Is Volug still good?

[Junkhead]

But if you don't measure efficiency in turns, what do you measure it in? Hair colour? lol

lawl

Boobs

Haar & Ike's boobs?

Part 1 aside, don't you think he deserves some credit, during Part 3? Warpskipping to Turn 3, he's at least pretty much the only dude being able to take two hits from the strongest enemies, may have potentially decent chances of dodging (thanks to a B support with someone like Nolan) and has pretty good offense.

[Chloe Neo]

Volug is a moderate unit up until the end of part 1 then hes just not a good unit at all unless a lot of bonus exp is put into him up to level 40.

[CT075]

volug is honestly always a solid combatant, but he's basically just that- an above-average combat unit, and we don't put units in top tier just for having above-average combat

[Chiki]

If you only want to measure by LTC and only by number of turns saved, then yes, Volug is probably bad. Unfortunately, most people want to measure using more than that, since:

1. There's just not much to discuss if we are to rank units through one specific playthrough

2. Most people do not play LTC to begin with

3. LTC playthroughs are often RNG dependent. Think FE8 where your Warper needs to gain Mag every level-up. There's probably some equivalent in this game (I'm not familiar with FE10 LTC) such as Nephenee in 2-1 or Haar/Jill needing good level-ups.

The more you allow for "efficiency" rather than "LTC", the better Volug becomes, as he adds reliability. He's generally 100% accurate and he'll always be decent for 3-6 and 3-13. I think dondon's rating of roughly as good as one of the better GMs is fine.

We define LTC in the context of tier lists as trying to get the lowest turns possible reliably (the definition of reliably, of course, is up in the air and arbitrary). Even in that context, Volug is trash, because the LTC clears for Part 1 and Part 3 chapters are all reliable (maybe except 1-E, because of leadership stars, but Volug doesn't really help with that).

Edited November 29, 2014 by Chiki

[Mekkah]

"We" (as far as one person can speak for an entire community) define LTC in the context of tier lists as something that might be worth considering but is not the only metric. For why not, refer to the post you quoted.

Yes, Volug is bad in LTC. No, that's not all there is to it.

[Chiki]

"We" (as far as one person can speak for an entire community) define LTC in the context of tier lists as something that might be worth considering but is not the only metric. For why not, refer to the post you quoted.

Yes, Volug is bad in LTC. No, that's not all there is to it.

You haven't been keeping up with the tier list debates and such recently, and that's fine, but the problem with the tier lists of the past is that no one agrees on what efficiency is. For Red Fox, efficiency is playing like a snail. For me, efficiency is going as fast as possible reliably. For Interceptor, efficiency is going as fast as possible so that Nowi can be high tier. And so on. People have so many different ideas of what efficiency is that they've done nothing but talk past each other for years. What's efficiency for you? Going how fast is efficient? Good luck trying to define that. The solution to this is just to go as fast as possible (I've debated with a lot of people in the past couple years on shaving turns in certain chapters and how that reflects on a hypothetical tier list, so I'm pretty sure it's widely agreed upon) while agreeing on some arbitrary percentage of reliability per action.

This is a really basic (informal) fallacy. FE debaters before 2013 have done nothing but waste their time talking past each other, really, because they haven't agreed on what efficiency is. To get anywhere in a debate, you have to agree on what you're debating about. Otherwise you're better off counting blades of grass or something.

Edited November 29, 2014 by Chiki

[Mekkah]

You are making a similar mistake to other people trying to get things to "hurry along" (like smash fanatic), as is evident by your claim that debaters before 2013 "wasted their time and getting nothing done". Tier list debating has never been about trying to get a finished product. It's always been about the journey, not the destination. You can make a list of units and rank them by how many turns they save. I'm sure you would get it done within about half an hour and it'd be mostly accurate. But would it be interesting? Not for long.

In order for people to have something to discuss, there has to be room for debate. This is why Interceptor vs smash fanatic was always so fun to read (aside from Int's way with words): it was almost as if they were speaking different languages and playing different games.

You have made your point and you can take your trophy home: Volug has been soundly defeated in a war for LTC. If you care to discuss something else, some people might be game. But if you only want to talk LTC, then you're probably on your own.

edit: Also I looked at the GameFAQs RD board for shits and giggles. smash fanatic made a tier list topic with Oscar higher than Jill and talks to complete unknowns about basic tiering philosophy from 3-4 years ago. It's very entertaining.

Edited November 29, 2014 by Mekkah

[Lord Raven]

Red Fox doesnt define efficiency as playing like a snail and furthermore I don't think the master debaters ever agreed to any of the stuff you claim are "widely agreed upon."

[Chiki]

But if you only want to talk LTC, then you're probably on your own.

Really? I've had LTC debates with lots of people here, so I sure don't seem on my own. Here's a couple examples, and I could find a lot more if you want:

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=48974

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=48398&page=8#entry3173199

Edited November 29, 2014 by Chiki

[Lord Raven]

A lot of those people are drafters who don't mess with the tier lists.

[Chiki]

Red Fox doesnt define efficiency as playing like a snail and furthermore I don't think the master debaters ever agreed to any of the stuff you claim are "widely agreed upon."

LOL "master" debater. No Raven, I'm not going to give you attention, I don't think you ever have anything of value to say.

[Lord Raven]

Yeah I mean you're a pretty good shit poster too, pretty obvious you should leave your parents' basement sometime instead of wasting your time on a message board

Edited November 29, 2014 by Lord Raven

[Mekkah]

Really? I've had LTC debates with lots of people here, so I sure don't seem on my own. Here's a couple examples, and I could find a lot more if you want:

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=48974

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=48398&page=8#entry3173199

Okay, now tell me how interesting those debates are and how many you've had compared to non-LTC.

[Junkhead]

If you only want to measure by LTC and only by number of turns saved, then yes, Volug is probably bad. Unfortunately, most people want to measure using more than that, since:

1. There's just not much to discuss if we are to rank units through one specific playthrough

2. Most people do not play LTC to begin with

3. LTC playthroughs are often RNG dependent. Think FE8 where your Warper needs to gain Mag every level-up. There's probably some equivalent in this game (I'm not familiar with FE10 LTC) such as Nephenee in 2-1 or Haar/Jill needing good level-ups.

The more you allow for "efficiency" rather than "LTC", the better Volug becomes, as he adds reliability. He's generally 100% accurate and he'll always be decent for 3-6 and 3-13. I think dondon's rating of roughly as good as one of the better GMs is fine.

I really like the way you put it, makes it more fun.

Personally, I play LTC, and I agree, it does require an awful lot of luck at times. If I made a tier list, it would indeed be based on effeciency, since it's a lot more fair to the cast and there's plenty more to argue.

[Dark Sage]

Even in a ltc tier list, does most of the cast really do much better anyway? According to you Volug only contributes to a few chapters of ltcs before he's made redundant. A lot of the cast are lucky to do even that much.

Edited November 29, 2014 by Black Frost

[Snowy_One]

If said godly unit existed then what's stopping them from being used WITH the peg who's rescue dropping? The metric is not flawless, but I don't see how that's a counterexample. If the Peg can kill the neccessary targets themselves without said unit, or if said unit has low movement, or some other negative factors then obviously the weighting changes. However, I do think it would be helpful if distinctions were made with regards to the amount of investment one has to put into particular units to utilise them effectively though (if they need statboosters or a lot of exp compared to other units who don't), and units who rely on others to shine (utility units OR units that rely on utility units)

That's kind of missing the point. I.E. that a LTC tier-list ignores everything about a unit in favor of an over-value on the movement stat. It's only rarely that a mounted unit gets ranked low without coming late, having some major hamper, or being outright terrible. Simply because the tier-list focuses so MUCH on movement and turncounts. So unless the mounted unit outright cannot reliably kill, it doesn't matter if the super-strong unit is the best unit stat-wise, they will almost always be ranked lower. Heck, this is basically what we see in the lists. At the top are mounted units and a VERY select few units whom are, usually, amazing, followed by foot soldiers, mounted units who are terrible, foot soldiers who are terrible, archers, and then whatever is left over. In other words, unless a mounted unit is outright horrible they will always be above their foot counterparts of similar/better ability.

[Irysa]

So unless the mounted unit outright cannot reliably kill, it doesn't matter if the super-strong unit is the best unit stat-wise, they will almost always be ranked lower.

So?

Stat overkill can't be used as a benefit if it's actually overkill. If 11 AS is enough to double 90% of the game, why does it matter that one unit has about 20 AS? Is there a demonstrable importance to it?

[Snowy_One]

So?

Stat overkill can't be used as a benefit if it's actually overkill. If 11 AS is enough to double 90% of the game, why does it matter that one unit has about 20 AS? Is there a demonstrable importance to it?

If 5 movement is enough to beat 90% of the game, why does it matter that one unit has 7? Is there a demonstrable importance to it?

After all, movement has 0 effect on combat, that extra 10% of the time that 11 AS character will miss the double and not have as much AVO as the 20 AS one? The 20 should be higher. Tier lists that focus on turncounts destroy any sense of comparison between units as they only focus on how fast they can kill, not on the unit 'quality' as it were. The units are compared to the enemies and not each other and the list does not hold direct correlations to people not focused on turncounts.

[Irysa]

The 2 extra movement doesn't matter in combat but it matters in various more applications. More movement doesn't even neccessarily have to mean lower turncounts, it just opens up MORE the unit can do. That's why it's better.

[Dark Sage]

You need to reach the enemies to kill them you know.

Also I'd think killing enemies faster makes you a more quality combatant but what do i know

[Snowy_One]

The 2 extra movement doesn't matter in combat but it matters in various more applications. More movement doesn't even neccessarily have to mean lower turncounts, it just opens up MORE the unit can do. That's why it's better.

It also doesn't matter in combat and only applies to things outside of it. You yourself just said it doesn't lead to lower turncounts, so why is it valued so highly then?

[Lord Raven]

The key word there is "necessarily." Meaning it doesn't always do that.

[Irysa]

Because being able to move further means you can move to rescue an ally, block a particular tile, get out of enemy range, etc. Anything that requires positioning is improved by more movement, more possibilities for movement mean more possible contributions.

[Snowy_One]

Likewise more strength allows for better fighting of enemies, stronger weapons (at points), and more reliable killing all-around.

Look, I 'get' why movement is valued so highly, but I don't think I will ever accept the reason behind it as I will never see turn-counting as a justifiable measure of a units value. No matter what can be said it will, in my eyes, always be a stupid measure in-place more for people who love to flaunt how exceptional they are and ruin the point of the list instead of actually inform people.

[Lord Raven]

We're making arguments to suit your mindset. Fact is that a lot of these mounted units have marginally inferior combat to these foot units but the fact that they're mounted makes them far more versatile. Also, they're more rounded, meaning that even if their offense is a little worse they can defend hits better (and vice-versa).

Anyway, it's a mix of turns, reliability, and resource management that matters. Turn counts are not the only measure that we're using like you seem to think.