Why is Low Availability Held Against a Unit?

[luigi bros]

I was looking at the FE10 RTU and I was surprised to see Caineghis get such a low rating.

I can understand for Est units that they join late and are severly underleveled, but why would a unit be given a low rating if they join late, but are good and can easily fit into the team?

The way I see it Caineghis is one of the best units in the game since he can fight well, and he requires no effort to get to that point.

[Paperblade]

being a 6 100% of the time is better than being a 10 5% of the time

Edited July 11, 2012 by Paperblade

[Baldrick]

And also you may not always get them in the team even if they're broken. In RD, you only get 10 choices for Endgame, so you might feel earlier units are better because of supports/sunk cost resources/attachment (I'm aware the last two are somewhat fallacious).

[Shotguner159]

Because while he's an awesome units, other units who have been around longer have been more useful. For example, Edward is more useful than Caineghis because he helps out in early game Part 1, and if you wanted to, whenever he's available, whereas Cain can only be used in 4-E, and while he's awesome ther, he's not really providing the same level of usefulness Edwards been providing for the rest of the game.

[zahlman]

Because the longer you have a unit around, the more opportunity that unit has to do useful things for you.

[Florete]

The main point is that units get judged on a full-game basis; Caineghis may be better than many others when around, but he hasn't done a lot to help us clear the game in comparison to a lot of others. When so many others can be considered better by this logic, he comes out as worse by comparison.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Madam Red

[Ninja Caterpie]

The RTUs are a rating of how good a character is, and, most importantly, how they help you win the game quickly.

Caineghis helps you for just the Final Chapter.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Ninja Caterpie

[Sunwoo]

Well, look at it this way, I suppose:

Athos in FE7 is powerful in endgame. He can 1-turn the dragon, he can take on a majority of the morphs in the endgame chapter, and is so much more useful than many other characters who show up before him. The thing is ... he is literally the last person you get in the game. So while he may blow stuff up in endgame, he has done absolutely nothing for you in clearing earlygame chapters.

Likewise, Caineghis is an absolute monster when he is available ... but he is present in only five out of ... how many chapters in the game? While he is more than great in the chapters he is in, he does nothing to contribute or help in any way in chapters he doesn't exist in.

[luigi bros]

I can understand the arguments that have been given, but with recent tier lists stating that efficiency is turns per chapter not overall turn count this argument has no validity.

[Parrhesia]

He doesn't help the turns per chapter of previous chapters. Done.

[CT075]

ok

(completely arbitrary numbers that are somewhat accurate if you squint)

his contribution for c1 = 0

edward's contribution for c1 = 100

his contribution for c2 = 0

edward's contribution for c2 = 100

his contribution for c3 = 0

edward's contribution for c3 = 75

...

his contribution for final = 30? (probably less since he's a god among gods and you only get to pick 10 of them)

edward's contribution for final = ~10ish

and when you add it all up

i'm pretty sure that 100 + 100 + 75 + 70 + 50 + ... + 10 > 30

Edited July 11, 2012 by Camtech

[Loki Laufeyson]

What the others said. Its more about contribution. If a character is awesome and is around for like majority of the game, (read: Haar) that character is contributing a huge amount. If a character is broken and wrong and totally wrecks all the junk, but only around for like two chapters, the guy who was around for the majority of the game is, in general, more useful.

In Caineghis's case, i never use the guy. Ever. Sure hes awesome, has formshift, tears through enemies like a hot knife through butter, but i just never use him. Endgame slots are limited and i want to use the guys ive been using and training for most of the game. Since i usually plan out who i use in Endgame (of any FE game for that matter), guys like Caineghis arent gonna be deployed. In Athos's case, hes forced. Since hes forced, im gonna make some use of him. Still im gonna deploy the guys ive been using for all game. In Lehran's case, hes hardly getting used at all despite being there because other guys are doing his job. (unless my Micaiah sucks balls...then Lehran does her duty.)

Since i dont play for LTC stuff, that is my reasoning.

[Integrity]

I can understand the arguments that have been given, but with recent tier lists stating that efficiency is turns per chapter not overall turn count this argument has no validity.

I was looking at the FE10 RTU and

I found your problem, chief. Even beyond all the other points people have said, RTUs are neither based on nor necessarily reflections of the tier lists.

[Rehab]

Yeah, unless somebody says something that flat-out doesn't make sense, they'll usually only end up defending their position in a RTU situation to the extent of their opinion. Not a biggie.

To me, the question of what exactly they get to do, and how awesome they are at it, has at least some wiggle room in regards to how much they're available. Edward's available and an asset to the DB through the game, generally speaking, but fuck, Tibarn makes fools out of a whole army in one chapter. That's memorable enough to leave an impression, maybe one that'd lead me to rate him as more impressive (though I do like Eddie).

[Espinosa]

In the case of tier lists, a character's placement isn't supposed to be a reflection of whether or not they should be used in instances where they're available, and, in fact, tier lists thus far don't provide any specific guidelines on how to play the game as efficiently as possible, only indicating the most important contributors. Many of the people commenting in RTUs carry that attitude over to their judgment in those series as well.

[Starwave]

The main point is that units get judged on a full-game basis; Caineghis may be better than many others when around, but he hasn't done a lot to help us clear the game in comparison to a lot of others. When so many others can be considered better by this logic, he comes out as worse by comparison.

Right. And this is a fair & valid point that should always be considered.

However, there are users who fragrantly ignore this and straight up skew the votes with their bias. (Can you EVER justify giving Nasir or Ena +6 score?!?) Shit's fucked up.

[Ciarre]

That was a troll vote. I wasn't expecting Lucina to actually count it when I quoted it as my vote.

[Paperblade]

I can understand the arguments that have been given, but with recent tier lists stating that efficiency is turns per chapter not overall turn count this argument has no validity.

That's because recent tier lists suck.

[MacLovin]

the RTU's have gone downhill, and I was there when Elieson was first talking about the idea before posting Day 1:Hector.

And then the shit started with the Wil one and got worse with the fe8 one and then the fe9/11 ones....

[Original Alear]

If the goal is absolute LTC, then isn't every time a unit saves a turn, or contributes to the saving of a turn, equally important?

I'm not saying that tier lists or RTUs are actually wrong for ranking units in a certain way, it just seems like in terms of actually aiming for LTC, the gap between say 100 turns and 99 turns is just as important as the gap between 500 turns and 99 turns, except insofar as the player needs to improve their skill at playing FE and their skill and patience with rng abuse (I'm thinking of how, IIRC, LTC prolougue in FE10 involved proccing one or multiple Micaiah crits).

Obviously, neither 100 or 500 plays are least turn count plays if someone else has played the same game in only 99 turns, unless we consider an "LTC play" to be a play where the player aims for the lowest turncount, rather than a play where the player achieves, and presumably was aiming for, the lowest recorded/stated/possible turncount. And just about every element of the play that saves turns is equally important in achieving that lowest turncount, if we're talking about lowest possibile turncount (if we're talking about lowest recorded, then any turns saved past a count lower than the previous LTC are overkill).

the RTU's have gone downhill, and I was there when Elieson was first talking about the idea before posting Day 1:Hector.

And then the shit started with the Wil one and got worse with the fe8 one and then the fe9/11 ones....

Wow, you were there from the start? Jeez, YOU ARE OLD. I bet that when you think about how bad things have gotten since the golden days of the RTUs you just break down and cry...I know I do.

Edited July 17, 2012 by L1049

[Parrhesia]

That's because recent tier lists suck.

I kinda think we should pin all the tier lists to their respective subforums, then they'd at least keep updated. I mean, I don't know much about LTC, but I don't think Oswin > Pent and Harken is still a commonly held viewpoint.

[Progenitus]

I kinda think we should pin all the tier lists to their respective subforums, then they'd at least keep updated. I mean, I don't know much about LTC, but I don't think Oswin > Pent and Harken is still a commonly held viewpoint.

lack of discussion is a product of the tier lists sucking now, not the reason

if the tier lists were worth discussing, they would always be bumped regularly anyway

Edited July 18, 2012 by Progenitus

[MacLovin]

If the goal is absolute LTC, then isn't every time a unit saves a turn, or contributes to the saving of a turn, equally important?

I'm not saying that tier lists or RTUs are actually wrong for ranking units in a certain way, it just seems like in terms of actually aiming for LTC, the gap between say 100 turns and 99 turns is just as important as the gap between 500 turns and 99 turns, except insofar as the player needs to improve their skill at playing FE and their skill and patience with rng abuse (I'm thinking of how, IIRC, LTC prolougue in FE10 involved proccing one or multiple Micaiah crits).

Obviously, neither 100 or 500 plays are least turn count plays if someone else has played the same game in only 99 turns, unless we consider an "LTC play" to be a play where the player aims for the lowest turncount, rather than a play where the player achieves, and presumably was aiming for, the lowest recorded/stated/possible turncount. And just about every element of the play that saves turns is equally important in achieving that lowest turncount, if we're talking about lowest possibile turncount (if we're talking about lowest recorded, then any turns saved past a count lower than the previous LTC are overkill).

Wow, you were there from the start? Jeez, YOU ARE OLD. I bet that when you think about how bad things have gotten since the golden days of the RTUs you just break down and cry...I know I do.

They used to be sane.

Also, the RTUs started like 8 months ago.

It's not that old, but yeah.

Elieson had a nice idea, but too many people took it seriously and too many trolled.

[Espinosa]

Radiant Dawn LTCs keep Micaiah away from the Barbarians I believe... You just need Edward to take just enough damage to stay alive and be in Wrath HP range, and then double everyone with crits while evading everything (or healing himself to be put back into Wrath range immediately during enemy phase; Barbarians have ~50% accurate attacks so you're gambling by taking either path really). The lowest turn count in Prologue is very different from developing a reliable efficient strategy, I'd say.

[Lord Raven]

Wow, you were there from the start? Jeez, YOU ARE OLD. I bet that when you think about how bad things have gotten since the golden days of the RTUs you just break down and cry...I know I do.

The start was like early 2012 or something, that's not even a year

RTUs were always pretty stupid

Edited July 20, 2012 by Lord Raven