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

[Narga_Rocks]

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.

I'm not advocating bullrushing Seth in an unsafe manner. I played all the way to the desert chapter and Seth never faced even 1% chance of death. I got bored of the game after I got Tana (+2 str +7 hp from items) to 20/1 and she started wrecking things with flight compared to Seth who just wrecked things without flight. I'll admit I wasn't at dondon speeds, hence the 20/1 Tana, but still. Where is Gheb anyway? I wouldn't want to let my Seth take on a killer axe unless cod was <1%. Preferably 0%, but if he can't get his hp+def up high enough then I'd hope for dodge (that is, if he has the avo to make cod <1%). And if he can't pull that off, then I wouldn't send him in and cross my fingers. It might be LTC to play coinflip emblem, but it certainly wouldn't be efficient.

As for "it helps LTC", no, that's not what I'm saying. I think I'll have to stop talking to you if you still don't get that I don't advocate LTC. You never responded to my efficiency definition, btw, so I'll have to assume you concede even though you probably don't. So, I go for efficiency. That aside, though, what are your tier list standards going to be if you aren't bumrushing Seth (safely)? I mean, seriously, you have to have a standard to make a list, yes? Tell me what your standard is and I'll tell you why either Seth needs to rush the boss or why your standard is weird.

Also, why not play perfectly? Note, not the same. But perfectly. You have 8 units, you look at the enemy. You make the best moves you can given the 8 units you have. You give them the weapons that they are best set for. You use a sword against an axe where possible, etc etc whatever. You play as well as you can and you don't do dumb stuff like leave your priest in the way of something about to kill it.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Narga_Rocks

[-Cynthia-]

It's tough to determine what is "acceptable risk" or not, in Fire Emblem 6 for example, bosskilling strategies tend to have lowish rates of success due to the combination of low weapon hit and large throne bonuses. Rutger is still the best choice for killing these bosses because he is both the fastest and most reliable. Units like Clarine are still useful because her healing gives Rutger a lower chance of death. Wolt still isn't good because he doesn't do much damage and has poor hit rates.

In any case, there seems to be a mistaken impression that tier lists would be vastly different if we...considered Seth's 1% chance of death more? Or something? If using Seth to kill most of the enemies for the early maps was unreliable, then other units would have more use (see FE6 Marcus for a Jeigan who does need more help earlygame). Units on a tier list with Seth are still judged with Seth's low chances of failure in mind, but someone like Franz really doesn't add to Seth's reliability very much.

And if we consider the tier player to be "imperfect", units like Seth are probably even better, since his high stats and movement allow the player to make more mistakes compared to Franz, Eirika etc. Now if you're talking about players not knowing how to use units that's a bit different, but it doesn't really judge Seth's capabilities if you send him at enemies unequipped or something.

Edited February 12, 2012 by -Cynthia-

[Othin]

I already explained the problem with your view of efficiency. To expand, you may be advocating efficient LTC, but you're not advocating "efficiency"; you're only advocating one of many branches of it. I will not participate in attempt such as this one to dismiss other forms of efficiency, but if it helps you sleep at night, I'll call it "efficient LTC" from now on. Satisfied?

Sometimes making the "best move" is just a matter of playing well, as you describe. Sometimes it's a matter of playing a specific way. Maybe it's "better" to ignore an item or a character in order to save an extra turn, or vice versa. Maybe one of them isn't the "perfect", most "efficient" move. But making that move isn't something that's just stupid like throwing your healer at enemies; it's just a choice, and it really is about doing things differently. It doesn't sound like you were playing "perfectly" on your playthrough where you chose to train and buff Tana; instead, you made different choices, but still decent choices, because you wanted to. That's all I'm suggesting.

Cynthia: An imperfect player might be less skilled at the game. Alternatively, an "imperfect" player might just not feel like using Seth, or Franz, or whoever else. This, it seems, is the more notable aspect to consider.

Edit: For an example, let's say we have an FE8 player. The player wants to play "efficiently" in terms of time, but also enjoyment. He wants to play quickly and avoid resetting, but he also wants to do it in a way he'll find fun. Now, this player is imperfect: He'll lose some enjoyment if he uses Seth all the time, or ignores that village, or whatever else. This imperfection means he can't get the maximum enjoyment in the lowest time, but he changes his strategies to maximize the enjoyment with the time he has. Maybe he doesn't use Seth just because he doesn't feel like it, or maybe he uses Seth some of the time, but doesn't want to use him all the time. So in order to get his enjoyment, this player, because of his imperfections, must do things differently from the "perfect" strategies.

Now, this player is me. But it seems to me that enough players feel similar ways for views like these to be worth considering if we want a tier list to have actual value.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Othin

[Narga_Rocks]

I already explained the problem with your view of efficiency. To expand, you may be advocating efficient LTC, but you're not advocating "efficiency"; you're only advocating one of many branches of it. I will not participate in attempt such as this one to dismiss other forms of efficiency, but if it helps you sleep at night, I'll call it "efficient LTC" from now on. Satisfied?

Sometimes making the "best move" is just a matter of playing well, as you describe. Sometimes it's a matter of playing a specific way. Maybe it's "better" to ignore an item or a character in order to save an extra turn, or vice versa. Maybe one of them isn't the "perfect", most "efficient" move. But making that move isn't something that's just stupid like throwing your healer at enemies; it's just a choice, and it really is about doing things differently. It doesn't sound like you were playing "perfectly" on your playthrough where you chose to train and buff Tana; instead, you made different choices, but still decent choices, because you wanted to. That's all I'm suggesting.

Cynthia: An imperfect player might be less skilled at the game. Alternatively, an "imperfect" player might just not feel like using Seth, or Franz, or whoever else. This, it seems, is the more notable aspect to consider.

So, no definition from you. Cool. Okay, so here's the question, if you are going to use Seth (since we have a no-Seth and you don't seem to like the Sethspam) how would you use him? The "imperfect player might just not feel like using Seth" is covered by sethless. So, now, how does the "imperfect" player use Seth? And what is the goal of the tier list that allows the imperfect player to not send Seth at the boss as quickly and safely as possible?

In addition, using Seth "sometimes" is not acceptable. We have two extremes, using Seth totally, and not using Seth at all

Although you clearly disagree, I don't think we've seen an explanation from you for how using him sometimes is even logical in any tier list. One last time, what is the goal of the Othin Tier List<tm>?

Oh, and although you "already explained the problem with" my "view of efficiency", you didn't actually respond to how using the majority of the definitions of efficiency is somehow worse than using a minority of definitions. You can't use all of them at once, mind, because they aren't consistent. If they were consistent, then we wouldn't need multiple definitions now would we.

edit: at least we are getting somewhere sort of if you are bringing up that example, but still, what is the goal of the list? What is YOUR non-dictionary definition of the word efficiency that is so different from the dictionary version? And why should a tier list have, for example, "get all the villages" as one of the requirements?

Edited February 12, 2012 by Narga_Rocks

[Othin]

I'm not interested in playing your definition games. A usage that uses some definitions is a good definition; a usage that uses other definitions is a good definition. One isn't automatically better than the other one; neither one is automatically an authoritative enough usage to claim to be the usage.

In the run I was describing in the example I added, I held Seth back in P and 1, used him a bit in 2 and 3 but mostly kept him out of combat, then I think I left him behind and only brought him in for 6 and 9, then he died in 9. 6 because that chapter has annoyed me previously; 9 because my other characters were promoting so using him didn't feel so obscene.

But that's just me. Sure, some players might hold perfectly to my "sometimes" interpretation. But people are imperfect, and I expect imperfect people to not hold perfectly to the same responses to those interpretations that I use. I expect people to play in wildly varying ways depending on how they want to play. Personally, a tier list I would favor, currently, would be based on an abstract version of the FE7 ranking system: You'd want to play fast, get items and get plenty of Exp, as well as minimizing resets. I don't think I'd support quantifying them to the extent that giving up one for another would be necessarily better or worse. But I also don't think I have all the ideas to make a perfect tier list for everyone, either. I learn things constantly, and my views on things change with what I learn.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Othin

[Narga_Rocks]

I'm not interested in playing your definition games. A usage that uses some definitions is a good definition; a usage that uses other definitions is a good definition. One isn't automatically better than the other one; neither one is automatically an authoritative enough usage to claim to be the usage.

You called my usage an abuse of the word. If you now accept it as one good definition but not the only possible usage, that's all I need for now. I'd still like to see your definition and an analysis of how it lines up to the dictionary. Mostly out of curiosity, now. I promise not to argue with it or try to disprove it or whatever you might be afraid of. I'll read it and leave it alone.

In the run I was describing in the example I added, I held Seth back in P and 1, used him a bit in 2 and 3 but mostly kept him out of combat, then I think I left him behind and only brought him in for 6 and 9, then he died in 9. 6 because that chapter has annoyed me previously; 9 because my other characters were promoting so using him didn't feel so obscene.

Man, no wonder he died. Must've been so underleveled. Granted Gheb can OHKO on a crit regardless, so I would never send him in at one range. I hate cods above 1%. Not sure how I'd deal with that killer axe in chapter 9. I played Eirika. Still, for the Eirika list it's not a problem. For the Ephraim list ... 2 range spam? Does he move? If so, two range spam + rescuing or something, then ending him with a silver sword hit if we have one.

But that's just me. Sure, some players might hold perfectly to my "sometimes" interpretation. But people are imperfect, and I expect imperfect people to not hold perfectly to the same responses to those interpretations that I use. I expect people to play in wildly varying ways depending on how they want to play. Personally, a tier list I would favor, currently, would be based on an abstract version of the FE7 ranking system: You'd want to play fast, get items and get plenty of Exp, as well as minimizing resets, but without concrete standards for any of them.

The problem with "play fast" is "how fast?" I like concrete standards because they make arguing easier. We know where we stand. Without actual ranks, we'd have to make up our own. At least fe7's more lenient tactics rank (compared to dondon and co's speeds) is still a solid number that we can look at.

To me, minimizing resets and playing fast is pretty much the important part. Getting items and getting exp are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. The problem with making a tier list of "wildly varying ways" is that you get almost no standards and thus no consistency in the tier list. It's basically a mess. Aside from the question of "how much weight do you give to each 'way'", there's also the question of "which ways are to be considered and which ways do we accept as beyond the scope of the goal of the list". Or do we accept every single "way"? Do we accept tower abuse, arena abuse, boss abuse? If not, why do we not accept those ways of going slower when we apparently accept not using Seth to speed up chapters despite one of the goals being to "play fast"?

[Anouleth]

...

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.

No, that is not the reason at all. Franz does not have a different position because of "rigidity", he has a different position because his situation is different. Just as how Gonzales is mediocre in Sacae and good in Ilia.

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.

Base level Seth sees 18 display hit and 20 crit from Gheb with an Axereaver. That is approximately a 1.3% chance of getting hit and criticalled. However, Seth is likely a higher level: say he's level 6. That would make it 13 hit and 19 crit, or 0.67% chance to die.

And you can easily set up on Gheb since he completely lacks 1-2 range. And if you give Seth both the Dracoshield and the Seraph Robe, the chance is 0% since Seth can survive a Killer Axe critical.

[Narga_Rocks]

No, that is not the reason at all. Franz does not have a different position because of "rigidity", he has a different position because his situation is different. Just as how Gonzales is mediocre in Sacae and good in Ilia.

Base level Seth sees 18 display hit and 20 crit from Gheb with an Axereaver. That is approximately a 1.3% chance of getting hit and criticalled. However, Seth is likely a higher level: say he's level 6. That would make it 13 hit and 19 crit, or 0.67% chance to die.

And you can easily set up on Gheb since he completely lacks 1-2 range. And if you give Seth both the Dracoshield and the Seraph Robe, the chance is 0% since Seth can survive a Killer Axe critical.

Oh sweet. I forgot about how those do like double the triangle or something, right? That's pretty darn low. I still dislike even that ever since Roy got killed in chapter 12x despite having like 10 display hit and 15% crit against him from the boss. Or something ludicrous like that. I know that's practically once in a lifetime (with my relatively small amount of FE playing) but it still annoyed me. But I think if we keep those instances to a minimum (because even .67% over time becomes significant if there are enough of them) then we can mostly ignore the rare rare instances in which Seth is dead. Or, not ignore, per se, but that it has a negligible effect on the tier list.

Still, that's not going to be all that relevant to Othin because he doesn't like using Seth early. Also, isn't level 6 kinda low for Seth? I thought I had at least 9 by the end of chapter 8.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Narga_Rocks

[Dark Sage]

I think this topic can be summed up in the following sentence:

"My elitism is better than your elitism."

[dondon151]

We've been through this argument many times before...

The problem with tier lists that assume something being partially and arbitrarily restricted is that there is never an acceptable justification for why the restriction is in place. The same arguments can slide characters around just because the tiering ideology can subtly change from one day to the next. In the specific case of FE8 tier lists involving Seth, we've settled at 2 logical extremes (use Seth as much as possible, or don't use Seth at all), and any tier list that forays into middle ground will be plagued with endless arguments regarding how Seth can be used rather than where the other characters should go.

[Progenitus]

We've been through this argument many times before...

The problem with tier lists that assume something being partially and arbitrarily restricted is that there is never an acceptable justification for why the restriction is in place.

So that there's more to talk about in tier lists than just one rigid playstyle (LTC) while still remaining efficient.

Here's something else to ponder; if LTC (or just what the SF niche use for their tier lists, including you) isn't an arbitrary restriction, why are there exceptions such as Edward's 1-P or the BK's 1-9? If LTC was truly objective, then Edward and the BK would shoot up because of those two chapters where they save so many turns. The fact that they are not topping the tier list (or at least high tier) implies that the standards the SF niche use have arbitrary factors considered.

So, why is it ok that the SF niche use arbitrary restrictions in their tier lists while whenever someone else tries to come up with some other arbitrary measuring stick, it's suddenly not acceptable?

The same arguments can slide characters around just because the tiering ideology can subtly change from one day to the next.

You make it sound like a bad thing, when Othin (or maybe it was Paperblade) brought up the fact that when rank tiers were discussed, the value of each rank would constantly change, and thus units would jump up and down the list.

In the specific case of FE8 tier lists involving Seth, we've settled at 2 logical extremes (use Seth as much as possible, or don't use Seth at all), and any tier list that forays into middle ground will be plagued with endless arguments regarding how Seth can be used rather than where the other characters should go.

That's exactly the problem that has been brought up 9001 times. Assuming ONLY two possible situations (which then have to be divided into two different tiers) assumes a rigid playstyle and kills discussion.

[Narga_Rocks]

So that there's more to talk about in tier lists than just one rigid playstyle (LTC) while still remaining efficient.

Here's something else to ponder; if LTC (or just what the SF niche use for their tier lists, including you) isn't an arbitrary restriction, why are there exceptions such as Edward's 1-P or the BK's 1-9? If LTC was truly objective, then Edward and the BK would shoot up because of those two chapters where they save so many turns. The fact that they are not topping the tier list (or at least high tier) implies that the standards the SF niche use have arbitrary factors considered.

So, why is it ok that the SF niche use arbitrary restrictions in their tier lists while whenever someone else tries to come up with some other arbitrary measuring stick, it's suddenly not acceptable?

Didn't you used to be an advocate of not every turn has equal worth? A turn in chapter A vs a turn in chapter B don't necessarily mean the same thing?

You make it sound like a bad thing, when Othin (or maybe it was Paperblade) brought up the fact that when rank tiers were discussed, the value of each rank would constantly change, and thus units would jump up and down the list.

Isn't it, though? Units would bounce up and down based on someone arguing for Tactics being more important and then someone else (successfully) argues for Exp to be more important like a month later and the change made a month ago is unmade? I don't mind a tier list where units move around here and there, but I'd rather not be watching a slip-and-slide. Surely it's not that hard to (arbitrarily) decide the value of each rank for the list and argue units from there.

That's exactly the problem that has been brought up 9001 times. Assuming ONLY two possible situations (which then have to be divided into two different tiers) assumes a rigid playstyle and kills discussion.

I'd hardly think that no-Seth is rigid in any way. There are lots and lots of ways to play that one. Even Sethskip allows for lots of arguing about the value of other characters.

Also, do you disagree with this statement

"any tier list that forays into middle ground will be plagued with endless arguments regarding how Seth can be used rather than where the other characters should go."

If so, how would you resolve that potential problem?

Edited February 12, 2012 by Narga_Rocks

[Anouleth]

So that there's more to talk about in tier lists than just one rigid playstyle (LTC) while still remaining efficient.

Here's something else to ponder; if LTC (or just what the SF niche use for their tier lists, including you) isn't an arbitrary restriction, why are there exceptions such as Edward's 1-P or the BK's 1-9? If LTC was truly objective, then Edward and the BK would shoot up because of those two chapters where they save so many turns. The fact that they are not topping the tier list (or at least high tier) implies that the standards the SF niche use have arbitrary factors considered.

Gee whiz, you might almost think that the FE10 tier list isn't based purely on LTC principles!

You make it sound like a bad thing, when Othin (or maybe it was Paperblade) brought up the fact that when rank tiers were discussed, the value of each rank would constantly change, and thus units would jump up and down the list.

That sounds pretty terrible if the tier list criteria is so loose that whoever's in top tier is determined largely by who has the most passionate fanboys who are willing to push for it hardest.

That's exactly the problem that has been brought up 9001 times. Assuming ONLY two possible situations (which then have to be divided into two different tiers) assumes a rigid playstyle and kills discussion.

Actually, there are four FE8 tier lists: Sethless Eirika Route, Sethless Ephraim Route, Sethskip Eirika Route, and Sethskip Ephraim Route. While it is encouraging rigidity, in the end it's often helpful to assume some things are constant when discussing how good characters are, such as whether Warp is in play, what route we're taking, what difficulty we're playing, and in this case, whether Seth is being used. I think that within the scope of "not using Seth", there is a lot of stuff that can be discussed anyway.

In addition, if you have something to mention that involves using Seth, go to the Sethskip list. I don't see seperate tier lists as killing discussion as much as keeping discussion ordered.

I think it's really bizarre that nobody ever objected to separate tier lists for different routes, different difficulties, different criteria, even putting the same character in two different positions based on his route, yet Sethless and Sethskip has everyone's panties in a bunch.

Edited February 13, 2012 by Anouleth

[Progenitus]

Didn't you used to be an advocate of not every turn has equal worth? A turn in chapter A vs a turn in chapter B don't necessarily mean the same thing?

Gee whiz, you might almost think that the FE10 tier list isn't based purely on LTC principles!

Do neither of you seriously understand the point?

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

Isn't it, though? Units would bounce up and down based on someone arguing for Tactics being more important and then someone else (successfully) argues for Exp to be more important like a month later and the change made a month ago is unmade? I don't mind a tier list where units move around here and there, but I'd rather not be watching a slip-and-slide. Surely it's not that hard to (arbitrarily) decide the value of each rank for the list and argue units from there.

That sounds pretty terrible if the tier list criteria is so loose that whoever's in top tier is determined largely by who has the most passionate fanboys who are willing to push for it hardest.

That's the point. People could never agree on the exact value of each rank. It would depend entirely on how well each person could debate. And when people actually bring up good, sound points to defend their argument, that's what made debating fun.

By the way anouleth, do you even know how the old gamefaqs and FEFF tiers were run? They were community based where changes were made based on a consensus of sorts, so in fact unit placements were based on "whoever has the most passionate fanboys". Only, the old debaters weren't fanboys. They used logical arguments, they were willing to listen to other people, and were willing to compromise. Things that I have not seen on this site.

I'd hardly think that no-Seth is rigid in any way. There are lots and lots of ways to play that one. Even Sethskip allows for lots of arguing about the value of other characters.

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

And really, Seth isn't the only example. FE7, FE9 and 10 are other examples where things like "the jeigans rampage through the maps and half the team are just getting scraps" are being assumed. Unfortunately, the fact that they don't have separate tiers (or when they did, they were trolled to the ground) doesn't really help your case either.

Also, do you disagree with this statement

"any tier list that forays into middle ground will be plagued with endless arguments regarding how Seth can be used rather than where the other characters should go."

If so, how would you resolve that potential problem?

It's not a significant problem as long as...

1) People can bring up good arguments and points to make the debate interesting.

2) People are willing to listen and compromise.

In addition, if you have something to mention that involves using Seth, go to the Sethskip list. I don't see seperate tier lists as killing discussion as much as keeping discussion ordered.

I think it's really bizarre that nobody ever objected to separate tier lists for different routes, different difficulties, different criteria, even putting the same character in two different positions based on his route, yet Sethless and Sethskip has everyone's panties in a bunch.

The difference is that things like different routes, difficulties, etc. are hardcoded, physical differences in the game, while Sethless vs Sethskip are player and playstyle-driven. The difference between, say, Sacae and Ilia, are a few completely different characters being recruited (even if the characters aren't really good) and very different styles to tackle them (Sacae has tons of high mobility, high accuracy enemies, while Ilia is... a bunch of joke pegs or something, been awhile since I actually argued about Ilia). Assuming Sacae or Ilia also means some of the units on the team are tailored towards it (obviously, Shin and/or Sue are being trained heavily while the pegs are neglected to reach Sacae, etc.). Even then, the choice between Sacae and Ilia heavily alters how debate tournaments work; do you assume that Ilia will be the route because it's the easier route, or do you use Sacae because it's the harder route and thus the unit that helps more on the harder route is the superior unit? This is something that can be agreed upon before the debate tournament, or can be argued as a focal point in a debate. Again, as long as the points are sound and everyone is civil (and also doesn't consume the entire debate), it only makes the debate more interesting.

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

Edited February 13, 2012 by IMPrime

[Aethereal]

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

No one's opinion is that the only way to use Seth is to have him break the game. The fact, not opinion, is that if Seth is used without holding him back for no reason outside of preference, then he breaks the game. Sometimes I wonder if people who are making these arguments have ever tried playing the game using Seth to his fullest and without using Seth. The differences throughout the game are so significant, that the only way to accurately argue a large portion of the casts' usefulness is to know how much you are using Seth. Using Seth to his fullest and not using Seth are two very clearly defined methods to judge units by.

Every different way of using Seth will drastically change units' position, because it drastically changes exp gain, items used, the pace at which we go through maps, how we go through maps, who can do useful things in those maps, and probably other stuff I'm forgetting. So if you try to account for all those different things, you would get a jumbled mess of misplaced units that doesn't actually inform any one of how good units are at the pace Seth can provide, or the pace you would go at without Seth.

So, forget rigidity, since it's such a terrible thing to have a standard. We can all agree that not every one who wants to use Seth will use him to break the game. Othin sorta used him in 2 chapters, and used him a lot in 2 other chapters by Chapter 9. That's a totally fine way to play. You can probably judge units by that standard. But why that standard? Why not when we use him for the first 6 chapters, and then not at all for the rest of the game? Or vice versa? Or every third chapter? Or only the most difficult chapters? Or only sorta kinda use him the whole way through? Or hold him back for emergencies for the first half, then use him completely for the rest of the game? How bout using him only as a rescue bot? Or a meatshield? What if we only use him as a bosskiller? Never use him as a bosskiller? Why not only use him to support other units? Or any of a million different ways? Would you rather have that discussion, or the discussions about which units are better than other units?

[Lord Raven]

Assuming ONLY two possible situations (which then have to be divided into two different tiers) assumes a rigid playstyle and kills discussion.

Just going to note, I'm around Chapter 9ish in FE8 Eirika with really good turncounts in Sethless FE8. There's a lot of stuff that goes on in Sethless FE8, and the only constant is "Franz dominates." Everyone else does a damn fine job of doing what they do; it's hardly rigid when I have characters (including Gilliam!) between Levels 9-11 with a 16/5 Franz or something

[dondon151]

So that there's more to talk about in tier lists than just one rigid playstyle (LTC) while still remaining efficient.

Then you make different tier lists with different constants; you don't make tier lists where the constants are so easily changed around.

Here's something else to ponder; if LTC (or just what the SF niche use for their tier lists, including you) isn't an arbitrary restriction, why are there exceptions such as Edward's 1-P or the BK's 1-9? If LTC was truly objective, then Edward and the BK would shoot up because of those two chapters where they save so many turns. The fact that they are not topping the tier list (or at least high tier) implies that the standards the SF niche use have arbitrary factors considered.

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

So, why is it ok that the SF niche use arbitrary restrictions in their tier lists while whenever someone else tries to come up with some other arbitrary measuring stick, it's suddenly not acceptable?

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

You make it sound like a bad thing, when Othin (or maybe it was Paperblade) brought up the fact that when rank tiers were discussed, the value of each rank would constantly change, and thus units would jump up and down the list.

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

Edited February 13, 2012 by dondon151

[Sunwoo]

Why do tier lists even exist? Why don't we just agree that everyone has their own playing styles that they adhere to, and that different people value different units and their different contributions in different ways, and just call it a day? -_-

[Thor Odinson]

Because people like discussion and find debating fun?

It's not like people force you to use high tier units. Tier lists exist and you can ignore them. The tier list's existence should not hinder anyone from using or not using characters they like, but merely establish a ranking within whichever standard the tier list adheres to. For example, if tier lists were based on Lumi's perception of hawtness--- ohwait, Seth, Sigurd, and Haar would still be top. Well isn't this convenient. :P

[Sunwoo]

I personally ignore tier lists. I have my own way of playing, and I'm not going to let anyone else tell me how to have fun. But we also have discussions like this, where people argue over "LTC is stifling all the other playstyle talks!" or "non-LTCers are always rude to us" or "you're setting an arbitrary standard in tiering" and whatnot. Sure, tier lists may be fun to draw up and to argue over, but does anyone ever really use them? Is there really a NEED for them? (Other than getting a kick out of it, of course.)

[Refa]

I personally ignore tier lists. I have my own way of playing, and I'm not going to let anyone else tell me how to have fun. But we also have discussions like this, where people argue over "LTC is stifling all the other playstyle talks!" or "non-LTCers are always rude to us" or "you're setting an arbitrary standard in tiering" and whatnot. Sure, tier lists may be fun to draw up and to argue over, but does anyone ever really use them? Is there really a NEED for them? (Other than getting a kick out of it, of course.)

Yes. Tier lists are very helpful when referencing who may be useful in a game without wadding through pages of stats, averages, threads, etc. It's silly to say otherwise. I understand they may not be useful for everyone, but I find it absolutely ridiculous that people cannot abide by the mere existence of tier lists.

Edited February 13, 2012 by Refa

[Thor Odinson]

Nobody is telling you how to have fun. You play your way, and tier debaters have their way. Some debaters don't even play efficient or ranked or LTC or whatever standard they have for that specific tier list, but just those are pretty clear-cut, easy standards to set to avoid confusion and thus good to debate by. Nobody's forcing you to read them, or to use the best units defined by the standards of that tier list.

I don't argue tier lists or anything, but I can see the appeal in arguing numbers and statistics and I find it interesting that economic terms are being thrown around there a lot too. I wouldn't want them gone, I'll be out of things to read :/

Then again, I'm a math nerd. :B

Edited February 13, 2012 by Luminescent Blade

[Sunwoo]

Well, yeah, I do agree that it's pretty interesting to hear people argue against one another using numbers and logic (most of the time, at least). I'm not exactly saying that arguing tier lists are a bad thing. I'm just wondering why they exist, and not in a derogatory way. Most of the "experts" or "FE veterans" probably aren't going to abide by tier lists because they already have their own style or playing or own units they like to use. A newbie who wants advice seems more like to post a thread saying, "Hi, I'm playing this game for the first time. Who should I use?" So ... it's mostly there to test people's debate skills and for them to get their arguing fun, I guess ...?

[Thor Odinson]

From what I heard from a bunch of people, pretty much. Though it wouldn't hurt for a Newbie to use a tier list as a reference, either. I mean, take LTC Tier lists for example. If a character can get something done in x turns, I don't see why not this character can't get the same thing done at a more casual pace. It's not like they're suddenly gonna become terrible just because the player isn't playing at breakneck speed anymore. Sure, the growth units are gonna be more useful than they are on those LTC tier lists, but it doesn't make the higher-listed character any worse at what they're doing just because it's not LTC anymore. Still good characters to use.

[Sunwoo]

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