I consider that a feature, not a bug. I do believe Mia can contribute more towards completing the game than Haar even though Haar is considerably better in their shared availability. Mia has many chapters, including several routs, during which she can contribute and Haar cannot. It's not an easy comparison (many chapters of okay performance vs. a few chapters of great performance), but it's a hell of a lot more meaningful than presuming that Mia will rarely be used because Titania, Oscar, and Marcia are unilaterally stomping the game.
You may have no problem accepting that, and I applauded you for it. However, it is unlikely that this will be the case for many other contributors. Rolf > Bastion should not be controversial so long as Rolf creates a (small) gross positive for the entirety of his existence, and is not losing badly for as long as both exist. You could argue he slows you down if you try to raise him, but you have no more reason to assume he is fighting alongside a team full of awesome mounted units than you do one full of Armour's and Mage's, so the most you could say is that Bastion is better whenever the (apparently randomly selected) team in place before he joined was full of high-move units.
1) Titania is obviously more valuable than Soren no matter what the rest of the team is. However, your general point it valid. How valuable Jill is depends substantially on whether Marcia is deployed and trained. If Marcia is always assumed to be trained and in play, Oscar > Jill seems a likely conclusion. If Marica is never in play, Jill > Oscar is even more likely. If Marcia's likelihood of being in play and/or trained is not assumed, Oscar vs. Jill is an unusual and challenging comparison. Seeing as tier lists should generate meaningful discussion, the relevant question is whether efficiency runs where Marcia isn't trained are meaningful. I believe they are.
The problem is you have no way of knowing what the chances are that any particular unit will be in play if you assume everyone is equally likely to be used, save assuming it is selected at random by an RNG. Obviously, this is a highly restrictive and unrealistic assumption, certainly not when the primary goal is archiving a low turn count. Remember that I said both standards were logically consistent, not that they accurately represent the game as it is actually played.
2) Concerning the first nine chapters, where all units have free deployment, I'm not sure if it makes sense to consider runs where they aren't used. I'm not sure, therefore, whether it is within the scope of this tier list to consider runs where Titania is not used in chapters 1-9. I'd be willing to submit that units with free deployment are assumed to be used (no matter what unit is being considered).
Assuming that units with free deployment receive some kind of use is reasonable, but that they are used in a way independent of more long-term plans, is not. Would you have the list assume completely optimal strategies for the first 9 maps every time, with Titania necessarily receiving a huge portion of the kills, and the player only allowed to select his units and battle plans freely from that point onward?
Point taken. If we can't assume that Marcia will be trained and used, Soren might have either 2 or 8-9 turns of combat in C12. If this were any other FE game, this would be a bigger problem. As it is, plentiful Bexp can negate the importance of an extra level or two or Cexp here and there.
I would think it would come out to more than that if the optimal units are capable of saving that many turns. Even then, other games do exist, and the issue will need to be dealt with if this standard is to be relevant in any other context.
This doesn't make any sense. The tier list's criteria is efficient play. At a bare minimum, this must constrain how we assume chapters are played. Given a set of deployed units, the tier list player will use those players to efficiently complete the chapter and game. There's obviously some room for debating the applied meaning of the phrase "efficiently complete", but it certainly excludes taking additional time/turns or sacrificing reliability for gains that don't play for themselves later in either time/turns or reliability.
You are correct that the list must constrain how chapters are assumed to be played, it's just that one constraint (using the best units for the job) is being relaxed while another (using said units in the way that produces the fastest clear) is not, despite the fact that both are equally counter-productive to achieving the explicit goal of the list. You will likely respond that relaxing the first goal serves a worthy purpose, by allowing more units to enter consideration and broadening the scope for discussion, and I would agree with you. However, an almost identical argument could be made for relaxing the second condition as well. Allowing unconventional yet perfectly viable strategies that do not produce the lowest turn count possible with the team under consideration would add even more factors to the discussion list, as units that can make a larger contribution with more non-orthodox approaches would receive a boost to their relative value.
In either case, you are no longer judging units entirely with low-turning in mind, hence the unsuccessful attempts to draw a line between the varying degrees of "efficiency" must again be confronted.
Well, the tier list assumptions could be set up in such a way that all deployment slots will be filled, but the unit that fills each deployment slot is random (with the obvious exception of the unit being tiered).
Again, units are not selected at random when the game is actually being played, whether the team is an optimal one or not, and being forced onto the field tells you nothing about how much they will be used or in what way.
Edited by GreatEclipse, 08 July 2012 - 07:31 AM.