False ideas on what's good in FE that we used to have

[General Banzai]

Here's a question: does the fact that Haar is around for a long time with little resource needs albeit during a relatively easy part of the game make him more or less valuable than Jill, who is around for a relatively short time with higher resource needs during what may be the most difficult part of the game?

If we're doing the draft mode qualification of simply "turns saved," I feel like Haar wins this hands down (may be wrong on that, but that's my intuition on the subject). But if we're looking at who is helping someone have an easier time at beating the game fast, then it becomes more of a question.

This is why FERD tiering is balls btw

[shadykid]

This is why FERD tiering is balls btw

you mean it's why RD is awesome

[XeKr]

hey man

i like expected turncount but i can't be bothered to do the calculations most of the time

Very few can be bothered.

Except Redwall.

Sorry. <_<

Though actually it’s just a quick single line command in Excel/Matlab/R. I imagine it’s fairly trivial to program a comprehensive database too (for stats at least), but who has time for that. >_>

The hard part imo is most hardcore/LTC players rig growths/crits and such or are otherwise OCD about turns, so there remain gaps in our understanding of fast and reliable strats.

Jill isnt the best in FE10 though. So id call thinking so to be the "false idea." Shes probably the best on the DB team, but surely not the best in the game. Jill needs a little love, Paragon and maybe a forge and she can wreck shit in part 3. (this is without transfers btw.) Haar needs like, nothing at all to make him amazing. Hes amazing the moment you get him. If you want the biggest wrecking ball ever, just give him a Speedwing and/or Nullify and not even mages can scratch him. Without that, Haar still dominates. Jilll shaves off a lot of turns in Team Micaiah. I dont think anyone will deny that. But best in the game? Dont be silly.

Uhh, you’re proving my exact point about old ideas we used to (and clearly some still) hold? >_>. Why does it matter that Jill requires more “effort” if she gives a better payoff? The argument is that Jill uniquely saves (way) more turns overall whereas Haar can be mostly (but obviously not completely) replicated by Titania and others.

Anyways, Celes is the champion of Jill being the best. I said earlier I wasn’t convinced of the reliability.

Edited September 7, 2013 by XeKr

[Loki Laufeyson]

Anyways, Celes is the champion of Jill being the best. I said earlier I wasn’t convinced of the reliability.

Perhaps its the personal bias talking, but i always took what that guy said with a grain of salt.

If we get to the bare bones, i guess Haar and Jill are about equally as valuable.

[Baldrick]

Haar really needs a Wing to be amazing, at least in hard mode. Without one he won't be doubling at all, won't be getting the kills he needs, and won't be getting the levels he needs to keep up. In normal he either needs a Wing or enough levels/luck to make sure his Spd doesn't fall behind, because 30% is really unreliable with how borderline he can be. Nullify is something to help him with the mages, but it's also at the cost of something like Celerity that he'd rather have.

Even if you don't give him the wing and he isn't doubling (and why wouldn't you?), he's an overlevelled, flying, 9-move, and second to none as a tank with Nullify. And I'd imagine HM would hit Jill harder; she also has to reach inflated thresholds, and suffers from the reduced BEXP gains to boot.

Unless you're going for strict LTC, if Haar can use Celerity better than Reyson/Ike/Gatrie/anyone else, then I'd suppose he wouldn't need Nullify in the first place.

If you follow laws of Optimal Resource Distribution, Jill being the best character in the game might be a stretch but not too much of one. She definitely has opportunity to be more helpful overall than Haar, she just needs more attention to get there.

Jill, a pseudo-Est? You might just bring me round on Jill > Haar yet.

Jill isnt the best in FE10 though. So id call thinking so to be the "false idea."

It's only a "false idea" in the sense that the criteria in which it is true (strict LTC, screw reliability) is no longer popular. Whether it's no longer popular for a good reason or not is a whole other argument.

[Espinosa]

The hard part imo is most hardcore/LTC players rig growths/crits and such or are otherwise OCD about turns, so there remain gaps in our understanding of fast and reliable strats.

If you play less reliably but can tell when and how (and I think an LTCer does in most cases because we've talked about reliability enough for the notion to be part of the collective thinking), I don't see how it's a problem. There's about one notorious LTCer who has big issues with making his experience comprehensible and coherent to others, and there are some problems with adapting that particular experience to expectations of the tier list. The main issue is that when somebody questions the reliablity of LTC runs, rarely will they offer an examplary playthrough that offers an efficiency take under most reliable strategies.

It's only a "false idea" in the sense that the criteria in which it is true (strict LTC, screw reliability) is no longer popular. Whether it's no longer popular for a good reason or not is a whole other argument.

I don't understand why you feel that we moved from 'unreliable LTCing' when we couldn't LTC very well some time back (though I remember dondon insisting that the tier list should rigidly assume that not a single turn is lost). I guess you could say the reliability was too low much the like turn counts were not low enough, so that would mean we've improved our LTCing. But yeah, as dead as the tier lists are now, you still have people like SO telling us how much supports matter and quite a lot of people thinking that the tier list should assume max recruitment, acquisition of all items and routing of every map.

[Chiki]

Some things that didn't get mentioned here:

Assuming no transfers.

1. Jill can double every tiger in 3-6 with a Speedwing at level 1 promoted. You don't need to double cats.

2. Jill can get 2 seraph robes for durability (1-4 has a very unreliable 4 turn clear, requiring many rigs, so 5 turns is optimal for that)

3. Jill can get 44 HP and 19 def by level 1 promoted, with 2 robes and 1 dracoshield. She gets 3HKOed by tigers at the very beginning of 3-6--but she can level up and get Physic healed by Micaiah to make up for that. Durability is not a big issue.

4. Jill needs Beastfoe for 3-6, not Paragon. She ORKOes everything.

5. Jill gets Boots instead of Haar, always, in order to reliably 2 turn 3-12 in an LTC play through. Jill automatically has 2 move over Haar in part 4, which is very very important.

6. Haar's abilities can be replicated by Titania with the exception of 3-3 and 3-4. Xekr pointed this out already.

The only good argument against Jill being the best is Xekr's argument, which I would grant if it were true. But it seems that Jill can ORKO everything and take a bunch of hits no matter what.

Edited September 7, 2013 by Celes

[Espinosa]

These aren't really arguments of Jill being the game's best unit though, but just guidelines for using Jill in a specific way in a maximum efficiency run with decent enough reliability.

Jill taking a crapload of resources (both stat boosters and combat and bonus exp) is still something that impedes her rather than benefits her worth. There can be no mistake in stating that out of two very similar units (which Jill and Haar become especially in part 4) the one requiring the least resources has a clear advantage. Even assuming we give her said resources without hesitation, she still suffers from it.

The 'uniqueness' argument has been discussed and criticised to death too. Seth is FE8's best unit by far, but cannot fly, whereas Vanessa does but doesn't ever get the combat parameters to replicate Seth's role in a reliable efficiency run. We add an exact clone of Seth named Sath to the game, and Seth and Sath are completely identical to each other, maintaining a shared spot above Vanessa as well as the rest of the cast.

5. Jill gets Boots instead of Haar, always, in order to reliably 2 turn 3-12 in an LTC play through. Jill automatically has 2 move over Haar in part 4, which is very very important.

According to you, one of Soren/Ilyana/Mia/Boyd in FE: PoR also always takes a humongous portion of BEXP to promote very early in the game. Even dondon has come to understand that a comprehensive tier list cannot demand such rigid strategies to be in effect at all times, and we've agreed that we leave the possibility that not all the cast may be available to the player for the performance of specific strats (what with drafters benefiting from the existence of a tier list, being about the only people who still care about discussing the old games).

[Sasori]

When I was a little kid I thought that Generals where a completely broken class with their high defence and cool sprite.

For some reason I kept thinking that even when Wallace should have given enough evidence that it wasn't true. I still brought Wallace to endgame and thought he was just as good as in Lyn's mode.

But then again most of my units died in my first playtrough and I relied almost completely on Marcus, Oswin, Pent and Erk.

[Redwall]

Very few can be bothered.

Except Redwall.

Sorry. <_<

:<

These aren't really arguments of Jill being the game's best unit though, but just guidelines for using Jill in a specific way in a maximum efficiency run with decent enough reliability.

Jill taking a crapload of resources (both stat boosters and combat and bonus exp) is still something that impedes her rather than benefits her worth. There can be no mistake in stating that out of two very similar units (which Jill and Haar become especially in part 4) the one requiring the least resources has a clear advantage. Even assuming we give her said resources without hesitation, she still suffers from it. [...]

According to you, one of Soren/Ilyana/Mia/Boyd in FE: PoR also always takes a humongous portion of BEXP to promote very early in the game. Even dondon has come to understand that a comprehensive tier list cannot demand such rigid strategies to be in effect at all times, and we've agreed that we leave the possibility that not all the cast may be available to the player for the performance of specific strats (what with drafters benefiting from the existence of a tier list, being about the only people who still care about discussing the old games).

There's an opportunity cost, yes, but if it remains the best thing to do in a variety of contexts (for example, one may eschew Titania), then obviously you're going to give her those boosters/BEXP. Since the tier lists assume perfect play, there's no issue, save for the need to make some semantic definition of "best unit," which for the purposes of LTC-like tier lists I would personally take to mean "cuts the most turns in the ensemble of all possible contexts (females-only run, horses-only run, etc.) assuming perfect play."

The 'uniqueness' argument has been discussed and criticised to death too. Seth is FE8's best unit by far, but cannot fly, whereas Vanessa does but doesn't ever get the combat parameters to replicate Seth's role in a reliable efficiency run. We add an exact clone of Seth named Sath to the game, and Seth and Sath are completely identical to each other, maintaining a shared spot above Vanessa as well as the rest of the cast.

I don't see how this is relevant to any of the recent points brought up.

Edited September 7, 2013 by Redwall

[Espinosa]

There's an opportunity cost, yes, but if it remains the best thing to do in a variety of contexts (for example, one may eschew Titania), then obviously you're going to give her those boosters/BEXP.

I said that...

Since the tier lists assume perfect play, there's no issue, save for the need to make some semantic definition of "best unit," which for the purposes of LTC-like tier lists I would personally take to mean "cuts the most turns in the ensemble of all possible contexts (females-only run, horses-only run, etc.) assuming perfect play."

With the discussion on Eddy in 1-P, we can almost certainly conclude that it is not "turns saved" that the tier list reflects. You might also remember from the recent FE9 debates that there is absolutely no way to measure "turns saved" - in the stupid Mia shove situation, your entire team (possibly excluding Mia if Boyd/Soren/Ilyana was promoted instead and Mia went to fetch the villages instead) participates in the shaving off of one wretched turn, Titania doing by far the most work all things considered. You seem to be the second person using "turns saved" so unconditionally.

Jill's probably not competing with Titania for any resouces (iirc the only stuff Ilyana passes is a Hammer, skill scrolls and stuff to sell for GMs' limited funds - remind me if I'm forgetting something though) and the synergy/mutual dependence of these two is very limited at best, so I don't get the point you were trying to express.

"The semantic definiton of best unit" is the one thing we're dealing with, not anything else, regardless of how you feel about the subject.

The context thing is more complicated, but is more or less common sense among the users here.

I don't see how this is relevant to any of the recent points brought up.

Considering re-reading everything more attentively then.

[Redwall]

With the discussion on Eddy in 1-P, we can almost certainly conclude that it is not "turns saved" that the tier list reflects. You might also remember from the recent FE9 debates that there is absolutely no way to measure "turns saved" - in the stupid Mia shove situation, your entire team (possibly excluding Mia if Boyd/Soren/Ilyana was promoted instead and Mia went to fetch the villages instead) participates in the shaving off of one wretched turn, Titania doing by far the most work all things considered. You seem to be the second person using "turns saved" so unconditionally.

Jill's probably not competing with Titania for any resouces (iirc the only stuff Ilyana passes is a Hammer, skill scrolls and stuff to sell for GMs' limited funds - remind me if I'm forgetting something though) and the synergy/mutual dependence of these two is very limited at best, so I don't get the point you were trying to express.

Since you bolded perfect play, let me point out that even people (for example, Interceptor) who adopt the approach used in most of the tier lists use the term. Perhaps we need to define that term, as well.

I haven't played the Tellius games, so pardon any errors I make specific to those games. My point in bringing the Titania example was to offer a context that I thought had non-trivial mutual dependence between them; since that is not the case, just change Titania to a character who does, and consider many such contexts as well as those in which the mutual dependence is negligible. If, weighted across these contexts, Jill's absence increases turn-counts moreso than the absence of any other single character, then I would consider Jill the highest-ranked character in these contexts.

In response to the Mia thing, everyone capable of shoving Mia can simply receive shared credit.

Finally, note that I was arguing under the assumption of a hypothetical tier list concerned with turns and reliability as the end goal, not one that adopts the approach used by Red Fox and others (enforcing an efficient playstyle, but not with the end goal of turns and reliability).

"The semantic definiton of best unit" is the one thing we're dealing with, not anything else, regardless of how you feel about the subject.

The context thing is more complicated, but is more or less common sense among the users here.

Which is why I offered my own definition of "best unit" for consideration.

Considering re-reading everything more attentively then.

You'll have to be clearer, since although I've showered my monitor with lemon juice and X-rays, I haven't uncovered any hidden messages. While I was writing my previous post, my only guess was that you were addressing Celes' point #6, which argues that some of Haar's contributions are not unique.

[XeKr]

wheeeee discussion!

The main issue is that when somebody questions the reliablity of LTC runs, rarely will they offer an examplary playthrough that offers an efficiency take under most reliable strategies.

Fair enough. I personally tend to trust the opinion of LTC players over others, as the playstyle lends itself to a better understanding of the game. However, many times, questions such as “how does an average Jill perform in efficient play” arise because no one really has any idea.

Oftentimes when developing fast and reliable strats, you find yourself mapping for the absolute lowest turn strategy as well, just to assess its reliability and compare the expected turncount. The consequence is developing these strats is still very time intensive, despite the overall strategy being more lenient.

Sometimes it can be immediately obvious that strategies are not reliable (rigging growths/ninja dodges). Often, it’s not a complex analysis to determine precisely how not reliable, but it does take much time to look up the data.

Some things that didn't get mentioned here:

Assuming no transfers.

1. Jill can double every tiger in 3-6 with a Speedwing at level 1 promoted. You don't need to double cats.
2. Jill can get 2 seraph robes for durability (1-4 has a very unreliable 4 turn clear, requiring many rigs, so 5 turns is optimal for that)
3. Jill can get 44 HP and 19 def by level 1 promoted, with 2 robes and 1 dracoshield. She gets 3HKOed by tigers at the very beginning of 3-6--but she can level up and get Physic healed by Micaiah to make up for that. Durability is not a big issue.
4. Jill needs Beastfoe for 3-6, not Paragon. She ORKOes everything.
5. Jill gets Boots instead of Haar, always, in order to reliably 2 turn 3-12 in an LTC play through. Jill automatically has 2 move over Haar in part 4, which is very very important.
6. Haar's abilities can be replicated by Titania with the exception of 3-3 and 3-4. Xekr pointed this out already.

Assuming that bexp gave levels as normal (in reality a bit worse) or Jill gets all her levels w/o bexp, 20/1 Jill with no transfers has ~64.7% chance of at least 20 Spd to double the 16 Spd Tigers. She has ~65.6% chance for at least 44 Hp given 2 Seraphs. She has ~68.1% chance of having at least 19 Def, given a Draco. The chance of all 3 occurring is 28.9%.

This is exactly why averages are no good. >_>

Now there is a Speedwing for Spd (don’t exactly know who else wants it, but it brings the benchmark to 97.8%). One could also relax the numbers slightly to something like 43 hp (89.1%), 18 Def (92.5%) to barely avoid the 3hko from 39 atk Tigers, but it’s still 80.5% to meet all 3 numbers. Assuming the entire chapter strat is predicated on this spd/durability benchmark, that’s already at least 1 expected turn gone. Of course, if Jill can get just a few more levels (having just 6 results in this high variability) or if transfers are assumed, she can do much better. I imagine this is still superior to the alternatives are well.

This does also assume that the strategy is nearly 100% reliable given Jill is 3hko’d. I trust you that it is. Of course there are the Cats and 32 Atk Tigers chipping away as well and such.

Re #5: Even if this is the optimal strategy, I don’t see Jill getting unique credit for the part 4 turns. Haar can do the part 4 stuff, just giving up the turn in 3-12. The advantage is already included in their pre-part 4 performance. In addition, are you sure Haar doesn’t have a reliability advantage in part 4? Because without Paragon, I imagine Haar has a stat lead (could easily be mistaken). From the earlier analysis, it’s apparent that the reliability constraint can quickly and often negate/mitigate single turn shaving. If neglected, the value of a single turn might be overestimated.

Re: philosophy: I see the “context” point as what prevents the tier list from following the single optimal strategy. I would specify by having “in varying non-specific team compositions” in Redwall’s definition. Does Mia save that turn in Titania-free, or even Oscar free contexts (nevermind the fact she probably costs expected turns anyways since you’re losing levels on your flier)? If we assume that needing a specific team composition is bad (or, rather, statistically unlikely in the ensemble) shaving that one turn in that specific context does very little for her overall contribution.

Edward is a separate issue. I honestly have no problem if he rises to the top if adopting a rigorous tiering standard, but I see the unfavorable impression that may show and so an “Edward clause” is fine too. People are developing counterarguments as well (“complexity”, lol). Personally I think it’s intuitive not all turns saved are equal. Exactly howso is still debatable.

EDIT: My mistake on the Spd benchmark with the Speedwing (88.3% -> 97.8%). Point mostly still stands.

Edited September 7, 2013 by XeKr

[Chiki]

Before I reply to all your points, I think promoted Mia requires Boyd and Rhys to shave that turn and no one else.

[General Banzai]

There's also the problem of these tiers growing more and more esoteric until nobody but five people can possibly understand why certain units are placed where they are, and thus to all but those storied elite the tier list is not only bonkers but actively counterproductive

It also turns the tier list into something that is of absolutely no use to anyone. The search for concrete criteria to judge units by (i.e. turns saved) has in effect rendered the tier list an amalgam of gobbedlygook and erased whatever benefit it ever had in the first place

[Snowy_One]

While I have no problem talking about if tiers have become too esoteric or not, that should really be handled in the tier topic on this board, not here. We should probably give this topic back to it's original cause.

[Redwall]

While I have no problem talking about if tiers have become too esoteric or not, that should really be handled in the tier topic on this board, not here. We should probably give this topic back to it's original cause.

Tiering discussion is relevant to the topic, in my opinion. The thread is intended to discuss outdated concepts of what's good and what isn't; the discussion has shifted to whether Jill, once perceived as mediocre, is as good as advertised when she is dependent on rational favoritism. Given his most recent posts here, Espinosa seems not to have any problem with discussing this.

[Snowy_One]

In that case, I'd say that the tier-list has become a bit too self-inclusive to people not keyed in to the arguments and/or reasons behind the placements. But I don't think that's really news as I've been saying it for years now.

[XeKr]

Before I reply to all your points, I think promoted Mia requires Boyd and Rhys to shave that turn and no one else.

Admittedly I need some refreshing on the details, but I was under the impression that it requires the whole team as per Espinosa’s points (Titania/Oscar does a majority of the fighting/Rescue drops, etc).

Re: philosophy. There’s a lot that comes to mind, but from my first post in this topic…

Either one understands the underlying principles or doesn’t (or does and still doesn't care) and I think we’re no longer all young enough to rage incessantly about it.

Tiering is super srs business gaiz.

However, I will also add there’s no need to malign others in any capacity. Just unnecessary. Though perhaps amusing to fire shots all day. ^_^

Edited September 9, 2013 by XeKr

[Loki Laufeyson]

I think we’re no longer all young enough to rage incessantly about it.

And of this, i am duly grateful.

Tiering seems to have evolved into a beast completely different from what it once was. Time wears on and people get different ideas.

[MacLovin]

"you need capped stats to kill things"

"you need capped spd to double anything"

[Tamanoir]

We went from thinking Arena Abuse was the perfect methods in a ranked tier list (I"t allows you to max everything except turns !") to LTC ("Only saving turns is important !").

"you need capped stats to kill things"

"you need capped spd to double anything"

Which leaded people to think prepromotes were useless (and obviously Jeigans, I won't discuss this again).

This made people believe Eda was better than Dean...

There was also alot of people who thought Lillina was the best unit of the game, then everyone said she was absolutely horrible, and now I don't really know how she is view.

There was also people who, while playing FE6, thought Sophia was like Nino, but as a Dark Mage (Nino is really good if you train her, Sophia is just... decent as best). You can imagine how decieved they were (Yeah, I was one of them...).

I also thought for whatever reasons that training the lords wasn't usefull, because they sucked. Not sure why...

BTW, these views aren't necessary wronger that what we have now. It's really important to remember that.

Also, we changed views because game changed. You don't play the same way with FE7, FE9, FE12, or FE13.

Hell, you don't even play the exact same way with the three GBA Games.

"Efficiency" is the St Graal of FE Gaming : countless men and women searched it continuously, but many failed among the way. Many others thought they found it, but they are in fact only living in their comfortable desillusion...

Tiering became far more "ellitist", among the way. Only efficient players look at them, and discuss them honnestly. I don't look at them anymore, because they absolutely doesn't speak to the casual players like me.

Truth is, if the others games follow the same way as FE13, Tier List will become more and more useless, excepted for a limited numbers of persons.

[Espinosa]

Sophia is actually more useful than Nino in Unranked because getting Saul a Guiding Ring / finding desert treasure / dodging staves so that your actual staff users don't have to are more valuable contributions than being a tome user when none is needed and E staves being just embarrassing.

And yeah, the tier business has been pretty elitist with a lot of folks coming in just to show off large swollen testicles to fellow internet people and acting like a douche to some dork or master logician but our tiers are pretty much all dead so you don't have to worry about the whole thing anymore. There's probably no point in reviving the tier discussions, and that's one reason why they stay dead (main, I presume, being that the parties involved are sick of one another).

Shouldn't there be casual tier lists on GameFAQs though, or are people there only interested in grinding and marrying flat-chested lolis?

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

Someone on Gfaqs made efficiency Tier List, Father Tier List, and Children Tier List

The discussion that preceeds the latter is responsible for making Cynthia goes from "WTFTERRIBLE" into "Best child alongside Brady, Morgan, and Lucina"

Some jerk-ish nostalgia, but I remember that back in the day, IIRC Zeem was mocked by the whole board by saying Cynthia is good

Which is not saying much, really

Edited September 9, 2013 by JSND

[Vashiane]

Someone on Gfaqs made efficiency Tier List, Father Tier List, and Children Tier List

The discussion that preceeds the latter is responsible for making Cynthia goes from "WTFTERRIBLE" into "Best child alongside Brady, Morgan, and Lucina"

Some jerk-ish nostalgia, but I remember that back in the day, IIRC Zeem was mocked by the whole board by saying Cynthia is good

Which is not saying much, really

Ha. Now Cynthia's regarded as one of the best second-generations.

I also recall that a LOT of people really liked passing Donnel's Aptitude skill down and he was actually a highly recommended father because of that. That was, of course, before the post-game truly developed and the technical data started pouring in.