Redefining the tiering process

[Rodykitty]

IIRC an NPC house in FE7 hints at supports.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Rody 7

[Florete]

One thing that's annoyed me about tier lists as they are ironically not that useful in determining which units you should use in these games. Take those awesome characters who do not appear to the end, like the Laguz Royals in FE10. They are often put surprisingly low on the tier lists as punishment for not being in most of the game. True, they do less to help you as a whole throughout the game since they are usable so little, but when you do get them, it's a probably a good idea to use them. Noobs who misunderstand what tier lists are about may think this means that the Laguz Royals are bad units and should be avoided even when they can be used.

My point is, tier lists are not that useful from a practical, team-building standpoint. I'm not sure if a tier list that only talks about how good a character is when you get them is feasible (there will probably some problems over what standards to use). Perhaps a better use of our time is just to discuss which teams are optimal for each chapter.

Tier lists aren't a game guide and should never be used as such. Sure, you could try to create a "when they are around" tier list where units are ranked by who you should use when you have them, but that causes problems of its own. How do you compare Haar and Caineghis when Haar trivializes part 3 but loses steam in Endgame?

FE8 tells you about supports in the tutorial, and the game also provides a handy list of which characters can support who. I don't recall if FE6 or FE7 bring them up in the tutorials, but it seems weird that they wouldn't.

7 most definitely doesn't. I played that game to death before finding out what supports are. The booklet makes a passing mention of them but doesn't tell you what they do or how to build them. 6 likely doesn't either since I don't think it has tutorials or anything like that.

[grandjackal]

FE6 does have a Tutorial in it's options menu, but I don't believe it mentions supports there.

[dondon151]

FE6 has an optional tutorial chapter, but I've never played it in English.

Anyway, I certainly think tier lists have sort of gone the opposite way of the typical player, but I don't really think there's a good alternative that everyone can agree on. smash's newbie tier list was ambitious, but you can't really construct a tier list for bad players unless you're a bad player yourself. I agree with Kinata that it would be nice of a tier list also was able to imply which characters a player should use, but I don't think that's possible on a small scale without going chapter by chapter and doing some sort of gimped walkthrough.

That said, current tier list strategies, while they tend to be a bit risky, aren't at all that bad. The turncounts aren't the absolute minimum achievable because that requires abusing single digit crits, unit deaths, and stat growth manipulation. When you consider what Gergeshwan and I do for FE7, most of the chancy stuff usually only involves killing the boss, which might take an extra turn if the boss killing unit misses, or something.

[Zkirsche]

The point is that Vykan wants tiering to give existing archers, knights and mages a chance relative to other classes. Not your Theory Sniper that has decent stats and crit and the best 2-range on the team (I assume you meant to say 2 range instead of 1-2 range, since Snipers don't have that).

Yes I meant 2 range. Shinon fits that description, but he's might be the only one. I've only played tellius so I wouldn't really know. That's what a sniper should be though.

I have yet to see a Fire Emblem where you regularly need to make use of chokepoints. In addition, the whole point of a Knight is that they are durable enough to take on multiple enemies at once - in other words, that you don't have to use a chokepoint. It's very nice to play TheoryFE and think about shielding a ranged attacker behind another unit, but that doesn't change the fact that they are fighting at most, once per turn and that they need protection.

@Bold: That's the point. Games now are easy enough to just charge ahead, when really you should be so outnumbered and outgunned that you should be thinking tactically defensively. Most games aren't like that.

A general's favourite fire emblem would be the fire emblem where he, and only he, could rush off ahead thanks to his durability. Know the bad speed is important as otehrwise that unit becomes a god with 5 mov.

I don't think any one of them was "intended" by its creators to be "the" one.

I think the creators would want their characters to be usable in most contexts. Otherwise what's the point in programming them?

[StinDuh]

What is this? What is the developers intention? Are you one of the developers who can tell us what you intended for the players to strive for in these games?

Obviously not, seeing as, for example, in the GBA games, you likely won't even know about something like supports unless you look it up online or randomly stumble across it because neither the game nor the game's book tells you about it.

Sorry if this comes off as rude, I just find it annoying when someone makes a claim about what the creator of something "intended" when they don't seem to have any right to be making such assumptions. As far as Fire Emblem goes, it's a strategy RPG with many known and hidden elements. It can be played multiple ways and I don't think any one of them was "intended" by its creators to be "the" one.

Then don't draft characters you don't like. If you get stuck with someone you don't like, don't use them. Drafts are fun and competitive, that is the point of their existence. Try one before you go bashing them.

Who are you to just completely bash and deride everyone's opinion? My opinion is that drafts seem boring and something that I don't really want to try, seeing as I don't find Fire Emblem competitive in any sense, and I just don't think that striving for lowest turn count would be fun. I would rather build my characters based on their strength and weaknesses for a good solid team, not just who can kill the most units the quickest. I'm entitled to this opinion, and I don't appreciate what you just did.

[Colonel M]

Random in-the-dark question (and sorry for derailing this slightly):

How can you have an opinion on something you haven't even tried?

[Rodykitty]

Being entitled to an opinion is one thing, but the opinion you present doesn't really belong in this thread especially since it's basically "I hate everything you people are talking about".

Also, chokepoints just serve to favor horses even more and to screw over armors. Play Shining Force 1 and you'll know what I mean.

[Zkirsche]

Being entitled to an opinion is one thing, but the opinion you present doesn't really belong in this thread especially since it's basically "I hate everything you people are talking about".

Isn't this whole thread about how the basis of the tier lists - a.k.a. efficicent with low turncounts - is boring and not fun to debate and goes against a regular playthrough?

[Rodykitty]

Isn't this whole thread about how the basis of the tier lists - a.k.a. efficicent with low turncounts - is boring and not fun to debate and goes against a regular playthrough?

Yes, but the poster in question was hating on the fact that people actually perform drafts and efficient playthroughs and claiming such things were boring, rather than it being about what tier lists should be about.

[Kinata]

Sure, you could try to create a "when they are around" tier list where units are ranked by who you should use when you have them, but that causes problems of its own. How do you compare Haar and Caineghis when Haar trivializes part 3 but loses steam in Endgame?

I'm aware of that. That's why I said

I'm not sure if a tier list that only talks about how good a character is when you get them is feasible (there will probably some problems over what standards to use).

and responded with

Perhaps a better use of our time is just to discuss which teams are optimal for each chapter.

I understand that there isn't as much debating value to this as to a tier list (which is more so for fun than for a practical reason I gather), but I think it'd also be nice to argue about something that actually does serve as a sort of game guide.

[Zkirsche]

Yes, but the poster in question was hating on the fact that people actually perform drafts and efficient playthroughs and claiming such things were boring, rather than it being about what tier lists should be about.

If playing them is boring, surely talking about it is even worse?

[Toothache]

Perhaps what needs to be looked at is not making a tier list that considers the whole game, but a smaller list for each map or group of maps - that way you can illustrate, for example, that Marcus shines in the early game of FE6, but gets considerably weaker later on, and not just slotted into a full game tier list which doesn't consider relative game progress. Perhaps from these smaller tier lists a full game list can emerge, but it looks at each map from an availability standpoint and allows more attention to detail for a characters development when each list is compared.

[chococoke]

What is this? What is the developers intention? Are you one of the developers who can tell us what you intended for the players to strive for in these games?

It seems to be fairly obvious to me that the developers' intentions are, at the very least, to choose to give experience to units over lowest possible turncount. Sure, we don't know how we're "intended" to play, but I sincerely doubt the developers planned on having every play from the standpoint of lowest possible turncount over giving experience to units.

[Rodykitty]

Perhaps what needs to be looked at is not making a tier list that considers the whole game, but a smaller list for each map or group of maps - that way you can illustrate, for example, that Marcus shines in the early game of FE6, but gets considerably weaker later on, and not just slotted into a full game tier list which doesn't consider relative game progress. Perhaps from these smaller tier lists a full game list can emerge, but it looks at each map from an availability standpoint and allows more attention to detail for a characters development when each list is compared.

Also, I think if we allow characters to be at higher levels some maps after they join (assuming they can get those levels), we can analyze performance of more growth focused characters in certain maps as well.

[Celice]

If playing them is boring, surely talking about it is even worse?

oh god yes

I just very much hope the linear, awful thinking which goes into these fire emblem debates don't leak over into how people think through things in their actual life.

[Rodykitty]

Re-posting for new page.

Perhaps what needs to be looked at is not making a tier list that considers the whole game, but a smaller list for each map or group of maps - that way you can illustrate, for example, that Marcus shines in the early game of FE6, but gets considerably weaker later on, and not just slotted into a full game tier list which doesn't consider relative game progress. Perhaps from these smaller tier lists a full game list can emerge, but it looks at each map from an availability standpoint and allows more attention to detail for a characters development when each list is compared.

Also, I think if we allow characters to be at higher levels some maps after they join (assuming they can get those levels), we can analyze performance of more growth focused characters in certain maps as well.

[Colonel M]

Thanks to Fire Emblem, I now am the best cashier both with regards to speed and accuracy.

Bitches be praisin'.

[Toothache]

A set of map-focused lists would also have consider stuff like map terrain, recruitment of new allied units, and situational benefit - for example, Ancient Horrors in FE8 gives you Artur, and the potential to recruit Lute. Artur can do a nice job of weakening the monsters in this map with his Light magic, and there's plenty of terrain to keep him safe too while he does. By the time you get Lute you'll probably have no kills to give her. While Lute in a full game tier list would be probably be slightly above Artur in a tier list (debateable, of course), for this map he'd be the one well above her.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Toothache

[StinDuh]

Yes, but the poster in question was hating on the fact that people actually perform drafts and efficient playthroughs and claiming such things were boring, rather than it being about what tier lists should be about.

I'm not hating on the fact that people actually perform drafts. I'm just saying that the current way they're done is just not for me. Again, I guess I just wasn't clear in saying that if drafts and tier lists weren't all about turn count efficiency, I might be interested. I initially posted in the topic because I agreed with Vykan. In fact, one of the reasons I dislike tier lists and draft tournaments so much is because there really isn't much room for discussion in them, and that's what I use the forums for. If a new kind of tier list was suggested, one that doesn't use efficiency to tier units, then it would cause new discussions. I don't just hate on tier lists and draft tournaments.

Also... please have the respect to refer to me as something other than "the poster in question".

Edit:

If playing them is boring, surely talking about it is even worse?

I'm just interested in a different kind of tier list. Which is what the topic is about... So I'm pretty sure my posts have value and are in the correct place... A topic about why efficiency tier lists have lost value....

Edited June 9, 2011 by StinDuh

[Rodykitty]

^ Drafts aren't really meant to harbour discussion, they're meant to get people to play the game as well as facilitate draft rules.

Tier lists also used to be huge on discussion, but they have become so accurate that we've run out of things to discuss, not that they are a concept that's inherently boring to discuss.

[StinDuh]

^ Drafts aren't really meant to harbour discussion, they're meant to get people to play the game as well as facilitate draft rules.

Tier lists also used to be huge on discussion, but they have become so accurate that we've run out of things to discuss, not that they are a concept that's inherently boring to discuss.

The part about drafts not harboring discussion is a topic not appropriate here.

And I didn't say they were inherently boring. I was indeed saying that efficiency tier lists have been over-discussed and there is nothing left to discuss, and that is why I think it would be interesting to see a different kind of tier list. You've started to put words in my mouth... Or uh... text in box...? Anyway, you and Fox have mistook what I was trying to say, and I can understand why y'all could misunderstand me. You just irritated me with the way y'all replied to it. I don't find tier lists and draft tournaments inherently boring. The concept could be interesting. The only concept I find inherently boring is efficiency. And if your opinion differs from mine, then that's okay.

[Kinata]

A set of map-focused lists would also have consider stuff like map terrain, recruitment of new allied units, and situational benefit - for example, Ancient Horrors in FE8 gives you Artur, and the potential to recruit Lute. Artur can do a nice job of weakening the monsters in this map with his Light magic, and there's plenty of terrain to keep him safe too while he does. By the time you get Lute you'll probably have no kills to give her (and I don't think she can even double anything, so any kills would be a 2RKO at best for her). While Lute in a full game tier list would be probably be slightly above Artur in a tier list (debateable, of course), for this map he'd be the one well above her.

This is like what I was saying before, looking at games on a chapter by chapter basis. But having like 30 tier lists per game would be problematic. Besides the "tons of work" problem of maintaining all of that, how do the tier lists interact? Do we assume for the tier list in ch. 15 that we've been raising the high and top tier characters of ch. 1-14? If we did not use a character in ch. 1-14 because they're considered low tier then, should we assume they're base level in ch. 15?

That's why I think as a practical list, we should just decide what the best team is in each chapter, not bother debating about the difference between low and bottom or between top and high. Each chapter we assume we've been playing with the optimal teams of the previous chapter. This will serve as a practical sort of guide to the game and will not take too much work to make.

I'm not saying you should give up tier lists. This is just a separate idea you guys might also want to work on.

[Zkirsche]

Also, I'd like to point out that these tier lists aren't necessarily 100% max efficiency, to take an example, Elincia's use of rescue staves probably saves more turns than whatever Geoffrey or Stefan does. But that doesn't mean her availability and crappy stats stop her from being in low. The same with Edward, who saves 12 turns in 1-P and probably some in 1-1 and 1-2 as well. Does Janaff ever save 12 turns? Does Mia or Titania save 12 turns anywhere in the game?

[Florete]

Who are you to just completely bash and deride everyone's opinion? My opinion is that drafts seem boring and something that I don't really want to try, seeing as I don't find Fire Emblem competitive in any sense, and I just don't think that striving for lowest turn count would be fun. I would rather build my characters based on their strength and weaknesses for a good solid team, not just who can kill the most units the quickest. I'm entitled to this opinion, and I don't appreciate what you just did.

Your opinion sucks and is worthless.

See, now I'm bashing it. I don't know how the hell I was bashing it before by telling you not to bash drafts. Fact is, your opinion is based on nothing because you haven't actually tried it. I never thought I'd like playing for low turn counts either, but I saw drafts popping up left and right, people enjoyed them, and when I decided to give it a shot, I loved it.

Find something to base your opinion off before you get needlessly offended, or just stop wasting our time.

It seems to be fairly obvious to me that the developers' intentions are, at the very least, to choose to give experience to units over lowest possible turncount. Sure, we don't know how we're "intended" to play, but I sincerely doubt the developers planned on having every play from the standpoint of lowest possible turncount over giving experience to units.

I don't think they were "planning" on anything except to have people buy and enjoy the game however they feel like doing so. Low turns and efficiency is one way. I certainly don't think they "planned" on tier lists, either, so if this topic is going to be about developer's intentions, we should abolish tier lists before trying anything else.