3434 replies to this topic

[Lord Raven]

Not that it matters but I believe Soren > Ilyana

and nothing new was added to the discussion

but personally i don't care if units die for the purposes of this tier list, but i don't think any efficient strategy actually centers around it happening. It's not really necessary to bring up or argue.

Edited by Lord Raven, 02 July 2012 - 08:16 PM.

[kirsche]

Even ignoring those points, training Soren could potentially cost turns in C4, C6 and C7.

I fail to see how soren getting a few potshots in could possibly slow us down if our teammates are cleaning up afterwards.

And honestly I think you're vastly underestimating how bad Ilyana's stats are compared to sorens. If Soren gets to level 6 by chapter 8, which is very possible because a potshot gives him tonnes of exp and we have BEXP on top of that, soren has very comparable stats to ilyana, and arguably better ones to boot. Ok its likely she has 1 more strength but she uses heavier tomes. Soren has 2 flat speed on her, which will translate to a 3 AS lead if Ilyana uses thunder and Soren uses wind. If Soren uses thunder as well, they will have the same AS. In terms of durability, Soren has more hp and Ilyana has more def, both leads are negligable. On top of that Soren has adept for even better offensive capabilities AND has the better growths (+10% Spd and +10% Mag versus +20% str and +15% Luck, magic and speed obviously being more important.)

Ok with a Zihark support Ilyana has very good avoid, but then we're fielding two mid tier 7-Mov units that ultimately get less and less action the longer the game goes on. And if we wanted a siege bot then training either is a waste as Calill does it just as well without draining resources from the previous chapters. Also Ilyana still loses 3-4 AS from bolting even by the endgame, and her speed wasn't exactly stellar before, so you might as well use Soren for dealing more damage in one hit because Ilyana is not doubling.

[Lord Raven]

Oh wow I didn't see Aeine's posts

No, Soren's existence saves turns more than it costs turns. Without Soren on my team I think I'd have 1-2 more turns than I had, especially since one of the chapters is a rout map. It's easy to get him to Level 5 by Chapter 7 or something just having him and Boyd hang back, and he doubles like a quarter of the units in the defense map.

[Olwen]

And honestly I think you're vastly underestimating how bad Ilyana's stats are compared to sorens. If Soren gets to level 6 by chapter 8, which is very possible because a potshot gives him tonnes of exp and we have BEXP on top of that, soren has very comparable stats to ilyana, and arguably better ones to boot. Ok its likely she has 1 more strength but she uses heavier tomes. Soren has 2 flat speed on her, which will translate to a 3 AS lead if Ilyana uses thunder and Soren uses wind. If Soren uses thunder as well, they will have the same AS. In terms of durability, Soren has more hp and Ilyana has more def, both leads are negligable. On top of that Soren has adept for even better offensive capabilities AND has the better growths (+10% Spd and +10% Mag versus +20% str and +15% Luck, magic and speed obviously being more important.)

Ok with a Zihark support Ilyana has very good avoid, but then we're fielding two mid tier 7-Mov units that ultimately get less and less action the longer the game goes on. And if we wanted a siege bot then training either is a waste as Calill does it just as well without draining resources from the previous chapters. Also Ilyana still loses 3-4 AS from bolting even by the endgame, and her speed wasn't exactly stellar before, so you might as well use Soren for dealing more damage in one hit because Ilyana is not doubling.

Soren has 2-3 more magic than Ilyana. I don't know what your definition of bad is, but that's not much of a difference, especially with forged Thunder tomes.

.....Do you assume that the player is only going to be using mounted units in this game? There's no problem fielding one 6 move unit and one 7 move unit in.. any chapter. Also, tier lists don't mean too much when it comes to who we're going to train. For example, Mordecai is an upper-mid tier when he's mainly useful early on and due to his Smite skill.

Oh wow I didn't see Aeine's posts

No, Soren's existence saves turns more than it costs turns. Without Soren on my team I think I'd have 1-2 more turns than I had, especially since one of the chapters is a rout map. It's easy to get him to Level 5 by Chapter 7 or something just having him and Boyd hang back, and he doubles like a quarter of the units in the defense map.

Think about it logically; how does a unit with chip damage and 5 move ever help you cut turns? I can't even fathom such a thing.

Edited by Aeine, 05 July 2012 - 09:35 AM.

[Shotguner159]

Think about it logically; how does a unit with chip damage and 5 move ever help you cut turns? I can't even fathom such a thing.

By killing a weakened enemy who might move to get healing next turn, or weakening an enemy so we can kill it faster, and use a unit we saved by having Soren weaken it, to do something else.

[Olwen]

By killing a weakened enemy who might move to get healing next turn, or weakening an enemy so we can kill it faster, and use a unit we saved by having Soren weaken it, to do something else.

According to aku chi's LTC strategies (just returning the favor), no earlygame chapter cares about Soren. Not even 7, the rout chapter.

Edited by Aeine, 05 July 2012 - 11:12 AM.

[Lord Raven]

Soren helped a lot with a rout map (the one where Shinon/Gatrie rejoined) and he helped with some chip in Chapter 4. They don't "rely" on him, but he's far more useful than fucking Ilyana.

Source: http://serenesforest...showtopic=27723

He's also never a hindrance early on. His low durability is easy to take care of, very easy; you just don't put him in range. He can attack from behind. In some chapters (Chapter 6 comes to mind), he can literally sit back and be defended by a unit because said unit barely does anything. In chapter 4, he can get some easy EXP or he can make the west easy to take care of.

Ike, Boyd, Oscar etc suck until BEXP. Soren helps them kill something together.

Edited by Lord Raven, 05 July 2012 - 11:25 PM.

[Snowy_One]

I'm curious. Is Aku Chi's LTC strategies the ONLY way to play efficiently? Are they the only strategies out there?

[Olwen]

I'm curious. Is Aku Chi's LTC strategies the ONLY way to play efficiently? Are they the only strategies out there?

There's also this thread but when you play efficiently, usually, there's only a handful of strats you can do to get the lowest possible turns.

[aku chi]

I'm curious. Is Aku Chi's LTC strategies the ONLY way to play efficiently? Are they the only strategies out there?

Of course not. My goal was/is to find the strategies with the fastest clears and the highest reliability. Sometimes, clears require outrageous or unusual requirements, in which case I tried to find an efficient clear with relatively few requirements. And not all chapters were treated equally. I was much more thorough in chapters 10 and 15 than I was in chapter 7. Chapter 7 was particularly difficult to experiment with because it's the last chapter before base and a rout to boot. Sometimes, Ike, Oscar, and/or Boyd won't have the stats to accomplish what they did in my 5-turn clear. It doesn't take much imagination to envision situations where Soren can contribute to a 5 or 6-turn completion of chapter 7. It just so happened that he was unnecessary in my playthrough.

Moreover, the efficiency goals of this tier list are not the same as the goals of a LTC playthrough. I believe this tier list should consider efficient clears with non-optimal deployment. It should certainly consider playthroughs with any subset of Marcia and Jill being recruited and trained (especially because both units have costly recruitment).

[Snowy_One]

I see. That's what's confusing me as, for a moment, it sounded like people were considering only a few specific set plans as viable at which point Soren could be discounted. IMO, even when looking at it from a 'LTC' standpoint, as many possible team combinations should be considered including, *le gasp*, combinations with no Boyd, Oscar, or Titania. I mean the contributions of units can still be measured in turn-count reductions right? And we DO have to consider sub-optimal deployments, right? After all, this list doesn't exist to simply find the way and team that can beat the game in the lowest possible turncount (or else there would be no meaning in measuring the majority of the list as they wouldn't help), right?

[GreatEclipse]

I see. That's what's confusing me as, for a moment, it sounded like people were considering only a few specific set plans as viable at which point Soren could be discounted. IMO, even when looking at it from a 'LTC' standpoint, as many possible team combinations should be considered including, *le gasp*, combinations with no Boyd, Oscar, or Titania. I mean the contributions of units can still be measured in turn-count reductions right? And we DO have to consider sub-optimal deployments, right? After all, this list doesn't exist to simply find the way and team that can beat the game in the lowest possible turncount (or else there would be no meaning in measuring the majority of the list as they wouldn't help), right?

No consensus was ever reached on this point, actually. The most logically consistent standards are:

1) An "optimal" team using optimal tactics is the only possibility considered, as it is most consistent with the goals of the list.

2) Everyone is equally likely to be in play, no one is punished for denying the use of another, better unit in their place.

They are mutually incompatible and produce radically different lists when taken to their logical conclusion, which almost no one ever actually goes through with because it produces counter-intuitive/absurd results (depending on how you look at it), and so people apply them arbitrarily on a unit-by-unit basis when it helps them reach their pre-set conclusions.

Edited by GreatEclipse, 07 July 2012 - 01:58 PM.

[aku chi]

No consensus was ever reached on this point, actually. The most logically consistent standards are:

1) An "optimal" team using optimal tactics is the only possibility considered, as it is most consistent with the goals of the list.

2) Everyone is equally likely to be in play, no one is punished for denying the use of another, better unit in their place.

They are mutually incompatible and produce radically different lists when taken to their logical conclusion, which almost no one ever actually goes through with because it produces counter-intuitive/absurd results (depending on how you look at it), and so people apply them arbitrarily on a unit-by-unit basis when it helps them reach their per-set conclusions.

I fully support the second standard because it increases the scope of discussion and still answers the tier list's fundamental question: 'how much can this unit contribute in an efficient playthrough'. I don't believe it leads to any absurd conclusions. Theoretically, for example, Zihark could be the unit with the most movement in C16, but that would require none of {Titania, Oscar, Marcia, Lethe, Mordecai, Kieran, Jill, Astrid, Makalov, Muarim} to be in play - a likelihood so small as to be irrelevant when considering Zihark's potential contributions.

[GreatEclipse]

I fully support the second standard because it increases the scope of discussion and still answers the tier list's fundamental question: 'how much can this unit contribute in an efficient playthrough'. I don't believe it leads to any absurd conclusions. Theoretically, for example, Zihark could be the unit with the most movement in C16, but that would require none of {Titania, Oscar, Marcia, Lethe, Mordecai, Kieran, Jill, Astrid, Makalov, Muarim} to be in play - a likelihood so small as to be irrelevant when considering Zihark's potential contributions.

The problem the second standard (Formally known as the gross system) ran into was that units who gave a mediocre performance from chapter 1 all the way to final come out better than pre-promotes who join around 3/4th of the way in and are amazing for the whole of their existence, because to account for what could have been accomplished had said mediocre growth unit been replaced with someone else would be to invoke the first standard (Known as the net system). Someone would need to be so bad that trying to use them actively worked against you in absolute terms for availability to not be an unconditional benefit, and that is unlikely to be the case for anyone in this game at least.

A second, much less discussed, problem is that if everyone is equally likely to be in play, then no good reason exists to assume that the lowest turn strategies are being used, because those are premised on the best units being in play. This does not result in units being impossible to tier, because you can still put Titania above Soren for having the potential to help achieve a lower turn count, even if it is up in the air whether that particular turn count with be achieved. However, when comparing Soren to, say, Ilyana, you no reason to assume (Or not to assume) that the preceding chapters were a Titania stomp, because the player, despite the apparent assumption that he/she desires clearing in fewer turns than more whenever possible, is under no obligation to give Titania even a single kill for the entirety of the game. This has profound implications for how fast units in Soren's position can be expected to grow, and it creates a huge number of other problems as well. For example, if an optimal team can clear X chapter in 6 turns with optimal tactics, and a sub-optimal team can clear that same chapter in 8 with equally optimal tactics, and both outcomes are considered acceptable by the list, then why should an 8 turn clear with the optimal team, using sub-optimal tactics, not also be considered an acceptable outcome? Attempts have been made to draw a distinction between "Normal Efficiency" and "Maximum Efficiency", but any dividing line that is drawn is sure to be completely arbitrary.

Edit: Another problem I forgot to mention. If no one team of units is inherently favored by the list over any other, then controlling the quantity of units assumed to be in play is just as impossible as controlling the quality. Ike and Titania vs. the world is just as valid for consideration as a 12 man team, as is something akin to an FE4 ranked run.

Mind you, I would argue the first standard is even worse, as it not only makes many units equally worthless, but makes some better than others for hilariously trivial reasons (Ex. Wolt vs. Fir). And this is all before the philosophical problems inherent in very concept of "Efficiency", as economists understand it, are even brought up.

Edited by GreatEclipse, 07 July 2012 - 01:54 PM.

[aku chi]

The problem the second standard (Formally known as the gross system) ran into was that units who gave a mediocre performance from chapter 1 all the way to final come out better than pre-promotes who join around 3/4th of the way in and are amazing for the whole of their existence, because to account for what could have been accomplished had said mediocre growth unit been replaced with someone else would be to invoke the first standard (Known as the net system). Someone would need to be so bad that trying to use them actively worked against you in absolute terms for availability to not be an unconditional benefit, and that is unlikely to be the case for anyone in this game at least.

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.

A second, much less discussed, problem is that if everyone is equally likely to be in play, then no good reason exists to assume that the lowest turn strategies are being used, because those are premised on the best units being in play. This does not result in units being impossible to tier, because you can still put Titania above Soren for having the potential to help achieve a lower turn count, even if it is up in the air whether that particular turn count with be achieved. However, when comparing Soren to, say, Ilyana, you no reason to assume (Or not to assume) that the preceding chapters were a Titania stomp, because the player, despite the apparent assumption that he/she desires clearing in fewer turns than more whenever possible, is under no obligation to give Titania even a single kill for the entirety of the game.

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.
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).

This has profound implications for how fast units in Soren's position can be expected to grow,

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.

and it creates a huge number of other problems as well. For example, if an optimal team can clear X chapter in 6 turns with optimal tactics, and a sub-optimal team can clear that same chapter in 8 with equally optimal tactics, and both outcomes are considered acceptable by the list, then why should an 8 turn clear with the optimal team, using sub-optimal tactics, not also be considered an acceptable outcome? Attempts have been made to draw a distinction between "Normal Efficiency" and "Maximum Efficiency", but any dividing line that is drawn is sure to be completely arbitrary.

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.

Edit: Another problem I forgot to mention. If no one team of units is inherently favored by the list over any other, then controlling the quantity of units assumed to be in play is just as impossible as controlling the quality. Ike and Titania vs. the world is just as valid for consideration as a 12 man team, as is something akin to an FE4 ranked run.

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).

[GreatEclipse]

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.

[Snowy_One]

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 standard were logically consistent, not that they accurately represent the game as it is actually played.

Probably doesn't help but waaaay back when what I did when on the tier lists was assume that players team was filled with a load of generic units unless specifically mentioned otherwise. The team would consist of 1 Ike, 1 X unit, 1-5 fliers/mounted units, 1-2 sages, and 1 healer with foot soldiers filling in any missing slots at a 1-1 ratio. The team would follow obvious paths and plans, try to net as much reward as possible, and would come it at the BEXP turncount limit (highest possible turncount without losing BEXP) and the measure how well the unit did from there. Obviously things are different here and now, I know that well enough, but maybe something similar is needed to measure potential. Otherwise the list is going to end up being simply a singular 'optimal' team with any units not on said team being ranked by how little they slow said team down.

[Albafika]

.. Wow.... This tier list is crushing my mind...

Is there... Some sort of post with the information that leaded to this Tier List summarized?

[-Cynthia-]

Units with high mobility and availability are favored because they allow for faster turncounts with good reliability. That's the short version.

[Lord Raven]

I'll write a full summary (based on my perception) soon. It'll provoke a lot of shit with aku chi but that's okay..