why are jeigans in high tiers?

[The Fush]

Well, this thread has taught me that the origin of these archetypes were probably stated like that due to the opinion of one person; well, granted, I didn't use them too much to begin with, but I did tend to brand some characters into the Jeigan archetype: I guess it'd probably be better to judge each one individually.

That, or try and let the RNG screw me over.

Also, I just joined yesterday, so naturally I CAN'T tell that Refa is joking. Don't just expect me to just instantly identify anyone I see.

[arvilino]

Well, this thread has taught me that the origin of these archetypes were probably stated like that due to the opinion of one person; well, granted, I didn't use them too much to begin with, but I did tend to brand some characters into the Jeigan archetype: I guess it'd probably be better to judge each one individually.

That, or try and let the RNG screw me over.

It might have just been one person but really the terms were even widely (mis)used in the early-mid 2000's (2003-2005) in which FE7 Marcus was actually considered a horrible character partially because the Jeigan term loosely fit him(and the general play style at the time).

Here's a good example from 2004:

http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/the-fire-emblem-7-faq.56493522/

Q: How come people say Marcus, Vaida, Isadora, and others are bad characters? They're really strong, I don't see a reason why NOT to use them.

A: Because they're not as strong as you think. Sure, they seem strong at first glance, but think about this for a moment. The other characters seem to gain a lot of experience and their stats seem to go up a lot, right? Well, for those characters, their stats don't grow much, and the other character's stats will easily surpass them quickly, and you will find them weak by the end of the game compared to other enemies. To add to this, their EXP does not go up by much, and the other characters will get much more EXP, and it is overall more beneficial and wise to just flat out not use them, and use it on the better characters.

Edited April 8, 2013 by arvilino

[Refa]

Also, I just joined yesterday, so naturally I CAN'T tell that Refa is joking. Don't just expect me to just instantly identify anyone I see.

It's OK, but I was replying at Cam (post above me).

[bottlegnomes]

Of course we can complicate this further still by pointing out that not all chapters are created equal. Lyn's pretty awesome in the rigged tutorial for her mode in FE7, but I doubt anyone gives a crap about the fact that she's the top contributor in an almost-impossible-to-fail tutorial map where she's the only character. Or Mist's contribution to the Black Knight map in FE9 if you flee from it (which is basically always going to be faster than beating him, so Mist does jack-all).

Similarly, the chapters where Fred shines in FEA Lunatic are probably the most bitch-hard in the entire game on an order of magnitude greater than anything else, just due to how everybody but him sucks and you're trying to get Avatar up to speed. Those relative contributions are quite high, even though most other units are going to blow Fred away for a larger quantity of chapters.

Even if you're like Olwen and drop Titania 11 chapters in, it's still somewhat questionable whether the weight of some of those chapters matter more than multiple later-game chapters. Even if the unit entirely dominates in them.

Also it's pretty funny how terrible Oifey is compared to other examples of that sub-archetype. I think the term only really became popular because we didn't have sufficient access to FE1-3 for people to realize it's a load of crap and he wasn't really the "first good Jeigan." Or even arguably that good a Jeigan. He's basically the John Stockton of Gen 2, the ultimate trashman. Okay actually he's more like some other guy on that team and Leaf is Stockton and Seliph is Karl Malone, I'm not good at metaphors.

Are you saying FE9 endgame difficulty > FE9 early game difficulty? Because if you are, HA. HA. HA HA. HA HA HA.

Also, technically, that post was concerning a debate which I've no interest in continuing right now. However, it does show that Titania stacks up fairly well against a unit that pretty much everyone will agree is one of the best, which is the point I was trying to make.

Edited April 8, 2013 by bottlegnomes

[Narga_Rocks]

Even with my minimal use of Titania, it's very difficult to bring Mia to level 1, Marcia to level 20, and Oscar and Kieran to promotion.

The way I use Titania is to completely ditch her after Chapter 11. She's useless after that point and is only good for the first 11 chapters of the game. Because after that point she simply isn't necessary. She can't be used in efficiency runs, since exp is so tight in the first place. Using her would be a recipe for disaster after that point.

If Titania is a unit that can't be used after.a certain point, can she truly be said to be better than Marcia? Even if she's a detriment to your team after 11, and can cost you turns? Even considering that Titania never saves as many turns compared to Marcia?

By your logic, we should be able to take Edward out of 1-P. Think of how difficult it will be without him, and how many turns it will cost! He should be top tier above everyone else right? No way. That very logic is why I defined complexity as something else.

1-P is actually not that difficult without Edward. It takes longer, absolutely, but it's very easy to beat because Micaiah can take everything on 1 at a time and vulnerary and then Leo can tank the boss while blocking so that Micaiah can slowly kill him. And I think with a hp or def proc and Leo's dragonshield Micaiah can even solo. It's actually extremely simple, not complex, not difficult, just long. So you can say that Edward saves 20 turns or so but it's minor because the chapter isn't worth very much since it's so simple and easy. And let's say for the sake of argument that 1-P is "simple" with Edward and super hard and super complex without him. Why doesn't he get more credit for making complex chapter easy amd simple? Similarly, BK. 1-9 can be soloed with Micaiah but you'd have to dump all your boosters on her and favour her up to level 20 and load her up with vulneraries and I think you have a concoction and then you'd run around the map with her. Now, compare complexity with and without BK. You still have FoW so you still have to deal with that nuisance and watching so stuff can't hit Micaiah and stuff with BK around since if you don't watch out she'll get killed by stuff. BK doesn't make the chapter less complex, but he does make things easier since Micaiah doesn't have to solo and eat all your statboosters. If we go by chapter complexity, BK doesn't instant top the tier list. It's possible you have to RNG abuse Micaiah's def and spd to make it possible to pass, but that can be considered sunk time that BK saves you. And then you multiply by chapter complexity (which should really be a decimal between 0 and 1 with more range than 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0).

Oh, and a side-comment, I love when people say "by your logic" and then screw the thing up.

Also, how does Titania cost you turns after chapter 10? You seem to be under the impression we'll insist on continuing to use her even if that costs turns. If it is impossible to achieve your turncounts without benching Titania, then bench her. She gets credit for everything she did up to that point and there should not be a deduction based on a misguided attempt to use her after she's passed her best before date.

You can't consider complexity in that way because it falls prey to that kind of logic.

You mean it falls prey to people making mistakes?

The only thing it might fall prey to is prologue in PoR. If you remove Ike, how complex is the chapter?

a: you can't win, so Ike instant tops

b: if Ike didn't exist, they'd probably skip the chapter anyway, so...

Since there is a way to interpret the problem away, I think it's still fine.

Complexity is simply every chapter considered by itself with no regard to characters other than their average levels.

If a chapter is not complex because Titania exists, that should be a boon for Titania, not a penalty to her turn savings.

Jill is high simply because of her potential to do nearly as much as Marcia can, though not as well and below Titania.

So basically Jill saves zero turns compared to Marcia but if Marcia didn't exist then Jill saves turns compared to everyone else so she's high? Is it possible for the removal of a specific unit to allow Titania to do more after chapter 10? And how many turns does Marcia save relative to Jill? If you are going to gimp the worth of Titania's turns saved, I think you should also analyse Marcia's net profit rather than her revenue, or however you'd like to word it.

S-rank Volug is useless, and Sothe doesn't help much either, assuming you've already trained Jill to a point where she can take multiple hits from laguz. If you do neglect Jill for Sothe, Nolan and Volug, you lose turns from your 3-6, 3-12, 3-13, 4-P, 4-3 and 4-E-1 clears. See all my vids.

Too lazy to see your vids, so I'll just ask who clears the rest of the maps while Jill is doing her stuff. And how reliable is your 3-13 clear, btw?

Oh, and do you have videos of fe9? I might consider actually spending time (after my exam) to look at them to judge the rng reliance of some of your methods. Your tier list claims to favour the reliable, but I'd like to see just how unreliable your reliable is.

edit: and don't forget, you are using a 0 to 1 complexity rating system. There is no chapter with infinite worth, the only problem is that a 1 for 1-9 might cause every other chapter to have a max of 0.5, depending on how you want to look at 1-9.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Narga_Rocks

[Renall]

Are you saying FE9 endgame difficulty > FE9 early game difficulty? Because if you are, HA. HA. HA HA. HA HA HA.

No, I'm saying the opposite, as that's generally the case for FE.

Other than maybe the very first map (which is often a tutorial or something), most FEs are considerably harder early on. I think most people would agree that doing well in FE5 Chapter 4 is much more important than excelling in Chapter 23 or somesuch, simply because it's way easier to be good and have good resources in Chapter 23 and you have to basically steal everything in Chapter 4.

So how many chapters is Chapter 4 "worth" versus 23? If Brighton or Lara or whoever is awesome in 4, and Delmud is awesome in 23, is it fair to say "they're both good in one chapter apiece?" I mean, Titania saving your bacon on FE9 Chapter 4 or 5, what's that worth compared to Chapter 20 where Jill/Marcia and Ike can basically roflstomp it? What's a chapter you warpskip in a game that allows it worth vs. good performance in one you can't?

I suppose you could just break it right down to looking at turns saved, but even then I'd question it because e.g. Frederick and only Frederick can save you those turns in the early game of Awakening, but arguably several characters could save you the turns you need saved in later maps. On the other hand anybody who can use Warp can help you warpskip, but it seems unfair to try to mitigate the contribution of anyone who can do it by saying no one specific person must do it; the fact of the matter is that anybody who can will save you a buttload of turns, so they ought to get some credit for that.

[Chiki]

1-P is actually not that difficult without Edward. It takes longer, absolutely, but it's very easy to beat because Micaiah can take everything on 1 at a time and vulnerary and then Leo can tank the boss while blocking so that Micaiah can slowly kill him.

...Okay, you're completely missing the point. This doesn't change the fact that Edward saves a ridiculous amount of turns. This is an efficiency debate. This is not a question of whether the chapter is impossible or not. I agree with you it's easy to clear without Edward, but Edward still saves what, 30 to 40 turns if Micaiah stalls like you claim?

And what makes you think the other chapters are difficult with Titania, if that is what you're claiming? They aren't; I can simply choose to stall like you are. The thing that makes it hard is trying to clear the chapters quickly.

Another issue is that Edward saves FAR MORE turns than Titania ever does in FE9. Edward saves like 30-40 whereas Titania saves maybe around a dozen. I can even clear Chapter 1 of FE9 reliably in 5 turns, and since my Ike and Oscar are going to get more exp as I am not using Titania I can clear the later earlygame chapters even more quickly. But Titania is nothing, nothing compared to Edward. Even Haar is nothing compared to Edward. Edward saves more turns than anyone in the history of Fire Emblem that I can think of right now. Why doesn't he have a tier dedicated to himself?

Second, complexity is not difficulty. 1-P is, in my opinion, the hardest chapter to complete efficiently, because of the necessary reliance on Edward. But complexity has nothing to do with difficulty: more complex chapters require more complex strategies (like say, a Rescue-take-drop chain with Reyson and horses and fliers and whatever) whereas less complex chapters require less complex strategies (1-P has an incredibly basic strategy, that is, to go and charge with Edward and use a Vulnerary when necessary).

Let's take a really complex chapter, like 25. It's a complete mess right? You have to rout that map in 3 turns with everything you have, pray that your units can survive, and hope your units can kill those ridiculously durable tigers which take multiple phases to kill. The strategy you need for that chapter is by far more complicated than the strategy you need for say, 1. Marcia's saving turns on 25 is more valuable than Titania saving turns on 1.

And let's say for the sake of argument that 1-P is "simple" with Edward and super hard and super complex without him. Similarly, BK. 1-9 can be soloed with Micaiah but you'd have to dump all your boosters on her and favour her up to level 20 and load her up with vulneraries and I think you have a concoction and then you'd run around the map with her. Now, compare complexity with and without BK. You still have FoW so you still have to deal with that nuisance and watching so stuff can't hit Micaiah and stuff with BK around since if you don't watch out she'll get killed by stuff. BK doesn't make the chapter less complex, but he does make things easier since Micaiah doesn't have to solo and eat all your statboosters. If we go by chapter complexity, BK doesn't instant top the tier list.

I don't see your point and what the issue here is.

Also, how does Titania cost you turns after chapter 10? You seem to be under the impression we'll insist on continuing to use her even if that costs turns. If it is impossible to achieve your turncounts without benching Titania, then bench her. She gets credit for everything she did up to that point and there should not be a deduction based on a misguided attempt to use her after she's passed her best before date.

Oscar and Kieran need to be promoted by 17-2, Ilyana needs to be promoted by 22, Ike needs to reach 20 by 16 before promotion (him having high stats is essential for seize chapters), Ike needs to be able to reliably kill Generals for 21, Marcia needs to be high level to ORKO Muarim in 15.. the list goes on forever.

I'm not denying that Titania shouldn't get credit for it--I am putting her in top tier am I not? But why should a unit with a best before date be better than Marcia?

If a chapter is not complex because Titania exists, that should be a boon for Titania, not a penalty to her turn savings.

I do consider it a boon, but it doesn't change the fact that Titania is completely expendable after a certain point, unlike Marcia. Marcia does not suffer from the problems Titania does, and cuts more turns than she does.

Remember my tier list:

Goddesses Tier

Marcia

Titania

Jill

Titania is still right below Marcia, right?

Too lazy to see your vids, so I'll just ask who clears the rest of the maps while Jill is doing her stuff. And how reliable is your 3-13 clear, btw?

It's 100% reliable, as I trained my Jill and neglected Ike until 3-E.

Oh, and do you have videos of fe9? I might consider actually spending time (after my exam) to look at them to judge the rng reliance of some of your methods. Your tier list claims to favour the reliable, but I'd like to see just how unreliable your reliable is.

I'll be uploading Maniac Mode strategies soon. And just because my strategies are unreliable doesn't mean I don't know reliable strategies, lol.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Olwen

[dondon151]

There is, actually (if you count them as archetypes):

Oifeys are pre-promotes that still gain great stats in the later parts of the game due to high growth rates and decent starting stats, and possibly supports too.

Jeigans are pre-promotes that start off with great stats but fall behind later in the game. Granted though, these units are still saveable with a dash of RNG Luck and some supporting.

cam already answered this very satisfactorily but it's been lost in all of the commotion

basically the archetypes are outdated and based upon conceptions of jagen and oifey that are no longer true. in FE11 H5, jagen is more or less exactly like oifey - they drop off only very late in the game. if you consider FE1 jagen, jagen is actually better than oifey, whereas the traditional archetype suggests otherwise.

so really, the distinction is now meaningless.

[Hawkeye]

I was actually really disappointed when I first did FE4 Gen2. I was aware of the archetype and figured that Oifaye would be wrecking the game all day, but he actually turned out rather bad. So yeah, definitely an outdated idea.

As for the other discussion, I think that tier lists and people in general tend to focus more on the overall usefulness of the character. The fact that Edward saves all the turns in 1-P is great, but that's because there's no competition. The fact that he is quite weak for the rest of the game brings him down a fair bit. That's another point Titania has over Marcia, because she has the best availability after Ike, so she does all the great stuff she does before Marcia shows up and is still a solid unit for the rest of the game. I'll concede that if we're going for max efficiency then maybe she can't be used further, but for any other person who wants to play efficiently but hasn't mapped out the whole game to see the requirements to get literally the lowest turncount possible, Titania is a very good unit to use throughout the whole game.

[bottlegnomes]

No, I'm saying the opposite, as that's generally the case for FE.

Other than maybe the very first map (which is often a tutorial or something), most FEs are considerably harder early on. I think most people would agree that doing well in FE5 Chapter 4 is much more important than excelling in Chapter 23 or somesuch, simply because it's way easier to be good and have good resources in Chapter 23 and you have to basically steal everything in Chapter 4.

So how many chapters is Chapter 4 "worth" versus 23? If Brighton or Lara or whoever is awesome in 4, and Delmud is awesome in 23, is it fair to say "they're both good in one chapter apiece?" I mean, Titania saving your bacon on FE9 Chapter 4 or 5, what's that worth compared to Chapter 20 where Jill/Marcia and Ike can basically roflstomp it? What's a chapter you warpskip in a game that allows it worth vs. good performance in one you can't?

I suppose you could just break it right down to looking at turns saved, but even then I'd question it because e.g. Frederick and only Frederick can save you those turns in the early game of Awakening, but arguably several characters could save you the turns you need saved in later maps. On the other hand anybody who can use Warp can help you warpskip, but it seems unfair to try to mitigate the contribution of anyone who can do it by saying no one specific person must do it; the fact of the matter is that anybody who can will save you a buttload of turns, so they ought to get some credit for that.

Okay. I see what you're saying now. That's basically what I was arguing in the other topic. That when Oscar is better it's in an easier part of the game and he's bringing something that's replicable while TItania is better at a harder part and does something that is irreplaceable. Is that it?

[Chiki]

I was actually really disappointed when I first did FE4 Gen2. I was aware of the archetype and figured that Oifaye would be wrecking the game all day, but he actually turned out rather bad. So yeah, definitely an outdated idea.

As for the other discussion, I think that tier lists and people in general tend to focus more on the overall usefulness of the character. The fact that Edward saves all the turns in 1-P is great, but that's because there's no competition. The fact that he is quite weak for the rest of the game brings him down a fair bit. That's another point Titania has over Marcia, because she has the best availability after Ike, so she does all the great stuff she does before Marcia shows up and is still a solid unit for the rest of the game. I'll concede that if we're going for max efficiency then maybe she can't be used further, but for any other person who wants to play efficiently but hasn't mapped out the whole game to see the requirements to get literally the lowest turncount possible, Titania is a very good unit to use throughout the whole game.

Titania is useless for the rest of FE9 after a certain point, but she's still top tier because of her fantastic earlygame performance. Same logic applies to Edward--and Edward isn't even that bad.

I don't think that reason is strong enough to negate Edward's not being top tier.

But I don't see why we should think of arbitrary limits between casual and efficient play. That just seems unnecessary for tier lists.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Olwen

[Hawkeye]

Titania's usefulness after arbitrary certain point >>> Edward's usefulness after the very first chapter of the game

[Chiki]

What I meant by arbitrary point wasn't that we pick a point in the game, by rather an arbitrary limit between casual play and efficient play. Ex: how efficient should we play? A bit, a lot, etc.

[Narga_Rocks]

...Okay, you're completely missing the point. This doesn't change the fact that Edward saves a ridiculous amount of turns. This is an efficiency debate. This is not a question of whether the chapter is impossible or not. I agree with you it's easy to clear without Edward, but Edward still saves what, 30 to 40 turns if Micaiah stalls like you claim?

And you want to make a complexity thing where you rate each chapter, so his 20 turns are modified according to your standards.

And what makes you think the other chapters are difficult with Titania, if that is what you're claiming? They aren't; I can simply choose to stall like you are. The thing that makes it hard is trying to clear the chapters quickly.

The difference with 1-P is that no enemies move unless you hit their range and you barely need a brain. I've done early game PoR without much use of Titania. There's more than one guy at a time to calculate move and danger to units etc etc. How do you determine complexity if not the amount of calculations you need to perform? Now, I'll admit later chapters have twice as many enemies, but some of the time it's point and kill, so maybe it's not automatically twice as complex if there are twice as many enemies? Some of your units are much more durable later on than earlier. At the start, you actually have to worry more about things like how much you can expose Oscar and Ike to.

Also, wasn't it you who made a big stink about the difference between hard and complex or was that someone else? Are we using them interchangeably now?

Another issue is that Edward saves FAR MORE turns than Titania ever does in FE9. Edward saves like 30-40 whereas Titania saves maybe around a dozen. I can even clear Chapter 1 of FE9 reliably in 5 turns, and since my Ike and Oscar are going to get more exp as I am not using Titania I can clear the later earlygame chapters even more quickly. But Titania is nothing, nothing compared to Edward. Even Haar is nothing compared to Edward. Edward saves more turns than anyone in the history of Fire Emblem that I can think of right now. Why doesn't he have a tier dedicated to himself?

Because people devalue 1-P for only having 3 units and 8? enemies and little thought? That's the whole thing you are trying to do with your tier list. I don't actually have a problem with a complexity driven tier list or an all chapters are equal tier list. Edward is a cool guy so if a tier list would give him full credit then fine. If not, fine. But the problem with rating complexity with all your available units is that no early chapter is complex if you can just have Titania barrel-rush things, but if Titania didn't exist then the chapters become more complex. It is because of Titania that chapters become simple. 1-P is simple with or without Edward. And if you want to talk "complexity to low-turn" then it's still simple without Edward. The min turncount just becomes a lot higher, but how complex is it to say "okay, I'll move Micaiah into the range of guy A but not guy B and then she + Leo will kill guy A, then repeat with guy B and C and so on?" Here's a little experiment. Play Micaiah and Leo only and try to clear the chapter without worrying about low turns. Now try to reliably beat the chapter without Edward with the lowest turncount possible. How much more complex was your thinking?

Second, complexity is not difficulty. 1-P is, in my opinion, the hardest chapter to complete efficiently, because of the necessary reliance on Edward. But complexity has nothing to do with difficulty: more complex chapters require more complex strategies (like say, a Rescue-take-drop chain with Reyson and horses and fliers and whatever) whereas less complex chapters require less complex strategies (1-P has an incredibly basic strategy, that is, to go and charge with Edward and use a Vulnerary when necessary).

So, yeah, looks like it was you. Guess what? 1-P has an incredibly basic strategy without Edward, too. Remove Titania and how basic is your strategy in early-game?

Let's take a really complex chapter, like 25. It's a complete mess right? You have to rout that map in 3 turns with everything you have, pray that your units can survive, and hope your units can kill those ridiculously durable tigers which take multiple phases to kill. The strategy you need for that chapter is by far more complicated than the strategy you need for say, 1. Marcia's saving turns on 25 is more valuable than Titania saving turns on 1.

And you picked a chapter for Titania with only 7 guys. I don't imagine that chapter is all that complex to low turn without Titania either.

Anyway, remove Marcia from chapter 25 and Titania from Chapter 1. How many turns does Marcia save compared to if we used Jill? Any? If 0, then chapter 25 is irrelevant. If 1 or 2, then fine, they are probably worth more than Titania's chapter 1.

I don't see your point and what the issue here is.

If you'd actually accept defeat on your 1-P example, you might've talked about 1-9, so, I talked about it first.

Oscar and Kieran need to be promoted by 17-2, Ilyana needs to be promoted by 22, Ike needs to reach 20 by 16 before promotion (him having high stats is essential for seize chapters), Ike needs to be able to reliably kill Generals for 21, Marcia needs to be high level to ORKO Muarim in 15.. the list goes on forever.

what does any of this have to do with Titania costing you turns after chapter 10? If you aren't using her anymore, how does she prevent any of that?

I'm not denying that Titania shouldn't get credit for it--I am putting her in top tier am I not? But why should a unit with a best before date be better than Marcia?

Yes, if Jill can mostly replace Marcia's contributions it devalues what Marcia actually gives you, but there is nobody to devalue Titania's. You just said Titania saves maybe a dozen. How many does Marcia save compared to Jill? Jill costs a bunch of turns, so maybe the net is that Marcia can actually get you a dozen over Jill. I don't know, I've never tried either method. But I'd wager you've never tried Jill no Marcia and compared to Marcia no Jill. You are the one with the strategies in your head, so maybe you can just think it through and then tell me?

I do consider it a boon, but it doesn't change the fact that Titania is completely expendable after a certain point, unlike Marcia. Marcia does not suffer from the problems Titania does, and cuts more turns than she does.

Remember my tier list:

Goddesses Tier

Marcia

Titania

Jill

Titania is still right below Marcia, right?

Yes, and I admit Titania is high. Good. The question is whether it's the right spot. Really, though, only you or someone with similar super-low turn experience can tell me. The wild card here is Jill's contributions if you never recruit Marcia. Also there's the matter of how complex a Titania-less playthrough of PoR is when getting the lowest reliable turncount. Granted you don't have rescue and Reyson shinanigans, but you also don't have as many invincible ORKO machines. You in fact have none.

Titania's usefulness after arbitrary certain point >>> Edward's usefulness after the very first chapter of the game

Well, if we are to believe Olwen then Titania's usefulness after, say, chapter 10 is 0 because using her costs turns, so really Edward, if he saves even one turn after chapter 1-P, would be arguably more useful. Personally I believe that the complexity rating on 1-P is so low, however, that Titania still triumphs in the over all comparison due to her contributions before arbitrary certain point, so I consider this a non-issue anyway. Just saying.

edit:

so thinking of moving some of this to your tier list. Considering how high you have Titania on your list, arguing about her placement between one spot of goddess tier and another spot of goddess tier isn't exactly disagreeing with the notion of a jeigan in high tier. The argument with snowy is on topic, this I'm not so sure about.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Narga_Rocks

[Hawkeye]

What I meant by arbitrary point wasn't that we pick a point in the game, by rather an arbitrary limit between casual play and efficient play. Ex: how efficient should we play? A bit, a lot, etc.

Just because I also used the word "arbitrary" doesn't mean I was talking about what you were talking about when you used that word. I mean the point (that is admittedly not entirely arbitrary, at least using your playthrough) where Titania makes the leap from being necessary to being avoided like the plague.

[Chiki]

And you want to make a complexity thing where you rate each chapter, so his 20 turns are modified according to your standards.

Yes, the whole issue with Edward is why I'm making this system in the first place.

The difference with 1-P is that no enemies move unless you hit their range and you barely need a brain. I've done early game PoR without much use of Titania. There's more than one guy at a time to calculate move and danger to units etc etc. How do you determine complexity if not the amount of calculations you need to perform? Now, I'll admit later chapters have twice as many enemies, but some of the time it's point and kill, so maybe it's not automatically twice as complex if there are twice as many enemies? Some of your units are much more durable later on than earlier. At the start, you actually have to worry more about things like how much you can expose Oscar and Ike to.

Also, wasn't it you who made a big stink about the difference between hard and complex or was that someone else? Are we using them interchangeably now?

I think the amount of calculations needed to perform is a good way to measure complexity, but not difficulty. 1-P of my FE10 LTC playthrough took around 200 tries or something. 4-4 takes a crap load of more calculations than that, but I undoubtedly found 1-P harder than 4-4.

You'll find that later chapters aren't all point and kill. Chapter 21 of FE9, for example, which I rated 5/5 in terms of complexity, relies almost exclusively on Boots Marcia, but also needs some assistance from Reyson, Calill and Tanith in order to kill Ena; you need to be able to position Marcia such that she has only one Knight Calill can Meteor-kill, etc.. That Marcia can cut, say, 4 turns from that chapter is imo more valuable than that Titania can cut 4 turns from Chapter 1, by simply take-dropping Ike. Chapter 25 might just be point and kill too, since it's rout, but in practice it's a lot more calculations than that.

But the problem with rating complexity with all your available units is that no early chapter is complex if you can just have Titania barrel-rush things, but if Titania didn't exist then the chapters become more complex. It is because of Titania that chapters become simple. 1-P is simple with or without Edward.

Not at all. Weren't you the one who suggested number of calculations to measure complexity? Chapter 1 is incredibly simple to clear in 5 turns even when you limit yourself to using only Ike, Oscar and Boyd. Same goes for 2, 6, 9 and so on. Notice I left 4 and 7 out of this list: chapters which I grant have high complexity.

Play Micaiah and Leo only and try to clear the chapter without worrying about low turns. Now try to reliably beat the chapter without Edward with the lowest turncount possible. How much more complex was your thinking?

I don't think the difference is much. The strategy doesn't really seem to be much more complex, you're simply moving a little faster and using chokepoints a bit more efficiently.

So, yeah, looks like it was you. Guess what? 1-P has an incredibly basic strategy without Edward, too. Remove Titania and how basic is your strategy in early-game?

Pretty basic. I don't see your argument at all. I think Titania's removal doesn't really change your overall strategy that much: charge and seize.

Anyway, remove Marcia from chapter 25 and Titania from Chapter 1. How many turns does Marcia save compared to if we used Jill? Any? If 0, then chapter 25 is irrelevant. If 1 or 2, then fine, they are probably worth more than Titania's chapter 1.

I feel like it's more important to consider one's potential to save turns rather than alternate possibilities. Even if you had a million units who could cut 100 turns from FE9, I don't see why we should put them all in low tier. The fact that other characters can do the same doesn't inhibit any one of their individual potentials to cut turns. My views on this have changed a decent amount since a few months ago.

Second, even if you think I'm wrong on this, Marcia does have a lot of advantages over Jill, and is much more likely to be used in an efficiency playthrough. I might think of bringing Jill down a tier, actually.

1. She costs 3 turns to recruit; Jill costs 5 if I recall correctly.

2. Jill can't be shoved in chapter 14.

3. Jill can't double Muarim and has very low reliability against him, and from this point on can only be Smited by transformed Mordecai if you give him a Statue Frag. That Marcia can be shoved by all of Ranulf, Lethe, Mordecai and Muarim is extremely important. This probably costs around 10 turns or so considering the whole game.

4. Jill can't double Petrine, Bertram, Ena with average speed.

what does any of this have to do with Titania costing you turns after chapter 10? If you aren't using her anymore, how does she prevent any of that?

The point is, if Titania is a hindrance after chapter 11, and only hogs exp with nothing to give you back from it, why even bother using her? That was why I listed a bunch of deadlines to get certain levels on certain characters.

so thinking of moving some of this to your tier list. Considering how high you have Titania on your list, arguing about her placement between one spot of goddess tier and another spot of goddess tier isn't exactly disagreeing with the notion of a jeigan in high tier. The argument with snowy is on topic, this I'm not so sure about.

The argument is that Jeigans are overrated, which isn't too far separate from this topic.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Olwen

[Snowy_One]

Besides why does it matter if Titania gets nothing out of the kills? Whether a unit gets EXP or not, if you need them and only them to do something to reach a certain goal, you're going to have them do that something whether they're 20/20 and gaining 0 EXP per kill or 1/0 and gaining significantly more EXP. It's not wasting EXP if the unit is required to do something none of the other ones can in the same situation

Because given the choice between a 20/20 Titania and a 3/0 Oscar clear in 4 turns and a 20/20 Titania and a 5/0 Oscar in 6, I'd GLADLY take the latter. Higher levels = stronger team all around and having Titania leech kills for no gain is counter to that goal and the only thing I had to sacrifice for it was some turns which are meaningless and I'm still gonna get the full BEXP amount anyways.

Snowy, the outcomes of your tierlist aren't even testable; f(x) = (utility + combat + saved turns)/3 doesn't output anything that's independently measurable.

Contrast that with how tierlist disputes are currently handled; you believe the decision of Mia vs. Zihark over a single turn to be a "weakness" of the tiering criteria, whereas everyone else knows it to be a strength since it means that character rankings can actually be tested and falsified.

The funny thing about 'testing' is this. It requires players to play a certain way to have it happen. LTC strategies depend on that and if the player doesn't follow those rigid guidelines it goes out the window.

And yes, it's a weakness. Two characters were about to be switched on the list, not because one was a better fighter, more efficient, or anything like that. But because one could save ONE turn in ONE strategy before the other could join. I believe Mia > Zihark. I do not believe that it is so because of that one turn.

Snowy, are you just having a beef because you think the tier lists are made up of Stop Having Fun Guys? I used to think the same thing until i like, read the topics. They arent saying "You must play this way or yer doing it wrong!" At least not anymore... They are saying "These guys are awesome/bad based on these conditions." While i too, tend to find that arbitrary and never follow it, if its useful for people who play that way, what is the problem?

I have yet to see any evidence that tier listers are nothing but a bunch of people who only care about how to achieve the lowest turncount and casuals be damned because the tier list isn't for the 'average' player, but only those who obsess over the game enough to do entire playthroughs to prove that a mere handful of turns can be saved over one minor altercation. If, somehow, you can prove to me that LTC tier lists are applicable and accurate to the average player, who doesn't give a rats ass about turns, and beyond mere coincidentally giving the same character the same rating, I will shut up right here and now and never post one more complaint about the tier lists ever again. I will confine myself to the RP section and never leave and, if I do, I will willingly leave the site. If you can't prove that, then I don't want to hear that LTC tier lists are 'the best way' or 'the only way' or anything like that about tier lists again.

Think you can do it? If I see anything alluding to a lower turncount being the reason for a ranking, your entire argument will be rendered invalid on the spot.

To be fair, if the goal was made clear and rigorously applied, and the loopholes shut (like stopping arena abuse and implementing a maximum turncount allowance), units could be tiered on a max exp/level run just fine. It might be somewhat less objective because scoring is an overall thing rather than on a chapter-by-chapter basis. The factors would likely be level, availability, stats relative to level, and maybe weaponry usable.

*claps* Wow. Someone whose mind isn't shut out to possibilities. Congrats. I have some respect for you.

Snowy, you're getting on RFoF's case for disapproving of your alternate method, but how is that any different than how you feel about the current tiering method? The only difference is that while there are a lot of people who approve of/see the benefit of tier lists as they are, nobody has agreed with you yet. I don't count gamefaqs because we're not on gamefaqs and you're not even providing specific examples, just saying that they exist and hoping we take your word for it. There's nothing wrong with not liking the tier lists, but that hardly makes them bad.

Also, I'm just going to keep saying this despite the fact that I know it's falling on deaf ears, but the only people who talk about how Titania/Jeigans are extremely dramatically better than all other units are the people who are complaining about other people doing that. They're complaining about an opinion that does not exist (obviously Seth is a bit of an exception but I'm sure we can all see that).

I am suggesting something new be tried and the old ways of obsessing over an irrelevant detail be abandoned to try and make a tier list that is more relevant to people who don't obsess over LTC or finding out a specific strategy to shave off one turn.

On this note, I do want to point out that it's kind of funny Snowy constantly insists on using PoR and Titania for this argument when that is just about the worst example due to the abundance of BEXP in the game and the fact that Titania actually has good growths. I mean, at least in FE7 there's no BEXP and if Marcus gets unlucky enough he actually can drop off around mid-late game. And I don't really know enough about FE8 to judge what Seth does and if overusing him makes any later maps (desert, etc.) tougher.

FE6 Marcus is Top tier but only the 6th best unit currently, 10 doesn't really have a Jeigan aside from Sothe who is ranked really well but still below a few others, Frederick isn't on top...It's really just the 7/8/9 trio that people "gush" over like Snowy claims (and 4?), and even among those he arguably chose the worst one for his argument.

I hate FE7 with a passion due to how much the game loves to stat-screw me bad in that game. Only Florina, Rebecca and Serra ever get more than two points a level-up when I try to play it. FE8, I love a lot, but... it's ****ing Seth. The most broken jeigan, possibly UNIT, in FE history. Even if you throw LTC out the window, the only way he's not the *best* is if you're doing extreme ruin training and even THEN he's only 'another paladin' at worst. Sides, as I recall there is a 'Sethless' tier already, so people have, at least somewhat, acknowledges how broken he is. FE10... Is a quagmire to me for tiering. Due to all the team-flipping and BEXP stuff, I simply avoid it because it's so much more finicky than what I'm used to. Later FE's, I simply don't have or have beaten, so I don't debate them.

Five days late on this one but whatever.

Snowy, there was a reason why I tanned your hide on that list. Because supports were being considered more important than... flying or staff utility.

We insult you not because of your stances. We insult you because of your general lack of intelligence. The two become entertwined when you fail to support any position that you hold. The issue is that you have a misunderstanding of what viable logic is (Titania being fantastic) or a clear ignorance for number-based facts (Lethe vs. Stefan). Learn the difference (and elementary level math while you're at it).

1) You were more than welcome to bring up the value of flight and staff utility and debate it out. I don't recall you doing that though.

2) Part of the whole reason it was divided up into three separate rankings was so that people who didn't care about one category could easily ignore it.

3) Even if people griped about how much supports were worth, they could never have scored more than 10 points. Efficiency could never score more than 10 points. Combat could never score more than 10 points. So, tell me, which number is larger? 10? 10? or 10?

Because people devalue 1-P for only having 3 units and 8? enemies and little thought? That's the whole thing you are trying to do with your tier list. I don't actually have a problem with a complexity driven tier list or an all chapters are equal tier list. Edward is a cool guy so if a tier list would give him full credit then fine. If not, fine. But the problem with rating complexity with all your available units is that no early chapter is complex if you can just have Titania barrel-rush things, but if Titania didn't exist then the chapters become more complex. It is because of Titania that chapters become simple. 1-P is simple with or without Edward. And if you want to talk "complexity to low-turn" then it's still simple without Edward. The min turncount just becomes a lot higher, but how complex is it to say "okay, I'll move Micaiah into the range of guy A but not guy B and then she + Leo will kill guy A, then repeat with guy B and C and so on?" Here's a little experiment. Play Micaiah and Leo only and try to clear the chapter without worrying about low turns. Now try to reliably beat the chapter without Edward with the lowest turncount possible. How much more complex was your thinking?

I actually do agree a lot with this. Complexity should be a factor in the tier lists. A lot more-so than now at least.

[Hawkeye]

rage

All your responses were either pointless or based on misinterpreting what other people said.

[Redwall]

The funny thing about 'testing' is this. It requires players to play a certain way to have it happen. LTC strategies depend on that and if the player doesn't follow those rigid guidelines it goes out the window.

Um, duh? The tierlist playstyle needs to be well-defined, yes; the tiering contributors do realize that the tierlist playstyle is not mainstream, and that anyone who doesn't want to adopt the guidelines can play the game another way. Certainly, structuring tiers according to other criteria is possible, but also irrelevant for people who are interested in seriously challenging themselves in their playthroughs. To use the "most EXP gained" example: such a run sounds mind-numbingly boring, and I'm sure you'd agree that we play SRPGs with the intent of actually thinking, as opposed to walking our units around the map haphazardly looking for kills.

And yes, it's a weakness. Two characters were about to be switched on the list, not because one was a better fighter, more efficient, or anything like that. But because one could save ONE turn in ONE strategy before the other could join. I believe Mia > Zihark. I do not believe that it is so because of that one turn.

But no, it's a strength. Two characters were about to be switched on the list to precisely reflect their contributions to an efficient playthrough, with a definition of efficiency clearly stated. Whether Mia allows for more kills / less brainpower used / lifestyle improvements / whatever is not a question the SF tierlist seeks to answer.

I have yet to see any evidence that tier listers are nothing but a bunch of people who only care about how to achieve the lowest turncount and casuals be damned because the tier list isn't for the 'average' player, but only those who obsess over the game enough to do entire playthroughs to prove that a mere handful of turns can be saved over one minor altercation. If, somehow, you can prove to me that LTC tier lists are applicable and accurate to the average player, who doesn't give a rats ass about turns, and beyond mere coincidentally giving the same character the same rating, I will shut up right here and now and never post one more complaint about the tier lists ever again. I will confine myself to the RP section and never leave and, if I do, I will willingly leave the site. If you can't prove that, then I don't want to hear that LTC tier lists are 'the best way' or 'the only way' or anything like that about tier lists again.

Think you can do it? If I see anything alluding to a lower turncount being the reason for a ranking, your entire argument will be rendered invalid on the spot.

No one is claiming the tierlist playstyle to be representative of Fire Emblem players in general. It is intended to promote a playstyle that rewards careful planning and well-executed tactics. When people refer to the playstyle as "the only way", they mean that it's the only way for experienced players to challenge themselves. Due to the rather incompetent Fire Emblem AI, playing without severe restrictions is rather easy even on the highest difficulty settings (and generally not worthwhile to experienced players) in the absence of the LTC directive.

[Renall]

Um, duh? The tierlist playstyle needs to be well-defined, yes; the tiering contributors do realize that the tierlist playstyle is not mainstream, and that anyone who doesn't want to adopt the guidelines can play the game another way. Certainly, structuring tiers according to other criteria is possible, but also irrelevant for people who are interested in seriously challenging themselves in their playthroughs. To use the "most EXP gained" example: such a run sounds mind-numbingly boring, and I'm sure you'd agree that we play SRPGs with the intent of actually thinking, as opposed to walking our units around the map haphazardly looking for kills.

I actually thought about this for a bit and it would be at least a little bit interesting subject to certain rules, like no arenas (boss abuse is another issue but in e.g. Awakening there actually aren't that many bosses camped on regenerating tiles). Basically it'd be an exercise in always deploying the lowest-level units, trying your damndest to manipulate the doubling threshold so your units aren't either doubling or being doubled, getting as much chip damage in as possible before scoring kills, and always feeding a kill to the lowest-level unit with the highest current exp. Oh, while keeping everybody alive and not breaking all your weapons, I guess. That part's the hard part.

Granted, this doesn't really sound like much fun or in any way representative of how people actually play the game, but it is at least a little bit more interesting than you might have figured.

Although, as it turns out, I think Jeigan units might still be moderately well-tiered here despite not being able to gain any experience, in games where an unequipped lure character is of value. Athos, however, is Get The Eff Outta Here Garbage Tier in FE7. Lv20 Archsage? Whatever, loser, come back when hitting that dragon gives you a level (does the dragon even give exp?).

[Hawkeye]

(does the dragon even give exp?).

No :P

[Rehab]

I was actually really disappointed when I first did FE4 Gen2. I was aware of the archetype and figured that Oifaye would be wrecking the game all day, but he actually turned out rather bad. So yeah, definitely an outdated idea.

Oifaye isn't "bad" as in "destined to be less than useful in all occasions," though, he's just "inconvenient to make stand out," since it's harder than it usually is to just slap a hero sword on him. Whereas being a "good" unit in FE4, relatively speaking, means "you have to be actively trying to sabotage their performance to have them do anything that isn't wrecking everything."

[MacLovin]

fe1-Jagen can become a powerhouse due to the stat boosters

fe2-hard to tell which unit is the jeigan

fe3-stat boosters and orbs

fe4-Sigurd is THE best unit in FE. Cuan is pretty cool, 2nd Gen Finn and Oifaye are also pretty bro.

fe5-Eyvel is useful, shame 24x is a pain. Dagda is the fucking man and is probobly among the most useful non-stave/magic users due to his bases.

fe6-Marcus can become the purple taxicab after mid-game. Zealot can become a taxi after midgame.

fe7-http://gyazo.com/88d841c65e4eedf2bc1189ed84e0183c

Recent HHM run, it seems to be a recurring feature.

fe8-Features a God

fe9-Seth, genderbent, giant tits, and swap swords for axes.

fe10-

p1-Sothe, bellyshirt unit with good bases/growths and caps that hold him back from becoming tooo strong.

p2-IDK, maybe Haar, Geoffrey, or Lucia?

p3-Tits is back again with ridic bases. Oh and Haar.

p4-n/a

fe11-Jeigan, just reclass him for staves after a certain point.

fe12-Reclass Arran for staves after a certain point.

fe13-Haven't played

TRS-Raffin is so bro. He eventually flies.

[Dark Sage]

Oifaye is Jesus in an all subs run though. Most people seem to forget that.

[Rehab]

I forget, can Ares be recruited in a sub run, or is that only possible with Nanna being there? I was going to make a joke about him then being Old Testament wrath incarnate, but that might fall kinda flat if he can't be recruited, wouldn't it