Tiering Philosophy - It's that time again

[Narga_Rocks]

Hello all. I'm not going to type my opinion because I don't really care about this topic anymore. I just want to try to prevent others from bogging down the tier threads. This is just here to discuss ranks versus efficiency and what efficiency means and all that stuff. Also to discuss validity and whether FE:A needs a different system from, say, FE:RD or FE:PoR etc for whatever reason. Oh, and the reliability of averages and stuff like that, too.

nth edit: Another question that has now come up: What is the purpose of a tier list?

new edit: What is efficiency?

I'll add some quotes to this post from the recent blow-up over at the FE:A hard mode thread.

It's not a misunderstanding. The objective of any tier list is the same. I've entered discussions on FE tier lists in the past, it's only this particular FE that I don't feel breaks down into tiers clealy. Blazing Sword, for example, has a nice ratings system that makes it easy to identify what classifies as "good play," and what characters then facilitate that.

As I said, I've already discussed FE tiers before, and at length. It has nothing to do with acclimating to the community.

I also understand that Smash tiers are done under an imposition of rules upon the system. However, the rules are fixed, and consistent from match to match. The rules are also clearly defined and established among the community. Smash tiers are not meant to answer "who is the best character," they aim to show who currently performs the best. Smash tiers are made from tournament results, which are entirely objective.

An average is the most-likely singular outcome, but the odds of the outcome being any outcome other than the average are still greater than those of it being the average. Growths definitely count for something, but I actually believe the growth percentage itself, rather than the average, is more meaningful in this case because it's a fixed number. Yes, yes, I know "average stats are a function of growths." Yes, and they are also a function of bases and level. I think it's cleaner to look at bases and growths individually. I'm a research scientist, I like clean data because you can do more with it without it dynamically affecting the rest of the data. For example, I like to plug my FE stats into Excel to do various things.

On a similar note, growths in FE:A are so high, and so similar among characters (compared to other FEs) that I feel they are trivialized somewhat; the overall balance is far better than in previous games. I think bases and starting items are more useful barometer.

Well, in order to define a character's usefulness, you need to first define what it means to be useful. In FE, particularly this one, there are multiple ways to be useful. You then need to decide which uses are more valuable. I think it would be cleaner to break characters down into how they would best be used first, and then rank them accordingly. A global tier list could be pieced together after that.

You misunderstand my intentions. I don't want to throw a wrench into the conversation, I want to find ways to improve it. I love talking numbers and debating things, and I love Fire Emblem. It goes without saying that I like to debate and quantify Fire Emblem. However, after looking over this thread I'm seeing a lot of abstract reasoning and unclear terms. I think it would be more effective if we first created a well-defined framework and language within which to operate.

What is a character's purpose? How is a character's purpose defined? Is their purpose a useful one? How good are they at serving their purpose? What are our rules? Why are we implementing said rules? That's only the beginning. I know that stuff isn't as interesting, and it might seem overkill, but it could really help keep everyone on the same page with a clear objective.

We do not discuss tiering philosophy in this thread. All of us are sick to death of arguing about it with the FE Fusion refugees and their groupies. If you want to talk about Blazing Sword and the relative merit of rank-based tiering, you're going to have to do it somewhere else (I suggest General). If you want to make your own tier list for Awakening, with Blackjack and hookers, you have the blessing of every mod, woman, and child on this forum to do so in another thread.

To the part of your post that wasn't a forbidden topic: there is a lot of abstract reasoning in this thread, because 1) most of the people here understand the gist of the framework without needing it spelled out for them, and 2) specifics are an eyedropper where a bucket is still called for. The ordering of the list is still subject to sweeping changes due to the relative inexperience of all participants with this particular set of guidelines. A few of us are running playthroughs to see how some of the assumptions of the list hold up; as it turns out, there's a lot of room for improvement.

Some day the scalpel is appropriate (see: argument for Sully > Panne done by aku chi), but for a lot of comparisons, that day is not today.

You might want to read this

FE tiers are made from efficiency results, which are no less objective than tournament results. The choice to adopt low turns as the metric of choice is somewhat arbitrary, but after adopting this standard, the actual teasing-out of who's-more-efficient-than-whom is not.

Um, okay? Michael Jordan was unequivocally a better player than Charles Barkley, but that certainly didn't mean that Jordan would necessarily outperform Barkley on any given night. As this pertains to FE, the law of large numbers gives us a very good chance of preventing the observed average stats of any heavily-leveled character from deviating sharply from the true average. This need not mean that Panne is necessarily going to saving more turns than Gaius in any given playthrough; only that the chances of this happening are high.

Bases and availability (both of which present opportunities for saving turns) mean something, too. The balance is much worse than in previous games if you're referring to the disparity between above-average and below-average units, though if you're referring to the usability of below-average units, then I would agree; nonetheless, using below-average units over better ones has a larger opportunity cost than in previous games due to the high emphasis on rout maps and enemy-phase combat.

As stated in the tier list FAQ, the metric of usefulness is efficiency; playthroughs adopting the tier list playstyle tend to shoot for low turncounts. High-ranking characters allow for faster completions than do low-ranking characters, though in this particular tier list, giant Rescue/Dance chains are not assumed.

Edited April 23, 2013 by Narga_Rocks

[Snowy_One]

I think that, maybe, the tier lists should attempt to incorporate more than just 'efficiency' into their rankings. Complexity should be a factor as well. If Alice is better than Bob, but Alice needs Carl and Doug to be deployed and to be gunning for a flight-drop strategy to be better than Bob, it should be noted and a clear factor in their tiering that Bob is much less complex/needy to be good than Alice.

As for rankings vs. efficiency, it's key to remember WHY efficiency is even used as a standard in the first place. I'm sure FE vets can do 0% runs of FE7 on hard mode without problems, but that doesn't mean that it should replace the rankings. Efficiency came into use because the newer FE's don't have it, and it would probably best to either ignore it or at least keep it separate for those games with rankings.

[Elieson]

Complexity is only as complex as it is until it's figured out. Then it's no longer complex.

[Narga_Rocks]

So the obvious question from the last two posts is about "who are we tiering for?" To which I always thought the answer was "us," but whatever. A tier list that ranks based on simplicity of use of characters is more like a tier list for the inexperienced player. Who is best for them to use? If you consider a player that doesn't have very complex strategies in their head then the best characters are those that quickly get to the point where you can just unthinkingly barrel-rush with them. But if you consider Sheldon to be the player, then complexity is irrelevant. If you know the game inside and out, what is a character capable of doing when you can use all the advantages in your brain in their favour? Which is more important for tiering?

[Hawk King]

Tier lists are for competitive games, such as fighting games. They exist to show which characters perform the best during competitive play.

FE tier lists should be the same, but FE games are single player games so the "competitive play" part needs to be defined. And for many people it is defined as "Lowest Turn Count".

[Snowy_One]

That also holds the hidden problem of turning the list from an actual ranking to a list of 'what is the best strategy and what units do I need for it?'

Maybe a middle-ground between the two is needed? The player should try to be 'efficient' via using resources smartly and the like and wanting to move at a decent pace, but will avoid risky situations and not employ any specific strategies. Ergo, it shouldn't always be 'what happens when the player knows the strategies and is building for them' but it should be 'what happens when they aren't?'

[Interceptor]

Tier lists are not character guides -- for the millionth time -- because they lack any sort of useful context for players. Taking complexity into account is nonsense under these circumstances. It's better to just assume that a fictional tier player makes perfect decisions, because that's something that can actually be objective.

[Chiki]

Complexity is only as complex as it is until it's figured out. Then it's no longer complex.

Part of complexity is the process of figuring it out, or to put it simply, number of calculations.

It's better to just assume that a fictional tier player makes perfect decisions, because that's something that can actually be objective.

You clearly don't understand what it is. Complexity isn't difficulty; it can be objectively measured. One can measure the number of calculations that take place.

The greater the number of perfect decisions = the greater complexity is.

Edited April 15, 2013 by Olwen

[Interceptor]

You clearly don't understand what it is. Complexity isn't difficulty; it can be objectively measured. One can measure the number of calculations that take place.

The greater the number of perfect decisions = the greater complexity is.

You must be new here. This argument isn't about complexity, it's about difficulty: I've been arguing this point with snowy since Radiant Dawn was a new game.

But regardless, taking it at face value, complexity can certainly be objectively measured, so long as everyone agrees on the number/weight/breakdown of the component parts, which is to say that it can't be objectively measured in any sort of realistic scenario ever.

Are you kidding me?

[Elieson]

Part of complexity is the process of figuring it out, or to put it simply, number of calculations.

You clearly don't understand what it is. Complexity isn't difficulty; it can be objectively measured. One can measure the number of calculations that take place.

The greater the number of perfect decisions = the greater complexity is.

Ask Thomas Edison many years ago about how a lightbulb works and how one is made, and you'd need a higher education to grasp it, nonetheless recreate it.

Now they are mass produced by the thousands, in more efficient ways.

Is the process of creating a lightbulb still complex? No. But achieving results faster and with less effort and resources is the net goal. Once you figure out how to do something in a more reliable and quick way, that's it. It's done. You've solved the math problem, and all that's left to do is apply it.

So this "complexity" only serves as a placeholder until X result is achieved, where X is most easily defined as a rapid and reliable game clear (or, the most rapid and reliable game clear). Complexity doesn't matter if there is a 2 step process to competing a chapter in one turn or a 12 step process because the end result is the net goal.

[Jediabiwan]

That also holds the hidden problem of turning the list from an actual ranking to a list of 'what is the best strategy and what units do I need for it?'

Maybe a middle-ground between the two is needed? The player should try to be 'efficient' via using resources smartly and the like and wanting to move at a decent pace, but will avoid risky situations and not employ any specific strategies. Ergo, it shouldn't always be 'what happens when the player knows the strategies and is building for them' but it should be 'what happens when they aren't?'

Not sure how it is like with other games but I know the awakening tier list is similar to what you described. Absolute LTC is extremely limiting on the characters and strategies used, but the general idea of aiming for low turns is much less restrictive.

[Hawk King]

Snowy,

Fighting game tier lists assume that the players know all available combos to them and are capable of performing said combos, so yeah, FE tier lists should assume that players know all available strategies.

The thing is, not all fighting game players know how to/ are capable of performing the most complex moves and combos. So tier lists are only relevant to "high level tournament players" who have the skill to perform complex combos. I would say that less than 10% of gamers for a particular game fall into this category. For the more than 90% of gamers, that game's tier list is useless to them.

Back to FE, its the same thing. Tier lists are useless when applied to casual playstyles. Ergo, casual and new players shouldn't consult tier lists when looking for advice. They should look to character guides, which I will admit, there aren't any and someone intelligent should get after it.

[Hawkeye]

I don't think we should draw too close of a comparison to fighting game tier lists. As people have mentioned, they're for top-level players and based on tournament results and all that. If we were to translate that into Fire Emblem context, we'd be looking at something more like an actual LTC tier list, which is not our goal here. The tier lists here are definitely for competent players, but they are certainly not only for the very best players. I can make use of a tier list just as much as our top drafters or our 0% growths or LTC people.
in terms of efficiency, we're really just looking to compare reliability with speed. If we take 30+ turns with each chapter, we can push the reliability to pretty much 100% for every chapter. In the other direction, if we're going for absolutely the least amount of turns possible, we may be dealing with shaky hitrates, forced crits, and high risk of death. To find the proper balance, I think we need to start from the reliability end. Determine what is an acceptable reliability (no landing <50% hits, not dependent on non-killer criticals, whatever), and then push the speed up as high as possible while maintaining that reliability. Then we pretty much have what we want for efficiency and we can see how units perform under those conditions.
As for complexity, I definitely think it should be taken into account. Chapter complexity as has been discussed elsewhere moreso than unit complexity like Snowy mentioned in his first post. But I don't really have anything detailed to say about complexity yet.

[Chiki]

You must be new here. This argument isn't about complexity, it's about difficulty: I've been arguing this point with snowy since Radiant Dawn was a new game.

But regardless, taking it at face value, complexity can certainly be objectively measured, so long as everyone agrees on the number/weight/breakdown of the component parts, which is to say that it can't be objectively measured in any sort of realistic scenario ever.

Are you kidding me?

Here's my thread on complexity (which I at least was first to define in my own way):

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=38154

And here's Snowy agreeing:

Which is why I'm suggesting this alteration.

Now that we're done with trivialities, let's get to business.

Not sure how it is like with other games but I know the awakening tier list is similar to what you described. Absolute LTC is extremely limiting on the characters and strategies used, but the general idea of aiming for low turns is much less restrictive.

"Aiming for low turns" is absolutely arbitrary. How low should we aim? It's a completely vague claim and I can't really make any sense of it at all.

As noted earlier, tier lists aren't intended for casual players. Tier lists expect perfect play. I see no reason not to go for lowest turns possible--assuming reliability and complexity. It would be stupid to include strategies like Magic Sword Ike in tier lists.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Olwen

[Loki Laufeyson]

, it's only this particular FE that I don't feel breaks down into tiers clealy.

This comes from the OP of this thread and a quote about Awakening and i agree with this. I think Awakening should be tiered in terms of skills and classes. Considering how only like five characters are guaranteed to be decent and everyone else varies so goddamn much. If you tier Awakening in terms of characters, you have to put a lot of restrictions on it. I havent bothered with the FE13 tier list thread cuz i just cant fathom how a tier list for that game could work in the traditional sense.

BUT, i think classes and skills (and if you do go by characters, their reclassing options) are perfectly tier-able.

If you tier FE13, do it with Lunatic mode. That will make much more sense given that Hard mode isnt very hard. :P (even on classic)

I also think that some leeway should be made on traditional tiering when it comes to efficiency. Instead of "LOWEST TURN COUNT POSSIBLE OMFG", how about just general efficiency? I see a lot of tiering getting argued, flip flopped, and generally making less sense because peeps are only going for the lowest turn count humanly possible. While this may be a good goal to keep in mind, i think a little bit more wiggle room should be allowed. (and it would help ease up the flame wars)

Anti-Tier List Guys: Do understand, this forum isnt filled with Stop Having Fun Guys anymore. I dont like tier lists because fuck the police, but come on...

[Snowy_One]

Maybe it should be assumed that it's more of a 'draft' style setting? As it is right now in the tier lists, any unit who is not in top or high has either limited use or is superficious to the actual 'goal' of a LTC. This is largely because it is assumed people will be stomping through it with units like the mounted, fliers, and Reyson, which kind of render the rest largely pointless.

I'm not saying it should be 'pure' draft, but maybe adopting the mindset of not always having access to the best units/strategies would be a large step towards the right direction?

Also, Int, I don't see how tier lists lack context in any way, shape, or form unless the debaters intentionally make it lack that context.

[Chiki]

This comes from the OP of this thread and a quote about Awakening and i agree with this. I think Awakening should be tiered in terms of skills and classes.

And what are skills and classes good for?

Instead of "LOWEST TURN COUNT POSSIBLE OMFG", how about just general efficiency?

Here is what I said:

"Aiming for low turns" is absolutely arbitrary. How low should we aim? It's a completely vague claim and I can't really make any sense of it at all.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Olwen

[Interceptor]

Here's my thread on complexity (which I at least was first to define in my own way)

Do everyone a favor and summarize it, so nobody has to wade through four pages of you figuring out what your point is.

"Aiming for low turns" is absolutely arbitrary. How low should we aim? It's a completely vague claim and I can't really make any sense of it at all.

This is a common complaint of people who don't understand that turn counts are not the point. Minimizing turns is not done for the sake of an adorably low number, it's done to force a particular style of play. There isn't much difference between units when you can turtle in a corner all day long, but moving quickly tends to expose the real gaps between them; it makes things like durability and mobility actually matter.

Anyone who says things like "X shaves Y turns" is missing the point of caring about turns in the first place. This is the sort of thinking that leads to such idiocy as The Chapter 1-P Eddie Argument™.

As noted earlier, tier lists aren't intended for casual players.

The hell they aren't. Tier lists are intended for the participants, which certainly can (and has) include casual players. Some of the better players around here honed their playing/debating skills in tier lists.

Tier lists expect perfect play. I see no reason not to go for lowest turns possible--assuming reliability and complexity. It would be stupid to include strategies like Magic Sword Ike in tier lists.

Tier lists expect perfect play to eliminate "but what if the tier player makes a mistake" baloney arguments. Assuming a perfect player (given things that are possible for a player to know: the RNG is obviously excluded) allows an even plane on which to discuss things. This means that we can talk about Pegasus bow weakness in the context of limitation of freedom for a unit to maneuver, rather than "oops I got Sumia killed by accident".

EDIT:

Also, Int, I don't see how tier lists lack context in any way, shape, or form unless the debaters intentionally make it lack that context.

Try opening your eyes, then. The only thing that a tier list tells you about Ike is where he placed relative to his peers. It contains precious little about the "why". Edited April 16, 2013 by Interceptor

[Chiki]

Do everyone a favor and summarize it, so nobody has to wade through four pages of you figuring out what your point is.

The complexity argument was created to solve the issue of Edward saving dozens of turns from 1-P, and therefore becoming top tier in the tier list. Complexity is simply defined as the number of calculations required in order to clear a chapter quickly. For example, it's very simple and straightforward to clear 1-P, but it isn't so simple to clear 4-4. Cutting a turn from a chapter with higher complexity is more valuable than cutting a turn from a chapter with lower complexity, as more calculations are required to do it.

Complexity is not difficulty. The number of calculations often go together with how difficult a chapter is (which is a subjective term), but complexity is objective and can be measured. For example, I consider 1-P the hardest chapter whereas 4-4 the most complex, despite 1-P having the lowest complexity in the entire game.

This is a common complaint of people who don't understand that turn counts are not the point. Minimizing turns is not done for the sake of an adorably low number, it's done to force a particular style of play. There isn't much difference between units when you can turtle in a corner all day long, but moving quickly tends to expose the real gaps between them; it makes things like durability and mobility actually matter.

You clearly don't still see the issue here. Let me put it this way: why move quickly when you can move very quickly? Why is moving quickly, an arbitrary, ad hoc term, better than moving as quickly as possible? Surely moving as quickly as possible would serve your purpose better. It would expose the real gaps between units as much as possible, like durability and mobility, am I right?

The hell they aren't. Tier lists are intended for the participants, which certainly can (and has) include casual players. Some of the better players around here honed their playing/debating skills in tier lists.

Citing players around here and how they improved certain skills thanks to tier lists isn't evidence of the claim that tier lists are intended for casual players. What does that have to do with anything? That's just an invalid argument. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

Furthermore, I don't see why tier lists should be intended for casual players. Some casual players generally don't use Titania and prefer to use units with higher growths as opposed to bases. Casual players don't want to dump a bunch of bexp into Marcia in FE9. Casual players don't want to dump a bunch of bexp and effort into FE10 Jill. Casual players don't want to train Mist for Rescue staff uses to cut turns.

Generally, the reason why casual players shouldn't care about tier lists is because the goals of tier lists are for certain goals and those goals don't match up with the goals of casual players (which is generally getting strong units and having fun). Tier lists are made for people like me, and that's all their purpose is.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Olwen

[Redwall]

The complexity argument was created to solve the issue of Edward saving dozens of turns from 1-P, and therefore becoming top tier in the tier list. Complexity is simply defined as the number of calculations required in order to clear a chapter quickly. For example, it's very simple and straightforward to clear 1-P, but it isn't so simple to clear 4-4. Cutting a turn from a chapter with higher complexity is more valuable than cutting a turn from a chapter with lower complexity, as more calculations are required to do it.

OK, I read through your thread. I also had a glance at your actual tier list. It seems to me that your current model of complexity is neither a) reproducible, since you haven't actually defined it with, say, an actual expression nor b) independently measurable. If f(X,Y,Z) is your complexity function, with X, Y, and Z being certain measurable quantities (like enemy strength, etc.), then while it's true that f(X,Y,Z) is a function of independently measurable quantities, f(X,Y,Z) as a model of complexity can't actually be tested against any actual data. As they say, all models are wrong, but some are useful; as of now, it's not obvious how your f(X,Y,Z) is useful or falsifiable.

You clearly don't still see the issue here. Let me put it this way: why move quickly when you can move very quickly? Why is moving quickly, an arbitrary, ad hoc term, better than moving as quickly as possible? Surely moving as quickly as possible would serve your purpose better. It would expose the real gaps between units as much as possible, like durability and mobility, am I right?

Absolute LTC requires RNG abuse, as you of course know from your playthroughs. The tier list FAQ assumes no RNG abuse, whether it be in the form of ninja dodges or rigged level-ups. Absolute LTC requires a lot of skill, certainly, but it is not unreasonable for the tier list playstyle to reward risk-averse tactics.

[Chiki]

My opinions on it have certainly changed since I first posted the thread. The theory was in its infancy. I gave you a perfectly objective definition in this thread.

When I say quickly I mean quickly as possible with a maximum amount of reliability.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Olwen

[Redwall]

I still see no way of testing your predictive model of complexity (you still have not addressed my question of reproducibility) with some actual measurements of how many calculations are necessary, precisely because we don't have the ability to independently measure the relative worth of various types of calculations at this point (e.g. is a Rescue-drop chain equivalent to five rounds of enemy-phase combat for Frederick?).

Your meaning is not clear. Let me put it this way: if asked to choose between a 30%-reliable four-turn clear and a 60%-reliable five-turn clear for a particular level, with no other stage clears influenced, which would your tier list favor? What I would prefer to see in a tier list would be something like what other users have suggested: restrict the player to 100%-reliable (or, for stages where this is not possible, as-reliable-as-possible) strategies; then, seek the lowest turn count under this constraint.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Redwall

[Espinosa]

Reliability becomes a dubious category if we shift our discussion to specifically address, say, FE6 HM efficiency. There's surely a difference between a strategy that works with 3% certainty and one that is 30% reliable, but usually you don't just pick the good units and play through a chapter expecting you'll get the lowest turn count realistically, as so many simple things could go wrong (like all of your chip damage missing etc.).

In other titles, 'maximum reliability' would imply slowing down to have your ranged units chip at a killer weapon usage, complete abstinence from low luck units (some of them very good, like Sirius or Raven) and not exposing a swordlocked unit to more than 2 (sometimes 1?) axefighter at once, even if the hit rates hover at around ~10%.

It's a problematic concept, but players seem to treat it on the same intuitive level when they do play the games.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Espinosa

[Interceptor]

Complexity is simply defined as the number of calculations required in order to clear a chapter quickly. For example, it's very simple and straightforward to clear 1-P, but it isn't so simple to clear 4-4. Cutting a turn from a chapter with higher complexity is more valuable than cutting a turn from a chapter with lower complexity, as more calculations are required to do it. [...] Complexity is not difficulty. The number of calculations often go together with how difficult a chapter is (which is a subjective term), but complexity is objective and can be measured. For example, I consider 1-P the hardest chapter whereas 4-4 the most complex, despite 1-P having the lowest complexity in the entire game.

Just so you know, difficulty is what snowy is talking about, regardless how you interpret his support of your proposal. He hasn't changed his theme song in five years.

Your complexity idea has a lot of problems. I won't go into detail, since it appears that Redwall is on the job.

Let me put it this way: why move quickly when you can move very quickly? Why is moving quickly, an arbitrary, ad hoc term, better than moving as quickly as possible? Surely moving as quickly as possible would serve your purpose better. It would expose the real gaps between units as much as possible, like durability and mobility, am I right?

Moving as quickly as possible doesn't serve the purposes of the tier list "better". The end game is not turn counts, and it's not perfectly objective conclusions. It is discussion, argument, consensus, entertainment. The rules/guidelines exist to frame the playing field, and the "efficiency" imperative exists to force a particular style of play.

Citing players around here and how they improved certain skills thanks to tier lists isn't evidence of the claim that tier lists are intended for casual players. What does that have to do with anything? That's just an invalid argument. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

Oh I'm sorry, I thought that this was a non sequitur duel. The point was made earlier that tier lists are not character guides or places for newbie advice (which is true), but after this nugget made it through your RDF, somehow that became "tier lists are not for casual players". How on earth did you get from point A to point B?

Tier lists are threads that anyone can take part in, regardless of qualifications, and casuals are free to make contributions just like anyone else. Sure, they may not be able to make the fully complete arguments, due to inexperience, but anyone can pick up the banner and run with it.

Never mind that the concept of a tier list being "intended" for a certain type of person is hilariously elitist. Is there some central Tier List Authority around that awards accreditation? Maybe there's a badge that you can display prominently on the OP of qualifying tier list thread?

Generally, the reason why casual players shouldn't care about tier lists is because the goals of tier lists are for certain goals and those goals don't match up with the goals of casual players (which is generally getting strong units and having fun). Tier lists are made for people like me, and that's all their purpose is.

Tier lists are about many things, and casuals can certainly be interested in any of those things. They are a good place if you like to debate with people, learn new tricks, participate in theoretical discussions, play a game you enjoy with other people under the same framework, etc.

And yes, it's even a place where people who think that the world revolves around them can come to feel superior to everyone else.

[Snowy_One]

Now see why I feel it needed to have built-in checks and balances into tiering philosophy so that it can't ever be reduced down to LTC? One constant threat that the tier list will always face is the notion that, eventually, someone will find the absolute best way to achieve the best result, and at that point the entire concept of a tier list is utterly destroyed. There will be one select team and strategy and any unit who doesn't fit into it will be cast aside. Is Zihark better than Stefan? Unless they both factor into that perfect strategy, what does it matter? Either one does and is 'better' even if it's because of one possible shove in one chapter, or neither brings anything and it becomes an irrelevant question.

This is why I oppose the current tier list and it's habits and have done so for years now. Because the whole method and goal, least left unto itself, will lead to an eventual demise of the entire meaning of a tier list.