Gold Efficiency Tier List

[Narga_Rocks]

As for cost, that's easy to calculate. Every time the unit uses a use of a weapon or item, they're costing you money. Cost is doubled if the weapon was purchased. If Jill swings a Bronze Axe 5 times, she cost you 5 * g/Swing of a Bronze Axe. If Nolan swings it the same number of times, he costs the same, but if one of them has higher strength, their uses were more "valuable" for the cost.

Ah, now this brings up another interesting point. How do you value a unit that is helping for 20 chapters as opposed to 5? If they each pull 10 swings of weapon x per map, and weapon x costs 10 per swing, then unit A costs 2000 and unit B costs 500. Unit B is clearly costing less. But at the same time, what if unit A is the best on those maps? If your alternative is using another unit that has less str and thus requires more swings to do the same job, and you have no cheaper options to allow you to complete the map, is it right to limit your view to mere total cost? Looking only at total cost obviously lets units like Cain auto-top the list (well, under thieves). Even Renning would then be really high. Even if you bring him to 4-E, he's only around for a short period of time. The position of Renning indicates this is the possible intent. However, the positions of Titania, Haar, and Gatrie would seem to indicate a more "if the unit is the cheapest way to finish the map in a decent amount of time then it isn't hurt by the cost". Oh well, I'd never expect consistency from AdjectiveNoun anyway. And then there's the position of Lethe that seems to indicate he has no idea what he's doing.

If I were creating such a list, the paradigm would be "completing the game in a reasonable period of time while remaining as cost-efficient as possible and ending with as much gold as possible." The goal is not Int-level turncounts, but you also wouldn't be wasting time. A turn lost here or there for failure to kill everyone possible on the Player Phase would be okay, waiting around for gauge would not.

Might be easier to say "stay within the max bexp counts". Which still gives a ridiculous amount of time for maps like 3-8 and 4-E. Also, despite them (in the past) being perfectly happy with taking 10 turns in 1-7, they were never fans of the whole "not caring about turns in 3-6 and 3-12" thing that Interceptor tried to push for consistency's sake. In fact, smash made a post that seemed to indicate being perfectly happy with taking more than 15 turns in to complete 1-6 and >10 in 1-7 (Of course. After all, how else are you getting Zihark to A with anyone for 3-6?). But ask him to not care about turns in 3-6 and 3-12? Havoc ensued.

@nflchamp: overall. If a unit earned 100, and spent 200, then overall they "used" 100. They "used" 100 of the team's money.

And I'd assume in my above example that you feel the "rule" in the first post implies that unit B >> unit A due to costing a lot less? (I don't have a problem with this interpretation, as it would seem to be the most accurate based on the "rule")

Oh, and Giffca isn't on the list. Anyone notice any other missing units? I can't be bothered.

[RNG Princess]

I doubt Fiona uses less gold than Astrid, since she needs a forge to hit and Astrid doesn't.

[dondon151]

I am going to err on the side of caution and take a good look at the tiering criterion:

Units are ranked on how much overall gold they use.

Therefore, I conclude that finishing the game is not a priority on this tier list. In fact, I would hazard a guess that you don't even need to be able to complete the game.

[Narga_Rocks]

I am going to err on the side of caution and take a good look at the tiering criterion:

Therefore, I conclude that finishing the game is not a priority on this tier list. In fact, I would hazard a guess that you don't even need to be able to complete the game.

Lower turns is preferred but costing less gold is most important.

Granted, something like that maybe should have been in the first post, but oh well. It implies you need to finish, but doesn't actually answer Mekkah's question at all. "How much gold they use to do what? Save the most turns / be the most efficient?"

Lower turns being preferred doesn't actually say what we are even doing. If my goal is 10 turns compared to 8 turns the costs of each unit are going to be quite different. If we just want turns to be decent then "gold they use" is going to be quite different per character than "gold they use" if we are trying to go as low as possible.

Anyway, if you don't need to complete the game, everyone uses nothing because we just let Micaiah or Edward die in 1-P. Unequipped, so they don't cost us anything. There is nothing to tier, so we might as well ignore that possibility.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Narga_Rocks

[Anouleth]

I am going to err on the side of caution and take a good look at the tiering criterion:

Therefore, I conclude that finishing the game is not a priority on this tier list. In fact, I would hazard a guess that you don't even need to be able to complete the game.

Well, like much of the list, the criterion seem to be very lazily put together.

It's funny how Paperblade seems to have people in similiar situations lumped together. Like Geoffrey and Kieran being adjacent, the Seraph Knights being adjacent, Bastian/Mist/Rhys/Oliver/Laura are all adjacent, Boyd and Oscar are adjacent, so are Danved/Calill and Leonardo/Edward, Muarim and Vika are adjacent. It's almost like the only thing he was interested in was making a tier list that puts Mia at the bottom (even if she doesn't deserve to be there)!

Also, this may be the only tier list I have ever seen that puts Caineghis above Nailah.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Slowking

[Narga_Rocks]

Also, this may be the only tier list I have ever seen that puts Caineghis above Nailah.

Well, she might need a bit more healing. Not 1-8 and 1-E, of course, or even 4-1. Possibly 4-4, though, and in 4-E she has less durability than he does.

Tibarn v Nailah is difficult, though. Nailah has 6 more luck but 2 less transformed spd. 2 more avo, so they avoid about the same. I don't think Nailah needs healing in 4-1 and either one of them can have Pavise in 4-4/4-5. 68 hp is close to 66 and both have 32 def. I think if Nailah needs a heal in 4-1 then Tibarn wins. Otherwise, it's practically a tie. BK and Lehran are a tie, though. They both cost nothing. Neither will ever need healing and it's not like you can sell the ashera staff, anyway. I suppose if you want him to attack something then BK wins, but Lehran only needs to attack stuff if being cheap makes the team suck so badly that they can't beat 4-E-5 without his help. And again, that brings into question what kind of playthrough is being run. If we are playing "normally" and then simply counting the costs, Lehran should be ashera staff-ing on turn 1, maybe turn 2, and that's it. No cost for either of them. I suppose BK can perhaps pick up a couple of things in 1-9, though, which would still put him over Lehran if you are counting those things.

[Anouleth]

He still specified that turn count is beneficial. Nailah may 'cost' the same as Tibarn, but she's also making things much easier early on. Nailah, along with Muarim, Volug, Thani!Micaiah, and Vika is one of your 'free' characters in Part 1, and unlike them, she doesn't have to deal with gauge (LEA) or meh stats (Volug) or dying whenever someone looks in her direction (Micaiah). I don't think that's worthless.

[Narga_Rocks]

He still specified that turn count is beneficial. Nailah may 'cost' the same as Tibarn, but she's also making things much easier early on. Nailah, along with Muarim, Volug, Thani!Micaiah, and Vika is one of your 'free' characters in Part 1, and unlike them, she doesn't have to deal with gauge (LEA) or meh stats (Volug) or dying whenever someone looks in her direction (Micaiah). I don't think that's worthless.

But if turns actually matter, then Nailah should be > Cain. The difference is merely I heal Nailah more than I heal Cain. If turns plays any part in this whatsoever, Nailah > Cain. One or two extra heals does not override all the turn-saving Nailah gives you. That's why I think turncount is completely irrelevant for tiering and just a requirement to prevent the runthrough from being silly (bronze/iron spamming and waiting for laguz gauge to max). Actually, healing brings up another question. Are healers taking the sole cost of their staves? It's the units that can't dodge (or force tinks like Mordy) that are at fault for needing the heal in the first place. Units that need more frequent healing should take some of the cost of the staff-use. Rhys has a benefit over Mist because he can use heal where she uses mend, but Mist shouldn't auto-lose to units that don't use as much money because she should be splitting the cost of staves with those she is healing.

Oh, and Micaiah should be > Titania/Haar/Gatrie due to Thani. Two Thanis. You can't sell them and Micaiah doesn't really need other weapons due to that fact. she's also your cheapest option for a few maps in part 1 at times. If lower turncounts are merely "preferred" then waiting until turn 10 to allow Micaiah to attack a little more rather than finish on turn 8 by using Brave swords and stuff like that would be a good idea. Micaiah uses staves, sure, but they use weapons more than she uses staves and her attacking is free. she even gets a free heal each map due to sacrifice (if you don't let her get attacked).

[Renall]

Ah, now this brings up another interesting point. How do you value a unit that is helping for 20 chapters as opposed to 5? If they each pull 10 swings of weapon x per map, and weapon x costs 10 per swing, then unit A costs 2000 and unit B costs 500. Unit B is clearly costing less. But at the same time, what if unit A is the best on those maps? If your alternative is using another unit that has less str and thus requires more swings to do the same job, and you have no cheaper options to allow you to complete the map, is it right to limit your view to mere total cost?

No, you pretty much have it exactly. If you are the most economical use of the weapon, then it can't be helped that you're spending money. You're essentially paying to finish the chapter within reasonable turn limits. Who needs to be paid the least is the best choice. The actual quantity of gold spent is not tallied, so we don't look at Haar spending 3k gold throughout the game, look at Cain's 0 when he shows up at 4-E, and declare Cain the winner. If Haar/Ike/Titania is the most efficient and least costly way to beat most of Part 3 within turn limits, then that contribution is valued much more highly. Not the least reason being that Cain isn't even necessary for 4-E (though a party heavily comprised of Royals is probably among the most cost-efficient since they're free), but Ike and Haar probably are.

Basically the way I see it is this. For each individual unit, ask:

1) Can this unit ever contribute more than it would cost us to use them? That is, is their performance ever going to be the best use of our gold in any chapter? If yes, move on. If no, move them to Inefficient Tier. Exception is if they have the means to gain more gold than they could possibly spend (Sothe, Heather) or their cost is almost certain to be zero (Black Knight). These are special cases and need to be tiered carefully.

2) Is this unit, on any one map, the most efficient or one of the most efficient units on the map? Does anyone do their job better? Does anyone do their job cheaper? If it's arguable, argue it and tier them appropriately.

3) Tally the number of maps in which they are efficient, and take into account how efficient (in turn savings and gold savings, gold savings breaks ties) they are relative to other units available on the same map. This is how you tier them. So Ike beats Cain, Elincia beats Lehran, and Sothe and Heather may not necessarily auto-top even though they give more gold than they take. Sothe probably beats Heather for being both efficient and gold-providing in Part 1.

4) If a unit is Inefficient Tier, tally what you'd get from selling all their starting equipment and skills. Tier all units in this tier by how much gold they contribute from sitting on their asses.

Might be easier to say "stay within the max bexp counts". Which still gives a ridiculous amount of time for maps like 3-8 and 4-E.

Seems fair. A generous but fixed restriction. Any unit that cannot help reach that goal is Inefficient Tier.

As far as the royals go, Nailah > Tibarn > Naesala > Cain (> Giffca). This is pretty much self-evident I think. They all cost a negligible amount (they will need healing in 4-F if nowhere else), so you factor in how often they're around and kicking ass, and how they perform in relative terms. Nailah is around in Part 1 where she's amazing and nearly invincible. Tibarn is among the best on his maps, but he's not far and away the best. Naesala is still extremely good for cost (i.e. essentially zero). Cain and Giffca are late to the party, but still probably worthy of being on any 4-F team.

I doubt Fiona uses less gold than Astrid, since she needs a forge to hit and Astrid doesn't.

Depends whether they're being used at all. Astrid is arguably just as superfluous as Fiona. You could make the argument that Astrid's Paragon intangibly saves more gold than it is actually worth by making the GM superstars higher-level and thus capable of killing with less gold spent. I think that at least would put her above Fiona.

But if turns actually matter, then Nailah should be > Cain. The difference is merely I heal Nailah more than I heal Cain.

The idea is that Nailah needs the least healing in the parts where she exists and Cain doesn't, therefore she's still more efficient than anyone else in the DB (except maybe the BK).

Actually, healing brings up another question. Are healers taking the sole cost of their staves? It's the units that can't dodge (or force tinks like Mordy) that are at fault for needing the heal in the first place.

Correct. Healers are not on the hook for having to heal, but if a map can be completed without need for a healer, then they aren't efficient.

Oh, and Micaiah should be > Titania/Haar/Gatrie due to Thani. Two Thanis. You can't sell them and Micaiah doesn't really need other weapons due to that fact.

Correct, and also true for Ike. Mickey's Sacrifice healing also being free (and she gets free regen with a staff in Part 3) is a major point in her favor as well. She's just not as tops as Ike, because she isn't as durable and can't berserk through maps like he does. Edited June 14, 2010 by Renall

[Narga_Rocks]

equipping staves require using staves. Otherwise any weapons in a unit's inventory auto-equip. Trading won't cut it. Any time Mickey attacks anything, she'll need to use a staff on someone before she can start self-healing in order to sacrifice multiple times for free. Granted a single staff use each chapter isn't very expensive and as long as you are only healing when units actually need it (rather than healing a guy that leveled up and is 1 hp short of cap) then she shouldn't bear the full weight of the cost, but it isn't as easy as "equip staff, start sacrificing".

[Renall]

equipping staves require using staves. Otherwise any weapons in a unit's inventory auto-equip. Trading won't cut it. Any time Mickey attacks anything, she'll need to use a staff on someone before she can start self-healing in order to sacrifice multiple times for free. Granted a single staff use each chapter isn't very expensive and as long as you are only healing when units actually need it (rather than healing a guy that leveled up and is 1 hp short of cap) then she shouldn't bear the full weight of the cost, but it isn't as easy as "equip staff, start sacrificing".

Couldn't we just not give her a weapon? It's probably just a waste in 3-6 and on (though not an economic waste, as Thani is free and unsellable). I forget how staff equipping works, but it's not so onerous to use a single charge as long as you're healing for an appropriate amount.

I'd say healers only "pay" the cost of a staff if we have to buy the staff for them. It's the hurt unit who "cost" us the staff charge. A better unit would not have gotten as hurt. If the unit who needs healing is the most durable one for the job, then we accept that the staff use was necessary. Mickey just has the option to use Sacrifice and effectively give the hurt unit a "gimme." In that sense, Micaiah is actually contributing gold.

[RNG Princess]

You could have Fiona trade Thani off her instead. If theres a weapon and staff on Micaiah and you trade the staff to the top she is still going to equip the tome, so you'd have to take the tome off her.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Queen_Elincia

[Colonel M]

I'd say Haar > Gatrie. Gatrie requires Celerity or Rescue (...if we're counting Rescue being of cost) and both cost a Master Seal anyway, so that balances out. Haar likely costs less Gold than Gatrie overall if we're applying skills as cost of Gold.

[Rewjeo]

This list should assume that units are being used and measure how much gold they require to be efficient, IMO. Otherwise, it punishes units for being good enough to be optimal deployment without giving units advantages for not needing equipment that's as good

[Anouleth]

I'd say Haar > Gatrie. Gatrie requires Celerity or Rescue (...if we're counting Rescue being of cost) and both cost a Master Seal anyway, so that balances out. Haar likely costs less Gold than Gatrie overall if we're applying skills as cost of Gold.

Neither really 'require' anything. We don't have to give them any skills, and we don't have to give them Crowns either if it will cost us money. As it is, giving them those skills or items doesn't cost money, since we can remove and sell the skills later at the end of the game. The only skills that cost us are skills we take into Endgame. Although generally, Haar is cheaper by virtue of using Axes.

Also, lol @ the concept of Crowning Haar. Crowning Haar works in the 'real' game because we're using stat boosters like the Speedwing rather than saving them, but with 20 base and 30% growth in speed, he's never appropiate for a Crown. Maybe he could snag some 21AS enemies later in Part 3, but that's it.

This list should assume that units are being used and measure how much gold they require to be efficient, IMO. Otherwise, it punishes units for being good enough to be optimal deployment without giving units advantages for not needing equipment that's as good

Did Mia in bottom not clue you in? The entire point of this tier list is to punish those units.

Edited June 15, 2010 by Slowking

[Narga_Rocks]

Neither really 'require' anything. We don't have to give them any skills, and we don't have to give them Crowns either if it will cost us money. As it is, giving them those skills or items doesn't cost money, since we can remove and sell the skills later at the end of the game. The only skills that cost us are skills we take into Endgame. Although generally, Haar is cheaper by virtue of using Axes.

Yeah, you can sell Celerity before 4-E. And Gatrie can use axes, too. And crowns don't cost money. Actually, stuff like the 3-9 Adept is clearly not happening, though, since it costs money to buy. You only have 2 adepts.

Also, lol @ the concept of Crowning Haar. Crowning Haar works in the 'real' game because we're using stat boosters like the Speedwing rather than saving them, but with 20 base and 30% growth in speed, he's never appropiate for a Crown. Maybe he could snag some 21AS enemies later in Part 3, but that's it.

Agreed about no Haar-crown. If we are stuck with no stat boosters then Gatrie can have the first crown. As for the later ones, I suppose you could crown Haar eventually. Maybe.

[WeaponsofMassConstruction]

At the bottom of the list should be the theoretical player, as they had to have burned ~$40 worth to get the game, which is way more in practical costs than any of the gold in game.

[Renall]

Crowns are free, because they can't be sold. Therefore there's no harm in using them, and if they make a character more gold-efficient by virtue of promotion gains, then it just becomes a question of who winds up saving us the most cash by being crowned. Gatrie seems like the frontrunner there. That doesn't necessarily make him the most efficient and cost-effective unit, though I imagine he is up there for certain maps in part 3.

This list should assume that units are being used and measure how much gold they require to be efficient, IMO. Otherwise, it punishes units for being good enough to be optimal deployment without giving units advantages for not needing equipment that's as good

That wouldn't be funny though.

Plus, it's uninteresting because it's too substantially similar to the other tier list. Yes, many of the same units top this one over others, but part of that was because they were already cost-efficient. However, it's a fundamental disconnect from the other tier list in concept because boosters exist to be used and competed for in the main tier list. In a cost-efficiency list, the people who are best with very little rise to the top, and people who need investments they'll never pay off languish.

It's kinda subversive.

[Rewjeo]

But here they wouldn't be punished for how bad of a unit they are, just how much gold they use. So, yes, they'll be somewhat punished for it. But think about it. Lyre is actually pretty good thanks to not needing us to buy her weapons. Mia's at the bottom because she requires expensive weapons to become as great as she can be. There'd still be some pretty significant changes. In fact, I'd say this stifles discussion more because we don't get to discuss what other units need, just the few that are optimal.

[Narga_Rocks]

But here they wouldn't be punished for how bad of a unit they are, just how much gold they use. So, yes, they'll be somewhat punished for it. But think about it. Lyre is actually pretty good thanks to not needing us to buy her weapons. Mia's at the bottom because she requires expensive weapons to become as great as she can be. There'd still be some pretty significant changes. In fact, I'd say this stifles discussion more because we don't get to discuss what other units need, just the few that are optimal.

No, Mia's at the bottom because of who made the list. Adept is no cost since you can sell it later (just before 4-E-1). Ike is no cost. steel blades are cheap (particularly with silver card in 3-2) and she doesn't need stat boosters. The only expensive item is a forge that she only needs if you want her to help more against Generals. If you want, though, you can cut those out without a huge loss to efficiency (after all, low turns aren't the primary goal here) and she will cost around the same as most other units. Less, even, then the units that need stat boosters to be good, unless you care so little about efficiency that those (like Mia's forge) get cut as well.

[Renall]

Lyre is actually quite terrible. Giving her things is the only way to make her good. Since we're refusing to do that, she has cat gauge issues, terrible stats even transformed (she freaking tinks things, very early on too), bad Strike, and she's categorically less cost-efficient than every other Laguz in the GMs, but especially Lethe and Ranulf within her own Laguz class.

Yes, if we spend nothing on Lyre then she costs us nothing but healing to use. However, she always costs us more healing than other cats specifically and other Laguz generally. And while the weapon uses of certain Beorc units may not top her for cost, the fact that she can't kill anything makes her low cost useless.

It's like if the Black Knight were unarmed, zero cost but not clearing the map. Except the Black Knight has killer DEF, so he can meatwall. If Lyre does that, her gauge bottoms out and she dies.

I just can't see Lyre actively contributing to helping a cost-efficient map clear. That isn't to say all Laguz are like that. I think Mordy definitely has his uses, and Ranulf could be pretty good (and he's forced anyway half the time, so you might as well).

[ReformBlade]

I fail to see the need for this...

[Rewjeo]

No, Mia's at the bottom because of who made the list. Adept is no cost since you can sell it later (just before 4-E-1). Ike is no cost. steel blades are cheap (particularly with silver card in 3-2) and she doesn't need stat boosters. The only expensive item is a forge that she only needs if you want her to help more against Generals. If you want, though, you can cut those out without a huge loss to efficiency (after all, low turns aren't the primary goal here) and she will cost around the same as most other units. Less, even, then the units that need stat boosters to be good, unless you care so little about efficiency that those (like Mia's forge) get cut as well.

Well, yeah, but the fact that she likes expensive weaponry sure doesn't help. 3HKOing with the most expensive weapon type isn't great for gold. Although since low turns AREN'T a priority, I guess you can just give her less expensive weapons. Still, as far as gold goes, Mia isn't great.

[Narga_Rocks]

I fail to see the need for this...

It's from Paperblade, Mia's at the bottom of the list, and you "fail to see the need for this"? I think the reason of its existence should be obvious.

Well, yeah, but the fact that she likes expensive weaponry sure doesn't help. 3HKOing with the most expensive weapon type isn't great for gold. Although since low turns AREN'T a priority, I guess you can just give her less expensive weapons. Still, as far as gold goes, Mia isn't great.

True, steel blades are more expensive than steel poleax and she even takes more swings, but even so she's not "worst in the game". Certainly not "deserves her own tier" bad.

[dondon151]

Yeah, there's all those stinker units in the DB that demand +5 MT, +20 hit forges in order to function well. That probably costs more than Mia.