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

[grandjackal]

I find this topic pretty silly, because it seems like it's assumes LTC simply instructs you to use solely top tier and that's it. This is only true in FE12, where you don't really have a choice in the first place. You can still get LTCs and not field a team of top tiers. Because of this, I'm not sure why everyone's bitching.

...I mean sure, if you field nothing but low tiers then you're not getting LTC, but getting your turns low can be handled by generally one certain character or another. Take a route map as an example, with let's say FE8's Vanessa as your unit example. She'll still be good on a route map not because she's good at combat, but because she can get a unit that's good at combat somewhere else on the map sooner than if they just went on foot. Her rank is solely placed on utility rather than anything else about her because Vanessa in reality kinda sucks. I think people are too distracted by this, since otherwise the tier list is the more traditional measure of power and ease of use, of which does not say any unit is really constricted.

Perhaps those that lower the turn count get too much credit since they don't do much outside of lowering the number? Example, most of these units that do stuff like rescue bot and junk are a bit to close in relation who can do all this AND completely wreck face on their own, such as FE7 Marcus/Sain, FE8 Seth, Miledy, Titania in all her glory, Warp Staffers, etc.

[dondon151]

That about explains it, and pretty much affirms what I said earlier. Constant repetition taken to ludicrous proportions, time you could've been spending in the gym or something.

but it's not repetition, it's practice

i don't lose to that player just because he does combos more consistently than i do. he's able to press the initiative when he has the advantage and also create advantageous situations much better than i can. you seem to have the idea that you just need to learn how to press button sequences in the correct order in order to get good at a fighting game. that really cannot be further from the truth. players do not get better at a competitive fighting game without playing against better players, period. you can have perfect technical skill, but if you don't have the proper experience to make the right decisions on your feet, then you're going to find yourself unable to create openings while being outpredicted in every way.

do you think that playing an instrument at a high level is just "mechanical masturbation?" musicians practice for years just to perfect consistent execution, and they probably put about as much "thought" (actually probably less; musicians "feel" the music whereas fighting game players have to make decisions) into their performances as fighting game players do.

please back off and just take my word as truth. you have no experience, no perspective whatsoever to back up your claims.

Edited April 4, 2012 by dondon151

[Paperblade]

The literal definition of skill is

a : the ability to use one's knowledge effectively and readily in execution or performance

b : dexterity or coordination especially in the execution of learned physical tasks

note that definition b is pretty much "practicing something a bunch until you can do it without thinking"

Edited April 4, 2012 by Paperblade

[Progenitus]

Oh, I don't agree, although that is how I used to think of it. I would say that's how a specific character debate should be judged as, and not a tier list debate, simply because a tier list debate should be a lot broader than that. It seems like a framing device to ease newbies into tier list debating more than anything, especially because it doesn't always apply to tier lists (considering there are far more nuanced arguments- every chapter is different, after all).

Yes, therefore they are in high tier. One is a result of the other, but you still can't make this conclusion. The FE10 tier list is a good example of this, and there are some random nuances in the FE9 Tier List (for example, and this is one of my favorite counterexamples that you will see me beat to death: Tormod) and whatnot. You are not more likely to deploy a unit that is higher up on the tier list; it's a result of them being good enough to warrant that, but it's not the end-all be-all argument.

Could you list 3 examples of "higher on a tier list =/= fielded more often?", then?

[Lord Raven]

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=26257

Knoll > Rennac

Neimi > Rennac

Lute > Tana

Read: Any utility unit that exists. Tormod, Thany, Warp users, etc are more characters that have weird fielding situations.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Mercenary Raven

[Espinosa]

i don't lose to that player just because he does combos more consistently than i do. he's able to press the initiative when he has the advantage and also create advantageous situations much better than i can. you seem to have the idea that you just need to learn how to press button sequences in the correct order in order to get good at a fighting game. that really cannot be further from the truth. players do not get better at a competitive fighting game without playing against better players, period. you can have perfect technical skill, but if you don't have the proper experience to make the right decisions on your feet, then you're going to find yourself unable to create openings while being outpredicted in every way.

I was not saying playing a fighting game is memorisation of combos, God forbid. Though of course it's advisable that you know how to punish an attack or how to make the most out of a launcher, if applicable. I'm saying skill in a fighting game is all about reaction to stimuli you've grown accustomed to through constant reinforcement, hence the Pavlov's dog comparison I made earlier. If anything, it's not you playing the fighter, it's the fighter that's using your ability to react, make judgment based on other players you played and your opponent's level, and so forth. Your decision to do something in a fighting game is not a decision in the narrow sense of the word, it's a developed reaction to a stimulus.

I'm by no means an expert on this but I'm told martial arts at their highest level also demand such conditioned responding, hence why most if not all of them are involved in Eastern spiritual practices.

do you think that playing an instrument at a high level is just "mechanical masturbation?" musicians practice for years just to perfect consistent execution, and they probably put about as much "thought" (actually probably less; musicians "feel" the music whereas fighting game players have to make decisions) into their performances as fighting game players do.

Actually, I do think it's often just that, but it depends on what music and what musicians we're speaking of. Rock guitar virtuosos? Wankery at its most absurd. It's good that you mention the word 'feel' though, because that's what distinguishes music from, say, fighting games and makes it such an appealing medium that's been around since... as long as humankind has been around, even earlier maybe?

please back off and just take my word as truth. you have no experience, no perspective whatsoever to back up your claims.

Well, do you? You don't seem to be speaking from experience either based on how you phrase your ideas alone, speaking on behalf of some group of players who you claim to be way better than you, so whatever experience you do possess is clearly insufficient to match their prowess. If you base your information on what you were told, then, firstly, that's not your knowledge or your experience, and second, the information you pass off as your experience could be any guy's fiction. For example, I could say I need only 4 turns to clear a certain chapters thanks to my psych powers and while somebody who struggles to clear the same chapter in 15 turns might be tempted to believe me, if I try to pull off the same thing on these forums nobody will trust me.

I was part of a very strong, competitive Tekken community many years back, so I know what a high level fighter player is and what means they take to get to that level of proficiency. If I come to these forums looking for help with a problematic chapter of some sort, the advice I will get is to think carefully, position the characters right, move them with acute accuracy, plan ahead and think what I'll be doing next turn and the one after that, etc. If I can't pull off a certain move, I will just be reminded that I must repeat a few thousands times more until I can reproduce it with ease each time. On a macro level, if I'm having trouble facing a certain character, the expected advice will be to keep playing that character until I am able to react accordingly to their actions, learn how to pressure, etc.

[Progenitus]

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=26257

Knoll > Rennac

Neimi > Rennac

Lute > Tana

Read: Any utility unit that exists. Tormod, Thany, Warp users, etc are more characters that have weird fielding situations.

Are you looking at it as "unit A + team vs unit B + team"?

[Lord Raven]

Tana + team is better than Lute + team because while Lute can kill things, Tana can transport people when needed. Lute is still better due to combat, but Tana has much more utility. Same with Neimi vs Rennac, Rennac can steal things, grab desert items, chests without lockpicks or chest keys (besides you don't have any short of combat units as it stands), etc while Neimi... what the hell does she do? Tormod vs units below him is weird, because Tormod is good at offing things with random spells and can advance very far with siege tomes, but and Tormod + team is better than Nephenee + team because of his utility, but Nephenee is higher than Tormod even still.

This is easily fixed with a "utility" tier, though.

[Progenitus]

If it is true that, say, Tana + team is superior to Lute + team, then Tana > Lute, no questions, and so it makes no sense to have Lute above Tana on that tier list. Same thing for your other examples. Again, if Tana + team > Lute + team, then you will want to field Tana more often than Lute as that makes the team stronger/more efficient. (Assuming that all of your assertions/examples are correct, which I will not question for the moment, at that is not the point of my argument).

Unless the tier list is only considering combat, but that doesn't make sense because "utility" is still a factor to consider, and if Tana's edge in utility > Lute's edge in combat, then Tana > Lute.

Edited April 4, 2012 by IMPrime

[Lord Raven]

Therefore it's either my assertion is flawed or yours is flawed; we can't really do much from there. It's all situational and about specific arguments, and once again I brought up FE10 where we simply cannot use that standard, nor can we really make use of that standard when we factor in availability.

Though, Smash, I want to point out that I feel a bit of a contradiction because, arguing Efficiency as we do feels a lot more broad than what you are arguing; if anything, your standard seems more rigid than our efficiency standard. We do argue LTC at points, but whether or not the argument is LTC depends on the unit in question being argued (and which portion of the tier list we are arguing).

Unless the tier list is only considering combat, but that doesn't make sense because "utility" is still a factor to consider, and if Tana's edge in utility > Lute's edge in combat, then Tana > Lute.

At this point we run into problems. Combat is an incredibly easy thing to talk about solid wins over (provided there's no shitstorm about levels lol), but weighing utility (whose only actual numbers are aid/mov/HP healed/turncount) is a very difficult thing to do. I and many others would rather take a flier over another combat unit no matter what the scenario; hence, the flier is more likely to be fielded even if they don't have any significant wins in combat and are lower than another unit on the tier list. Although, I don't see where this conversation is going, myself, since all I'm trying to argue is that being more likely to be used => high tier, but not the other way around.

Also, another good example: Makalov and Astrid are much less likely to be used than Tormod, because Tormod is not nearly as redundant as Makalov/Astrid.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Mercenary Raven

[Othin]

An important note regarding drafts: drafts can require skill due to variation, depending on the rules. Perhaps an ideal tier list would be based on treating it like a draft with a good, agreed-upon ruleset.

[Anouleth]

If a unit was top tier why wouldn't you field this unit as much as possible? If a unit was bottom tier why wouldn't you avoid this unit at all costs?

Except that you have the cart before the horse. You are more likely to field units that do useful things, and less likely to field units that are useless and do nothing. That does not mean you should rank characters on how likely they are to be deployed, because the connection between the two is not perfect. Meg isn't very useful in 3-6 but you will deploy her anyway because she's free. Lilina sucks in Chapter 10 but you will field her anyway to recruit Gonzales. Micaiah will always be fielded: but not because she's the best unit in the game.

The whole idea behind tiers (or at least, the ones FEFF used to do for years) was that you have a team filled with arbitrary units (with good units being more likely to be on this team than bad ones) except you have 1 empty slot, and you are deciding whether to fill that slot with unit A or unit B. The unit that makes the team superior at achieving whatever goal you're aiming for is the unit that is superior. Thus, "deciding who to deploy".

Except that's dumb. Sue for High Tier guys, we're always going to deploy her so she can recruit Shin!

Plus, you get really stupid stuff coming out of this in other ways. Does Leanne not get credit for her performance in 3-11 because you can't choose to deploy her? What about Tanith and Sigrun in the same chapter? What about literally every DB character in 3-6 where you have as many slots as you do characters? What do we do with someone like Micaiah who is always forced?

Could you list 3 examples of "higher on a tier list =/= fielded more often?", then?

Edward is fielded in let's see, ten chapters. That's more chapters than Janaff and Ulki even exist in.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Anouleth

[BBM]

Although I don't agree with his idea, you don't need to deploy Sue every chapter to recruit Shin. Just once. It has little effect on whether you are going to deploy her for the whole game.

[Anouleth]

Although I don't agree with his idea, you don't need to deploy Sue every chapter to recruit Shin. Just once. It has little effect on whether you are going to deploy her for the whole game.

Sure, but you admit that for that one chapter, Sue is one of the best characters in the game since she is close to 100% certain to be deployed, right? And obviously that should have a positive effect on her tier position, riiight?

[BBM]

Sure, but you admit that for that one chapter, Sue is one of the best characters in the game since she is close to 100% certain to be deployed, right? And obviously that should have a positive effect on her tier position, riiight?

Sure, I've always believed that characters should get some mention for recruiting others. They shouldn't get all credit, obviously, but IMO it's a small form of utility. Being almost certain to be fielded for one chapter doesn't maker her auto-high though. But yes, forced units are a flaw in Smash's idea, which is why, as I stated earlier, I don't think it's good either.

[aku chi]

I don't see the difference. A unit that is btter is the one I will field more often.

The consequence of a unit being valuable is deploying them.

The consequence of a unit being deployed is not necessarily that they are valuable.

I might deploy a unit for any number of reasons. They might be force-deployed. They might help me recruit someone - or even have a unique conversation I'd like to read. I might be interested in them building a support with some other unit. I might use them as an interchangeable shove-bot. I might just like the character. I might have more than enough deployment slots, so there's no reason not to. Or they might help me complete the chapter (or get valuables that help me complete subsequent chapters).

Only the last issue is, in my opinion, worth debating. Debating a unit's contribution towards completing the game captures precisely what I care about when considering how "good" a unit is. Considering how likely a unit is to be deployed captures a host of qualities that I have no interest in considering; qualities that are irrelevant to how "good" a unit is. Are Fiona and Astrid better than Kyza because there is no competition for deployment in some of their chapters, and heavy competition for deployment in all of Kyza's? Is Janaff as good as Tanith in PoR's C19 because I'm just as likely to deploy him to talk to Naesala as I am to deploy her to ORKO Homasa? Of course not. What matters is not how likely a unit is to be fielded, but how much they can contribute when they are fielded.

[Espinosa]

Sure, but you admit that for that one chapter, Sue is one of the best characters in the game since she is close to 100% certain to be deployed, right? And obviously that should have a positive effect on her tier position, riiight?

Didn't some people basically agree that since Roy has to seize every map and he can't properly fight with his base stats, he's actually detrimental to efficiency (since you have to carry and drop him, and whatnot)? That is, a character being necessary for something treated as a con and not a pro.

[Colonel M]

Actually, I do think it's often just that, but it depends on what music and what musicians we're speaking of. Rock guitar virtuosos? Wankery at its most absurd. It's good that you mention the word 'feel' though, because that's what distinguishes music from, say, fighting games and makes it such an appealing medium that's been around since... as long as humankind has been around, even earlier maybe?

Oh boy, please tell me you've played an instrument before when you said this comment.

I'm not exactly a "professional" per-se, but I can assure you that music still requires a shitload of repetition. This is especially true for indoor drumlines and Drum Corps in general. You do not simply waltz in and become "good" with just the feel of music. It takes a lot more than that. I was even shocked that I got hold of a show (well, with errors of course) within two weeks, but that also came back to the shitload of experience I had with marching, knowing dots, and knowing my instrument pretty well.

If people didn't require much though to music, I wouldn't have constantly bitched at one of my quad players every week who, for some reason, couldn't grasp the concept of doubles after two years. That still pisses me off.

[Progenitus]

My viewpoint seems to be misunderstood.

Unit A vs Unit B is more about vying for resources in general rather than just a unit slot (although technically unit slots are vied for, but they are merely a resource, just like exp/gold/etc.). So, for example, if you compared Sue vs Lilina or something, and you are at the chapter where Shin appears (idk what that is off the top of my head, let's say ch9). Sue's team will have some leveled up Sue, while Lilina's team will field (a likely base level) Sue for this one chapter to recruit Shin. This low level Sue will displace someone on Lilina's team for 1 chapter (it could be one of Lilina's teammates, or even Lilina herself if you choose to). Sue's team has an advantage in ch 9, but only to the extent that the unit slot for Sue is going to a "competent" fighter (a leveled up Sue), while Lilina's team will be fielding base level Sue to make the recruitment, which is basically a waste of a unit slot at this point in the game.

Again, in this Sue vs Lilina, Sue should not get all the credit for recruiting Shin, just to the extent that she saves you a unit slot in ch 9. Same thing for Gonzo, where Sue's team has to remove some unit on the team in order to make room for base level Lilina so she can recruit Gonzo.

Similar case for forced units. Suppose you want to argue Roy vs Lot or something. unit A vs unit B can still be applied here, as Roy on Roy's team is leveled up to whatever, while Roy on Lot's team is low leveled and is only used for seizing/recruiting/etc.

And this is what I mean by "being used". I don't count using a base level Sue to recruit shin as "being used". I don't count using base level Roy for seizing/recruiting as "being used". Being used means fighting enemies, healing, chanting, etc., things you will be doing every chapter.

Edited April 4, 2012 by IMPrime

[dondon151]

I'm saying skill in a fighting game is all about reaction to stimuli you've grown accustomed to through constant reinforcement, hence the Pavlov's dog comparison I made earlier. If anything, it's not you playing the fighter, it's the fighter that's using your ability to react, make judgment based on other players you played and your opponent's level, and so forth. Your decision to do something in a fighting game is not a decision in the narrow sense of the word, it's a developed reaction to a stimulus.

but this is not true. a good fighting game player will come across many situations where he hasn't specifically trained a reaction to a certain stimulus. it's, by definition, impossible to develop a reaction to every single possible stimulus that one can come across because competitive fighting games are dynamic.

and once again, the importance of reaction time in fighting games is overstated. mew2king is notorious for having a bad reaction time, but he was one of the best melee players in the history of the game. very rarely at a high level do you have to react to something outright, and if you're relying on that sort of reaction, then you're bound to lose anyway. no one can adequately react to things like 6-frame startup attacks because it's physically impossible to do so (not to mention that the visual cue for the startup is not usually very obvious). if you're going to get hit, you know that you're going to get hit, because you were in a bad spot beforehand and made some wrong decisions. if you're going to combo the opponent, you know the moment that you hit confirm that you can execute the combo to its end.

Actually, I do think it's often just that, but it depends on what music and what musicians we're speaking of. Rock guitar virtuosos? Wankery at its most absurd. It's good that you mention the word 'feel' though, because that's what distinguishes music from, say, fighting games and makes it such an appealing medium that's been around since... as long as humankind has been around, even earlier maybe?

this is also totally untrue. i really hate it when people portray rock and metal musicians as emotionless robots who do nothing but mechanically play music while classical musicians dance in a field of butterflies. rock and metal musicians really get into their performances, and the majority of them draw on classical influences or have some sort of background as a classical musician. and furthermore, not all music of the genre is the same.

Well, do you? You don't seem to be speaking from experience either based on how you phrase your ideas alone, speaking on behalf of some group of players who you claim to be way better than you, so whatever experience you do possess is clearly insufficient to match their prowess. If you base your information on what you were told, then, firstly, that's not your knowledge or your experience, and second, the information you pass off as your experience could be any guy's fiction. For example, I could say I need only 4 turns to clear a certain chapters thanks to my psych powers and while somebody who struggles to clear the same chapter in 15 turns might be tempted to believe me, if I try to pull off the same thing on these forums nobody will trust me.

i had played melee at a near competitive level for over 6 years. the only reason why i didn't pursue it more seriously is because my parents actively disapproved of me doing so. but my level of play is very much at the level where i have to think about every decision that i make - the game is far more mentally exhausting, especially when playing against a superior opponent.

If I can't pull off a certain move, I will just be reminded that I must repeat a few thousands times more until I can reproduce it with ease each time. On a macro level, if I'm having trouble facing a certain character, the expected advice will be to keep playing that character until I am able to react accordingly to their actions, learn how to pressure, etc.

yes, being able to pull off moves is something that needs to be conditioned - but that should be second nature to any competitive player, and technical prowess is only going to get you so far in a competitive scenario. the character matchup advice that you characterized is an oversimplification of what one actually has to do in order to play a matchup; you have to know exactly what to do and what not to do to minimize disadvantageous situations and maximize advantageous ones, but more importantly, you have to learn to recognize those situations and also learn to what to do once you're in them.

[Lord Raven]

I'm not misunderstanding, Smash, I'm just saying that tier lists aren't usage tiers. A unit can be more valuable than another but less likely to be used, is all I'm saying.

[Progenitus]

My post just explained that, basically, simply being deployed =/= "used". Sue is deployed almost 100% of the time in that one chapter to recruit Shin, but she doesn't actually have to be trained, attack anything meaningful, etc., in order to do it, so that isn't the same as "using" Sue.

When you put it this way, being "used" and "higher tier" have a positive correlation.

[Lord Raven]

I know what you were saying, Smash, but I wasn't like Anouleth and twisting it to mean something stupid like that. I stated specific counterexamples, in fact, to what *I am* referring to, where lower tier units are more likely to be used than higher tier units due to utility, and notice how Sue was nowhere near apart of my argument in the sense that she's recruiting Shin; she may be apart of my argument in the sense that she's a mounted bow user (so chip utility + rescuing) but not because she can recruit two characters.

[Othin]

Okay so here's the thing with Sue. For one chapter, sure, let's say Shin is super-necessary and so she gets a deployment rating of 1.00 (100%). Then for the rest of the game, she's not so good, so she gets a rating of, I dunno, 0.30. Now, let's look at her availability. I'm not going to count up how many chapters she's around for; fuck if I care about the exact number. Le's call it 25. So what's her overall rating? Well, she's got a rating of 1.00 for one chapter and a rating of 0.30 for the other 24. So let's take the average.

(1.00 x 1 + 0.30 x 24) / 25 = 0.328

So, ultimately, how much is that one deployment going to change her tier rating? Going from 0.30 to 0.328 (because fuck consistent decimals) might bump her up a spot or two, but no more. If she would be in Low Tier without the recruitment, it's not going to make her jump to High Tier. If she's in Upper Mid, maybe it would. I don't know her current tier position and I don't care to check, but I'm guessing it's not so great if a jump to High Tier would be such a bizarre occurrence.

And does this not make sense? After all, if you want Shin that much, then of course you want to deploy Sue to recruit him. So using her means you can bring her for that one chapter without having to give up the space of a unit you're using for combat for one you aren't. So it makes sense that she could get a small bonus, just not something huge.

[Progenitus]

After rereading one of your posts...

since all I'm trying to argue is that being more likely to be used => high tier, but not the other way around.

that's fine. However I still stand by what I've said about how to rank units (being deployed =/= being used), albeit it's irrelevant to this particular point.