Redefining the tiering process

[nflchamp]

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.

Certainly, we'll recognize and note the existence of these small chances. But when it comes to tiering, these things only end up mattering as a tiebreaker of sorts. In general, they'll be ignored because it doesn't matter.

[Vykan12]

Funny to see this topic flooded with posts, just to die abruptly a few days later.

There’s one post that stood out in my mind that I wanted to address.

Just to remind everyone, "turns saved" to dictate the placement of units on a tier list was an argument chosen to be self-evidently absurd. See: Eddie's performance in 1-P. In other words, the intention was to pull people back from the brink, using a patently ridiculous notion. Unexpectedly, some people took it seriously.

The proper use of turn counts in a tier list argument, is as just another factor to consider. The reason that turn counts matter is not because we can end 2-Endgame on Turn 1 with a magic crit and therefore Haar is Jesus, it's that going faster is generally more difficult/dangerous than turtling our way across a map. Thus, speed can expose the difference between units that straight stat comparisons cannot.

Perhaps I’m reading into this incorrectly, but this is just turning turn count into another minor consideration, like having 1-2 range or a cool innate skill, rather than the end-all of arguments. I’m fine with that, but it seems the community at large has a different idea.

Looking at recent posts, most people seem to be buying into low turn count = better as the primary criteria for ranking. The whole notion of making no-Sethskip and no-warpskip tiers is to circumvent the problem of reducing most of the cast being compared to “who does better potshots while Seth mows down armies”.

Here are some more specific examples:

FE8

Duessel's stats are great and all, but 6 Mov just gets him left in the the dust in comparison to Franz/Vanessa/Cormag/promoted Kyle or Forde etc. I might say the same for Eph.route Ephraim, but he gets 7 Mov eventually and is probably the best candidate for a C10 bosskill.

If low turn count’s only another consideration, why’s Duessel left in the dust?

FE9

If it's not maximum efficiency, do we need those items in the first place? Of course not - the value of those items is in the turns that they save, and if that is less than the number of turns needed to get them, then they have no value. You don't even need to play maximum efficiency in order for this to occur. No matter if you use 9 move or 7 move units, you will reach the Throne before you reach the chests.

There’s a big discussion on whether some chests can be acquired or not when low turn counting as part of a tier argument for Volke/Sothe.

There’s also tons of posts on mages/generals falling behind exp wise due to not being able to keep up, an issue highly mitigated by not rushing through a chapter.

I probably should've found more than 2 specific examples, chalk that up to extreme laziness.

[dondon151]

Perhaps I’m reading into this incorrectly, but this is just turning turn count into another minor consideration, like having 1-2 range or a cool innate skill, rather than the end-all of arguments. I’m fine with that, but it seems the community at large has a different idea.

There's no such thing as major or minor considerations. Turncount is the metric through which we perform cost-benefit analysis.

Looking at recent posts, most people seem to be buying into low turn count = better as the primary criteria for ranking.

And really, what's the problem with that?

[grandjackal]

I'm not about to get into this whole argument, but I wanted to point out one thing.

There’s also tons of posts on mages/generals falling behind exp wise due to not being able to keep up, an issue highly mitigated by not rushing through a chapter.

I probably should've found more than 2 specific examples, chalk that up to extreme laziness.

Rushing through chapters leaving them in the dust is like...The 5th thing that's wrong with these classes. The biggest problem with them is that they're awful at combat. Like, even if we were to slow down and feed them kills, they would only grow to still be bad sort of awful.

[Dark Sage]

Perhaps I’m reading into this incorrectly, but this is just turning turn count into another minor consideration, like having 1-2 range or a cool innate skill, rather than the end-all of arguments. I’m fine with that, but it seems the community at large has a different idea.

Looking at recent posts, most people seem to be buying into low turn count = better as the primary criteria for ranking. The whole notion of making no-Sethskip and no-warpskip tiers is to circumvent the problem of reducing most of the cast being compared to “who does better potshots while Seth mows down armies”.

What's wrong with using using who reduces turn count as a way of saying which character is better? It's the most objective measure when placing characters into tiers.

[Paperblade]

What's wrong with using using who reduces turn count as a way of saying which character is better?

It kills discussion. Why have a hobby if it's not fun?

It's the most objective measure when placing characters into tiers.

No.

[Florete]

It kills discussion. Why have a hobby if it's not fun?

How so?

No.

What's better?

[Tangerine]

I think we should tier characters based on who has the best lines.

[Paperblade]

How so?

See: the complete and utter lack of discussion

What's better?

From a pure objective standpoint, we could tier units based on things like

Growth totals

20/20 stat totals

Availability

Contribution to EXP (in other words, lowest level units at the top)

There are all sorts of ridiculous things that are more objective than contribution to turn counts, which isn't really even that objective.

For example, in a chapter where multiple units can perform the same, if not identical, role to reduce turns by the same amount, but having multiple is pointless (such as Warp or Rescuedropping), how do we rate that? They obviously don't all reduce turns by the same amount, since if I'm not using, say, Wendell as a staffbot, I could still use Wrys or any other idiot with the Staff rank. Note that combat is quite similar in this regard because without a funds or EXP rank to mean that doing X with a wooden stick and doing X with half the statboosters and 10000g weapons is effectively the same as long as we don't run into gold problems, so there's no reason to not just turn everyone into a godmode killing machine.

Meanwhile, people that save infinite or high amount of turns such as FE6 Marcus or FE10 Edward over the course of 1-2 chapters get passed aside for what is essentially non-reasoning.

Edit: In fact, you guys can't even agree that we should rank solely on turn counts, since Prog was responding to Int saying that tiering solely for LTC is wrong, which no one else seems to have addressed. In addition, even within the community there seems to be an argument that we shouldn't tier for "maximum efficiency," but there is no cutoff point for when we're tryharding too hard.

I think we should tier characters based on who has the best lines.

Do we really need another FE10 tier list with Haar at the top?

Edited June 20, 2011 by Paperblade

[Tangerine]

Do we really need another FE10 tier list with Haar at the top?

Maybe not, but Sain deserves a chance to shine!

[Anouleth]

See: the complete and utter lack of discussion

So 382 pages of discussion on the FE10 tier list is a 'complete and utter lack of discussion'.

From a pure objective standpoint, we could tier units based on things like

Growth totals

20/20 stat totals

Availability

Contribution to EXP (in other words, lowest level units at the top)

There are all sorts of ridiculous things that are more objective than contribution to turn counts, which isn't really even that objective.

I guarantee that a tier list based on any of those things would get almost no interest. There are many things to discuss in a low turn count tier list, especially if optimal deployment isn't assumed (far too many people, and I do this as well, tend to assume the best characters are in play).

The point is, that the tier list exists to answer the question "how good are the units in this game". I wouldn't say that growth total makes a unit good (Sanaki and Vika have high growth totals, for instance). I wouldn't say that availability makes a unit good. I wouldn't say that contributing to an EXP Rank when no such rank exists makes a unit good (even when the rank does exists, it's a struggle to assert that low level units are better than high level units). But I would definitely say that the ability to beat the game in a lower number of turns makes a unit good. The objective of the game is to beat it. All characters exist to contribute to that goal. The ones that achieve that goal fastest should be superior.

For example, in a chapter where multiple units can perform the same, if not identical, role to reduce turns by the same amount, but having multiple is pointless (such as Warp or Rescuedropping), how do we rate that? They obviously don't all reduce turns by the same amount, since if I'm not using, say, Wendell as a staffbot, I could still use Wrys or any other idiot with the Staff rank.

That's a problem with any tier list that considers the value of different roles. In the same way that tier lists also have to balance easily replacable but powerful utility against unique but weaker utility, or being very useful for one chapter against being slightly useful for many chapters.

Note that combat is quite similar in this regard because without a funds or EXP rank to mean that doing X with a wooden stick and doing X with half the statboosters and 10000g weapons is effectively the same as long as we don't run into gold problems, so there's no reason to not just turn everyone into a godmode killing machine.

If there's no opportunity cost and no downside to taking those resources, then why should we treat it as a negative? Just because you "feel" that the character "deserves" to be penalised for taking resources. Are you going to suggest that Ike go down since he's taking Ragnell, even though there's no opportunity cost and no downside for using it? Must Ike show that he can ORKO with a Bronze Sword in order to pass muster?

Meanwhile, people that save infinite or high amount of turns such as FE6 Marcus or FE10 Edward over the course of 1-2 chapters get passed aside for what is essentially non-reasoning.

Edit: In fact, you guys can't even agree that we should rank solely on turn counts, since Prog was responding to Int saying that tiering solely for LTC is wrong, which no one else seems to have addressed. In addition, even within the community there seems to be an argument that we shouldn't tier for "maximum efficiency," but there is no cutoff point for when we're tryharding too hard.

I personally don't rank characters based on how they contribute to a low turn count. I rank based on contribution to an efficient playthrough, with the definition left vague. However, I don't see any way around situations like 1-P Edward, or 2-1 Brom, or 1-9 BK other than handwaving it. One could not possibly complete those chapters in a way I could call "efficient" without using those characters.

Edited June 20, 2011 by Anouleth

[Tangerine]

I am fairly certain that when Paperblade says tiering is "dead" he meant relative to the activity they used to produce. It is deeeefinitely true that it is one foot in the grave.

But I don't really think changing the way we tier will boost activity - I think tiers are just going to die along with the community and the series regardless of what we do. At least until a new game is released here.

Edited June 20, 2011 by Tangerine

[Florete]

See: the complete and utter lack of discussion

I'd sooner attribute that to the interest in tiers in general dying, not because of the criteria being used.

There are all sorts of ridiculous things that are more objective than contribution to turn counts, which isn't really even that objective.

I don't think there's a way to rank characters in a completely objective fashion that is actually useful to what we want from our tier lists. By definition, being objective shouldn't leave room for discussion anyway, like with Pokemon tiers. I think turn counts is the best combination of at least trying to be objective and also getting discussion out of the list.

Also recall that what led us to using turn counts was not being able to find a method that was objective enough for everyone to agree on. What did we get in the end? The realization that you can't please everyone. What a surprise.

For example, in a chapter where multiple units can perform the same, if not identical, role to reduce turns by the same amount, but having multiple is pointless (such as Warp or Rescuedropping), how do we rate that? They obviously don't all reduce turns by the same amount, since if I'm not using, say, Wendell as a staffbot, I could still use Wrys or any other idiot with the Staff rank. Note that combat is quite similar in this regard because without a funds or EXP rank to mean that doing X with a wooden stick and doing X with half the statboosters and 10000g weapons is effectively the same as long as we don't run into gold problems, so there's no reason to not just turn everyone into a godmode killing machine.

You add other things. Availability, combat effectiveness, etc. There are plenty of things to take into account. Rarely do two characters end up being arguably equal. If they are, well, we make them equal. Is that a problem?

Meanwhile, people that save infinite or high amount of turns such as FE6 Marcus or FE10 Edward over the course of 1-2 chapters get passed aside for what is essentially non-reasoning.

So even though we do things like this to keep discussion you accuse us of killing discussion? If you have a perfect method that allows discussion, I'd like to see it.

Edit: In fact, you guys can't even agree that we should rank solely on turn counts, since Prog was responding to Int saying that tiering solely for LTC is wrong, which no one else seems to have addressed. In addition, even within the community there seems to be an argument that we shouldn't tier for "maximum efficiency," but there is no cutoff point for when we're tryharding too hard.

Again, we do want to keep some discussion. I see turn counts as more of a guideline than a rule. Not everyone sees it the same way, but I believe that's what our lists tend to run on. Is it perfect? No. But I've not seen anyone coming up with anything better. And yes, people tried. People like CATS and that Solid guy or whatever. They didn't have much luck.

Do we really need another FE10 tier list with Haar at the top?

Why is that a problem?

[Anouleth]

I am fairly certain that when Paperblade says tiering is "dead" he meant relative to the activity they used to produce. It is deeeefinitely true that it is one foot in the grave.

But I don't really think changing the way we tier will boost activity - I think tiers are just going to die along with the community and the series regardless of what we do. At least until a new game is released here.

Well, it's natural that there is less interest just because there is less interest in Fire Emblem in general. In addition, as tier lists become more accurate, there is just less to discuss.

[Tangerine]

Well, it's natural that there is less interest just because there is less interest in Fire Emblem in general. In addition, as tier lists become more accurate, there is just less to discuss.

I did say that for the most part, just pointing out that your response to what he said was not very pertinent !

[Rewjeo]

From a pure objective standpoint, we could tier units based on things like

Growth totals

20/20 stat totals

Availability

Contribution to EXP (in other words, lowest level units at the top)

There are all sorts of ridiculous things that are more objective than contribution to turn counts, which isn't really even that objective.

I don't see how these are more objective. The order of the tier list would just be obvious and the only discussion would be where to have the tier gaps.

reduce turns by the same amount, but having multiple is pointless (such as Warp or Rescuedropping), how do we rate that? They obviously don't all reduce turns by the same amount, since if I'm not using, say, Wendell as a staffbot, I could still use Wrys or any other idiot with the Staff rank.

If they reduce turns by the same amount, how do they not all reduce turns by the same amount?

Note that combat is quite similar in this regard because without a funds or EXP rank to mean that doing X with a wooden stick and doing X with half the statboosters and 10000g weapons is effectively the same as long as we don't run into gold problems, so there's no reason to not just turn everyone into a godmode killing machine.

Now if only we HAD 10000g to spend on one weapon and didn't give a shit if we toss someone half the stat boosters. Except it's more efficient to, you know, distribute those stat boosters among a bunch of people and get a lot of very good people.

Meanwhile, people that save infinite or high amount of turns such as FE6 Marcus or FE10 Edward over the course of 1-2 chapters get passed aside for what is essentially non-reasoning.

This is an issue.

Also, I think another reason there is less discussion is because the two newest games have tier lists for only the hardest modes.... in the series. As more units become necessary and more units become unusable, there's less and less to discuss.

[Interceptor]

Perhaps I’m reading into this incorrectly [...]

And you are, all systems normal. My advice to you: don't paraphrase what I say, and don't add new words that weren't there in the first place. I am very precise about word choice, for a reason.

Turn count is not a "minor" consideration. Many things feed into turn count: healing, durability, mobility, offense, etc. Since we can't just turtle our way across the map and take all day long, this makes the difference between Ilyana and Gatrie's concrete durability actually mean something in practice.

An ideologue like dondon takes this to the point of absurdity, but he is a minority of one. Most Many people are reasonable, and recognize the intent behind taking turn counts into consideration: a way to weave together the multitude of things that differentiate units from each other, into something that can be measured, though imperfectly or subjectively. Even Paperblade understands the concept, he just doesn't like the implications of it.

I think we should tier characters based on who has the best lines.

We might as well just archive this thread into the Hall of Fame right now, at its peak. There's no way to improve upon the insight quoted here, which has pierced the swirling mists of uncertainty and struck at the true core of the matter, perhaps coming within a hairsbreadth of negating half of the thread merely with the force of its vision. Even though hope springs eternal, and this soldier waits on the edge of his seat in anticipation, in my heart of hearts I know that anything that follows can only be a shadow of a shadow by comparison.

[Paperblade]

Merging some responses from different people if I felt they said similar things. I wrote this over the period of like 8 hours with sometimes lengthy breaks in between so if a thought is incomplete that's probably why.

So 382 pages of discussion on the FE10 tier list is a 'complete and utter lack of discussion'.

Tangerine is correct. I don't attribute the lack of discussion to waning interest in the series, unless you are going to say that people who still check this forum on a near daily basis but no longer participate in tiers at all (or with heavily reduced activity) as well as those that quit arguing tiers here because they dislike how things are run.

I do not think that the tiering criteria is the major cause, although I do think that the overly broad nature of LTC/efficiency makes it too easy to create gamebreaking/cheese strategies, which inherently cause discussion to stagnate. As they say, restriction breeds creativity.

I guarantee that a tier list based on any of those things would get almost no interest. There are many things to discuss in a low turn count tier list, especially if optimal deployment isn't assumed (far too many people, and I do this as well, tend to assume the best characters are in play).

I don't think there's a way to rank characters in a completely objective fashion that is actually useful to what we want from our tier lists. By definition, being objective shouldn't leave room for discussion anyway, like with Pokemon tiers. I think turn counts is the best combination of at least trying to be objective and also getting discussion out of the list.

I was refuting the point that LTC is the most objective. I said those things are ridiculous because they are. Just because something is more objective does not mean it's better. Ranked tier lists were not exactly objective (people would often argue that X rank is less or more difficult and thus Unit A's contribution to it is more/less important). The point was what fosters discussion. I do not believe that LTC/efficiency does that.

The point is, that the tier list exists to answer the question "how good are the units in this game". I wouldn't say that growth total makes a unit good (Sanaki and Vika have high growth totals, for instance). I wouldn't say that availability makes a unit good. I wouldn't say that contributing to an EXP Rank when no such rank exists makes a unit good (even when the rank does exists, it's a struggle to assert that low level units are better than high level units). But I would definitely say that the ability to beat the game in a lower number of turns makes a unit good. The objective of the game is to beat it. All characters exist to contribute to that goal. The ones that achieve that goal fastest should be superior.

Why is beating a game faster by turn counts better? We have an infinite number of turns at our disposal save a handful of chapters (I believe it's just 1-1, 3-1, 3-3, and 4-E-5*).

dondon's argument from when I discussed it with him was that the epilogue/credit reel gives you your turns, but FE9 for example doesn't even give you your total turn count, which means that, say, total time taken or total levels gained (since time per chapter and each surviving unit's level are listed as well) are also valid. Total time taken is even more intuitive, since it's an actual measure of how fast we beat the game.

*On turn 10 Ashera stuns your whole team for several turns, so without Fortify healing there's a good chance her other attacks plus the spirits will kill you. Note that I'm not including defend chapters such as 1-5 because you win for spending that many turns.

That's a problem with any tier list that considers the value of different roles. In the same way that tier lists also have to balance easily replacable but powerful utility against unique but weaker utility, or being very useful for one chapter against being slightly useful for many chapters.

You realize my point was that SF tier lists are not as objective as some people would like to think they are, right? And that this statement only reinforces my belief in that?

If there's no opportunity cost and no downside to taking those resources, then why should we treat it as a negative? Just because you "feel" that the character "deserves" to be penalised for taking resources. Are you going to suggest that Ike go down since he's taking Ragnell, even though there's no opportunity cost and no downside for using it? Must Ike show that he can ORKO with a Bronze Sword in order to pass muster?

If there's no opportunity cost and no downside to taking those turns, then why should we treat it as a negative? Just because you "feel" that the character "deserves" to be penalised for taking turns. Are you going to suggest that Gatrie go down since he's taking turns, even though there's no opportunity cost and no downside for using it? Must Gatrie show that he can 4 turn 3-8 in order to pass muster?

Turns are resources, just as gold/items are. Why are turns less expendable than gold and items, despite turns being an infinite resource in most scenarios?

I personally don't rank characters based on how they contribute to a low turn count. I rank based on contribution to an efficient playthrough, with the definition left vague. However, I don't see any way around situations like 1-P Edward, or 2-1 Brom, or 1-9 BK other than handwaving it.

That brings me to another problem I have: if efficiency doesn't mean LTC, what does it mean? Leaving it intentionally vague sounds to me like an excuse to say "Well that's not what we're tiering for" if you dislike someone's argument or don't want to make a move. Say what you want about tiering for ranks, but at least the goal there is clear.

One could not possibly complete those chapters in a way I could call "efficient" without using those characters.

Could the same not be said for FE7 Marcus? Or Seth? Why are Edward's contributions discounted because they are "necessary" while Seth's are not?

At what point does a unit being too necessary to an "efficient" clear cause those contributions to not count?

Also recall that what led us to using turn counts was not being able to find a method that was objective enough for everyone to agree on. What did we get in the end? The realization that you can't please everyone. What a surprise.

Turn counts were agreed on because at some point, someone decided that most ranks are stupid and counter intuitive so we should only rank for Tactics (aka turn count).

You add other things. Availability, combat effectiveness, etc. There are plenty of things to take into account. Rarely do two characters end up being arguably equal. If they are, well, we make them equal. Is that a problem?

You are misinterpreting the point.

If Unit A saves 6 turns and Unit B can do the same thing to save 6 turns, but using both still only saves 6 turns, that's all well and good. But if Units C, D, and E are in a similar scenario (ie marginal returns) save 7 turns. And then maybe Unit F saves 5 turns and has a unique utility (such as dancing)

So if I'm debating Unit C vs. F

I can argue "well Unit C saves one more turn than Unit F, so Unit C is better," but then someone else could argue "Well Units D and E do the same thing as C so C's contribution should be valued less" and then there's the issue of how much C's contribution there should be valued less. This is even more of an issue when the units are not functionally identical in every aspect like Giffca/Cain.

You can say that this sort of situation never comes up, but if you'll recall this is similar to the dancer argument. Is the dancer better or are the units they're dancing for that may be replaceable better?

So even though we do things like this to keep discussion you accuse us of killing discussion? If you have a perfect method that allows discussion, I'd like to see it.

Why do I need to have a perfect solution to point out a problem? I talked to WJC, I talked to smash, I talked to Solide, and I talked to Inui. It doesn't take a genius to realize that they along with I quit tiers here because discussion here tends to suck. smash and I tried to make an alternate list for FE10 and Narga requested it be closed.

I don't think it's entirely the tiers' fault, nor do I think that's the primary issue. However, this topic isn't about "Why tiers are dead" (Well, I guess that's part of it), it's about how to fix the lack of activity. I agree with Prog that what we are tiering for is part of the issue and that going "Well it's the best we have!" isn't a convincing argument.

I don't see a problem with what we had before. The FE7 ranked list lasted a long time, much longer than, say, the FE9 list here. Then again, I also don't mind arguing something that's not relevant to "normal" playthrough and would be willing to argue something totally/mostly hypothetical.

Again, we do want to keep some discussion. I see turn counts as more of a guideline than a rule. Not everyone sees it the same way, but I believe that's what our lists tend to run on. Is it perfect? No. But I've not seen anyone coming up with anything better. And yes, people tried. People like CATS and that Solid guy or whatever. They didn't have much luck.

From what I recall that idea was not entirely serious due to the lack of respect and was more Solide trolling.

Why is that a problem?

It's redundant. ;/

I don't see how these are more objective. The order of the tier list would just be obvious and the only discussion would be where to have the tier gaps.

Objective, as described by Merriam-Webster

a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment>

So yes, that would be more objective, by definition of the word. Note that I am not saying there is anything wrong with it being less objective, but I dislike the holding of the current criteria (as vague as they are) on a pedestal as though it's the intuitive or best way to play the game.

If they reduce turns by the same amount, how do they not all reduce turns by the same amount?

Look at it this way: If I don't use this unit, I don't take extra turns because I have this other cool unit that fills the spot. Thus, I can argue this unit saves 0 turns because of the existence of this other unit. And I can argue with the units' names swapped. This means there needs to be a "uniqueness" clause on how much having your turns saved not being a utility unique to you needs to be reduced, which is subjective.

Now if only we HAD 10000g to spend on one weapon and didn't give a shit if we toss someone half the stat boosters. Except it's more efficient to, you know, distribute those stat boosters among a bunch of people and get a lot of very good people.

DS Forges

FE7 Marcus is generally assumed to get the only HM Dragonshield and the first Speedwings.

BEXP Dumps in FE9

Also, I think another reason there is less discussion is because the two newest games have tier lists for only the hardest modes.... in the series. As more units become necessary and more units become unusable, there's less and less to discuss.

FE11 had a lot of discussion until people realized that you could warpskip the game. Lunatic is obviously much more difficult and lacks discussion due to the nature of it (I don't think anything would really change that), I suppose.

[dondon151]

That brings me to another problem I have: if efficiency doesn't mean LTC, what does it mean? Leaving it intentionally vague sounds to me like an excuse to say "Well that's not what we're tiering for" if you dislike someone's argument or don't want to make a move. Say what you want about tiering for ranks, but at least the goal there is clear.

I think the meaning of the statement is that not all turns saved are created equal, which allows us to circumvent the problem created by few unit options at certain points in the game.

[Florete]

Turn counts were agreed on because at some point, someone decided that most ranks are stupid and counter intuitive so we should only rank for Tactics (aka turn count).

No. Going away from ranks eventually lead to it, but never did anyone decide "Let's only do Tactics." It started out as "Who beats the game the best/most reliably" and evolved into turn counts. We didn't decide it overnight.

You are misinterpreting the point.

If Unit A saves 6 turns and Unit B can do the same thing to save 6 turns, but using both still only saves 6 turns, that's all well and good. But if Units C, D, and E are in a similar scenario (ie marginal returns) save 7 turns. And then maybe Unit F saves 5 turns and has a unique utility (such as dancing)

So if I'm debating Unit C vs. F

I can argue "well Unit C saves one more turn than Unit F, so Unit C is better," but then someone else could argue "Well Units D and E do the same thing as C so C's contribution should be valued less" and then there's the issue of how much C's contribution there should be valued less. This is even more of an issue when the units are not functionally identical in every aspect like Giffca/Cain.

You can say that this sort of situation never comes up, but if you'll recall this is similar to the dancer argument. Is the dancer better or are the units they're dancing for that may be replaceable better?

Sounds like something worth discussing.

Why do I need to have a perfect solution to point out a problem?

Normally I'd say you don't, but this situation is different. We've had people point out this "problem" multiple times before, but no one, us or them, has ever come up with anything that could be agreed on as better. If you're just going to come in here and point out the same problem without even trying to offer a solution, you are only wasting our time.

I talked to WJC, I talked to smash, I talked to Solide, and I talked to Inui. It doesn't take a genius to realize that they along with I quit tiers here because discussion here tends to suck. smash and I tried to make an alternate list for FE10 and Narga requested it be closed.

Can't please everyone. Oh well. Some people also didn't like ranks.

I don't see a problem with what we had before.

Which is what exactly? Ranks? Note that those are as dead as any others. Also many FE's don't even have ranks to tier by.

It's redundant. ;/

Continue.

[Radiant Dragon]

A unit being able to save turns is a good thing not because they help us save turns, but because it often increases flexibility, giving us more options and allowing us to complete chapters easier (disregarding turtling). Dancers, staff users, fliers, high move and offensively/defensively powerful units all make planning easier and more strategies possible.

However, I don't agree with the mentality that we're speeding through chapters so quickly that it's nigh impossible to train growth units and Mages/Armors can't do anything (Armors are still bad due to taking heavy movement penalties and usually not being able to ORKO, while Mages are in the 'can't ORKO' boat in FE10 as well. But they shouldn't be bad because they can't get any EXP whatsoever).

The thing that bugs me the most though, is that we're assuming each chapter is completed as quickly as possible in the name of 'efficiency', even if there are benefits to staying longer with no drawbacks (FE9 ch.10 and 16, and FE10 2-E and 3-13 are examples of what I mean).

I guess what I'm trying to say is: Turncount itself isn't (or at least, shouldn't be) that important outside of Tactics rankings/Max BEXP requirements, but being able to save turns is important.

Edited June 21, 2011 by Radiant Dragon

[Dark Sage]

I personally don't think it's the concept of efficiency that is killing discussion in tier lists. I believe that it's a lack of interest in tiers themselves now, like what with other people said.

But if you want what I think the difference between a LTC/Maximum efficiency tier list and an efficiency tier list is, the former aims for maximum turncounts reduced at all times and only assumes the best team is in play. This makes sense because if the goal is to have as few turns as possible, then you're obviously going to use the best team. So in the FE6 list, the tiers might look like this:

Use these guys tier:

Lance

Alan

Dieck

Rutger

Miledy

Percival

Clarine

Marcus

Zealot

Thany

Lalum/Elphin

Echidna

Utility Tier:

Chad

Ashtol

Lugh

Ward

Bors

Lot

Sophia

Wendy

Barth

Oujay

Saul

Dorothy

Wolt

Ellen

Niime

Lilina

Cecilia

Yodel

Bottom Tier

Everyone else

Note that the utility tier list is composed of Jeigans, other staffers, thieves, and forced characters. I probably missed some characters but eh.

In an efficiency tier list, the mindset, at least to me, is that lower turn counts are obviously better but that we're NOT assuming we're aiming for the lowest amount of turns per chapter, like in maximum efficiency. If it's a game like FE9 or 10, then we're assuming that we're going beyond Max BEXP. We're also not assuming that we're always assuming higher tier characters will be in play, but we are going to see how likely they are to be in play based on their tier position when comparing how well a character does with a resource or when assuming a support partner on a character. The result of this is that we're not lumping everyone else who is not forced or who has thieving or staffing utility to the same tier, no matter how much one is shitstomping a unit in combat.

So in conclusion, LTC/Max efficiency is go for the lowest turncount always while standard efficiency is that lower turncount is better, but not the be all and end all.

I think I might also have an explanation for Edward. You see Edward's 1-P and his contributions from 1-1 to 1-5 are taken into account and are rewarded. The problem is he's not helping out a lot for the rest of the game. The thing is, saving turns is great even in small sections (which is why Edward is in Mid Tier instead of Lower Mid), but it's better to save turns throughout the entire game, not just one section. Or something like that.

I probably left something out and my analysis might be flawed, but I think I got the basic idea.

Edited June 21, 2011 by Roro

[Radiant Dragon]

I probably left something out

Well, Roy should be in Utility Tier, since he's not so bad that we shouldn't try to use him at all.

As for the issue with Edward/Black Knight/Brom and Neph etc., I'm not sure how to handle that. It's just yet another factor to add in when considering FE10 character placement, which is part of why I try to avoid its Tier List; It's often difficult to judge the value of two units who are never in the same situation (it's similar to trying to rank Oswin and Boyd in the same list, to give an extreme example).

[Rewjeo]

Objective, as described by Merriam-Webster

a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment>

So yes, that would be more objective, by definition of the word. Note that I am not saying there is anything wrong with it being less objective, but I dislike the holding of the current criteria (as vague as they are) on a pedestal as though it's the intuitive or best way to play the game.

So, basically turncounts are just as objective as any other option. We're arbitrarily choosing the criteria in any situation, and from there you assess it objectively (by dealing with facts (stats, availability, etc.) without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.) Unit A saves X turns, Unit B saves X-2 turns. Unit A>Unit B. Unit A has 5 chapters of availability. Unit B by has 7. Unit B>Unit A. In both cases, you're assessing the value of units objectively under an arbitrary set of rules.

Look at it this way: If I don't use this unit, I don't take extra turns because I have this other cool unit that fills the spot. Thus, I can argue this unit saves 0 turns because of the existence of this other unit. And I can argue with the units' names swapped. This means there needs to be a "uniqueness" clause on how much having your turns saved not being a utility unique to you needs to be reduced, which is subjective.

So we come up with a way to do it, since there seems to be either no objective way to do it or many objective ways between which we must subjectively choose. You can run into the same problem anywhere. For example, FE7 Availability tier list: who's better, Kent or Sain?

DS Forges

FE7 Marcus is generally assumed to get the only HM Dragonshield and the first Speedwings.

BEXP Dumps in FE9

How many 10000g forges are we making?

IIRC, we have more than four stat boosters in FE7. Honestly, this just strengthens my point. We're giving someone a few statboosters to get more good units.

So that we have more good units!

[Vykan12]

Since I keep seeing 1-P Edward come up, just wanted to chime in. IMO, a lot of units will have value by virtue of being force deployed on a small team, it happens in the earlygame of almost every FE in existence. The reason why the BK is good enough to divide by 0 in 1-9 is because you don't have a 3rd unit who could make the chapter beatable if we don't choose to use the BK.

So an initial idea, while sounding completely arbitrary, is to give more weight to standing out in a big army. Seth pulls this off; when you have 10+ unit slots he's still mopping the floor. Edward does not. Basically, we're accepting that being in a small army setting will implicitly make you more valuable, so you compensate for that to prevent conclusions most people would find absurd or unsettling (eg/ FE10 Brom >>> others for 2-1).