Would people be interested in a hybrid tier list?

[Snowy_One]

Okay. I know a lot of debaters dislike me, so I'll keep this short and brief. One of the things I've wanted to see for a long time now is a tier-list that doesn't focus on efficiency. That seems to be little more than a pipe-dream though. However, I came up with an idea that might work and I am interested in the thoughts of other people. Basically it's a tier-list, but one that's more flexible than the current one.

Basically, each character gets rated in three separate categories with their position on the list being decided by the sum/average of the totals (can be decided later). These three categories would be as follows.

Stats/Combat: Rating the character from a purely statistical point of view. Their power throughout the game, how strong they are, and how well they do in combat. This is independent of chapter completion or movement as it's just focused on how well they do in combat.

Efficiency: How well they use resources and how fast they complete the chapter. Basically the current tier-list ATM.

Flexibility/utility: How well this unit preforms in non-combat related functions. Things like stealing, healing, shoving, and such.

So a unit like Reyson would have the following rating.

Stats: 1/10

Efficiency: 9/10

Flexibility/Utility: 10/10

Overall: 6.66

I feel this way would allow for a more accurate representation of units, especially for when the player is not focusing on lower turn counts. Would anyone be interested in this?

[Strunk]

I would be interested in seeing a tier list like this, although I wouldn't be able to contribute anything to it.

[Shin]

Not particularly, the current list is sufficient. Units which are good at LTC are generally good for casual play too, a mixed list would probably still keep the same order. Mia isn't an amazing unit in a LTC setting or even playing normally, she's still a foot unit with sub-par strength. Numerical ratings are silly too, since there's no quantifiable scale and people would just squabble over scoring.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Rival Shin

[Ciarre]

you mean mia right

[Shin]

you mean mia right

That's the one, stupid senility.

[Anouleth]

Why does Reyson get a 1 in stats when he's a powerful unit throughout his entire existence: in fact, possibly more powerful than any other unit in his chapters? Chanting is very powerful. He's also an excellent combat unit. I can think of no other character that can destroy four enemy units on the player phase.

"I feel this way would allow for a more accurate representation of units"

Er, what? The accuracy of a tier list has nothing to do with it's criteria. I could make an extremely accurate tier list that tiered units on the combined value of all the letters in their name in Scrabble. I think the word you are looking for is "meaningful". You think that such a tier list would be more meaningful for players who are not experienced enough to be able to use units to their fullest potential.

[CrashGordon94]

Good for the most part but a bad example.

This system seems to "divide by zero" with utility units like Reyson because of the stats/combat section. Any thoughts?

[KitheOfEvrark]

There are a couple problems I can see in this.

1. Why would a unit like Reyson even be rated from a statistical perspective when his stats mean nothing? Having stats as a rating for units like herons or healers (those without combat at least) makes no sense.

2. As Rival Shin said, numerical values are silly since they are either arbitrary or based on difficult to define standards. The other problem with numerical values is that they potentially leave less room for debate.

3. There are two extremes that can result from this. The first is that it could wind up the exact same as the efficiency list, rendering it pointless. The second is that it could account for multiple playstyles in such a way that it doesn't reflect any of them. Given that most people likely to debate/contribute to a tier list will favor efficiency over other ratings, the former is more likely.

I think it's an interesting idea and see no reason not to try it, but I don't think it will necessary create a more accurate (or meaningful) tier list comparative to the current one.

Edited November 6, 2012 by KitheOfEvrark

[Snowy_One]

Well, it's true. Reyson sucks when it comes to stats. You don't play him to see Reyson fight. You play him for his chanting and utility, which are good in efficiency and utility. You don't play Sothe to see him kill people, or Ike for his shoving ability.

[Excellen Browning]

Using a scoring system like this will cause characters like Reyson look less useful than they really are.

[darkkfan]

I for one love this idea, as it has been something I have been advocating for a while now. Don't let these guys convince you otherwise, rating by stats is great, and its lack of subjectivity means that it is more accurate. I also like your idea of averaging in efficiency, that was something I hadn't thought of. This sort of tier list makes it obvious which units are worth using and which aren't, which is the purpose of a tier list. It's really ridiculous that something like this hasn't been made yet just because of a few biased opponents. If you want, I will help you make such a list, or gather/compile data into spreadsheets. In any case, I'd be happy to help defend you against these people, some of which immediately start attacking people with these kinds of views.

[Snowy_One]

Using a scoring system like this will cause characters like Reyson look less useful than they really are.

The individual scores will be listed as well as a general statement of the reason for the score and it will be made clear that the 'average' is merely the average of all three categories, not a definitive ranking. Sides, the whole point of this is to make a tier-list that's more flexible and can be applied to the casual player, efficiency player, and any other sort as easily as possible. It would be going against that idea to treat the overall score as an 'absolute' ranking.

It seems that there is enough of a positive support to attempt this. I'll see if I can get a first draft up before tomorrow night.

Edit: Where would supports fit in to this? I am thinking that they should be in utility/flexibility as being a good supporter is independent of combat skill or efficiency.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Snowy_One

[darkkfan]

The individual scores will be listed as well as a general statement of the reason for the score and it will be made clear that the 'average' is merely the average of all three categories, not a definitive ranking. Sides, the whole point of this is to make a tier-list that's more flexible and can be applied to the casual player, efficiency player, and any other sort as easily as possible. It would be going against that idea to treat the overall score as an 'absolute' ranking.

It seems that there is enough of a positive support to attempt this. I'll see if I can get a first draft up before tomorrow night.

Edit: Where would supports fit in to this? I am thinking that they should be in utility/flexibility as being a good supporter is independent of combat skill or efficiency.

I'm thinking, that if they are considered at all, they should be a small scale bonus (maybe between 0 and .5) added to the final average. Maybe it could be a function of the sum of the average stats of the supporters?

[nflchamp]

I for one love this idea, as it has been something I have been advocating for a while now. Don't let these guys convince you otherwise, rating by stats is great, and its lack of subjectivity means that it is more accurate.

Rating by stats is stupid. Stats are a means to an end - getting through the game. And sure, there might be less subjectivity if you rank by nothing but stats (there isn't because you'll be arguing which stats are more important, which, might I add, will get you straight into an efficiency debate), but listing something pointless just gives you a pointless list.

This sort of tier list makes it obvious which units are worth using and which aren't, which is the purpose of a tier list.

1) I'd argue the efficiency list already tells you which units are worth using and which aren't (based largely on the fact the only thing this list adds is a rating of stats (which, if you've been paying attention, I think is stupid). On that note, I'd argue this list would be less able to show which units are worth using. Or look exactly like the efficiency list. I think this has been said before.

2) A tier list is an intellectual discussion about determining which units are best. The fact that it tells which units are worth using is a happy coincidence. If you want to know what a unit can do and which should be fielded, you should go somewhere else (such as some of the character rating topics on these forums). Not that this topic doesn't sound like another one of those rather than a tier list.

[Snowy_One]

Rating by stats is stupid. Stats are a means to an end - getting through the game. And sure, there might be less subjectivity if you rank by nothing but stats (there isn't because you'll be arguing which stats are more important, which, might I add, will get you straight into an efficiency debate), but listing something pointless just gives you a pointless list.

1) I'd argue the efficiency list already tells you which units are worth using and which aren't (based largely on the fact the only thing this list adds is a rating of stats (which, if you've been paying attention, I think is stupid). On that note, I'd argue this list would be less able to show which units are worth using. Or look exactly like the efficiency list. I think this has been said before.

2) A tier list is an intellectual discussion about determining which units are best. The fact that it tells which units are worth using is a happy coincidence. If you want to know what a unit can do and which should be fielded, you should go somewhere else (such as some of the character rating topics on these forums). Not that this topic doesn't sound like another one of those rather than a tier list.

Then I am sure that, when this list is made, if you choose to partake, you will feel right at home debating efficiency.

[Anouleth]

I for one love this idea, as it has been something I have been advocating for a while now. Don't let these guys convince you otherwise, rating by stats is great, and its lack of subjectivity means that it is more accurate. I also like your idea of averaging in efficiency, that was something I hadn't thought of. This sort of tier list makes it obvious which units are worth using and which aren't, which is the purpose of a tier list.

The current tier list already does that. It makes it obvious that Titania is worth using (and she absolutely is) and makes it obvious that Rolf is not worth using, because whether a character is "worth using" isn't based purely on their stats.

[Chiki]

Why don't we rank characters based on their personality or attractiveness too?

[Excellen Browning]

Why so eager to start the third world war?

[aku chi]

I don't think this is a bad idea - with the following caveats:

• What you're attempting (providing prospective players with guidance on which units to use and why) is better suited in the form of a character guide. Determining which character to use is necessarily a multi-faceted decision. Whether or not one should train Ilyana is highly correlated with whether one is already (planning on) training Soren or Tormod. Because a tier list is simply a linear ordering of units, it cannot be fully effective at this. A character guide can.
  
• Flexibility/Utility needs some more work. You say utility is "[h]ow well this unit preforms in non-combat related functions. Things like stealing, healing, shoving, and such". But the scores in this category must be exceptionally diverse. Even someone who provides a lot of good support bonuses - like Ike, doesn't come close to the utility that Reyson can provide with his chanting. If Reyson gets a 10 in utility (as he should), Ike should get a 2-3 for providing supports and unexceptional shoving. And that should be the absolute maximum score that supports alone can get you. Supports just aren't that important, especially when we're only considering the half of the support bonuses that a unit gives to others. Also, there is no (good) reason to exclude rescue-drop utility from this category. You say you don't want to double-count Marcia's rescue-drop utility in "efficiency" and "utility", but you're already double-counting everyone's combat prowess, so that excuse doesn't make sense.
  
• How valuable certain types of utility are depend on one's playstyle. You have said before that you rarely, if ever, shove or rescue-drop units because you advance your units only as far as the unit with the worst movement can advance. Your playstyle places a low value on shoving and rescue-dropping. There are other players who create super-fliers from their resources. For these players, beast laguz shoving is pretty important and rescue-dropping less so (generally, only Ike gets rescue-dropped). There are still other players that use rescue-dropping to advance powerful non-mounted units forward to complete the chapters. For these players, rescue-dropping (with good movement) is more important that even beast laguz shoving, but both are valuable. This is just one example. Stealing is relatively more valuable for those who use Physic a lot and aren't blazing through chapters. Reyson is relatively more valuable for those who use combat units with canto. Healing is relatively more valuable for those who use less durable combat units. Et cetera, et cetera. You need to intently consider what "utility" will mean.
  
• I don't understand "efficiency"'s role here. The "efficiency" category basically double-counts everything valuable that "combat" and "utility" measures. It looks to me like a conciliatory category that you don't personally care about. If that is the case: remove it. Rank units how you choose to rank them. If it interests others, they will participate in the process (critiquing or otherwise). Trying to get interest in your rankings by throwing a bone to efficiency aficionados doesn't seem very productive to me. On the other hand, with "efficiency" gone, neither "combat" nor "utility" explicitly measures the value of a unit's movement. I believe that there's clearly a place in "utility" for rewarding movement - after all, Reyson wouldn't be very useful if he had a movement of 1. But the "combat" category is explicitly designed to neglect the advantages of movement, so mounted combat units might get underrepresented with a "combat" + "utility" ranking metric.
  
• Maybe I missed it, but I can't find any explanation of how you plan to accomodate for availability. Does Calill get a better "combat" score than the Mages because she is (generally) better in their shared availability, or do the Mages get the edge because they can contribute to combat for longer than Calill and are almost as good in their shared availability?
  
• What are your assumptions about resource use and their costs?
  

[arvilino]

The individual scores will be listed as well as a general statement of the reason for the score and it will be made clear that the 'average' is merely the average of all three categories, not a definitive ranking.

Isn't that a bit of a problem since you're ordering the list in terms of averages that aren't actually representative of the characters worth?

You'd only be able to determine whether a character is worth using from the accompanying guide with each of the scores, which means the list will not be of any use.

[Snowy_One]

Isn't that a bit of a problem since you're ordering the list in terms of averages that aren't actually representative of the characters worth?

You'd only be able to determine whether a character is worth using from the accompanying guide with each of the scores, which means the list will not be of any use.

A fair point.

Uggg... I think I was too rash in my starting the list. I should have put more time and consideration into it.

[Life]

A fair point.

Uggg... I think I was too rash in my starting the list. I should have put more time and consideration into it.

It goes beyond that. The biggest problem is the fact that you don't know how to be consistent (consistently wrong doesn't count). You nearly equated Boyd's supports to Reyson's real utility and claimed that when side by side, Boyd's supports are nearly as good as Reyson's refresh ability.