S Rank Tier List for FE7

[Dat Nick]

Doesn't this logic also mean that either Raven, Guy, Bartre and Dorcas should move up while Erk, Serra, Prissy and Lucius should move down based on the cost of getting Kenneth's map over Jerme's? I find that Jerme's map allows you to gain much bigger Tactics and Exp boosts than Kenneth's due to the number of turns needed for the map and the extra amount of enemies present.

Maybe, but it IS one map so how much weight it holds could be argued as trivial. I'm not seeing Erk dropping two tiers over it.

[Rewjeo]

I think one problem with Raven vs. Marcus is that if you use Marcus early, he saves turns and lets you make up for EXP later, making Raven worse. Or, if you use Raven, you can not get as much EXP, but save more turns so you can get EXP early on, making Marcus worse. Neither of them can do what is most useful if you use both of them. Or at least, that's what I've gathered from reading this debate.

[K3Nyy]

The question is does Marcus save enough turns for him to be higher than Raven?

I don't think so, but I guess it's possible. I've only used Marcus sparingly in my runs so I shouldn't really comment.

[Snarf]

Why is Lucius so low? He should be above Erk or at least right below him. Sure his hp/def are really bad, but his offense and res are the best. And, in all honesty, Erk sucks.

[dondon151]

Numbers? Rhetoric? Nowhere to be seen.

[GreatEclipse]

Anyway. Behold. The opportunity cost of getting Lalum is not getting Elphin. Lalum gives you a dancer but loses you a dancer. Net value = 0. The opportunity cost of getting Elphin is not getting Lalum. Elphin gives you a dancer but loses you a dancer. Net value = 0. This is what happens when you try to assign an individual unit the penalty shared by multiple units, that could have been caused by multiple units, and which could not have been removed by removing any given unit (the player may still have gone Elphin's Route despite not using Elphin himself). This is your logic in a nutshell. Correct me if I am mistaken.

Sophia > Elfin

The opportunity cost of recruiting Elfin exceeds anything he can ever do on his own, while Sophia has a free recruitment, and can thus sit on the bench for free. The team with Sophia in chapter 14 (Then hitting the bench) still has a performer, but the team with Elfin for his entire availability has a crappy Gonzales and no Echidna.

A perfectly logical conclusion if you think opportunity cost should be applied to such things. A player may want to take to take B rout so Fir can have an Energy Ring and Bartre support, but that does not make the benefits from taking the other any less significant. A player who values what Elfin offers is certain to use Lalum in his absence, so he has a net worth slightly above zero (I prefer Elfin) simply for existing at her expense, and then the A rout is better overall, so his overall value is negative before he does anything at all. Sophia can snag a Guiding Ring in 14 and then hit the bench as a small positive, and a small positive > a negative.

The Marcus augment looks headed for the “Both sides repeat themselves in disbelief that the other side misses the point” stage of internet debate if it continues much longer. As you said, it kinda comes down to perceptions or definitions. Summing up my points:

1. It is commonly assumed when tiring Marcus that the benefits he provides early must have the cost in EXP accounted for. This is completely reasonable. What I take issue with is the assumption that units like Raven can abuse their high stats late in the game all they want, and that is all there is to it. The option to slow down and gain far more EXP still exists and matters.

2. Raven is accountable for the net loss to EXP for every enemy that he kills. This is not talking about what happens in his complete absence, but what happens when he is used to his full potential. Think of it as the difference between having him attack a Wyvern with a Sword and finishing with Rath vs. killing it outright with a Steel Axe. You can have Rath the EXP unit and Raven the combat unit on the same team, but this no different from saying you give plenty of kills to Eliwood while still making liberal of Marcus.

3. What you seem to be saying is in the absence of Raven, that Wyverns would be killed quickly or weakened for EXP, while in the absence of Marcus, every enemy would be certain to be worn down for more EXP. Thus, the net loss to EXP from taking Raven off the team is smaller. This is what seems to cause the most disagreement.

4. Remember that the “Team with Marcus” is not forced to have him kill anything. He can still be useful. What they do have is the opportunity to use him to his fullest when the benefits are clearly greater than the cost, and I consider that to be the case almost every turn. When you say the team without Raven would have simply killed that Wyvern with someone else when it would be more convenient, you have only proven my point. The team without Raven can slow down when they want and blitz when they want, but the team without Marcus is forced to take the slow option every time regardless because no one can replace him at his prime.

[-Cynthia-]

I think that the ease in completing chapters should also be considered. It's easier to complete earlygame chapters with everyone except Marcus than to try and complete lategame chapters with Nino/untrained Rebecca w/e. Using weaker units in later chapters has a good chance of hurting our Survival rank and Tactics rank (trying to efficiently clear lategame chapters with teams of noobs?). Basically, easier to feed kills to non-Marcus units earlygame than to try and feed it to them lategame.

[GreatEclipse]

I disagree. Someone like Nino is easier for me to manage because everyone else on your core team is doing fine at that point. The gap in power between your team and the enemies they will be fighting is much smaller early than late. Comparing her to early Rebbecca, Nino needs babying when you have more units to assist in it.

Edited May 5, 2010 by GreatEclipse

[Narga_Rocks]

I disagree. Someone like Nino is easier for me to manage because everyone else on your core team is doing fine at that point. The gap in power between your team and the enemies they will be fighting is much smaller early than late. Comparing her to early Rebbecca, Nino needs babying when you have more units to assist in it.

Um, did you miss how your complaints about Raven mean that if you are to be fair to him you must drop all your good units? That's basically what Cynthia is going with (hence, "teams of noobs", not "teams of 5 or 6 promoted units with a few noobs getting lots of easy exp"). If you whine about Raven, drop all the promoted units. According to her, you'll have an easier time early on without Marcus (hence with only tier 1s) than you will later on without any promoted units. As soon as you admit you need a bunch of promoted units your argument falls apart because Raven isn't hurting exp as much as Marcus anymore.

Now, like Crimson_Edge said earlier, I'm not actually saying anything about whether Marcus should be above Raven or the reverse. Really I don't care, actually. The important point that is being made here is that Marcus is hurting exp more than Raven is. Hence he needs to rely on his assistance with tactics/survival/etc early on to beat Raven and needs to win by enough to overcome the cost to exp. Does he? I don't know. But you can't hand-wave away his cost to exp like you are trying to do.

[GreatEclipse]

How does my argument fall apart if I admit you still need multiple promoted units on the field? I never suggested you kick Raven off the team once his EXP gains plummet. I explicitly said it had to do with the cost of Raven using his high stats to there full potential, not the cost of fielding him. I also said accounting for the cost of using Marcus is completely reasonable, so why do you insist that I am "hand waving" that cost?

Edited May 5, 2010 by GreatEclipse

[Narga_Rocks]

How does my argument fall apart if I admit you still need multiple promoted units on the field? I never suggested you kick Raven off the team once his EXP gains plummet. I explicitly said it had to do with the cost of Raven using his high stats to there full potential, not the cost of fielding him. I also said accounting for the cost of using Marcus is completely reasonable, so why do you insist that I am "hand waving" that cost?

You are equating two things that aren't equal as a means of proving that Marcus > Raven. How is that not hand waving?

Marcus has a penalty to exp. Oh, but if I say this then Raven has a cost too. And since Marcus is so crucial to your turncounts early, clearly Marcus > Raven since the exp costs cancel out.

Their cost isn't equal. CE has said why. Others have said why.

Now, if you aren't suggesting that their costs are equal then I wouldn't really have a problem with you suggesting that Raven has some small penalty to exp. It's just not anywhere near Marcus'.

[Crimson_Edge]

Sofia > Elfin

A perfectly logical conclusion if you think opportunity cost should be applied to such things.

Indeed, you can make the Sofia > Elfin argument if you take opportunity cost to such extremes.

The reason that opportunity cost does not apply in that situation has already been explained. Just because you are using Elphin does not mean that you have no other reason to go B Route (on that note, there's an e in route; I'm uncertain if you knew, since you always spell it rout). You may have plenty of reasons to go that route, and Elphin is only one of many. The only time this isn't the case is obvious: on a playthrough where Elphin is the only reason you go B Route--i.e. you never use any of the items you gain in Route B and don't gain in Route A; you don't use Echidna or Gonzales; you wouldn't have used the Arena in 11A; you don't mind Klein joining with fewer levels of HM boosts, etc. And even then, you have one advantage of going B Route in that if you're not using Gonzales you can get a higher Power Rank by recruiting the L11 version, so Elphin is not entirely to blame.

Elphin's impact on the player's decision to take one route over the other must be considered, yes. The opportunity cost of recruiting Elphin by going B Route exists, but because the routes are so inherently dissimilar, and the gap between them isn't even so great, it's not quantifiable. Even if it were quantifiable, however, there are way too many factors to consider--to assume that Elphin and only Elphin incurs 100% of the penalty of going his route is obviously ludicrous. Therefore, do you insist on assuming that Raven gets 100% the Exp penalty incurred by using him?

The short answer to your position is: Raven has alternatives who can increase Exp, yes. I'm not denying this. There is a small negative associated with using Raven on the Exp Rank. However, Raven has as many likely alternatives who will do nothing to the Exp Rank if used over him (and by used over him I do not in fact mean replacing his deployment slot but allowing others to take his kills) as there are alternatives who will boost it. This must be represented somehow. This--and only this--is my argument.

[Colonel M]

Life, I'd just like to ask about Athos. How are we tiering him, exactly? I was thinking of making the argument of Lyn > Athos, but I felt to ask how Athos is over her first, per se.

Also, this is just me, but I don't see why I'd want to work with the EXP rank in the late game. Granted, you still have to keep an open eye on it, but it's one rank I'd rather get "done and over with" in the earlier portions of the game where it's a lot easier overall. I'd rather be able to plow through the late game than be slowed down. A lot of the later chapters are the reason why you can also work within 32X and gain CEXP from there. I'm talking about chapters such as Chapters 23, 24 Linus, 28X, and Chapters 29.

[Life]

Life, I'd just like to ask about Athos. How are we tiering him, exactly? I was thinking of making the argument of Lyn > Athos, but I felt to ask how Athos is over her first, per se.

The argument that I used to put Athos on the list was "Athos is basically your Tactics rank in Light". If you 10-11 turn Light (including the Dragon), it's all thanks to Athos. That being said, he's a pure negative for Exp in a chapter where we need 3000 Exp. If we're going to abuse him to make sure that we come under the required number of turns, we have to make sure that we've already beaten Exp before walking into Light.

My goal was to put him near Hawkeye. Athos is a positive for Tactics and negative for Exp. The two almost weigh each other out, meaning that he should be near the middle. It's similar to Smash's idea of Sephiran being considered neutral utility.

[Dat Nick]

And just to support Athos actually being on the list in the first place, why would you tier Renault and Karla but not Athos?

[Colonel M]

I wasn't asking for Athos to be removed. I was just asking, for example, how he concluded over Lyn.

[Narga_Rocks]

I wasn't asking for Athos to be removed. I was just asking, for example, how he concluded over Lyn.

I actually thought that was rather obvious.

Life, I'd just like to ask about Athos. How are we tiering him, exactly? I was thinking of making the argument of Lyn > Athos, but I felt to ask how Athos is over her first, per se.

Unfortunately, because some people didn't seem to understand something you explicitly stated, the question wasn't really directly answered. And smash's thinking on sephiran is absurd (or at the very least applied inconsistently), so using that to defend Athos' position above Lyn doesn't really help.

[Life]

Unfortunately, because some people didn't seem to understand something you explicitly stated, the question wasn't really directly answered. And smash's thinking on sephiran is absurd (or at the very least applied inconsistently), so using that to defend Athos' position above Lyn doesn't really help.

If this was efficiency, Athos would be nowhere near the middle of the list. But since this is ranked, he's basically a +100 in Tactics and -100 in Exp. I'm pulling out random numbers but what I'm trying to say is that his Tactics contributions are countered by the fact that not only does he keep others from getting Exp, he himself doesn't get any Exp.

I don't agree with Smash's logic for Sephiran being perfectly neutral because it seems to me that there is no downside to using him when the only thing you care about is efficiency. But it works for Athos because what he gives out in Tactics pluses, he kills in Exp gains. In fact, it's just a bit more.

As for Lyn, I honestly don't know what happened. This topic started with Lyn at the bottom of Upper Mid as a repost of a tier list that Bblader found somewhere (on GFAQs maybe?). I reposted the list on page 6 with Lyn still at the bottom of Upper Mid but the list on page 15 is a copypasta version of what was here on SF. And somehow, Lyn dropped down at least a tier in that time.

I've been saying that those two tiers (Upper Mid and Lower Mid) have been messed up for a while. But all my concerns about it have been drowned out by Merlinus, Matthew (on GFAQs), Hector (still on GFAQs), Raven and Marcus.

[Anouleth]

I don't agree with Smash's logic for Sephiran being perfectly neutral because it seems to me that there is no downside to using him when the only thing you care about is efficiency. But it works for Athos because what he gives out in Tactics pluses, he kills in Exp gains. In fact, it's just a bit more.

Well, it's more that unlike in most other FEs, most characters in FE10 are a positive. Sanaki, for example, is pure positive (no matter what people might say).

This is to do with the fact that characters don't necessarily have to kick out another character to be used. Makalov is free in 2-2 and 3-9, Sanaki is free in all her chapters, Edward is free in his first ~6 chapters. Athos himself is 'free' in the sense he doesn't use a slot, but he takes away EXP rank so he's not really 'free' in the same way most FE10 characters are for at least a few chapters.

Such a basis for tiering doesn't really work with something like FE7, though, since most characters do actually have a cost associated with them.

I've been saying that those two tiers (Upper Mid and Lower Mid) have been messed up for a while. But all my concerns about it have been drowned out by Merlinus, Matthew (on GFAQs), Hector (still on GFAQs), Raven and Marcus.

Pfft, who cares, those discussions are super-boring.

Edited May 5, 2010 by Anouleth

[Life]

OK, let's correct the first real issue that I have with the middle tiers.

Jaffar v. Isadora.

Honestly, I think Jaffar's better. Isadora comes in Kinship's Bond as a level 1 Paladin. We already have Marcus who should be sitting at around level 4-5 based on how much you've used him so far. So let's have a quick comparison:

Isadora - Level 1 Paladin - A Sword, B Lance, D Axe
13 Atk, 29 Acc, 16 AS, 6 Crit, 6 Con - 28 HP, 42 Avo, 8 Def, 6 Res

Marcus - Level 5 Paladin - A Sword, S Lance, A Axe
16 Atk, 36 Acc, 12 AS, 8 Crit, 11 Con - 33 HP, 33 Avo, 10 Def, 9 Res

I'm not trying to say Marcus > Isadora. What I want to point out is that the only reason why Isadora will be played instead of Marcus at certain points is for Exp purposes, which isn't saying much considering that both are promoted units. Aside from that, Marcus beats her in most stats and while it looks like Isa's AS is wonderful, don't forget that she has 6 Con, lowering that AS drastically.

Based on the above comparison to Marcus, a unit with the exact same skills as her who gains the same amount of Exp, it's safe to say that Isadora won't be regularly fielded for a bunch of chapters until thanks to Marcus being better than her but gaining roughly the same amount of Exp. However, I'm going to assume in this case that Isadora sees quite a bit of combat in order to prepare for the end of the game. I think that ??/8 sounds fair by NoF though it may be a bit high.

Isadora - Level 8 Paladin - A Sword, B Lance, C Axe - C Harken
15 Atk, 39 Acc, 19 AS, 11 Crit, 6 Con - 33 HP, 56 Avo, 9 Def, 8 Res

Jaffar - Level 13 Assassin - A Sword
19 Atk, 55 Acc, 24 AS, 12 Crit, 8 Con - 34 HP, 58 Avo, 15 Def, 11 Res

Well, Jaffar's killing Isa at combat. He's got 4+ Atk on her and his 24 AS/8 Con guarantee that just about everything gets doubled. He hits Silencer about 21% of the time with a Killing Edge on which is pretty good odds considering that he never misses his opponent and always doubles with 28 Atk. On the defensive side, they tie for HP and Avo but Jaffar's raw Def absolutely destroys Isadora by beating her by 6.

But what about Exp? Jaffar must be getting less Exp than Isadora, right? He is a higher level, of course.

Wrong, grasshopper. You have much to still learn. Jaffar belongs to the Assassin class, allowing him to gain Exp at the same rate as female Bishops and Valkyries. All three classes have a significant Exp increased due to formula used to calculate Exp. For example if both Isa and Jaffar killed a level 6 promoted enemy, Isadora would gain 36 Exp while Jaffar snags 47 Exp, even though he is 5 levels ahead. Nifty, huh?

But wait, we're not done! Jaffar can OHKO his enemies with Silencer, giving him a 1.8x bonus to Exp gain. That same level 6 enemy now delivers a whopping 84 Exp! Now considering that Jaffar hits Silencer 21% of the time at base level (love how enemies have 0 Luck), he's averaging about 65 Exp per kill with the Silencer bonus added. That's close to almost double what Isadora gets, which is fucking insane.

Jaffar destroys Isadora when both exist. He's better at combat and has higher defenses. Even at high levels, his Exp gain is much more than Isadora's. Then there's the fact that he has 42 Crit at base level which allows him to hit at least one crit 82% of the time, ensuring a kill. All Isadora has is join time and her contribution during it is quite questionable considering that Marcus is statistically superior to her in Kinship's Bond.

Therefore, Jaffar > Isadora. Anyone care to disagree?

[Florete]

Based on the above comparison to Marcus, a unit with the exact same skills as her who gains the same amount of Exp, it's safe to say that Isadora won't be regularly fielded for a bunch of chapters until thanks to Marcus being better than her but gaining roughly the same amount of Exp.

I really have no opinion on your overall point, but this isn't fair. We're allowed more than one Paladin, so it isn't right to say Isadora isn't going to be played just because Marcus beats her. She only needs to beat our 10th string player or however many we can field to be fine.

[Life]

I really have no opinion on your overall point, but this isn't fair. We're allowed more than one Paladin, so it isn't right to say Isadora isn't going to be played just because Marcus beats her. She only needs to beat our 10th string player or however many we can field to be fine.

She doesn't need to beat our xth string player. She needs to beat our xth string promoted character, which is pretty much just Marcus and possibly Oswin if Oswin is promoted by now. However, her move difference of 8 vs. 5 is enough to beat Oswin for certain chapters (Genesis, FFO). So she's basically going up against only Marcus, which validates at least some of that argument.

Since Exp is pretty much moot at that point, she can only be compared to Marcus via combat. And while he doesn't exact rape her right across the board, he's still the preferred promoted unit choice over Isadora meaning that Isa sees much less combat than what she possibly could if Marcus was dropped during the period between Kinship's Bond and Night of Farewells

Edited May 7, 2010 by King Russell

[nflchamp]

You can field both Marcus and Isadora if you want to. <_<

To say Isadora sucks because Marcus exists means you have to also make sure everyone agrees that we can't have two Paladins. Which no one will agree to. Isadora needs to beat any other possible fielded unit, not any of that promoted unit bull.

[Crimson_Edge]

What I want to point out is that the only reason why Isadora will be played instead of Marcus at certain points is for Exp purposes, which isn't saying much considering that both are promoted units.

If Exp considerations are enough to let Isadora be considered better than Marcus, then I don't see what the issue is--that still says nothing about her contributions toward an S Rank (which this tier list has as its goal), nor does it say anything about Isadora's performance relative to Jaffar. Or, if your claim is actually that the Exp considerations don't matter here, I would like to point out that the two units being promoted does not invalidate the 4-level gap between the two. Invalidating that gap would be similar to dismissing a unit's combat leads over another because "the difference isn't that big since both are bad at combat anyway." In some cases, this is true, but for that to be applicable here, Isadora and Marcus would literally have to have Exp gains low enough (or negative enough) that they wouldn't be seeing *any* combat, which clearly isn't the case.

[Mekkah]

*glances over dude's isadora/jaffar post*

ctrl-f movement

ctrl-f weapon triangle

ctrl-f ferrying

ctrl-f range

???

Edited May 7, 2010 by Mekkah