Tiering Philosophy - It's that time again

[Chiki]

Snow is probably the best example of Bob on this forum.

[Snowy_One]

No. I'm not. I don't believe in LTC tiering. That's all. I've never intentionally argued for ulterior motives or intentionally disregarded arguments that weren't insane. Heck, in multiple debates I've conceded and lost perfectly willingly, especially back on Ye Olde Gamefaqs. I'm only known for my Mia debates though where I defended her against people who wanted to drop her down to the bottom of the tier list out of personal bias.

However, pit me against someone who claims that their character is 'better' while clearly only saying so because they love some support or can't stand the idea of not using X class and said character happens to be higher-tiered than Y character and I'm stuck in a position where either I defend a character I know is inferior or 'lose' to someone who didn't really have an argument. Yea, I know there are other ways around, but that such a position can even exist simply because some arguments can't be thrown out despite immense personal bias should show something is wrong.

[General Banzai]

No. I'm not. I don't believe in LTC tiering. That's all. I've never intentionally argued for ulterior motives or intentionally disregarded arguments that weren't insane. Heck, in multiple debates I've conceded and lost perfectly willingly, especially back on Ye Olde Gamefaqs. I'm only known for my Mia debates though where I defended her against people who wanted to drop her down to the bottom of the tier list out of personal bias.

However, pit me against someone who claims that their character is 'better' while clearly only saying so because they love some support or can't stand the idea of not using X class and said character happens to be higher-tiered than Y character and I'm stuck in a position where either I defend a character I know is inferior or 'lose' to someone who didn't really have an argument. Yea, I know there are other ways around, but that such a position can even exist simply because some arguments can't be thrown out despite immense personal bias should show something is wrong.

I remember back in the day when Big Boss Forum Kingpins would outstomp anyone else in debates and put whoever they wanted in the top tiers

I think those days are gone, however

Also, this seems like my kind of thread, but has anyone even accomplished anything here?

[Narga_Rocks]

Also, this seems like my kind of thread, but has anyone even accomplished anything here?

Haha, no. This thread was meant to keep the clog out of tier list discussions and place it here. As it never accomplishes anything there anyway, better to do it here. Is it even possible to convince 10 kids on an internet game forum to use the same method for tiering?

Edited September 5, 2013 by Narga_Rocks

[Snowy_One]

Minor thing. The term 'Dictator-list' to refer to older tier lists, usually Gamefaqs based, which existed largely so that one person could shove around their own personal gameplay philosophies instead of engaging in any form of actual tiering with standards.

[Narga_Rocks]

Last I checked (albeit a few months ago) a certain someone (not you, snowy) was still running one of those on the RD and maybe PoR forums on gamefaqs.

[Snowy_One]

Yea. Surprisingly, from what I recall of the one or two tier-lists I made, they were closer to the current SF lists, at least than the other lists. A few major errents like Mist being in below-average and the like (it wasn't LTC based after all) and Brom being a full tier or two higher, but still decently similar.

Anyways, here are my proposed criteria for a 'dictator-list'. Three or more must be met (not just one or two) to be a dictator-list.

1) Controlled soley by one person with other people unable to make changes without his approval.

2) Undefined standard for ranking/ranking defined entirely by personal experience. (EX: Ranking female characters by cupsize is defined, if irrelevant and a bit sexist. Ranking a character based on how they did on your playthrough so that a situation of Rolf > Titania is possible, dictator-list).

3) Overly-reliant on specific gimmicks in character-builds while not affording lesser characters the same deal (EX: Dropping a load of BEXP and power-ups on Ike so he can use the SS, but not even considering giving Mist the same deal).

4) Often not truly open for debate regardless of what arguments have been presented in any direction and will often 'close' with few, if any, changes made.

5) Changes that are made are based less on logic/reasoned arguments and more on personal favor and/or appeal.

[Snowy_One]

the fuck are you talking about

elitism is not a quantifiable thing

...

Okay. Let me try it without the numbers then.

The problem is not that the tier lists have become 'more elitist'. Compared to Ye Olde Gamefaqs where tier wars raged and few standards existed, tier lists are LESS elitist than before. The problem is that, even though the posters are less elitist on the whole, many of the common folk who were merely giving minor suggestions are gone now, basically eliminating the portion of tier people who weren't elitist at all. Since they are gone, the tiers seem more elitist as a result. Similar to how, when getting an average, if you eliminate the low numbers (the people who aren't elitist) the average will be higher even if the remaining numbers (the people who continue to debate) are not as big (not as elitist) as they were in the original equation.

[Narga_Rocks]

Rather than warn you for posting that in another thread after RF told you not to, I just moved it here (so that wasn't Snowy double posting).

[Chiki]

...

Okay. Let me try it without the numbers then.

The problem is not that the tier lists have become 'more elitist'. Compared to Ye Olde Gamefaqs where tier wars raged and few standards existed, tier lists are LESS elitist than before. The problem is that, even though the posters are less elitist on the whole, many of the common folk who were merely giving minor suggestions are gone now, basically eliminating the portion of tier people who weren't elitist at all. Since they are gone, the tiers seem more elitist as a result. Similar to how, when getting an average, if you eliminate the low numbers (the people who aren't elitist) the average will be higher even if the remaining numbers (the people who continue to debate) are not as big (not as elitist) as they were in the original equation.

I agree with this.

[General Banzai]

I don't see why it matters how elitist the people running the tiers are. In fact, tiers SHOULD be put together by the so-called Fire Emblem "elite". However, I don't think tiers should be made FOR the elite. For starters, the elite don't need a tier list, and if they do, a perfect run most turns shaved list won't help them.

When it gets to the point where every position on the tier needs an explanation of exactly how to use them, detailing down to specific strategies on specific chapters or specific resource consumption, then a tier list loses its function even for the upper echelons of FE LTC society. One would be better off simply writing a strategy guide which explains more or less turn-by-turn what one should be doing every chapter to complete it at the minimum turn count, in which case every unit used in the strategy would be equally valuable (unless in the case that two units were completely interchangeable, say for instance a strategy on Ch 14 PoR could be done with both Jill or Marcia, for example). In such a scenario, any unit who gives unique turns saved at all would be necessary to complete the strategy, while those who don't would never be used.

In short, it wouldn't matter than Unit X saves 14 turns while Unit Y only saves 1 turn, because in a perfect LTC play both will be necessary to achieve the absolute minimum count. Making a tier in which Unit X is higher than Unit Y given these parameters would not mean anything, as both units will be used.

If in case of drafting, where it is not guaranteed both or either unit will be used, then tiering in such a way would make sense, to the extent that none of a unit's "turns shaved" are at all dependent on contributions from any other specific unit (so for instance, Mia in PoR's saved turn wouldn't be considered in a draft tier list). I assume you guys know this at least. I haven't seen any draft tier lists so I dunno.

Anyway, my opinion is that tier lists should forgo absolute statistical basis (i.e. "turns saved") in favor of being intuitive to someone looking at the tier at a glance. Less focus should be placed on individual rankings rather than tier rankings; so for instance, every unit in High Tier is generally an easy-to-use, helpful unit, without worrying whether Pent is better or worse than Sain. Many FE units have very different uses, and trying to decide whether Pent's staff utility is more or less useful than Sain's movement is basically not a productive use of time.

But if tiers aren't based on turns saved, what are they based on? I say they should be based on how helpful a unit is for simply completing the game. As I said before, elite players don't need tiers. If they need anything at all, they need strats on which routes to go or which enemies to target in order to most efficiently complete a chapter (if they even need that). A tier list should instead be made for the benefit of newcomers to the series, of which we have seen an influx in recent months with the release of Awakening.

"But Banzai, every unit is good if you turtle and baby them! We need efficiency as a parameter to weed those units out!" Well, not really. Honestly, most units that are good in a efficiency are also good in casual play. Seth is still the best unit in FESS whether you coddle other units or not. Nino is still awful. Not to mention coddling in and of itself is automatically making the game more difficult (especially for a new player), and more often than not the payoff is not worth it. And as dondon has pointed out elsewhere, often turtling a map isn't the easiest way to complete it. Many maps are designed with the expectation the player go fast, either to complete important secondary objectives like recruiting units and getting good items, or simply because if the player lingers they get bogged down with reinforcements. Even in a so-called "casual" tier list, movement and base stats would still be prized attributes. Indeed, I don't honestly expect a casual tier list to differ markedly from a general efficiency tier list.

The difference is that a casual tier list would make sense to those looking at the tier who aren't versed in the specific strategies needed to optimize the use of the units on the list (read: people who actually need a tier list), as well as providing a relevant goal of helping new players complete the game. A person should be able to look at a tier and say, "Okay, so the high tier people are people I should use, and the low tier people aren't," and be able to walk away with ONLY that knowledge and thus have an easier time playing.

In short: Tiers should be made by the 1337 for the n00bs

[Baldrick]

Agreed. If a tier-list-as-character-guide needs knowledge of strategies/the metagame to be useful, it defeats the purpose of not simply writing a character guide.

Last year, I'd have said that it sounds good in theory, but not in practice because most people who would use such a tier list aren't on SF. But with the series becoming more mainstream and there being a lot of new players around, it could be of value.

[Snowy_One]

*sniffle* It's finally happening! I'm so... happy!

[General Banzai]

*sniffle* It's finally happening! I'm so... happy!

Nothing's happening.

[Narga_Rocks]

*sniffle* It's finally happening! I'm so... happy!

What's happening? Nobody is changing their mind. Or not much. Those that think tier lists should double as character guides without the detail (who to use based on placement) have always thought thus, and those that think it should be based on potential contribution when the player knows what (s)he's doing also aren't going to change any time soon.

[Snowy_One]

As I've said in the past, one of the key problems to the tier list is that people who don't bother to do extensive research on why a unit is placed where they are and understand the strategies and reasons behind their placement are left out in the cold. Sometimes something as simple as saving one turn due to a shove can lead to a unit being placed higher when, to someone not keyed into to the strategy behind it, that one shove is both meaningless and they won't know when it happens.

I have no problem using turn-counts as a measurement proxy for how good a unit is. I just think that, when we're detailing out strategies to shave off turn counts, we're going too far, especially for a tier list. As Banzai pointed out, if we do that, we're better off just making a guide than a tier list.

[Narga_Rocks]

As I've said in the past, one of the key problems to the tier list is that people who don't bother to do extensive research on why a unit is placed where they are and understand the strategies and reasons behind their placement are left out in the cold. Sometimes something as simple as saving one turn due to a shove can lead to a unit being placed higher when, to someone not keyed into to the strategy behind it, that one shove is both meaningless and they won't know when it happens.

I have no problem using turn-counts as a measurement proxy for how good a unit is. I just think that, when we're detailing out strategies to shave off turn counts, we're going too far, especially for a tier list. As Banzai pointed out, if we do that, we're better off just making a guide than a tier list.

And yet I don't see a problem with someone being "left out in the cold". You can ask how a unit got where it got, or you can do a search on the character name (unless it's like Mia or something with only 2 or 3 characters) and find out yourself. A tier list is an attractive looking list of characters in the order from best contributor to worst. I don't see the argument for turning a tier list into a guide. It no longer has the pretty set. Also, if you make a guide you are much more locked in to the placements and ratings of characters. When new ideas or strategies come out and suddenly a unit skyrockets because we found a way for that unit to reduce turncounts or simply beat enemies up better, it would be a massive pain to go into 5 or 6 character summaries and rewrite them all and make new ratings etc etc.

tl:dr, tier lists are much more convenient for the active members and if someone doesn't know why a unit is where it is, ASK.

Edited September 11, 2013 by Narga_Rocks

[Junkhead]

How do you calculate a success rate of a chapter?

[Redwall]

How do you calculate a success rate of a chapter?

You can get an estimate by looking at the hits/dodges that must occur and by determining the odds of getting enough stats (e.g. what are the odds of Marth having 25 Spd at Lv. 24).

[General Banzai]

sometimes though enemy AI can work on an RNG and that can throw wrenches into things

[Baldrick]

From the RD tier list:

@bbm. I poorly worded that example. I meant it's better to use a low move high def unit to tank rather than a high move low def unit.

What's wrong with Wind Edges? The SMs problem is they lack the defensive parameters necessary and are prone to killing enemies when you don't want them to. Otherwise I don't disagree.

Those Part 3 enemies aren't going anywhere, though. Your defensive position and the relative strengths of the armies makes Jill's mobility not that important if you're not aiming for low turns. In Part 4 the terrain opens up and the balance of power shifts, which benefits Jill.

That is a good point. Though I consider comparing DB and GM units less telling since they can only be together in part 4. Jill can join the GMs but that might make things worse for her for that reason.

[-Cynthia-]

Wind Edges have 6 Mt 60 Hit compared to Hand Axes having 9 Mt 70 Hit and Wind Edges can't be forged.

[Sasori]

I really liked reading through tier lists a while ago. I never contributed, aside from asking a few questions because i'm far from the best player, but I thought it was pretty interesting to see the debates.

I stopped reading them once turn counts became more important. Debates about how much turns Jill saves in fe10 for example isn't something I find very interesting.

[Snowy_One]

That has been a constant problem. While the majority of tier-list debaters favor using turn counts or rankings (in the older FE games) as standards, there has been a constant minority that has hated the notion (of which I am a part. Lower turncounts should be a result of good units, good units aren't the result of lower turncounts). However, whenever someone has tried to make a list differently it's been laughed, mocked, or simply gotten too much disinterest to survive as anything beyond a mere concept/personal list.

[Narga_Rocks]

Lower turncounts should be a result of good units, good units aren't the result of lower turncounts

Pretty sure it's more of an if and only if. But even if it isn't, let's assume you are right that it is

lower turncounts should be a result of good units.

This means that using good units implies lower turncounts, as lower turncounts are the result of those good units.

Now, hopefully you are familiar with the concept of a contrapositive. if x => y then not y => not x

If good units => lower turncounts, then wouldn't higher turncounts => worse units? Thus, if you have higher turncounts, the units you used must then be bad?