S Rank Tier List for FE7

[Life]

I know that I can do one of two things. I can either through up my hands in frustration and just say "Nino for high tier then" or I can keep on arguing that going to 28x isn't a game breaking performance that more than just negates her actual performance.

It seems to me that both CATS and GE don't give a flying fuck about Nino's actual performance and would rather just rank her much higher for recruiting Jaffar (you can't honestly tell me that they're not the same thing). Or at least GE thinks this. CATS seems to be attacking the logic against pulling this move and while his points are decently solid, it doesn't actually do anything for the conversation on hand.

So here's what we're at.

Side 1 - Don't move Nino. Her performance or lack of a proper one is horrible and unlocking 28x shouldn't be attributed to her because it is storyline based. We are working on a slippery slope here; if Nino gets credit, how long is it until we give credit to Hector for seizing and whoever for grabbing the Torch and unlocking 13x to get Merlinus early?

Side 2 - Nino deserves to be moved up (I guess a lot according to the only person who actually supports this side) based on unlocking 28x and only because of unlocking 28x. This act is similar to Matthew's one act of stealing the Silver Card which puts him at top of top. Her performance is negligible because of the immense value of 28x for any of the ranks.

Am I getting this right?

[Florete]

Suppose that the community wishes to move Bartre into top tier. Raven is better than Bartre? No, because contributions in the first 4 chapters of the game outweigh all other contributions. Why? Because we want Bartre to be top tier. But wouldn't this make Dorcas top tier as well? No, because he's an exception to the rule. Why? Because we, the people, say so. Etc. You will disagree, but this is in fact very similar to the situation here. Nino is better than Pent? No, because the action she takes to acquire 28x is a "storyline event," and storyline events don't count. Why? Because we want Nino to be low tier. You can substitute whatever rationalizations you want to in there, but it seems obvious that "Because we want Nino to be low tier" is the real reason behind whatever justifications you can dig up for it.

You're acting like we all hate Nino and want her in Low tier because no one likes her. If we did what you're saying with Bartre and not Dorcas, that would not just be inconsistency, it would be hypocrisy. Simply stating that Nino's "contribution" doesn't count isn't directly clashing with something else we've allowed, at least I don't see you comparing Nino's "contribution" to anything else we've been allowing, aka I don't see the Bartre to the Nino as Dorcas.

Well yes, you have pretty much proven me right. I do have to ask: why? Why are people so concerned with maintaining their opinions; even to the point of overriding relevant logic or facts in order to assert their personal feelings as the valid viewpoint? I honestly don't understand this mentality. You claim that you are not being inconsistent, but even if this is true, it really doesn't matter. The fact of the issue is that, as you pointed out, GE's argument would be rejected even if no logical counter-argument to it could be found. It seems clear to me that, if it came down to it, the community would just do the thing where everyone stops responding to him and nothing is ever changed as a result of his posts.

Do you think Hector should be given full credit for Seizing? This is a serious question.

Likewise, look at Red Fox's response to the topic.

But honestly, it feels like you're just trying to be a pain right now. Is it so hard to accept that not everything will be 100% consistent based on the fact that everyone looks at the game in a different way?

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.

She asks if people can just get over the inconsistency, but the better question is, why can't she live with a little more consistency in the list? And why is it that she expects others to live with a little bit of inconsistency when it suits her feelings on the matter? Why should she not be the one who has to live with it when her personal feelings clash with the facts?

Something else I said, in the exact same post as the "extra shit aside" comment:

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.

If people think Nino should get credit for going to 28x and I'm the only one who thinks otherwise, I might speak up on it but I won't pursue it if I can see it just isn't a generally accepted idea. However, this situation is the opposite; people don't seem to want to give credit to Nino for 28x (I can't even tell if you do or if you are just arguing) and I don't see how that directly contradicts anything else we allow.

I simply don't get it. Anyways, all of this obviously being the case, I return to my original request: If you are going to do this, then please simply acknowledge the tier list's largely subjective nature and stop pretending that any of you are making much of an effort to be objective. Again:

Does it count as flame-baiting if the only reason I'm not insulting you right now is because I'm typing this question?

I also notice that almost everything else I've said so far has been ignored, but I guess that should come as no surprise.

A tempting idea.

[Anouleth]

GreatEclipse is not trying to enforce a new arbitrary line; his argument is based on the premise of the list ("Who helps most with S Ranking?") and on current tier list positions and the rationale behind them (primarily Matthew's position). He's making an argument, not trying to make a new rule. This is the difference between him and those who disagree with him. It's not a question of one arbitrary line vs another, like the Merlinus issue. Why should their arbitrary rule be enforced, rather than GE's argument accepted? The only possible answer is that more people, regardless of any rational analysis of the issue, would rather see the former happen than the latter. Notice how close this is to this tier list.

He's trying to remove the arbitrary distinction that storyline events such as seizing, recruitment and making chapters available are ignored. I think this is a very useful distinction, since it stops characters such as Hector from auto-topping and promotes debate.

As for 'which arbitrary rule should we use', obviously we should use the more popular one. I think that the people on this board are smart enough to understand what rules are constructive and which ones aren't.

Yes, the line has to be drawn somewhere. The question is, how many times does it have to be drawn, or how many lines have to be drawn? Are you going to draw the line once and then be consistent with it? Or are you going to draw as many different lines as you need to, as often as you need to, in order to serve your own personal interests? It should be obvious which one the people in this topic would rather do.

You couldn't base a tier list on a single rule. Two rules minimum are necessary - one to determine what is being tiered (in this case, units) and one to determine what criteria we are tiering them by (in this case, their contribution towards an S Rank in HHM). Additional rules are very helpful, such as a rule stating that certain characters are more likely to be in play than others (for supports), a rule stating that the player is assumed to be competent, a rule stating that characters must pay the opportunity cost for whatever resources they take, etcetera. I don't think you could make a tier list on the basis of just two rules - too much would be left unspecified.

And I don't think that anyone is making up rules out of personal interest. Unless you're accusing the good Admiral of deliberately choosing rules to make Matthew go up and Hector down.

Your characterization of my argument is dumb. If you are going to draw arbitrary lines as to what types of argument are and aren't allowed (take note that this is different from simply defining what the player's goals are, or defining what constitutes a "unit"), without even needing to provide a reason why, then yes, the tier list can absolutely disregard anything based on whatever arbitrary reasons.

Suppose that the community wishes to move Bartre into top tier. Raven is better than Bartre? No, because contributions in the first 4 chapters of the game outweigh all other contributions. Why? Because we want Bartre to be top tier. But wouldn't this make Dorcas top tier as well? No, because he's an exception to the rule. Why? Because we, the people, say so. Etc. You will disagree, but this is in fact very similar to the situation here. Nino is better than Pent? No, because the action she takes to acquire 28x is a "storyline event," and storyline events don't count. Why? Because we want Nino to be low tier. You can substitute whatever rationalizations you want to in there, but it seems obvious that "Because we want Nino to be low tier" is the real reason behind whatever justifications you can dig up for it.

A tier list with arbitrary rules like the one you describe could certainly be created and it would be valid if the rules were applied consistently, but it wouldn't attract many debaters, so it would probably die. The key sign of a tier list with badly-made rules is that nobody wants to debate on it.

I'm not sure exactly what you want. It seems you want as few rules as possible on a tier list, but I can't really see why, and all you've done is make up examples of bad rules, even though it doesn't really prove your point.

[Life]

And I don't think that anyone is making up rules out of personal interest. Unless you're accusing the good Admiral of deliberately choosing rules to make Matthew go up and Hector down.

Honestly, how many times do I need to repeat myself?

This is not my tier list. I only edit the first post. I can't come up with rules that all of you have to abide by. If the majority of the community wants a specific change and can prove why the change is good, then the change will probably happen, even if I argue against it. This happened on GameFAQs because we were civilized and realized when we lost arguments. I hope that you guys can do the same thing.

Edited March 27, 2010 by Admiral Lifey Crunch

[frat_tastic]

Which is excellent Life, and a reason I'm very happy with you being the OP. You're doing a good job btw.

The problem with the arbitrary line being drawn is that it makes huge, obvious, direct contradictions, for the sake of "argument" and "debate". The list is, for some reason, allowing story-based events with an impact on gameplay (things like supports and classes), but not allowing others (units gaining access to maps, other stuff along these lines).

Maybe one solution to this kind of stuff is realizing that some of these things maybe aren't as game-breaking as they may seem. Hector is needed to seize what, like 8 chapters? Your other units are all needed to accomplish the completion requirements of other chapters (defend for x amount of turns, rout enemies, reach a certain point etc.). Yeah, Hector's need is still greater, since only he can accomplish those 8 seize chapters, but your other units have just as much claim as Hector does for advancing to the next chapter in other chapters, so its not like Hector is the only unit who can advance the game. And since it would literally be impossible to S-Rank the game only using Hector, we obviously can't say that Hector alone can accomplish these other things, which would still, in my opinion, keep him from auto-topping.

Same thing goes for recruitment. Yeah, some people recruit people who are really good/come with great inventories, whatever. This applies to a lot of units though, so it's not like the positives they gain are, relatively speaking, super awesome.

EDIT: Also some of this trolling accusation and shit is getting kind of old and stupid. I know at least for my part that I certainly am not trolling, and find the arguments made by GE, whether trolling or not, to be logical.

Edited March 27, 2010 by frat_tastic

[Colonel M]

The problem with the "trolling" accusation is because I myself do not see the link between Matthew's Silver Card and Nino recruiting a character to take us into another chapter. Nino's is completely storyline-driven, while Matthew's is an action command due to his class. Nino does not need to do anything special except hit "Talk" while walking up to Jaffar. Matthew has to actually be fielded, contribute combat-wise (which he does), then walk up to whatshisnuts and steal the card. Nino is only helping you get into the chapter with some credit being backed by Jaffar (since both need to survive). After that, what does Nino even contribute? She helps the EXP rank at best, and all the while being at risk of death. Your other units are the ones that are contributing within the chapter, not Nino. It is also an optional chapter as well, which one could argue it having more of a basis behind the storyline. Matthew's Silver Card is optional, yes, but it has no relevance to the story whatsoever.

So I merely propose that we make a rule that disallows arguments (or frown upon, whichever you see fit) to storyline-driven arguments. These include seizing, recruiting a character, being a condition to entering a chapter, etc. I believe we are more than intelligent enough to draw lines between storyline driven arguments and ones that actually are contributions. Seems simple enough.

[Florete]

The problem with the arbitrary line being drawn is that it makes huge, obvious, direct contradictions, for the sake of "argument" and "debate". The list is, for some reason, allowing story-based events with an impact on gameplay (things like supports and classes), but not allowing others (units gaining access to maps, other stuff along these lines).

I am not seeing any contradictions, especially not anything "huge." Units aren't credited for having an A rank support with another unit, they are credited for how they use the bonuses. Units are not credited for having a cool classes, they are credited for how they use it to beat the game. In that way, those are not storyline events; Nino getting us to 28x is, assuming it's part of the list that we are already going to that map.

Maybe one solution to this kind of stuff is realizing that some of these things maybe aren't as game-breaking as they may seem. Hector is needed to seize what, like 8 chapters? Your other units are all needed to accomplish the completion requirements of other chapters (defend for x amount of turns, rout enemies, reach a certain point etc.). Yeah, Hector's need is still greater, since only he can accomplish those 8 seize chapters, but your other units have just as much claim as Hector does for advancing to the next chapter in other chapters, so its not like Hector is the only unit who can advance the game. And since it would literally be impossible to S-Rank the game only using Hector, we obviously can't say that Hector alone can accomplish these other things, which would still, in my opinion, keep him from auto-topping.

Sorry, but that's just not accurate. Raven may be better at routing enemies than Hector, making him better for completing those maps, but is he necessary? Do I need to use Raven? No, I don't. I could never use Raven and still beat the game. Same for Marcus. Hector? No. I can't beat the game without having him Seize. It is impossible. Therefore, Hector's contribution outweighs anything anyone else does if he is given full credit because he is the only character I literally need.

EDIT: Also some of this trolling accusation and shit is getting kind of old and stupid. I know at least for my part that I certainly am not trolling, and find the arguments made by GE, whether trolling or not, to be logical.

I realize it's getting old, that's why I worded my post the way I did. I don't care if what they say is logical though, if it's done just to aggravate others, I will call them out for it.

Edited March 27, 2010 by Red Fox of Fire

[CATS]

You're acting like we all hate Nino and want her in Low tier because no one likes her. If we did what you're saying with Bartre and not Dorcas, that would not just be inconsistency, it would be hypocrisy. Simply stating that Nino's "contribution" doesn't count isn't directly clashing with something else we've allowed, at least I don't see you comparing Nino's "contribution" to anything else we've been allowing, aka I don't see the Bartre to the Nino as Dorcas.

The obvious comparison is with Matthew's position, as has been outlined many times. You can of course dispute whether or not the comparison is accurate, but once again, at this point that's outside the real issue at hand. The real issue is the fact that this argument would be rejected even if it were exceedingly clear that Nino was the Dorcas here compared to Matthew's Bartre (which in my opinion, it is, though once again that can obviously be called into question).

Do you think Hector should be given full credit for Seizing? This is a serious question.

This is another issue where I'm indifferent more than anything else. "It kills discussion" is actually a true point in this case, since infinite worth means that there is no longer anything else to be said about Hector's position, ever. This is different from a case like this one, where the unit in question would not have infinite worth, and new arguments about the unit's position would remain very possible, hence rendering "it kills discussion" to be a poor excuse for disregarding the argument.

Going back to your original question, if pressed on the issue and asked to be entirely consistent, then yes. I would be willing to yield and would not protest if Hector were moved into Seize Tier. That argument has never been debunked with logic afaik, but rather (as Interceptor said earlier) disregarded purely for practical reasons.

Something else I said, in the exact same post as the "extra shit aside" comment:

If people think Nino should get credit for going to 28x and I'm the only one who thinks otherwise, I might speak up on it but I won't pursue it if I can see it just isn't a generally accepted idea. However, this situation is the opposite; people don't seem to want to give credit to Nino for 28x (I can't even tell if you do or if you are just arguing) and I don't see how that directly contradicts anything else we allow.

A fair point, as far as your own position is concerned. So you're saying that you would likely prefer to just go along with the majority, regardless of whether it agrees with your views or not?

As for whether I want to give credit to Nino for 28x or not, from what I see currently (i.e. Matthew at the top of the list and etc), that seems more valid to me than keeping her in low tier. But I'm not arguing just against the fact that Nino is in low tier; I'm arguing about the general reasons that people want to keep her in low tier.

Does it count as flame-baiting if the only reason I'm not insulting you right now is because I'm typing this question?

A tempting idea.

Out of curiosity, do you have anything relevant to say? Or just, in your own words, flame-baiting? If it's the latter, feel free to continue ignoring my passages if all they do is tempt you to insult me.

---

He's trying to remove the arbitrary distinction that storyline events such as seizing, recruitment and making chapters available are ignored. I think this is a very useful distinction, since it stops characters such as Hector from auto-topping and promotes debate.

As I said already, it's you who are making the storyline-based arguments, simply by attaching that label to GE's point. If you actually wanted to make the storyline irrelevant to tier list positions, you would not even be using that word. Again, GE's argument has nothing to do with the storyline. It is clearly based on game mechanics, not on anyone's role in the story.

And again, if this is seriously your excuse, there are innumerable inconsistencies to be found with it. Should we not disregard Hector's promotion, considering that it very obviously happens through a storyline event? Inconsistencies like these (the fact that Hector is obviously allowed to promote in comparisons, despite it being a storyline event) demonstrate that "it's a storyline event" is not really the bottom line here, but is simply being used as a cover-up for the actual reasons that people want to disregard these arguments (they think it's more practical to keep them out of the tier list, or they simply have a plain, irrational dislike of the arguments).

As for 'which arbitrary rule should we use', obviously we should use the more popular one. I think that the people on this board are smart enough to understand what rules are constructive and which ones aren't.

Certainly they are smart enough to understand what's constructive in their own minds. That's the issue. If you make the rules, then you can't be wrong, and there's no point in anyone trying to argue with you or change your mind. This is the position that the majority opinion has here.

You couldn't base a tier list on a single rule. Two rules minimum are necessary - one to determine what is being tiered (in this case, units) and one to determine what criteria we are tiering them by (in this case, their contribution towards an S Rank in HHM). Additional rules are very helpful, such as a rule stating that certain characters are more likely to be in play than others (for supports), a rule stating that the player is assumed to be competent, a rule stating that characters must pay the opportunity cost for whatever resources they take, etcetera. I don't think you could make a tier list on the basis of just two rules - too much would be left unspecified.

Yes, two rules are necessary. Further "rules" are not. And the things you named are not rules, or at the least have clear logical justification behind them. Opportunity cost is a logical argument based on facts, not an arbitrary rule. Something like the fact that Raven is more likely to be in play than Bartre simply follows logically from the provision that the player is trying to S Rank, since Raven is more helpful towards that goal than Bartre. etc. Quite different from "Storyline events aren't allowed, and we define what is and isn't a storyline event, and some are allowed anyways," which is extremely arbitrary.

I'm not sure exactly what you want. It seems you want as few rules as possible on a tier list, but I can't really see why, and all you've done is make up examples of bad rules, even though it doesn't really prove your point.

My point is that a tier list which creates arbitrary rules to justify its positions is not objective, especially if it is simply ruled by majority opinion. An objective tier list should change the positions of the characters to fit the two necessary "rules" that you outlined above, rather than changing the rules or adding new rules to justify pre-existing positions.

---

I am not seeing any contradictions, especially not anything "huge." Units aren't credited for having an A rank support with another unit, they are credited for how they use the bonuses. Units are not credited for having a cool classes, they are credited for how they use it to beat the game. In that way, those are not storyline events; Nino getting us to 28x is, assuming it's part of the list that we are already going to that map.

Likewise, to use your wording, Nino isn't credited for having a conversation with Jaffar, she is credited for how she uses it to beat the game (which, in this tier list, means achieving S Rank). "You'd go to 28x anyways" applies to a great number of things. There's tons of stuff that you're going to do just because it's a good idea. The point is that you are able to do the stuff because of certain specific units. Can we disregard the silver card for Matthew because you're going to get it anyways? Can we disregard Lucius's support with Raven because Raven is going to be used anyways? etc.

Edited March 27, 2010 by CATS

[Meteor]

Under the very broad goal of "getting an S rank" I do agree that the Nino argument has some merit. Without her existing, 28x would be inaccessible. However, this means that Jaffar and Lyn/Hector also share some of the credit for reaching 28x, because they are part of the chain of actions that unlock it. I propose 1 of 2 things be done:

1. Adjust Nino+whoever for their 28x contribution

2. Narrow the scope of what qualifies as a contribution

When I look at a tier list, I usually am trying to determine which units I should be using. Would it be reasonable to change this list's focus onto which units should most often be deployed when working toward an S rank?

[Life]

Likewise, to use your wording, Nino isn't credited for having a conversation with Jaffar, she is credited for how she uses it to beat the game (which, in this tier list, means achieving S Rank). "You'd go to 28x anyways" applies to a great number of things. There's tons of stuff that you're going to do just because it's a good idea. The point is that you are able to do the stuff because of certain specific units. Can we disregard the silver card for Matthew because you're going to get it anyways? Can we disregard Lucius's support with Raven because Raven is going to be used anyways? etc.

How about this?

Nino is different because she doesn't consume a resource or gain Exp when she allows us to gain access to Night of Farewells. In order to steal the Silver Card, Matthew must get enough Exp to raise his level (and effectively his Spd) to the point that he can steal the Silver Card from Aion (or steal anything from anyone). He also gains Exp for doing the act which Nino does not when talking to Jaffar. Or in the case of getting treasure from a treasure chest, he uses a use of his Lockpick (or a Chest Key) in order to get the treasure.

Does this make more sense?

Edited March 27, 2010 by Admiral Lifey Crunch

[Narga_Rocks]

I think I've changed my opinion on smash topics like:

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=19265

This discussion is halting any meaningful discussion of unit positions. Clearly, the community isn't bending, so at this point it is merely a competition on who makes the best points about whether or not to incorporate storyline conversations that happen to take place on a map rather than in the base. I'd rather you do it elsewhere, but I won't require it.

If you like, I made a topic for it:

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=19638

[CATS]

Under the very broad goal of "getting an S rank" I do agree that the Nino argument has some merit. Without her existing, 28x would be inaccessible. However, this means that Jaffar and Lyn/Hector also share some of the credit for reaching 28x, because they are part of the chain of actions that unlock it. I propose 1 of 2 things be done:

Jaffar was covered elsewhere, I won't take up alot of space talking about that again. As for Hector/Lyn, since they are interchangeable in recruiting Nino, neither is actually necessary for her recruitment. A team can still recruit Nino without ever using one or the other of them. So I think you could viably argue that no credit is due there. Perhaps you could credit Hector for allowing you to avoid deploying Lyn on BBD in order to recruit Nino, but I wouldn't credit him for unlocking 28x.

When I look at a tier list, I usually am trying to determine which units I should be using. Would it be reasonable to change this list's focus onto which units should most often be deployed when working toward an S rank?

That seems like an entirely valid answer to the issue (as long as it would be applied consistently, of course), since it's actually a consistent standard of measurement rather than just an arbitrary "No, you can't do that, because we say so." Ranking units based on how many chapters they are preferred deployment, rather than on the magnitude of their actions during chapters that they are deployed. Just as Nino would remain in low tier, Matthew would no longer auto-top I imagine, since he is not preferred deployment anymore after the early chapters.

This does create issues with forced units though, but not complex ones, just black-and-white questions. If a unit is forced, do you say that they are preferred deployment for that chapter? Although, there is the question of what do you do with Hector? Just pretend that he's not forced so that he can be tiered, I guess?

---

How about this?

Nino is different because she doesn't consume a resource or gain Exp when she allows us to gain access to Night of Farewells. In order to steal the Silver Card, Matthew must get enough Exp to raise his level (and effectively his Spd) to the point that he must steal the Silver Card from Aion (or steal anything from anyone). He also gain Exp for doing the act which Nino does not when talking to Jaffar. Or in the case of getting treasure from a treasure chest, he uses a use of his Lockpick (or a Chest Key) in order to get the treasure.

Does this make more sense?

This is along the lines of Meteor's proposal above; ranking units based on which ones you want to deploy more often and invest more of your resources into. You want to deploy Matthew and invest alot of Exp into him just so that he can steal that card, if nothing else, while Nino is still only getting used in a minimal number of chapters. Like I said, I think this proposed solution is viable, though keep in mind that it will likely affect more positions than just those of Nino and Matthew if it is applied consistently.

[Meteor]

This does create issues with forced units though, but not complex ones, just black-and-white questions. If a unit is forced, do you say that they are preferred deployment for that chapter? Although, there is the question of what do you do with Hector? Just pretend that he's not forced so that he can be tiered, I guess?

Short answer, yes.

As it is, when two characters are compared, we assume they are both deployed anyway. I don't think it would impact his placing very much.

In Matthew's case, he would remain rather high because he would be deployed in several chapters for chests, fog, and of course stealing, and his contributions during those chapters are significant. Maybe not top of top, though.

Like I said, I think this proposed solution is viable, though keep in mind that it will likely affect more positions than just those of Nino and Matthew if it is applied consistently.

True. For one thing, in my mind, it also resolves the argument about characters who recruit others. Priscilla only needs to be fielded for 1 chapter, and thus isn't greatly rewarded for Raven. Karla, on the other hand, requires the non-optimal deployment of Bartre, and thus is penalized.

Edited March 27, 2010 by Meteor

[nflchamp]

I like how no one bothers with my argument against Nino getting credit for 28x so many pages ago. The whole, assuming we recruit everyone possible, 28x has to happen. Nino can't get credit for it because we have to recruit Jaffar by tier standards.

[Life]

That seems like an entirely valid answer to the issue (as long as it would be applied consistently, of course), since it's actually a consistent standard of measurement rather than just an arbitrary "No, you can't do that, because we say so." Ranking units based on how many chapters they are preferred deployment, rather than on the magnitude of their actions during chapters that they are deployed. Just as Nino would remain in low tier, Matthew would no longer auto-top I imagine, since he is not preferred deployment anymore after the early chapters.

I know I've never truly agreed with Matthew getting auto-topping just for the Silver Card though he should still be up there as his performance is along the lines of Serra/Prissy/Ninils for the S Rank. I can't really say that Raven beating him would be much of a problem as Raven is hands down our best combat unit.

This does create issues with forced units though, but not complex ones, just black-and-white questions. If a unit is forced, do you say that they are preferred deployment for that chapter? Although, there is the question of what do you do with Hector? Just pretend that he's not forced so that he can be tiered, I guess?

We have to assume that Hector is optional but has potential to be played in every chapter, even if it's not optional. Then we should rank him based on his overall contribution (Seizing aside). Or at least, that's how I see it. Then again, he's not really going to be kept from many chapters as he's like a much more mobile Oswin with a Prf weapon and some Spd. Same thing for everyone else. We look at how good they are in that chapter when they are forced. But we don't give them a break because they are forced.

For me, the best examples are Ninian in New Resolve and Nils in VoD. We don't field them but they're there on turn 1. They don't take up a unit's spot at all so we don't have to hold that against them. This is different to Nino in NoF where she is forced and actually counts as a unit slot (2/? are automatically fielded in that case). But we won't count Nino's cost of deployment against her anymore since her case is now the exact same as Ninils (If we can field x units including Hector and Nino, then we are actually fielding x-1 units and Nino is there on turn 1). You know what I'm saying?

This is along the lines of Meteor's proposal above; ranking units based on which ones you want to deploy more often and invest more of your resources into. You want to deploy Matthew and invest alot of Exp into him just so that he can steal that card, if nothing else, while Nino is still only getting used in a minimal number of chapters. Like I said, I think this proposed solution is viable, though keep in mind that it will likely affect more positions than just those of Nino and Matthew if it is applied consistently.

I was thinking of this to be a way to draw the line of what a "storyline event" and a "unit event" is. The nice thing is that it also affects Farina's case by putting her case in the "unit event" side (we use resources to recruit her so the 20k counts against her potential). Unless I'm thinking of this wrong, that is.

EDIT: To please Narga (or to keep him from accusing me of killing the unit discussion even though I think this is important), I'm making the Geitz > Dorcas change. It's generally been accepted and I've yet to see someone take an opposite position to it.

Edited March 28, 2010 by Admiral Lifey Crunch

[dondon151]

The obvious comparison is with Matthew's position, as has been outlined many times. You can of course dispute whether or not the comparison is accurate, but once again, at this point that's outside the real issue at hand. The real issue is the fact that this argument would be rejected even if it were exceedingly clear that Nino was the Dorcas here compared to Matthew's Bartre (which in my opinion, it is, though once again that can obviously be called into question).

You don't know this for sure. You're simply assuming so because it conveniently supports your position, but I can simply assert the opposite and your reasoning will have no weight whatsoever.

[Narga_Rocks]

I was thinking of this to be a way to draw the line of what a "storyline event" and a "unit event" is. The nice thing is that it also affects Farina's case by putting her case in the "unit event" side (we use resources to recruit her so the 20k counts against her potential). Unless I'm thinking of this wrong, that is.

And yet some people seem to claim that it is in some way inconsistent to not consider storyline events as part of a unit's contribution. Really though, it is consistent. They just don't seem to like it for some reason. Is it so hard to understand that

a: multiple different set-ups may be internally consistent.

b: we'll choose the one we like more since there isn't much point doing all this if we don't like it.

EDIT: To please Narga (or to keep him from accusing me of killing the unit discussion even though I think this is important), I'm making the Geitz > Dorcas change. It's generally been accepted and I've yet to see someone take an opposite position to it.

And just how long and how many pages did it take to make just one of your four changes from the first page? How much discussion has actually transpired over your proposed changes? Is there even a 1% chance that any of this stuff that GE has been spouting will actually be implemented?

I like how no one bothers with my argument against Nino getting credit for 28x so many pages ago. The whole, assuming we recruit everyone possible, 28x has to happen. Nino can't get credit for it because we have to recruit Jaffar by tier standards.

Oh, GE came up with a lame counter for that involving putting random rule on performing some other action to invalidate the credit that comes with it. Give a response to that, since he didn't like mine.

Edited March 28, 2010 by Narga_Rocks

[GreatEclipse]

My objection was that you can invalidate anything by saying you planned on doing that anyway. Singling out the contributions of Nino specifically only moves the inconsistency on to the rules themselves.

[frat_tastic]

All of this discussion is relevant to the tier list. We don't need to be only discussing unit placement. I'd even call this discussion more important than the goals on the first page (not to say they aren't important Life). It doesn't matter how long it takes or how many posts or pages it takes, because this is obviously something important to the tier list.

[CATS]

nflchamp:

I like how no one bothers with my argument against Nino getting credit for 28x so many pages ago. The whole, assuming we recruit everyone possible, 28x has to happen. Nino can't get credit for it because we have to recruit Jaffar by tier standards.

Jaffar was covered earlier. I don't feel like digging up the quotes since I'm not sure what you mean in bringing up Jaffar; if you expand on your idea a little, I will attempt to respond.

"You're going there anyways" was also covered. You are not, in fact, going there unless you have Nino perform a specific command. Likewise, "you're going to do it anyways" applies to a massive number of other things, not just this specific instance. Nor has any logical reason been given why "you're going to do it anyways" matters at all. So what if it's a good idea and the player's gonna do it anyways? It's still a helpful action.

Correct me if I'm misreading your argument and that doesn't address it.

---

Short answer, yes.

As it is, when two characters are compared, we assume they are both deployed anyway. I don't think it would impact his placing very much.

Well, with Hector, the thing is that he's going to be used in every single chapter. This is not true of any other unit. Technically, if you accept that forced characters are optimal, no one else is preferred-deployment to the same extent that Hector is. This leaves you with two options: You can just let Hector auto-top, or you can pretend that he is not forced for purposes of comparison (similar to how seizing is disregarded currently) so that it will be possible to make arguments about him. Both are viable approaches, I'm just curious as to which one we'd be taking. I'm guessing the latter.

In Matthew's case, he would remain rather high because he would be deployed in several chapters for chests, fog, and of course stealing, and his contributions during those chapters are significant. Maybe not top of top, though.

Indeed, he'd still be at least in high tier. But no longer best unit. As Life said, I imagine units like Raven could beat him now.

True. For one thing, in my mind, it also resolves the argument about characters who recruit others. Priscilla only needs to be fielded for 1 chapter, and thus isn't greatly rewarded for Raven. Karla, on the other hand, requires the non-optimal deployment of Bartre, and thus is penalized.

Karla would be another interesting case to handle. Would you count Bartre's earlier deployments against her? Though since Karla herself really is not worth using anyway, it probably wouldn't matter much.

We have to assume that Hector is optional but has potential to be played in every chapter, even if it's not optional. Then we should rank him based on his overall contribution (Seizing aside). Or at least, that's how I see it. Then again, he's not really going to be kept from many chapters as he's like a much more mobile Oswin with a Prf weapon and some Spd. Same thing for everyone else. We look at how good they are in that chapter when they are forced. But we don't give them a break because they are forced.

So basically, you are saying forced should not equal optimal deployment, and that the player should always assume a unit is optional? My only question then is, how do you handle the very early chapters (i.e. Ch 11-14), where there are no alternatives? Rebecca is worse than most of your units during this time, but even if she were optional, it would still be in your best interest to deploy her since there is no one else available who could go in her spot. What would you do here? I'd say to count it as though they are optimal deployment for those chapters, since I really just don't see any alternatives, but meh.

For me, the best examples are Ninian in New Resolve and Nils in VoD. We don't field them but they're there on turn 1. They don't take up a unit's spot at all so we don't have to hold that against them. This is different to Nino in NoF where she is forced and actually counts as a unit slot (2/? are automatically fielded in that case). But we won't count Nino's cost of deployment against her anymore since her case is now the exact same as Ninils (If we can field x units including Hector and Nino, then we are actually fielding x-1 units and Nino is there on turn 1). You know what I'm saying?

Not really. Can you expand on it a bit more, or try to condense your point here into a single statement?

I was thinking of this to be a way to draw the line of what a "storyline event" and a "unit event" is. The nice thing is that it also affects Farina's case by putting her case in the "unit event" side (we use resources to recruit her so the 20k counts against her potential). Unless I'm thinking of this wrong, that is.

That's not how I see it, but if you want to word it that way, then sure I guess. At the least it would be an objective and consistent way of determining what is or isn't a "storyline event."

Though I don't see it that way since what you consider "storyline events" would still influence a unit's position under this system. If a unit is needed to recruit an important character (for example, Lilina --> Gonzales in FE6), then you will indeed kick out units with better combat abilities in order to field the recruiter in that one chapter. Thus, Lilina is more of a preferred-deployment than almost anyone else on Ch 10/11, and that's a positive for her in comparisons. If you had two units who are nearly the same and both are relatively mediocre, but one is needed to recruit an important character twice during the game, then if you are judging by which unit is preferred-deployment in more chapters, the answer is the one who recruits a couple guys.

Now, the important difference between this and the current system, is that this proposed system places a cap on how much that single action of recruiting can be worth. No matter how massive it is that Priscilla recruits Raven, it only makes her optimal deployment for a single chapter. She will still lose out to a unit who doesn't have any individual actions which are even nearly that significant, but is preferred-deployment in many more chapters than she is. For example, despite the significance of her convo with Jaffar, Nino would presumably still lose to say, Vaida, in a comparison. Vaida is preferred deployment on Ch 29 and she will be a preferred unit for Ch 31 and 32 as well with their huge number of deployment slots (and because flying is useful on VoD's huge ass map). Nino is only preferred deployment on Ch 28 and 28x, even if you count join chapter/forced chapter in her favor.

---

You don't know this for sure. You're simply assuming so because it conveniently supports your position, but I can simply assert the opposite and your reasoning will have no weight whatsoever.

My position is a result of what I've observed, not vice versa. Of course you can claim otherwise, since it is merely a matter of perception, but I figured I'd say it anyways.

As for "you don't know this," sure. I can point out all the inconsistencies, demonstrate the tendencies to produce incredibly weak arguments rather than simply accept the other side's point, even quote where Narga explicitly said something such as "You know this ain't happening, ever." People can still deny the assertion and claim that they are not biased, and there will be no absolute, hard proof one way or the other. It is true that if people are simply too stubborn to admit to anything or change their minds at all, no progress will be made. Despite that, I am still going to point out all the things I referred to and attempt to make people either accept what they are doing or justify it. If nothing comes of it because nothing I am saying can be irrefutably proven true, oh well. At least I can say I tried.

And just how long and how many pages did it take to make just one of your four changes from the first page? How much discussion has actually transpired over your proposed changes? Is there even a 1% chance that any of this stuff that GE has been spouting will actually be implemented?

As I recall, no one disagreed with Geitz > Dorcas. Hence, not much discussion would have occurred on it anyways.

[Life]

So basically, you are saying forced should not equal optimal deployment, and that the player should always assume a unit is optional? My only question then is, how do you handle the very early chapters (i.e. Ch 11-14), where there are no alternatives? Rebecca is worse than most of your units during this time, but even if she were optional, it would still be in your best interest to deploy her since there is no one else available who could go in her spot. What would you do here? I'd say to count it as though they are optimal deployment for those chapters, since I really just don't see any alternatives, but meh.

You answered your own question. In this case, Rebecca is optimal deployment because the alternative is not using her and losing out on her chip shots. Any unit > empty slot.

Not really. Can you expand on it a bit more, or try to condense your point here into a single statement?

Forced deployment has no downside to it as we can consider that Nino (or whoever) joins automatically on Turn 1 rather than keep a better unit from entering the battle.

[Narga_Rocks]

As for "you don't know this," sure. I can point out all the inconsistencies, demonstrate the tendencies to produce incredibly weak arguments rather than simply accept the other side's point, even quote where Narga explicitly said something such as "You know this ain't happening, ever." People can still deny the assertion and claim that they are not biased, and there will be no absolute, hard proof one way or the other. It is true that if people are simply too stubborn to admit to anything or change their minds at all, no progress will be made. Despite that, I am still going to point out all the things I referred to and attempt to make people either accept what they are doing or justify it. If nothing comes of it because nothing I am saying can be irrefutably proven true, oh well. At least I can say I tried.

I was driving towards something with that statement. I was really really hoping to find out some kind of motivation for why GE was even bothering at this point. Or to find out if GE actually thought this change had the slightest chance of happening. I wasn't attempting to use that line as a means of proving why Nino shouldn't be given credit as a result of an action for which she deserves no credit. You can't really use it as an example of producing weak arguments rather than accept the other side's point.

I still find ranking Nino with the conversation to be in a similar vein to ranking units in rpgs partially based on their actions during cutscenes. It has nothing to do with combat parameters or class abilities or anything related to the standard ideas of unit performance. It is simply a conversation. The effect of the conversation between Nino and Jaffar isn't even seen until the end of the chapter during the following cutscenes when you are allowed to go to the gaiden. Nino would be using cutscene power to rise in the tier list, basically. I just think a tier list has far more meaning if we don't do things like that.

[spoiler=ff6 spoiler](Shadow up due to saving us from Kefka on the floating continent)

Edited March 28, 2010 by Narga_Rocks

[nflchamp]

nflchamp:

Jaffar was covered earlier. I don't feel like digging up the quotes since I'm not sure what you mean in bringing up Jaffar; if you expand on your idea a little, I will attempt to respond.

"You're going there anyways" was also covered. You are not, in fact, going there unless you have Nino perform a specific command. Likewise, "you're going to do it anyways" applies to a massive number of other things, not just this specific instance. Nor has any logical reason been given why "you're going to do it anyways" matters at all. So what if it's a good idea and the player's gonna do it anyways? It's still a helpful action.

Correct me if I'm misreading your argument and that doesn't address it.

What I'm saying is if, by tier standards, we have to recruit Nino and Jaffar, they can't get credit for being recruited and/or recruiting. Since 28x happens if we have Jaffar and Nino, by tier standards, we're going to 28x no matter what. No one can get credit for "allowing us to go there" because we have to go there by our own standards.

[Life]

[spoiler=ff6 spoiler](Shadow up due to saving us from Kefka on the floating continent)

Even if he goes up, there's no way that he's going higher than Relm because she sketches Ultros and gets us through that battle. Though I can see him a bit higher than Cyan... Who am I kidding, Cyan sucks balls.

Edited March 28, 2010 by Admiral Lifey Crunch

[Narga_Rocks]

Even if he goes up, there's no way that he's going higher than Relm because she sketches Ultros and gets us through that battle. Though I can see him a bit higher than Cyan... Who am I kidding, Cyan sucks balls.

This is even more off-topic than giving credit for conversations. Oh well, as long as it doesn't go through too many posts. ff6 isn't really something for which you can make a tier list. Probably no rpgs like it can be made into tier lists. Fortunately, though, I think only Cyan actually has infinite worth. Terra doesn't have to fight at the start. Locke doesn't have to fight to protect Terra (in fact, in LLGs it is advisable to have neither fight), they exist together beyond that. I suppose Locke and Sabin could be considered infinite worth in their respective scenarios, but if you are only evaluating fighting then only times in which they must fight matter. Well, Locke has to steal clothes once (the other can be avoided using a hidden bridge). That's "combat". Sabin can run until you get Shadow, though, and Shadow can stick around until the waterfalls. Cyan is the only one that can defeat that captain, though. Celes can run all the way until you get Edgar in the WoR.

I think only Locke and Cyan have infinite worth. Relm doesn't, though, since while sketching can speed up the battle, you could instead just fire 2 Ultros till he runs out of hp, I think (he's always either vulnerable to lightning element or fire element, though annoyingly I think it isn't constant from battle to battle). Or vanish + doom if the ff6 tier list includes that.

So Locke v Cyan for top position, since the two of them are the only ones that must have a combat.

Shadow saves you twice, actually. Once in Thamasa as well. But I suppose you could actually more easily argue those away as storyline than the Nino convo. However, you still have to talk to the innkeeper in Thamasa and walk up the stairs to meet Kefka (though those aren't Shadow).

The Shadow thing was an exaggeration, though, since aside from hitting A to move the conversations screens, you need input no commands for his actions. Nino still needs to walk up to talk to Jaffar.