Defining Efficiency

[Anouleth]

Then why argue things that are based on things entirely arbitrary? Then we only waste time. If a tier list weren't objective we'd have no reason to argue them.

Well, I don't know about you, but I don't argue on tier lists because I have some absurd ideal of producing a perfectly accurate and unbiased tier list, because I can't stand the thought of my children growing up in a world with faulty and inaccurate tier lists that place Zihark above Mia. Producing such a list is just not really important. As Othin points out, a tier list has no practical value whatsoever. I argue on tier lists because I enjoy it. It's no more a waste of time than actually playing the game.

Okay, so obviously his turncount saving-ability is taken into account.

Yes. The problem is that it's impossible to reconcile his position on the two lists. Of course, if it were up to you, we wouldn't have a No Seth tier list at all, since playthroughs who don't use Seth are "inefficient" and apparently, objectively inferior.

The FE10 Tier List is stupid anyway.

Yes, because it's run by people who don't 100% agree with your personal definition of what makes a unit good. Therefore, it's stupid. Clearly, it's impossible that the people who worked on the list are as intelligent as you and just have a different set of priorities: no, they must be "stupid". It's a good thing we have geniuses like you to point out how stupid we are for expecting a tier list to consider more than just the perfect playthrough.

I think Elincia should be a lot higher than she is now based on that staff utility, yeah, but being above Soren is a stretch because Soren contributes to a couple things throughout the game (nothing major at all, though).

Pretty sure he doesn't. All he has is like, earlygame chipping, which is practically worthless. After all, according to you, Soren is not worth training; he's sub-optimal, and therefore probably won't be used past Chapter 7.

Sadly that's how it boils down to. It's as if you have optimal deployments except for one slot which is reserved for the unit in question, or mostly optimal deployments with a couple slots for suboptimal units.

I think that's ridiculous. Why should characters like Gatrie or Lethe be deployed in every chapter? Wouldn't it be a much more accurate view of their contributions to only consider the chapters in which they contribute? By that standard, we would have to deploy Wolt in every single chapter in the game because you want to "reserve" him a slot. Imagine bringing Wolt into 12x!

[Dark Sage]

I apologize now for whatever hostility I expressed out of that misinterpretation.

No problem. I should've been more tactful.

I'm not sure how it's childish. I got my way for Marcia vs Oscar and Tormod vs Soren, but the points we were arguing were... exactly the grievance I brought up in the OP. A 75% 2-turn vs a 95% 4-turn; whichever is more preferred in terms of a tier list is not specified at all, and I am suggesting a more measurable way to see which is better. In which case, the N / P formula actually mathematically matched up with some point dondon brought up and aku chi fiddled around with, so it was a lucky guess.

I'm not calling the argument childish either, I'm calling the tone you used childi-....you know what? Let's drop that point. It's not going to end pretty.

I tried arguing Geoffrey vs Soren but it lasted like two posts, and it said "hence they're two spaces apart, so it's not a big deal and hard to measure..." It's hard to even make a tier list for a game with specific strategies.

I actually agree Geoffery>Soren personally, but I can easily see why somebody would say that. To some people, Soren is indeed a mediocre to terrible unit, but because of an availability advantage and some tricks (like Resolve on him for instance), he can possibly contribute something and do it for a long enough time that it might cancel out or surpass Geoffery's two chapters of greatness and then his complete suckiness. Keep in mind, Geoffery is also not completely phenomenal either in his chapters. He still has to share some of his credit with Kieran and to a lesser extent, Marcia, so his chapters of greatness aren't that unique to him.

The specific strategies involving "x" character are more practical than the specific strategies involving "y" character is what I'm trying to judge things by. Exceptions like Edward are affected by the rule in a more different way, in that his non-forced chapters aren't held against him because those who *are* better than him are still ranked higher than him.

I'm also sort of making a plea to make some sort of compromise with that schism you mention.

I actually hate the idea of assuming specific strategies for tier lists in general unless it's like FE9 Chapter 10 or something. Colonel M's list I recall said that basically, while less turns spent is obviously better, other strategies that take longer, but are safer to pull off and still efficient fly by the list as well. So basically, the argument about the 75% chance of 2-turning vs the 90% chance of 4-turning becomes less important since the 4 turn clear is still efficient.

Characters like Marcia, Tanith, Jill, and the like are still rewarded for the ability to make stuff like the 2-turn strategy you were arguing above possible, so don't worry about that.

There are fundamental differences between each part of the game though. I wasn't necessarily suggesting parts; just "steady streams" of units like in a regular FE tier list. That way we don't have the weirdness of weighing Sothe's part 1 against a royal's part 4, or having to rank the gradually more powerful units you get every chapter (so you don't have to rank Muarim, Royals, Black Knight, etc against decent long-term units who are helping out in previous chapters). The way it works now is fundamentally flawed, so separating them into different "games" I guess makes far more sense to me because they fit the traditional FE game more.

The problem is this: people use FE tier lists in general measure how good a character is throughout the whole game. So if you tier Edward high in Part 1 for example but put him low in Part 3 and then Low Mid in Part 4, it can be difficult for some people to get a read on how good Edward is as a whole. This is because in this hypothetical situation, Edward is great in part 1 but for the rest of the game, he's poor to mediocre, but the separate tier lists don't actually say whether or not as a whole, Edward is a good unit. Whether Edward is a good unit here depends on whether you put more weight on his part 1 tier position vs both his part 3 and part 4. Also in this hypothetical, Sothe's tier positions would be Top tier in the part 1 list, mid tier for the part 3 list, and low or bottom in the part 4 list. This is similar to the Edward situation because here, Sothe's pretty mediocre to poor for the rest of the game like with Edward, only his Part 1 position is better. Obviously as a whole, this means Sothe>Edward but a more accurate list that measures all parts and THEN ranks them into one unified whole would rank it as Sothe>>>>Edward, which is more accurate.

I think I might've used bad examples or wording here, so if my point is obscured or is read in a way I didn't mean it to be, tell me.

Furthermore, the arguments applied to FE4's apply to FE10 but only to less of an extent because each portion of the game is indeed far too different in what/who you need and how you're supposed to play (read: difficulty spikes in Part 3) to tier it effectively. Much of what happens in Dawn Brigade chapters are independent of what happens in Part 2 and Greil Mercenaries. They all factor in together for Part 4 and endgame, but Part 4 is still independent of endgame in some ways.

I personally don't agree. While there is a fundamental difference between how Part 1 and the rest of the game is played, I don't see one between the rest of the parts. Well, I guess Part 2 is short and most of the units there are forced, so I guess there's some difference between that and Part 3 but not enough to justify a whole tier list devoted to that, especially since all the CRK sans Geoffery, Elincia, and Lucia join Ike's team as well.

Yeah I saw that and I actually didn't have much problem with what went on there generally.

Also keep in mind, Colonel M is busy these days with real life, so he doesn't often check the tier list that much anymore. Keep that in mind when it comes to making judgements about how Colonel M runs the list, since I don't think he agrees with everything you argued against there.

[Lord Raven]

Well, I don't know about you, but I don't argue on tier lists because I have some absurd ideal of producing a perfectly accurate and unbiased tier list, because I can't stand the thought of my children growing up in a world with faulty and inaccurate tier lists that place Zihark above Mia. Producing such a list is just not really important.

Then why argue in favor of anything in a tier list? It's not like your debating style actually argues tier lists- you only point out flaws in people's arguments.

Yes. The problem is that it's impossible to reconcile his position on the two lists. Of course, if it were up to you, we wouldn't have a No Seth tier list at all, since playthroughs who don't use Seth are "inefficient" and apparently, objectively inferior.

A No Seth tier list is fine, it just happens that using Seth is a lot more efficient than not using Seth. And his presence centralizes the game enough to make a no seth tier list viable; you're taking out a MASSIVE portion of the game in that list at all therefore warranting that sort of list. It's different than a no Titania tier list because Titania is overtaken.

Yes, because it's run by people who don't 100% agree with your personal definition of what makes a unit good. Therefore, it's stupid. Clearly, it's impossible that the people who worked on the list are as intelligent as you and just have a different set of priorities: no, they must be "stupid". It's a good thing we have geniuses like you to point out how stupid we are for expecting a tier list to consider more than just the perfect playthrough.

I am not saying the people are stupid I'm saying the concept of the list itself is stupid. I've repeatedly made these arguments do, and just because I wasn't addressing you doesn't mean I wasn't making the point. Don't play this strawman bullshit with me.

Pretty sure he doesn't. All he has is like, earlygame chipping, which is practically worthless. After all, according to you, Soren is not worth training; he's sub-optimal, and therefore probably won't be used past Chapter 7.

No, he won't, but if he's going to be used past Chapter 7 he's not that good which just goes to show that he's not exactly an optimal unit. Once again, don't take my argument to its logical extreme; Elincia may not be used in the case you end up building up Mist (or even Rhys) too, which makes *her* sorta hard to use.

I think that's ridiculous. Why should characters like Gatrie or Lethe be deployed in every chapter? Wouldn't it be a much more accurate view of their contributions to only consider the chapters in which they contribute? By that standard, we would have to deploy Wolt in every single chapter in the game because you want to "reserve" him a slot. Imagine bringing Wolt into 12x!

The specific strategies involving "x" character are more practical than the specific strategies involving "y" character is what I'm trying to judge things by. Exceptions like Edward are affected by the rule in a more different way, in that his non-forced chapters aren't held against him because those who *are* better than him are still ranked higher than him.

This argument was geared towards gunning down whether or not I was implying that. It was more directed towards units like Rolf and whatever else who don't otherwise have use; in order to make use of them they need to be deployed after all. Wolt doesn't need to be deployed past his forced chapters because he's already been used.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Mercenary Raven

[-Cynthia-]

Yeah I saw that and I actually didn't have much problem with what went on there generally.

Not to get off topic, but I think the FE7 list (as well as the abandoned FE12 list) is actually the worst tier list currently on the boards, because the tier list creAtor believes that his opinion has ingherent value, and that he can decide which characters can be discussed and which cannot. There also blanket statements like "Isadora will neever go above Heath', which ignores the possibility of an argument he hadn't thought of before changing his mind.

A tier list is a representation of the community, not the ideas of one person, and such stubborness discourages this.

Edited September 17, 2011 by -Cynthia-

[Anouleth]

Then why argue in favor of anything in a tier list? It's not like your debating style actually argues tier lists- you only point out flaws in people's arguments.

I'm perfectly happy to put forward arguments on tier lists that still seem to have potential, such as the FE8 draft tier list (still waiting for a reply on my staff users post). FE8 drafts seem to be poorly understood, with a lack of emphasis on staff ran. It just so happens that I think the FE9 tier list is fine as it is, and that FE9 has been picked over more than enough for me. It's just... rather boring to talk about. I don't think that any changes can be made without completely throwing out the current criteria, as you seem to be leaning towards.

You know, instead of trying to ruin a perfectly fine FE9 tier list, why not just make your own one? It's clear that your priorities are different enough from the current list (with a greater emphasis on using only an optimum team) to deserve it.

A No Seth tier list is fine, it just happens that using Seth is a lot more efficient than not using Seth. And his presence centralizes the game enough to make a no seth tier list viable; you're taking out a MASSIVE portion of the game in that list at all therefore warranting that sort of list.

That has nothing to do with it. A No Seth tier list ignores the most efficient way to play the game in order to foster debate.

I am not saying the people are stupid I'm saying the concept of the list itself is stupid. I've repeatedly made these arguments do, and just because I wasn't addressing you doesn't mean I wasn't making the point. Don't play this strawman bullshit with me.

Stupid is as stupid does. You cannot have your cake and eat it too: you cannot call an idea or concept stupid without also implying that the person who came up with was stupid to do so.

No, he won't, but if he's going to be used past Chapter 7 he's not that good which just goes to show that he's not exactly an optimal unit. Once again, don't take my argument to its logical extreme; Elincia may not be used in the case you end up building up Mist (or even Rhys) too, which makes *her* sorta hard to use.

But Soren isn't going to be used past Chapter 7. That's the whole point of an optimal playthrough. Soren just doesn't contribute to it: his negatives are greater than his positives. If you force Soren to be deployed and trained, then he actually turns into a net negative on the team, which pushes him even under characters like Ena who do practically nothing. Soren doesn't save any turns if you drag him through the game because, as you said yourself, there are better uses of the experience.

This argument was geared towards gunning down whether or not I was implying that. It was more directed towards units like Rolf and whatever else who don't otherwise have use; in order to make use of them they need to be deployed after all. Wolt doesn't need to be deployed past his forced chapters because he's already been used.

Rolf has a forced chapter. Use him in that. Okay, he has only 1 forced chapter against Wolt's 5, but that's why Rolf isn't as good as Wolt.

[Aethereal]

This argument was geared towards gunning down whether or not I was implying that. It was more directed towards units like Rolf and whatever else who don't otherwise have use; in order to make use of them they need to be deployed after all. Wolt doesn't need to be deployed past his forced chapters because he's already been used.

You're putting a subjective and arbitrary ending to when Wolt is deployed, and on each and every character in every game? I'm sure there are chapters where Lethe or Gatrie, to use the previous example, are less of a liability, or somewhat helpful, if you only throw them in that chapter. The logical conclusion, not the logical extreme, would be that Lethe or Gatrie are only used for those chapters, so that the standard is the same for them as it is for Wolt.

Tiering can either be done by a) Determining exactly who contributes exactly what to the singular most optimal playthrough, or b) a subjective list. Having a subjective list is by no means a bad thing, it encourages people to try to play the game in ways that are different from that optimal playthrough, one which I imagine very few people are actually interested in trying to do that optimal playthrough. "Defining" efficiency limits the conversation, and makes the conversation that is had less practical.

[Lord Raven]

You know, instead of trying to ruin a perfectly fine FE9 tier list, why not just make your own one? It's clear that your priorities are different enough from the current list (with a greater emphasis on using only an optimum team) to deserve it.

I'm not making my own FE9 tier list. In fact, the thread itself is having a massive shitfest about efficiency and whatnot that I created this thread particularly to address. Furthermore, my priorities are not all that much different from the current list, you just seem to love coming in to think you're correcting me when in reality you are not at all correcting me.

Nowhere have I stated that my priorities take into account one optimal run. Nowhere do I even state that that's how a tier list should be. But if a character contributes to an optimal strategy, they should be ranked much higher than a character who doesn't. That is obvious. Stop saying shit that isn't true.

That has nothing to do with it. A No Seth tier list ignores the most efficient way to play the game in order to foster debate.

Yes, it does, and its purpose is to convey a tier list where Seth- a character who is a couple thousand miles ahead of every other character in the game- is removed. Note the statement between the hyphens; that is the most important part and that is a much easier and more effective tier list to argue simply because you see the use of *many* units going up simply because you remove Seth from the game.

Stupid is as stupid does. You cannot have your cake and eat it too: you cannot call an idea or concept stupid without also implying that the person who came up with was stupid to do so.

Yes you can. I know plenty of smart people that come up with stupid ideas, there is no implication that the person saying something stupid is stupid. "Stupid is as stupid does" is just a blank saying that conveys an otherwise irrelevant and inaccurate point, but for the purposes of this debate this argument holds absolutely no water and is pointless.

But Soren isn't going to be used past Chapter 7. That's the whole point of an optimal playthrough. Soren just doesn't contribute to it: his negatives are greater than his positives. If you force Soren to be deployed and trained, then he actually turns into a net negative on the team, which pushes him even under characters like Ena who do practically nothing. Soren doesn't save any turns if you drag him through the game because, as you said yourself, there are better uses of the experience.

Soren doesn't contribute very much to an optimal playthrough at all. That's why he is a mid tier. He does better to save turns than the characters below him, but the characters above him (namely high tier and above) contribute much more significantly to the optimal playthrough. No characters that tend to be below Soren are used in an optimal playthrough either, at least not long-term.

Rolf has a forced chapter. Use him in that. Okay, he has only 1 forced chapter against Wolt's 5, but that's why Rolf isn't as good as Wolt.

Rolf's forced chapter has him performing extremely poorly, pumping BEXP into him has him performing poorly and doing absolutely nothing to contribute to a lower turncount... so he is a poor unit. The tier list accurately reflects this.

You're putting a subjective and arbitrary ending to when Wolt is deployed, and on each and every character in every game? I'm sure there are chapters where Lethe or Gatrie, to use the previous example, are less of a liability, or somewhat helpful, if you only throw them in that chapter. The logical conclusion, not the logical extreme, would be that Lethe or Gatrie are only used for those chapters, so that the standard is the same for them as it is for Wolt.

How is it subjective and arbitrary? Wolt's post-chapter 5 isn't very heavy factoring as his very minor pre-chapter 5 contributions. You can tell by the pre-Chapter 5 that his performance is poor and if you pour resources into him he is still poor so... since he's not even required past chapter 5, he cannot be considered a hindrance simply because you have the option to not use him.

"Defining" efficiency limits the conversation, and makes the conversation that is had less practical.

So you actually would rather have an inaccurate and incomplete tier list than a set-in-stone tier list? (Probably not, the tone I see is 'I'm not sure what I want here') Because I always thought the purpose of those discussions was to work towards a tier list that's set in stone. Otherwise, why keep arguing? Many of you guys get very hostile, passive-aggressive, and everything over not wanting to change something yet at the same time want to encourage conversation.

Forgot about clockwork sage, since he was actually pretty nice in his post.

No problem. I should've been more tactful.

No you were fine.

I'm not calling the argument childish either, I'm calling the tone you used childi-....you know what? Let's drop that point. It's not going to end pretty.

Your mother is a whore

I actually agree Geoffery>Soren personally, but I can easily see why somebody would say that. To some people, Soren is indeed a mediocre to terrible unit, but because of an availability advantage and some tricks (like Resolve on him for instance), he can possibly contribute something and do it for a long enough time that it might cancel out or surpass Geoffery's two chapters of greatness and then his complete suckiness. Keep in mind, Geoffery is also not completely phenomenal either in his chapters. He still has to share some of his credit with Kieran and to a lesser extent, Marcia, so his chapters of greatness aren't that unique to him.

Which still kinda makes it hard to create a full tier list for something like that... because the way you use Soren in Part 3 is completely different to how you'd use Geoffrey in Part 2. You use Geoffrey to combine with Kieran to clear the map (Brave Lance kills the boss easily and allows him to Seize, by the way, so he actually does do a bit more than Kieran; Marcia runs into problems with the Bowguns later on and a couple bow users early on). He makes unique contributions despite not being unique in being a good unit, in other words. It basically gets weird because you get into cycles of relativity that... it's easy to shrug off one's relative position to another unit, while.. blah, it's hard to express my point about this. It's just... weird.

I actually hate the idea of assuming specific strategies for tier lists in general unless it's like FE9 Chapter 10 or something. Colonel M's list I recall said that basically, while less turns spent is obviously better, other strategies that take longer, but are safer to pull off and still efficient fly by the list as well. So basically, the argument about the 75% chance of 2-turning vs the 90% chance of 4-turning becomes less important since the 4 turn clear is still efficient.

The problem with FE10 is that you don't necessarily assume specific strategies, but you often need a couple specific strategies in order to keep an efficient clear intact for FE10. That's just the way the game ended up being designed, especially in HM where you don't gain enough EXP in Part 1 to make much use of growth units especially when playing efficiently.

The problem is this: people use FE tier lists in general measure how good a character is throughout the whole game. So if you tier Edward high in Part 1 for example but put him low in Part 3 and then Low Mid in Part 4, it can be difficult for some people to get a read on how good Edward is as a whole. This is because in this hypothetical situation, Edward is great in part 1 but for the rest of the game, he's poor to mediocre, but the separate tier lists don't actually say whether or not as a whole, Edward is a good unit. Whether Edward is a good unit here depends on whether you put more weight on his part 1 tier position vs both his part 3 and part 4. Also in this hypothetical, Sothe's tier positions would be Top tier in the part 1 list, mid tier for the part 3 list, and low or bottom in the part 4 list. This is similar to the Edward situation because here, Sothe's pretty mediocre to poor for the rest of the game like with Edward, only his Part 1 position is better. Obviously as a whole, this means Sothe>Edward but a more accurate list that measures all parts and THEN ranks them into one unified whole would rank it as Sothe>>>>Edward, which is more accurate.

Well... actually, my part-by-part is flawed once you hit Part 4 because there are a lot of assumptions you have to make for Part 4. Therefore, I'm contemplating just cutting it off at Part 4 (since in Part 4 you spam your royals and most built up units which vary the most from playthrough to playthrough).. But that is beside the point. Part 4 tiers are horribly inefficient, and I was actually considering limited it to Dawn Brigade and Greil Mercenaries because they have rather non-arbitrary cutoffs. Part 4 gets into an entire realm of subjectivity, because there are a number of units that are viable in an efficiency playthrough that can easily be fit into the final chapter (namely in the Greil Mercs- Shinon, Mia, Boyd, Gatrie, Tits, Oscar). It makes it hard to judge characters like Edward who are not likely to be used in an efficient playthrough, at least not long term.

If you place Edward in the Dawn Brigade tier list- Part 1 + 3-6, 3-12, and 3-13- you'll see him in something like mid tier. Oddly enough, not too different from his position on the regular tier list. This shows that he is a useful unit in about a quarter of the Dawn Brigade chapters.

I think I might've used bad examples or wording here, so if my point is obscured or is read in a way I didn't mean it to be, tell me.

I think you might've assumed a couple things since I said "part-by-part" when I meant "strip-by-strip" (better way of putting it) but you were just about fine. But generally it is iffy because of one fact- it added a "you" factor in there. It's just that if we're arguing a tier list to the best it can be, isn't the purpose to be as objective as possible? Of course it won't be 100% accurate but it's getting there that we want, and the FE10 tier list has no measured weight to how each unit contributes to each chapter simply because of how specific it requires you to be strategically.

I personally don't agree. While there is a fundamental difference between how Part 1 and the rest of the game is played, I don't see one between the rest of the parts. Well, I guess Part 2 is short and most of the units there are forced, so I guess there's some difference between that and Part 3 but not enough to justify a whole tier list devoted to that, especially since all the CRK sans Geoffery, Elincia, and Lucia join Ike's team as well.

Part 2 was actually contemplated for scrapping. I think it should be scrapped at this point, and it should still only exist in the OP for S&G since it's a stupid tier list. Greil Mercs and Dawn Brigade are long enough to have their own tier list.

Also keep in mind, Colonel M is busy these days with real life, so he doesn't often check the tier list that much anymore. Keep that in mind when it comes to making judgements about how Colonel M runs the list, since I don't think he agrees with everything you argued against there.

Colonel M is running FE6 though isn't he? I wasn't actually complaining about him not making changes. In fact, I wasn't complaining about anyone making changes; what I was complaining about was the way these things were defined because even if my suggestions ended up being added to the tier list we're still having this large argument about "what is efficient and what isn't, and why 75% is so unreliable." idk Edited September 17, 2011 by Mercenary Raven

[Aethereal]

How is it subjective and arbitrary? Wolt's post-chapter 5 isn't very heavy factoring as his very minor pre-chapter 5 contributions. You can tell by the pre-Chapter 5 that his performance is poor and if you pour resources into him he is still poor so... since he's not even required past chapter 5, he cannot be considered a hindrance simply because you have the option to not use him.

So you actually would rather have an inaccurate and incomplete tier list than a set-in-stone tier list? (Probably not, the tone I see is 'I'm not sure what I want here') Because I always thought the purpose of those discussions was to work towards a tier list that's set in stone. Otherwise, why keep arguing? Many of you guys get very hostile, passive-aggressive, and everything over not wanting to change something yet at the same time want to encourage conversation.

How can being unusable/bad after a certain point not be considered a hindrance? It's arbitrary and subjective to decide to choose when to stop using Wolt, and not doing the same for every other character, which is what I meant to type, so I apologize for the misunderstanding. It should read "And not on each and every character in every game". By your standard of efficiency, which is a subjective standard, every character is only used at optimal times. That means that units who aren't 100% optimal would never be used unless they have forced chapters. So, to keep with the FE6 example, take Fir. Are you willing to say Fir<Wolt? Because, I'm at least relatively sure she isn't necessary for an optimal run, but can be a much better unit, for a much longer part of the game than Wolt. It's a limiting standard to make every character used only for a certain number of chapters to fit an optimal playthrough, not used at all, or used every chapter no matter what, and used in a very specific manner each time.

I'm also saying it's impractical: Do you play the most optimal playthrough in each game? If not, what do you gain, hope to gain, or enjoy about discussing a playstyle that you don't personally engage in? Not only that, since most every one here doesn't play that way, what does any one have to gain? Why can't the subjective lists, by subjective standards, be used to gauge the usefulness of characters considering who does what is subjective? Every playthrough is not the same, going under the assumption that they are is limiting the conversation.

Also, I'm not sure how I was being hostile or passive-aggressive. I don't think having conversation where I don't insult any one, think poorly of any one, or attack any one is being either. I don't think badly of you, or any one else in this topic for that matter, I was just stating my opinion. =/

Edited September 17, 2011 by Aethereal

[Lord Raven]

How can being unusable/bad after a certain point not be considered a hindrance? It's arbitrary and subjective to decide to choose when to stop using Wolt, and not doing the same for every other character, which is what I meant to type, so I apologize for the misunderstanding. It should read "And not on each and every character in every game". By your standard of efficiency, which is a subjective standard, every character is only used at optimal times. That means that units who aren't 100% optimal would never be used unless they have forced chapters. So, to keep with the FE6 example, take Fir. Are you willing to say Fir<Wolt? Because, I'm at least relatively sure she isn't necessary for an optimal run, but can be a much better unit, for a much longer part of the game than Wolt. It's a limiting standard to make every character used only for a certain number of chapters to fit an optimal playthrough, not used at all, or used every chapter no matter what, and used in a very specific manner each time.

No, that's not quite what I am arguing.

Wolt has 5 chapters of deployment, which is a solid amount of time to judge his worth. As it so happens, as we progress through those five chapters, his use goes further down and down... and after those five chapters it gets absolutely worse. Obviously, it's easy to keep him out of harms way and everything so his worth overall may as well cut off after his first 5 chapters; I guess he's a liability afterwards, but there is a point where using him is a lot less efficient than not using him.

Fir has plenty of time to be used when she joins and at least has some offense to lean back on. She still is only "okay" for a couple of chapters, but that's about it before her use also starts dwindling and becoming a hindrance. Therefore, she can't lose points once she becomes a hindrance simply because you have the option to not use her. The fact that one would be ranked below Wolt in this instance means that they are a very bad unit for ANY chapter they can be deployed in and have absolutely no use or have a completely negative contribution if you attempt to use them.

I'm also saying it's impractical: Do you play the most optimal playthrough in each game? If not, what do you gain, hope to gain, or enjoy about discussing a playstyle that you don't personally engage in? Not only that, since most every one here doesn't play that way, what does any one have to gain? Why can't the subjective lists, by subjective standards, be used to gauge the usefulness of characters considering who does what is subjective? Every playthrough is not the same, going under the assumption that they are is limiting the conversation.

Most people don't play optimally or even efficiently? Why argue an efficiency tier list if you don't play efficiently? Why are all these tier lists judging subjectivity? Why would they provoke arguments that try to argue things objectively if they're really judging a subjective value? I know every playthrough is not the same, and I am not saying we should take only the optimal playthrough into account.

Besides, the main person arguing against me was the same exact guy who kept shooting down some of my arguments because the character(s) in question are "not being used in an efficient playthrough"... the same exact guy. Anouleth, what is your viewpoint? You're all of a sudden arguing that suboptimal characters that will almost never see action in an efficiency playthrough should be judged based on them seeing use but you used to say to me that a character would never be used in an efficiency playthrough therefore they are bottom tier? You know, I made the "we may as well separate into used and unused" way before you started saying it.

Also, I'm not sure how I was being hostile or passive-aggressive. I don't think having conversation where I don't insult any one, think poorly of any one, or attack any one is being either. I don't think badly of you, or any one else in this topic for that matter, I was just stating my opinion. =/

Wasn't talking about you, sorry if I gave that impression.

[Anouleth]

I'm not making my own FE9 tier list. In fact, the thread itself is having a massive shitfest about efficiency and whatnot that I created this thread particularly to address. Furthermore, my priorities are not all that much different from the current list, you just seem to love coming in to think you're correcting me when in reality you are not at all correcting me.

Except that clearly your priorities are different. You simply think that non-optimal runs are almost irrelevant and should be used only as a tiebreaker. Clearly that's not what the tier list suggests, or suboptimal characters like Brom, Nephenee, and Soren would be chilling at the bottom below Elincia and Geoffrey who do far more in an optimal run than they do.

Nowhere have I stated that my priorities take into account one optimal run.

Of course you did. You said that characters who contribute to an optimal run (like Elincia, Geoffrey) should be above characters who contribute less or nothing to an optimal run (Brom, Nephenee, Soren). How is that not taking into account an optimal playthrough?

Nowhere do I even state that that's how a tier list should be. But if a character contributes to an optimal strategy, they should be ranked much higher than a character who doesn't. That is obvious. Stop saying shit that isn't true.

How is saying "characters who contribute more to an optimal strategy should be above characters who contribute less to an optimal strategy" not the same as "a greater emphasis on using only an optimum team"?

Yes, it does, and its purpose is to convey a tier list where Seth- a character who is a couple thousand miles ahead of every other character in the game- is removed. Note the statement between the hyphens; that is the most important part and that is a much easier and more effective tier list to argue simply because you see the use of *many* units going up simply because you remove Seth from the game.

How is it less effective? You just said that characters should be ranked almost entirely on their contribution to an optimum playthrough. Yet now, you think that the optimum playthrough should be disregarded to give other characters a chance? You should make up your mind. Should tier lists prioritise optimum playthroughs or not?

The tier list as it is is neither easier or more effective. It's not easier since you have to consider a greater range of playthroughs (rather than only one optimum playthrough), and it's not more effective since tier lists don't have a specific purpose.

Soren doesn't contribute very much to an optimal playthrough at all. That's why he is a mid tier.

And he should be in bottom tier. Chipping in earlygame is barely better than what Rolf does. Even Bastian picking up a siege tome in lategame is comparable to that.

That is, unless you insist on deploying Soren throughout the whole game. Then, he's possibly a negative since he's taking resources away from other units, which could potentially cost turns. Meaning he'd go below Ena.

He does better to save turns than the characters below him, but the characters above him (namely high tier and above) contribute much more significantly to the optimal playthrough. No characters that tend to be below Soren are used in an optimal playthrough either, at least not long-term.

List of characters below Soren that are used more than him in an optimum playthrough: Calill, Rhys, Geoffrey, Elincia, Haar, Sothe, Shinon, Gatrie. Maybe not long term, but a longer term than him. I mean, you'll be only using very few characters "long term" in an optimum playthrough. Maybe eight, plus some other utility characters like Mordecai, Mist, Reyson.

I can't say that Soren saves more turns than anyone below him. Sothe and Volke certainly save more turns than him, even if you make them share credit for the Boots.

Rolf's forced chapter has him performing extremely poorly, pumping BEXP into him has him performing poorly and doing absolutely nothing to contribute to a lower turncount... so he is a poor unit. The tier list accurately reflects this.

If you force Rolf to be deployed and trained and used, he is a negative. Thus, he should be at the bottom of the tier list because even Ena doesn't actively suck BEXP away.

How is it subjective and arbitrary? Wolt's post-chapter 5 isn't very heavy factoring as his very minor pre-chapter 5 contributions. You can tell by the pre-Chapter 5 that his performance is poor and if you pour resources into him he is still poor so... since he's not even required past chapter 5, he cannot be considered a hindrance simply because you have the option to not use him.

So it's fine to declare that you won't use Wolt after five chapters because his performance is poor and because he doesn't give a return on resources, but you can't declare you won't use Rolf after one chapter because his performance is poor and because he doesn't give a return on resources. This seems completely arbitrary.

So you actually would rather have an inaccurate and incomplete tier list than a set-in-stone tier list? (Probably not, the tone I see is 'I'm not sure what I want here') Because I always thought the purpose of those discussions was to work towards a tier list that's set in stone. Otherwise, why keep arguing? Many of you guys get very hostile, passive-aggressive, and everything over not wanting to change something yet at the same time want to encourage conversation.

The FE9 tier list, at least, is accurate. It accurately ranks characters based on their contribution to an efficient playthrough. It is set in stone. You just want to change it so that it places greater emphasis on the optimal playthrough. The tier list was not inaccurate or incomplete, it was just measuring something that you weren't.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Anouleth

[GreatEclipse]

If an optimum efficiency run is assumed, Wolt > Fir no questions asked. His early chipping can effect minimum turn counts, nothing Fir does ever will, nothing more to discuss.

[Loki Laufeyson]

Isnt efficiency just how to go about getting the lowest turncounts (or in Tellius games' case, also max bonus experience) anyway? Thats what i thought.

[eclipse]

I thought efficiency was getting the desired outcome with the least amount of effort. For the most part, it seems to be turn counts. For me, it's the least number of resets. . .but I'm weird like that.

[dondon151]

It's some medium between the two. There's lowest turncounts in the sense of beamcrash's FE6 NM WIP on his YouTube channel. Then there's stuff that's actually humanly possible.

[Othin]

I thought efficiency was getting the desired outcome with the least amount of effort. For the most part, it seems to be turn counts. For me, it's the least number of resets. . .but I'm weird like that.

This is the difference between turn-efficiency and other forms of efficiency, and why using the general term "efficiency" to refer specifically to the specific branch of efficiency correctly referred to as turn-efficiency is simply wrong.

[-Cynthia-]

I think one of the main issues with defining efficiency is assuming whether characters are deployed or not, how long they are deployed for, and if they are "punished" for taking up a slot. There isn't a right answer to these questions but this is usually what I assume:

Character uis deployed in every chapter they are in. This becomes tricky for characters who start off good and then decline sharply (like FE6 Marcus), or when the amount of available slots decreases significantly (gaiden chapters for instance).

Characters are not punished for taking up a slot. Basically this measures what characters can do, instead of what other characters could have done with the same slot. Their performance relative to other characters is still important, but it is an attempt to avoid double jeopardy situations. For example, Fir being worse than Rutger is already represented by her being below him, conaidering that we could have fielded him over Fir in a Fir vs. Klein comparison doesn't seem especially relevant to me.

Edited September 17, 2011 by -Cynthia-

[Lord Raven]

Except that clearly your priorities are different. You simply think that non-optimal runs are almost irrelevant and should be used only as a tiebreaker. Clearly that's not what the tier list suggests, or suboptimal characters like Brom, Nephenee, and Soren would be chilling at the bottom below Elincia and Geoffrey who do far more in an optimal run than they do.

Strawman.

Of course you did. You said that characters who contribute to an optimal run (like Elincia, Geoffrey) should be above characters who contribute less or nothing to an optimal run (Brom, Nephenee, Soren). How is that not taking into account an optimal playthrough?

Strawman, but I did make those points (and I brought one to the actual tier list thread and it was shrugged off).

How is saying "characters who contribute more to an optimal strategy should be above characters who contribute less to an optimal strategy" not the same as "a greater emphasis on using only an optimum team"?

It's not. If they can contribute to an optimum strategy in a large amount of chapters- Read: High tier, top tier, Titania- then they should be ranked higher because obviously they can contribute to less effective-yet-still-efficient strategies better than others (utility units being the exception, but they're always useful in a bunch of strategies). It's not the same because the former still allows room for alternate strategies; the latter does not.

How is it less effective? You just said that characters should be ranked almost entirely on their contribution to an optimum playthrough. Yet now, you think that the optimum playthrough should be disregarded to give other characters a chance? You should make up your mind. Should tier lists prioritise optimum playthroughs or not?

Hyperbole. I said nothing of the sort.

The tier list as it is is neither easier or more effective. It's not easier since you have to consider a greater range of playthroughs (rather than only one optimum playthrough), and it's not more effective since tier lists don't have a specific purpose.

Not what I said.

And he should be in bottom tier. Chipping in earlygame is barely better than what Rolf does. Even Bastian picking up a siege tome in lategame is comparable to that.

Chipping in early game where we need it is a lot better than what Rolf does, and his post-forced deployment performance is way better than Rolf's non-forced deployment. Pumping resources into Soren makes him competent for many more reasons than Rolf.

That is, unless you insist on deploying Soren throughout the whole game. Then, he's possibly a negative since he's taking resources away from other units, which could potentially cost turns. Meaning he'd go below Ena.

I said nothing of the sort.

I can't say that Soren saves more turns than anyone below him. Sothe and Volke certainly save more turns than him, even if you make them share credit for the Boots.

Sothe can't do that, Volke can (Sothe dies too easily). Also not the point.

If you force Rolf to be deployed and trained and used, he is a negative. Thus, he should be at the bottom of the tier list because even Ena doesn't actively suck BEXP away.

Ena can take on Ashnard too with Wrath/Resolve in case you didn't use Ike.

So it's fine to declare that you won't use Wolt after five chapters because his performance is poor and because he doesn't give a return on resources, but you can't declare you won't use Rolf after one chapter because his performance is poor and because he doesn't give a return on resources. This seems completely arbitrary.

Not at all. Why would you use a unit way after they stop being useful? Wolt stopped being useful in like Chapter 3. It's basic common sense. Rolf stopped being useful immediately (never useful to begin with) so it makes sense he's as low as he is.

The FE9 tier list, at least, is accurate. It accurately ranks characters based on their contribution to an efficient playthrough. It is set in stone. You just want to change it so that it places greater emphasis on the optimal playthrough. The tier list was not inaccurate or incomplete, it was just measuring something that you weren't.

Point made from Strawmen.

I made a point about your own attitude to the FE10 tier list earlier. I did address it to you, and I'll quote it for your convenience:

Besides, the main person arguing against me was the same exact guy who kept shooting down some of my arguments because the character(s) in question are "not being used in an efficient playthrough"... the same exact guy. Anouleth, what is your viewpoint? You're all of a sudden arguing that suboptimal characters that will almost never see action in an efficiency playthrough should be judged based on them seeing use but you used to say to me that a character would never be used in an efficiency playthrough therefore they are bottom tier? You know, I made the "we may as well separate into used and unused" way before you started saying it.

Response is expected, not requested.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Mercenary Raven

[Anouleth]

Strawman.

Strawman, but I did make those points (and I brought one to the actual tier list thread and it was shrugged off).

It's not.

Hyperbole. I said nothing of the sort.

Not what I said.

You're being silly. You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want the tier list to tier characters based on their optimal playthrough contribution using non-optimal playthroughs as a tie breaker, but you also want to say that you're not arguing for an increased emphasis on optimal playthroughs, and you also don't want Elincia above Brom, and you also don't get how you were shrugged off because nobody wants an optimal deployment tier list except you.

If they can contribute to an optimum strategy in a large amount of chapters- Read: High tier, top tier, Titania- then they should be ranked higher because obviously they can contribute to less effective-yet-still-efficient strategies better than others (utility units being the exception, but they're always useful in a bunch of strategies). It's not the same because the former still allows room for alternate strategies; the latter does not.

But that's not what you said.

So what you're saying is that you do want an optimal playthrough tier list, only you use suboptimal playthroughs as a tie-breaker for the units who are unused in optimal play (or who are identical in optimal play)?

Sadly that's how it boils down to. It's as if you have optimal deployments except for one slot which is reserved for the unit in question, or mostly optimal deployments with a couple slots for suboptimal units.

I'm not suggesting that, but if someone contributes to more optimum strategies than someone else then they should obviously be higher.

So in other words, we don't care about "less effective yet still efficient strategies", we don't want "room for alternate strategies". We're tiering characters on the basis of an optimal playthrough.

Chipping in early game where we need it is a lot better than what Rolf does, and his post-forced deployment performance is way better than Rolf's non-forced deployment. Pumping resources into Soren makes him competent for many more reasons than Rolf.

Pumping resources into Soren makes him a negative. He saves no turns, and would probably even cost turns if you insisted on dragging him through the game instead of someone better.

Sothe can't do that, Volke can (Sothe dies too easily). Also not the point.

What is the point then? You seem perfectly happy to flap your jaw about optimal playthroughs and how great they are, but when someone actually points out the result of your logic, suddenly it's a "strawman" and "not your point" and "not what you were saying".

Ena can take on Ashnard too with Wrath/Resolve in case you didn't use Ike.

That sounds like the exact opposite of "optimal deployment" to me. Using Ena over Ike? That's the stupidest thing I ever heard.

Not at all. Why would you use a unit way after they stop being useful? Wolt stopped being useful in like Chapter 3. It's basic common sense. Rolf stopped being useful immediately (never useful to begin with) so it makes sense he's as low as he is.

Oh, okay, so you agree that neither Wolt nor Rolf should be deployed then since neither of them are useful?

Point made from Strawmen.

So go ahead then. If you don't want to put greater emphasis on the optimal playthrough, what do you want to do?

Response is expected, not requested.

Typically, when I say "we may as well seperate the tier list into used and not used", I'm being facetious. If I said otherwise, I was incorrect. In addition, I don't know exactly what characters he's talking about. Certainly, there are characters that I would say can't be used in an efficient playthrough (such as Oliver, Lyre, Wendy) since they are just so awful, but there's a big difference between "only optimal characters" and permitting trash like Sophia to be used.

[GreatEclipse]

You cannot just say "strawman", you need to explain what the real argument was. You still have not explained why Fir > Wolt on the FE6 list if an optimum efficiency run is assumed. You rhetorically ask "Why would you use a unit way after they stop being useful?", but Fir stops being useful after half a chapter with that kind of play style (And only that kind), which is 2.5 - 4.5 less than Wolt.

Edited September 17, 2011 by GreatEclipse

[Lord Raven]

If he's going to keep using a strawman fallacy then I will damn well keep saying it. You guys exaggerated every single thing I have said to oblivion so I'm done arguing once you get over the fact that I did not state that we were assuming the tier list is based upon optimal strategies. People merely took my words as such when in reality that is not at all what I was saying.

How else are you supposed to judge a unit's efficiency? I stated that we could judge a unit's efficiency based upon the fact that most of the other unit slots are used by the best characters at that point in the game- I never stated that the tier list is entirely based upon optimal deployment. This point was not only brought up by me but people like Mekkah too, and frankly how else *would* you judge units?

but Fir stops being useful after half a chapter with that kind of play style

If that were truly the case she wouldn't be where she is. But she has decent enough offense against Brigands and Fighters in the following chapter and she is able to contribute WAY more in the next couple chapters than Wolt can in his own chapters. In fact, Wolt's chipping is barely worth anything in the chapters he's in; he's not even *that* useful for when he exists but this is for neither here nor there. Edited September 17, 2011 by Mercenary Raven

[GreatEclipse]

If that were truly the case she wouldn't be where she is. But she has decent enough offense against Brigands and Fighters in the following chapter and she is able to contribute WAY more in the next couple chapters than Wolt can in his own chapters. In fact, Wolt's chipping is barely worth anything in the chapters he's in; he's not even *that* useful for when he exists but this is for neither here nor there.

Fir is where she is under the old assumptions about how fast chapters were completed, which was fast but not so fast she could never reach a decent level. If we are shooting for the "optimum" turn counts, she has a difficult time even reaching 10/-- before it is too late to matter, and never does anything in the mean time that makes up for even the meager resources she is consuming. Wolt, by contrast, can assist in several ultra low-turn clears by being the only non-Marcus unit with accurate 2 range for the first 3 chapters. He is vital for chapter 2, in particular. On turn 1, after Allen and Lance rescue-drop Marcus onto the fort, Wolt is needed to finish off a Brigand on turn 2 so Marcus can grab Roy that same turn and charge to the right. Minor? Not if every turn counts, and Fir is doing nothing like that on the kind of run you are assuming.

[Anouleth]

If he's going to keep using a strawman fallacy then I will damn well keep saying it. You guys exaggerated every single thing I have said to oblivion so I'm done arguing once you get over the fact that I did not state that we were assuming the tier list is based upon optimal strategies. People merely took my words as such when in reality that is not at all what I was saying.

So when you say that "if someone contributes to more optimum strategies than someone else then they should obviously be higher", we should interpret that as you saying that we should consider strategies other than optimal strategies? That's ridiculous. We are not mind readers and we can hardly be expected to assume that you really meant the opposite of what you said.

How else are you supposed to judge a unit's efficiency? I stated that we could judge a unit's efficiency based upon the fact that most of the other unit slots are used by the best characters at that point in the game- I never stated that the tier list is entirely based upon optimal deployment. This point was not only brought up by me but people like Mekkah too, and frankly how else *would* you judge units?

By judging them in the context of an efficient playthrough and without comparing them to the best characters. With the word "Efficient" encompassing a much wider range of strategies than the word "optimal".

If that were truly the case she wouldn't be where she is.

This is a terrible argument. "that can't be true or the tier list wouldn't make any sense!" Consider this: not every tier list uses the same criteria you do. The FE6 list does not assume optimal deployment, or optimal play.

But she has decent enough offense against Brigands and Fighters in the following chapter and she is able to contribute WAY more in the next couple chapters than Wolt can in his own chapters.

But if you're playing optimally, she doesn't contribute. Certainly, she doesn't save turns compared to ditching her in favour of someone else. You can get just as low turncounts, if not lower, without Fir than with Fir: hence, she doesn't save turns, which according to you is the only objective way of measuring a unit's contribution. Fir is not as good in the isles as Noah, Marcus, Zealot, Shin, Rutger, possibly Alan and Lance, and Clarine, and we want to be training other characters as well for the long-term, like Tate and Saul. There are also recruitment concerns: we will need to recruit Gonzales and possibly neutralise Tate with Thany, as well as Ray.

In fact, Wolt's chipping is barely worth anything in the chapters he's in; he's not even *that* useful for when he exists but this is for neither here nor there.

Wolt demonstrably saves a turn in Chapter 1 by killing weakened Fighters. Fir never saves a turn even in her best chapters.

[Lord Raven]

So when you say that "if someone contributes to more optimum strategies than someone else then they should obviously be higher", we should interpret that as you saying that we should consider strategies other than optimal strategies? That's ridiculous. We are not mind readers and we can hardly be expected to assume that you really meant the opposite of what you said.

No it's pretty obvious that I meant that. If someone contributes more to optimum strategies then they obviously are better because they are contributing to the most efficiency strategy. I am not saying the tier list should be judged solely on that, I'm saying that it's a valid point in favor of characters who can contribute. It's not mind reading at all, it's basic reading comprehension.

And I'd like to repeat that I did not say, in any sense of the word, that tier lists should be judged solely on that. Want me to repeat it? Because I have outright stated it *many* times and the fact of the matter is that your entire argument has been made in assumption to the fact that I've said that. I have not, and therefore stop trying to nitpick the most minor points to derail the discussion.

By judging them in the context of an efficient playthrough and without comparing them to the best characters. With the word "Efficient" encompassing a much wider range of strategies than the word "optimal".

Well no shit, we do consider efficient-yet-not-optimal strategies in the tier list. How else would the lower tiers be judged?

This is a terrible argument. "that can't be true or the tier list wouldn't make any sense!" Consider this: not every tier list uses the same criteria you do. The FE6 list does not assume optimal deployment, or optimal play.

Except I'm not saying it does. I'll ignore posts that say shit like "not using same criteria you do" "not assuming optimal deployment like you do"

Wolt demonstrably saves a turn in Chapter 1 by killing weakened Fighters. Fir never saves a turn even in her best chapters.

Wolt has that one turn in his favor, Fir's use in Chapter 9 onwards is more efficient and actually requires less turns than trying to use Wolt in Chapter 3 onwards. Wolt is dead weight; Fir is not. Therefore, if she can get a couple kills in chapters after Chapter 4 (ie Chapter 9 onwards) or chip well enough, she's obviously doing better than Wolt because things like that contribute far more to low turns than being a dead weight after Chapter 1.

[Anouleth]

No it's pretty obvious that I meant that. If someone contributes more to optimum strategies then they obviously are better because they are contributing to the most efficiency strategy. I am not saying the tier list should be judged solely on that, I'm saying that it's a valid point in favor of characters who can contribute. It's not mind reading at all, it's basic reading comprehension.

And I'd like to repeat that I did not say, in any sense of the word, that tier lists should be judged solely on that. Want me to repeat it? Because I have outright stated it *many* times and the fact of the matter is that your entire argument has been made in assumption to the fact that I've said that. I have not, and therefore stop trying to nitpick the most minor points to derail the discussion.

Yes, you did graciously allow that we can think about sub-optimal strategies as a tiebreaker, but very few characters are really completely equal anyway. I can't imagine that they would be considered for anything beyond a tiny number of freak cases, or for characters that are so awful we will never use them.

Well no shit, we do consider efficient-yet-not-optimal strategies in the tier list. How else would the lower tiers be judged?

But the emphasis is on the optimal strategies. What determines position is optimal strategies first and non-optimal strategies second

Except I'm not saying it does. I'll ignore posts that say shit like "not using same criteria you do" "not assuming optimal deployment like you do"

So, you think that Fir is two tiers above Wolt because she contributes so much more to an optimal playthrough? Do me a favour and actually play FE6 optimally, and you'll see that's wrong.

Wolt has that one turn in his favor, Fir's use in Chapter 9 onwards is more efficient

Wolt: 2 turns between Chapters 1 and 2

Fir: 0 turns

"After all, the only objective way we can judge efficiency *is* turncount"

Wolt has two turns in his favour. Fir has 0 turns. Really, I don't see how this comparison could be any simpler, yet you are rejecting it because you're biased against Wolt (I can't blame you, Wolt is pretty easy to be biased against!)

and actually requires less turns than trying to use Wolt in Chapter 3 onwards.

Just because Fir is less of a drain on the team than Wolt does not make her better. Characters are ranked based on their contributions, not based on how much they suck.

Wolt is dead weight; Fir is not.

Wolt is saving turns, Fir is not.

Therefore, if she can get a couple kills in chapters after Chapter 4 (ie Chapter 9 onwards) or chip well enough, she's obviously doing better than Wolt because things like that contribute far more to low turns than being a dead weight after Chapter 1.

No, not really. If we have Fir kill something instead of Rutger or Noah, that does not save turns because she is doing nothing we could not get from other characters, only better. If she could do something unique that saved turns, then you could accurately say she saved turns, but she doesn't. Which is why optimal play doesn't use Fir. Whereas nobody can do what Wolt does.

[Lord Raven]

Not responding to you anymore in this thread, you're not only countering points I am not making but it's way off topic too.

Congratulations. I started this thread in an attempt to get some feedback on the formula and a more concrete definition of efficiency but I got absolutely nothing out of it but a raised blood pressure.