Tiering Philosophy - It's that time again

[dondon151]

or do we assume that the player knows how to RNG abuse and can find the items 100% with any character

[Espinosa]

I believe that applies only to FE6 and FE7 (ZM told me he tried the trick in FE8 and it won't work). In FE9 Volke and Sothe don't even need any fliers to carry them around and can grab most of the items that matter in 3 turns (lowest with Stefan recruited; if you go for a 2-turn you miss out on stuff).

[Snowy_One]

If you ask me, the player should know where the items are and that more luck = more likely to find (it's a reasonable conclusion even without a tier-list), but not know/care about RNG abuse. I'll admit I don't know about it, but it seems like a LOT of work for someone who isn't overly concerned with turns.

[Espinosa]

The desert RNG trick in FE6/7 is very easy to remember and can be done on console with the same ease.

That said, "rout everything and reap every reward" is a guideline for a tier list I do not fully understand. You have very few people as is willing to do "pure" LTC, so how useful will this "LTC with unnecessary objectives" thing be? There are some rewards you simply do not care for in the slightest, and within the context of low-turning and efficiency we can argue what's worth mourning over and what is not. For example, if we take chapter 8 in FE6 - are the four chests behind the boss featuring Guiding Ring, Secret Book, Silver Axe and Elysian Whip worth the 2+ turns to open (that's assuming you rush the chapter with Marcus and Zealot using their full move which I assure you is no easy task)?

But on the other hand, if I play through TearRing Saga I might as well recruit Rishuel, even though he costs like 10 turns and helps shave off zero, just because I feel TRS will be more memorable with this godly durable mage in my ranks. Equivalents in FE titles would be... Eir!Cormag maybe?

But there's no logic in that disposition I describe, just my volition. When you make a tier list like this, what will you have to say to somebody who considers it a God's will to get Nino to 20/20? "Open all chests, steal all items, kill every non-reinforcement enemy - come on, finish the sentence - train and promote everyone."

It seems to me it adds some depth to the game to know what you need for an efficient completion of the game and what you don't, so you can punish the characters who demand a lot and those who don't. I'm not insinuating there needs to be a tier below Bottom for characters we don't recruit because of turn count implications or that we're skipping certain promotion items period, no chance of negotiation, but I don't see why that too wouldn't be reflected.

And really, after having played the games for so long, why take a step backwards?

[Tamanoir]

You could suppress killling every reinforcement because it doesn't adds a lot to the game in general. That's a point that can, and most certainly will, be discussed

But you could reflect how hard a character is to recruit in the rating... Cath, and Donnel's note would be lowered because of their recruitment chapter. Obviously, so would be Tiki, who may see her rating being lowered... Or raise higher character that helps recruiting this character easier, like Kellam and Frederick for Donnel.

As I said, I think a Completionist LTC Tiering list can add a new layer of strategy instead of just gaining turn. I cited some examples, like the defence chapter, for example... I will admit than for Awakening, this apply less, and doesn't add as much as for other games, but I think it could be interresting to test.

We can always decide if we want to keeps it, or if it's too much of a bother without any significant addition afterwards...

And, in Completionist LTC, you see turns are still important, but they are now the mean by which we accomplish our goal, and not the focus. I think more people would accept it this way...

[Redwall]

You could suppress killling every reinforcement because it doesn't adds a lot to the game in general. That's a point that can, and most certainly will, be discussed

But you could reflect how hard a character is to recruit in the rating... Cath, and Donnel's note would be lowered because of their recruitment chapter. Obviously, so would be Tiki, who may see her rating being lowered... Or raise higher character that helps recruiting this character easier, like Kellam and Frederick for Donnel.

As I said, I think a Completionist LTC Tiering list can add a new layer of strategy instead of just gaining turn. I cited some examples, like the defence chapter, for example... I will admit than for Awakening, this apply less, and doesn't add as much as for other games, but I think it could be interresting to test.

We can always decide if we want to keeps it, or if it's too much of a bother without any significant addition afterwards...

And, in Completionist LTC, you see turns are still important, but they are now the mean by which we accomplish our goal, and not the focus. I think more people would accept it this way...

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?

[Tamanoir]

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 specifically said that killing every ennemy had not too be an achievement, because it makes loose turns, and doesn't add much to the rating anyways.

Of all the completionist tasks, it's certainly the weakest. It's even in my first sentence.

You will certainly ends up killing more ennemy, that's a given. But the goal is to obtain the maximum of the game, while still not loosing too much turns.

Most players will try to recruit everyone, and opens every chests anyway...

Edited June 12, 2013 by TendaSlime

[Redwall]

Oh, sorry, I was mixing your argument up with Snowy's. Regardless, it is less arbitrary to ask the player to complete the game than to ask him or her to complete the game while opening chests that do not need to be opened. Do you agree? A lot of chests have no payoff in terms of helping your expected turncounts.

[Chiki]

When I play LTC why should I care about any of the chests in 17 or 20? They likely take around 4 extra turns to get per chapter and make the chapter a lot more tedious. That goes contrary to the purpose of the LTC and the items are pretty much useless (not even the Boots shaves any turns). Why should I spend so many turns for no reason at all? This peculiar notion of "completeness" just isn't necessary at all.

Edited June 13, 2013 by Chiki

[Florete]

When I play LTC why should I care about any of the chests in 17 or 20?

Who is saying you should?

This peculiar notion of "completeness" just isn't necessary at all.

just isn't necessary at all.

necessary

Don't.

[eclipse]

When I play LTC why should I care about any of the chests in 17 or 20? They likely take around 4 extra turns to get per chapter and make the chapter a lot more tedious. That goes contrary to the purpose of the LTC and the items are pretty much useless (not even the Boots shaves any turns). Why should I spend so many turns for no reason at all? This peculiar notion of "completeness" just isn't necessary at all.

I'll assume FE7? IIRC, there's a couple of promotional items in 17 (the Crest and whatever promotes Guy/Raven/fighters). 20 had one of two Luna tomes, a Guiding Ring (since I tend to miss the one on the boat), a Brave Bow (which goes to Rath for favoritism reasons, but it's a nice weapon for bow users regardless), and a Blue Gem (my memory's rusty). I usually sell the Gem so I can get an earlier Physic, which in turn alleviates a lot of headaches when leveling Serra/Priscilla.

To you, there is no reason. To me, there is plenty of reason.

[Chiki]

Remember my post is talking about an LTC tier list with completion. An LTC tier list won't need an earlier Physic, or a Gem, or leveling Serra/Priscilla.

[eclipse]

Remember my post is talking about an LTC tier list with completion. An LTC tier list won't need an earlier Physic, or a Gem, or leveling Serra/Priscilla.

We're talking more about completion that LTC. Thanks for your input, now can you contribute to everyone else's thoughts without putting them down?

Edited June 13, 2013 by eclipse

[Da Bear]

I'll assume FE7?

You can tell it's Awakening because of the mention of the boots.

[Tamanoir]

Remember my post is talking about an LTC tier list with completion. An LTC tier list won't need an earlier Physic, or a Gem, or leveling Serra/Priscilla.

In this Completionist Tier List, LTC is the mean, not the goal. That's the main point. It's not a LTC Tier with completion, but a completionist tier list, in the minimum amount of turns.

I think you're playing LTC because of the challenge. I already proposed some chapters that can be made more interresting this way, and maybe less repetitive.

Obviously, the assumption we make is that more players will be interrested in completiting the game than in a pure LTC Tier list.

[XeKr]

I know I can't speak for others, but for me, it's not about the turns at all. I don't care about the actual number or beating certain turncounts. It's about tending toward elegant play with carefully planned positioning, decision-making, resource allocation, no/minimal wasted actions or bloated tactics, etc.

I know some others have expressed this sentiment as well.

I do not know if your assumption (that players find a "completion" tier list more interesting) is correct. As noted, the players who tend to prefer such a thing usually do not care about turns at all. However, I strongly believe such a list will eventually reduce to discussions about efficiency, and therefore turncount/reliability, which may turn those players away anyways. It already seems that a few other players do not like unnecessary secondary objectives. And so you're essentially introducing arbitrary criteria for...the purpose of introducing arbitrary criteria. Any number of additional criteria you can think of can add strategy to a game, but it doesn't mean we should add them all. You may personally consider it more interesting, but others may not.

Again, I'd support making the list to see how it goes. If interest is sufficiently high and people have fun discussing it, it's a success.

EDIT: I'd also say I value robustness in the face of the RNG. As such, I like stuff like Interceptor's highly reliable Lunatic+ log, despite taking 999 turns.

Edited June 13, 2013 by XeKr

[Redwall]

In this Completionist Tier List, LTC is the mean, not the goal. That's the main point. It's not a LTC Tier with completion, but a completionist tier list, in the minimum amount of turns.

There is no difference between a LTC tier list with completion and a completionist tier list performed in the minimum TC. In both cases, the goal is to complete the game (where "complete" may adopt one of several meanings) in the lowest turncount possible under those constraints.

I think you're playing LTC because of the challenge. I already proposed some chapters that can be made more interresting this way, and maybe less repetitive.

There exist many chapters that are made much less interesting this way. I got FE12 in the mail recently, and I can confirm that C10 on H3 is absolute crap if you go for all the treasure chests; on the other hand, if you simply gun for the throne and recruit Ellerean, it permits a rather clean two-turn clear that requires a bit of thinking. In FE13, Chiki mentioned C17 and C20, both of which become a lot less fun if you go for every treasure chest due to the poor enemy placement. Both stages have a severe case of enemy diarrhea, and stair-blocking in C17 is more tedious than difficult, in my opinion.

Adding more arbitrary criteria than we need is not the right course of action unless you can show it brings a worthwhile element (thinking, for example) to the game. I admit that in my efficiency run of FE13, I made a point to recruit every first-generation character; however, this was in some sense contrary to the goals of LTC, and a LTC without a full-recruitment requirement can in general be logically preferable. I remember watching one of dondon's H5 videos and seeing him wait for several turns just to recruit Est when he knew he could have cleared the stage much more quickly had he not recruited her at all.

Obviously, the assumption we make is that more players will be interrested in completiting the game than in a pure LTC Tier list.

Again, all tier lists assume the player is completing the game.

[Tamanoir]

There is no difference between a LTC tier list with completion and a completionist tier list performed in the minimum TC. In both cases, the goal is to complete the game (where "complete" may adopt one of several meanings) in the lowest turncount possible under those constraints.

There exist many chapters that are made much less interesting this way. I got FE12 in the mail recently, and I can confirm that C10 on H3 is absolute crap if you go for all the treasure chests; on the other hand, if you simply gun for the throne and recruit Ellerean, it permits a rather clean two-turn clear that requires a bit of thinking. In FE13, Chiki mentioned C17 and C20, both of which become a lot less fun if you go for every treasure chest due to the poor enemy placement. Both stages have a severe case of enemy diarrhea, and stair-blocking in C17 is more tedious than difficult, in my opinion.

Adding more arbitrary criteria than we need is not the right course of action unless you can show it brings a worthwhile element (thinking, for example) to the game. I admit that in my efficiency run of FE13, I made a point to recruit every first-generation character; however, this was in some sense contrary to the goals of LTC, and a LTC without a full-recruitment requirement can in general be logically preferable. I remember watching one of dondon's H5 videos and seeing him wait for several turns just to recruit Est when he knew he could have cleared the stage much more quickly had he not recruited her at all.

Again, all tier lists assume the player is completing the game.

If you try to start a semantic war, I'll start to doubt your sincerity... Well, this may have been purely worded, but I think the sense wasn't that hard to understand...

Fine, let's say it that way if you agree : everyone to finish the game, but there are different levels of completion. The goal are only obtaining every Items and recruiting everyone. I think most of us will agree that killing everyone is stupid. We can discuss which item is relevant and which isn't, but I thought this will ends up to even more discussion, due to the subjective nature of the subject. That can be discussed now, or later.

This isn't a true LTC tier list. As I said in a previous posts, 2-3 turns saved won't make such an important difference, because others things are taken into account.

Turns is just one variable that is essential because everyone can solo the game with Virion, as Chiki pointed out.

I think it's at least worth a try. This may end up being an impossible mess, but this can also help us rating the units better. I don't claim this is the best idea, but mainly that it is interresting enough to try it.

This doesn't stop anyone to do pure LTC Tier List, anyway.

[Chiki]

Why do people always complain about semantics? Semantics are pretty much vital to any debate.

[Snowy_One]

This may just be me, but I think the tiers could do with a defined win/lose condition, maybe not for characters/arguments, but for arguers. IMO a debater should distinctly 'lose' if he can be shown that they have ulterior motives/are ignoring others arguments in favor of their own. So, let's say two people want to argue Titania to the top of the tier list. The first (Al) thinks she's the best unit in FE9 while the second (Bob) loves redheads. While both may present similar arguments, if Al's remains focused on why Titania should move up while Bob's ends up wandering and denouncing any unit who isn't a redhead, Bob's argument should be discarded on the spot. Likewise, if Al responds to every post and, at least from a certain, logical, viewpoint (maybe not the one agreed on by the tier, but A logical viewpoint none the less) that is fine. However, if Bob discards arguments that would be key (EX: Titania's struggling in sand) while dealing with a related argument (claiming Titania is awesome because of her movement) and can't provide a logical viewpoint, his argument should be discarded as well.

[Espinosa]

This may just be me, but I think the tiers could do with a defined win/lose condition, maybe not for characters/arguments, but for arguers. IMO a debater should distinctly 'lose' if he can be shown that they have ulterior motives/are ignoring others arguments in favor of their own. So, let's say two people want to argue Titania to the top of the tier list. The first (Al) thinks she's the best unit in FE9 while the second (Bob) loves redheads. While both may present similar arguments, if Al's remains focused on why Titania should move up while Bob's ends up wandering and denouncing any unit who isn't a redhead, Bob's argument should be discarded on the spot. Likewise, if Al responds to every post and, at least from a certain, logical, viewpoint (maybe not the one agreed on by the tier, but A logical viewpoint none the less) that is fine. However, if Bob discards arguments that would be key (EX: Titania's struggling in sand) while dealing with a related argument (claiming Titania is awesome because of her movement) and can't provide a logical viewpoint, his argument should be discarded as well.

Hmm, I wonder who that Bob could be...

[Snowy_One]

Bob is Bob is Bob. If this was something personal, don't you think I would have posted it sooner, when it would have had an actual impact? Right now I'm just trying to streamline the process a bit.

[-Cynthia-]

Titania struggling in sand isn't really a key argument since FE9 only has one chapter with sand.

I don't think attempting to discern ulterior motives of arguers is very valuable and debaters shouldn't be labeled as 'winners' or 'losers' anyway. Just evaluate arguments on their own merits.

[Snowy_One]

I would normally agree, except some times certain people simply don't shut up/concede that they've lost and keep arguing for reasons not related to tiering in the slightest. Being able to say 'this argument is over and X loses because he did Y' would probably help a lot.

[Baldrick]

That's where the moderator of the tier list (or an actual mod, if it gets very heated) should step in and shut down any off-topic discussion, and make a decision (the tier list changes or does not change).