S Rank Tier List for FE7

[Life]

Going back to your Merlinus argument, Jaffar's survival is required in order for this to happen, but Jaffar himself does not need to take any specific action in order for it to occur. It is Nino who uses Talk, not Jaffar. Thus, according to the reasons that you claim Merlinus does not contribute and is not a unit, why should Jaffar get credit for something which he does not perform any actions in order to acquire?

Also see what I said about NPCs.

Last but not least, even if it is the case that Jaffar should be credited with 28x, I don't see how it changes the principle of the argument.

I'll tackle this one paragraph at a time.

1. Because there is a downside to Jaffar dying. It might not affect the ranks specifically but it keeps us from possibly going to Night of Farewells, a chapter where we can get a lot of Exp, build up extra turns on Tactics (biggest amount of turns allowed to 5* that chapter is 28) and get the stuff, most notably the Fell Contract that we may want to use on a thief to promote. If we let Jaffar die, we lose out on all of these things.

As for why Jaffar (not Nino) should get credit for getting us to 28x, I said it above but I'll just paraphrase myself. Recruiting Jaffar is the same as going to 28x. You cannot go to 28x and not recruit Jaffar. However, the opposite is not true as 28x is optional.

2. Would you mind repeating the NPC stuff? I missed it and can't find it.

3. What I'm trying to refute is this line:

Nino needs to go way up, possibly over Pent. You need her to unlock 28x, vital to the Tactics and Funds ranks.

I do not agree that it is Nino who gets us this stuff. It is Jaffar who does because getting Jaffar comes with the perks of getting to NoF. I can recruit Nino and not Jaffar. I can't do the opposite.

This is an S Rank Tier List, not an Individual Combat Prowess Tier List, correct? Performing a support conversation is beneficial not because it increases a unit's stats, but because it boosts your ranks through boosting your units' stats. Likewise, Nino's conversation boosts your ranks through allowing 28x. As GE pointed out, it is all simply a means to an end. There is no reason to assert that one type of contribution is more valid than another if both are contributing towards the same goal. If your logic is that Nino's conversation is disregarded because Nino's personal stats do not increase as a result of it, why not the same for Matthew + Silver Card? Matthew's stats do not increase when he steals the silver card, either.

But he helps the ranks directly. As Dondon pointed out earlier, the results may not be significant enough to actually change the state of our run. Just because we CAN make the chapter a positive for the ranks doesn't mean it will be positive. What if we can only finish in 29 turns and still come under the Exp and Funds requirement for whatever reason? It would have been all in vain. I know that it's a bad "what if" but going to NoF isn't necessarily a positive.

If we attribute the chapter to someone, let it go to Jaffar because it is a perk for recruiting him, not recruiting Nino. But if we don't because of whatever reason, nothing happens.

[CATS]

Because there is a downside to Jaffar dying. It might not affect the ranks specifically but it keeps us from possibly going to Night of Farewells, a chapter where we can get a lot of Exp, build up extra turns on Tactics (biggest amount of turns allowed to 5* that chapter is 28) and get the stuff, most notably the Fell Contract that we may want to use on a thief to promote. If we let Jaffar die, we lose out on all of these things.

Indeed, it's desirable to keep Jaffar alive in order to obtain 28x. How is this connected to Jaffar supposedly allowing the player to go to 28x? It's like arguing that because you get a game over if Hector dies, he gets credit for making the game possible by staying alive, and is therefore the best unit. If we let Hector die, we get a game over, just like how "if we let Jaffar die, we lose out on all of these things." It seems like really backwards logic.

On the other hand, I just don't see where Jaffar has to be actually used, anywhere, in order to acquire 28x. Nino has to perform that command, but Jaffar doesn't have to do anything at all. It's a one-way action.

As for why Jaffar (not Nino) should get credit for getting us to 28x, I said it above but I'll just paraphrase myself. Recruiting Jaffar is the same as going to 28x. You cannot go to 28x and not recruit Jaffar. However, the opposite is not true as 28x is optional.

This is the same as crediting a unit for his join inventory. A unit must be recruited in order to gain the items they come with, therefore, they get credit for them. The reason why this is generally disregarded is that recruiting a unit does not qualify as using them--using them is generally defined as any actions a character takes after being recruited. I suppose you can argue that recruiting a unit equates to using the unit, but this view is not at all consistent with traditional tier list arguments, placements and thoughts on the issue.

Would you mind repeating the NPC stuff? I missed it and can't find it.

IIRC units are not given credit for actions they take as NPCs, and since Jaffar is a green unit for all of BBD, I think you could conceivably argue that his "contribution" towards getting 28x falls under this provision.

But he helps the ranks directly. As Dondon pointed out earlier, the results may not be significant enough to actually change the state of our run. Just because we CAN make the chapter a positive for the ranks doesn't mean it will be positive. What if we can only finish in 29 turns and still come under the Exp and Funds requirement for whatever reason? It would have been all in vain. I know that it's a bad "what if" but going to NoF isn't necessarily a positive.

The fact that you don't have to do something is irrelevant. You don't have to use Raven. Does this mean he's not a viable support option for Lucius? You don't have to equip the killing edge on Guy. Does this mean that, during a comparison, Guy should not be allowed to use the killing edge? etc. If the list assumes a competent player who is attempting to S Rank (which it does iirc), then it doesn't matter that inefficient options and strategies exist. There's no reason to assume an inefficient strategy if a more efficient one exists. For example, after acquiring the silver card, you don't have to actually buy anything with it. Just because we CAN make the card a positive for the ranks doesn't it will be positive.

Edited March 26, 2010 by CATS

[nflchamp]

I don't know why Nino or Jaffar should get credit for getting us into 28x. If anything we should penalize them for possibly preventing us from obtain the stuff in 28x. I mean, if all recruitable characters are assumed to be recruited in a tier playthrough then 28x has to occur. Nino and Jaffar can only prevent going to the chapter by failing to survive, not cause us to go to it.

[Meteor]

3. What I'm trying to refute is this line:

I do not agree that it is Nino who gets us this stuff. It is Jaffar who does because getting Jaffar comes with the perks of getting to NoF. I can recruit Nino and not Jaffar. I can't do the opposite.

You can't remove Nino from the list of actions required to make it to 28x, so she's in some way responsible for making it there.

[Interceptor]

There's nothing wrong with giving Nino credit for the entire tree of the contributions that result from her recruitment, but including things like this will have a tectonic effect on the current line-up. This is a perfect example of shit that belongs on a alternative Ranked tier list, because this is one of those arbitrary guidelines that's not going to be settled except by warring opinions (aka, never settled until one side gives up).

[Florete]

Then Matthew gains credit for Guy's work, Serra for Erk, Erk for Prissy, Prissy for Raven, Raven for Lucius (roundabout way of saying that Serra gets credit for Lucius's work because without Serra, Lucius probably doesn't get recruited), Dart for Geitz, Florina for Fiora and Hector/Lyn for Hawkeye, Vaida, Heath, Legault, Karel and Harken (plus Eli, Marcus, Lowen, Isadora and Oswin).

You don't need Erk to recruit Priscilla. Anyone can visit the village.

I'm lovin' every post made by frat and GE, lol. I have nothing much to contribute outside of just agreeing with them, though.

As for ranking personalities, if this is the case, you must disregard the relevance of all supports (along with other stuff, but we'll just start with supports). Would you be willing to do that?

For lack of a more detailed reason, why couldn't we just make supports an exception?

Thus, the lords' Prf legendaries in the game's final chapter must be disregarded. They are given by Athos in a storyline scene prior to the final chapter. Likewise, all supports must be disregarded; a conversation is required in order for the character to acquire them.

What are you saying? Narga's argument was that Ethlin does not receive credit for giving the weapon to Cuan. He never said Cuan couldn't still use it. As far as I know, no one has ever tried to give Athos credit for bringing the 3 weapons for our lords.

With regards to the silver card, I don't see how 28x is different. Aren't the items that you acquire in that chapter not otherwise counted, if you don't attribute them to Nino?

Are you saying every acquired item must be attributed to a unit on the list? Who gets credit for New Resolve's Light Rune, may I ask? Any dropped weapons?

[CATS]

For lack of a more detailed reason, why couldn't we just make supports an exception?

Of course you could make an arbitrary exception. If exceptions are allowed for no reason at all, then you can make an exception to anything. The issue is that once you begin to make exceptions without any logical reasoning behind them, the tier list is no longer objective. If we make an exception for supports, why not make exceptions to other generally accepted conventions, just for the sake of making discussion "more interesting" or for the sake of promoting an irrational opinion if it is held by a majority of the participants?

After using a set of arbitrary inconsistences to mold the list, you would end up with a piece of work that looks good according to your personal opinions, but is ultimately indicative of nothing more than that; the personal opinions of those who created the list. If you want a list that claims to be objective and at least somewhat meaningful, then you must be willing to actually change the status quo and accept new evidence when it is brought to the table, rather than just making a new rule or a new exception to cross out each distasteful or unconventional argument that comes up.

What are you saying? Narga's argument was that Ethlin does not receive credit for giving the weapon to Cuan. He never said Cuan couldn't still use it. As far as I know, no one has ever tried to give Athos credit for bringing the 3 weapons for our lords.

Yeah, I misread or misinterpreted his point there.

Are you saying every acquired item must be attributed to a unit on the list? Who gets credit for New Resolve's Light Rune, may I ask? Any dropped weapons?

Nope. I'm just saying that the argument for Nino--28x is different from the argument that Priscilla gets credit for Raven's performance; just because one is accepted, it does not mean that the other must follow.

There's nothing wrong with giving Nino credit for the entire tree of the contributions that result from her recruitment, but including things like this will have a tectonic effect on the current line-up. This is a perfect example of shit that belongs on a alternative Ranked tier list, because this is one of those arbitrary guidelines that's not going to be settled except by warring opinions (aka, never settled until one side gives up).

I don't really see how this is the case. The issue is not so much one of drawing the line, but of drawing the line consistently. Allowing Matthew to top because of the silver card, while not allowing Nino to benefit from her procurement of 28x, seems like the tier list is not able to pick which side of the line it wants to be on. Since people do not seem willing to disregard the silver card for Matthew, consistency must be advocated.

As for "a tectonic effect," I don't really see that happening either. If the recruitment-performance arguments are accepted, then sure. If however, they are not (to avoid "double-counting" or w/e the reason is), then I don't see how the list would change that much. I can't think of any other instances where a specific action results in such a massive positive outside of these two (Matthew--Silver Card and Nino--28x), unless you count Hector seizing. In other instances, it would just have to be kept in mind that Lyn gets you a short bow and vulnerary for recruiting Rath, Dart gets you a killer axe for recruiting Geitz, etc. Stuff that isn't usually considered, but wouldn't be significant enough to upset the entire list.

[Florete]

Of course you could make an arbitrary exception. If exceptions are allowed for no reason at all, then you can make an exception to anything. The issue is that once you begin to make exceptions without any logical reasoning behind them, the tier list is no longer objective. If we make an exception for supports, why not make exceptions to other generally accepted conventions, just for the sake of making discussion "more interesting" or for the sake of promoting an irrational opinion if it is held by a majority of the participants?

Isn't that what tier list guidelines are in the first place? This list already has a bunch of arbitrary rules entitled "ranks" after all. Where's the logical reasoning behind that one?

After using a set of arbitrary inconsistences to mold the list, you would end up with a piece of work that looks good according to your personal opinions, but is ultimately indicative of nothing more than that; the personal opinions of those who created the list.

Well, no shit. Of course that's going to happen. I would think it follows that a list will be formed according to the people who are discussing it. For the record, I don't think it's possible to create a list that's completely objective; someone will always find a hole in a rule or think another rule should exist/current one be gone to throw things into a vicious cycle like this thread has become.

If you want a list that claims to be objective and at least somewhat meaningful, then you must be willing to actually change the status quo and accept new evidence when it is brought to the table, rather than just making a new rule or a new exception to cross out each distasteful or unconventional argument that comes up.

I'd prefer to cross out distasteful or unconventional arguments (depending on your exact definition of them, of course. You never know in this forum), but that's just me. I don't like giving units credit for getting us to a map, but it's up to whomever creates the rules, after all.

Extra shit aside, I don't know why you can't seem to live with just a little bit of inconsistency since it's going to exist in any tier list setting if you look hard enough. Either that or the list will likely not even be worth discussing and throw out your "somewhat meaningful" argument.

[Interceptor]

I don't really see how this is the case.

Try thinking about it harder, then. Arbitrary lines can be drawn anywhere, even one such that Matthew and Nino's issues are on separate sides of it. It doesn't really matter as long as it's settled. The simplest solution is to create a nice little sandbox for the complainers, let the issue work itself out, and then get back to business.

As for "a tectonic effect," I don't really see that happening either. If the recruitment-performance arguments are accepted, then sure.

So you don't see it happening, except that you do. Right. You know, I feel like I'm interrupting a conversation that you're having with yourself here, so please accept my pardons for intruding, carry on.

[CATS]

Isn't that what tier list guidelines are in the first place? This list already has a bunch of arbitrary rules entitled "ranks" after all. Where's the logical reasoning behind that one?

Yes, the tier list has a set of goals which the player works toward. These are necessary to use as a baseline for discussion and a standard of comparison; how much does unit X contribute towards the player's goals?

This is entirely different from an arbitrary rule such as "Battlefield conversations are considered irrelevant, except for support conversations." A guideline such as this is not necessary. It does not govern how the player plays the game, but rather it governs how people can post in the topic. It is not a goal for the hypothetical tier player to achieve, but rather a constraint on what sorts of arguments people can present.

Well, no shit. Of course that's going to happen. I would think it follows that a list will be formed according to the people who are discussing it. For the record, I don't think it's possible to create a list that's completely objective; someone will always find a hole in a rule or think another rule should exist/current one be gone to throw things into a vicious cycle like this thread has become.

Of course a tier list's positions will be formed according to the people who are discussing it; however, there is an important difference between the positions of the list being shaped by the people participating, and the rules which guide those positions being shaped by the people participating. And you're right in saying that no tier list can be 100% objective; if it were that simple, discussion would've died down long ago as the objectively most-accurate list would've eventually been created. However, this does not mean that people should entirely disregard objectivity and not even try to be unbiased.

Part of the reason that this topic has a "vicious cycle" going on is that people see arguments like GE's Nino argument as a "hole in a rule," as you said, rather than as a logically valid argument. If people were willing to see it not as a reason to change the rules in order to make the argument invalid, but as a reason to change Nino's position in order to make the list consistent, things would be going differently.

I'd prefer to cross out distasteful or unconventional arguments (depending on your exact definition of them, of course. You never know in this forum), but that's just me. I don't like giving units credit for getting us to a map, but it's up to whomever creates the rules, after all.

Certainly. The problem is that everyone has a different idea of what constitutes a distasteful or unconventional argument. I think the arguments that make Seth a tier above top tier in FE8 are extremely distasteful and kill discussion, since Seth is so good that there is no point in trying to argue him against anyone else. Notice how this doesn't give me the right to go into the FE8 tier list and demand that a new rule be made to limit Seth's potential.

Extra shit aside, I don't know why you can't seem to live with just a little bit of inconsistency since it's going to exist in any tier list setting if you look hard enough. Either that or the list will likely not even be worth discussing and throw out your "somewhat meaningful" argument.

I can certainly live with just a little bit of inconsistency in the tier list. I can also live with a festering, infected sore on my big toe. The fact that I can live with it does not mean that I shouldn't try to correct it. And yes, there will probably be a little bit of inconsistency if you look hard enough. That's why the tier list topic exists; so people can find those inconsistencies and subsequently have something to debate about. Simply creating a new rule to prevent anyone from arguing against the inconsistencies seems entirely contrary to the point of an activity which (afaik, at least) is supposed to be open-ended discussion.

---

Try thinking about it harder, then. Arbitrary lines can be drawn anywhere, even one such that Matthew and Nino's issues are on separate sides of it. It doesn't really matter as long as it's settled. The simplest solution is to create a nice little sandbox for the complainers, let the issue work itself out, and then get back to business.

If this is the mentality, that arbitrary lines should drawn to such a specific extent as to marginalize dissenting opinions and cast them aside without need of considering their viewpoints, then I repeat: Why not institutionalize this process of maintaining the status quo? Simply create a provision in the OP which states: "Take note that your argument is subject to being arbitrarily discarded at any point, and for no particular reason, if we don't like it." Then people who are interested in discussion that at least tries to be objective or open-ended would not have to waste time posting in the topic, and when unconventional arguments are posed, the matter could be settled immediately. You could simply point the "complainer" to this rule in the OP and then ignore him. It would be far more efficient than the current system.

So you don't see it happening, except that you do. Right. You know, I feel like I'm interrupting a conversation that you're having with yourself here, so please accept my pardons for intruding, carry on.

So you don't have anything substantial to say on the matter, and decided to instead substitute an unnecessary snide comment for some sort of relevant content. Right. You know, I feel like I'm not responding to anything constructive or meaningful here, so please accept my pardons for intruding, carry on with your pointless deriding of my posts.

[nflchamp]

If this is the mentality, that arbitrary lines should drawn to such a specific extent as to marginalize dissenting opinions and cast them aside without need of considering their viewpoints, then I repeat: Why not institutionalize this process of maintaining the status quo? Simply create a provision in the OP which states: "Take note that your argument is subject to being arbitrarily discarded at any point, and for no particular reason, if we don't like it." Then people who are interested in discussion that at least tries to be objective or open-ended would not have to waste time posting in the topic, and when unconventional arguments are posed, the matter could be settled immediately. You could simply point the "complainer" to this rule in the OP and then ignore him. It would be far more efficient than the current system.

I'm pretty sure the point is, why should your arbitrary line be enforced rather than the arbitrary line that's already generally excepted?

So you don't have anything substantial to say on the matter, and decided to instead substitute an unnecessary snide comment for some sort of relevant content. Right. You know, I feel like I'm not responding to anything constructive or meaningful here, so please accept my pardons for intruding, carry on with your pointless deriding of my posts.

You know, he was kinda saying

As for "a tectonic effect," I don't really see that happening either. If the recruitment-performance arguments are accepted, then sure.

the bolded. AKA, if Nino gets credit for 28x because she basically recruits Jaffar, then everyone who recruits someone gets the benefits that recruiting that person brings. Hence why he made the comment about you not getting it but getting it.

Finally, I feel like I'm being ignored in this topic. Someone please quote/respond to me.

[Florete]

Finally, I feel like I'm being ignored in this topic. Someone please quote/respond to me.

I have read your post in full and am now making a response to it.

[Anouleth]

If this is the mentality, that arbitrary lines should drawn to such a specific extent as to marginalize dissenting opinions and cast them aside without need of considering their viewpoints, then I repeat: Why not institutionalize this process of maintaining the status quo? Simply create a provision in the OP which states: "Take note that your argument is subject to being arbitrarily discarded at any point, and for no particular reason, if we don't like it." Then people who are interested in discussion that at least tries to be objective or open-ended would not have to waste time posting in the topic, and when unconventional arguments are posed, the matter could be settled immediately. You could simply point the "complainer" to this rule in the OP and then ignore him. It would be far more efficient than the current system.

We have to draw an arbitrary distinction somewhere. If you don't use an arbitrary distinction to determine what's on the list and what's not, then you are essentially allowing anything to be put on the tier list. How about putting the player himself in top tier, since he can take credit for any action? The idea that we should tier units and not non-units is just as arbitrary as claiming we should only tier green-haired characters or only tier terrain types or tier units on the basis of Ranks. It's an arbitrary distinction that you have to make just in order to make discussion rational.

And your strawman of 'well the OP can just discard anything for any arbitrary reason if we allow this' is dumb. Obviously allowing such an arbitrary distinction would stifle debate rather than encourage it.

Edited March 27, 2010 by Anouleth

[nflchamp]

I have read your post in full and am now making a response to it.

Thank you. At least I can tell I'm not being completely ignored.

[GreatEclipse]

I agree with everything CATS has said on the issue. If you cannot find any flaws in the logic behind my argument, Nino needs to move up. We can worry about the particulars or implications of her contribution when arguing her exact position.

[Life]

I agree with everything CATS has said on the issue. If you cannot find any flaws in the logic behind my argument, Nino needs to move up. We can worry about the particulars or implications of her contribution when arguing her exact position.

Is unlocking a single chapter in which she doesn't even perform well in really worth that much more than than a unit who is around for at least 3x more chapters (Wil)?

It's one thing to say "well, she unlocks the chapter so that's all nice and dandy" but then you also have to consider her combat value and when you realize that she is Bolting bait for Sonia (and I think is OHKO'd as I know that Legault is close to a OHKO at 20/0) and can't do anything for the team without going in that range, wouldn't that take away from her apparent incredible value?

That's my flaw with the logic. You're saying "screw how bad she actually is in a forced chapter, her one action guarantees her safe passage through a number of units". And if you say Matthew, you have to remember that he's your only thief for the first half of the game and on top of getting the Silver Card, he also gets a number of items and is a viable support for Guy to up Guy's criticalling ability.

Edited March 27, 2010 by Admiral Lifey Crunch

[GreatEclipse]

Her combat performance has nothing to with it. Chad is a terrible fighter during the time he is the only thief. Availability is also meaningless when you have nothing significant to contribute. Without Wil you can simply use someone better in his place. Without Nino you take a huge hit to the Tactics and Funds ranks.

Doing a single, amazing thing >>>>>> Sucking massively for close to the entire game.

Arguing Matthew does more for the team than Nino is an argument for him being higher on the list. I am only arguing that what they do is fundamentally the same.

Edited March 27, 2010 by GreatEclipse

[Florete]

I agree with everything CATS has said on the issue. If you cannot find any flaws in the logic behind my argument, Nino needs to move up. We can worry about the particulars or implications of her contribution when arguing her exact position.

How about "Nino doesn't get credit for it?" Is that good for you as the flaw in your logic?

Also, did you read the recent posts by nflchamp and Anouleth?

[GreatEclipse]

That is an assertion, not an argument. All they did was comment on the implications, and why they think they can disregard them for no logical reason. All I care about is if my argument is logically valid or not.

[Florete]

That is an assertion, not an argument. All they did was comment on the implications, and why they think they can disregard them for no logical reason. All I care about is if my argument is logically valid or not.

In terms of logic, there is no problem with it. In terms of validity, I'd be on the side saying it isn't, but that's up to the community as a whole (Or Life Admiral, but I have a feeling he'd go with general consensus) to decide.

[GreatEclipse]

How can an argument not be valid if the logic behind it is flawless? Are you honestly trying to make an "Appeal to the Majority" to get it thrown out?

Edited March 27, 2010 by GreatEclipse

[Life]

In terms of logic, there is no problem with it. In terms of validity, I'd be on the side saying it isn't, but that's up to the community as a whole (Or Life Admiral, but I have a feeling he'd go with general consensus) to decide.

General consensus. It's not my tier list, it's our tier list. Right now it's the majority that doesn't want to give Nino credit but to be honest, there haven't been convincing arguments on either side (yeah, even coming from me) for or against Nino getting credit.

The only thing for is really "without her, you don't go to Night of Farewells". You can say other things but this is the general core of the whole argument, which I personally don't agree with.

How can an argument not be valid if the logic behind it is flawless? Are you honestly trying to make an "Appeal to the Majority" to get it thrown out?

It's not flawless, contrary to your belief. Do we really suffer if we don't go to Night of Farewells? Yes or no?

Edited March 27, 2010 by Admiral Lifey Crunch

[Florete]

How can an argument not be valid if the logic behind it is flawless? Are you honestly trying to make an "Appeal to the Majority" to get it thrown out?

Hector auto-topping for his ability to Seize is a perfectly logical argument but I think we all know that it isn't valid in a tier list setting (mostly, of course. A list could give him credit if that's what was decided). What are you not getting?

Edited March 27, 2010 by Red Fox of Fire

[GreatEclipse]

A skilled player can fall around 10 turns below the requirements even while surpassing the EXP and Funds demands. Check some HHM ranked logs if you do not believe me. Only Nino can give you this opportunity, so yes, you are worse off without her.

It is completely valid to give Hector his own tier if you claim your list is objective and meaningful. What is so terrible about Nino getting the credit she deserves? Everyone seems to have an irrational desire to ensure she stays in low tier.

[Life]

A skilled player can fall around 10 turns below the requirements even while surpassing the EXP and Funds demands. Check some HHM ranked logs if you do not believe me. Only Nino can give you this opportunity, so yes, you are worse off without her.

That wasn't what I asked. I asked if 28x was necessary for the S Rank. Not if it was desired. Since you claimed that you are "worse off" without it rather than "absolutely screwed", you basically summed up my feelings of Nino.

Yeah she can help but she's not vital. So your initial claim of Nino > Pent automatically gets screwed right up the ass with a wooden rubber spoon.