Tiering Philosophy - It's that time again

[Elieson]

Tier list =/= guide book.

A tier list [for Fire Emblem games] puts quantifiable value on units worth in the game. Snowy, what you're suggesting is that once a bottom line is figured out, all information beyond that is irrelevant. Look at Fire Emblem 11. There's an absolute minimum TC in any tier list not using Warp. Is the tier list automatically garbage?

Do units suddenly not have worth when the mathematical formula to achieve maximum efficiency has been reached?

Because that's what it sounds like you're proposing.

[Espinosa]

Unless you're trying to train Wendy or whatever, every single efficiency run imaginable leaves plenty of room for variation no matter how tight the requirements may be. The assumption that not all optimal units could be available (e.g. drafting) behind the existing tier lists is further testament to the fact that tier lists allow a reasonable level of 'flexibility' - one of your favourite terms I believe - all within the scope of efficiency.

[Interceptor]

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?

No, since the only thing required to keep this from happening is that the tier list steward not be a dumbass.

[Rehab]

There's no single overriding way to judge a unit's value in fire emblem. Ranks and LTC, for example, have long been separate, and even now with ranks gone in the more recent games, there's still 0% growth runs, which are inevitably going to lead to different values attributed to units than will standard LTC runs.

In the absence of one certain way, people are free to construct their own, of course, and the ways that survive tend to be the among the most intuitive and the most interesting. That doesn't mean they're not still inventions of the players, rather than the game.

Whatever metrics get popularly accepted, just do us all a favor and at least explain what metric a given list is going by, and admit that it's ultimately a self-imposed metric, even if it's an interesting one and/or popularly accepted to be "the best." You'll then be able to go about the rest of your tiering business unhindered.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Rehab

[Loki Laufeyson]

And what are skills and classes good for?

Umm how about what skills and classes are best for efficient play? FE13 is a bit weird in the sense that a lot depends on pairings, support options, skill choices, reclassing options, etc instead of just the bare bones of characters. While, sure, someone like Olivia would be high tier given the fact her base class is great for LTC. But is that true for nearly everyone else? /shrug. If you are going to just stick to tiering characters, i just find it to make more sense if you do so on what that character's options are. Not just how they perform out of the box. Thats just me i guess. A reclassed Virion could be decent for LTC, but Virion at base class would not be. Theres a lot of variables. As for skills, guys with the option of getting Galeforce would be considered pretty great for LTC right?

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

As the current list shown us, nope not really

FE13 is still the same as older FE Tier lists, Cavs and Fliers at Top of the Tier List, Jeigan being amazing like they always be, and Galeforce being Overrated. And speaking of Virion, even Reclassing can't deny the fact that IS is that kind of stupid when ballancing units, despite doing it wrong for like.... 20 years over the course of like.... 11 games

Edited April 17, 2013 by JSND

[Snowy_One]

The problem with claiming that 'the only thing needed for it to work is that the tier steward not be a dumbass' is that it's shoving an undue amount of responsibility onto the tier steward and forcing them into a position where they have to make a judgement call on every argument, but they are still people. A tier-list stewarded by Olwen would likely turn out very different from one stewarded by Cynthia as they are different people who weight different arguments differently.

Not only that, but it removes the objectivity from the tier list and makes it entirely subjective. By making the only check and balance from the tier list becoming a 'best team and strategy list + everyone else' the debaters input you open up the door for people making arguments that little more than the optimal should exist. There is an old saying about trolls. 'They'll bring you down to their level and win through experience'. This is true for tiering as well, especially without a check or balance. Maybe you would balk at the notion of the list becoming entirely LTC overnight, but one turn less? Two turns less? This unit can easily save a ton of turns on this chapter and be tiered higher? They don't require obscene BEXP to do so? A little turn here, a bit more efficiency there, and eventually you end up with a list like this. After all, no matter how much you balk at the list becoming pure LTC, you're on the road already and it's difficult to take a step back for every little bit you trickle forwards.

[Espinosa]

I don't see why you keep reposting in every message the same worry about the tier list being limited to LTC. Even the two unpopular tier lists from people whose experience springs mainly from LTC play - dondon's 2-year old FE8 Sethskip tier list and Olwen's recent FE9 experimental tier list, permit the idea that characters who cost turns (e.g. Cormag in Eirika route or Jill in FE9) are recruited and even place them very high on the list. The idea about Mia's shoves shaving off a turn were quickly clarified and not taken seriously, so I don't see the concern with continuously appealing to that either.

[Redwall]

The problem with claiming that 'the only thing needed for it to work is that the tier steward not be a dumbass' is that it's shoving an undue amount of responsibility onto the tier steward and forcing them into a position where they have to make a judgement call on every argument, but they are still people. A tier-list stewarded by Olwen would likely turn out very different from one stewarded by Cynthia as they are different people who weight different arguments differently.

This is related to why I'm opposed to incorporating the sorts of additions you and Olwen are proposing: without confirming an increased amount of explanatory power, making any model more complex is generally not productive. This is not to say that your tier lists do not provide any added explanatory power--only that the explanatory power cannot presently be tested against any independent and objective measurements. Your proposed criteria add subjectivity and complexity to the existing tier list model, but because your (Snowy's) criteria aren't defined in a reproducible way--by which I mean I could look at two units and come up with utility scores different from yours--and because you haven't made any attempt at using them to predict independently measurable quantities, we can't test the predictions in any sort of way beyond "hey Snowy, I disagree with X because...", which is obviously fruitless.

The "human error" component of the tier list steward exists, whether in your tier list or in SDS's tier list or whatever, but the difference is that the criteria in SDS's tier list are defined in a way that is actually reproducible, minimizing the number of grey-area decisions to be made.

Not only that, but it removes the objectivity from the tier list and makes it entirely subjective. By making the only check and balance from the tier list becoming a 'best team and strategy list + everyone else' the debaters input you open up the door for people making arguments that little more than the optimal should exist. There is an old saying about trolls. 'They'll bring you down to their level and win through experience'. This is true for tiering as well, especially without a check or balance. Maybe you would balk at the notion of the list becoming entirely LTC overnight, but one turn less? Two turns less? This unit can easily save a ton of turns on this chapter and be tiered higher? They don't require obscene BEXP to do so? A little turn here, a bit more efficiency there, and eventually you end up with a list like this. After all, no matter how much you balk at the list becoming pure LTC, you're on the road already and it's difficult to take a step back for every little bit you trickle forwards.

There is no mandate in any of the tier lists or the tier list FAQ that the player use only those teams capable of acquiring the absolute lowest turn count possible; if that were the case, the tier lists would omit F-listers like FE13 Donnel.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Redwall

[Interceptor]

The problem with claiming that 'the only thing needed for it to work is that the tier steward not be a dumbass' is that it's shoving an undue amount of responsibility onto the tier steward and forcing them into a position where they have to make a judgement call on every argument, but they are still people.

Nobody said that they had to be the forum incarnation of Jesus; even a flawed curator can keep things moving in the right direction. Never mind that even in the case of a Reign of Terror™, tier lists are the easiest thing in the world to fork. As long as there are at least a few people who prefer this style, that's the way that it will go; there's no need to start clutching pearls and reaching for the whiskey.

[Loki Laufeyson]

As the current list shown us, nope not really

FE13 is still the same as older FE Tier lists, Cavs and Fliers at Top of the Tier List, Jeigan being amazing like they always be, and Galeforce being Overrated. And speaking of Virion, even Reclassing can't deny the fact that IS is that kind of stupid when ballancing units, despite doing it wrong for like.... 20 years over the course of like.... 11 games

Bolded part: Wut? If you are doing a tier list, they usually assume LTC. Galeforce kicks arse in that respect allowing for more moves per turn. And up to nearly four moves per turn if yer Pairing Up with two Galeforce'd units. (especially if said Galeforce'd units are mounted which is exceedingly likely to be the case due to the skill's origin class and reclass options based on pairings.)

In the case of the Jeigan, Froderick should be high tier anyway due to him being able to shave turns off early game. Though, i would argue that he shouldnt be Top Tier due to his massive drop off. Poor guy cant double after a certain point and reclassing him often turns out being a bad idea. Bleah. I guess it depends on that list's criteria but i just have a hard time wrapping my head around a tier list for that game for characters by themselves.

Shouldnt there be a Pairing Tier List as well though?

[Redwall]

Bolded part: Wut? If you are doing a tier list, they usually assume LTC. Galeforce kicks arse in that respect allowing for more moves per turn. And up to nearly four moves per turn if yer Pairing Up with two Galeforce'd units. (especially if said Galeforce'd units are mounted which is exceedingly likely to be the case due to the skill's origin class and reclass options based on pairings.)

In the case of the Jeigan, Froderick should be high tier anyway due to him being able to shave turns off early game. Though, i would argue that he shouldnt be Top Tier due to his massive drop off. Poor guy cant double after a certain point and reclassing him often turns out being a bad idea. Bleah. I guess it depends on that list's criteria but i just have a hard time wrapping my head around a tier list for that game for characters by themselves.

Shouldnt there be a Pairing Tier List as well though?

The Awakening tier list doesn't assume LTC play; children notwithstanding, there aren't any Galeforce-using units in the S tier, and only one Galeforcer above it (Avatar, naturally). There is also a tacit agreement that giant Rescue chains (central to LTC) are not used. Nonetheless, the player is assumed to play quickly. If giant Rescue chains are not assumed, the difference in character rankings between "quickly", "even more quickly", and "quickest" is probably insignificant.

wrt a pairing tier list...I'm not sure what the steward (SDS) has in mind. Currently, children aside from Lucina are not tiered.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Redwall

[Rapier]

I wouldn't say that "finishing the chapters as quickly as possible" is what efficiency means. I prefer taking turns and abusing EXP and leveling up characters to make them stronger, and I use units because I like them, not because they can rescue-drop abuse. For me, exploiting the best of each unit is efficiency, even if I couldn't care less about low turn counts.

[Narga_Rocks]

Well, "Efficiency in general describes the extent to which time, effort or cost is well used for the intended task or purpose" is from wikipedia. The trouble comes from what is the intended task or purpose. If the intended task or purpose is to use your favourite units or to get everyone to 20/20 or something, then that's a different goal from what tier lists have in mind.

Interestingly, one of the common complaints about an LTC oriented tier list, or even about our tier lists here that aren't quite up to that standard but are faster than turtling, is that "the goal is to beat the game." Except believe it or not that's actually the definition we are using for intended task or purpose. Beat the game. We just say it's better to judge which characters are good by adding the efficiency stipulation to "beat the game" because it creates a useful framework for tiering.

[Snowy_One]

I really feel that that's sort of a huge strawman. I mean, someone who wants to use a favored unit is going to do so regardless of any tier-list. That doesn't mean that the unit suddenly can't stand up and be compared to others on many other levels. LTC is just one method of tiering and it's really just too obsessively focused on by the tiering community to the point where it's almost impossible to discuss any method that isn't LTC for tiering beyond the ranking system absent in most American FE's.

Upon noticing this in another topic, it's been moved here. Anyways.

Look, the current tier list isnt LTC. Saving turns might be one of the reasons why Marcia Titania and Jill are at the top, but they are also at the top because theyre esentially invincible units that can ORKO pretty much everything before your awful notmounted units can even reach.

Funny. I thought the whole point to turns being a standard was because the game was so easy without them as to not being challenging or capable of real rating. So why should their 'invincible units that can ORKO pretty much anything' matter since almost every unit not suffering from huge problems should be able to fit this with minimal thought?

Likewise, why are non-mounted units awful? Because they lack movement? If the point isn't LTC this shouldn't matter enough to automatically make non-mounted units 'awful'. They have less movement, yes, but they can still be hyper-capable fighters. So it sounds like LTC really is the only standard, least from you.

Heres another one, lets say Gatrie and makalov have identical stats in X chapter, except for movement, which makalov beats him by 3. Both can do the same in enemy phase but one of them has more movement, thus reaching enemies faster than the otherand can even canto out of danger while Gatrie would be stuck there. Who's the winner?

Makalov, but I would hardly call Gatrie 'awful' just because his movement is less. They'd be no more than a tier apart barring some massive handicap on one end.

Wait what? You put down a suggestion in the same post you complain about other people putting down the same suggestion? Explain yourself.

I felt that an explanation for how the units could be tiering by BEXP was needed, especially if I was to contribute. I was not going 'OMG! YOU'RE LIST SUCKS BECAUSE YOU GAVE SOME NON-NEGLIGABLE VALUE TO SUPPORTS!' or something else. Asking for information and clarification on a point =/= putting it down.

Agreed. It's pinned so it's easy to find and it's there for general purpose and specific discussions all about tiering philosophy. Complaints about current tier lists, complaints about the people running them, all sorts of conversations can be had there. It's there to stop the clutter affecting other topics when people have complaints. And you even get responses from the relevant board members and none of us mods complaining that you are derailing. This topic hereis for discussing specifically the max bexp idea, or to step away from that a little I suppose the advantages/disadvantages of max bexp versus efficiency versus ltc. NOT about whether our other tiering threads are efficiency or ltc or one specific team or what have you. That stuff goes to the pinned thread.

Perfectly fine by me.

Edited April 23, 2013 by Snowy_One

[Florete]

Hey Snowy, did you do that stepping back and taking another look you said you would? Because I had hopes, but you don't seem any different.

[Narga_Rocks]

I really feel that that's sort of a huge strawman. I mean, someone who wants to use a favored unit is going to do so regardless of any tier-list. That doesn't mean that the unit suddenly can't stand up and be compared to others on many other levels. LTC is just one method of tiering and it's really just too obsessively focused on by the tiering community to the point where it's almost impossible to discuss any method that isn't LTC for tiering beyond the ranking system absent in most American FE's.

First off, you still don't seem to differentiate between ltc and efficiency. LTC is the minimum number of turns needed to finish a chapter and then judging units based on how they contribute in the One Team To Rule Them All. Unless you can achieve the same counts with multiple teams, of course.

Efficiency is a framework. Efficiency is basically saying "let's make things interesting. Don't turtle, try to make your turncounts respectable, like, say, 1 to 4 higher than LTC, and let's see how well units are capable of contributing to beating the game under this scenario."

The first is the type of tier list Olwen and some others would want to build. The second is the type of tier list RF and Cynthia and Interceptor would want to build. They are two entirely different animals. Almost as different to each other as compared to whatever it is you are wanting as a tier list.

Now, let's address your other concerns assuming you finally understand the difference. So, what's wrong with efficiency? Keep in mind that in a chapter that dondon and espinosa and olwen can beat in 4 turns, I'm beating in 6 to 8 turns, and you are beating in 10 to 12 turns. What is inherently superior to a tier list based on 10 to 12 turns compared to 6 to 8 turns? 4 turns is too stringent and makes tier lists boring, so that's why I don't like them. You seem to have the same problem with 6 to 8, yet what is so good about 10 to 12? It makes move partly irrelevant, so maybe you just like it because it hurts your hated mounted units? Like RF said, I thought you were going to reflect on stuff. Or was that just an excuse to bail out of a losing argument in the jeigan thread?

I'm not going to go into why 10 to 12 turns is a problem until you come up with a better reason for what's wrong with 6 to 8 other than "I don't like Titania."

Edited April 23, 2013 by Narga_Rocks

[Snowy_One]

Hey Snowy, did you do that stepping back and taking another look you said you would? Because I had hopes, but you don't seem any different.

I did. For a day or two I was convinced that, maybe, I was being paranoid. Then I got a harsh slap-back as to why, exactly, I had become so defensive in the first place.

First off, you still don't seem to differentiate between ltc and efficiency. LTC is the minimum number of turns needed to finish a chapter and then judging units based on how they contribute in the One Team To Rule Them All. Unless you can achieve the same counts with multiple teams, of course.

Because this is what the tier list has become. This is all it cares about now. Units are, for all practical intents and purposes, ranked on how much they contribute to turn-shaving. Resource in to power out seems almost entirely abandoned except as a mention to trash some low-tier units. Efficiency and LTC may have meant different things at some point, but that distinction is gone and needs a harsh redefining.

Efficiency is a framework. Efficiency is basically saying "let's make things interesting. Don't turtle, try to make your turncounts respectable, like, say, 1 to 4 higher than LTC, and let's see how well units are capable of contributing to beating the game under this scenario."

Then why are strategies where tons of resources are dumped to shave off one turn allowed? Why do some units like Marcia (who joins fairly meh) blasted up to the top? Because they save turns? Because rescue-dropping? I have no problem with 'not turtling', but if you're going to say that you're not LTC, put some damned effort into not being LTC! I don't care if this just means you need to slap some debaters who feel LTC is the ONLY way to play or adopt new criteria to ensure that it doesn't devolve into this, but this is what's happening.

The first is the type of tier list Olwen and some others would want to build. The second is the type of tier list RF and Cynthia and Interceptor would want to build. They are two entirely different animals. Almost as different to each other as compared to whatever it is you are wanting as a tier list.

To me they both look like 'OMG! WE CAN SHAVE OFF A TURN HERE! THIS UNIT MOVES UP!' lists. Different skin, exact same beast. Like claiming your Hyundai isn't a Hyundai because it has a Honda symbol on it.

Now, let's address your other concerns assuming you finally understand the difference. So, what's wrong with efficiency? Keep in mind that in a chapter that dondon and espinosa and olwen can beat in 4 turns, I'm beating in 6 to 8 turns, and you are beating in 10 to 12 turns. What is inherently superior to a tier list based on 10 to 12 turns compared to 6 to 8 turns? 4 turns is too stringent and makes tier lists boring, so that's why I don't like them. You seem to have the same problem with 6 to 8, yet what is so good about 10 to 12? It makes move partly irrelevant, so maybe you just like it because it hurts your hated mounted units? Like RF said, I thought you were going to reflect on stuff. Or was that just an excuse to bail out of a losing argument in the jeigan thread?

Assuming that the BEXP limit is 12+ turns, let me ask you 'why can't I complete it in 12 turns? Why do I have to beat it in 8? Why must my 12 turn clear be inferior to your 8 turn clear? I got more EXP, more items, didn't have to take as many risks, or play as strictly as your 8 turn clear and I still wasn't turtling, just not rushing'.

[Espinosa]

Why not take 20, 50 or 100 turns then? Let's break the boss's weapon so we can cap Sothe's level without BEXP tha twe want to hoard. How about we also arena grind (in games where arenas exist) everyone to max level and get some cash since we're never sure we have enough of it? And you're not turtling either, you're maxing experience and funds in a setting with so much freedom!

[Narga_Rocks]

I did. For a day or two I was convinced that, maybe, I was being paranoid. Then I got a harsh slap-back as to why, exactly, I had become so defensive in the first place.

What was this slap-back?

Because this is what the tier list has become. This is all it cares about now. Units are, for all practical intents and purposes, ranked on how much they contribute to turn-shaving. Resource in to power out seems almost entirely abandoned except as a mention to trash some low-tier units. Efficiency and LTC may have meant different things at some point, but that distinction is gone and needs a harsh redefining.

Then why are strategies where tons of resources are dumped to shave off one turn allowed? Why do some units like Marcia (who joins fairly meh) blasted up to the top? Because they save turns? Because rescue-dropping? I have no problem with 'not turtling', but if you're going to say that you're not LTC, put some damned effort into not being LTC! I don't care if this just means you need to slap some debaters who feel LTC is the ONLY way to play or adopt new criteria to ensure that it doesn't devolve into this, but this is what's happening.

To me they both look like 'OMG! WE CAN SHAVE OFF A TURN HERE! THIS UNIT MOVES UP!' lists. Different skin, exact same beast. Like claiming your Hyundai isn't a Hyundai because it has a Honda symbol on it.

Assuming that the BEXP limit is 12+ turns, let me ask you 'why can't I complete it in 12 turns? Why do I have to beat it in 8? Why must my 12 turn clear be inferior to your 8 turn clear? I got more EXP, more items, didn't have to take as many risks, or play as strictly as your 8 turn clear and I still wasn't turtling, just not rushing'.

riiiight, that's totally why Cynthia REJECTED the notion of Mia going over Zihark for one turn. Because we've just changed so much from how they started.

And for your last bit, I was hoping you'd seriously ponder the question rather than just reversing it. I have no intention of telling you what sucks about 12 turns when I know for a FACT that you will NEVER tell me what sucks about 8 turns. With no Quid por my Quo I see no reason to.

[Snowy_One]

What was this slap-back?

A fight in the roleplay mibbit chat. When I decided to take my step back, I had been presented with the possibility that I was being paranoid and my defensive actions could easily fit that profile. If they were truly unwarrented, then I was being paranoid of dangers and betrayals that didn't exist.

They did. I feel more justified in my defensive nature than ever now.

And for your last bit, I was hoping you'd seriously ponder the question rather than just reversing it. I have no intention of telling you what sucks about 12 turns when I know for a FACT that you will NEVER tell me what sucks about 8 turns. With no Quid por my Quo I see no reason to.

You missed the point entirely it seems then. You're claiming that the tier list doesn't obsess over turn-counts and doesn't turtle. I'm fine agreeing with the 'no-turtling' rule, but my point is that turn-counts are a horrible way to tier as it enforces an arbitrary standard. I've stated this before in the past, you know I'm almost certain to not shift from it again, and all the rest. We can both debate, but I can also tend to two cats while writing up posts. Therefore I am the better debater since I'm capable of such a feat and you're not (presumably). Even though this feat has 0 relevance to actual tier debating. Likewise, turn-counts have 0-relevance to actual gameplay and arguments about them being the only way to play or tier should be shot and mangled on sight. They are not, nor should not ever, be the only way to tier or rank characters.

And Esponia, I never said I was going to take 20 turns or anything of the sort. That's a huge strawman of what I'm saying to the point of electing a movie about it destroying Tokyo that it's such a huge strawman. I never said anything about intentional dallying about or anything of the sort. Just not giving a damn about turncounts so long as I manage to clear the chapter and net all the BEXP.

[Narga_Rocks]

You missed the point entirely it seems then. You're claiming that the tier list doesn't obsess over turn-counts and doesn't turtle. I'm fine agreeing with the 'no-turtling' rule, but my point is that turn-counts are a horrible way to tier as it enforces an arbitrary standard. I've stated this before in the past, you know I'm almost certain to not shift from it again, and all the rest. We can both debate, but I can also tend to two cats while writing up posts. Therefore I am the better debater since I'm capable of such a feat and you're not (presumably). Even though this feat has 0 relevance to actual tier debating. Likewise, turn-counts have 0-relevance to actual gameplay and arguments about them being the only way to play or tier should be shot and mangled on sight. They are not, nor should not ever, be the only way to tier or rank characters.

um, you realize that bexp based on turn-counts is still tiering based on turn counts, which according to you is a "horrible way to tier as it enforces an arbitrary standard." What are bexp turncount limits if not an arbitrary standard?

So, dropping the bexp standard, what's left for the framework? If turncounts are irrelevant, what is to prevent arena abusing and stuff? Or say we use the "no turtling" rule. What is turtling? To me, turtling is stuff like treating 9 move units as if they have 6 move so that your slow movers can keep up and contribute. What's your definition of turtling? One enemy at a time? What makes my definition better or worse than yours? They are our opinions about turtling. At which point, it is impossible to have a meaningful discussion because we have two equally valid definitions of turtling and no arbitration.

Hence, efficiency. Why is 8 better than 4 or 12? 12 is seriously slow sometimes. Like, Seth can run to the boss, run to the starting position, and run back to the boss by the time you finish the chapter. How is that not something that is obviously to lenient? What more do we need to say? If you can get all the items and kill all the enemies in 8 turns with a 99% reliability, why is that not better than killing all the enemeis and getting all the items in 12 turns with a 99% reliability?

This is another problem with your arguments. You assume things that aren't true when you think it helps your argument. How do you claim to be a "better debater" when you make stuff up that isn't true? I NEVER said that my 8 turns missed some enemies or items. I've even talked about "rout efficiency" in the jeigan topic. But let's assume I don't get more exp because I used Titania instead of Rolf to kill some enemies and she earns less. So what? Exp is a means to an end. Beating the game. All the units are judged based on how they contribute to completing the game. If you have no framework beyond that, though, everyone is equal because you can easily kill stuff with any unit.

I mean, heck, if you care so much about exp for exp sake, isn't 3 or 4 hit killing an enemy better than 1 rounding it? 3 x hit exp + 1 x kill exp is better than 1 x kill exp only. Then the best units are units like no bexp Mia and Rolf and Mist who take so many hits to kill stuff. The longer it takes to kills stuff the better. More exp.

And Esponia, I never said I was going to take 20 turns or anything of the sort. That's a huge strawman of what I'm saying to the point of electing a movie about it destroying Tokyo that it's such a huge strawman. I never said anything about intentional dallying about or anything of the sort. Just not giving a damn about turncounts so long as I manage to clear the chapter and net all the BEXP.

It's not a strawman. It's more of a slippery slope argument. If 12 turns is okay because you get more exp and items, what happens if there are reinforcements after the bexp limit, which happens a lot. Then I can go slower and get even more exp. What is the use of bexp but to give exp to units. If I abuse the arena, I get even more exp than bexp. Why is more bexp better than even more arena exp?

[Espinosa]

I frankly don't see why you keep pointing out the two Shoves argument as ridiculous. The only person who advocated the importance of that was Olwen, to my knowledge, and it took a lot of collective persuasion to emphasise that multiple strategies are possible (which you deny are possible at all in LTC). So if you really want, you can call Olwen ridiculous I guess (don't think he'll be too upset about it) and yourself along with him since you were the other guy insisting that the 2 Shoves matter as a serendipitous reason to raise Mia above Zihark.

Why should we worry about maximum BEXP first and foremost? Why is BEXP of more value than combat experience (which additionally provides improvement of weapon ranks)? If turns are not important and acquisition of maximum BEXP becomes our sole concern, and we know there's little difference between the two kinds of experience (besides BEXP being dumpable into units who hadn't done any fighting whatsoever), then the next logical step would be to stay in the map and milk the enemies for combat experience. Training units takes precedence over turn count? Boss abuse and arena abuse are inevitable two methods springing from your theory, and neither encourages any coherent tier discussion, and the whole meaning of such a list is unclear.

X can take 8 turns in a map, Y can take 12, why all this theorycrafting? Play a chapter the 'normal' way, then play it again aiming for the lowest (reliable) turn count. What's the difference between the two clears? Which one was more fun to carry out?

[Snowy_One]

um, you realize that bexp based on turn-counts is still tiering based on turn counts, which according to you is a "horrible way to tier as it enforces an arbitrary standard." What are bexp turncount limits if not an arbitrary standard?

Unlike gunning for LTC, they have an actual impact on the gameplay. You go over the limit, you start losing BEXP that can be spent on your units. Thusly, it's not arbitrary.

So, dropping the bexp standard, what's left for the framework? If turncounts are irrelevant, what is to prevent arena abusing and stuff? Or say we use the "no turtling" rule. What is turtling? To me, turtling is stuff like treating 9 move units as if they have 6 move so that your slow movers can keep up and contribute. What's your definition of turtling? One enemy at a time? What makes my definition better or worse than yours? They are our opinions about turtling. At which point, it is impossible to have a meaningful discussion because we have two equally valid definitions of turtling and no arbitration.

The fact that I'm not flandarizing 'not obsessing over turns' into 'dallying about as much as I want' makes my definition more valid. Turtling is intentionally slowing the party down and wasting turns that push the player over the BEXP turn count limit intentionally. Or, in a game like FE8, wasting turns after all immediate benefits have dried up in favor of achieving a minor boost in power (especially if it can be replicated later-on without turtling). So waiting for your general to lead the way =/= turtling (so long as you aren't going over a BEXP turn limit), not killing an enemy so a weaker unit can kill it =/= turtling (though it is feeding which is a different problem), but sitting around to boss-abuse or raise supports = turtling.

Hence, efficiency. Why is 8 better than 4 or 12? 12 is seriously slow sometimes. Like, Seth can run to the boss, run to the starting position, and run back to the boss by the time you finish the chapter. How is that not something that is obviously to lenient? What more do we need to say? If you can get all the items and kill all the enemies in 8 turns with a 99% reliability, why is that not better than killing all the enemeis and getting all the items in 12 turns with a 99% reliability?

Because turns are an arbitrary measurement. My strategies are simple enough that I can watch Fantasia while playing. That's more relevant than a turncount as it deals with the simplicity and robustness of the strategy being employed and how universally applicable it is.

This is another problem with your arguments. You assume things that aren't true when you think it helps your argument. How do you claim to be a "better debater" when you make stuff up that isn't true? I NEVER said that my 8 turns missed some enemies or items. I've even talked about "rout efficiency" in the jeigan topic. But let's assume I don't get more exp because I used Titania instead of Rolf to kill some enemies and she earns less. So what? Exp is a means to an end. Beating the game. All the units are judged based on how they contribute to completing the game. If you have no framework beyond that, though, everyone is equal because you can easily kill stuff with any unit.

And thusly turncounts become the only way to rank units with the units reducing the most being ranked higher. Gee. It's almost as if 'effeciency' and 'LTC' mean the exact same thing.

And I *don't* claim to be a better debater. But if you're going to claim that something like turncounts should matter in a tier list despite their lack of impact on a game, I'm going to claim to be a better debater than you because of my ability to write while petting two cats. Equally as arbitrary.

It's not a strawman. It's more of a slippery slope argument. If 12 turns is okay because you get more exp and items, what happens if there are reinforcements after the bexp limit, which happens a lot. Then I can go slower and get even more exp. What is the use of bexp but to give exp to units. If I abuse the arena, I get even more exp than bexp. Why is more bexp better than even more arena exp?

Because it violates the criteria for 'not turtling' which, in FE9/10, involves 'going over the BEXP limit'. If you finish the map in 8 turns and have 4 turns to arena-abuse, great for you. Kudos. You are now stronger than my team that took 12 turns to clear, but if you go to turn 13, you've got a problem there mate (and yes, I know there aren't arena's in FE9/10).

I frankly don't see why you keep pointing out the two Shoves argument as ridiculous.

Because it was taken seriously instead of something like 'we care about efficiency, not LTC. While it's true Mia may be able to save these turns, turns aren't everything.' wasn't used to shut it down right off the bat. You wanna prove you're not LTC? Start taking a bigger stand against LTC. Put your money where your mouth is. Talk about ways to ensure that the tiers won't become LTC lists beyond what is basically a child's promise.

X can take 8 turns in a map, Y can take 12, why all this theorycrafting? Play a chapter the 'normal' way, then play it again aiming for the lowest (reliable) turn count. What's the difference between the two clears? Which one was more fun to carry out?

For most people? The 'whatever turn-count I ended on way' which seems much more in line with the 12 turn method instead of trying to beat a buzzer.

[Redwall]

Snowy,

1. Why is BEXP better than combat EXP? If I go over the BEXP limit, I can farm EXP to my heart's content. You're not going to ignore this argument again, are you?

2. Why did the developers put BEXP in the games in the first place? To prevent turtling. OK, but why is turtling bad?

3. I can't say too much about the Tellius games since I've not played them, but if you look through the Awakening tier list, you'll notice that the units who are essential for LTC but who are nonessential for brisk play are -not- all ranked highly. The Dancer is in D-tier or something, the highest-ranking staff user is in A-tier, and the highest-ranking Galeforcer not named Avatar only ranks in A-tier. The Awakening tier list is unequivocally -not LTC-.

Edited April 23, 2013 by Redwall