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

[Lord Raven]

I always saw efficiency as "don't dick around too much, and try to complete chapter as fast as possible with high reliability". Bearing in mind, this definition needs a little bit of fixing to apply to FE6 (namely the latter portion), but that's what I always thought. Tiers are determined by lower turns+higher reliability, as well as if its worth giving them the resources to perform optimally.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Mercenary Raven

[Othin]

Well, see, this raises an interesting question: Is turn-efficiency defined by playing to those standards of speed and reliability as well as you can with whatever team you might be using, or is it crafting a team that will best play to those standards and using that team only in the way that will play to those standards?

This seems to be the fundamental disagreement here, between how Serenes' tiers seem to be handled and how all the other tier lists I've seen on countless other sites seem to be handled. Assuming things like "Sethskip" entails the latter definition, whereas perspectives like Anouleth's seem to entail the former definition, which is what I'm advocating.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Othin

[Lord Raven]

The former is the way people debate though, it's just that arguing higher tiers entails a different standard of debate than arguing a lower tier. And people are more likely to argue the position of a higher tier because they're far more efficient to use. There's no "fundamental disagreement," you're just not looking at the right arguments.

I feel like one particular debate (that I was involved with) in particular is a good example of what I'm saying, here... Because "turns saved" is pretty much the argument there, considering we can easily get the basic arguments out of the way, such as "all three of them have good offense," and from there it's a matter of join time and turns saved, as well as weighing certain turns saved over others. And if they're being used, then since they're higher up on the list they are far more likely to be around a team that is extremely efficient; being higher up on the tier list means you are more efficient, so judging them in a "max efficiency" standard is not out of the question by any means.

Are people still hung up over that Marcia/Jill/Oscar debate btw?

Edited March 22, 2012 by Mercenary Raven

[Othin]

I'm not following any cohesive points there.

Whatever the reason, making a tier list based on holding to a standard perfectly just doesn't work, when you already know what you're going to do. It's like talking about a Metroid speedrun, and trying to tier different upgrades based on completing the game as fast as possible. If you're assuming you'll take the fastest route and actions when progressing through the game in pursuit of those upgrades, then barring changes to that route, it's already set in stone which upgrades you'll get and which you won't. It doesn't make sense to rate things; there's nothing meaningful to rate.

[Lord Raven]

And nobody actually argues based on that. What is your point?

[Othin]

My point is that tiers that assume specific strategies for an FE game are no different, no better.

[Narga_Rocks]

My point is that tiers that assume specific strategies for an FE game are no different, no better.

Can you really call "rush Seth at boss" specific? It's pretty general given there are multiple paths (sometimes) to send him there and there are multiple ways to clear the rest of each map. It's not as general as "turtle your way to the boss", but it's pretty close.

[Othin]

If playing turn-efficiently entails using Seth throughout the game because it's turn-efficient to do so, then it entails using him in the most turn-efficient way throughout the game: you can't use him in any way other than the most efficient one or tied for most efficient, and the same goes for the rest of the way you play the chapters. That's damn well specific.

Recall again that this is not about Seth, but about the insanity he represents.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Othin

[aku chi]

I can't think of any character whose position would change majorly if they couldn't use BEXP.

(Assuming that you're not just referring to FE10:) FE9 Marcia and Jill's current tier position is hugely dependent on Bexp. Without Bexp, a case could easily be made for Oscar, Kieran, Boyd, Ike, Reyson, Tanith, and Jill > Marcia at the very least (Lethe, Muarim, and Mordecai would also have a case). Now that I think about it, a no-Bexp FE9 tier list might be an interesting thought experiment.

[Anouleth]

(Assuming that you're not just referring to FE10:) FE9 Marcia and Jill's current tier position is hugely dependent on Bexp. Without Bexp, a case could easily be made for Oscar, Kieran, Boyd, Ike, Reyson, Tanith, and Jill > Marcia at the very least (Lethe, Muarim, and Mordecai would also have a case). Now that I think about it, a no-Bexp FE9 tier list might be an interesting thought experiment.

I was referring to FE10. I guess there would be some adjustments, like Jill and the Hawks down. And obviously Soren/Nephenee, and all tier 1 DB or underlevelled units in general (like Rolf).

But really, Snowy wasn't saying "no BEXP". He was saying "BEXP but not used efficiently", so there's a certain proportion of it that's wasted, say, 40%. So BEXP still exists, just to a smaller extent.

[Lord Raven]

(Assuming that you're not just referring to FE10:) FE9 Marcia and Jill's current tier position is hugely dependent on Bexp. Without Bexp, a case could easily be made for Oscar, Kieran, Boyd, Ike, Reyson, Tanith, and Jill > Marcia at the very least (Lethe, Muarim, and Mordecai would also have a case). Now that I think about it, a no-Bexp FE9 tier list might be an interesting thought experiment.

Yeah, no BEXP FE9 would change almost everything about the list. It would favor pre-promotes a lot more, to start things off, and unpromoted units would be kicked down the list quite heavily.

[Anouleth]

Yeah, no BEXP FE9 would change almost everything about the list. It would favor pre-promotes a lot more, to start things off, and unpromoted units would be kicked down the list quite heavily.

noooo

my beloved tormod

also makalov

on the plus side Tanith will get mad respects

Anyway, I think a FE9 no-BEXP list would be pretty heavily skewed in favour of Titania. Therefore, Snowy can't possibly be in favour of it. QED.

[Snowy_One]

noooo

my beloved tormod

also makalov

on the plus side Tanith will get mad respects

Anyway, I think a FE9 no-BEXP list would be pretty heavily skewed in favour of Titania. Therefore, Snowy can't possibly be in favour of it. QED.

I'm no more in favor of it than the current LTC list. Actually slightly less as someone would have to be either an idiot or willingly ignoring BEXP for a list like that to have meaning. Of course that means you're naturally going to do it.

But really, Snowy wasn't saying "no BEXP". He was saying "BEXP but not used efficiently", so there's a certain proportion of it that's wasted, say, 40%. So BEXP still exists, just to a smaller extent.

The point was that you ranked the units assuming that a specific set of criteria always happened (that the BEXP was always spent at the right time in just the right way). This means that the list becomes invalid any time it doesn't conform to that. It may be identical, but identicality =/= validity as the reasons behind it are different.

This is because you don't argue tier lists.

Pha! I did back in the FE9 days. Was probably the second most active arguer on the entire net aside from Smash (certainly on Gamefaqs). The only reason I didn't migrate to FE10 was because I didn't get a Wii until well after it came out and I didn't feel comfortable debating a game I hadn't played.

Look at the FE10 tier list. Who is in position #6? Mia. And Mia is not very useful in a strict LTC playthrough, barely at all in fact. She's certainly worse than a lot of units below her. Or, to take another example, Shinon, who is also trash. Nephenee is in Upper Mid. This is despite the fact that in an LTC playthrough, she makes meaningful contributions in only one chapter in the entire game, meaning that she should rightfully be below Geoffrey. How about Tanith who is never going to be trained and should therefore be below Sigrun?

Or, the favourite example of smash to argue why LTC lists are stupid; Edward. Edward single-handedly saves about 20 turns in 1-P. Technically, that would put him in Top Tier. Note how Edward is very definitely not in top tier.

I have seen it stated before that the measurable characteristic on how useful/efficient a unit is is the amount of turns they allow you to save; hence why mounted units and fliers are almost always at least upper-mid unless they outright suck. If I'm wrong, then what do you think the standard for tiering is?

The problem is that both are true. It's true that Franz is made redundant by Seth, and also that if you train Franz he's a very good character. That's why I like having two tier lists; it tells both stories.

Why does it have to be like that though? If Franz is a good unit or not should not depend on if another unit is deployed or not (ignoring supports obviously).

I don't really see how the two are different at all. The SSBB tier lists take a small portion of potential SSBB games; games that are in a tournament setting, with tournament level players, and based on which characters are most likely to win, the characters are ranked. Characters are assumed to be used to their fullest potential, that is. In a similar way, FE tier lists assume that units are used to their fullest potential. Ellen is more useful as a healer than as a tank. Thany is more useful for ferrying units than for pure combat. These are simple examples, but there are others. It would be wasteful to give someone like Ilyana an Energy Drop. Giving her that would make her worse, in fact, since she cannot possibly make up for the opportunity cost. It would be ridiculous to use Sue to fight Armours. She is better off attacking Soldiers and Wyverns. This really goes hand in hand with assuming an intelligent player... and I don't think it's unreasonable at all to assume that.

There is a human element in SSB. Even a awful character can beat a top tier one with enough skill and there is room for things like reflexes and such. It is impossible to say that a unit will always win against another. While you can compare football teams and say that one team will likely win over another there is still a lot of things that can cause that prediction to be wrong. It's why you don't see people playing just one character who is considered to be the best.

That doesn't exist in a FE tier list. Strategies are cut and dry, stats are always average, and the human element is, effectively, removed. They're as different as fighting a human and a A.I. in a fighting game.

What does high movement have to do with LTC? It's true that high movement saves turns, but so does promoting Garcia to Hero instead of Warrior, or having Ellen heal. In fact, I can name a huge number of things that save turns. LTC strategies often have to use all available resources in order to achieve their goals; which is part of the reason I find them interesting. I remember having to use a level 20/8 Nolan in Part 4 in FE10 for supplementary offense; and a level ~5 Laura for healing; and Kyza for shoving. Even Sanaki shaved two turns in Part 4.

Indeed, I could have named practically anything. I chose to mention Paladins since well, you brought them up.

The point is that the tier lists, the Seth-list especially, assumes that the player WILL shoot for the end with the single-minded goal of completing the chapter as fast and reliably as possible. Therefore any character who cannot fit within that strategy ends up low on the list as a result.

[Lord Raven]

I'm no more in favor of it than the current LTC list.

its not an LTC list, snowy

Actually slightly less as someone would have to be either an idiot or willingly ignoring BEXP for a list like that to have meaning.

The point was that a BEXP-less tier list would be interesting as hell, no one's suggesting that no BEXP should be a preferred playstyle.

The point is that the tier lists, the Seth-list especially, assumes that the player WILL shoot for the end with the single-minded goal of completing the chapter as fast and reliably as possible

Isn't finishing the chapter a single-minded goal, and trying to make it fast and reliable is an add-on? That doesn't make it single minded. All in all your argument boils down to "I dont like it, so nobody else should." Edited March 24, 2012 by Mercenary Raven

[arvilino]

The point is that the tier lists, the Seth-list especially, assumes that the player WILL shoot for the end with the single-minded goal of completing the chapter as fast and reliably as possible. Therefore any character who cannot fit within that strategy ends up low on the list as a result.

As opposed to an unreliable character who couldn't be used in finishing a chapter quickly if you wanted being placed high on a tier list?

While it does take away opportunities to train/use certain units who may be better under different circumstances. Doesn't stricter guidelines(e.g. Sethskip) help objectively separate the characters perfomance from each other.

Edited March 24, 2012 by arvilino

[Defeatist Elitist]

Well, see, this raises an interesting question: Is turn-efficiency defined by playing to those standards of speed and reliability as well as you can with whatever team you might be using, or is it crafting a team that will best play to those standards and using that team only in the way that will play to those standards?

This seems to be the fundamental disagreement here, between how Serenes' tiers seem to be handled and how all the other tier lists I've seen on countless other sites seem to be handled. Assuming things like "Sethskip" entails the latter definition, whereas perspectives like Anouleth's seem to entail the former definition, which is what I'm advocating.

There is no significant difference between the two definitions. Rather, the second definition is implied by the first. If you're playing to a certain standard of speed and reliability, then it stands to reason that you're going to try to craft the best team possible. The only thing that prevents this is that you've added the "whatever team you might be using" clause, but even then I think it holds true. The fact is, that while you can certainly apply efficient standards to ANY team, an understanding of those factors, and the logical application of them in team choice is what the tier lists are based on. Sethskip complies completely to the first definition, because that is pretty much the most efficient way you can play ever. If you ARE using Seth, then you may as well be Sethskipping, it's the most efficient thing to do, and that's what a Sethskip tier list represents. Beyond that, there is a whole other tier list dedicated to playing without Seth, so Sethskip is hardly even assumed.

My point is, that the tiering philosophy here follows the former definition, but the second definition is easily derived from the first, so you're going to be seeing shit that looks like that.

[Narga_Rocks]

Why does it have to be like that though? If Franz is a good unit or not should not depend on if another unit is deployed or not (ignoring supports obviously).

Why not? When that one character (Seth) drastically reduces your turncount when Franz is in training mode and cuts his opportunity to train in half or something (fewer enemies to kill and fewer turns to go mop up enemies you need never meet to finish a chapter) it should be extremely obvious that how good Franz is will be heavily dependent on whether or not you use Seth.

It's similar to warpskipping fe11. Would you state that a unit's "goodness" should not depend on if 4 specific staves are ever used on Marth or not? When the difference is so drastic, that difference should be taken into account.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Narga_Rocks

[The_Purple_Knight]

Seth is great who cares . I don't get this obsession with stomping everything with him. I don't know who said it bur I also kinda just use him is a regular unit of course you can solo with him but why would you ? Fire emblem games are RPGs first and foremost you can solo most of the games with practically fucking anyone . It's pretty easy to solo the first generation of fe4 with sigurd but I'm pretty sure there's no Sigurd skip tier list . Can someone please explain to me what makes Seth so fantastic he warrants his own modified tier list ? I know he's an awesome unit and all but still I just don't get it ?

[Othin]

There is no significant difference between the two definitions. Rather, the second definition is implied by the first. If you're playing to a certain standard of speed and reliability, then it stands to reason that you're going to try to craft the best team possible. The only thing that prevents this is that you've added the "whatever team you might be using" clause, but even then I think it holds true. The fact is, that while you can certainly apply efficient standards to ANY team, an understanding of those factors, and the logical application of them in team choice is what the tier lists are based on. Sethskip complies completely to the first definition, because that is pretty much the most efficient way you can play ever. If you ARE using Seth, then you may as well be Sethskipping, it's the most efficient thing to do, and that's what a Sethskip tier list represents. Beyond that, there is a whole other tier list dedicated to playing without Seth, so Sethskip is hardly even assumed.

My point is, that the tiering philosophy here follows the former definition, but the second definition is easily derived from the first, so you're going to be seeing shit that looks like that.

False. Let's look at the implications of the two definitions:

1) If my team happens to contain Seth, then I will stomp shit with him.

2) My team must contain Seth in order to stomp shit with him in the one precise most stompable way.

There's a world of difference there.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Othin

[Lord Raven]

Stomping shit with Seth does not mean that Seth is the only unit deployed

[Othin]

Stomping shit with Seth does not mean that Seth is the only unit deployed

I don't believe anyone suggested it does.

[Narga_Rocks]

I don't believe anyone suggested it does.

Did you read this post?

Seth is great who cares . I don't get this obsession with stomping everything with him. I don't know who said it bur I also kinda just use him is a regular unit of course you can solo with him but why would you ? Fire emblem games are RPGs first and foremost you can solo most of the games with practically fucking anyone . It's pretty easy to solo the first generation of fe4 with sigurd but I'm pretty sure there's no Sigurd skip tier list . Can someone please explain to me what makes Seth so fantastic he warrants his own modified tier list ? I know he's an awesome unit and all but still I just don't get it ?

He doesn't solo. He just speeds things up drastically. Clearly you've never done a sethskip or you'd see the vast difference between using him as a "regular unit" and when you take off his shackles and use him efficiently.

If using Sigurd offensively compared to using Sigurd only to seize made such a huge difference in available exp for growth units, there probably would be a sigurd skip tier list. It is simply not needed as the difference between "sigurd-less" and "sigurd-skip" doesn't change the position of units on the tier list like the fe8 thing does. Have you even taken a look at the two different fe8 lists? That's the justification for the creation of another list. With the differences between the lists, it should be obvious why it's needed.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Narga_Rocks

[Othin]

Did you read this post?

He doesn't solo. He just speeds things up drastically. Clearly you've never done a sethskip or you'd see the vast difference between using him as a "regular unit" and when you take off his shackles and use him efficiently.

If using Sigurd offensively compared to using Sigurd only to seize made such a huge difference in available exp for growth units, there probably would be a sigurd skip tier list. It is simply not needed as the difference between "sigurd-less" and "sigurd-skip" doesn't change the position of units on the tier list like the fe8 thing does. Have you even taken a look at the two different fe8 lists? That's the justification for the creation of another list. With the differences between the lists, it should be obvious why it's needed.

Is any of this supposed to be relevant to anything I said?

[Narga_Rocks]

Is any of this supposed to be relevant to anything I said?

Duh, I was responding to the other guy at the bottom. The only thing relevant to you was how I highlighted how the guy was talking about soloing with Seth (and others). Completely contradicting your statement that nobody is suggesting anything of the sort.

[Lord Raven]

Othin, I don't understand what your problem with a "No Seth" and a "Seth" tier list, especially because using Seth as you're suggesting basically places Seth above Franz in the No Seth tier list ~_~