Tiering Philosophy - It's that time again

[Snowy_One]

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?

Not saying it is better. Just that the time-limit on the BEXP is the limit for when you've clearly passed from being just 'moving slowly' to active 'turtling'. If you want to take longer, go ahead, but by any tier-standard I can see hoping to reflect any form of gameplay, you've simply 'gone over'.

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

Actually it was to help deal with underleveled units. Anyways, turtling isn't 'bad', but when you've started to actively turtle, you've tossed aside the majority of strategies and viable methods of tiering characters as the game is now simply about soaking up as much EXP as possible and/or simply putzing around. If you want to soak up as much EXP as possible in as few turns as possible, fine. Go ahead and use that as a standard, but that's a whole world different from just moseying on through each level.

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-.

As I don't own Awakening I don't comment on it. Especially since I understand the mechanics are very different from prior FE's.

[Redwall]

Anyways, turtling isn't 'bad', but when you've started to actively turtle, you've tossed aside the majority of strategies and viable methods of tiering characters as the game is now simply about soaking up as much EXP as possible and/or simply putzing around. If you want to soak up as much EXP as possible in as few turns as possible, fine. Go ahead and use that as a standard, but that's a whole world different from just moseying on through each level.

That's what everyone and his or her mom has been telling you, in this thread and others.

The brisk-play directive exists precisely to discourage tactics like "soaking up as much EXP as possible." If I go a turn or four above the absolute minimum turncount for any given level, that doesn't preclude that stage clear from being representative of the tier list playstyle. The playstyle is designed to reward thinking without enforcing the stress and twenty-plus hours of planning that go into an absolute LTC playthrough.

As I don't own Awakening I don't comment on it. Especially since I understand the mechanics are very different from prior FE's.

That you do not own Awakening doesn't make my statement any less accurate. Dance, Galeforce (one extra move during the player phase upon scoring a player-phase KO), and Rescue staffs all save turns, yet none of the characters in S tier will use any of these options in either a leisurely or a LTC playthrough (well, Lucina can technically get Galeforce, but she won't get it in time in a LTC run).

[Snowy_One]

That's what everyone and his or her mom has been telling you, in this thread and others.

The brisk-play directive exists precisely to discourage tactics like "soaking up as much EXP as possible." If I go a turn or four above the absolute minimum turncount for any given level, that doesn't preclude that stage clear from being representative of the tier list playstyle. The playstyle is designed to reward thinking without enforcing the stress and twenty-plus hours of planning that go into an absolute LTC playthrough.

Difference is, I don't care if someone takes extra turns so long as they complete it in the BEXP turn requirement. 1 turn? 4 turns? 12 turns? IDC. Doesn't matter so long as it's within the limit. Doesn't affect how I rate characters in the slightest.

That you do not own Awakening doesn't make my statement any less accurate. Dance, Galeforce (one extra move during the player phase upon scoring a player-phase KO), and Rescue staffs all save turns, yet none of the characters in S tier will use any of these options in either a leisurely or a LTC playthrough (well, Lucina can technically get Galeforce, but she won't get it in time in a LTC run).

I don't know why they're ranked low though. For all I know, they're super-weak or late joiners or something of the sort. That's why I'm not commenting on it. I don't know why they're ranked low, so using it to enforce or deny tier lists being LTC is useless to me.

[Chiki]

I'm gonna take time to reply in a couple hours, but I think my FE9 tier list has been overall well received. No one pointed out any big issues or been hostile.

My issue with a tier list like Cynthia and Interceptor's is that it's simply arbitrary. Vague wording is not a good way to make a tier list.

What I am trying to do is seek a balance between reliability and quickness. I want to find strategies in which we can go as fast as possible while keeping a decent amount of reliability.

I understand that ultimately, my method is arbitrary, but not nearly as arbitrary as Interceptor's.

Edited April 23, 2013 by Olwen

[Redwall]

Difference is, I don't care if someone takes extra turns so long as they complete it in the BEXP turn requirement. 1 turn? 4 turns? 12 turns? IDC. Doesn't matter so long as it's within the limit. Doesn't affect how I rate characters in the slightest.

It seems like we might be making some progress here. Your turn-count threshold corresponds to the BEXP turn requirement; the tier list's turn-count threshold corresponds to a slightly lower turn requirement. In neither case are turn counts the end goal. If Bob, without utilizing twenty-plus hours of planning, finds a way of completing a level (say) two turns faster than Beatrice's quick-but-not-LTC clear, then both stage clears can still be considered to be within the realm of the SF tier-list playstyle; the fastest clear does not do a "better job" of achieving the tier list objectives.

I don't know why they're ranked low, so using it to enforce or deny tier lists being LTC is useless to me.

OK, now you're just being obstinate. All you need to do to confirm the rationale for the Dancer's low ranking is to read the first two pages of the tier list thread. You can then confirm her high utility in an actual LTC setting just by browsing through a draft log.

[Florete]

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

It's official. Snowy_One is beyond hope.

Why are you even continuing to bother? You're, like, the only person who cares this much.

[Narga_Rocks]

Difference is, I don't care if someone takes extra turns so long as they complete it in the BEXP turn requirement. 1 turn? 4 turns? 12 turns? IDC. Doesn't matter so long as it's within the limit. Doesn't affect how I rate characters in the slightest.

And what makes the bexp turn requirement inherently better than 2 turns faster? I'll tell you what's wrong with the bexp requirement sometimes. Too lenient. Do you honestly think it is justifiable to take 20 turns to complete 3-8 in RD? This isn't the only example, it's just the most glaring. If I can waltz over the map killing everything with no chance of death while getting every item and finish one or two turns faster than the bexp requirement with no real tactics or risk, chances are the bexp requirement is too high. Tier lists should involve at least a little thought put into maximizing the output of your units and stuff like that. Not twenty hour strategies, but certainly more than "point and kill" strategies. And considering how often "Jill, go kill everything over there" is capable of pulling off the bexp requirement...

Let's go back to a previous scenario. Olwen can do a chapter in 4 turns. I can do it in 6 to 8. You can do it in 12. Some of the grinders will do it in 20 to 30. There is a bexp requirement of 12 turns. Oh, and if you only deploy 4 units you get extra bexp.

So, you say that your 12 turns or less is best because it lines up with the turncount bexp but you don't care about the "4 units to get extra bexp" because it's pointless or stupid or whatever. Why do you get to decide which bexp elements to observe and which ones to ignore? What's inherently better about your way versus "maximize bexp properly where you get even the bonus for fewer units deployed" or "let's go a little faster so that there is actual strategy involved beyond figuring out how to baby sucky units" or "let's go a lot faster and go LTC" or "let's go slower and soak up all the reinforcements and play in the arena to earn money."

As you can see, I've proposed 4 perfectly valid ways of rating units that are different from your method. You haven't explained a reason why yours is better aside from that you like it more. Are you just not capable of forming the strategies to go a little faster? Does it force you to use units you don't like personally? Some other reason? Why do you like going slower? I like going faster because I find if you go too slow any unit gets the job done and they are all about the same after a while.

You can't even claim "because it's what the game says" because you aren't following what the game says for max bexp.

And then there's fe8.

"Or, in a game like FE8, wasting turns after all immediate benefits have dried up in favor of achieving a minor boost in power"

This is what we've been saying all along. Only for each game. And we draw the line "minor boost in power" differently than you. Finishing a chapter in 8 turns instead of 12 makes no significant difference for your ability to easily defeat the rest of the game. Minor boost in power if you kill 3 more reinforcements that show up on turn 10. Minor boost in power if Oscar kills the boss instead of Titania and gets 30 extra exp but with worse growths and costs you having a superpowered unit in favour of 1 extra regular powered unit. Etc etc. Beat the map in 8 turns, gather all the major items (like a vulnerary is usually irrelevant) and then finish it after killing the majority of the units. Some people would even go so far as to say rush the boss and leave half the map alive because you can still easily beat the game, but I'm not going to ask you to go that far right now or ever. One step at a time or maybe just one step period.

And as for turtling, you can't define turtling by someone else's definition of the turns you should take. ie: bexp. You've already thrown out part of their definition of what you should be doing to maximize bexp. It's kinda hypocritical to do it your way. Turtling should be your fe8 definition. If I can clear the board easily and safely within x turns, isn't it then turtling to do it in more than x turns?

[Hawkeye]

Good lord this discussion just gets more ridiculous. I'm bored enough to have a poke at it myself though.
1. Rankings based on turns aren't necessarily about LTC. Snowy, every single time a person mentions anything about going faster or turns at all, you sarcastically say that efficiency is the same as LTC. The thing is, LTC is a very strict system to work in, that usually involves specific characters and strategies. This means that LTC tiering assumes that whatever strategy gets the lowest turncount is the strategy that is used, every time, without exception. Obviously, this would put half the cast in bottom tier because half the cast does not contribute to this strategy. You can play faster without playing as fast as humanly possible.
2. "Difference is, I don't care if someone takes extra turns so long as they complete it in the BEXP turn requirement. 1 turn? 4 turns? 12 turns? IDC. Doesn't matter so long as it's within the limit. Doesn't affect how I rate characters in the slightest."

Snowy, I still don't understand how you would rank characters in your world. Assuming we can add the restriction that you have the sanity needed to recognize that supports aren't a big deal, I just don't understand what you're trying to do, aside from getting the top few characters to drop. You mention something about the fact that your slow strategies are so simple and mindless that you can watch a tv show while you play, but the thing that absolutely blows my mind is that you somehow consider this a good thing. Don't you want to enjoy the game? Don't you want to have fun and take some actual interest in what you're doing? Fire Emblem is an easy game. If we aren't playing on very hard difficulties (the tier lists assume we aren't), you can beat the game with any characters you want, and you won't have too much trouble. You seem to think that's good, but then how the hell are we supposed to rank them? The point of efficiency is to give the game a bit of challenge, to give rankings some structure. The point of going a bit faster is that you actually have to put some thought in it. Aren't games supposed to involve that a bit? I mean, that's becoming more of a problem with new gamers; like my 12 year old brother likes his games to be mindless smash-fests, but don't we want more than that from our games? Don't we want an experience we can enjoy? If you're going to watch a tv show while you play, why not just turn off the game and focus on enjoying the show? If you're playing so slowly that there's no danger, no fear of failure, then even if there was still some way to actually rank every single character in the game in comparison to the rest, why would you even care enough to bother?
3. "A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,^[1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.^[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position"
Honestly, learn and grasp what this means. I want to pull my hair out when I see how often people throw this term around and think that it strengthens their position somehow.

[Espinosa]

^ On the contrary, variation does exist in LTC context. No two LTC runs are the same assuming one player isn't directly copying the other action-to-action. Different characters will be used (e.g. my recent FE7 LTC uses both Rath and Eliwood, middling units in the efficiency tier list) to fit the player's goals, and indeed different strategies and choices for resource allocation. LTC is not a specific kind of run but an approach. The drafters are likely to go for LTC in spite of missing some of the key units for example, just with the ones available to them.

[Vorena]

-This is just here to discuss ranks versus efficiency and what efficiency means and all that stuff.

-Also to discuss validity and whether FE:A needs a different system from, say, FE:RD or FE:PoR etc for whatever reason.

-Oh, and the reliability of averages and stuff like that, too.

-What is the purpose of a tier list?

-What is efficiency?

Simply going to jump in from the start.

Tier List to me merely exists for the entertainment value of attempting to sort the best from the worst. There seems to be some sort of driving force in people (at least as far as I can tell). Go into pretty much any sort of competitive environment be it a sport, an art competition, etc. and you will find people who deliberate or the best from the worst. This leads into efficiency.

For Fire Emblem, the tier lists seem to typically be about trying to drive the most efficient manner possible. The term itself is very vague, so you have to have a starting ground. Typically, the most limiting ground is the general idea of a low tier count. From there, other self-imposed restrictions get added. To be honest, each game is different and so different things have to be considered for criteria of efficiency.

So to me, a tier list is nothing more than a nice little debate hall. You set-up a framework such as choosing to scale based on efficiency then you describe some characteristics of what efficiency should be counted as. From there, you just discuss within those boundaries. Sometimes it gets hard to differentiate certain things as boundaries are not well defined always, but oh well. Its just entertainment in the end.

[Hawkeye]

^ On the contrary, variation does exist in LTC context. No two LTC runs are the same assuming one player isn't directly copying the other action-to-action. Different characters will be used (e.g. my recent FE7 LTC uses both Rath and Eliwood, middling units in the efficiency tier list) to fit the player's goals, and indeed different strategies and choices for resource allocation. LTC is not a specific kind of run but an approach. The drafters are likely to go for LTC in spite of missing some of the key units for example, just with the ones available to them.

Okay yea I exaggerated a bit there, but it's still a much tighter restriction than what we are working with in tier lists. If we're going for the absolute lowest amount of turns, some units are absolutely required and some are absolutely impossible to use. And drafting doesn't really work so well with tier lists, which is why there is also a draft tier list for several of the games.

[PKL]

Why is it that everyone here is treating LTC as a type of run that cant deviate at all? To me, there's two types of LTC:

MLTC= the type of run you are all describing, in which the goal is absolute minimum turncount possible in the game. A lot of the time, a specific team must be deployed to get the absolute minimum and a lot of planning goes into it.

LTC= the other type of LTC run. In which the goal isnt absolute minimum but is still to aim at a low turncount at the end of the game, It has more improvisation, use of inferior units, etc.

[Snowy_One]

And what makes the bexp turn requirement inherently better than 2 turns faster? I'll tell you what's wrong with the bexp requirement sometimes. Too lenient. Do you honestly think it is justifiable to take 20 turns to complete 3-8 in RD?

No... But I also would penalize a character for not helping them clear the chapter in 3 turns or whatever the turn-clear is. Like I said, to me, turn-counts mean squat so long as you aren't going over and...

...

And holy crap I think it just clicked for me.

Okay. Let me see if I got this. What you're saying is that the power, strength, or even how much the turn-count is reduced by the character is. What you're saying is that the tier list functions under the concept that characters who are better have the side effect of being able to clear the game faster and, in order to measure how good those characters are, we're measuring how much faster they allow us to clear the game?

[Redwall]

Okay. Let me see if I got this. What you're saying is that the power, strength, or even how much the turn-count is reduced by the character is. What you're saying is that the tier list functions under the concept that characters who are better have the side effect of being able to clear the game faster and, in order to measure how good those characters are, we're measuring how much faster they allow us to clear the game?

That's kind of the gist of it, yes. Recall Narga_Rocks' rout-efficiency example: suppose I ask two equivalently skilled FE players to clear FE7, which for the purposes of this example consists entirely of rout maps. Both are given teams that are identical save for (say) one character slot: in that slot, player A has a unit named Alice, and player B has a unit named Beatrice. In both a brisk-play tier list and a LTC tier list, the relative rankings of Alice and Beatrice would be determined by which team winds up clearing the level more quickly; the team that does the given task (rout) with the lower amount of resources (turncounts) is recognized as the stronger team, and because the teams are identical save for one character, the stronger team's one unique character would be ranked above the weaker team's one unique character. That is where the similarities end (I know, I've flip-flopped on this).

If I were interested in comparing the rankings of Alice and Beatrice on a brisk-play tier list, I would ask the players to clear the levels as quickly as they can without planning for twenty-plus hours. Preventing them from planning for twenty-plus hours precludes exotic tactics like the one leading to the Mia v. Zihark debate.

If I were interested in comparing the rankings of Alice and Beatrice on a LTC tier list (like, say, Olwen's), I would ask the players to clear the levels as quickly as possible and allow them to plan for as long as they want. In such a tier list, Mia v. Zihark would be a serious issue if turn counts were saved.

In practice, character tiering is not always done rigorously in this manner; for example, differences in interaction effects are assumed to be small (which makes it difficult to tier characters like Dancers whose contributions will vary as a function of who their team members are), or players may be interested in testing multiple units at once (which makes it harder to tease out an individual unit's contribution). Nonetheless, playthroughs abiding by the tier-list playstyle qualitatively seem to agree with the predictions of the tier lists: high-ranking characters let you complete levels faster, while low-ranking characters slow you down. Turn counts provide a useful framework in which to rank characters, but they are not the end goal of the SF tier lists, as no one really cares whether a player spends extra turns beyond the minimum turncount provided that there was no deliberate turtling (which, for me, would include boss-farming, Dance abuse, etc.). Something like Olwen's tier list would be a much more useful resource than the SF tier lists for someone looking to attain the lowest turn counts.

[Snowy_One]

But then how do you distinguish from characters who are legit good/bad from characters who simply excel at cutting turns/suck at cutting turns but are not actually bad characters?

Basically, if a unit with horrible stats has the ability to smite for a prolonged period of time (and has exclusivity to it), is he a good character simply because his smiting shaves turns? Or a bad character because his only use is in smiting?

Edited April 24, 2013 by Snowy_One

[PKL]

He would be a decent character on the basis that he has a unique ability that shoves people 2 spaces forward.

[Baldrick]

If Snowy's conclusion in #63 is correct, why is Marcia on top of the tier list? She cuts a lot of turns, but it isn't due to her being better or more efficient. She requires a large resource dump that anyone else can make use of, and her only unique utility is she happens to be the first unit on your team to ignore terrain. If cutting turns is not the goal of the tier list, what makes her so special?

Why is it that everyone here is treating LTC as a type of run that cant deviate at all? To me, there's two types of LTC:

MLTC= the type of run you are all describing, in which the goal is absolute minimum turncount possible in the game. A lot of the time, a specific team must be deployed to get the absolute minimum and a lot of planning goes into it.

LTC= the other type of LTC run. In which the goal isnt absolute minimum but is still to aim at a low turncount at the end of the game, It has more improvisation, use of inferior units, etc.

As far as I'm aware, what you call LTC is (turn) efficiency, and what you call MLTC is LTC.

[dondon151]

But then how do you distinguish from characters who are legit good/bad from characters who simply excel at cutting turns/suck at cutting turns but are not actually bad characters?

duh, characters who cut turns are good characters and characters who can't cut turns are bad characters

although it is not always that clear cut, but this was a dumb question

[Snowy_One]

But he's only 'good' because of that utility and the fact that we're using turns as a method to count.

Like, say, if we wanted to figure out how heavy a set of objects was by putting them in water. If all the objects are made of the same material it can work, but if you have a set of wood object then one iron object the measurement would be off. Likewise, an object in that set made of styrofoam would probably displace less water despite potentially having the same weight as the wood objects.

[PKL]

Not really Baldrick. Efficiency is a whole other thing.

Theres the type of LTC run that aims for the lowest possible TC in the game like I said. I call this Minimum Low Turncount Run.

Then theres the type of LTC that aims for a really low turncount but is more lenient. It doesnt neccesarily have to be the minimum, but close to it is good and has a lot more room for weird unit usage and stuff like that. This type of run still skips items and stuff if it means saving turns.

Then theres efficiency, which is basically a type of run (as I see it) that will get items even if it costs turns and other stuff like that, but will also not stay around in a particular chapter for longer than neccesary and will still aim for a lowish turncount.

[Hawkeye]

But he's only 'good' because of that utility and the fact that we're using turns as a method to count.

Like, say, if we wanted to figure out how heavy a set of objects was by putting them in water. If all the objects are made of the same material it can work, but if you have a set of wood object then one iron object the measurement would be off. Likewise, an object in that set made of styrofoam would probably displace less water despite potentially having the same weight as the wood objects.

Dancers are good because of this unique utility. Obviously this fictional character isn't going to be top tier, but they have uses outside of combat that only they can contribute, and those contributions should be recognized.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Hawkeye

[Redwall]

But then how do you distinguish from characters who are legit good/bad from characters who simply excel at cutting turns/suck at cutting turns but are not actually bad characters?

Go back to the rout-efficiency example. How are we shaving turns in the first place? In rout maps, we do so by fielding good combat units, and possibly using shoves, smites, and fliers to get said combat units in good locations. The three factors in your own tier list were combat, utility, and turn-shaving, right? The SF tier list accounts for the same factors as yours does; the most apparent difference is that the SF tier list expresses combat and utility in turn-count form. In a list with characters who perform different functions, there must be a way to "convert" between different types of contributions; turn counts provide this function. I recall your list separating combat and utility and assigning them equal weight, but there is no a priori reason to do so. Phrasing combat and utility in terms of turn counts avoids this problem.

Basically, if a unit with horrible stats has the ability to smite for a prolonged period of time (and has exclusivity to it), is he a good character simply because his smiting shaves turns? Or a bad character because his only use is in smiting?

A better question would be good or bad relative to whom? Again, answering this question is easiest in the framework of a rout map since the link between combat prowess and clear speed is more obvious.

Suppose two equivalently skilled players were given mostly identical teams, with one receiving the smiter and the other instead receiving a combat unit. I ask them to clear the map briskly, without twenty hours of planning. If the smite-capable team clears the map more quickly, then the smiter is taken as the better unit; if the smite-incapable team clears the map more quickly, then the aforementioned combat unit would be the better unit. If the team with the smite guy wins out, then we would recognize that his smiting aided your combat units who in turn routed the map more quickly; if the team with the extra combat unit wins out, then we would say that the smiter didn't provide enough indirect combat advantages to compete with the extra combat unit. Again, the rationale for declaring the faster-clearing team to be the "better" one is that the faster-clearing team used fewer resources (turns) to achieve the same goal.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Redwall

[dondon151]

snowy's analogy is really just a non-sequitur that cites science in an erroneous manner

first, i am assuming that you meant that you are trying to find the volume of the objects, not the mass. you cannot directly measure the mass; you have to calculate it using a known value of density after measuring the volume.

second, you can absolutely determine the volume of two objects with different densities using the method of water displacement, as long as both objects are more dense than water.

third, i don't even know what you are trying to say. is it that we're not allowed to have more than a one-to-one ratio of input variables to output variables? clearly this is not true, because literally almost any mathematical concept violates this supposition. are you concerned that the variables seemingly unrelated to a unit's performance aren't being held constant? why should they be held constant?

[Snowy_One]

It's not just dancers though. Like, assume there was a pegasus knight who joined as the first flier. She has horrible bases, terrible growths, and every enemy is an axe or bow-wielder until the late game. However, as she's the only flier for a while and capable of rescue-dropping over, say, a 1-tile wide river that would otherwise require the player to rush all the way to the top and around the map, is she suddenly a 'good' character? She's shaving off a lot of turns, sure, but she's a poor character on the whole and her value comes only from the fact that turncounts are being used as the measuring stick.

[Kitoari]

But he's only 'good' because of that utility and the fact that we're using turns as a method to count.

"He's only good because he matches our definition of good."

Well, duh. Any criteria is going to be subjective, especially for a GAME when there is no real goal other than what the player decides. You're free to evaluate units however you like, and so is everyone else, but barging into a place where it's agreed "we're judging this unit by their contributions to X, Y, and Z" and saying "NO THAT'S DUMB" isn't going to go anywhere because your criteria is going to be just as subjective as anyone else's.

Not going into the physics per Dondon (ie, it's completely inaccurate to what you'd be doing with water displacement.)

It's not just dancers though. Like, assume there was a pegasus knight who joined as the first flier. She has horrible bases, terrible growths, and every enemy is an axe or bow-wielder until the late game. However, as she's the only flier for a while and capable of rescue-dropping over, say, a 1-tile wide river that would otherwise require the player to rush all the way to the top and around the map, is she suddenly a 'good' character? She's shaving off a lot of turns, sure, but she's a poor character on the whole and her value comes only from the fact that turncounts are being used as the measuring stick.

"She's only good because he matches our definition of good." Again, this is just a tautology. You are free to judge units by any standard you like, or even multiple ones. I'll use Lissa as an example:

1) Personality? I think her supports, esp. with MaMu, are really cute. I even S-ranked her on most of my awakening files.

2) Take-it-easy playthrough? The extra staff EXP made staff abusing every bit of damage level her up very fast. Good unit!

3) Efficient playthrough? Staff-abuse isn't really efficient at all, and her bases aren't that great, esp. when Anna and Libra exist. Bad unit.

All of these standards are equally valid since there's no objective definition of a good unit. But it would be wrong of me to go into a best supports thread and complain about her low bases, or go into a tier list and say that you can staff abuse to level her up.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Kitoari