Redefining the tiering process

[Rodykitty]

Attempting to turn the tier list into a machine where it calculates the removal of RNG and other such things instead of coming to a human based decision where disagreements and arguing is bound to happen is just going to make the "tier lists are dead" problem worse.

Right now I'm thinking we should just move away from tier lists for awhile (they're supposed to be accurate, and sadly I think we've achieved that for some lists) except for FE12 and ones that still get a ton of debate (FE10) and focus on other things.

[Reikken]

Sorry, when I said failure I meant in a more large-scale sense. Not like failure to achieve the coveted X turn count completion, but failure to complete the chapter without a failure that causes a substantial impact on future strategy, like someone dies, that bandit gets to a village that has a promotion item you were counting on, etc. Also yeah, you can't always have an exactly 100% chance of even ever eventually doing some things, but the chance can get so high that it's essentially 100%.

[Loki Laufeyson]

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

Nah, i just hate Stop Having Fun Guys. ;)

[Florete]

Nah, i just hate Stop Having Fun Guys. ;)

Exactly; we are not Stop Having Fun Guys.

[Loki Laufeyson]

^lol, ok. Ill take your word for it.

[samthedigital]

Sorry, when I said failure I meant in a more large-scale sense. Not like failure to achieve the coveted X turn count completion, but failure to complete the chapter without a failure that causes a substantial impact on future strategy, like someone dies, that bandit gets to a village that has a promotion item you were counting on, etc. Also yeah, you can't always have an exactly 100% chance of even ever eventually doing some things, but the chance can get so high that it's essentially 100%.

Can you provide an example of how this would make some characters better than they would otherwise be? I'm not entirely convinced that enough would be changed to warrant having a different tier list.

On an unrelated note, in what context is efficient play used? Is it efficiency with regards to turn count or efficiency with regards to time? Not that the two are drastically different, but I am guessing that there would be some significant differences in the two kinds of tiering methods.

Edited June 11, 2011 by samthedigital

[Smiley Jim]

On an unrelated note, in what context is efficient play used? Is it efficiency with regards to turn count or efficiency with regards to time?

To my general knowledge, efficiency is related to turn count. Though there are some people out there who play for the lowest actual play time.

[samthedigital]

When efficiency is applied to time the fastest possible strategies can not usually be used as they generally require too much luck to be worthwhile, that is to say, they are inefficient strategies.

Edited June 11, 2011 by samthedigital

[dondon151]

We don't always use the fastest possible strategies. A lot of those would involve both an exorbitant amount of RNG manipulation and also death manipulation in games that have rescuing. Sometimes, one of the fastest strategies possible also tends to be a pretty reliable one.

And what you say is not always the case. It could take less real time to execute the fastest strategy twice than to execute a slower, more reliable strategy once.

[RNG Princess]

The current concept of tiering seems pretty accurate to me at least for the FE10 tier list which is the one I look at more often ^^'.

I find it accurate that the tier list implies which characters take less effort and offer more while still keeping in mind the characters availability and potentials. I'm pretty sure potential's are still kept in mind making them important to tiering and not just base stats.

For example Ilyana has higher bases than Micaiah and she trumps her availability but Micaiah has useful potential (healing) and requires little to no effort where as Ilyana would need constant monitoring to keep up her usefulness and more than likely she'll never be solid since mages in FE10 have to be pretty much treated like archers and have no enemy phase due to their low speeds and defenses.

Although I agree Lowest turncount isn't always best, Low turncount is a good aim Lowest turncount isn't.

I also think character potentials could be given more credit like Soren having better availability than Callil and therefore having more opportunity than her.

Edited June 11, 2011 by Queen_Elincia

[samthedigital]

We don't always use the fastest possible strategies. A lot of those would involve both an exorbitant amount of RNG manipulation and also death manipulation in games that have rescuing. Sometimes, one of the fastest strategies possible also tends to be a pretty reliable one.

And what you say is not always the case. It could take less real time to execute the fastest strategy twice than to execute a slower, more reliable strategy once.

Yeah, that is why I said that it was generally the case. I don't believe that the fastest strategy is always inefficient, but I would say that it is usually so, but maybe I could be mistaken about that, I don't know. Anyway, if the fastest possible strategies are given up because they require too much RNG manipulation and death manipulation, then one of the two possible ways of not factoring them into the tier list would not to account for RNG manipulation and death manipulation, but then you're adding additional rules just because you don't like using death manipulation and RNG manipulation as they are only tools used to get a better turn count. The other possibility is that tier lists are actually representative of strategies that are efficient in regard to average time spent playing, but that doesn't seem to be the case; I don't know, I haven't really gotten a straight answer.

[Rodykitty]

If there's any reason not to assume fastest possible strategy, it's so that 90% of the game's cast won't be put into bottom tier.

[samthedigital]

Not assuming the fastest strategy to make characters look artificially better doesn't really make a good tier list.

it's so that 90% of the game's cast won't be put into bottom tier.

That doesn't happen. Characters are ranked based on how well they perform assuming they are being used. Even if the character is detrimental to the turn count they will still be better than a character who is even worse for the turn count.

[Rodykitty]

Trust me, it's happened several times in the past.

[samthedigital]

That doesn't really have much to do with what I am saying though. I don't really care that it has been done, only that that method isn't really justified in any way.

Edited June 11, 2011 by samthedigital

[Radiant Dragon]

That doesn't really have much to do with what I am saying though. I don't really care that it has been done, only that that method isn't really justified in any way.

Except that assuming one 'fastest' strategy leads to ridiculous discussions like Wil > Canas. Besides, assuming the player is going to do the same thing every playthrough is unrealistic.

[Anouleth]

The question we are trying to ask is 'which characters are good'. I don't think that the only thing that matters to that question is how units perform in the very fastest and most aggressive playstyle (which might not use them at all). For example, the fastest playstyle in FE10 wouldn't use Boyd. But that doesn't make a playthrough that trains Boyd completely irrelevant to tier list discussion. My FE10 playthrough was not 'perfect', by any means, but that doesn't mean that the contributions that some units made to it were irrelevant. Int's, or Colonel M's, or many of the playthroughs documented on this site weren't 'perfect' either, but that doesn't mean that they have nothing to tell us about the units used in them.

Edited June 11, 2011 by Anouleth

[samthedigital]

Except that assuming one 'fastest' strategy leads to ridiculous discussions like Wil > Canas. Besides, assuming the player is going to do the same thing every playthrough is unrealistic.

That's the point though. If turn counts take precedence over time then consistency isn't an issue, and Wil>Canas isn't ridiculous. I am also not assuming that the player is going to do the same thing every game, so I am not sure where that came from.

[Radiant Dragon]

That's the point though.

No, it isn't the point. The lists themselves aren't important. What's important is the discussion they provide. If we decide to tier the characters based on how they contribute to one max efficiency playthrough, there will be no discussion. We'd have a list and that's it.

Also, these lists wouldn't be indicative of who's a better character. Can you honestly say Wil is a better character than Canas?

[samthedigital]

No, it isn't the point. The lists themselves aren't important. What's important is the discussion they provide

I don't see the merit in discussing tier lists that have no value.

If we decide to tier the characters based on how they contribute to one max efficiency playthrough, there will be no discussion. We'd have a list and that's it.

I never suggested that, so again, I don't know where that's coming from. In any case, a tier list is just that. In the end there is a definite tier list within any sort of parameters you want to make, and discussion won't change the tier list.

Also, these lists wouldn't be indicative of who's a better character. Can you honestly say Wil is a better character than Canas?

Within the context, yes, Wil would be better than Canas assuming Wil contributes more. I never said that this is the proper way to tier though, and I don't know why this has gone on this tangent in the first place. I was only asking whether the tier lists were based on having the best turn count or having a good average time to complete the games.

[Radiant Dragon]

I don't see the merit in discussing tier lists that have no value.

No one does. That's why we don't tier by maximum efficiency.

Within the context, yes, Wil would be better than Canas assuming Wil contributes more. I never said that this is the proper way to tier though, and I don't know why this has gone on this tangent in the first place. I was only asking whether the tier lists were based on having the best turn count or having a good average time to complete the games.

Turn count. However, we don't assume we're completing each chapter in the minimum amount of turns possible.

[samthedigital]

Turn count. However, we don't assume we're completing each chapter in the minimum amount of turns possible.

What's the point in caring about turn count though if it's not the minimum? Since time isn't an obstacle then achieving the best possible turn count should be the main objective, but characters can still be ranked based on how much better they contribute when used than others. Suppose we ask whether Wil or Canas is the better character. Canas isn't as efficient because when he is used you can only reach say 300 max turns instead of 299 turns. However let's say Bartre when used loses out on more turns when used, so he is objectively not as good as Canas is, and that's not exactly simple to argue in practice as you would suggest. However, that doesn't really tell you what is more core consistent since it has to do with the turn count and not time. If you want to cover more ground by saying that the tier list ranks characters based on average turn completion that only matters when time is taken into equation else it doesn't matter if you take 1000 tries to get one chapter done.

[Rodykitty]

Recruitment costs never did any good for tier lists.

[nflchamp]

I wish more people actually understood the reasoning we ignore things, like the fastest completions of chapters and what not. We don't do anything to "promote discussion." That's just stupid. If the topic is interesting, we'll discuss it. If we discuss everything we can think of and move on to discuss something else, that's fine.

The reason the fastest completions are ignored are because they're unreliable, needing single-digit crits or insane survival odds. Will a single-digit crit that speeds up the chapter happen sometimes? Of course. Is it pertinent to the tiering process? Heck no. We care about what is most likely to happen, or something that is very likely to happen even if not most likely, when moving at a quick pace.

[Rewjeo]

The reason the fastest completions are ignored are because they're unreliable, needing single-digit crits or insane survival odds. Will a single-digit crit that speeds up the chapter happen sometimes? Of course. Is it pertinent to the tiering process? Heck no. We care about what is most likely to happen, or something that is very likely to happen even if not most likely, when moving at a quick pace.

I disagree, and there are examples that go against this, like Aran's luck, although in this case it's the opposite. A single digit crit can, in this case, force a restart. Will it happen that often? No. Do we take it into consideration? Yes. So take someone like, say, earlygame Eirika. She can speed stuff up with lucky crits, and that's a point for her. We won't (can't) rely on them for strategies, so they don't get as much weight as something that is 100% but you can't ignore a unit's ability to sometimes speed things up.

Now, this is different from a 2% crit chance which really should be ignored.