So...let's talk tiers.

[dondon151]

Rly now. Between a crappy attacker and a crappy wall, I'll take the wall, thanks. I'm pretty sure HM Geitz is actually worse than in NM, since he only gets +1 spd, while most of, if not all enemies get at least +2. Just because Geitz is the best warrior in the game certainly doesn't make him any good, unless for some reason he's actually doubling stuff.

Geitz and Wallace are separated as much as Harken and Karel on the tier list, if not more. And guess what? Geitz is running around with 14 speed on average, while Wallace is running around with 8 speed. Geitz beats Wallace in offense outright and doesn't even lose that much durability (7 less defense, 10 more HP, and probably isn't getting doubled by everything, unless enemies have 18 AS on average). If HM Geitz is worse than NM Geitz, then HM Wallace is much worse than NM Wallace.

[Lord Raven]

You're not going to see anybody using Isadora because she's hot.

You could. You just don't know.

And Karel is the REASON Harken can't be there, so he's preventing something good from existing.

Harken is the reason Karel can't be there, so he's preventing someone from existing. Just because he's good doesn't mean the principle is different.

So nobody cares about losing the other because he's still a fail unit. You still haven't countered the logic that it actually matters UNLESS THERE IS A NOTABLE GAP BETWEEN THE TWO.

What is a "notable gap", exactly? Is it an arbitrary gap? Tell you what, give me an exact definition of "notable gap" instead of saying "unless there's a notable gap."

On top of that, I still don't see how that isn't being a hypocrite. Once again, just because Harken is better than Karel does not mean that one deserves more treatment than the other; this is not even a rule of a tier list.

But it means I can't get the 1000 GB, which could have done me a lot more good for the exact same price.

But it doesn't detract from the quality of the 600 GB.

I yam what I yam.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html Edited December 23, 2008 by Nathan Graves

[Dat Nick]

And guess what? Geitz is running around with 14 speed on average, while Wallace is running around with 8 speed.

If neither are doubling, then Geitz's speed lead isn't exactly very impressive, now is it?

And guess what? Geitz is running around with 14 speed on average, while Wallace is running around with 8 speed.

Getiz is doubling more on NM, though. Also, 14 isn't any better than 8 if it's still not doubling.

You could. You just don't know.

No, if anybody IS using Isadora seriously in a ranked run, it's not going to be because she's hot, it's because you can work around her flaws to make her usable [somebody did a paladin only run on youtube]. And sometimes there's just flat out exceptions, you're not going to see ANYBODY bringing Jeigan to Endgame due to the raw fact he's unusable later on. Not bad. Unusable.

Harken is the reason Karel can't be there, so he's preventing someone from existing. Just because he's good doesn't mean the principle is different.

The team doesn't care all that much about losing Karel, so yes, the principle is different.

On top of that, I still don't see how that isn't being a hypocrite. Once again, just because Harken is better than Karel does not mean that one deserves more treatment than the other; this is not even a rule of a tier list.

It's not hypocritical at all because it really makes no difference unless there's a gap between the performance of the two. There's little to no difference between Alan and Samson. There's little to no difference between the royals. So the team doesn't really give a **** either way. Why should it matter?

Alan shuts out Samson, who sucks. But Alan also sucks, and I wouldn't have gotten any more use out of Samson.

Samson shuts out Alan, who sucks. But Samson also sucks, and I wouldn't have gotten any more use out of Alan.

Giffca is win. He's not really any more win than Tibarn and Naesala, but you can only pick one of them, so it doesn't really matter which one.

Tibarn is win. He's not really any more win than Giffca and Naesala, but you can only pick one of them, so it doesn't really matter which one.

Naesala is win. He's not really any more win than Tibarn and Giffca, but you can only pick one of them, so it doesn't really matter which one.

By "a significant gap" I mean just that: A gap. An actual gap in usefulness is when characters shutting other characters out starts to matter.

And Harken ISN'T getting any more treatment than Karel. How many fucking times are you going to make me repeat this? We're not giving Harken Afa drops, extra kills, statups, anything.

But it doesn't detract from the quality of the 600 GB.

But it means I'm missing out on a better deal. Who would pay the same price for LESS?

[Lord Raven]

No, if anybody IS using Isadora seriously in a ranked run, it's not going to be because she's hot, it's because you can work around her flaws to make her usable [somebody did a paladin only run on youtube]. And sometimes there's just flat out exceptions, you're not going to see ANYBODY bringing Jeigan to Endgame due to the raw fact he's unusable later on. Not bad. Unusable.

You don't know this for a fact at all. Stop passing it off as fact.

Yes, Isadora has flaws and Jeigan is impossible to use endgame. It won't stop people from using them anyway, even when ranked. You can't possibly prove that people never use them for ranked runs, ever; you can assume, but that's all it is, an assumption. And assumptions are not always true; the tier list is based upon one assumption as well; the character in question is being used. Nothing more.

The team doesn't care all that much about losing Karel, so yes, the principle is different.

That's assuming you're not going to be using Karel. The tier assumes you are using Karel.

It's not hypocritical at all because it really makes no difference unless there's a gap between the performance of the two.

This is known as a double standard. Which is similar to hypocrisy.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/double+standard

http://www.doublestandards.org/

etc

There's little to no difference between Alan and Samson. There's little to no difference between the royals. So the team doesn't really give a **** either way. Why should it matter?

Alan shuts out Samson, who sucks. But Alan also sucks, and I wouldn't have gotten any more use out of Samson.

Samson shuts out Alan, who sucks. But Samson also sucks, and I wouldn't have gotten any more use out of Alan.

Giffca is win. He's not really any more win than Tibarn and Naesala, but you can only pick one of them, so it doesn't really matter which one.

Tibarn is win. He's not really any more win than Giffca and Naesala, but you can only pick one of them, so it doesn't really matter which one.

Naesala is win. He's not really any more win than Tibarn and Giffca, but you can only pick one of them, so it doesn't really matter which one.

Fucking irrelevant, do you not realize what a principle is? I'm not arguing that alan/samson and giffca/naesala/tibarn are carbon copies of one another, I'm arguing that Karel and Harken, despite the difference in quality, should not be judged based upon whether or not their performance is adequate and not because one is blocking out another. The latter is bias towards Harken and bias against Karel, and you know it.

And frankly, I give a shit. It just happens that Alan/Samson or Tibarn/Naesala/Giffca are around the same grouping in regards to their quality.

Karel's performance is average. Harken has nothing to do with this.

Harken's performance is good. Karel has nothing to do with this.

By "a significant gap" I mean just that: A gap. An actual gap in usefulness is when characters shutting other characters out starts to matter.

This is still vague. A consistent tier list mathematically defines what it means by things, and explains the reasoning behind it.

And Harken ISN'T getting any more treatment than Karel. How many fucking times are you going to make me repeat this? We're not giving Harken Afa drops, extra kills, statups, anything.

Harken simply is. By being recruited, and not being bumped down for blocking out another character when the other character is being bumped down for blocking him.

But it means I'm missing out on a better deal. Who would pay the same price for LESS?

The 600 gig is 30 bucks, the 1000 gig is 50 bucks. The catch is you only have 50 bucks to spend. Edited December 23, 2008 by Nathan Graves

[Rodykitty]

You don't know this for a fact at all. Stop passing it off as fact.

You know that even if you win this argument, it's not going to affect the tier list in the very slightest, right?

This is known as a double standard. Which is similar to hypocrisy.

You keep crying double standard, but even when you apply fair judgement, the better units are still going to be higher on the tier list, and even with applying fair judgement, the choice between two characters that have a large gap in quality is going to cause a bigger tier list gap than two characters that don't. That's just how it is.

Yes, Alan/Samson and the three Laguz Gatos are the same type of grouping, but with much smaller gaps between them than Harken/Karel.

Edited December 23, 2008 by FE3 Player

[Dr. Tarrasque]

Hmm... Think Katua should go a bit higher on the NM tier list? I think Daros' position may be a bit too high even if he close to being as good as Oguma.

[Lord Raven]

I'm aware that it's not changing much on the tier list, if at all. Yet you are still should be unable to assume things and get away with it. That's precisely what I'm trying to say. The entire idea behind everything I'm arguing is on the principle behind judging tiers.

You keep crying double standard, but even when you apply fair judgement, the better units are still going to be higher on the tier list, and even with applying fair judgement, the choice between two characters that have a large gap in quality is going to cause a bigger tier list gap than two characters that don't. That's just how it is.

The choice between two characters is/should be irrelevant, though.

Better units higher on a tier list is precisely the point. I actually don't see what point you're trying to make here; it seems to be

- Better characters will always be higher on a tier list

- Choice between two characters will make someone else lower and someone else higher

in which case, #1 is a given and #2 I disagree with. Not fully, since there is always bias and subjectivity.

And really? To make tiers less complicated, there's always getting rid of the ordering within tiers. It'll cause less debate and allow us to be in a more full accordance with what the general tiers should be like.

Edited December 23, 2008 by Nathan Graves

[Rodykitty]

The choice between two characters is/should be irrelevant, though.

Better units higher on a tier list is precisely the point. I actually don't see what point you're trying to make here; it seems to be

- Better characters will always be higher on a tier list

- Choice between two characters will make someone else lower and someone else higher

in which case, #1 is a given and #2 I disagree with. Not fully, since there is always bias and subjectivity.

What I am saying is that #2 is part of a character's usefulness, and is just one factor of an overall picture. It is also part of the gameplay, which is why I heavily disagree with ignoring it completely. This has absolutely nothing to do with bias (and I've stated repeatedly to penalize them both to prevent said bias).

Hmm... Think Katua should go a bit higher on the NM tier list? I think Daros' position may be a bit too high even if he close to being as good as Oguma.

Katua used to be much lower. I'm actually surprised she's as high as she is, because of her late joining time. Daros is as high as he is because he gets awesome defense as a Merc and doesn't suck in speed (NM enemies are pretty slow, so the defense gain is a good trade off).

[Tamara]

Her stats are the other half of why she is where she is. Barely beating 20 Minerva at 20/10=lol

Unless I'm mistaken, Est has a very good chance of maxing strength, skill and speed. She also has much better luck, a bit of extra res and her def is more than decent. Her weakest stat is probably her HP. Overall her stats are closer to Catria's than Minerva's.

Est has a few things going against her, but her stats isn't one of them.

1. You get her very late (chapter 18) and she starts at L1.

2. Pegi's aren't that great when enemies like to shoot things.

Obviously Catria is an excellent alternative seeing she can be recruited 4 chapters earlier and has very similar stats. However, Est isn't awfully hard to train and she has good potential.

Edited December 23, 2008 by Tamara

[Rodykitty]

By "barely beating" at 20/10, he means that Est is barely going to have more Defense and HP than Minerva at that level. Other stats don't matter as much on NM since enemies are easily doubled and easily taken out anyway. Also the endgame level is never considered to be 20/20 because most units never reach it unless they are arena abused. Also, luck sucks for single player.

Catria can at least actually be trained without the arena, and on the next chapter can actually be useful due to having to fight mages.

EDIT: I think that Est has a chance move up a spot or two, I'm just not really sure how.

Edited December 23, 2008 by FE3 Player

[Mekkah]

Rly now. Between a crappy attacker and a crappy wall, I'll take the wall, thanks. I'm pretty sure HM Geitz is actually worse than in NM, since he only gets +1 spd, while most of, if not all enemies get at least +2. Just because Geitz is the best warrior in the game certainly doesn't make him any good, unless for some reason he's actually doubling stuff

How is Geitz crappy, lol?

with Iron Axe:

23 Geitz - 27.0 atk, 14.0 AS - - 38.0 avo, 44.0 hp, 12.0 def

21 Kent - 22.6 atk, 16.5 AS - - 38.8 avo, 38.1 hp, 11.7 def

21 Kent (A Sain) - 25.6 atk, 16.5 AS - - 45.8 avo, 38.1 hp, 12.7 def

He's capable of sparring with 20/1 Kent, who is generally considered a good unit. And this is Kent at his relative best, since Geitz may also get supports, and he can also move up to shit like Killer Axe (while Kent obviously doesn't have the weapon level to do so), and later Silver, and his ranged attacks are also stronger thanks to bows.

There's like a 4-5 tier gap between Geitz and Wallace.

[Tamara]

By "barely beating" at 20/10, he means that Est is barely going to have more Defense and HP than Minerva at that level. Other stats don't matter as much on NM since enemies are easily doubled and easily taken out anyway. Also the endgame level is never considered to be 20/20 because most units never reach it unless they are arena abused. Also, luck sucks for single player.

Catria can at least actually be trained without the arena, and on the next chapter can actually be useful due to having to fight mages.

Tier rankings obviously have changed a lot since the last time I bothered to check one. I can see where you are coming from. Bare-bone usefulness has become a lot more important than potential, which is understandable.

Old standards: Est = GOOD

New standards: Est = BAD

Correct?

Makes me wonder what a WiFi ranking would look like.

[Rodykitty]

Makes me wonder what a WiFi ranking would look like.

Est would be close to the top for sure (but not higher than Catria), and Linde would be worth a look at, now that the arena is factored in. Radd as well.

[Lord Raven]

What I am saying is that #2 is part of a character's usefulness, and is just one factor of an overall picture. It is also part of the gameplay, which is why I heavily disagree with ignoring it completely. This has absolutely nothing to do with bias (and I've stated repeatedly to penalize them both to prevent said bias).

Well then, I'm actually starting to agree that a mutual penalty is about right.

[Why-Fi]

Why is Lawrence in bottom tier? He's great! He's an almighty general! :(

[Lord Raven]

no clue, his base stats are actually fine (aside from speed) if you give him the Hero class, but his Speed tends to grow anyway (as a Hero)... but his defense REALLY suffers (his entire defense growth as a General is because of his class; he has 0% base defense growth!)

so yeah, I should think before I post because I actually agree with bottom tier.

Edited December 23, 2008 by Nathan Graves

[Rodykitty]

Let's not forget that low speed = getting doubled.

[Lord Raven]

Which pretty much nullifies the point of defense and HP in Lorenz's case.

I was saying that as a Hero he wouldn't be too bad, though. He isn't doubling that often, though, but he's at least avoiding doubling from the majority of NM enemies.

Edited December 23, 2008 by Nathan Graves

[Rodykitty]

Let's see... Does this bring him up any?

Hymir gets better stats as Hero, and doesn't come much later... Elice gets great utility as a healer (I think she should go into low tier). Roshe sucks badly, even early game. I think Alan can stand to rise higher. Michellan should actually rise above Roshe because he actually gets usable stats as a Merc. IIRC Gordon already rose in a more recent tier list.

I'm not really sure this would change his position in relation to other characters. If anything, it would change because the lower tiers need reorganizing.

Edited December 23, 2008 by FE3 Player

[Lord Raven]

Hymir is actually decent as a Hero. He did fine when I tried it starting from base level, but until his first level he did decent (can't judge after that, it's all about luck). Low tier or low mid sounds fine for him.

Edited December 23, 2008 by Nathan Graves

[Rodykitty]

His join time is too much for low mid. Bottom of low sounds more correct.

This isn't my tier list anyway. I can't go around making changes.

EDIT: Elice is extremely fragile and comes too late, but I think I can see her at bottom of low instead of top of bottom due to utility. Alan can stay in bottom. His stats suck more than I remember.

Edited December 23, 2008 by FE3 Player

[Lord Raven]

Bottom of low sounds too low. Low mid sounds too high as well.

[Rodykitty]

I honestly don't know much about Ymir. I don't make the tier list, so let's keep him in bottom for now. Beserker Blader, IIRC has a strong opinion on him so it would be better if you argued with him on it.

Edited December 23, 2008 by FE3 Player

[Lord Raven]

I quite clearly don't give a damn what he thinks, and I think anything's worth discussing/up in the air regardless of whether or not he's here.

Edited December 23, 2008 by Nathan Graves

[Dat Nick]

You don't know this for a fact at all. Stop passing it off as fact.

Yes, I DO know it for a fact. The only reason ANYBODY is going to use Isadora is she's just barely passable for a challenge on a ranked run.

It won't stop people from using them anyway, even when ranked.

No, nobody is going to use Jeigan endgame, period, because unlike Isadora, he's useless by that point.

That's assuming you're not going to be using Karel. The tier assumes you are using Karel.

NOW who's being biased?

the tier list is based upon one assumption as well; the character in question is being used. Nothing more.

For the TEN BILLIONTH TIME: I fucking know this. And IF you use Karel, then the team suffers.

Harken simply is. By being recruited, and not being bumped down for blocking out another character when the other character is being bumped down for blocking him.

Except he's a billion times better than the other unit so it's a moot point.

I'm arguing that Karel and Harken, despite the difference in quality, should not be judged based upon whether or not their performance is adequate and not because one is blocking out another.

Do you ENJOY making me repeat myself over and over again? This. Is. Assuming. THE OVERALL TEAM, because anything else is ignorant. Individuality is all good and well UNTIL it starts affecting the performance of other characters.

The latter is bias towards Harken and bias against Karel, and you know it.

Except it isn't bias at all. Pretending that an inferior unit blocking out a superior unit doesn't matter at all? THAT's bias.

And how many fucking times am I going to have to say it before you FINALLY get it? Nobody is ASSUMING Harken is being played. I only said he had a higher chance, which is just common sense. Just like between choosing between a max stat general and a unit with 1s in all stats for the final chapter, most people are going to choose the general.

his is still vague. A consistent tier list mathematically defines what it means by things, and explains the reasoning behind it.

ANY sort of gap between any performance WHATSOEVER.

And frankly, I give a shit. It just happens that Alan/Samson or Tibarn/Naesala/Giffca are around the same grouping in regards to their quality.

And that's why they don't get penalized for it, because for the ten millionth time, which you have yet to counter with ANY logic whatsoever: Units shutting other units out ONLY matters when there's a gap in their performance.

He's capable of sparring with 20/1 Kent, who is generally considered a good unit. And this is Kent at his relative best, since Geitz may also get supports, and he can also move up to shit like Killer Axe (while Kent obviously doesn't have the weapon level to do so), and later Silver, and his ranged attacks are also stronger thanks to bows.

But do HHM enemies REALLY fail so much that they're getting doubled by 14 speed?

btw, Hero Lorenz just makes him go from sucking to sucking. His offense is meh and his durability is lol [iIRC, around Samson level bases] not to mention he's using up a hero slot. Hymir is also shoving somebody out of hero for just barely passable performance. Don't see it happening.

Edited December 24, 2008 by Berserkah2DaBladah