tyranel M

[Inui]

Marcus's earlygame utility is really, really good. I don't think it's anyone can really replicate and nobody ever has such a power gap with the rest of the team. The Experience rank boosts those other three a lot, so I suppose them being over Marcus makes sense.

Clarine should be top tier given the Experience rank and her h4x Spd/Crit making her offense not as bad as people say it is.

Why are Percival and Miledy not top tier? I've never seen that before.

[Colonel M]

I can't recall why I completely dropped them to High. Clarine was because someone argued Ellen / Saul contributing the same as Clarine, though IMO it's much the opposite (Clarine has better supports to aid her durability and her AS values help her double despite her offensive loss against a lot of the cast). I don't mind putting Miledy and Percival back in Top, so back they go.

EDIT: Like I said, I doubt Marcus would drop like a rock, but these three have good EXP gains when they join and grow into rather good units. Fir is a bit shaky on her durability, Shin has issues with 1 range, and Gonzales with Hit. Gonzo is aided more in the Ilia Route though, and lategame there are some Lance-heavy chapters such as 21 and he can whip out Armads for +5 Durability.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Tyranel M