New tier list criteria

[Chiki]

Before I leave, I want to leave one thing to prove how complexity /=/ easiness:

I think 1-P is the hardest FE10 chapter, but it isn't complex in the slightest. I'd say the most complex chapter is 4-4.

[SB.]

Hardest on Hard, maybe. On normal mode it's a piece of cake.

[Tamanoir]

That derailed quickly.

And nobody have cited Pascal yet (Blaise, not the Beast, obviously). Now it's done

Anyway, I do agree with the first point as well. Adding complexity will take some works, but it will make better calculations.

Just one question. We'll use characters' base I guess. But how exactly do we calculate the average level of your units ?

Also, do we consider all of them to be at the same hypothetical level ? Or do we drop some units as we advance in the chapters ? Because a Sniper can be extremely usfull in a Chapter full of pegasus, but if he had no chance of setup before (for example, the others chapter were full of Armor with javelin),he would be less usefull, obviously.

But, I think the main point here is that characters are parts of a game.

In the FE10 Hard Mode vs FE11 Hard Mode, the ennemy may be far stronger in FE10, but if you also have tons of overpowered units, this may even things out. So, the question is how strong are the ennemy compared to your own units. Because FE4 units are also stronger than FE5 units. That doesn't necessary makes it harder.

[cyron]

But, I think the main point here is that characters are parts of a game.

In the FE10 Hard Mode vs FE11 Hard Mode, the ennemy may be far stronger in FE10, but if you also have tons of overpowered units, this may even things out. So, the question is how strong are the ennemy compared to your own units. Because FE4 units are also stronger than FE5 units. That doesn't necessary makes it harder.

this would be the important question and as i suggested in my earlier post could be solved by making tier lists chapter by chapter and each chapter having its own tier list with the assumed capabilities of a unit based on prior rankings

[Yoshikage Kira]

Also, I think a lot of it is personal preference and playstyle. I don't like using archers very much, and find them a pain to train. So chances are I'm probably not going to have my archers very strong, while I might have stronger mages and melee units. Soooo . . . they would be higher on the tiers and archers would be lower, since I prefer using them. But not for everyone, y'know?

[Paperblade]

There aren't enough people who want a pure LTC based tier list for this to matter, since pretty much everyone else has realized that pure LTC tier lists are terrible because it turns 90% of the cast into "Bottom tier doesn't save turns"

[Chiki]

There aren't enough people who want a pure LTC based tier list for this to matter, since pretty much everyone else has realized that pure LTC tier lists are terrible because it turns 90% of the cast into "Bottom tier doesn't save turns"

It's like you're trying to derail this thread by acting ignorant. If anything I'm suggesting something else other than cutting turns is important.

[-Cynthia-]

Could work, obviously the challenge here is operationalizing 'chapter complexity' somehow. In some instances this could get quite tricky I think. For example, I think FE chapter 16x could be considered complex- there are staff users and siege tomes and weird lightning bolts and two routes to the throne. However, if our way of completing this chapter is "Warp bosskiller to kill boss, warp Roy" is the chapter still complex, even though we bypassed the elements that gave it that definition in the first place?

[Chiki]

Warp killing should be used for chapters with highest complexity anyways. I don't think it should be included, though you bring up a good point.

I think a simple formula could work. Enemy number and strength relative to player army could both be rated out of 5 or 10, then multiplied or divided by how complicated the map is (terrain, size etc.)

[Lord Raven]

Sadly (actually not sadly) LTC isn't a metric of a tier list, so I see how "complexity of LTC" is a useful metric :?

[Paperblade]

It's like you're trying to derail this thread by acting ignorant. If anything I'm suggesting something else other than cutting turns is important.

If I'm ignorant, maybe you should revise your entire OP, because this is what I read:

First paragraph: Someone said that units early game save a ton of turns and should be top tier, that's bullshit

Second paragraph: Nolan saves a ton of turns early but doesn't keep up, this is bullshit

Third paragraph: A unit's contribution in an early game chapter like 1-1 shouldn't be worth as much in a late game chapter like 4-4

Fourth paragraph: Early game units will be penalized

So maybe the problem isn't my reading ability but your ability to convey your thoughts, since the OP reads like you have a hate-on for early game units.

[Chiki]

First paragraph: Someone said that units early game save a ton of turns and should be top tier, that's bullshit

And I agree with you.

And this topic is dedicated to making those turn cuts less important, if you hadn't noticed.

Think of Nolan just killing stuff in 1-1 to cut turns--he must save a bunch of turns right? So he should be at least high tier. But we know Nolan really doesn't cut it at all after a certain point without babying, simply because he's too weak after 1-5. Yet he cuts more turns than units like Ike, who just is intuitively more useful. What can solve this problem?

I couldn't make it clearer.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Olwen

[Snowy_One]

I think the bigger problem here is that the Tier List is so focused on LTC that there is little room for flexibility in criteria. Look at the Mia/Zihark debate in the FE9 thread right now. It's basically over one turn that could possibly be saved. That's a very slim thing and, normally, I wouldn't consider it worth mentioning in any non-LTC list as a plus for Mia (SS Mia holds more value in my eyes than that one turn). However, I have come to understand that LTC is sort of the be-all, end-all here, which is sort of a 'cutting off the nose to spite the face' thing. You guys are smart and not anywhere near dumb, yet you resort to a tier-list criteria that is basically 'how fast can we beat the game'?

I do think there needs to be some more flexibility in the lists. Keep your LTC, but it shouldn't be the be-all, end-all. Maybe something like 'robustness' or 'flexibility' where a unit is measured on how much they contribute in non-optimal runs? After all, nothing will be able to prove Gatrie > Oscar, but maybe if no mounted units were fielded Gatrie would have a bigger use than just shoving people and his early-game. I guess you could say it's like a 'Seth-less' criteria on top of LTC.

Edit: RESCUE-LESS LIST! That would be near-perfect on a name.

Edit edit: I suppose I should elaborate. One of the primary assumptions of the tier-list (at least for FE9) is that rescues and drops can and will be taken. That is, literally, the reason why units like Marcia are so high and mounted units are the undisputed kings. Yes, they have good stats and all, but at the end of the day, the thing that pushes them to the top of the tier list is their ability to rescue and drop. However, if that function was removed/limited, the entire underlying structure of how chapters get completed changes. Additionally, it's far from infeasible to see a newer/non-LTC-focused player simply not using the command or only using it to rescue a unit in danger as opposed to swift-completing a mission, so accounting for it would make the list more applicable to common-folk.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Snowy_One

[Chiki]

Let's make a very simple formula like this:

P = your units' strength relative to the enemy units

Q = unit number relative to enemy units

R = map (terrain and size) rated low if map doesn't help you beat the chapter quickly, high if otherwise

All rated out of 5. Simply add them up to determine complexity.

[Elieson]

So instead of determining unit vale based on a literally measurable unit ( Turncount, Gold, Experience ), you are proposing that we all work together to build and determine an arbitrary definition of complexity and apply it to each chapter in a game, and judge a units worth based on that extremely opinionated standard?

Nolan saves in turns over say, Meg.. Measurable by evidence.

Chapter 1-2 is harder than chapter 3-2. Measurable by opinion.

Amelia grants you more EXP towards a net total compared to Kyle. Measurable by fact

Amelia is better lin Chapter 19 than Kyle. Arguable by opinion and requires building a value of Cost vs Yield

Chapter 19 is harder than Prologue. In no way able to be determined without dragging opi ion into it

Tier lists are built on factual evidence towards a measurable goal. What goal is your ideal of Complexity supposed to show? How is it measurable? At the end, how do you know if you've achieved maximum results?

[Chiki]

Sigh. You really haven't read any of my posts have you? If you did you'd know I agree with you completely.

Please take a moment to read the thread before posting.

Complexity is completely objective. We use enemy stat numbers to compare to player stat numbers, and enemy unit numbers to player unit numbers. Furthermore, you rate a map as 5 if it can be completed reliably in 1-3 turns and so on. The only reason I use ratings is because it'd otherwise be too hard to go through each chapter and make average levels for characters one by one.

The only thing that is subjective is the ratings system. Yet tier lists themselves are ratings, so some level of subjectivity has to be involved. But as long as all our facts come from numbers, then it's fine.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Olwen

[Espinosa]

My language apparatus seems to suggest me that complexity is a bit more than "your numbers vs enemy numbers". I would say that a map filled with status staves, lots of long-range magic and enemy reinforcements coming out of the least appropriate places makes a map complex. You can do slowly chip away at an enemy in a very dumb manner and there'll be nothing complex about it, it'll just take time.

[Paperblade]

And I agree with you.

And this topic is dedicated to making those turn cuts less important, if you hadn't noticed.

The "that's bullshit" is my interpretation of what you said, because you were obviously complaining about it.

I couldn't make it clearer.

Considering you JUST complained about early game units being high for what you perceive as little contribution, I'm assuming the problem you're looking to solve is "early game units get credit for saving a ton of turns" and that chapter complexity is just a pretext.

Nowhere in your OP did you talk about a non-complex chapter that isn't early game, and you still haven't provided an example of one. Plus, you haven't talked about any other effects of it beyond "increasing discussion" but I'm not really interested in debating "chapter complexity."

Edit: Actually apparently to your most recent post, chapter complexity isn't even debatable because it's completely objective. So this wouldn't increase discussion at all, it'd just lower the Edwards and Jeigans of the world.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Paperblade

[Chiki]

My language apparatus seems to suggest me that complexity is a bit more than "your numbers vs enemy numbers". I would say that a map filled with status staves, lots of long-range magic and enemy reinforcements coming out of the least appropriate places makes a map complex. You can do slowly chip away at an enemy in a very dumb manner and there'll be nothing complex about it, it'll just take time.

Okay, I'll think of something about adding enemy utility to the formula then.

Nowhere in your OP did you talk about a non-complex chapter that isn't early game, and you still haven't provided an example of one.

Lol Chapter 22 FE9. Lol FE10 Chapter 4-P.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Olwen

[Snowy_One]

Besides, as said earlier, 'Tier list as completely objective' is kind of a horrible standard to use, especially if LTC is, at least the only, criteria as it essentially lumps characters into 'saves turns' and 'doesn't save turns' categories. Is Nephenee better than Rolf? Most people would say 'yes', but as far as the LTC-solo tier list is concerned, if Rolf can save even one more turn on average through shoving that Nephenee can't despite Nephenee being better all-around, Rolf is the superior unit. Is Edward better than Ike? If Eddy can save more turns in the DB than Ike can in the GM's, Eddy is better. This has been one of my primary dislikes of LTC. Even now that I've accepted that it's an objective standard (that I disagree with, but still can work with), I still need the need to 'muzzle' it with other criteria or else the list becomes little more than 'this is the best team and everyone else is just non-optimal'.

There is a difference between accepting it as a standard and pushing it to the point of absurdity, and if the latter happens (and it has IMO), then maybe another standard is needed to reel it back in.

[Chiki]

if Rolf can save even one more turn on average through shoving that Nephenee can't despite Nephenee being better all-around, Rolf is the superior unit. Is Edward better than Ike? If Eddy can save more turns in the DB than Ike can in the GM's, Eddy is better.

That's why I'm introducing this thread to solve that problem.

[Snowy_One]

Which is why I'm suggesting this alteration. Here is the reason why. Eddie saves turns. There is no disputing that, nor is there any disputing that the DB members tend to save turns simply because they exist. But why can't Ike save turns as well? He's not limited by chapter and his stats are certainly not bad by any means. The 'reason' why is because, on most chapters, Ike simply doesn't move fast enough and, instead, will be left behind or rescued by units like Titania and Marcia. Obviously it's not fair to hamper those units by restricting their movement, stats, or level. But what about rescues? Rescuing is far from needed to beat the game, even on hard, yet essential to how tier lists currently function. Without them, though, foot units suddenly have to fight a lot more (since they can't be rescue-dropped, longer routes have to be taken, and mounted units don't OMGWTF dominate simply because of their move (since, no matter how high their move, you can't clear the chapter faster than Ike's movement speed). It's simple, definable with ease (how would the unit do if rescuing wasn't allowed), relevant to lots of players especially drafters (since you can't always get Titania or Marcia), easily incorporated (just ask how the unit would do without rescue-clears), sort of already existent (Warp-less/Seth-less tiers IIRC), and puts a hamper on 'OMG LTC' people because a unit who may have been awesome with rescues but weak without them now can't dominate 'just' because of their rescue/shoving abilities while a unit who may be a good fighter but cruddy at rescue/shoving can now matter a bit more than a unit who sucks at fighting but is a great rescuer/shover.

[Chiki]

Anyone else who thinks this concept is worth trying?

[Espinosa]

The concept is already in effect in most tier lists. e.g. FE6 Marcus performs fabulously in the first 13 chapters of the game but is better off dropped afterwards; he's pretty high up taking into account the complexity (difficulty is the most fitting word here I'd say) of the early chapters and the general impotence of your team.

I also don't think the idea that Edward is worse than Ike is nothing new. Edward is way lower than Ike and other heroes like Sothe, Haar, Titania and Volug on RD's tier list. If "shaving off most turns" was the one and only criterion for evaluating characters, then Edward would be at the top of Top for 1-P, which is ridiculous and nobody is doing that. You're the most vocal guy when it comes to measuring characters' value by how many turns they shave off by the way, and you always shy away when people call you out on that and cite other ways of looking at characters, so it comes to me as a surprise that you've suddenly turned 180 degrees with this thread's idea.

As for measuring complexity as a number, I don't think that would work. Too many factors affect complexity, such as your previous action/exp and resource distribution, your playstyle (maximum LTC complicates certain map objectives while trivialising others), whether you're going for ranks, and a ton more.

[Chiki]

I told myself I wouldn't reply till I got a bunch of opinions, but a couple things to know:

I definitely think it'll change tier lists. It'll make characters like Marcia and Jill above Titania (making turns and reliability generally more valuable later on) and push characters like Tibarn higher, for example.

And I think those factors affect current tier lists just as much. Ex: Jill isn't too good in the tier list in FE10 but the best unit for LTCs. She had the most kills in my playthrough.