The Great LTC Debate Thread (Yay? Nay? Burn in Hell?)

[Thor Odinson]

I could see someone consulting a tier list if they're new to the series and doesn't wanna join a forum, and doesn't like to do things blind. More experienced players will already have established their preferred teams, yes.

Edited February 13, 2012 by Luminescent Blade

[dondon151]

My preferred teams dictate the tier list.

[Sunwoo]

Yeah, I could see that. Also agreed that people who've been playing FE for a long time will probably stick to their established teams until they themselves decide that they want a different team.

[Thor Odinson]

The top of the tier lists often have all the hottest guys anyway or at least pretty badass chicks so I ain't complainin'

[Sunwoo]

... I find that most of my favorite characters have availability issues and usually end up in middle or low tier. But ... like I said, I've already decided on my established teams by this point, so I don't use tier lists.

Anyway, I'm going to bed. Let's see how far this thread goes by the time I get on a computer tomorrow.

[Progenitus]

At this point we're going in circles. You all know that multiple tier lists using different standards HAVE already been tried out, right? and how they all got trolled to the ground? Of course you're going to make excuses, or maybe say how it wasn't trolling, but the fact is that other tier lists have been tried out and, for whatever reason, were not successful. Saying "you should make other tier lists" isn't really going to help, particularly because the majority of the people who still even semi-regularly debate are part of the SF niche, who advocate for a much different style of tiering units than the rest of the community do.

@ Aethereal

Reread what Othin said. He's pretty much said anything I could've on the matter, only better.

The player is pigenholed into using these characters for certain maps in the first place; the tier list would not be particularly informative if a handful of chapters were solely responsible for the placement of some characters, hm? Surely even you realize this?

Your arbitrary distinctions are elastic in a particular way that makes discussion impossible. Currently we all agree that Edward, Brom, Geoffrey, etc. are valuable in their exclusive maps, and we all know exactly what they do. Contrast this to a gimped Seth tier list, where the degree to which Seth cannot be used is always a point of contention that significantly affects the placement of other characters. Or contrast this to a "casual player" tier list, which can't even get off the ground because the debaters cannot agree on what a "casual player" can and cannot do.

Except that's the problem. How much worth do people like Edward exactly get for their contributions in their maps where deployment is limited? There's at least SOME subjectivity in their worth, which, according to you, is bad.

Well, yeah. I believe that there is a final outcome for a tier list. I suppose some of you want tier lists for the discussion, but I personally find no value in a reference tool that changes daily based on the whims of the participants.

"How good they are" is atleast partially subjective, though. Furthermore, if your only objective is to obtain the "right" or "correct" tier list, then kudos to you. I thought about that once, and then considered the fact that were that my mentality, I'd be pursuing the absolute truth......of what? Of a tier list ordering of fictional characters in an obscure SRPG game? What a high calling. I find that these topics are worthwhile for the actual discussion that they provide, not for pursuit of whatever cheap sense of satisfaction one might acquire if the "finalized, correct" tier list was ever actually achieved.

The Serenes community abolished the established "rules" for FE7 and FE6 tier lists and insisted that "pure efficiency" be the standard instead of ranks. How is this any different?

[dondon151]

Except that's the problem. How much worth do people like Edward exactly get for their contributions in their maps where deployment is limited? There's at least SOME subjectivity in their worth, which, according to you, is bad.

Try rereading my post. You're missing the primary distinction - one subjective metric is used to establish a ceiling on the value of a handful of units that are required to beat the game; the other is the primary basis for the tier list.

Now, please realize, once again, that shoveling Edward, Brom, Geoffrey, etc. into top tier just because the player is forced to use them in a couple of chapters does not convey any useful information.

[CATS worship]

We're discussing the merits of pixels and bits in a fantasy game. What a high calling. Don't try pulling the life card here. CATS is as much of a failure at life as any of us for wanting to discuss this game.

Edited February 13, 2012 by dondon151

[Loki Laufeyson]

The top of the tier lists often have all the hottest guys anyway or at least pretty badass chicks so I ain't complainin'

LOL!

I personally loathe tier lists because im one of those people who try every unit out of the lot in different playthroughs. And of course its true that there are units that are miles better than others. Like its dumb to say Heather is better than Sothe. I may like Heather more but Sothe is still better. So i do see the point to tier lists. I just dont make them, argue them, or even discuss them.

And its never fun to see your favorite units in low tier.

[Progenitus]

Try rereading my post. You're missing the primary distinction - one subjective metric is used to establish a ceiling on the value of a handful of units that are required to beat the game; the other is the primary basis for the tier list.

Now, please realize, once again, that shoveling Edward, Brom, Geoffrey, etc. into top tier just because the player is forced to use them in a couple of chapters does not convey any useful information.

Regardless of what purpose the metric is used for, or whether or not this metric is "required", the fact is that there is STILL something subjective being used.

We're discussing the merits of pixels and bits in a fantasy game. What a high calling. Don't try pulling the life card here. CATS is as much of a failure at life as any of us for wanting to discuss this game.

How is that even pulling the life card? I was simply saying that the discussion/debating is more worthwhile than achieving the goal, and I simply quoted CATS because I'm not the only one who shares that viewpoint.

[Anouleth]

By the way anouleth, do you even know how the old gamefaqs and FEFF tiers were run?

Badly, as I recall. Some of those lists had stuff like Knoll and Syrene at the bottom and Colm at the top of top. I'm led to believe that these lists were basd on a kind of pseudo-FE7-ranked criteria that was never actually established, or for that matter, applied (since unpromoted units were never penalised for the cost of their promotion items and Tethys/staff users were rarely praised for the value of their contributions towards EXP Rank).

No-seth completely eliminates one character that is available in every chapter from being used at all. It also implies a negative connotation; that no-seth is inferior than seth-skip in terms of efficiency.

Well, certainly by excluding the best character in the game from the running, you are suggesting that having access to Seth > not having access to Seth. But I don't think that should be a controversial statement. I think it's a bit absurd to talk of one tier list being "better" than another. Would you say that the Ephraim list carries a negative connotation since turncounts are typically higher in Ephraim Route? I wouldn't, and I don't think anyone would.

What would you suggest to prevent this negative connotation being implied? Obviously, the two lists should be kept separate, since the two spheres of discussion are so different. Trying to discuss Seth and Sethless at the same time would be like trying to discuss Eirika and Ephraim Route at the same time.

The difference is that things like different routes, difficulties, etc. are hardcoded, physical differences in the game, while Sethless vs Sethskip are player and playstyle-driven.

And the difference between ranked and unranked isn't? What about the difference between Eirika and Ephraim Route, since that's also playstyle driven? What about Warp and no-Warp lists? Or that tier list that you tried to create where the difference was that the player had room for error?

The difference between, say, Sacae and Ilia, are a few completely different characters being recruited (even if the characters aren't really good) and very different styles to tackle them (Sacae has tons of high mobility, high accuracy enemies, while Ilia is... a bunch of joke pegs or something, been awhile since I actually argued about Ilia).

For five chapters. Not using Seth has a dramatic effect on the entire game. There is arguably more difference between Sethskip and Sethless than there is between Sacae and Ilia.

Assuming Sacae or Ilia also means some of the units on the team are tailored towards it (obviously, Shin and/or Sue are being trained heavily while the pegs are neglected to reach Sacae, etc.). Even then, the choice between Sacae and Ilia heavily alters how debate tournaments work; do you assume that Ilia will be the route because it's the easier route, or do you use Sacae because it's the harder route and thus the unit that helps more on the harder route is the superior unit? This is something that can be agreed upon before the debate tournament, or can be argued as a focal point in a debate. Again, as long as the points are sound and everyone is civil (and also doesn't consume the entire debate), it only makes the debate more interesting.

Right, but you agree that it has to be established whether Sacae or Ilia is assumed. If I were taking part in a debate, I would also take pains to see if Seth is going to be assumed to be shitstomping or if he's assumed to be chillaxing on the bench, since it precludes all kinds of silly arguments over which situation is more relevant, and because it stops me from having to write up the character's performance in twice as many situations. Similarly, I would not dare enter into an FE11 debate without first setting in stone the status of Warp.

The difference between abusing Seth and not using Seth at all only has the effect the debaters give it. It is only your opinion that the only way to use Seth is to have him break the game, or that his impact is so significant that it alters the way the game is played.

I don't think it's the only way. Of course it is possible to use Seth with a "light" touch. However, there is not a significant difference between using Seth "lightly" and not using him at all, and it's a hell of a lot simpler to just ban him to preclude silly arguments about what exactly using him "lightly" entails, since depending on how "lightly" you use him, the tier list will either tend towards the positions in dondon's list or in the Sethless list. So I don't think that the third route warrants it's own list. At best, it would just be a combination of the Sethless and Sethskip lists, at worst, it would be a mess straight from the days before dondon made his list, with such hilarious rulings as Syrene at the bottom and Colm at the top.

It is, however, not an opinion that Sacae and Ilia alter the way the game is played.

I think that you need to go back and play FE8 again so you can see how definitively Seth shitstomps every combat situation in the game that isn't on the other side of a mountain or a desert, and how definitively other characters do not shitstomp their own combat situations.

And of course it's an opinion that Sacae and Ilia alter the way the game is played. There are cases before where route splits have little to no impact on how the game is played.

[aku chi]

The point wasn't to criticize exactly the standards the SF niche use (I know you don't adhere 100% to LTC, but you're damn close to it, but that's beside the point). The point was to show the contradiction in dondon's statement. He complained that the people who try to bring up alternatives do not clearly define the standards they propose. However, the standards the SF niche currently use are not clearly defined either, since clearly, the fact that Edward's 1-P and BK's 1-9 are worth less than the turns they save shows that there's some other factors involved that the SF niche have not elaborated or defined. In other words, why doesn't he also criticize the standards the SF niche use? Why doesn't he say that the standards the SF niche use is a problem?

Are you aware that both the FE9 and FE10 tier lists here on SF (somewhat) recently featured debate concerning the criteria of tiering? The debate in the FE10 tier list concerned how to meaningfully tier subpar units. The consensus, which was reached rather swiftly and without much drama, was to award a cost of zero to the deployment slot of the unit being considered for the entirety of their availability. This fueled a meaningful discussion on how best to use Kyza and Lethe (which, sadly, has hitherto made zero impact on the tier list). This was a very satisfactory change, in my opinion. It was a subtle, clearly defined change that had little to no effect on the vast majority of the tier list, but addressed the real threat of an unused tier developing under the old criteria.

The debate on the FE9 tier list concerned the role of reliability in evaluating units. This was fueled more by discussion of the top tier units. The debate here was more wearisome and lacked concrete resolution (as far as I could tell), but it at least got more people thinking about the role of reliability in efficiency.

I bring up these instances to demonstrate that the tier lists on SF are not devoid of occasional debates concerning the criteria of tiering. Some of these debates are fruitful and result in more discussion afterwards. Others are more wearisome and produce less discussion afterwards. Any accusations that the tier lists on SF are homogeneous or unchanging are unfounded. As evidenced, the community is open to debate concerning the tiering criteria, and will make changes that increase the scope of discussion while maintaining or increasing the rigor (the no-deployment cost change in FE10 being the best example).

[Florete]

You all know that multiple tier lists using different standards HAVE already been tried out, right? and how they all got trolled to the ground? Of course you're going to make excuses, or maybe say how it wasn't trolling, but the fact is that other tier lists have been tried out and, for whatever reason, were not successful.

There is probably an immeasurable number of ideas that have been tried here but never got off the ground "for whatever reason," most unrelated to FE. Take the SF wall, for example. Is your excuse that we "trolled" them, too?

I can't imagine how suffocated you would feel if you couldn't use the word "troll" or any variation of it for any longer than a day. You should try it.

Edited February 13, 2012 by Madam Red

[I.M. Gei]

I don't disagree with you. Also, if there are people who do use tier lists seriously, then that's something I didn't know and that's fine with me. It's just that I would assume that an FE player would already know which character s/he wants to use, decides as s/he goes, or actually asks people on a forum rather than consulting a tier list.

Tier lists don't exist to tell you who to use, bub. As of today, February 13, 2012, this has probably been said twenty billion times.

Edited February 13, 2012 by Black★Rock Shooter

[Sunwoo]

Tier lists don't exist to tell you who to use, bub. As of today, February 13, 2012, this has probably been said twenty billion times.

Well, excuse me, princess, if it came off that way to me. -_-

[Loki Laufeyson]

Well, excuse me, princess, if it came off that way to me. -_-

A lot of the time it does seem that way so i feel ya. Their intent isnt to tell you who do use. However, sometimes the discussion following often gives people that impression.

[I.M. Gei]

Well, excuse me, princess, if it came off that way to me. -_-

Don't call me princess. I'm not your princess. I'm not EVEN a princess.

Anyway, feel free to disavow yourself of any misconceptions you may have about tier lists and the discussion within by reading this FAQ.

[Sunwoo]

Don't call me princess. I'm not your princess. I'm not EVEN a princess.

Anyway, feel free to disavow yourself of any misconceptions you may have about tier lists and the discussion within by reading this FAQ.

Well, don't call me "bub", then.

I don't particularly care about tier lists, and I'm not going to bother with them. If people use them, I don't care. If there's just there so people can argue, I don't care. If they have no use, I don't care. I don't care. I don't care.

[eclipse]

. . .if people want to force that opinion on others when they express what they like/don't like in a unit, I care. . .

[I.M. Gei]

Well, don't call me "bub", then.

I don't particularly care about tier lists, and I'm not going to bother with them. If people use them, I don't care. If there's just there so people can argue, I don't care. If they have no use, I don't care. I don't care. I don't care.

If you don't care, then why are you still in a topic discussing tier list criteria? Just let us have our fun arguing and go.

[Othin]

This is about more than just tier lists.

[Sunwoo]

If you don't care, then why are you still in a topic discussing tier list criteria? Just let us have our fun arguing and go.

First of all, this is an LTC debate thread, not just a topic discussing tier list criteria.

Second of all, I WAS going to leave. Until you quoted me and brought me back into it. -_-

[Loki Laufeyson]

I think what it boils down to is that there are a great number of people who are dissatisfied with how the fandom acts in general. Be it about tier lists, various strategies, how to play the game, etc. So to me, this thread is actually less about LTC style play and tier lists and more about how the fandom (at least this portion of it) conducts itself.

[Thor Odinson]

It kinda goes both ways. I've actually had people yell at me for not promoting at 20 always. I don't play LTC, just faster than a normal casual player (casual efficient? Probably not even, I just rush the hell out of things because I'm impatient, haha), and promoting at 20 for most units is pointless since most units'd be lucky to hit 20/15. So I feel like kinda goes both ways. I don't yell at them for wanting to go slower, but that time I felt like said person was forcing very casual play on me by ridiculing my tendencies to promote at 14-16 for most combat units and 10-12 for staffers.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Luminescent Blade

[Lord Raven]

Except that's the problem. How much worth do people like Edward exactly get for their contributions in their maps where deployment is limited? There's at least SOME subjectivity in their worth, which, according to you, is bad.

I tried a part-by-part tier list (not necessarily part 1/2/3/4, but something like Part 1/3-6/3-12/3-13, part 2 is generally kinda nixed, GM chapters in Part 3, and then Silver/Greil/Hawk Army tier lists, and then the final chapter tier lists), but it didnt go anywhere. It weighs things a bit better, but it also leaves out some parts of a tier list (so you can't rank the Royals based on their chapters ever, because they exist for 2 chapters- any strategy that consists of them coming in on 2-E isn't efficient). But it also doesn't compare Edward's almost necessary 1-P to Lehran's free deployment in 4-E-5 and the Royals in the final chapter. The awkwardness that entails is just too much. Edited February 14, 2012 by Mercenary Raven

[Loki Laufeyson]

I've actually had people yell at me for not promoting at 20 always.

Wait, wut? Unless you really wanna burn turns, thats not the best idea ever. I do actually go level 20 before promotion like 99% of the time. But it means a lot of turn spam, arena abuse, and junk like that. (or promoting your guys super late.) If you take a character like Priscilla for example, shes just about as good promoted at level 15 or so, as promoted at 20. It just happens sooner. Sure some of her stats wont be as high but hey...after she gets going after promotion, its usually not a problem. (and Afa's Drops exist for a reason.) So yeah, if people want to promote early, freaking go ahead! I wouldnt recommend as early as level 10 but i think, anytime around level 15 is fine.

but that time I felt like said person was forcing very casual play on me by ridiculing my tendencies to promote at 14-16 for most combat units and 10-12 for staffers.

Promoting staffers at 10 doesnt hurt too much unless they are Serra or someone with equally low magic stats. 12 should be fine though regardless. And level 16 for combat units is perfectly sufficient. Like i said, i tend to promote at 20 because im a spammer like that. (and in FE8, wtf not! Ya know? Sure its time consuming but i usually do CC anyway.)