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

[Snowy_One]

I think this is nothing but putting what we already do in tier lists into numbers.

I disagree immensely. I already did this with my own rating topic and there were some characters (like Lethe) who scored high when focused on speed, but low in flexibility and customization. While it's true a unit like Ike probably won't change much in his position, other units who are less 'blatant' I guess will change. Not to mention it opens up avenues for discussion not focused on turncounts in the slightest. For example, I would assume that his 'combat' rating deals soley with how the unit handles in combat. Reyson might be OMGWTFOPED on the current FE9 list, but he would probably get a 0 there (or something fairly low at least). Meanwhile another unit might end up with great combat and utility, but require a lot of resources to do so, so he would get high combat and utility ratings, but low efficiency ratings. I don't know if that's 100% accurate as I'm using my own interpretations (combat = pure combat, utility = non-combat abilities, efficiency = how well they make use of resources) but it's far better than the current tier lists IMO since it allows people to see just what makes a unit good at a glance and allows for individual things to be talked about (someone could argue Roy is more efficient than the current rating without having to worry about how fast he completes chapters for example).

[Othin]

Maybe. I want to make a distinction between the magnitude of Edward's contribution in 1-P and the nature of contributions in smaller, simpler chapters. Without Edward, it may take 10 additional turns to complete 1-P (guesstimating). Yet I'd be hard pressed to argue that he is more valuable in this chapter than Rafiel is in 4-4 (who "saves" 1-2 turns, at most). But I suppose we might disagree here.

The Black Knight in 1-9 represents a different problem to solve. It's almost impossible to complete the chapter without him, so evaluating his contribution with any "what does his absense cost?" metric would result in him garnering nearly infinite utility. So I think that there is something more fundamentally flawed in the "turns saved" mentality of evaluating a unit's worth; albeit, something that is seldom exposed. Either that, or the Black Knight is - by far - the most valuable unit in FE:RD.

If you're going slower in 4-4, that means that you're facing double the number of enemies due to reinforcements. Units that help us complete 4-4 before the storm of reinforcement on turn 10 clearly help us complete the game. The ridiculous number of enemy reinforcements is, I believe, one of the reasons smash selected this chapter as his example. (Which is a little unwise, because it muddies two legitimate issues: (a) certain turns costing more than other turns, and (b) saving multiple turns with single-turn actions due to reinforcements.)

4-4 seems like a special case due to those reinforcements. So completing it in 8 turns instead of 10 would really be completing it in 8 turns instead of, say, 13. That's quite a difference. But that only applies to that one chapter. Otherwise, and even then, you haven't provided much of a reason why Edward being super-valuable early can be ignored, if we are going by turns saved.

Naglfar claims that we shouldn't consider actions that are necessary or near-necessary, but that doesn't make sense here. After all, this site assumes specific strategies for LTC, so going by that standard, what do we make of character actions that are necessary for those very strategies? If Seth being deployed and running around killing things is a necessary part of getting LTC-level turncounts, should he be denied credit for that? It doesn't make sense why this would be treated any differently.

So yes, regardless of the goal, we must use a different metric than turns saved by each individual character. This goes back to the thing I've suggested before: rate characters based on their ability to compete for a deployment slot, for whatever reasons. So Rafiel gets credit for being a top pick for 4-4, rather than getting credit for the specific number of turns he saves. Now, what this would mean is the Black Knight could, in theory, get credit for 1-9 as a super-important pick, but only one chapter of credit. But in reality, this isn't even necessary because the Black Knight is forced in 1-9. He doesn't have to compete for a deployment slot, so there's nothing to rate. The same goes for Edward in the early chapters.

The result is, characters don't get rated based on chapters where they're forced, and characters that are always forced don't get rated at all. This seems strange, but when you think about it, it makes perfect sense. If a character has forced deployment, of course you're going to use them to the best of your ability. There's no reason why you would refrain from using a forced character unless there is nothing for them to do in the first place. So what is there to rate, when no matter how good they are, you're goig to have them to whatever they're capable of?

It does give you your turn count and other details(depending on the game) and sometimes even a ranking at the end(or in FE7's case throughout) though.

Although this is true, it doesn't actually work out to be relevant. No matter who you're competing with for turn counts or whatever else, you're going to go about it in the same way. Whatever is the best strategy you know to fulfill a given standard and are willing to do (when considering say the number of resets it might take), you can parrot that strategy perfectly with no skill whatsoever. Compare to any competitive fighting game, where you can be forced into all sorts of imperfect situations depending on what character your opponent picks and what they do.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Othin

[Anouleth]

I disagree immensely. I already did this with my own rating topic and there were some characters (like Lethe) who scored high when focused on speed, but low in flexibility and customization. While it's true a unit like Ike probably won't change much in his position, other units who are less 'blatant' I guess will change. Not to mention it opens up avenues for discussion not focused on turncounts in the slightest. For example, I would assume that his 'combat' rating deals soley with how the unit handles in combat. Reyson might be OMGWTFOPED on the current FE9 list, but he would probably get a 0 there (or something fairly low at least). Meanwhile another unit might end up with great combat and utility, but require a lot of resources to do so, so he would get high combat and utility ratings, but low efficiency ratings.

That's silly. I don't think there should be any rating for how well a unit does when they're 20/20 and pumped full of statboosters.

I don't know if that's 100% accurate as I'm using my own interpretations (combat = pure combat, utility = non-combat abilities, efficiency = how well they make use of resources) but it's far better than the current tier lists IMO since it allows people to see just what makes a unit good at a glance

Except that tier lists are not supposed to be player guides. Nor is it really important to say that Reyson has 520 in utility and 0 in combat. Any player with the sense that God gave a glass of water can see that Reyson's combat is not good. Is it really necessary for the tier list to explain such a blindingly elementary fact? It's all very well to ask for more detail and more information in a tier list, but that rather defeats the point of a 1-dimensional list that can only express the value of a unit in terms of one number. That's why I mockingly suggested a tier matrix. Or hell, why not a tier hypercube? Or even better, just go write a character guide for GFAQs?

[Snowy_One]

That's silly. I don't think there should be any rating for how well a unit does when they're 20/20 and pumped full of statboosters.

Did I say that there would be a rating for that? I simply said 'for how well they deal in combat'.

Except that tier lists are not supposed to be player guides. Nor is it really important to say that Reyson has 520 in utility and 0 in combat. Any player with the sense that God gave a glass of water can see that Reyson's combat is not good. Is it really necessary for the tier list to explain such a blindingly elementary fact? It's all very well to ask for more detail and more information in a tier list, but that rather defeats the point of a 1-dimensional list that can only express the value of a unit in terms of one number. That's why I mockingly suggested a tier matrix. Or hell, why not a tier hypercube? Or even better, just go write a character guide for GFAQs?

Not every unit is Reyson. I used him as an example because he's a unit who ranks high, yet would have had a low rating in that category. FE9 Lethe would have a high combat rating, but low efficiency and utility due to her Laguz aspects (non-upgradable claws, transform gauge, and such). Besides, you seem to be missing something very key. No one said that those specific catagories would be the ones used, just that they were the ones in the suggestion. He even admitted that they weren't defined (he was going for an example of how it could work. If it were to be implemented it would need people sitting down to talk about what standards should be used and their definitions). So you're effectively complaining that there are pixies stealing your underwear.

[arvilino]

Did I say that there would be a rating for that? I simply said 'for how well they deal in combat'.

You did say how "they end up in combat", suggesting that how they turn out after recieving all the resources required is measured.

Meanwhile another unit might end up with great combat and utility, but require a lot of resources to do so, so he would get high combat and utility ratings

Edited April 2, 2012 by arvilino

[Anouleth]

Did I say that there would be a rating for that? I simply said 'for how well they deal in combat'.

No, you said that a character that needs a lot of resources to be good at combat would be ranked high. If a character needs a lot of resources to be "good in combat"... they're not good, are they?

Not every unit is Reyson. I used him as an example because he's a unit who ranks high, yet would have had a low rating in that category. FE9 Lethe would have a high combat rating, but low efficiency and utility due to her Laguz aspects (non-upgradable claws, transform gauge, and such).

That's also stupid. Are you suggesting that being locked to 8MT weapons and being unable to fight half the time doesn't affect Lethe's combat?

So yes, regardless of the goal, we must use a different metric than turns saved by each individual character. This goes back to the thing I've suggested before: rate characters based on their ability to compete for a deployment slot, for whatever reasons.

"For whatever reasons"? That's awfully woolly. Is it turns saved? Enemies killed? Based on how many stats they cap?

And what assumptions prevail? Edward might not be a great pick for Part 1; will he be trained for Part 3 or Part 4?

So Rafiel gets credit for being a top pick for 4-4, rather than getting credit for the specific number of turns he saves. Now, what this would mean is the Black Knight could, in theory, get credit for 1-9 as a super-important pick, but only one chapter of credit. But in reality, this isn't even necessary because the Black Knight is forced in 1-9. He doesn't have to compete for a deployment slot, so there's nothing to rate. The same goes for Edward in the early chapters.

And Part 3. In fact, all DB characters don't compete for deployment slots in Part 3.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Anouleth

[General Banzai]

It does give you your turn count and other details(depending on the game) and sometimes even a ranking at the end(or in FE7's case throughout) though.

Fire Emblem isn't competitive.

If you want to make a tier list specifically for unit use in a draft setting, go ahead, but even then there are increasingly more and more drafts which use alternative methods to judge who "wins" other than just turn counts.

[Dark Sage]

Fire Emblem isn't competitive.

what does Fire Emblem not being competitive have anything to do with how high level we're assuming the tier player plays?

[General Banzai]

what does Fire Emblem not being competitive have anything to do with how high level we're assuming the tier player plays?

It has to do with the ridiculousness of tiering a non-competitve game to begin with.

Currently, most tier lists on this site are little more than ways for the elite FE players to masturbate.

[dondon151]

It has to do with the ridiculousness of tiering a non-competitve game to begin with.

Currently, most tier lists on this site are little more than ways for the elite FE players to masturbate.

tires don exits tiers r 4 queers etc.

man where have i seen this before

but ok, if you think your first point is true, then stay out of fire emblem tiering altogether. shoo. marijuana and coffee are that-a-way.

Edited April 2, 2012 by dondon151

[General Banzai]

tires don exits tiers r 4 queers etc.

man where have i seen this before

but ok, if you think your first point is true, then stay out of fire emblem tiering altogether. shoo. marijuana and coffee are that-a-way.

I already pointed out the possibility of using tiers (or some similar type of ranking system) as either guides for new players, or for judging unit worth for draft settings.

So boo you

[dondon151]

I already pointed out the possibility of using tiers (or some similar type of ranking system) as either guides for new players,

and i already pointed out that it's impossible for an ordered list of units to provide any sort of useful information that even resembles a guide

[General Banzai]

and i already pointed out that it's impossible for an ordered list of units to provide any sort of useful information that even resembles a guide

but you're wrong

[dondon151]

please provide a counterexample

[Dark Sage]

but you're wrong

General banzai is a true politician. "I'm right, you're wrong man don't even bother, this argument is rock solid."

[Anouleth]

It has to do with the ridiculousness of tiering a non-competitve game to begin with.

Why is it ridiculous? I think it's quite fun. Sure, the tier lists we produce are pointless, don't contain much useful information, and indeed make little sense if you don't understand the assumptions and context (established over years of arguing) that underpin them. However, I enjoy discussing them; and that's enough for me.

[General Banzai]

please provide a counterexample

Marcus r top tier, must mean he good rite?

Nino r bottom? She be bad then

olololol

General banzai is a true politician. "I'm right, you're wrong man don't even bother, this argument is rock solid."

it was a cleverly thought-out satire

dondon said "tier lists can't be guides, plz provide counterexample"

i was making fun of him by making an argument similarly as useless and unconsidered

must i spell out everything?

e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g

Edited April 3, 2012 by General Banzai

[dondon151]

Marcus r top tier, must mean he good rite?

Nino r bottom? She be bad then

olololol

ok i'm glad you agree with my assertion. moving on

i was making fun of him by making an argument similarly as useless and unconsidered

this cow doth shyte in my hand

Edited April 3, 2012 by dondon151

[arvilino]

I already pointed out the possibility of using tiers (or some similar type of ranking system) as either guides for new players, or for judging unit worth for draft settings.

So boo you

As opposed to having an actual guide?

[Dark Sage]

it was a cleverly thought-out satire

dondon said "tier lists can't be guides, plz provide counterexample"

i was making fun of him by making an argument similarly as useless and unconsidered

must i spell out everything?

e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g

Oh sorry I was confused by the total lack of humor.

[General Banzai]

As opposed to having an actual guide?

Maybe instead of tiers we should put our energy into making guides. We constantly complain about the assery of the GameFAQs guides and yet we never do anything about it? Instead we plod on endlessly about tier lists which serve no one other than the cheap entertainment one gets from arguing.

Rather than complaining about the semantics that a tier list can't be a guide, what I was hoping to point out was that we make a guide instead of a tier list, first by pointing out the stupidity of a tier list for a noncompetitive game and then by offering that tiers be used for draft settings.

"Oh but Banzai you lumped newbie guides in with the drafts when talking about what tiers can be used for"

sorry

Oh sorry I was confused by the total lack of humor.

Opinions, half the readers found it hi-larious, can't wait for more

Edited April 3, 2012 by General Banzai

[dondon151]

Maybe instead of tiers we should put our energy into making guides.

I did make a character guide for FE7. But in the end it seems like a wholly wasted effort.

[General Banzai]

I did make a character guide for FE7. But in the end it seems like a wholly wasted effort.

I'll write it now: "The Tragedy of Dondon"

He tried so hard, and got so far

But in the end

It didn't even matter

[RNG Princess]

Tier lists are a guide for people that want to play LTC ^^' although they need a little more depth I think. There are also different kind of tiers, draft tiers and LTC tiers differ completely.

Lengthy guides work best for new players. These new players can pick whoever they want and a guide would point them in a good way training a unit of their liking ^^' the units best support matches, growths, best weapon match, hidden events, etc but all of this information is easily found in the serenes game website ^^' so idk how much further a guide would go.

[dondon151]

Christ you know it ain't easy

You know how hard in can be