Alternative tiering suggestion: Maximum BEXP

[Florete]

Not sure this matters now, but I didn't see this before.

I didn't. Proposing an alternative requires a demonstration as to why it's superior to the existing system. If your alternative is worse than the existing system, there's no point to proposing it. Therefore, in any thread suggesting an alternative to a standard, you should expect a criticism of the standard, and it's rather unbecoming, thus, to enter one and then start chewing people out for criticizing the standard and accusing them -- falsely, at that -- of lying about the standard to justify their alternative.

You talk as though there can only be One True Tier List. There's nothing wrong with multiple tier lists of different criteria existing together. Neither has to be superior. FE7 has had both an efficiency and ranks list running at the exact same time. If there are multiple quantifiable ways to rank units, there can be multiple tier lists. You don't need to go shitting on the previous method (yes, this is an exaggeration) to propose a new one.

I can't understand why there's such animosity towards a new tier list.

an·i·mos·i·ty
[an-uh-mos-i-tee] Show IPA

noun, plural an·i·mos·i·ties. a feeling of strong dislike, ill will, or enmity that tends to display itself in action

Pointing out relevant problems with an idea is not this.

Edited April 19, 2013 by Red Fox of Fire

[Narga_Rocks]

You need to go shitting on the previous method (yes, this is an exaggeration) to propose a new one.

Don't you mean you "don't" need to?

[Florete]

Don't you mean you "don't" need to?

Whyyyyyyyyyyy do I always leave that word out!?

[Espinosa]

an·i·mos·i·ty

[an-uh-mos-i-tee] Show IPA

noun, plural an·i·mos·i·ties. a feeling of strong dislike, ill will, or enmity that tends to display itself in action

Pointing out relevant problems with an idea is not this.

I am seeing 'strong dislike, opposition or anger' in my dictionary.

[Fenrir]

I am seeing 'strong dislike, opposition or anger' in my dictionary.

Thought the same thing, thought about saying, decided not to. But now that someone's already said it...

Really do not know why you are saying I don´t know how to use a word when the first definition applies quite accurately.

Going to post pros and cons for both lists so nobody gets offended or anything.

What I like about the current tier list: Has a little flexibility for how characters are rated, not strictly LTC but is based on getting low(Not super low) turn counts while maintaining dependability.

What I dislike about current tier list: That flexibility causes some confusion. There's no hardcore fact basis for the ranking, that I've ever seen at least. In my opinion this is more a bad effect of a good thing about the list, it just fucks up a couple rankings in my opinion.

Footnote to those comments, I THINK this is being proposed for FE9 and 10. As people who are familiar with my activity would know, the only game I really talk/debate about is Radiant Dawn. I've played Path of Radiance all the way through... One time? So I really only can't have an argument about FE9. I'd apply the same arguments for the tier lists if it only applied to FE9,(Because I can comprehend the concepts behind the tier lists) but I couldn't get to much into specifics because I don't know the game that well. I (THINK) I completely understand FE10.

What I like about proposed list: Gives an easy guideline for everyone to follow: get as much BEXP as possible. I think most of us have played the game like this, right? I enjoyed playing the game like that. Its probably a little bit easier in my opinion, but I think that´s good because this tier wasn´t intended for expert players anyway.

What I don´t like about proposed list: I think tons of characters will be way out of proportion to where they should really be on a ranking system. Im just imagining some weird shit. Part two really has some weird BEXP priorities. 2-P only offers BEXP for clearing the map. Haar, Leanne, and Elincia would gain major points for that map on a different list.(One of Elincias only map right? haha) And does not it make sense to reward characters for saving us a pain in the ass map? I guess you can gain a lot of exp for people too in that map, but Ive always hated waiting out the turns.

Sorry for weird grammatical errors, my keyboard is giving me problems.

[Florete]

I am seeing 'strong dislike, opposition or anger' in my dictionary.

So same thing, basically? People clearly aren't angry about it and, as far as I can tell, aren't really opposing it, just critiquing it. Admittedly some are more harsh than others, but it's hardly "animosity towards a new tier list." After all:

What I don´t like about proposed list: I think tons of characters will be way out of proportion to where they should really be on a ranking system. Im just imagining some weird shit. Part two really has some weird BEXP priorities. 2-P only offers BEXP for clearing the map. Haar, Leanne, and Elincia would gain major points for that map on a different list.(One of Elincias only map right? haha) And does not it make sense to reward characters for saving us a pain in the ass map? I guess you can gain a lot of exp for people too in that map, but Ive always hated waiting out the turns.

This is basically all anyone is doing. If one is going to propose a new tiering idea, one must accept that people will find and point out problems with it. It seems like some of you take this fact too harshly.

[Snowy_One]

While I have no objection to making a tier-list, based off of getting the most BEXP, doing so simply isn't that hard. Aside from a few unique conditions it's very easy to get max BEXP (least from turncounts) even without a tier-list. When I first played the game I only failed to do so on two chapters and there simply wasn't a tier list at that time for which characters were good or bad. So how would you rank units? It's pretty easy to mount-stomp a chapter, so should Gatrie get ignored because he doesn't actually help while Titania clears the way?

Also, and I want to make this clear, the Mia vs. Zihark thing was meant to be a mockery of the tier list and it's current tiering standards. Namely, by taking a strategy and a theory that only gave a minor benefit at best (Mia shoving in one chapter for a one-turn shave) to push one character over another. Though I do believe Mia > Zihark, my reasons for believing it have nothing to do with turncounts. The whole thing is meant to be a mockery and show how awful pure LTC is as a tiering standard.

And before you say it, yes, the current tier-list is indeed a LTC tier list. There is nothing 'efficient' about it. It's not a case of resource-in to power-out, even if 'power out' is defined by LTC. It's a tier list which ranks characters based on how much they help with shaving turns off with the higher tiers shaving off lots of turns, middle tiers possibly shaving a turn off in situational circumstances, and low tiers being unlikely or offering no real prospect for saving turns. Turn saving is the lists only focus and the fact that people were willing to discuss such a ridiculous thing as dumping a ton of BEXP into one unit to shave off one turn on one strategy should show that.

As for the idea of 'new criteria' it seems like any new suggestions, unless they conform to the pre-existing LTC standards, get dismissed. People are only willing to debate if it conforms to what already exists. They aren't interested in new tiering methods or ideas, just ones that modify the pre-existing ones.

[PKL]

Look, the current tier list isnt LTC. Saving turns might be one of the reasons why Marcia Titania and Jill are at the top, but they are also at the top because theyre esentially invincible units that can ORKO pretty much everything before your awful notmounted units can even reach. 1-2 range also has to do with it, because having a really good enemy phase is productive, not just for shaving turns, but to beat the game. A unit that can ORKO pretty much everything forever even bosses like Titania will be better than a unit like Rolf that will struggle to ORKO things in Player Phase sometimes, will fall behind the team and wont have an enemy phase. Mia is worse than Titania because she cant rescue someone (which has more applications than just LTC), can't canto (which again, has more than just LTC apllications), doesnt have good 1-2 range and is rather frail, limiting her enemy phase exposure. This is just an example. Heres another one, lets say Gatrie and makalov have identical stats in X chapter, except for movement, which makalov beats him by 3. Both can do the same in enemy phase but one of them has more movement, thus reaching enemies faster than the otherand can even canto out of danger while Gatrie would be stuck there. Who's the winner?

[Florete]

While I have no objection to making a tier-list, based off of getting the most BEXP, doing so simply isn't that hard. Aside from a few unique conditions it's very easy to get max BEXP (least from turncounts) even without a tier-list. When I first played the game I only failed to do so on two chapters and there simply wasn't a tier list at that time for which characters were good or bad. So how would you rank units? It's pretty easy to mount-stomp a chapter, so should Gatrie get ignored because he doesn't actually help while Titania clears the way?

This part of your post is fine.

Also, and I want to make this clear, the Mia vs. Zihark thing was meant to be a mockery of the tier list and it's current tiering standards. Namely, by taking a strategy and a theory that only gave a minor benefit at best (Mia shoving in one chapter for a one-turn shave) to push one character over another. Though I do believe Mia > Zihark, my reasons for believing it have nothing to do with turncounts. The whole thing is meant to be a mockery and show how awful pure LTC is as a tiering standard.

And before you say it, yes, the current tier-list is indeed a LTC tier list. There is nothing 'efficient' about it. It's not a case of resource-in to power-out, even if 'power out' is defined by LTC. It's a tier list which ranks characters based on how much they help with shaving turns off with the higher tiers shaving off lots of turns, middle tiers possibly shaving a turn off in situational circumstances, and low tiers being unlikely or offering no real prospect for saving turns. Turn saving is the lists only focus and the fact that people were willing to discuss such a ridiculous thing as dumping a ton of BEXP into one unit to shave off one turn on one strategy should show that.

As for the idea of 'new criteria' it seems like any new suggestions, unless they conform to the pre-existing LTC standards, get dismissed. People are only willing to debate if it conforms to what already exists. They aren't interested in new tiering methods or ideas, just ones that modify the pre-existing ones.

But if you absolutely must keep spouting this crap, at least take it to the Tiering Philosophy thread in General FE.

[Espinosa]

Don't think a single step forward is possible in this dialogue.

[Narga_Rocks]

While I have no objection to making a tier-list, based off of getting the most BEXP, doing so simply isn't that hard. Aside from a few unique conditions it's very easy to get max BEXP (least from turncounts) even without a tier-list. When I first played the game I only failed to do so on two chapters and there simply wasn't a tier list at that time for which characters were good or bad. So how would you rank units? It's pretty easy to mount-stomp a chapter, so should Gatrie get ignored because he doesn't actually help while Titania clears the way?

..

As for the idea of 'new criteria' it seems like any new suggestions, unless they conform to the pre-existing LTC standards, get dismissed. People are only willing to debate if it conforms to what already exists. They aren't interested in new tiering methods or ideas, just ones that modify the pre-existing ones.

Wait what? You put down a suggestion in the same post you complain about other people putting down the same suggestion? Explain yourself.

But if you absolutely must keep spouting this crap, at least take it to the Tiering Philosophy thread in General FE.

Agreed. It's pinned so it's easy to find and it's there for general purpose and specific discussions all about tiering philosophy. Complaints about current tier lists, complaints about the people running them, all sorts of conversations can be had there. It's there to stop the clutter affecting other topics when people have complaints. And you even get responses from the relevant board members and none of us mods complaining that you are derailing. This topic here is for discussing specifically the max bexp idea, or to step away from that a little I suppose the advantages/disadvantages of max bexp versus efficiency versus ltc. NOT about whether our other tiering threads are efficiency or ltc or one specific team or what have you. That stuff goes to the pinned thread.

Edited April 23, 2013 by Narga_Rocks

[Fenrir]

@Snowy, you're really, really wrong. I've had tier debates centered around stat growths and caps, LTC is just kind of used as a gauge really when it comes to these tier lists.(In my interpretation at least) If you can consistently beat chapters of the game using certain characters in a lower amount of time that probably means they are better right? And it's hard to find a list that ranks bad characters high because they save turns, as I said earlier, good(Sometimes strictly useful, but usually good) characters cut off turns.

This is basically all anyone is doing. If one is going to propose a new tiering idea, one must accept that people will find and point out problems with it. It seems like some of you take this fact too harshly.

I was just trying to say that really. Every list is going to have major problems in everyone's eyes. The efficiency list will probably give a better glimpse into real value of characters but I would like to at least see what a MAXBEXP list would look like.

Don't think a single step forward is possible in this dialogue.

:(