A survey to finally answer the "Efficiency Problem"

[Queenly Arts]

https://forms.gle/wKzZmde6zwgamo5o7

No matter your experience with Fire Emblem, you are welcome and encouraged to take this survey! Everyone's opinions are very important!

(estimated time: 2-4 minutes)

While not the most controversial issue at face value, I believe many frustrating debates within the community are rooted in the "Efficiency Problem". The term efficiency is commonly labeled as "playing fast" and has been accepted as a standard playstyle/context for discussions with no further official definition or restrictions.

A couple days ago, I made a post on Reddit asking for players' definitions of "efficiency". Using the responses, I created a quantitative survey that asks you to weigh in on various takes on efficiency. None of these takes are mine, but are based on general types of responses observed from the post.

I do not wish to make any larger judgments about the topic until I actually see what the community has to say, and I ask that you also give the topic a fair chance. You may not believe there to be an issue, but as various videos, comment sections, and threads have demonstrated, the topic has a non-zero amount of contention, and is therefore important to consider. We cannot make assumptions about what everyone thinks or feels, even if a handful of comments seem to be in agreement, and I am making a genuine effort to hear everyone's side.

If you have any suggestions for how an attempt at answering this question could be better performed, feel free to let me know! One main issue will be having the survey reach a wide enough audience to make for relevant conclusions, so suggestions for expanding this survey's reach would be especially appreciated.

[samthedigital]

I saw the topic on reddit when you posted it, but I refrained from replying because it's difficult to answer the questions you asked without going into detail, and there are other things that come into play besides defining efficiency when people argue about units.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

I'm always in favor of clarifying what a community means with this or that term. I don't really have any strong opinions about Efficiency Play. I just think LTCs = skillful play is a very antiquated notion. Anybody can sit down and choreograph the perfect run of a map after 20+ resets. Rig a 2% crit on the boss to seize a turn earlier. That's not skill, that's mathematical acknowledgement that you can brute force the RNG for the best result if you wanted. In my mind, good players are willing to accept the consequences of risky play and continue the run without resets.

[Shaky Jones]

If you dont mind, I'll just copy paste my somewhat large first reply in the survey should anyone else want a take on efficiency, with one added point. 

Efficiency is mostly irrelevant, at least if we're defining efficient as fast play, something I generally refrain from claiming are one and the same. It is a term best utilized to aide a newer player with an FE title (mainly replaying a game on the highest difficulty or playing a naturally challenging game) in the way they believe would be best for them, typically desiring to rescue all units, obtain all gaidens/paralogues and rewards, and to enjoy the game without having to restart 5+ times per map from overwhelming difficulty. You'd recommend Rutger, Percival, and Miledy for efficient gameplay, as it naturally makes the experience much easier for them, and they will naturally be units that ltc players will utilize on account of them being broken with minimal training. This is the main thing fast play will have in common with being efficient. Low effort units. If you need help making the game as easy as possible while getting as much out of the game as you can, you'll likely want units that don't require massive effort to turn into a steamroller. For turn counts, you don't have time for that. However, some growth units may very well be worth training for players who can find some time to feed kills to then make the lategame much easier than if you were to purely rely on base stats and high move. The average player is not going to be "efficient" in the way ltc'ers play their game. Most FE fans don't actually try getting optimal turn counts, as it never accomplishes anything past an occasional high ranking depending on the game, and FE fans aren't quite as crazy over them as other franchises would with their S rank missions/ stages. There should be a balance of sorts between valuing the worth of prepromotes and useful cavaliers and claiming that any and all growth units are complete wastes of time as of to apologize to the elitist deities for the era of the Fandom in which all prepromotes were considered unusable garbage. 

 

Spoiler

I'll also note one thing I forgot to mention in the survey. Using busted low effort units isn't skill. What is skilled about fast play is the knowledge it takes to utilize said units in order to beat maps as fast as possible, knowing the enemy stats to overcome with forges, statboosters, and moving in the right tiles to trigger sequences and enemy ranges without dying. However, rigging criticals or warp skipping isn't skill at all. Its just not playing the map at all. I dont find anything interesting or noteworthy of ignoring the challenges that come in a map. I skip a map because I hate it, which is extremely rare, not because I'm trying to be "good" at FE. Anyone can do it. I'm certain younger me has considered warp skipping way more, but refrained as its the cheap way out of playing a map imo.

It is also equally as skillfully to use well known bad units in order to overcome challenging FE maps and games. Benching Dagdar for Marty can be seen as foolish, but it can also be seen as a great challenge that takes great effort to overcome. You'd also need to learn quite a lot about the game to make crappy units work with forges and builds or proper setups. Of a blond player somehow used a team of entirely D and F tier units in dsfe, I'd be far more impressed with them than the guy who cleared dsfe with caeda wing spear emblem and ridersbane jeigan (even though jeigan is awesome) in an optimal turn count. You wouldn't use Ryoma in birthright and say you're better than the Setsuna user because you knew that 35 speed is higher than 10 (im just saying numbers i don't know their exact speed). To turn this back to the original point, very few FE fans actually try rigging boss crits and use nothing but the best units in an attempt to ensure that the number on the screen says 5 turns instead of 9, unless its Tellius I suppose. Its common to use some broken units alongside silly growth units or other non efficient character either because you simply like them or because they will help you in the long term more than the prepromote who won't accomplish much in the lategame without rigged criticals or extensive research on how they can kill with the exact setup.

 

[Florete]

"Efficiency" was originally designed as a concept for judging units that would more accurately reflect how average people actually play the game, compared to the in-game rankings that were often used way back when. Unfortunately, efficiency eventually warped into the complete opposite of that, relying on only specific units used, resources allocated in specific ways, and having an ever reliance on saving One More Turn. Nowadays I see the term practically weaponized. And I can't exactly claim any moral high ground here because I was part of that movement.

I still think the original goal was a good one, but I wouldn't mind letting the word "efficiency" as it has been used in FE fandom die completely so we can move on to something better.

[lenticular]

When I see someone mention "efficiency", I mostly interpret it along the lines of "if you play the same way that I play". It feels like it's supposed to represent a goldilocks zone with not too much grinding but also not too much optimisation, but that place in the middle that's juuuust riiiight. You know, just playing the game normally. Like how I do. Except that everyone plays at least a little bit differently, so what's normal for one person is borderline perverse for another, so everyone's idea of efficient play similarly ends up being different.

Personally, I think that we would collectively be better off if we were more willing to embrace subjectivity. Trying to determine objective truth about the quality of a Fire Emblem unit seems a little bit silly and extremely futile. If we're doing something like rate the unit and Timerra ends up with ratings everywhere from a 3 to a 7 then that's a feature not a bug. That says "the quality/value of this unit varies depending on how you play the game".  That's more useful for me to know than any attempt to get a single pseudo-objective rating score that applies only to an ill-defined play style that I probably don't share.

[Queenly Arts]

39 minutes ago, Florete said:

"Efficiency" was originally designed as a concept for judging units that would more accurately reflect how average people actually play the game, compared to the in-game rankings that were often used way back when. Unfortunately, efficiency eventually warped into the complete opposite of that, relying on only specific units used, resources allocated in specific ways, and having an ever reliance on saving One More Turn. Nowadays I see the term practically weaponized. And I can't exactly claim any moral high ground here because I was part of that movement.

I still think the original goal was a good one, but I wouldn't mind letting the word "efficiency" as it has been used in FE fandom die completely so we can move on to something better.

Thank you for your explanation of the term's origins! Do you happen to know of any post that established/expressed this? In my research, I went as far back as 10 years ago and saw the same critiques of efficiency that we see today, implying that the term would have already been twisted by then. If I can't find anything that specifically demonstrates that the term did not mean this at some point though, I can't include it in my analysis without just making speculations.

[samthedigital]

24 minutes ago, Queenly Arts said:

Thank you for your explanation of the term's origins! Do you happen to know of any post that established/expressed this? In my research, I went as far back as 10 years ago and saw the same critiques of efficiency that we see today, implying that the term would have already been twisted by then. If I can't find anything that specifically demonstrates that the term did not mean this at some point though, I can't include it in my analysis without just making speculations.

Here is something that might help, but I'm sure that there's more.

[Florete]

42 minutes ago, Queenly Arts said:

Thank you for your explanation of the term's origins! Do you happen to know of any post that established/expressed this? In my research, I went as far back as 10 years ago and saw the same critiques of efficiency that we see today, implying that the term would have already been twisted by then. If I can't find anything that specifically demonstrates that the term did not mean this at some point though, I can't include it in my analysis without just making speculations.

This goes back more like 14-15 years. There was a lot of posting going on back then so it's difficult to find specifics, not to mention it's painful for me to read my own posts from that time.

And honestly, while what I said is definitely what I remember, it wouldn't surprise me if the history is a little different, so I don't blame you for being hesitant to quote me on that. There was definitely some pushback against using rankings, though it didn't take too long for us to just have separate topics for ranking tier lists vs efficiency tier lists, in applicable games, of course.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

Overall I'm grateful for the invention of Character Recommendation guides over tier lists. It's a more helpful resource for the Blind / Casual player. These characters you should have no reservations about using (Dancers, Healers, a great 'Jagen', Lords who can't be undeployed). These characters are great out of the gate and will continue to be as you stick with them. These characters can potentially be great, but at high investment costs (experience, resource favoritism, etc). And these characters are probably best ignored unless you feel you have a handle on the game and want a bit more spice in your playthrough.

[Armchair General]

Personally, I'm more of an casual perfectionist than an LTC guy. But with that said, I really don't care that much for making tier lists and the like because it's not really worth the effort based on the assumption that so and so kept getting bonuses to Resistance and Speed instead of the other stats that I actually wanted.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

What I'll say is, it's not easy to draw a clear distinction between "efficient" and "inefficient" play. However, I think it's possible to distinguish between "more efficient" and "less efficient" play. If I can achieve a clear in 15 turns, versus 16 turns - and I'm not missing any side objectives of note - then the former is more efficient than the latter.

That said, a "pure efficiency" mindset will tend to converge upon an LTC. But when people talk "efficiency" as a playstyle, I would argue they're not talking just efficiency, but also reliability. Stuff like "can I get this clear without relying on specific level-ups?", and "does this strategy avoid putting my units at risk of a lethal crit?" These elements definitely have significance to how most players, "casual" and "elitist" alike, play the game.

[samthedigital]

43 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

That said, a "pure efficiency" mindset will tend to converge upon an LTC. But when people talk "efficiency" as a playstyle, I would argue they're not talking just efficiency, but also reliability. Stuff like "can I get this clear without relying on specific level-ups?", and "does this strategy avoid putting my units at risk of a lethal crit?" These elements definitely have significance to how most players, "casual" and "elitist" alike, play the game.

The poll also mentions time. I've always been of the opinion that this should be relevant in some way because things like staff spamming are still forms of grinding and cost time even if it doesn't show up just by looking at the turn counts.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

1 hour ago, samthedigital said:

The poll also mentions time. I've always been of the opinion that this should be relevant in some way because things like staff spamming are still forms of grinding and cost time even if it doesn't show up just by looking at the turn counts.

Time is an... interesting... axis to consider. On the one hand, I don't think literal time has much weight in "efficiency" discussions. No one says "it's more efficient to play with animations turned off", or "I use the speed-up button on my emulator, it's more efficient that way!"

At the same time, I can see "time" going along with "reliability" - like, if a strategy fails, and I need to reset the game, then that takes up more of my hard-earned time. Does that mean such a strategy is "inefficient", or merely "unreliable"? I'd lean to the latter, but I would consider it in "efficiency" tiering - because, again, I think there are other implicit factors we consider in such a context.

It does raise an interesting specter, though. Like, say in Genealogy, I can use Miracle strats to get Sylvia a reliable kill against a certain Arena boss. But, it takes five minutes of real time. Is that less "efficient" than having Ayra kill that same boss in five seconds? I've generally not thought so, but even then, I can acknowledge that the "average player" will be much more comfortable doing the latter, than the former. So, maybe we should chuck these "time-intensive, turn-agnostic" strategies out the window in "efficient" tiering. Sorry, Sylvia, but you're not going to be able to afford that Leg Ring you so desperately wanted.

Re: staffspam, I guess I could see it as a "time-waste", albeit a far less severe one. Especially with animations turned off. My bigger concern would be "poor stewardship", so to speak. Like, if Moulder burns through the Torch Staff on Spider-Map, and then I don't have one on Phantom Ship, then I've kinda screwed myself over, haven't I? This can be abated if the resource is buyable in-between, but even then, you could argue the money would've been better-spent on something else. Something I'm not just using for "free EXP".

[lenticular]

2 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

However, I think it's possible to distinguish between "more efficient" and "less efficient" play. If I can achieve a clear in 15 turns, versus 16 turns - and I'm not missing any side objectives of note - then the former is more efficient than the latter.

I'd disagree with that. I think there are just too many different variables involved and that once you really start looking at things with a magnifying glass then the idea breaks down. For instance, you say side objectives of note, but who's to decide what counts as being "of note". Recruitments probably count, as do any specific goals the game sets like "don't let the enemy escape with any crest stones". But what about visits? Or chests? Or killing enemies that drop items? Does it matter whether the item they drop is a brave axe or a vulnerary? What about just killing enemies for xp? Would a 16 turn full clear not be better than a 15 turn strat that only killed the boss and then seized? Or what if someone decides to ignore a side objective? Is it more efficient to complete a map like Prisoner Rescue or The Feral Frontier in 60 turns with all side objectives, or in 10 turns just by killing everything? And I'd also say that not all turns are created equal. If I kill all enemies in 8 turns and then spend 8 turns just moving Marth, hitting end turn, and listening to Victory Is Near, is that more or less efficient than if I finish clearing the map on turn 15 and then immediately seize?

I think that, ultimately, my big problem with the idea that a lower turn count means more efficient play is that across all the Fire Emblem games I have played over all the years that I have played them, I don't think I've ever once tried to optimise for turn count. I'm usually optimising for some sort of combination of fun, reliability, and time, with anything on top of that typically being part of a challenge run. Which isn't to say that I think there's anything wrong with caring about turns taken, be it for LTC, ranked runs, or whatever else. People should play the way they want to play. It's just not my thing. And it seems weird to me to prioritise this one metric over all other metrics.

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

funany% the most ambitious endgame of all times

The most efficient way to play Fire Emblem ought to be whichever way a player can maximize their fun, as such any style of play would be perfectly included.

On 9/7/2023 at 5:02 PM, Queenly Arts said:

You may not believe there to be an issue, but as various videos, comment sections, and threads have demonstrated, the topic has a non-zero amount of contention, and is therefore important to consider.

I do think this is a non-issue, tbh. It´s talking about a hobby, not a hostage negotiation (I hope?!). I think the FE community is too fragmented to come to a result in this regard anyway and all issues of unit evaluation are to be considered and attempted to be clarified prior to the discussion.

 

Oh yeah, maybe you can get some more people involved by posting this to the FE gamefaqs, if you want? I didn´t see it specifically stated in your survey. Also consider FEgame centric subreddits if you haven´t?

[Queenly Arts]

13 minutes ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

Oh yeah, maybe you can get some more people involved by posting this to the FE gamefaqs, if you want? I didn´t see it specifically stated in your survey. Also consider FEgame centric subreddits if you haven´t?

I'm not the most familiar with GameFAQs, so I wasn't sure if this would be an appropriate topic to post there. It appears most posts are (as the name of the website implies) specific gameplay questions, in context of individual games. I didn't find any rules or regulations that would clarify if my post would fit/be allowed. The best approach that I observed would be to post the survey as a new topic under the Engage Message Board. Do you think this would be appropriate?

[Jotari]

A strange game. The only truly efficient move is not to play.

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

7 minutes ago, Queenly Arts said:

I'm not the most familiar with GameFAQs, so I wasn't sure if this would be an appropriate topic to post there. It appears most posts are (as the name of the website implies) specific gameplay questions, in context of individual games. I didn't find any rules or regulations that would clarify if my post would fit/be allowed. The best approach that I observed would be to post the survey as a new topic under the Engage Message Board. Do you think this would be appropriate?

Me neither and I never have been on there either, I just thought it could be useful.

Taking a quick glance through the questions posed there, I think a survey on an element of discussion in FE should be just fine. If it doesn´t fit they´ll either ignore it or someones gonna get in contact/delete the topic I presume.

[samthedigital]

3 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Re: staffspam, I guess I could see it as a "time-waste", albeit a far less severe one. Especially with animations turned off. My bigger concern would be "poor stewardship", so to speak. Like, if Moulder burns through the Torch Staff on Spider-Map, and then I don't have one on Phantom Ship, then I've kinda screwed myself over, haven't I? This can be abated if the resource is buyable in-between, but even then, you could argue the money would've been better-spent on something else. Something I'm not just using for "free EXP".

The problem I have is that staff spamming is not really any different from something like boss abuse; it's just that one is turn conscious and the other isn't. I like the arena example that you gave too since it gets the same general idea across.

5 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

That said, a "pure efficiency" mindset will tend to converge upon an LTC.

I want to quickly note that some communities have started moving away from strict LTC and also factor in reliability to the equation too when determining what the best strategy is theoretically speaking, so you might see "efficiency" tier lists that have that added criteria that are completely separate from LTC tier lists. There is a lot of commonality between unit rankings between the two naturally to be sure.

3 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Time is an... interesting... axis to consider. On the one hand, I don't think literal time has much weight in "efficiency" discussions. No one says "it's more efficient to play with animations turned off", or "I use the speed-up button on my emulator, it's more efficient that way!"

I mentioned the above because I want to make it clear that I wouldn't advocate for a "pure efficiency" mindset when evaluating gameplay or units. If I created a tier list for a speedrun for example most units would be equally useless, and some would be even worse than useless because they waste time. The same general idea applies to any kind of optimized playthrough. Admittedly we create problems when we have a looser definition of efficiency, but if the whole concept wasn't subjective to some degree people wouldn't be talking about it I guess 😄.

Edited September 8, 2023 by samthedigital