Redefining the tiering process

[Vykan12]

That's my point. The Wyvern and the flight do not have inherent value. What has value is what the character can do […] Flight is only a means to an end, not an end in of

itself.

You have me slightly confused here. I’m not saying a unit is better than another because of flying, I’m saying the unit is better because of the implied advantages that flying provides to the chapter’s completion. If as in your example we want to get Ike to seize, flying utility is going to help towards that goal in the ways I already mentioned.

He can't. Haar needs to engage in combat multiple times in 3-4 and also help kill the boss. If Haar had no combat abilities, he would die when he dropped Ike, or enemies would pile up and block Ranulf and Ike.

For one thing, you can have Haar do things like move 5 spaces forward, drop, and move 4 spaces back if durability were an issue for him. Obviously that would lower his tactical flexibility and overall usage a fair deal compared to an uber-combat Haar, but a significant advantage is still there.

Even better, often your flier doesn’t even need to canto away more than 1-2 spaces of where she’s dropping your powerhouse unit. FE8 C9EirRoute comes to mind.

Having Vanessa or Tana drop Seth off to the South shaves so many turns it’s not even funny. I don’t care what anyone going West is doing, it doesn’t measure up.

If Haar did not have combat, he would be unable to accomplish that task because he would die.

He could easily burn more supplies than any other unit on your team without seeing a single enemy. He has barns, fences, etc, as cover. And, if he can take so much as a single hit, which isn’t asking much even for terrible combat units, his flexibility jumps that much higher.

In my speedrun, he gets attacked by a whole 3 enemies in the first 5 turns, and manages to burn 4 supplies in the process, and I wasn’t even using any other units during those turns. It wouldn’t take that much more ninja’ing for him not to get attacked at all and still retain a large percentage of his amazing usefulness.

I disagree. Flying on its own varies in value depending on how much terrain there is. For instance, flying is not really great in FE8 Ephraim Route since there only a bare handful of situations where you want a flier.

Yes, of course. In a defence chapter, flying may become close to useless, and possibly even a hindrance if there’s a bunch of ballistae and stuff. But in general I see the advantage as overwhelming. Hell, I’ll bring some serious evidence to the table if you’re still not convinced, so far I’ve been just naming quick examples off the top of my head out of laziness.

[Anouleth]

You have me slightly confused here. I’m not saying a unit is better than another because of flying, I’m saying the unit is better because of the implied advantages that flying provides to the chapter’s completion. If as in your example we want to get Ike to seize, flying utility is going to help towards that goal in the ways I already mentioned.

And what is your problem with this? The objective of 3-11 is to seize. If flying does more towards that goal than good stats do, then it should be perfectly natural that wrt 3-11, flying units are more highly ranked than their unmounted brethren who might have a statistical lead.

For one thing, you can have Haar do things like move 5 spaces forward, drop, and move 4 spaces back if durability were an issue for him. Obviously that would lower his tactical flexibility and overall usage a fair deal compared to an uber-combat Haar, but a significant advantage is still there.

Even better, often your flier doesn’t even need to canto away more than 1-2 spaces of where she’s dropping your powerhouse unit. FE8 C9EirRoute comes to mind.

Having Vanessa or Tana drop Seth off to the South shaves so many turns it’s not even funny. I don’t care what anyone going West is doing, it doesn’t measure up.

He could easily burn more supplies than any other unit on your team without seeing a single enemy. He has barns, fences, etc, as cover. And, if he can take so much as a single hit, which isn’t asking much even for terrible combat units, his flexibility jumps that much higher.

In my speedrun, he gets attacked by a whole 3 enemies in the first 5 turns, and manages to burn 4 supplies in the process, and I wasn’t even using any other units during those turns. It wouldn’t take that much more ninja’ing for him not to get attacked at all and still retain a large percentage of his amazing usefulness.

Okay, I concede that flying units don't really need great durability to still be very useful. However, this really puts them in the exact same position as any other non-combat utility unit such as thieves or Dancers or healers. Who are you to say that tier lists overvalue non-combat contributions?

Yes, of course. In a defence chapter, flying may become close to useless, and possibly even a hindrance if there’s a bunch of ballistae and stuff. But in general I see the advantage as overwhelming. Hell, I’ll bring some serious evidence to the table if you’re still not convinced, so far I’ve been just naming quick examples off the top of my head out of laziness.

I don't think that flight is an overwhelming advantage. I can think of many advantages that are just as overwhelming, such as great combat stats, or the ability to steal (think FE6 Chad), or dancer utility, or staff utility. It's not like flying units automatically go to the top of the tier list no questions asked like for seize utility or something, and I don't think that tier list criteria need to be changed to reduce the value of those contributions.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Anouleth

[dondon151]

I agree mostly with what Anouleth has to say (although I think he underestimates flying, but whatever). I don't see why it's wrong to reward units for having good traits and to punish units for having bad traits. Life's tough, deal with it.

If the implication is that we shouldn't define traits as good or bad, then I don't understand why we have to praise the kid in last place, so to speak.

It seems silly because of the old tiering methods before this hyper-efficiency one. Technically speaking Edward saves more turns than 90% of the cast in FE10, and from a logical standpoint, it doesn't matter if this is condensed into one chapter, or among many.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I've never thought that tiering strictly by number of turns saved is useful or even intuitive in the context of Fire Emblem. Putting Edward in top tier because he contributes 12 turns in 1 map doesn't convey the same information as putting Titania in top tier because she contributes 12 turns in 12 maps. I've always thought of the tier list as reflecting what the player thinks about units over the course of the game: for how long does he think "wow, this unit is good," and how good does he think that unit is?

What I'm probably trying to get at here is that if we compared Edward saving 12 turns in 1-P to Titania saving 1 turn in 3-P, the player isn't going to develop the impression that Edward is quantitatively 12 times better than Titania for one map. Yeah, he'll probably think that Edward is a lot more useful than Titania, but it's not the kind of impression that puts a unit into top tier.

Edited June 10, 2011 by dondon151

[Anouleth]

As usual, dondon puts my thoughts into words far more eloquently than I ever could.

I've always thought of the tier list as reflecting what the player thinks about units over the course of the game: for how long does he think "wow, this unit is good," and how good does he think that unit is?

Uh, I don't know about that. Many players think that say, Lute is the bee's knees, but clearly we don't want someone like her anywhere near the top of the tier list. Personally, I think of it as contribution to an efficient playthrough... and I interpret other people as feeling the same way but with more or less strict definitions of what constitutes 'efficient'.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Anouleth

[Junkhead]

I find drafts erroneous and pointless. I just don't see the value in being forced to use characters I don't like in an attempt to get low turn counts... Fire Emblem isn't about low turn counts anyway, and I think people are wrong to say that beating Fire Emblem with a surprisingly low turn count is considered good. I also find the number of draft topics and playlogs to be extremely overwhelming to the point of annoying in our forums

I can't sum up the uncountable set of facepalms to describe what I feel about this post.

[Loki Laufeyson]

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

That would be an interesting topic. All the time ive been here i dont recall seeing one like that.

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 think what the dev had in mind is people playing the game how ever they want. They can go for max efficiency and bumrushing the enemy, they could go for using only 5 units, only using mounted, etc. Whatever strategy works for that person. While i hate the idea of drafts, (i mean, really?) people can play the game that way and win if they want to.

Personally, i find tier lists to be something of a joke. Sure there are units who are better than others and that becomes evident as you play the game(s), but its really up to the player who they want to use. Thats why i dont like tier lists. Aside from some obvious exceptions, nearly all units can be decent to good depending on the player's style and choice. So yeah, i do agree with the OP.

[dondon151]

Uh, I don't know about that. Many players think that say, Lute is the bee's knees, but clearly we don't want someone like her anywhere near the top of the tier list. Personally, I think of it as contribution to an efficient playthrough... and I interpret other people as feeling the same way but with more or less strict definitions of what constitutes 'efficient'.

Those same players would argue Lute higher on the tier list anyway because they don't understand the premise of the tier list.

[Florete]

Personally, i find tier lists to be something of a joke. Sure there are units who are better than others and that becomes evident as you play the game(s), but its really up to the player who they want to use. Thats why i dont like tier lists. Aside from some obvious exceptions, nearly all units can be decent to good depending on the player's style and choice. So yeah, i do agree with the OP.

It has been stated multiple times in multiple topics that no one cares who you use. Tier lists serve to tell you who is good, not who we want you to use.

[Radiant Dragon]

While i hate the idea of drafts, (i mean, really?) people can play the game that way and win if they want to.

First: Is that a Hrist avatar, or am I just seeing things that aren't there?

Second: I'm not understanding the hate towards drafts in this topic. You pick a team of people you want to use for a playthrough, and you use them. That's all. You don't even need to try and get a low turncount.

[Junkhead]

Second: I'm not understanding the hate towards drafts in this topic. You pick a team of people you want to use for a playthrough, and you use them. That's all. You don't even need to try and get a low turncount.

An extension to this would be, that in drafts, you aren't forced to use the characters you draft. You can go ahead and be an idiot and take ten thousand penalties and totally not caring for turns if you want to.

[Radiant Dragon]

An extension to this would be, that in drafts, you aren't forced to use the characters you draft. You can go ahead and be an idiot and take ten thousand penalties and totally not caring for turns if you want to.

I wouldn't call that being an idiot, though. It's just making things easier on yourself while still focusing on training your chosen units.

[Loki Laufeyson]

It has been stated multiple times in multiple topics that no one cares who you use. Tier lists serve to tell you who is good, not who we want you to use.

As that may be, some people get really er...passionate about whos the best and why arent you using them. ;)

First: Is that a Hrist avatar, or am I just seeing things that aren't there?

Second: I'm not understanding the hate towards drafts in this topic. You pick a team of people you want to use for a playthrough, and you use them. That's all. You don't even need to try and get a low turncount.

First: Thats not Hrist. Its Rose from Legend of Dragoon.

Second: The way i was told drafts work is that you use only one certain team in one chapter and have to use a different chosen team in each chapter. :/ I may have misunderstood but alas...

[Radiant Dragon]

First: Thats not Hrist. Its Rose from Legend of Dragoon.

Second: The way i was told drafts work is that you use only one certain team in one chapter and have to use a different chosen team in each chapter. :/ I may have misunderstood but alas...

First: I've been meaning to play that game, but I just haven't been able to find the time...

Second: Essentially, 4 or 5 (more for FE10-12) people take turns picking units to use for an entire run through the game. Units like Lords, Jeigans, and Gotos are free, and the goal is 'technically' to get a lower turncount than your competitors.

Check out Integrity's explanation topic for more information.

[Loki Laufeyson]

First: I've been meaning to play that game, but I just haven't been able to find the time...

Second: Essentially, 4 or 5 (more for FE10-12) people take turns picking units to use for an entire run through the game. Units like Lords, Jeigans, and Gotos are free, and the goal is 'technically' to get a lower turncount than your competitors.

Check out Integrity's explanation topic for more information.

Ohhhhh ok. *goes to strangle the prat that described it wrong but cant remember who it was* Ok that makes more sense. Its certainly not something im going to try because i toss efficiency and turncounts out the window when i play. In that case, im gonna agree with the guy who said that the topics are getting a bit too numerous. ;) (like one for each FE game would be enough. And when its done, lock that and make a new one. Yeah. Keeps forums clean!!)

Edited June 10, 2011 by Florina

[Florete]

As that may be, some people get really er...passionate about whos the best and why arent you using them. ;)

Unless you're living pre-2009, this only happens in topics that call for it. Tier list topics, "Who's better?" topics, etc. People never see a "this is my team" and go "WHY THE HELL ARE YOU USING NINO YOU NOOB!?"

Otherwise, it may be you who is taking it to heart too much.

[Reikken]

Man, I wish more games had communities like this. Hardc0re gameplay analysis and discussion.

On topic, a few days ago someone said something to this effect to me. that FE tier lists nowadays are based on crazily low turn count speed runs that sometimes aren't even probable. He took a different approach to the solution, though, that I didn't really agree with, saying that it shouldn't be based on turn count at all but instead on being as reliable as possible, with just a vague idea of there being something to limit turtling. My only point of disagreement was that I think it takes a lot more than just a vague something to eliminate turtling as a problem. So basically my solution is the same as that in the first post: low turn count with no risk of failure. But I don't think that's anything new. Isn't that what people did years ago? Or I could be mistaken.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Reikken

[dondon151]

On topic, a few days ago someone said something to this effect to me. that FE tier lists nowadays are based on crazily low turn count speed runs that sometimes aren't even probable.

They're pretty reliable, for the most part. Killing bosses is usually the most difficult part about them. A lot of FE3 DS strategies, for example, are very precisely executed and always work barring misses.

It's not like we're asking for units to survive 6 attacks at 40 hit while being 4RKO'd or for 4 out of 6 skill procs with a 39% chance.

So basically my solution is the same as that in the first post: low turn count with no risk of failure.

Impossible in many cases, because a lot of units don't get 100 hit on enemies.

[Celice]

The issue with most of the current "efficiency" runs dogma is that they're based on how one believes numbers should work, but not how they work (part of this issue is that the RNG isn't even properly random). In arguing for "if-then" standpoints, you may as well be running a TAS run of the game, to guarantee you see the result you're arguing for--because such selectivity of opportunity and probability eventually narrows one into a corner where if something goes wrong, or unpredicted, then all circumstances change. This dynamic stance isn't usually taken into account in these arguments, because it's not a controlled substance--it goes against the idea of predicting based on immobile numbering.

But it doesn't really matter, any more than the people who argue do :/ People do it for one reason or another, whether it's sound or not, whether it's arguing about Fire Emblem games or something else. At least it's fulfilling. Hopefully.

[dondon151]

But it doesn't really matter, any more than the people who argue do :/ People do it for one reason or another, whether it's sound or not, whether it's arguing about Fire Emblem games or something else. At least it's fulfilling. Hopefully.

Yeah, dude, it's at least as fulfilling as you judging us.

[Rodykitty]

The issue with most of the current "efficiency" runs dogma is that they're based on how one believes numbers should work, but not how they work (part of this issue is that the RNG isn't even properly random). In arguing for "if-then" standpoints, you may as well be running a TAS run of the game, to guarantee you see the result you're arguing for--because such selectivity of opportunity and probability eventually narrows one into a corner where if something goes wrong, or unpredicted, then all circumstances change. This dynamic stance isn't usually taken into account in these arguments, because it's not a controlled substance--it goes against the idea of predicting based on immobile numbering.

On the contrary, the reasons tier lists have become "accurate" to the point where we now lack discussion is because efficient PTs, people actually playing the game have given us evidence that happens in practice rather than in theory.

[Florete]

This dynamic stance isn't usually taken into account in these arguments,

Except for the part where it is, right? We know the RNG. We know what we're dealing with. This is one reason why units who can rely on their base stats are valued, and often enough you'll see us talking about strategies that aren't too reliable for one reason or another. We know what can happen.

EDIT: Pseudo-ninja'd.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Red Fox of Fire

[Reikken]

Impossible in many cases, because a lot of units don't get 100 hit on enemies.

not impossible

Last unit left to act can kill the single enemy in range of someone who's going to die if attacked but has 90 hit on said enemy: risking failure

same as above, except there are 3 units left: one which can also kill the enemy if guy #1 misses, and one which can rescue the weak ally unit if needed: not risking failure

Well, there probably are some cases, but usually you can always plan for the worst.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Reikken

[Anouleth]

not impossible

Last unit left to act can kill the single enemy in range of someone who's going to die if attacked but has 90 hit on said enemy: risking failure

same as above, except there are 3 units left: one which can also kill the enemy if guy #1 misses, and one which can rescue the weak ally unit if needed: not risking failure

Well, there probably are some cases, but usually you can always plan for the worst.

The problem is that a lower chance of failure is still better. This essentially turns 1-1 into 'have unequipped Nolan in front with Micaiah behind chipping since she's the only one with 100% chance to hit'. It also turns much of Part 1 into a prepromote only run because it's very difficult to get some unpromoted units to 100 hit, while it's quite reasonable with prepromotes. Some unpromoted units such as Aran also regularly face crit chances that can lead to death - and I think that even Nolan and Edward face crit chance from enemy Myrmidons.

It also makes it a lot harder to recruit Heather in 2-1, because it is such a RNG-dependent chapter.

Ultimately, this kind of criteria would only exacerbate the perceived problem of the tier list of not being permissive enough with training. Not only is levelling up completely RNG-dependent, but the characters who do so are at the mercy of the RNG in other ways such as with hit rates or facing critical.

And to be honest, tier list discussion is not based on improbable strategies. I do not, for instance, assume a 2-turn completion of 3-2, since it requires a critical or skill proc. However, a 3-turn completion is quite reliable.

[Interceptor]

So basically my solution is the same as that in the first post: low turn count with no risk of failure. But I don't think that's anything new. Isn't that what people did years ago? Or I could be mistaken.

No, it's not anything new, and people paying attention to lists like FE10's have already seen a version of it.

Some examples: there are "failures" that you can recover from (like Mia not crit/Adept-killing on Enemy Phase), those that you don't necessarily care about (like Maurim getting smoked by crits in 4-4), those that have a small chance of happening but are devastating (Aran's CoD in 1-4), and those that limit the kinds of risks that we can expose people to in the normal course of play (Zihark and Eddie's innate crit chance in a chapter where they are easily 2HKO'ed). All of those things, can be seen to be taken into account in the course of the arguments for/against those kinds of characters in the tier list.

My opinion, this is a good way to handle it. But again, using turn counts strictly as the final arbiter for a dispute is just going to have the result of turning a tier list into a snore-fest copypasta of the latest soldier's playthrough, and we can do better than that.

[dondon151]

not impossible

You said yourself that this tier list should have "no risk of failure." Units who don't have 100 hit on an enemy will always risk failure. Even if you have other units in range to rescue with, what are you going to do next time about the enemy? Take another swipe with sub-100 hit and risk failure again?

Good example is FE DS H5 chapter 1 boss. You're never getting 100 hit on that guy, even with Jagen and an Iron Sword. I also don't think that Jagen does enough damage with an Iron Sword to offset gate healing to any appreciable extent.

Last unit left to act can kill the single enemy in range of someone who's going to die if attacked but has 90 hit on said enemy: risking failure

same as above, except there are 3 units left: one which can also kill the enemy if guy #1 misses, and one which can rescue the weak ally unit if needed: not risking failure

Not applicable in games without rescue.