Tiering Philosophy - It's that time again

[Redwall]

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.

Assuming such tactics are representative of the tier-list playstyle for the Tellius games (no clue since I've never played them), in this example, she would be a better team player than, say, a super-strong combat unit who does nothing to help you clear the level faster. She is not "better" in that she is a good standalone combat unit (she's definitely a lot worse if combat is the lone factor in tiering); she is better in that she makes your other team members better, e.g. Titania can now be put in better spots for enemy-phase combat, or something.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Redwall

[Chiki]

Planning time has nothing to do with tier lists, and little to no strategies take 20 hours of planning. I'm taking five classes in my second year, two of which are graduate, meaning I have around 4 to 5 hours of free time a day. I finished and recorded 3-5 to 4-E-5 in around 2 weeks. If I were not recording and was not RNG abusing, I could probably get around 170 turns in just a few days, which is what my hypothetical FE10 tier list would aim for (I suspect that would be around 20 hours of play in total for the whole game).

In the winter break I finished and recorded up to 3-5 in a week or so.

What is important is skill. Perfect play is assumed, at least in my tier list.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Olwen

[Kitoari]

Planning time has nothing to do with tier lists, and little to no strategies take 20 hours of planning.

Hyperbole, n. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally.

[Redwall]

Planning time has nothing to do with tier lists, and little to no strategies take 20 hours of planning. I'm taking five classes in my second year, two of which are graduate, meaning I have around 4 to 5 hours of free time a day. I finished and recorded 3-5 to 4-E-5 in around 2 weeks. If I were not recording and was not RNG abusing, I could probably get around 170 turns in just a few days, which is what my hypothetical FE10 tier list would aim for (I suspect that would be around 20 hours of play in total for the whole game).

In the winter break I finished and recorded up to 3-5 in a week or so.

What is important is skill. Perfect play is assumed, at least in my tier list.

I was obviously speaking in hyperbole.

Your tier list is very different from the SF tier lists, which aim to promote a playstyle that preserves some of the thinking involved in LTC while permitting much of the flexibility involved in leisurely play.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Redwall

[Chiki]

I was obviously speaking in hyperbole.

Your tier list is very different from the SF tier lists, which aim to promote a playstyle that preserves some of the thinking involved in LTC while permitting much of the flexibility involved in leisurely play.

People don't understand how flexible LTC really is because they aren't experienced with it. All LTCs in any game allow you to use and train most characters as you please.

One can get the same turns I did in FE9 by using any of Soren, Astrid, Makalov, Boyd, Tormod, Geoffrey, Zihark (25), Elincia, Nephenee, Haar, Bastian, Largo, Lucia, and so on.

And the argument that "bexp exists" in FE9 doesn't work. Most of these characters don't even need bexp to function.

But my tier list is not based on a 114 turn playthrough, because it considers all characters in the game. Jill, who costs around 4 turns, cannot be shoved and cannot double, is still the top of top tier. Stefan, who costs a couple turns, is still in mid tier.

Even without goddess Marcia, sub-130 should be possible.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Olwen

[Redwall]

Right, except I never implied that LTC had absolutely no flexibility in character choice. My implication was that the LTC-directive limits your tactics; under your tier-list playstyle, I would have to play perfectly, whereas under the SF tier-list playstyle I would only need to play "pretty quickly" without committing any serious blunders.

[Narga_Rocks]

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.

The funny thing is that you basically described Thany in fe6 and she's high tier for precisely those reasons. Check out chapters like 8x at fireemblemwod. Thany cuts your turncount in half, pretty much. Not every chapter, but more than just 8x.

It puts her on the low-end of high tier.

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=18979

Not that this tier list is particularly up to date. If the game was more popular maybe there would be changes in the last year or more, but that's not relevant. What's important here is that a unit with no real way to improve her combat is under the units she carries over to speed up the chapter, but above units that provide neither exceptional combat nor unique utility. Which is probably the way it should be.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Narga_Rocks

[Chiki]

The funny thing is that you basically described Thany in fe6 and she's high tier for precisely those reasons. Check out chapters like 8x at fireemblemwod. Thany cuts your turncount in half, pretty much. Not every chapter, but more than just 8x.

It puts her on the low-end of high tier.

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=18979

Not that this tier list is particularly up to date. If the game was more popular maybe there would be changes in the last year or more, but that's not relevant. What's important here is that a unit with no real way to improve her combat is under the units she carries over to speed up the chapter, but above units that provide neither exceptional combat nor unique utility. Which is probably the way it should be.

If that's true that just makes me facepalm.

Looks like I need to investigate FE6...

[Narga_Rocks]

If that's true that just makes me facepalm.

Looks like I need to investigate FE6...

You didn't really describe what your problem here is. Should she be lower because all she does is ferry and has no combat? Should she be higher because she pseudo-saves a bunch of turns more than units not named Marcus or Rutger can claim? Something else making you facepalm?

[Chiki]

There's no such thing as pseudo saving. So if she really is that great, she should definitely be top of top tier.

[Snowy_One]

I'd say she should be lower. I can accept that turncounts are being used to measure how good a unit is, but there are other ways to get lower turncounts than being an actually good unit. Like diagnosing an illness. If you assume that a series of symptoms can have only one cause or simply assume the most likely is the cause, you'll end up with a ton of misdiagnosis. Maybe assuming turncount = good works for a game where one aspect of one unit can drastically alter turncounts situations doesn't exist, but that's not true for every game or unit. You pointed out Thani fitting that description, but what about other units? Is Marcia high-tiered because she's a good unit all-around, or because she can rescue-drop at some point that can shave a lot of turns off despite being a meh-ish unit all-around? Is Mordi better than Lethe because he's a good enough unit to actually reduce turncounts? Or because he can provide one critical shove/smite on one chapter when, if shoving/smiting is ignored, Lethe wins by miles but is just only 'slightly above average' on the whole (and thusly has her contributions largely overshadowed)? Same 'symptom' (a reduced turncount), totally different 'diagnosis' (being an actually good unit vs. having a utility that allows for a turncount reduction that is independent of unit quality).

[Espinosa]

There aren't a whole lot of chapters where Lethe's combat is "miles better" than much else. Her bases let her ORKO stuff like Soldiers when she joins, but the only reason why her combat is better than Mordecai's is because Mordecai doesn't transform until we're probably done or almost done with the map. I suppose you could feed her bosskills to slightly improve upon her bases but as a unit who can't receive forges or counter at 1~2 range, she'd be the wrong recipient of said resources.

Thany shares flying utility with three other units who have superior combat (though still insufficient in the case of Tate, unless promoted ASAP, and both Miledy and Zeiss want a Speedwings). Before you can get another flier, let's have a look at Thany's contributions in the chapters preceding Tate's jointime:

2 can carry units over the hill, avoiding terrain penalties that crossing a fort would force otherwise. Might not save any turns at all considering Marcus can just ride his way to the boss. Not sure exactly as when I LTC'd the map last time I wasn't as scrupulous as I've become since then.

3 no utility aside from being another mounted unit, one that doesn't fight as well as Lance/Alan at that.

4 not much utility here, really. Can drop somebody south for self-improvement, probably best following the main party to chip at enemies.

5 can drop a sturdy unit like Dieck to hold the chokepoint, allowing a pretty reliable 4-turn clear.

6 no benefits aside from being mounted (still worth being deployed for that in my book).

7 she's okay I guess - can rescuedrop units as terrain is plentiful and can assist in getting the villages. In a TAS run probably essential to clearing the map in less turns, but the enemies are insane in comparison to your party on that map, especially to Thany.

8 mounted unit indoors.

8x big contribution here - can rescuedrop Rutger and Roy to the northern part.

9 promoted Thany can advance more easily than the rest of your party and has Iron Swords for WTA against many of the enemies. However, promoting Thany implies taking 2 extra turns in chapter 8 to obtain the Whip.

10 (either route) more or less the same as above. If she's been levelling strength and speed every level-up (and levelling her up is hard), she might have okay combat allowing you to RNG-abuse her enemy phase into not dying and killing something.

11 (Echidna) Tate arrives in this map and she's pretty important for recruiting her in an efficient manner, as well as helping with other tasks like getting the villages.

Overall, 8x is the only map where in a reliable, efficient run of FE6 HM (very vague terms as reliability is so relative in this game) Thany surely saves turns. The rest imply a RNG-abused/blessed Thany with carefully massaged level-ups.

After Tate arrives (and Miledy shortly), Thany is still pretty useful in the desert and has some situational use in other maps due to flight, especially if she can take a couple of hits. However, Miledy's flight is generally more turn-saving in the chapters where she does exist, her base stats are hard to go wrong with, she can insta-promote, so I personally wouldn't leave Thany anywhere close to Top tier for said reasons. She can't skip the game outside of one chapter.

RNG-abusing both Thany and Roy (and each and every one of their enemy phases) is probably the way to achieve the minimum turn count in the game, but I haven't seen it done yet (beamcrash plays NM and hacks the RN). Even then, I think Thany will not ORKO bosses on HM even if she caps everything. Reaching sword rank for Armorslayer and rigging unlikely crits (on attacks that are already very inaccurate) helps with that, I guess.

[dondon151]

There's no such thing as pseudo saving. So if she really is that great, she should definitely be top of top tier.

what he means is that she can't save turns unless some other unit bears the combat load

[Chiki]

I know, but the way in which a unit saves turns makes no difference.

[Redwall]

I'd say she should be lower. I can accept that turncounts are being used to measure how good a unit is, but there are other ways to get lower turncounts than being an actually good unit. Like diagnosing an illness. If you assume that a series of symptoms can have only one cause or simply assume the most likely is the cause, you'll end up with a ton of misdiagnosis.

Your idea of a good unit is probably different from my idea of a good unit, which is probably different from Olwen's idea of a good unit. Tier lists shouldn't aim to confirm our intuition when it comes to which units are good; if anything, they should challenge our intuition. Framing things in terms of an independently measurable quantity--turn counts--allows us to handle things in a somewhat more objective fashion.

Maybe assuming turncount = good works for a game where one aspect of one unit can drastically alter turncounts situations doesn't exist, but that's not true for every game or unit.

Probably every FE tier list ever developed assumes the player plans on beating the game. If we adopt turn counts as the framework and adopt a definition of "good" that reads something like "shaves turns without needing very meticulous tactics", we will have something like the SF tier list.

Is there an objectively better definition of good? Maybe. As they say, all models are wrong, but some are useful. Olwen's tier list criterion (minimizing expected complexity-weighted turncounts) does a better job than the SF tier list does at self-consistently explaining, for example, Edward's low placement (the SF tier list's explanation seems ad hoc to me).

Edited April 25, 2013 by Redwall

[Espinosa]

"Highly specialised tactics" ARE assumed, though. Saul pretty much needs others to get hurt to get to promotion on time (chapter 16 and 16x, former probably optional), and his position on the tier list reflects that ("Warp before Niime"). In FE8 you have to bust your ass so that Saleh gets to A staves for Warp; otherwise, your clerics' staff range just won't cut it. Characters like Wendy, Wil and Ross are as low as they are not because they're "highly special" but rather because they demand much and don't give you much in return.

We did have some "average player's tier list" attempts and they weren't very successful, but I think the whole idea behind one is strange.

[Hawkeye]

Snowy, I think what you would like to consider when determining how good a unit may be is how that unit performs in a vacuum, i.e. soloing the game. In this setting we would see our fliers generally drop down quite a bit, as most of them are not strong enough to reliably solo the game (we'll assume no BEXP dump). Then units like Gatrie would go up more, as they can clear maps reliably. Units like our FE9 paladins would be at the top, because they are all strong once they get going and they can clear more quickly than our foot units.

So, the problem with that is that Fire Emblem is a team game, units work together to accomplish the goals. Let's look at an example of a basketball game. Let's say I play center, I have solid defense and I'm consistently our top scorer. Meanwhile, we have our point guard. Great ball handling and passing, but couldn't score to save his life. For this example, we'll say the other 3 players are objectively worse in every way so we won't discuss them. Now obviously if we have to pick one player to take on the other team by himself, it's going to be me. Our point guard can't score, so there's no way he can beat the other team. If we're imagining this scenario, I'm clearly the better player. Obviously, we don't play basketball like that, we have our full teams. Even though our point guard isn't scoring, he is making things easier for everyone else, improving their ability to perform and generally making the team stronger through his contributions, even if he is not scoring directly.

I won't explicitly draw the lines from that to Fire Emblem, but I hope it's clear enough. Even if a unit cannot stand on its own, it is not necessarily a bad unit.

[Redwall]

I don't know if I would call those things highly specialized; they seem like appropriate and natural things to do for the sorts of players at whom the tier lists are aimed. By "highly specialized tactics" I meant things like Olwen's shoves and BEXP pouring that led to the Mia v. Zihark thing; Olwen seems like someone who not only plans things more carefully than most people, but who is also a bit more clever (I, for example, didn't take any graduate classes until my third year).

[Snowy_One]

There aren't a whole lot of chapters where Lethe's combat is "miles better" than much else. Her bases let her ORKO stuff like Soldiers when she joins, but the only reason why her combat is better than Mordecai's is because Mordecai doesn't transform until we're probably done or almost done with the map. I suppose you could feed her bosskills to slightly improve upon her bases but as a unit who can't receive forges or counter at 1~2 range, she'd be the wrong recipient of said resources.

That's sort of beside the point. Namely, the point is that a unit who is legit good, just not good enough to make a huge impact on turncounts, is getting ranked below a unit who may be distinctly worse (as you pointed out, he may not even transform) simply because the worse unit can apply something to reduce turncounts that the better unit cannot. This doesn't seem to be in tune at all with the goal of a tier list unless it's to focus on LTC, not on ranking how good the units are simply using turns as a measuring stick.

Your idea of a good unit is probably different from my idea of a good unit, which is probably different from Olwen's idea of a good unit. Tier lists shouldn't aim to confirm our intuition when it comes to which units are good; if anything, they should challenge our intuition. Framing things in terms of an independently measurable quantity--turn counts--allows us to handle things in a somewhat more objective fashion.

That doesn't mean we should go 'oh! This unit is absolute crap, but can save us turns, so high tier for them! That unit? Eh, very good but it has foot soldier movement and doesn't save turns. MID TIER!' Some effort should be made to distinguish quality fighters from characters with support utility alone at the least (characters who are good on their own vs. characters whose main use is in helping other characters cut turns).

I won't explicitly draw the lines from that to Fire Emblem, but I hope it's clear enough. Even if a unit cannot stand on its own, it is not necessarily a bad unit.

I didn't say they were. After all, I adore healers and mages but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that they'd suck on their own. However, I don't feel that units should get blasted up entire tiers simply because of smites and rescue-drops either. Can you imagine if the tier lists were modified so that shoves and rescue-drops only allowed movement within their own tier as opposed to rising up and down? The FE9/10 tiers alone would need a practical reboot.

I don't know if I would call those things highly specialized; they seem like appropriate and natural things to do for the sorts of players at whom the tier lists are aimed. By "highly specialized tactics" I meant things like Olwen's shoves and BEXP pouring that led to the Mia v. Zihark thing; Olwen seems like someone who not only plans things more carefully than most people, but who is also a bit more clever (I, for example, didn't take any graduate classes until my third year).

While college allows for improved opportunities, it in now way guarantees knowledge. Or any education for that matter.

[KitheOfEvrark]

Snowy_One, I'm curious as to what your definition of a good unit is. From glancing over this thread, I get the feeling some of the discussion is just talking past each other. Maybe defining what a "good unit" is to you would help. Is it just stats? In short what I'm asking is...

That doesn't mean we should go 'oh! This unit is absolute crap, but can save us turns, so high tier for them! That unit? Eh, very good but it has foot soldier movement and doesn't save turns. MID TIER!' Some effort should be made to distinguish quality fighters from characters with support utility alone at the least (characters who are good on their own vs. characters whose main use is in helping other characters cut turns).

What makes the first unit "absolute crap" and the second "very good"?

[Snowy_One]

Snowy_One, I'm curious as to what your definition of a good unit is. From glancing over this thread, I get the feeling some of the discussion is just talking past each other. Maybe defining what a "good unit" is to you would help. Is it just stats? In short what I'm asking is...

A good unit is one whose solid stats and/or utility allow the player to progress through the game with as little trouble as possible provided by the enemies. While the player is not incapable of basic thought (he won't leave mages exposed and will at least attempt to keep supporters together given the chance for example), his strategies are not stone-set and good units should be capable of functioning well both when the player is using specific strategies and when he is employing the most basic plans.

What makes the first unit "absolute crap" and the second "very good"?

In this example, the first unit is likely offering little to nothing in the way of combat and support (beyond his smiting) while the latter likely has great stats (above average compared to the rest of the team) and possibly even a good skill, but is being held back by his 'average' movement.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Snowy_One

[dondon151]

I know, but the way in which a unit saves turns makes no difference.

well, no, see, it does make a difference

if thany were marcia, then she would be sharing her role with no one. but she's not marcia, so benefit is distributed.

and you obviously can't count benefit twice. part of this is reflected in her saving fewer turns (relative to a hypothetical super-thany).

In this example, the first unit is likely offering little to nothing in the way of combat and support (beyond his smiting) while the latter likely has great stats (above average compared to the rest of the team) and possibly even a good skill, but is being held back by his 'average' movement.

how is this any different from a unit with otherwise great stats but "held back" by "average" speed or strength or HP or weapon ranks

and such unit would qualify as relatively worse under your classification

think before you say these kinds of things

Edited April 25, 2013 by dondon151

[Snowy_One]

how is this any different from a unit with otherwise great stats but "held back" by "average" speed or strength or HP or weapon ranks

and such unit would qualify as relatively worse under your classification

think before you say these kinds of things

Well, it depends. A unit with HP too low needs to fight at range or be careful lest they die. A unit with SPD too low runs the risk of not doubling and either needing a brave weapon or being capable of only doubling slower enemies. Course, these have direct benefits and penalties on combat which results in a HUGE problem as opposed to 'he can't move as fast so he has less/no chances to cut a turncount, so he's lower'.

It's a huge problem with ANY 'measure by proxy' system. While you may be able to get accurate readings, there may also be other things unrelated to the thing you're trying to measure affecting the outcome.

[Chiki]

Okay, let's make this clearer.

Thany saves 50 turns by carrying units.

Marcia saves 50 turns by both carrying and killing.

To make this example simpler, let's say both of them can never die.

Why is Marcia's turn saving preferable over Thany's? If Thany had not existed, 50 turns would have been lost. If Marcia had not existed, 50 turns would have been lost. The only difference is that Marcia does not rely on other units all the time, whereas Thany does. But why should we not give Thany an equal amount of points? What we should instead be doing is giving the units Thany carries more points.

Combat for its own sake has nothing to do with tier lists.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Olwen

[dondon151]

and you obviously can't count benefit twice. part of this is reflected in her saving fewer turns (relative to a hypothetical super-thany).

hello i said this already