Tiering Philosophy - It's that time again

[Chiki]

What criteria would you use, Snowy?

[Florete]

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)

Theoretically, we could make a tier list based on the rule that 1) all enemies must be killed, including any reinforcements that may show up, 2) all items from villages, chests, etc. must be obtained, and 3) anything else required for "completion," such as recruiting and keeping alive all characters. The problem is that it would end up skewing very heavily toward availability, because movement almost wouldn't matter anymore except in the rare instance where something needs to be reached fast to be saved, and almost any unit could be a reliable combat unit because of there being much, much more experience available than normal.

[ZaHiro86]

Theoretically, we could make a tier list based on the rule that 1) all enemies must be killed, including any reinforcements that may show up, 2) all items from villages, chests, etc. must be obtained, and 3) anything else required for "completion," such as recruiting and keeping alive all characters. The problem is that it would end up skewing very heavily toward availability, because movement almost wouldn't matter anymore except in the rare instance where something needs to be reached fast to be saved, and almost any unit could be a reliable combat unit because of there being much, much more experience available than normal.

I like that criteria. You could also add an effort requirement for characters that require arena/boss abuse.

I understand that this will be skewed but that's the point of tier lists is it not? To be skewed towards certain criteria?

[Snowy_One]

Theoretically, we could make a tier list based on the rule that 1) all enemies must be killed, including any reinforcements that may show up, 2) all items from villages, chests, etc. must be obtained, and 3) anything else required for "completion," such as recruiting and keeping alive all characters. The problem is that it would end up skewing very heavily toward availability, because movement almost wouldn't matter anymore except in the rare instance where something needs to be reached fast to be saved, and almost any unit could be a reliable combat unit because of there being much, much more experience available than normal.

I don't really see the problem with that. With an LTC tier list it's heavily skewed towards movement/starting stats, so... what's the problem? That this is skewed as well?

[Florete]

I like that criteria. You could also add an effort requirement for characters that require arena/boss abuse.

I understand that this will be skewed but that's the point of tier lists is it not? To be skewed towards certain criteria?

I'm sure that could be worked in somehow, but very few characters would need arena/boss abuse with this criteria.

I don't really see the problem with that. With an LTC tier list it's heavily skewed towards movement/starting stats, so... what's the problem? That this is skewed as well?

I think that's a more favorable outcome, personally. It prevents steamrolling with an overpowered team. A skew to availability results in characters that really perform perfectly fine, like Harken and Tanith and the Laguz Royals, ranking low just because they aren't around much.

As I already said, I do think it could work, just not sure how interesting it would be if it ended up being "Unit A > Unit B because Unit A is around for three more maps."

If enough people were to show interest in the idea (I'm starting to like the thought a bit more myself as I think about it), I suppose I could try to whip up a preliminary ruleset and list and try it out for one of the games. We've already got stuff like Sethless, Warpless, and Galeforceless. One more idea couldn't hurt.

[Chiki]

I don't really see the problem with that. With an LTC tier list it's heavily skewed towards movement/starting stats, so... what's the problem? That this is skewed as well?

The problem with his list would not be availability but rather that it doesn't prevent thieves or anyone else from soloing the game.

[eclipse]

RFoF: I think that would be an interesting idea. Availability would be a bigger factor, but certain characters with good bases and a slightly later join time/really amazing starting position would probably do just as well. Est and the rest of her cadre wouldn't, but lolEst.

[Snowy_One]

Firstly, nothing 'prevents' steamrolling with an overpowered team/team with weak units on the tier lists right now anyways. It just ranks it lower than a team that steamrolls with faster units.

Secondly, LTC tiers do the same as well, just with units with low movement.

Thirdly, no Est types/growth characters would fair slightly better on the whole, IMO, since they would have the chance to grow as opposed to missing out on EXP.

Lastly, I support such a list. IMO, the only problem is the 'clear' criteria. I think it should be 'clear the map of all present enemies.' as opposed to 'all enemies + reinforcements'. I can see someone waiting for enemies to come, but I can't see them waiting for enemies that *might* come and being able to clear the map faster would still be a plus.

[ZaHiro86]

I can say I'm quite interested. I think fe7 or maybe 9/10 would be interesting. It would also be very helpful for fe13 no grind/dlc/spotpass lunatic mode

[XeKr]

None of those criteria say anything about what characters are better; there is no specified metric there. I feel it would reduce to an "efficiency"-type list (eventually, by way of questions like what does it mean to be "good" at routing, or getting chests?), just there's more secondary objectives to complete. Admittedly, it may mitigate distinctions between characters (arguable if it will, plus if that's good or not), but any number of arbitrary criteria can do that (i.e., must get all items, must get all talk convos, must not reclass to mounted classes, must deploy lowest level units, must gain x amount of exp per chapter, etcetc).

I mean, in the end, tier lists are entirely dependent on interest in them, so I'd favor giving it a shot as well I suppose.

EDIT: If you think about it, the present lists are primarily concerned with "completion." It's just that we value characters that complete the game quickly and reliably, i.e we consider that to be "good".

Edited June 10, 2013 by XeKr

[Redwall]

If we remove the brisk-play directive, movement and bases barely matter, and the game begins to feel more like a RPG than a SRPG since we'll invariably favor enemy-phase combat over carefully planned player-phase positioning. Additionally, the brisk-play directive does prevent bad characters from steamrolling, and even prevents good characters from becoming overkill, provided the player abides by it; this allows for cleaner comparisons of characters.

I don't think we shouldn't penalize players for needing effort or thinking since this is ostensibly a strategy game.

[Snowy_One]

If we remove the brisk-play directive, movement and bases barely matter, and the game begins to feel more like a RPG than a SRPG since we'll invariably favor enemy-phase combat over carefully planned player-phase positioning. Additionally, the brisk-play directive does prevent bad characters from steamrolling, and even prevents good characters from becoming overkill, provided the player abides by it; this allows for cleaner comparisons of characters.

I don't think we shouldn't penalize players for needing effort or thinking since this is ostensibly a strategy game.

So... What? Just because something will matter less doesn't mean we should ignore it as a tiering strategy. Tiering for maximum gold efficiency hurts the value of characters who rely on items or other things that can be sold for cash and rewards those who are capable of reliably killing with cheaper weapons, obviously. You can claim that this would unfairly penalize units with high-costs (like units using 1-2 range weapons which tend to be very valuable) and rewards units with higher critical/innate skills (due to potentially expending less weapon uses and/or requiring less healing depending on the skill), but that's not really fair, especially since a LTC list unfairly hurts/heals based on movement. You can say it's arbitrary, but so is LTC.

And I'm not going to penalize effort or thinking, especially in a strategy game. Just assume that the player isn't spending all day learning strategies and the like. Not to mention that a truly good character should be good regardless of the strategy employed (so long as it's not handicapping to that character) and not because they happen to excel at the one thing the list decided to measure (despite being, quite possibly, average otherwise).

[Chiki]

Snowy, find a solution to this problem:

Using Red Fox's criteria I can take my time and solo the game with Virion. I can do that with any unit. So all units except thieves would be ranked equally

[Redwall]

So... What? Just because something will matter less doesn't mean we should ignore it as a tiering strategy. Tiering for maximum gold efficiency hurts the value of characters who rely on items or other things that can be sold for cash and rewards those who are capable of reliably killing with cheaper weapons, obviously.

It's not just that; it's that the more we strip away the unique qualities that characters have, the more they look the same, and the less interesting it will be to tier characters. Tiering characters becomes more of an exercise in favoring availability much more than anything else...which is fine, but which is also much more arbitrary than simultaneously allowing for things like movement, bases, availability, and other utility to be accounted for.

You can claim that this would unfairly penalize units with high-costs (like units using 1-2 range weapons which tend to be very valuable) and rewards units with higher critical/innate skills (due to potentially expending less weapon uses and/or requiring less healing depending on the skill), but that's not really fair, especially since a LTC list unfairly hurts/heals based on movement. You can say it's arbitrary, but so is LTC.

I'm not claiming anything to be fair or unfair. I'm saying that you're imposing more arbitrary criteria than you need to. Tier lists are necessarily arbitrary, but that doesn't mean we should impose more than we need. I have not seen a brisk-play or LTC tier list that mandates the player to defeat every non-reinforcement enemy.

And I'm not going to penalize effort or thinking, especially in a strategy game. Just assume that the player isn't spending all day learning strategies and the like. Not to mention that a truly good character should be good regardless of the strategy employed (so long as it's not handicapping to that character) and not because they happen to excel at the one thing the list decided to measure (despite being, quite possibly, average otherwise).

I'm confused as to what you're complaining about. No one actually spends a great deal of time learning others' strategies unless they're trying to set turncount records or something (and even then, I suspect that those people try to figure things out themselves). Additionally, the highly-ranked characters I've seen tend to perform well (in the context of the game, obviously, and not any hypothetical maps we can conjure up) regardless of who their teammates are.

If a tier list ranks characters according to how well they do x, the only thing we can account for in that ranking is that character's relevance to x. It sounds like you propose something more...ambitious?

[Snowy_One]

Snowy, find a solution to this problem:

Using Red Fox's criteria I can take my time and solo the game with Virion. I can do that with any unit. So all units except thieves would be ranked equally

Solution: Stop being a whiny LTC elitist who sees the game as 'LTC or bust' and any playstyle not playing for turncounts is impossible to tier.

Heck, RFoF hasn't even SAID anything about what the final criteria will even BE yet as she's not sure about the interest or goal yet. The discussion hasn't even been going on for a PAGE and you're crying that all units will be tiered differently.

Just to humor you though, 5 criteria that could, at least feasibly, be used to tier WITHOUT mentioning completion times or anything even remotely close.

1) Availability (units around longer get ranked higher)

2) Flexibility (units capable of doing more things get ranked higher)

3) Cost (units who need less resources get ranked higher)

4) Combat power (units who can become strong sooner get ranked higher)

5) Reliability (units who die less and can fit into more playstyles get ranked higher)

It's not just that; it's that the more we strip away the unique qualities that characters have, the more they look the same, and the less interesting it will be to tier characters. Tiering characters becomes more of an exercise in favoring availability much more than anything else...which is fine, but which is also much more arbitrary than simultaneously allowing for things like movement, bases, availability, and other utility to be accounted for.

Who said that they weren't being accounted for? A completion tier would almost certainly be more than a join-order list after all. Sides, doesn't LTC also strip away 'unique qualities' by focusing only on turn completion? What about units like generals whose 'unique quality' is their impressive defense stats and HP?

I'm not claiming anything to be fair or unfair. I'm saying that you're imposing more arbitrary criteria than you need to. Tier lists are necessarily arbitrary, but that doesn't mean we should impose more than we need. I have not seen a brisk-play or LTC tier list that mandates the player to defeat every non-reinforcement enemy.

That really doesn't mean anything TBH. I haven't seen a tier list based on sexual attractiveness. Doesn't mean that the characters are ogres/hags. Sides, I don't think this would be 'LTC with defeating reinforcements'. Just 'completion with being able to do it faster being rewarded'.

If a tier list ranks characters according to how well they do x, the only thing we can account for in that ranking is that character's relevance to x. It sounds like you propose something more...ambitious?

My feelings on LTC tiering and my utter hate for it are well known. I'd really like to see them totally removed if possible, if only because I feel that too many people see them as the 'only' way to tier (exampled by Chiki) and new systems needing to be developed.

[CT075]

1) Availability (units around longer get ranked higher)

2) Flexibility (units capable of doing more things get ranked higher)

3) Cost (units who need less resources get ranked higher)

4) Combat power (units who can become strong sooner get ranked higher)

5) Reliability (units who die less and can fit into more playstyles get ranked higher)

1) this is retarded for the obvious reason (you can literally just make a list of characters ordered by the chapter they join in)

2) this would be an even more mount-emblem (which you seem to really really hate?) centric tier list than an ltc one

3) i can support this one but you'd have to define "need" (i can beat FE9 perfectly well with sonic sword mia oscar using nothing but slim lances, does this mean he ranks really high because he doesn't need anything better?)

4) define "strong" and define "sooner"

5) i'm not even sure how you'd define "fitting into a playstyle"

[Redwall]

Who said that they weren't being accounted for? A completion tier would almost certainly be more than a join-order list after all. Sides, doesn't LTC also strip away 'unique qualities' by focusing only on turn completion? What about units like generals whose 'unique quality' is their impressive defense stats and HP?

First of all, it doesn't; for example, in dondon's FE7 LTC, he used Oswin up to and including C20. In my Awakening playlog (which probably could have been done more quickly by a better player, but...), I used a Knight for multiple stages for his high defense. There are plenty of ways to get use out of characters.

A completion tier wouldn't *just* be a join-order list, but it would be extremely heavily influenced by join order, moreso than even the current tier lists. The reason is that if you're killing every non-reinforcement enemy as you propose, even units with low bases can catch up quickly due to soaking up so much EXP. The consequence is that early-joining units with low bases become comparable in combat prowess to the Seths.

That really doesn't mean anything TBH. I haven't seen a tier list based on sexual attractiveness. Doesn't mean that the characters are ogres/hags. Sides, I don't think this would be 'LTC with defeating reinforcements'. Just 'completion with being able to do it faster being rewarded'.

You ignored the majority of that snippet, and you didn't address my core argument.

I'm not claiming anything to be fair or unfair. I'm saying that you're imposing more arbitrary criteria than you need to. Tier lists are necessarily arbitrary, but that doesn't mean we should impose more than we need.

It is less arbitrary to ask the player to complete the game than to ask him or her to complete the game while killing enemies that do not need to be killed. Do you agree?

My feelings on LTC tiering and my utter hate for it are well known. I'd really like to see them totally removed if possible, if only because I feel that too many people see them as the 'only' way to tier (exampled by Chiki) and new systems needing to be developed.

I understand, but you need to propose something self-consistent and falsifiable. From what little I remember of your FE9 (or whatever game it was) tier list, you assign scores to things that aren't measurable. Does this not bother you?

[Chiki]

Solution: Stop being a whiny LTC elitist who sees the game as 'LTC or bust' and any playstyle not playing for turncounts is impossible to tier.

Personal insults. Why should I waste time replying to you?

1) Availability (units around longer get ranked higher)

2) Flexibility (units capable of doing more things get ranked higher)

3) Cost (units who need less resources get ranked higher)

4) Combat power (units who can become strong sooner get ranked higher)

5) Reliability (units who die less and can fit into more playstyles get ranked higher)

1. Nonsense. Imagine a hypothetical Fire Emblem that has an INCREDIBLY LONG (100 turn) final chapter and 20 chapters before it which take 1 turn each. Availibility is not what matters--you have more of a chance to be good, certainly, but that's a consequence of availability. We shouldn't rank characters due to availability. Availability allows you more chances to be good, hence why characters with good availability are better, but they are not better because they are available more. Arden around throughout the entire game is worse than an Arden who joins in the final chapter because using him is a net negative, period. But he is not as much of a negative when he joins in the final chapter. This example proves that availability is not what matters in ranking characters.

2. So what? Why should we rank characters just because they can do a lot of things? If I had a hypothetical unit who could move an infinite times per turn and but not cut any turns at all, then why would he be the best unit in the game, according to you? He's infinitely flexible but garbage.

3. This only matters when opportunity cost is involved. If we had infinite resources and could give units as many resources as we wanted, like in FE9, we wouldn't penalize them purely for needing it now, would we? We'd penalize them due to opportunity cost--that is, if it cost us elsewhere to give them those resources.

4. Why should I care about combat power for the sake of combat power? Imagine a Fire Emblem game in which you could warp to bosses and kill them with one unit (like FE5). Most of your units would be weak but you would be able to complete chapters at lightning speed. Why is this playthrough worse than a playthrough which has far worse turncounts with ridiculously powerful units?

5. Well, now I agree!

[Snowy_One]

1) this is retarded for the obvious reason (you can literally just make a list of characters ordered by the chapter they join in)

This really isn't a fair response. After all, availability matters a lot regardless of what the tier list (so long as it's focused on the main game and not something like the FE8 ruins). After all, if you're around longer, you can contribute more. This is true even in LTC.

2) this would be an even more mount-emblem (which you seem to really really hate?) centric tier list than an ltc one

If mounting was the only way to get flexibility, sure. Regardless, it's a tiering standard that doesn't actually involve LTC.

3) i can support this one but you'd have to define "need" (i can beat FE9 perfectly well with sonic sword mia oscar using nothing but slim lances, does this mean he ranks really high because he doesn't need anything better?)
4) define "strong" and define "sooner"
5) i'm not even sure how you'd define "fitting into a playstyle"

Defining things like these is kind of why topics like this exist in the first place. So that they can be discussed and defined.

In this case... 'need = in order to become strong they require less resources and can preform well at a lower level/with less non-generic stuff than other units.'

'Strong = capable of reliably 1RKOing and having a good chance of not dying on the EP. Or reaching a point where the enemies simply don't threaten them at all.'

'Sooner = at an earlier point in the game.'

'fitting into a playstyle = less dependent on specific circumstances and capable of functioning with many altered variables (supports, no supports, LTC, no LTC, etc).'

It is less arbitrary to ask the player to complete the game than to ask him or her to complete the game while killing enemies that do not need to be killed. Do you agree?

I agree, but then we reach a mucky mire of 'what enemies need to be killed, which will likely be killed, while will be ignored' and the like. So might as well make a more general definition. So long as people realize that 'killing all enemies' is more of a tier assumption for the sake of completion (I mean, would you really skip out on a kill unless it was going to increase your turncount even on LTC?) than a 'etched in stone requirement', it shouldn't be an issue. Maybe something a bit more arbitrary as 'the player will try to get as many kills as possible within reason' instead of 'will kill all enemies on the map' would fit better?

I understand, but you need to propose something self-consistent and falsifiable. From what little I remember of your FE9 (or whatever game it was) tier list, you assign scores to things that aren't measurable. Does this not bother you?

Why should it? Even in 'actual' science there are many assumptions that have to be made based off things we don't know. People try their best to reduce the odds and everything, but, no matter how hard you try, there will always be things that can't be accounted for. It's simply part of life. Maybe I should have defined my list a bit clearer, but the entirely of the LTC tier list depends on one HUGE non-measurable factor. Namely how much the player actually cares about a turncount and that they don't care about things like supports and the like. There will always be non-measurables. Best to accept it and try to reduce some.

1. Nonsense. Imagine a hypothetical Fire Emblem that has an INCREDIBLY LONG (100 turn) final chapter and 20 chapters before it which take 1 turn each. Availibility is not what matters--you have more of a chance to be good, certainly, but that's a consequence of availability. We shouldn't rank characters due to availability. Availability allows you more chances to be good, hence why characters with good availability are better, but they are not better because they are available more. Arden around throughout the entire game is worse than an Arden who joins in the final chapter because using him is a net negative, period. But he is not as much of a negative when he joins in the final chapter. This example proves that availability is not what matters in ranking characters.

I find it funny that, now, people assume that, by listing availability, people assume it would be the ONLY standard.

Hey, genius. If I need to roll a 6 on a D6, which is more likely to yield at least one result? 1 roll or 6 rolls? Am I guaranteed a 6 after 1000 rolls? Answers: 6 rolls and no (though it would be VERY unlikely). I'm not an idiot. Obviously just joining earlier alone wouldn't make a character better. If it did Rolf would be above Astrid and Meg would be high, if not top, tier.

2. So what? Why should we rank characters just because they can do a lot of things? If I had a hypothetical unit who could move an infinite times per turn and but not cut any turns at all, then why would he be the best unit in the game, according to you? He's infinitely flexible but garbage.

I'd be baffled as to how a unit could be moved infinite times per turn and not cut any turns at all for starters. Especially since the whole point of this was to list standards which didn't include turn-count reduction in any way. Regardless, which would you rather have? Nephenee? Or Nephenee with the ability to steal? Which would have more situations in which they'd be useful? Which would be tiered higher?

3. This only matters when opportunity cost is involved. If we had infinite resources and could give units as many resources as we wanted, like in FE9, we wouldn't penalize them purely for needing it now, would we? We'd penalize them due to opportunity cost--that is, if it cost us elsewhere to give them those resources.

Or, ya know, we could look at it through sane eyes and realize that, if one unit needs a special forge to do the same job that another unit does with nothing special at all, the latter is probably better. You know, being sane and everything.

4. Why should I care about combat power for the sake of combat power? Imagine a Fire Emblem game in which you could warp to bosses and kill them with one unit (like FE5). Most of your units would be weak but you would be able to complete chapters at lightning speed. Why is this playthrough worse than a playthrough which has far worse turncounts with ridiculously powerful units?

Why is your playthrough better with a low turncount than mine with ridiculously powerful units?

Regardless, the point here was that units who can reach a maintainable level of 'good' combat earlier are better. After all, if one unit can reach 'acceptable' status at level 10, but another has to wait till level 15 (assuming neither becomes bad or no special factors are in play) the first one is probably better.

Personal insults. Why should I waste time replying to you?

I really wish you wouldn't.

[CT075]

This really isn't a fair response. After all, availability matters a lot regardless of what the tier list (so long as it's focused on the main game and not something like the FE8 ruins). After all, if you're around longer, you can contribute more. This is true even in LTC.

i think you're completely missing the point here

that is, what is the point of listing characters like this? it's not interesting and there is literally no discussion to be had

[Chiki]

Hey, genius.

Lol.

[Redwall]

Why should it? Even in 'actual' science there are many assumptions that have to be made based off things we don't know. People try their best to reduce the odds and everything, but, no matter how hard you try, there will always be things that can't be accounted for. It's simply part of life.

I'm not disputing that, assuming this is in reference to my claim about self-consistency. At the end of the day, however, we still prefer self-consistent models when possible, like quantum mechanics, over ad hoc explanations like the Bohr model.

If this is in reference to my claim about falsifiability, then, uh, that doesn't address my comment at all. I don't dispute, for example, that I can take some set of assumptions for granted while testing some hypothesis X, with the goal of testing X and only X. At the end of the day, X still has to be falsifiable in principle.

Maybe I should have defined my list a bit clearer, but the entirely of the LTC tier list depends on one HUGE non-measurable factor. Namely how much the player actually cares about a turncount and that they don't care about things like supports and the like. There will always be non-measurables. Best to accept it and try to reduce some.

No one's disputing that it is arbitrary to impose a requirement in a LTC tier list asking the player to, well, LTC. There's no truth to which set of criteria are "the best," but it is generally preferable to avoid more arbitrary things than we need.

Edited June 10, 2013 by Redwall

[eclipse]

*sighs*

Whining is not civil. Insults are not civil. Please don't make my headache worse. Thanks.

[Tamanoir]

Thta may be stupid, but I think the unit Durabilty will have more importance on a Completionist playthrough. Knight/General would be ranked higher, because you can't just Warp abuse every chapter (Warps is stil important, but to access this hard to find Chest, or the secret Shops)...

The changes won't be that important actually. Jeigan are still awesome, even if it's just as a Meat Shiel/Pair Up partner. Est will still sucks, Anna will still be top tier,and maybe even higher due to more staff utility...

One example : In a completionist playthrough, you'll have to makes Donnel gain 1 level, while obtaining all the chests. Kellam gives a much needed defensive bonus and can support with Donny, but if you don't plan to use Donny afterwards, Frederick is an awesome partner, due to awesome Pair Up bonus, great stats and high move. He will be tiered higher due to this benefit.

Healers woild also be ranked higher, because you have time to use them, and since you'll be here longer...

Turns still count, but less. If Fred can solo a map in 4 turns (and there will be basically no case of Map soloing in a completionist playthrough...), and Virion on 12 turns, then Fred is obviously better. But if Sully solo the map in 7-8 turns and Stahl in 5-6, they will be treated amost equally...

Yes, Thiefs will be ranked higher, but so what ? Thiefs are really usefull units, their utility should be taken into account anyways...

Besides, you needs more strategy to end a Defence Map in a completionist playthrough than in a LTC Playthrough. Takes chapter 13A in FE8, for an extreme example. What is harder : Killing the Boss in turns 1, or defending all your position until the end, and defeat the surprise attack by Pablo ? I think wecan all agree that it's the later...

Availability is always important, even in a LTC Playthrough, or else Jeigan won't be ranked so high... And this won't be a list of characters based on when they come, because Pent will still be ranked pretty high, due to staff utility.

Chapter 22/23 o FE7 is also an interesting example. You needs to gets every Items, and gain 700 Exp and stop Pent for killing every ennemy. You have to send one of your flying units to capture him, sends your thief (or high luck units) to takes every Items, and don't kill every units. Yes, it can be mine abusing (I'm pretty sure this is baned of every tier list), and spending 700 turns leveling up Ninian, but we will thanks better strategy, I think...

Edited June 11, 2013 by TendaSlime

[eclipse]

Ooh, desert items! For the GBA FEs, they were either based on Luck or a thief. Do we factor random chance into picking up stuff in the sand, or do we assume that our thief du jour will be snagging everything? If it's the latter, how fast can the chapter go such that all the objectives are met? I think something like this is interesting, when it comes to tiers.