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

[Paperblade]

I never said he's always wrong. I did mention that he took the 2+2 analogy too far. He can be right, but if I don't already agree with what he's saying or consider it reasonable I generally don't think it's worth looking into.

You didn't explicitly say so, but you said you agreed with Defeatist, who said that smash's "history of making silly unreasonable claims" was enough to warrant assuming that future claims were also silly and unreasonable.

Source: http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=30440&view=findpost&p=1849574

Pull up the posts. And don't bother if they are from any time before 2010.

Early 2010, from a list that smash linked and was already dismissed by you.

Your initial response was to ask if we were trolling: http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=19097&view=findpost&p=863816

Anouleth thinks the list is insane: http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=19097&view=findpost&p=864457

Joey thinks the list is a terrible idea: http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=19097&view=findpost&p=904072

dondon says he finds the premise pointless: http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=19097&view=findpost&p=906545

WJC/CATS responds: http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=19097&view=findpost&p=906585

Narga responds in #209 and WJC again in #211

That's four examples explicitly stating it, never mind the multitude of posts where people repeatedly assumed that the player is retarded/incompetent despite it being stated multiple times that the player is merely imperfect and not completely knowledgeable about the game or implications such as personal biases influencing placements such as Mia in bottom tier.

When did it become so bad to enjoy this kind of argument? The FE10 tier list has almost 10,000 posts for Christ's sake.

What? Posts against smash have always been inflammatory by nature, and you ask why this is a problem? Even though I stated earlier in this thread that I quit tiering because I no longer felt welcome there? That one of the topics of discussion in this topic is how hostile SF is to new ideas?

There is truth in this, but I find Smash to be among the worst cases. At least 95% of the time if people don't agree with him they are just "trolling." For almost anyone that has regularly debated in the topics here I can remember at least a few cases where they gave in on an argument, but none for Smash.

While I do not necessarily agree with smash implying everyone is trolling, people have blown many of smash's arguments totally out of proportion. Communism Emblem and Nephenee is 3HKO'd by houses are two good examples.

[Narga_Rocks]

Having Seth can still result in "not have Seth solo maps" and thus can still be incorporated into the main tier list. Assuming that Seth is fielded, thus he HAS to be soloing maps (because if he's not doing that, the "impact between having Seth and not having Seth" is in fact not significant to the point that a separate tier list has to be made to consider such a situation) goes back to my first post - that the SF niche playstyle is abusing the fuck out of the overpowered units, and that anything that doesn't conform to that playstyle has to be directed to a different tier list than the ones the SF niche argue.

First off, he doesn't solo maps. He just goes to the boss as fast as he can (which is really damn fast) and kills it, because he can. He's not soloing anything because other units still run around to open chests, visit houses, and kill whatever scraps they can as well as killing stuff that is in Seth's way. It's just being efficient.

So instead of that, you want a cuffed Seth? Why would you ever do that in an efficiency tier list? How is it efficient to have Seth kill scrubs in random parts of the map while your other units turtle their way to the boss? Even in one of YOUR tier lists, your claim is

- Finish as fast as possible while consuming a minimum amount of resources

This is pretty close to our definition of efficiency. Not the resources thing, because consumption of resources should never be looked at without also considering the gains from that resource. The important thing is NET GAIN. If unit A gains 100 and costs 50, but unit B gains 50 and costs 20, unit A > B should be really really obvious. +50 > +30. But your look seems to want unit B to win because it costs less. That aside, "Finish as fast as possible with reliable accuracy" would be more like our definition of efficiency. Now, in an efficiency tier list, why would you not spam Seth properly if he's being used? Even on your definition, Seth just used a bunch of javelins and iron swords, which is pretty minimum, and to finish as fast as possible requires him to go to the boss.

I have to wonder what your complaint is about

abusing the fuck out of the overpowered units

when that is really the ONLY WAY to "finish as fast as possible". If fe9 Titania is being used, then in order to "finish as fast as possible" you need to "abuse Titania" in order to have her kill the boss. So I ask, what is the logic in your problem with abusing overpowered units?

Narga responds in #209 and WJC again in #211

What's wrong with my post there? CATS was the only one of you four in that tier list that took posts seriously, and I thought he did a great job of responding to my issues with the tier list and a great job solving them. And I was in no way trolling or whatever.

As for on-topic, I think my response to smash focuses on LTC or not. But I'm not sure how this arguing about how we treat smash is on topic.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Narga_Rocks

[Defeatist Elitist]

You didn't explicitly say so, but you said you agreed with Defeatist, who said that smash's "history of making silly unreasonable claims" was enough to warrant assuming that future claims were also silly and unreasonable.

Source: http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=30440&view=findpost&p=1849574

That's not actually what I said, I said that if someone had such a history then it would be warranted for someone to begin their assesment of future claims as silly and unreasonable, though to rephrase things more clearly, it's enough for people to begin their assesment of future claims as false.

I never said smash HAS that history, as I conceded in that post that I don't quite know enough about smash to make any claims about him, and I never said that you should just permanently assume their claims were bogus even if there was evidence to the contrary.

[Paperblade]

Right, sorry. I misinterpreted that. However, RFoF is implying that by agreeing with you that she believes smash has such a history. Or at least, that's how I interpreted it.

[Narga_Rocks]

Right, sorry. I misinterpreted that. However, RFoF is implying that by agreeing with you that she believes smash has such a history. Or at least, that's how I interpreted it.

That much definitely seems true. I'm pretty sure she believes smash has such a history. I believe Int does as well. No comment on my belief.

Now, can we get back on topic with the LTC vs not LTC stuff and get off this "do we treat smash worse than he deserves" stuff? If you want to keep talking about how serenes members treat new ideas, or even old ideas from smash and you, then make a new topic in general or fftf.

edit: silly me. There's already a topic for that in general.

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=30380&pid=1846695&st=60entry1846695

"Don't you think we can be a little harsh on new users as a community at times?"

Only thing it's missing is "don't you think we can be a little harsh on smash and paperblade at times?" or something similar.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Narga_Rocks

[Progenitus]

First off, he doesn't solo maps. He just goes to the boss as fast as he can (which is really damn fast) and kills it, because he can. He's not soloing anything because other units still run around to open chests, visit houses, and kill whatever scraps they can as well as killing stuff that is in Seth's way. It's just being efficient. So instead of that, you want a cuffed Seth? Why would you ever do that in an efficiency tier list? How is it efficient to have Seth kill scrubs in random parts of the map while your other units turtle their way to the boss? Even in one of YOUR tier lists, your claim is

"solo maps" is an obvious hyperbole, but he is still doing the majority of the work, according to you and the rest of the SF niche.

If it was a debate between Seth vs some random dude, then the fact that Seth can solo maps because he's that good can be brought up and will make Seth win the debate.

If it's something like Franz vs Vanessa, the fact that Seth can solo maps shouldn't matter. The fact that "well if Seth doesn't solo the map you're not playing efficiently so why are you doing that" implies that low and mid tiers can never be fielded because using them ever is inefficient, because if the player will have Seth solo the map because doing otherwise is deemed to be inefficient, then likewise the player will not field these bad units because doing otherwise is deemed to be inefficient.

This is exactly why discussion regarding LTC, and the overall abuse of the overpowered characters, is dying out.

The fallacy can be dealt with by attempting to establish a reasonable working definition of the term at play or by showing that the other party is being unreasonable and avoiding the argument.

Show me where that happened. I'm pretty sure I pointed out that it wasn't defined.

Reread the topic, and paperblade's post about it.

You're taking the analogy a bit too far here. I just don't take you seriously enough to consider the arguments you make to be credible, as I would anyone who might say 2 + 2 = 5.

You didn't make yourself look any better with thsi excuse.

"Spreading?" I know you've mentioned some, but if this is really going to be your reasoning, start focusing your arguments on where the SF influence is infecting other sites. I don't post anywhere else anymore, and if it's all here anyway, it shouldn't matter to you.

And if you wanted to talk to people at SF not part of the SF niche...isn't that kind of pointless? I mean, we are at SF.

The SF niche is int, narga, you, dondon, nflchamp, etc.

I enjoy the arguments. I don't troll him. Come on.

Saying "I just don't take you seriously enough to consider the arguments you make to be credible, as I would anyone who might say 2 + 2 = 5." tells another story. Just saying.

Edited February 12, 2012 by IMPrime

[Narga_Rocks]

"solo maps" is an obvious hyperbole, but he is still doing the majority of the work, according to you and the rest of the SF niche.

If it was a debate between Seth vs some random dude, then the fact that Seth can solo maps because he's that good can be brought up and will make Seth win the debate.

If it's something like Franz vs Vanessa, the fact that Seth can solo maps shouldn't matter. The fact that "well if Seth doesn't solo the map you're not playing efficiently so why are you doing that" implies that low and mid tiers can never be fielded because using them ever is inefficient, because if the player will have Seth solo the map because doing otherwise is deemed to be inefficient, then likewise the player will not field these bad units because doing otherwise is deemed to be inefficient.

This is exactly why discussion regarding LTC, and the overall abuse of the overpowered characters, is dying out.

Are we talking tier list or one on one debate, now? Well, maybe it doesn't matter. Their levels are still determined by the amount of use Seth is getting. If you want to talk 20/1 in chapter 10 or something, we are going to have to agree to go Sethless, probably. If you want to assume Seth, then they might be 10/1 then or whatever. Really, it doesn't matter. They can be debated no matter how much Seth is used, and chances are the two people will be willing to come to some agreement of what kind of Seth-use they are talking about.

quite frankly, this happens everywhere on a debate between two units in fe8. If the debators don't happen to know how much Seth breaks the game if you take his chains off, then there is an implicit agreement to go with chained seth or sethless, depending on the levels they like. I don't see how the "overall abuse of overpowered characters" is causing any kind of death in this instance.

Also, have you ever played Shining Force 2? Do you hate Peter?

[Florete]

You didn't explicitly say so, but you said you agreed with Defeatist, who said that smash's "history of making silly unreasonable claims" was enough to warrant assuming that future claims were also silly and unreasonable.

Source: http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=30440&view=findpost&p=1849574

I don't deny that. People who are often wrong can still be right, after all. I don't think I've contradicted myself yet.

Early 2010, from a list that smash linked and was already dismissed by you.

Your initial response was to ask if we were trolling: http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=19097&view=findpost&p=863816

Anouleth thinks the list is insane: http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=19097&view=findpost&p=864457

Joey thinks the list is a terrible idea: http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=19097&view=findpost&p=904072

dondon says he finds the premise pointless: http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=19097&view=findpost&p=906545

WJC/CATS responds: http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=19097&view=findpost&p=906585

Narga responds in #209 and WJC again in #211

That's four examples explicitly stating it, never mind the multitude of posts where people repeatedly assumed that the player is retarded/incompetent despite it being stated multiple times that the player is merely imperfect and not completely knowledgeable about the game or implications such as personal biases influencing placements such as Mia in bottom tier.

This is a bad example (or maybe I expected something different in the first place). Yes, we said it was dumb, but we explained why it was dumb and no, I don't think a reasonable response was given. "Merely imperfect and not completely knowledgeable about the game" is the problem. An imperfect player can make many mistakes that will cause large shifts unit usage. This isn't good for tiering. What happens if Titania accidentally gets killed in Ch 8? This is pretty significant and suddenly puts a lot more weight on unit availability.

What? Posts against smash have always been inflammatory by nature, and you ask why this is a problem? Even though I stated earlier in this thread that I quit tiering because I no longer felt welcome there? That one of the topics of discussion in this topic is how hostile SF is to new ideas?

This is not unique to Smash, nor unique even to this site. Heated arguments happen everywhere. Smash just happens to be the one who complains about it the most, but rest assured there are people on this site and others that I've treated much worse than Smash (not all of it I think was okay to do, either). Obviously I don't treat him well now, but back in the day I don't believe I treated him any differently than others, nor do I think anyone else did. We didn't start picking on him for no reason.

While I do not necessarily agree with smash implying everyone is trolling, people have blown many of smash's arguments totally out of proportion. Communism Emblem and Nephenee is 3HKO'd by houses are two good examples.

The argument was actually "Nephenee has a hard time visiting houses because she's 3HKOd." And that really is what Smash said. And I'm pretty sure we didn't make fun of it very much.

Now, can we get back on topic with the LTC vs not LTC stuff and get off this "do we treat smash worse than he deserves" stuff? If you want to keep talking about how serenes members treat new ideas, or even old ideas from smash and you, then make a new topic in general or fftf.

This is technically on topic since this topic was created as a result of people not liking our "LTC" standards.

[Narga_Rocks]

This is technically on topic since this topic was created as a result of people not liking our "LTC" standards.

But isn't that still not "do we treat smash like crap"? I thought the topic was more about ltcers vs non-ltcers and how ltc is killing communities blah blah blah. Not about us assuming smash has nothing good to say.

[Othin]

Maybe Franz and Vanessa will be LV10, maybe they'll be LV20, maybe they'll be somewhere in between. Maybe Seth or Titania or whoever is dead, or simply isn't being used constantly. Maybe we'll have to consider a number of uncertain priorities rather than being able to default to one cookie-cutter strategy. That's a good thing. That gives us options, looking at the whole world the game has to offer rather than this narrow sliver of it. It gives us things to think about that don't fit into just one mold, so we can understand the importance of characters that don't fit into that mold.

Assuming people like Smash have nothing to say is part of the very LTC mindset this thread exists to discuss. This demonstration of more problems the mindset has caused is as on-topic as anything could possibly be.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Othin

[Progenitus]

Are we talking tier list or one on one debate, now? Well, maybe it doesn't matter.

As far as I'm concerned, debating tiers and a debate tournament use the same standards (unless specified otherwise). The only difference is that a tier is trying to attain the truth, while a debate tournament is just trying to prove why the character you're defending is better.

Their levels are still determined by the amount of use Seth is getting. If you want to talk 20/1 in chapter 10 or something, we are going to have to agree to go Sethless, probably. If you want to assume Seth, then they might be 10/1 then or whatever. Really, it doesn't matter. They can be debated no matter how much Seth is used, and chances are the two people will be willing to come to some agreement of what kind of Seth-use they are talking about. quite frankly, this happens everywhere on a debate between two units in fe8. If the debators don't happen to know how much Seth breaks the game if you take his chains off, then there is an implicit agreement to go with chained seth or sethless, depending on the levels they like. I don't see how the "overall abuse of overpowered characters" is causing any kind of death in this instance.

Or you can not assume that only one scenario will happen.

You can say "if seth doesn't rampage the maps then these units will have A levels at chapter X", and then also say "if Seth DOES rampage maps, then these units instead will have B levels at chapter X", and consider what happens in both scenarios.

What's killing tiers is that you are only assuming 1 of those scenarios (having Seth rampage) because doing the other (not having Seth rampage or not fielding Seth at all) is "inefficient", or even attempting to consider the inefficient scenario requires that you make a completely separate tier about it. This restricts what there is to talk about.

EDIT: What Othin also just said.

Also, have you ever played Shining Force 2?

No.

Edited February 12, 2012 by IMPrime

[Narga_Rocks]

Maybe Franz and Vanessa will be LV10, maybe they'll be LV20, maybe they'll be somewhere in between. Maybe Seth or Titania or whoever is dead, or simply isn't being used constantly. Maybe we'll have to consider a number of uncertain priorities rather than being able to default to one cookie-cutter strategy. That's a good thing. That gives us options, looking at the whole world the game has to offer rather than this narrow sliver of it. It gives us things to think about that don't fit into just one mold, so we can understand the importance of characters that don't fit into that mold.

Assuming people like Smash have nothing to say is part of the very LTC mindset this thread exists to discuss. This demonstration of more problems the mindset has caused is as on-topic as anything could possibly be.

As far as I'm concerned, debating tiers and a debate tournament use the same standards (unless specified otherwise). The only difference is that a tier is trying to attain the truth, while a debate tournament is just trying to prove why the character you're defending is better.

Or you can not assume that only one scenario will happen.

You can say "if seth doesn't rampage the maps then these units will have A levels at chapter X", and then also say "if Seth DOES rampage maps, then these units instead will have B levels at chapter X", and consider what happens in both scenarios.

What's killing tiers is that you are only assuming 1 of those scenarios (having Seth rampage) because doing the other (not having Seth rampage or not fielding Seth at all) is "inefficient", or even attempting to consider the inefficient scenario requires that you make a completely separate tier about it. This restricts what there is to talk about.

EDIT: What Othin also just said.

No.

So now you try to put it on a tier list, and you get stuff you guys never bothered to respond to. I'm guessing because although this all sounds nice in theory, you both deep down know that if you try to account for all the different scenarios on a tier list you end up with a meaningless jumble.

[Progenitus]

To the extent of writing completely separate writeups of how a unit's performance at chapter X at different levels? Maybe not. But I'll generally say something along the lines of "well if unit X is at a lower level for whatever reason, then this and this happens to its performance" or "if unit Y happens to obtain this resource, then this and this happens".

[Aethereal]

Maybe Franz and Vanessa will be LV10, maybe they'll be LV20, maybe they'll be somewhere in between. Maybe Seth or Titania or whoever is dead, or simply isn't being used constantly. Maybe we'll have to consider a number of uncertain priorities rather than being able to default to one cookie-cutter strategy. That's a good thing. That gives us options, looking at the whole world the game has to offer rather than this narrow sliver of it. It gives us things to think about that don't fit into just one mold, so we can understand the importance of characters that don't fit into that mold.

If Seth dies at a random time, or isn't used, it changes every other unit's value tremendously. Using Seth, Franz is an okay character. Not very good, in my opinion, but whatever. Seth-less, he's freakin' incredible. How do you reconcile these two different positions in a list that is supposed to take into account both possibilities? Do you put Franz in the middle? That doesn't reflect either scenario. You're right that a lot of situations should be looked at, but if you're going to judge units and don't have any sort of guideline, playstyle, or goal, you can't accurately judge units because their positions can be drastically different. Why multiple tier lists is a bad option to every one is beyond me, except that Smash is mad that people didn't agree with him, or that a particular list would be unpopular.

[Florete]

But isn't that still not "do we treat smash like crap"? I thought the topic was more about ltcers vs non-ltcers and how ltc is killing communities blah blah blah. Not about us assuming smash has nothing good to say.

Part of the problem is that people think we shove our LTC standards on others and treat them like crap for disagreeing, so Smash would be one in a group. It may not be the heart of the issue, but it seems reasonable to me.

[Dark Sage]

-Do not only assume we are going under optimal turns always. AKA, do not assume we are always doing a 3 turn of Chapter 8 for example. I, and many others, are not interested in arguing in an optimal turncounts always or GTFO list. A 5 turn of that map is still somewhat efficient and might actually be the best route depending on what MU you chose (it's impossible to pull off the 3 turn with a Mage MU for example).

One of the issues is that going fast is harder than going slow, so a unit that is high tier for allowing the 3 turn probably makes the 5 turn a complete and utter joke. The only exception is considering stuff like rescue staffing, but saying "we're taking it slow" doesn't change where combat units are on the tier list. At the very best it makes growth units a bit more manageable, but that's already rather iffy and I doubt it would move them up at all considering the best units are still the best regardless of whether you spend 3 turns or 5.

Basically the suggestion that the efficiency list should try to take into account other strategies besides the one with the lowest possible turncount and that it is possible to be efficient without basically achieving optimal LTCs was met with rejection.

Later on in the list:

Because Mage MU is awful in prologue and not much better throughout the game. It is clearly a MUCH worse decision than Fighter/Armor -> Dracoknight MU. It's similar to assuming Haar isn't always in play. Sure, there may be PTs that Haar isn't used. These are not efficient playthroughs.

I think that if an efficiency list/LTC list is popular, then people shouldn't say "STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE!" but I am alarmed at how tier lists are becoming increasingly narrow in what is allowed and what isn't allowed. The 2nd quote btw is worse because of this:

My Unit can be tiered based on class, since generally we will know/learn what stat distribution is going to be best for said class.

Fuck that. Too many combinations. Besides, MU is forced on every map, and is going to essentially stomp every nut ever as long as you're marginally competent. At some point I'm going to compile a list of "best MU builds" like Fighter -> Hero/Berserker or AK/Cav -> Paladin.

So yeah.

[Othin]

If Seth dies at a random time, or isn't used, it changes every other unit's value tremendously. Using Seth, Franz is an okay character. Not very good, in my opinion, but whatever. Seth-less, he's freakin' incredible. How do you reconcile these two different positions in a list that is supposed to take into account both possibilities? Do you put Franz in the middle? That doesn't reflect either scenario. You're right that a lot of situations should be looked at, but if you're going to judge units and don't have any sort of guideline, playstyle, or goal, you can't accurately judge units because their positions can be drastically different. Why multiple tier lists is a bad option to every one is beyond me, except that Smash is mad that people didn't agree with him, or that a particular list would be unpopular.

The middle isn't some far-fetched scenario. Maybe you're using Seth sometimes, but you're not having him just run off on his own constantly to take on entire armies because you don't want to risk getting him killed, and you want other characters to be competent enough to take over in case he dies.

I didn't suggest not having any sort of guidelines, playstyle, or goals. All I'm suggesting is not making those guidelines and goals so rigid that they turn an entire playthrough of the game into just the performance of a pre-written script. What I'm saying is that there should be room for options within those guidelines, room for things to go differently than you expect. One of the main guidelines I support is minimal resets, and that means there's a very real possibility that Seth will die and stay dead, especially if you use him excessively. So a minimal resets list already must, by its definition, recognize and take into account the possibility that characters may be dead or withheld sometimes. Yes, it's not a simple process. You've demonstrated that successfully. But that, I say, is a good thing: it leaves room to consider options.

[Anouleth]

Maybe Franz and Vanessa will be LV10, maybe they'll be LV20, maybe they'll be somewhere in between. Maybe Seth or Titania or whoever is dead, or simply isn't being used constantly.

We have an entire tier list devoted to the possibility that Seth isn't used. A seperate tier list isn't needed for Titania since her absence doesn't have a huge impact on anyone except Boyd and Oscar, who would probably only move one space anyway. I understand that it's just an example, but in the future you should select examples that actually back up your point.

[Othin]

We have an entire tier list devoted to the possibility that Seth isn't used. A seperate tier list isn't needed for Titania since her absence doesn't have a huge impact on anyone except Boyd and Oscar, who would probably only move one space anyway. I understand that it's just an example, but in the future you should select examples that actually back up your point.

So why is it that you are saying this to someone who introduced neither of those examples?

[Narga_Rocks]

The middle isn't some far-fetched scenario. Maybe you're using Seth sometimes, but you're not having him just run off on his own constantly to take on entire armies because you don't want to risk getting him killed, and you want other characters to be competent enough to take over in case he dies.

I didn't suggest not having any sort of guidelines, playstyle, or goals. All I'm suggesting is not making those guidelines and goals so rigid that they turn an entire playthrough of the game into just the performance of a pre-written script. What I'm saying is that there should be room for options within those guidelines, room for things to go differently than you expect. One of the main guidelines I support is minimal resets, and that means there's a very real possibility that Seth will die and stay dead, especially if you use him excessively. So a minimal resets list already must, by its definition, recognize and take into account the possibility that characters may be dead or withheld sometimes. Yes, it's not a simple process. You've demonstrated that successfully. But that, I say, is a good thing: it leaves room to consider options.

I think we have a strong difference of opinion on what is a good way to go about things. I happen to like multiple tier lists a lot. If I want to know how good a unit is in Sethless, I look at that. If I want to look at how good a unit is in Sethstomp/Sethskip, I look at that. To me, there is simply less meaning in a mixed tier list than there is in multiple lists. Now, multiple is within reason, like 2 or 3, and hopefully those 2 or 3 tier lists can cover a variety of reasonable ideas. Some games it isn't even necessary to have more than 1 list, like PoR (even then, perhaps 2 is good for LTC without reliability and then LTC/efficiency with reliability). But I think rank/unrank(efficient) is a good reason to have two lists. I think Seth/noSeth is good. Heck, maybe even a Cuffed/Marginal Seth list would be useful, though I personally wouldn't care about what's on it. If I'm going to use him, I'm going to use him all the way. But it could be interesting to some people so it is valid.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Narga_Rocks

[Paperblade]

I don't deny that. People who are often wrong can still be right, after all. I don't think I've contradicted myself yet.

... My point was that implying he has a history of silly claims or w/e as opposed to anyone else is false.

This is a bad example (or maybe I expected something different in the first place). Yes, we said it was dumb, but we explained why it was dumb and no, I don't think a reasonable response was given. "Merely imperfect and not completely knowledgeable about the game" is the problem. An imperfect player can make many mistakes that will cause large shifts unit usage. This isn't good for tiering. What happens if Titania accidentally gets killed in Ch 8? This is pretty significant and suddenly puts a lot more weight on unit availability.

Yes, and WJC admitted it was subjective. However, he didn't think that it was subjective to the point where it could not be discussed, and believed that trying to narrow it down further would be an arbitrary decision.

You also seem to be under the impression that subjectivity is a problem. Here's a back and forth from Narga and WJC (I'm sure you can figure out who is who) from that topic.

As Interceptor has pointed out countless times, of course there are subjective things that are discussed. The question here would be whether there is a point in adding even more subjective things on top of it. The information on the game disc only is an objective rule, so while I don't think it is a good rule, it is certainly an option for tiering (I think it's more interesting to see which units are best when the player tries to squeeze out everything the game has to give, rather than simply which units are better in a random playthrough by Joe-Know-Nothing). Adding more subjective rules, however, like stating a player is good enough to protect Rhys but not good enough to keep Marcia away from bows, is pointless. Cutting out as many subjective things as possible is helpful.

I disagree. As stated already, the objective and easily defined is also easily settled and decided. Hence, reducing subjective factors stifles discussion to a certain extent. And is discussion not the ultimate purpose of the tier list topic?

Then you might as well just change the rules every two months for tier lists. I would have thought the objective was to set the units in an ordering based on how good they are.

"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?

For example, in the ranked lists, people would often argue which ranks were most important or difficult and thus deserved more weight, and this was something never agreed upon. Would you argue that this was "too subjective?"

I could also go to the Gold Efficiency list, which was completely 100% clear ("Use less gold is better") and some people wanted to change it so that it was required to be under certain #s of turns... which is actually kind of funny because if you added in a "All characters must be recruited and none can die" you basically have a ranked list.

This is not unique to Smash, nor unique even to this site. Heated arguments happen everywhere. Smash just happens to be the one who complains about it the most, but rest assured there are people on this site and others that I've treated much worse than Smash (not all of it I think was okay to do, either). Obviously I don't treat him well now, but back in the day I don't believe I treated him any differently than others, nor do I think anyone else did. We didn't start picking on him for no reason.

There is a difference between a heated argument and creating absurd strawmen arguments and flaming people. I get into heated arguments with people (even about FE) and enjoy it, but arguing with certain people in tier lists tested my patience to the point where I was no longer having fun. So, I decided to quit because in addition to that, SF's purpose and philosophy are so much different than what I originally got into tier lists for that I didn't think it was worth it and felt my opinion was no longer relevant.

The argument was actually "Nephenee has a hard time visiting houses because she's 3HKOd." And that really is what Smash said. And I'm pretty sure we didn't make fun of it very much.

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=14781&st=80&p=453333entry453333

Neph is so bad, she can't even visit houses in 2-1 without worrying about dying. She's 3-4HKO'd by everything (other than joke myrms), so if she spends even one turn not spamming her vulnerary she risks dying.

[16:56] <Dark_Sage> Admit it Paper, the 3HKO'd by houses thing is a great line

[16:56] <Paperblade> yeah it's funny but it's a total misrepresentation of a legitimate argument

[16:56] <Paperblade> he was saying that if Neph visits a house

[16:56] <Paperblade> she can't attack the next turn

[16:56] <Paperblade> because

[16:57] <Paperblade> she'll get attacked by an enemy the turn she visits the house

[16:57] <Paperblade> and lose 1/3 of her HP

[16:57] <Paperblade> then if she attacks

[16:57] <Paperblade> she gets countered

[16:57] <Paperblade> takes another third

[16:57] <Paperblade> and then dies on enemy phase

[17:00] <Dark_Sage> I know

[17:01] <Paperblade> no one would make an argument like "KATARINA GETS OHKO'D BY FORESTS" because you're arguing if she moves in range of the wrong enemy she dies

[17:02] <Paperblade> because it's a retarded counter that totally misrepresents the point

I slightly misremembered the exact argument when I explained it to Sage (I assumed only 1 enemy was attacking her and she was trying to kill enemies while smash was saying she was being attacked by 2+ and just wanted to visit houses)

[Othin]

I think we have a strong difference of opinion on what is a good way to go about things. I happen to like multiple tier lists a lot. If I want to know how good a unit is in Sethless, I look at that. If I want to look at how good a unit is in Sethstomp/Sethskip, I look at that. To me, there is simply less meaning in a mixed tier list than there is in multiple lists. Now, multiple is within reason, like 2 or 3, and hopefully those 2 or 3 tier lists can cover a variety of reasonable ideas. Some games it isn't even necessary to have more than 1 list, like PoR (even then, perhaps 2 is good for LTC without reliability and then LTC/efficiency with reliability). But I think rank/unrank(efficient) is a good reason to have two lists. I think Seth/noSeth is good. Heck, maybe even a Cuffed/Marginal Seth list would be useful, though I personally wouldn't care about what's on it. If I'm going to use him, I'm going to use him all the way. But it could be interesting to some people so it is valid.

There's nothing wrong with multiple tier lists. LTC, ranked, no reset are all good options to be able to look at; they're playing the game with different goals in mind. Whether or not you use Seth? That's not different tier lists giving entirely different goals; that's an example of different tier lists telling you different ways to go about achieving those goals. That's where I say there's a problem.

Now, I won't say there's anything wrong with adding rules as part of those goals, like the non-Warp list for FE11. But the implication of this particular list split is that if Seth exists, you will be using him, specifically, and that you will be using specific strategies because of that. And I'd say that's going too far.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Othin

[Narga_Rocks]

There's nothing wrong with multiple tier lists. LTC, ranked, no reset are all good options to be able to look at; they're playing the game with different goals in mind. Whether or not you use Seth? That's not different tier lists giving entirely different goals; that's an example of different tier lists telling you different ways to go about achieving those goals. That's where I say there's a problem.

And this is where we disagree. With the huge difference Seth-spam (to paraphrase smash's words) makes compared to not spamming him, I see a combination list as meaningless. You obviously don't. I can't figure out why you think there is meaning in one that combines

this

Eirika's Route

One of these is not like the others:

Seth

A tier:

Vanessa

Tethys

Tana

Moulder

Natasha

Gerik

Cormag

Duessel

Saleh

B tier:

Franz

Kyle

Forde

Innes

Artur

C tier:

Joshua

Garcia

Knoll

Eirika

Syrene

Colm

Rennac

D tier:

Ephraim

L'Arachel

Dozla

Myrrh

Gilliam

Don't use!:

Lute

Ross

Neimi

Marisa

Ewan

Amelia

with this

-Top-

Franz

Vanessa

-High-

Colm

Eirika

Gerik

Tethys

Kyle

Forde

Moulder

-Upper Mid-

Saleh

Lute

Artur

Natasha

Joshua

Ephraim

Innes

Garcia

Cormag

Duessel

Tana

-Lower Mid-

Myrrh

Dozla

-Low-

Syrene

Gilliam

Ross

Neimi

Knoll

L'Arachel

Rennac

-Bottom-

Marisa

Ewan

Amelia

For an exercise, let's assume a 50/50 split, so we can avoid weighted averages. Now ignore Seth in the first list and number each character 1 to n, with n being however many characters it is. Now do the same in the next list. Now add up the number beside a character with the number in the other list beside that same character. Now list lowest to highest and you have a combination tier list. You see that list as meaningful. I don't. I don't think we will ever come to an agreement on this.

edit: oh, you added stuff. If you are using Seth, he will create the top list. It's not that there are specific strategies beyond "send seth to boss asap, kill boss". There really aren't. There are still tons of different ways you can achieve that goal and each brings discussion of where those other units go. It's just, if you are using Seth, how is it in any way efficient to NOT send him at the boss to end the chapter sooner? It wouldn't make any sense. It makes about as much sense as trying to make a staff unit solo a map in fe10. Have fun tier 1 Laura. So if you use him, you get list a. If you don't, you get list b.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Narga_Rocks

[Anouleth]

So why is it that you are saying this to someone who introduced neither of those examples?

Because you are suggesting that discussion should take those possibilities into account, when they already do. In addition, you are not behooved to talk about Seth just because Aethereal is. You are perfectly welcome to select a character that better demonstrates your point.

The middle isn't some far-fetched scenario. Maybe you're using Seth sometimes, but you're not having him just run off on his own constantly to take on entire armies because you don't want to risk getting him killed, and you want other characters to be competent enough to take over in case he dies.

/snigger

I'm not really sure why any player would be expected to produce a contingency plan for a 1% possibility, especially when you consider that preparing for the possibility of Seth dying involves using other units who are to a man, less reliable than Seth. You are trading the 1% chance that Seth gets criticaled by Vigarde or something for the 5% chance that Franz or Joshua dies in the process of getting trained, plus the 1% chance that they are stat-screwed into oblivion and do not end up being useful.

In addition, using Seth "sometimes" is not acceptable. We have two extremes, using Seth totally, and not using Seth at all. Both must be taken into consideration. However, the two situations are so different that we must produce two tier lists for them, just as both Eirika and Ephraim Route or both Ilia and Sacae warrant their own tier lists. A tier list that only considered using Seth-on-a-leash would not be meaningful, and in fact would probably be very similar to the No-Seth tier list, since the key difference between the two extremes is that Seth is soloing the game in one of them. I wouldn't want to see the two lists rolled into one any more that I would want FE7 Ranked and efficiency to be combined, or FE8 Eirika and Ephraim, or FE11 Warpskip and non-Warpskip. There's a value to having a tier list cover many different possibilities and different playstyles, but if it covers too many it would be meaningless.

[Othin]

...

Surely you must be joking.

No, I don't see the simple blending of those two lists as meaningful. Of course I don't. I've already expressed many problems with lists like those, and the Seth issue is just one of them. Mixing the two lists would remove one instance of rigidity and leave countless more; it's only because of that rigidity that the lists are so different in the first place. For example, you asked this:

It's just, if you are using Seth, how is it in any way efficient to NOT send him at the boss to end the chapter sooner?

Seth dying is inefficient, therefore risking getting Seth killed is inefficient. Maybe you don't like those possibilities that might allow for more options, but those possibilities are precisely what I am advocating. After all, my stance from the start of this discussion has been that killing those possibilities is a particular issue with LTC. So "it helps LTC" is a reason you suggest to me to ignore possibilities? It's hilariously sad that you would even think to suggest that, and it only goes to show how much you've given up your ability to comprehend anything outside of the little LTC world you created. Tier lists should not assume a player is playing perfectly, for whatever reason, to whatever standard: that is my stance.

Anouleth: 1% sounds low. I've lost Seth to a crit from Gheb's Killer Axe; I think that had more than a 1% chance, to use just one example.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Othin