Tiering Philosophy - It's that time again

[Redwall]

OK, here is another example I feel is handled more cleanly by my way of doing things. Suppose team A has 60%, 20%, and 20% odds at clearing a level in one, two, and three turns, respectively; suppose team B has 60%, 30%, and 10% odds at clearing that same level in one, two, and three turns respectively.

Under your tier list's criteria, team A's clear is just as reliable as team B's clear, precisely because you consider perfect play to involve resetting for the single lowest clear within your reliability constraints.

Most people would consider their definition of perfect play to be pretty much the same as yours, but without the resets; they would play optimally, and should the RNG push back the clear by a turn or so, they would continue to play optimally under that constraint. Looking at things this way, they would consider team B's clear to be better because while the minimum turncount occurs with equal probability in both cases, the expected turncount is lower for team B. When people play reliable LTC, I don't think they care too much about RNG screwage as long as they make the optimal gameplay decisions subject to any RNG screwage or blessings.

[Snowy_One]

Democracy wins. Simply put, we've decided that what allows us to measure the differences between characters is going quickly. No other rational alternative has been approved, and there never will be one. You nor anyone else is going to change that.

This is biased and not an accurate measurement though. Truth can't be decided by majority rulings. If everyone decided tomorrow that Rolf was the best character in FE9 he wouldn't suddenly become more useful than Titania or help the team out any more or less than he did before. People have tried multiple times to establish lists that don't function according to LTC standards, and have also been decried for it. The problem isn't that LTC exists. It's that it exists and is the only real standard even though it's not applicable outside of a limited set style of playthroughs. I can accept that 'going faster' is one of the best means we have of measuring how good a character is, but it is not the only, nor should it be the only, means and it certainly shouldn't be the focus of the list.

Anyways, on a more 'straight-forwards' approach. If we only consider speed and LTC, then only characters who contribute to these standards get tallied and not others regardless of quality. Being a dancer near-guarentees at least an 'above average' ranking simply because you can keep refreshing to clear a chapter faster, never mind if your refreshes are just being used to let the lord/jeigan rush further to the end and the game has no need/demand for the extra speed. Meanwhile being a statistical brute matters less unless you have the movement to back it up. The tier-lists would almost certainly be massively different if every unit was considered to have foot-unit movement simply because of how integral it is to LTC runs.

[Chiki]

If I were playing reliable LTC, I think I'd want to restart if I got a bullshit critical and that pulled me back a turn because my unit was too weak to finish up. It really depends on a majority ruling.

This is biased and not an accurate measurement though. Truth can't be decided by majority rulings.

There's not any truth in tier lists!

Consider the following statement: Killing is bad. Is this a true statement? No. Depends on the context.

Titania is a good unit. Is this a true statement? No. Depends on the context.

Even when we talk about what's good in a particular context we still can't establish what truth is because it's a matter of personal opinion. It could be one's opinion that being helpful in a playthrough is bad, and that being unhelpful in a playthrough is good. You can imagine a hypothetical world in which the sense of good is being an unhelpful, crappy unit.

What is good? What is bad? It's all things we decide via majority rule. There's no truth to what is good or bad: I mean, can we react the concept of good with hydrochloric acid? Not a chance.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Chiki

[Snowy_One]

If I were playing reliable LTC, I think I'd want to restart if I got a bullshit critical and that pulled me back a turn because my unit was too weak to finish up. It really depends on a majority ruling.

There's not any truth in tier lists!

Consider the following statement: Killing is bad. Is this a true statement? No. Depends on the context.

Titania is a good unit. Is this a true statement? No. Depends on the context.

Even when we talk about what's good in a particular context we still can't establish what truth is because it's a matter of personal opinion. It could be one's opinion that being helpful in a playthrough is bad, and that being unhelpful in a playthrough is good. You can imagine a hypothetical world in which the sense of good is being an unhelpful, crappy unit.

What is good? What is bad? It's all things we decide via majority rule. There's no truth to what is good or bad: I mean, can we react the concept of good with hydrochloric acid? Not a chance.

I think anyone would reset if there was any losses unless they decided to accept it regardless of difficulty. Even a newbie could figure that out. We want to try and avoid those resets though.

And no, good and bad can be defined. That's sort of the whole point of a tier. If 'good' and 'bad' can't be defined it looses purpose as every play through becomes PE. 'Good' and 'Bad' are defined by who helps the LTC more, not who is better. Claiming tier lists are subjective ruins their whole point. Claiming that they're objective means acknowledging that they need a degree of relevance. Either way, LTC looses (since it's either just one of a multitude of playstyles that holds no more worth than ranking characters based on hair length or it's relevant only to people playing for LTC instead of players in general).

[Baldrick]

Tier lists used to be concerned with ranks; but they weren't strict enough, or they were "solved", and so people moved on. If a perfect LTC strategy is concocted and discussion stagnates, a new criterion will be found. Circle of life and such.

[Chiki]

And no, good and bad can be defined. That's sort of the whole point of a tier. If 'good' and 'bad' can't be defined it looses purpose as every play through becomes PE. 'Good' and 'Bad' are defined by who helps the LTC more, not who is better. Claiming tier lists are subjective ruins their whole point. Claiming that they're objective means acknowledging that they need a degree of relevance. Either way, LTC looses (since it's either just one of a multitude of playstyles that holds no more worth than ranking characters based on hair length or it's relevant only to people playing for LTC instead of players in general).

You can define them, but that doesn't mean they're true. There is no truth to tier lists; they're all personal opinions in the end.

How can tier lists be objective? They're just rankings devised from personal opinions on what is good or bad. They don't involve truth.

[Baldrick]

Why do tier lists need to be objective? They are meant to be enjoyed. I assume people who participate in tier list do so because it's fun, not because they have a grant from the University of Fire Emblem and need to prove who is the best unit in Fire Emblem.

[Snowy_One]

IMO a tier-list needs to be objective because, if not, it looses it's value as a tier list. Those older, criteria-based, tiers were objective because there was a defined goal. Players could play for better rankings. That doesn't exist anymore. So in it's place the 'defined ranking' has become LTC. However, let's assume LTC isn't 'valid' anymore. What do tier lists rank?

Nothing.

And that's the problem. In those older tiers it could be assumed players wanted better rankings and, even if they didn't care, characters who helped achieve them were 'better' on the whole. Didn't mean it was impossible (maybe it was, I dunno) to get a high ranking with a poor character, just harder. Similar to how it's harder to win with a low-tier character against a high-tier one in a fighting game even though anyone who has played one knows that skill matters more and there is always a chance that a lower-tiered character will beat a higher-one.

LTC tiers don't have that. Players who choose to not play according to LTC rules have made the entire list irrelevant. This should not happen with any tier list. A brawl list doesn't suddenly become useless just because someone decided to main G&W instead of Metaknight. Nino doesn't suddenly become amazing just because someone decided to screw rankings. However, any character whose placing was decided simply because of turns saved in a LTC setting does. How good is Marcia? How good is she when the player decides he's not going to rescue-drop? It's a huge difference, I'll tell you that. And that shouldn't be.

[Chiki]

Tier lists can't be objective! Rankings are by definition subjective because they're preferences (personal opinions) which are all subjective. If you tried to create something like that it wouldn't even be a tier list!

How the hell do you intend to make one? Do you even know what objective is?

Edited June 4, 2013 by Chiki

[ZaHiro86]

I think there should be multiple tier lists. LTC is important to the people who play and enjoy it, but for the rest of us scrubs a different tier list or two would serve us better. For example get all items, general completion, etc

[Espinosa]

There have been some "average player" tier list experiments here and they have all been completely incoherent. Why would one assume you don't know how to make use of forging and what effective weaponry to use where and when?

And a 20/20 tier list? What would you need that for? Scrubiness should be gone after your first playthrough, after all, or even before then if you've played enough FE to understand how the games work.

[Snowy_One]

IMO, an 'average player' list would assume the player is just as competent as a LTC player, but unlike the LTC player, he's not playing to complete the maps in a certain turncount, using any specific strategies, and won't be taking advantage of things like rescue-dropping. While turncount could still be used to measure (after all, better units should still result in a lower turncount even if the player isn't really trying for them) movement speed becomes, largely, a non-issue.

So, I guess, a casual tier list would be the same as a LTC tier list, except all units have the same movement (basically)?

[Espinosa]

That didn't make any sense at all.

[Redwall]

IMO, an 'average player' list would assume the player is just as competent as a LTC player, but unlike the LTC player, he's not playing to complete the maps in a certain turncount, using any specific strategies, and won't be taking advantage of things like rescue-dropping. While turncount could still be used to measure (after all, better units should still result in a lower turncount even if the player isn't really trying for them) movement speed becomes, largely, a non-issue.

So, I guess, a casual tier list would be the same as a LTC tier list, except all units have the same movement (basically)?

I've been arguing with Red Fox about this; I do not think you disagree with her as much as you think. The tier lists here do not assume any specific strategies, and Red Fox has clearly stated that low turns are not the end goal.

I don't see why we should eschew Rescue-dropping, or treat everyone as having the same movement. The tier lists assume we move quickly in order to expose the differences between characters, including mobility and combat prowess.

[Snowy_One]

I'm not saying everyone should be treated as if they have the same movement. They obviously don't. I'm saying that, a hypothetical LTC list in which everyone has the same movement (maybe different movement types like mounted being able to move again) would probably be very similar to a 'casual' tier list.

[Espinosa]

I'm not saying everyone should be treated as if they have the same movement. They obviously don't. I'm saying that, a hypothetical LTC list in which everyone has the same movement (maybe different movement types like mounted being able to move again) would probably be very similar to a 'casual' tier list.

You should try to LTC some time.

[Snowy_One]

I don't plan to spend hours reviewing and learning strategies just to play LTC.

[Florete]

I don't plan to spend hours reviewing and learning strategies just to play LTC.

So don't. Just play and try to get the lowest turn count you can find as you go.

[Chiki]

I don't plan to spend hours reviewing and learning strategies just to play LTC.

I came up with every strategy alone on the spot. Do the same.

Edited June 9, 2013 by Chiki

[Snowy_One]

I'm either gunning for LTC and picking units based on movement and ignoring things I'd otherwise go for as a result, or playing casually and relaxed.

[Florete]

I'm either gunning for LTC and picking units based on movement and ignoring things I'd otherwise go for as a result, or playing casually and relaxed.

Great observation. Get to it. You never know, you might actually enjoy it.

[ZaHiro86]

I know for more casual players like me, completion is important. I reset a level if a thief escapes with a chest item, even if I don't need it. It might take some thinking for non-LTC criteria but I think an alternative "completion" tier list would go a long way towards ending the anti-LTC tier list groups.

And I used the word scrub, but I've at least beaten every American released fire emblem on hard mode (except 11, it was just such an unfun game)

[Redwall]

The most popular tier lists don't tier for LTC playthroughs at all. They simply ask you to play quickly, something that doesn't require nearly as much forethought. It is necessary to have such constraints to make the differences between characters apparent, lest we farm reinforcements and get Nino to 20/20.

[ZaHiro86]

For me, unless they're infinite, I try to always kill all enemies and reinforcements on a given map, even if I'm only required to kill a boss or something. Whill that tier list work for me?

[Snowy_One]

Even if not you can't really expect a non-LTC player to look at map and decide that items X, Y, and Z are worth it in one chapter but item X is too far out of the way in another, item Y requires a thief to be raised that's not worth it in another, and Z simply holds no value aside from one instance/set up. Or conclude that it's worth it to raise up a unit like Marcia simply because of how well she preforms in one chapter simply because she *can* go out to sea to fight the ravens.

I know it looks like I'm singling Marcia out. I'm really not. It's just that her tier placement happens to, arguably, be the most obvious example of a unit's ranking getting inflated by LTC standards except for *maybe* Tanith's (even that's debatable) in FE9 (the tier list I'm most familiar with).