FE6 Ranks

[Florete]

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

I never said that. <_<

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 is not proof in any way, shape, or form, that is your view on things. I think the standards the programmers put into the game are a load of crap because they award characters for stuff that shouldn't be valuable (Experience), cause me to horde valuable items (Funds), and make me keep everyone alive when killing someone might be a good idea (Survival). You can't call unranked standards awful in comparison because both are just a set of arbitrary rules used for discussion. Seriously, you call us elitist all the time, yet you can't prevent yourself from being just as bad or worse.

I could make my own random set of rules and tier units based on it. Here, I'll try it:

Money can only be spent on Iron and Silver weapons, and Magic equivalents.

Marcus must get to level 20 by the end of the game.

Only unpromoted Hero Crest-using units allowed in the arena.

No supports.

Ilia route only.

Final Destination.

And that's like what ranks are. Unranked only came about because we wanted a method of tiering that would represent what an average player that knows what s/he is doing would do to just beat the game, and what we came up with made more sense to use than the above rule list or ranks. Arguing by ranks is perfectly fine, but calling it inherently better is, again, a pretty childish thing to say.

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.

Thank you.

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

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.

EDIT: One last thing...

standards the programmers put in and they can't be argued based on opinion.

Funny how that is happening right now (How arena abuse should be dealt with).

Edited March 6, 2010 by Red Fox of Fire

[CATS]

Yeah, I misunderstood you. My bad.

[Reikken]

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.

I don't like that at all as it also removes all incentive to go any faster than the chapter's individual requirement.

[CATS]

That's true. In that case, we're back to just banning the arena as the superior solution, I guess.

[Narga_Rocks]

I don't like that at all as it also removes all incentive to go any faster than the chapter's individual requirement.

But with the arena you have certain issues like promoting really good units extremely early (and probably Clarine to go with them since they might get hit in the arena) and being super rich. Or (if you ban the arena) it means that you have so many extra turns so the move advantages of mounted units mean little. Even with wanting to save some turns early to make later chapters easier, I doubt you'd need to save enough turns to make the move differences start mattering. Whatever the case, something has to give. Colonel M's initial idea to reduce the turn counts of each chapter would have worked, except then it's changing the rules anyway (like banning the arena, only different). Plus you have to determine how many turns will get you something like fe7, because if you go to low then it might not be possible to get the other ranks, and if you leave the limit too high it may still be too easy.

[Florete]

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.

I was thinking more along the lines of reducing the overall game turn count. If the current requirement is like 500, lower it to 350 or something. That still keeps incentive to go faster in earlier chapters to save turns for later but makes it so Tactics isn't such a joke.

[grandjackal]

Another deal when it comes to the arena is that not everyone is a top notch fighter there, and it favors those with built up supports. It brings a strange deal that unless you have supports and rock at the arena, you aren't helping the funds rank through the arena, and in fact would probably hurt the funds rank.

Then it brings us to a problem, how do we accurately predict stats for arena duelists to more easily figure out who kicks ass in the arena and who doesn't? We can guess that those of decent combat parameters and supports could probably wreck the place (like the wonder cavs), but who else does this entail?

It seems like a weird thing to punish someone for sucking at the arena. All it would really do is further polarize the upper and lower tiers, and push the exp rank dependent units lower unless they A. Rock immediately in the arena, and B. Get good REAL fast.

[dondon151]

Arena enemy stats are generated based on the stats of the person fighting in the arena, though.

[grandjackal]

Arena enemy stats are generated based on the stats of the person fighting in the arena, though.

True, but again, what does this entail? What stats are required for optimal arena performance? Generally, we want the arena enemy to weigh themselves down with steel, which also gives them the most inaccurate weapon type. What defensive stat is required for this, and at what level? Not enough defense, they have the most accurat weapon type of Iron. Too much, they whip out painful silver. Any armor knight will tell you they're afraid of the arena, are we just going to punish them for sucking in the arena when the arena's unecessary to get these ranks (as easier as it makes them)?

What is optimal arena dueling? Who's capable, aside from the psychos already in top tier?

[CATS]

But with the arena you have certain issues like promoting really good units extremely early (and probably Clarine to go with them since they might get hit in the arena) and being super rich. Or (if you ban the arena) it means that you have so many extra turns so the move advantages of mounted units mean little. Even with wanting to save some turns early to make later chapters easier, I doubt you'd need to save enough turns to make the move differences start mattering. Whatever the case, something has to give. Colonel M's initial idea to reduce the turn counts of each chapter would have worked, except then it's changing the rules anyway (like banning the arena, only different). Plus you have to determine how many turns will get you something like fe7, because if you go to low then it might not be possible to get the other ranks, and if you leave the limit too high it may still be too easy.

If you have so many turns that the move advantage of a mounted unit doesn't matter (assuming someone could demonstrate that this is the case, which no one has), then that's just something the list will have to accept as a condition of the game, like how Hit advantages often don't matter or barely matter in FE7 due to high hit values on weapons and very low enemy Avo. Even if this were the case, it doesn't eliminate the uniqueness of ranks and what differentiates them from efficiency (indeed, it does the opposite if anything), so I don't see the problem.

Edited March 7, 2010 by CATS

[dondon151]

True, but again, what does this entail? What stats are required for optimal arena performance? Generally, we want the arena enemy to weigh themselves down with steel, which also gives them the most inaccurate weapon type. What defensive stat is required for this, and at what level? Not enough defense, they have the most accurat weapon type of Iron. Too much, they whip out painful silver. Any armor knight will tell you they're afraid of the arena, are we just going to punish them for sucking in the arena when the arena's unecessary to get these ranks (as easier as it makes them)?

They might just have more skl to offset steel's lower hit.

Generally I think archers are the best suited for the arena. Sword users rape axe users but the occasional WK or armor kind of screws them up; lance users usually end up only tying hit against sword users and being more prone to taking huge damage from axe users, and axe users simply can't hit sword users at all.

[grandjackal]

They might just have more skl to offset steel's lower hit.

Generally I think archers are the best suited for the arena. Sword users rape axe users but the occasional WK or armor kind of screws them up; lance users usually end up only tying hit against sword users and being more prone to taking huge damage from axe users, and axe users simply can't hit sword users at all.

Which comes from another problem, that being archers are statistic garbage. Nomads destroy them, mages annihilate them, and Shamans require luck that you dodge repeatedly. The only thing archers are actually good against in the arena are generally other archers.

This is what I mean by you have to be good off the bat, or at least get good almost immediately. This is the defining flaw of archers in general.

[dondon151]

If you have so many turns that the move advantage of a mounted unit doesn't matter (assuming someone could demonstrate that this is the case, which no one has), then that's just something the list will have to accept as a condition of the game, like how Hit advantages often don't matter or barely matter in FE7 due to high hit values on weapons and very low enemy Avo.

It's not just movement, though. Since you can quite literally take as long as you please, it diminishes the value of defense, offense, and healing, which, in conjunction with rescuing, encompasses most forms of utility in the game.

[WeaponsofMassConstruction]

Which comes from another problem, that being archers are statistic garbage. Nomads destroy them, mages annihilate them, and Shamans require luck that you dodge repeatedly. The only thing archers are actually good against in the arena are generally other archers.

This is what I mean by you have to be good off the bat, or at least get good almost immediately. This is the defining flaw of archers in general.

Isn't this offset by the arena opponent being dependent on the stats of the unit you're sticking in the arena?

[grandjackal]

Isn't this offset by the arena opponent being dependent on the stats of the unit you're sticking in the arena?

The game doesn't make the enemy suck for you in the arena, if you're bad enough in some shape or form, it will kick your ass. Ask any armor knight.

[Dat Nick]

Um, shouldn't that be that the stats are dependent on the -LEVEL- of the character in the arena?

[Narga_Rocks]

If you have so many turns that the move advantage of a mounted unit doesn't matter (assuming someone could demonstrate that this is the case, which no one has), then that's just something the list will have to accept as a condition of the game, like how Hit advantages often don't matter or barely matter in FE7 due to high hit values on weapons and very low enemy Avo. Even if this were the case, it doesn't eliminate the uniqueness of ranks and what differentiates them from efficiency (indeed, it does the opposite if anything), so I don't see the problem.

Unpromoted mounted units have 7 move. Your foot units mostly have 5. Armors have 4 but could possibly be assisted by 7 move units if the 7 move units aren't going any faster than the other foot units. Really, as long as a 5 move unit can get to the throne in, say, 80% of the max number of turns, I don't see how move would matter. I suppose sometimes it would matter for things like villages and any time sensitive endeavours, but really aside from that it shouldn't.

Then as dondon said, it diminishes durability if you can finish fast enough while only letting units face what they can take without needing to dodge. If a unit is 3HKOd, you can push your way through the map while letting that unit face no more than 2 in an enemy phase. You can spend more turns using vulneraries. If you only need to kill in 40% of your battles than 2RKOing with the occasional miss (say, 20% of your attacks) should be good enough. You could still reward the stronger characters for allowing some of the weaker units to be used. If you have units ORKOing some things then others can get by while 3RKOing. It still seems like it's got some difficulties of its own.

As for differentiating from efficiency, yes, adding the arena ban will certainly make it different. The original point of fe6 ranked = fe6 efficient + exp rank was assuming the arena existed, though.

[WeaponsofMassConstruction]

Um, shouldn't that be that the stats are dependent on the -LEVEL- of the character in the arena?

I'm not sure of that. In the Ch7 arena, Marcus nearly took down a Hero and handled a Falcoknight and Druid while being hit only once.

[dondon151]

Um, shouldn't that be that the stats are dependent on the -LEVEL- of the character in the arena?

No, because we all know that if you stick your 60 HP/30 def invincible armor in the arena, the game will give you some bullshit like a 30 str Silver Sword swordmaster to kick your ass. And when I was doing 0% growths for FE7, Eliwood was 15/0 and facing manageable enemies for his base stats (although they tended to have a lot more HP than usual).

[Inui]

That is not proof in any way, shape, or form, that is your view on things. I think the standards the programmers put into the game are a load of crap because they award characters for stuff that shouldn't be valuable (Experience), cause me to horde valuable items (Funds), and make me keep everyone alive when killing someone might be a good idea (Survival). You can't call unranked standards awful in comparison because both are just a set of arbitrary rules used for discussion. Seriously, you call us elitist all the time, yet you can't prevent yourself from being just as bad or worse.

Whoa whoa, ruhlax plz. I didn't say all unranked standards are awful. I was specifically talking about the FE 6 one, which was pretty gay due to inconsistencies and messed up standards that I was far from the only person to point out. The set of "arbitrary" rules the ranked lists go by were set by the game itself, not our opinions, and there's really no way to insert your opinion into the matter. There's a certain requirement for each rank, and that's that. It's set.

Certain unranked tier lists and tier lists for games without rankings? That's a shitfest waiting to happen unless people can agree on a set of good standards to use. And you know what? They turn into steaming piles of crap quite often because of differing opinions on what the standards should be. The standards often get debated about more than the tier lists (like now) due to this.

Ranked lists = great since there are set goals and requirements to talk about.

Unranked lists = great if good standards are made that people agree on.

The problem is that it's hard to make standards both good and agreed upon for the unranked lists.

[Narga_Rocks]

Whoa whoa, ruhlax plz. I didn't say all unranked standards are awful. I was specifically talking about the FE 6 one, which was pretty gay due to inconsistencies and messed up standards that I was far from the only person to point out. The set of "arbitrary" rules the ranked lists go by were set by the game itself, not our opinions, and there's really no way to insert your opinion into the matter. There's a certain requirement for each rank, and that's that. It's set.

Certain unranked tier lists and tier lists for games without rankings? That's a shitfest waiting to happen unless people can agree on a set of good standards to use. And you know what? They turn into steaming piles of crap quite often because of differing opinions on what the standards should be. The standards often get debated about more than the tier lists (like now) due to this.

Ranked lists = great since there are set goals and requirements to talk about.

Unranked lists = great if good standards are made that people agree on.

The problem is that it's hard to make standards both good and agreed upon for the unranked lists.

Except there is still plenty of variation in the ranked lists. The fe6 one, certainly. Do you go fast so that you can abuse the arena when it is present, or just go slowly but give plenty of experience along the way and rotate units like mad, etc etc. Even the fe7 list isn't immune to this type of thing. Go fast early with the help of prepromotes and make it up (the exp rank, that is) with Assassins in that one chapter, or rotate along the way and use your money on better weapons rather than the expensive promotion items for the thieves. It's not vastly different than debating whether we try to 2 turn 2-E in RD or milk it for exp and items until like turn 7 or 8. Efficiency tier lists aren't really all that worse (if at all) for debates, since even the ranks leave enough room to argue over what is best or most helpful, and different units can go up or down based on the accepted strategy. Just like in an efficiency tier list.

[Dat Nick]

For somebody who does nothing but complain about how many logical inconsistincies there are with the current standards, you aren't pointing out a whole lot of them.

[Inui]

Except there is still plenty of variation in the ranked lists. The fe6 one, certainly. Do you go fast so that you can abuse the arena when it is present, or just go slowly but give plenty of experience along the way and rotate units like mad, etc etc. Even the fe7 list isn't immune to this type of thing. Go fast early with the help of prepromotes and make it up (the exp rank, that is) with Assassins in that one chapter, or rotate along the way and use your money on better weapons rather than the expensive promotion items for the thieves. It's not vastly different than debating whether we try to 2 turn 2-E in RD or milk it for exp and items until like turn 7 or 8. Efficiency tier lists aren't really all that worse (if at all) for debates, since even the ranks leave enough room to argue over what is best or most helpful, and different units can go up or down based on the accepted strategy. Just like in an efficiency tier list.

The difference: Ranked lists have a set number to aim for in everything, unranked lists do not.

For somebody who does nothing but complain about how many logical inconsistincies there are with the current standards, you aren't pointing out a whole lot of them.

It was done days ago by more than just me and I don't care to look it all up. Sorry.

Btw your avatar is a jerk but kinda cool, lol.

[Reikken]

They might just have more skl to offset steel's lower hit.

Generally I think archers are the best suited for the arena. Sword users rape axe users but the occasional WK or armor kind of screws them up; lance users usually end up only tying hit against sword users and being more prone to taking huge damage from axe users, and axe users simply can't hit sword users at all.

Which comes from another problem, that being archers are statistic garbage. Nomads destroy them, mages annihilate them, and Shamans require luck that you dodge repeatedly. The only thing archers are actually good against in the arena are generally other archers.

This is what I mean by you have to be good off the bat, or at least get good almost immediately. This is the defining flaw of archers in general.

KLEIN

[CATS]

Gonzales A -> high tier. He should be in the same place as he is on unranked, at the least. Pretty simple shit here--while the Combat rank emphasizes accuracy and punishes Gonzo's poor hit as compared to unranked play, the Exp rank also gives him a new advantage to add to his case. Gonzales joins at L5 during a time when your top/high tiers are likely to be well past L10; by leveling him you provide a significant boost to the Exp rank, as compared to unranked where Exp gains don't matter.

I think he should be even higher than this on both lists; we're talking about a unit who caps his Str at L11-12 unpromoted, averages higher Spd than Lance, and caps Hp at 20/1. But I'll save that for some other time when I can be bothered to write an extensive post about it. Atm, it seems clear that he shouldn't be a tier lower than he is on the unranked list, at the least.