FE9 Tier list v3

[Rodykitty]

Dividing up resources should be a decision on the player's part, and not a decision of the tier list. That, and people seem to have the idea that using anything but top tier characters is suddenly playing inefficiently. You can still play efficiently with worse characters, it'll just take a different planning and division of resources to pull off.

Tier lists in fighting games and Smash Bros games (I will report trolls that attempt to start an argument as to whether the latter is a fighting game or not) typically tier characters assuming the players in question are equally skilled. In FE games' case, we can replace skill with being given the same resources. Worse characters are still going to do worse, and that is the goal of the tier list is to rank characters from best to worst.

If this list is just about dividing up resources inefficiently, Soviet Russia style, and doing snapshot combat comparisons, so be it.

Communist tier lists (like the H5 one) has a nice ring to it.

[Narga_Rocks]

If this list is just about dividing up resources inefficiently, Soviet Russia style, and doing snapshot combat comparisons, so be it.

Communist tier lists (like the H5 one) has a nice ring to it.

Are you sure yours is a communist tier list?

Our issue with that idea is simply that it has the potential of completely ignoring opportunity cost. One unit (A) might use some item or skill (X) very well and no other unit comes close. Now sure, when you compare A with some other unit you should try to find an item for B that it can use. But if A can use a skill better than anybody else, but the only thing that saves B is an item/skill that 2 or maybe even 3 units can use equally well (Y), shouldn't that be taken into consideration? ie: even if B > A with nothing, the fact that A can grab something and be better than B should be considered. And while B can take something else and technically be better than the XA (or sometimes not even better than the XA anyway) applying opportunity cost correctly should mean that B taking that item comes with a cost that is too high for YB > XA to be true. ie: If B > A but XA > XB, then give B something different so that YB > XA. And while that's nice in theory, the cost of giving X to A could be much lower than the cost of giving Y to B.

Or something similar.

Communist tier lists would ignore the cost, and say if you give A something, you should give B something. The idea here is that if you gave X to A then basically anything B wants is automatically justified regardless of circumstance because we are giving things away to whoever wants it.

Int and I don't quite see how that falls in line with the goal of efficiency.

[Dat Nick]

Our issue with that idea is simply that it has the potential of completely ignoring opportunity cost. One unit (A) might use some item or skill (X) very well and no other unit comes close. Now sure, when you compare A with some other unit you should try to find an item for B that it can use. But if A can use a skill better than anybody else, but the only thing that saves B is an item/skill that 2 or maybe even 3 units can use equally well (Y), shouldn't that be taken into consideration? ie: even if B > A with nothing, the fact that A can grab something and be better than B should be considered. And while B can take something else and technically be better than the XA (or sometimes not even better than the XA anyway) applying opportunity cost correctly should mean that B taking that item comes with a cost that is too high for YB > XA to be true. ie: If B > A but XA > XB, then give B something different so that YB > XA. And while that's nice in theory, the cost of giving X to A could be much lower than the cost of giving Y to B.

Condensed version: If Unit X is the only possible contender for said form of resources, how is it favoritism?

I mean, it's kind of ridiculous how we have to stretch out basic arguments into gigantic essays just to ease the stubbornness of others.

[Rodykitty]

Our issue with that idea is simply that it has the potential of completely ignoring opportunity cost. One unit (A) might use some item or skill (X) very well and no other unit comes close. Now sure, when you compare A with some other unit you should try to find an item for B that it can use. But if A can use a skill better than anybody else, but the only thing that saves B is an item/skill that 2 or maybe even 3 units can use equally well (Y), shouldn't that be taken into consideration? ie: even if B > A with nothing, the fact that A can grab something and be better than B should be considered. And while B can take something else and technically be better than the XA (or sometimes not even better than the XA anyway) applying opportunity cost correctly should mean that B taking that item comes with a cost that is too high for YB > XA to be true. ie: If B > A but XA > XB, then give B something different so that YB > XA. And while that's nice in theory, the cost of giving X to A could be much lower than the cost of giving Y to B.

How I treat situations like this is that the ability to use is weighed more than actually getting the item, this way it takes into consideration something a character can do without screwing over low tiers.

For example, Julian gets points for being able to use a Devil Sword better than other characters, but other characters are not punished because of his ability to use it.

Communist tier lists would ignore the cost, and say if you give A something, you should give B something. The idea here is that if you gave X to A then basically anything B wants is automatically justified regardless of circumstance because we are giving things away to whoever wants it.

The cost is not ignored actually. Notice I usually try to leave stat boosters and forgings out of comparison when possible because it prevents a lot of unnecessary favortism and shows who benefits more from such things anyway. The FE9 & 10 tier list seems to be the opposite, trying to find some form of favortism to every unit possible and the result is Smash making 20 threads on Mia and crap like that.

[-Cynthia-]

I wouldn't say that Mia beats Zihark at join time...the latter has more Str, a Spd lead, and has Adept. Their defense is about even. */random*

Also, I think I get what Interceptor is talking about. Mia is really awful at first, but if used, her contributions to an efficient playthrough should be taken into account. Her use of resources are counted against her, true, but her use of them to help the team through the chapters where Geoffrey doesn't exist should be taken into account.

Using no resources > using resources, obviously, but we also have to consider that Mia has used those resources when Geoffrey didn't exist, and she's been using them fairly decently in those chapters. If this list is ranked solely on how they perform in chapters at certain levels/with resources and whatnot, then she loses to Geoffrey instantly.

...however, her contributions to the team over the period of 17 chapters makes it more even. If I recall, it's the thing that got Ike above Tanith, and how Rolf managed to get out of Bottom. Yes, availability works both ways, but it's still an advantage if she's doing something positive over time.

(Which isn't to say characters with more availability > characters with less, far from it.)

I obviously see that Mia contributes over the course the game, the question is how much. It's not really a lot for quite a few chapters until she promotes, then she contributes, then Geoffrey beats her pretty much regardless of how many resources we give Mia.

This is a tier list for an efficient playthrough, the question is whether Mia performing at an average or slightly above average level for longer is better than Geoffrey being significantly above average for a short period of time, I'm inclined to go with the latter. Obviously we can't do comparisons solely based off availability or on direct statistical comparisons, efficiency is a mxture of the two.

[Narga_Rocks]

Our issue with that idea is simply that it has the potential of completely ignoring opportunity cost. One unit (A) might use some item or skill (X) very well and no other unit comes close. Now sure, when you compare A with some other unit you should try to find an item for B that it can use. But if A can use a skill better than anybody else, but the only thing that saves B is an item/skill that 2 or maybe even 3 units can use equally well (Y), shouldn't that be taken into consideration? ie: even if B > A with nothing, the fact that A can grab something and be better than B should be considered. And while B can take something else and technically be better than the XA (or sometimes not even better than the XA anyway) applying opportunity cost correctly should mean that B taking that item comes with a cost that is too high for YB > XA to be true. ie: If B > A but XA > XB, then give B something different so that YB > XA. And while that's nice in theory, the cost of giving X to A could be much lower than the cost of giving Y to B.

Condensed version: If Unit X is the only possible contender for said form of resources, how is it favoritism?

I mean, it's kind of ridiculous how we have to stretch out basic arguments into gigantic essays just to ease the stubbornness of others.

Well, I try to make my posts longer than my sig. :P

I saw that Sears tower line.

Our issue with that idea is simply that it has the potential of completely ignoring opportunity cost. One unit (A) might use some item or skill (X) very well and no other unit comes close. Now sure, when you compare A with some other unit you should try to find an item for B that it can use. But if A can use a skill better than anybody else, but the only thing that saves B is an item/skill that 2 or maybe even 3 units can use equally well (Y), shouldn't that be taken into consideration? ie: even if B > A with nothing, the fact that A can grab something and be better than B should be considered. And while B can take something else and technically be better than the XA (or sometimes not even better than the XA anyway) applying opportunity cost correctly should mean that B taking that item comes with a cost that is too high for YB > XA to be true. ie: If B > A but XA > XB, then give B something different so that YB > XA. And while that's nice in theory, the cost of giving X to A could be much lower than the cost of giving Y to B.

How I treat situations like this is that the ability to use is weighed more than actually getting the item, this way it takes into consideration something a character can do without screwing over low tiers.

For example, Julian gets points for being able to use a Devil Sword better than other characters, but other characters are not punished because of his ability to use it.

Well, the damage could be mitigated if you consider

a: the lower tier unit isn't always going to be in play

b: when comparing two upper tier units we aren't concerned with the lower tiers (that one is probably thin)

c: unless the lower tier unit won't be able to level without it, I don't see how it hurts them, and we are in this for efficiency anyway

d: when discussing 2 lower tiers, if one uses that resource better than another, they can at least get some credit for being able to use it better (although sometimes not much depending on what the item is)

An example of c is Mia with Adept in part 3 of RD. Giving it to Boyd, for example, isn't really going to save him from meh-ness. A 20% adept rate won't suddenly make him super useful, nor will it significantly improve his ability to level. And it certainly isn't going to cause a significant boost to efficiency. Giving it to Mia, on the other hand, causes a semi-reliable proc rate and can definitely boost efficiency, and since she isn't killing everything she faces, plenty of enemies are left with low enough hit for Boyd to get kills anyway.

Communist tier lists would ignore the cost, and say if you give A something, you should give B something. The idea here is that if you gave X to A then basically anything B wants is automatically justified regardless of circumstance because we are giving things away to whoever wants it.

The cost is not ignored actually. Notice I usually try to leave stat boosters and forgings out of comparison when possible because it prevents a lot of unnecessary favortism and shows who benefits more from such things anyway. The FE9 & 10 tier list seems to be the opposite, trying to find some form of favortism to every unit possible and the result is Smash making 20 threads on Mia and crap like that.

Then I'm not sure how communist your list is.

Anyway, the whole point is that we have a tier list about the efficient completion of this game, and we have a ton of resources to assist in achieving that goal, so if one unit is basically a machine with an input of a couple of resources and an output of game breaking proportions, I'd say that's worth something. (not mia in this game)

Edited September 25, 2009 by Narga_Rocks

[Rodykitty]

Well, the damage could be mitigated if you consider

a: the lower tier unit isn't always going to be in play

b: when comparing two upper tier units we aren't concerned with the lower tiers (that one is probably thin)

c: unless the lower tier unit won't be able to level without it, I don't see how it hurts them, and we are in this for efficiency anyway

d: when discussing 2 lower tiers, if one uses that resource better than another, they can at least get some credit for being able to use it better (although sometimes not much depending on what the item is)

A: This is favortism in itself. Please stop enforcing "chance of play" as a factor in character tier position, it's not helping accuracy at all.

C: If a character can't level without resources, then they're probably garbage anyway. Otherwise it does hurt said character because people want to make their positions lower than they already are in contrast to a perfect team instead of comparing to the characters around them.

B & D: We shouldn't differenciate how we treat characters depending on their tier position. Their tier position is a result of debate, not the other way around. Their ability to handle resources should be based on circumstance and not tier position.

An example of c is Mia with Adept in part 3 of RD. Giving it to Boyd, for example, isn't really going to save him from meh-ness. A 20% adept rate won't suddenly make him super useful, nor will it significantly improve his ability to level. And it certainly isn't going to cause a significant boost to efficiency. Giving it to Mia, on the other hand, causes a semi-reliable proc rate and can definitely boost efficiency, and since she isn't killing everything she faces, plenty of enemies are left with low enough hit for Boyd to get kills anyway.

I would say that Mia should definitely be noted for doing this well, but that other characters should not be punished (outside of availability issues, etc) because Mia benefits more. Same as my Julian example above. Let's go for consistency.

Anyway, the whole point is that we have a tier list about the efficient completion of this game, and we have a ton of resources to assist in achieving that goal, so if one unit is basically a machine with an input of a couple of resources and an output of game breaking proportions, I'd say that's worth something. (not mia in this game)

I don't believe that's the ultimate goal of a tier list. The ultimate goal of a tier list is to rank the effectiveness of characters from best to worst with an efficient playstyle, but people put so much emphasis on efficiency that they're losing sight that all characters are needing to be played efficiently, not just the most efficient team. Edited September 25, 2009 by Alucart

[Narga_Rocks]

But even if you consider all characters have an equal chance of being played, in RD that's like 10/60 or something. So assuming Mia gets stuff when she's in play doesn't really hurt the others much. And besides, once she's in play, the team, whatever it is, should be played as efficiently as possible. That generally means that you give a crown to Gatrie, a wing to Titania, Ike to Mia, that kind of stuff. If we use Gatrie/Titania/Mia. If they aren't in play, it isn't an issue for the others. If they are in play, I don't really see how another character getting the crown is going to bring more to the table than Gatrie. Thus, Gats gets it. If we put it elsewhere, our team as a whole will be worse off.

Well, the damage could be mitigated if you consider

a: the lower tier unit isn't always going to be in play

b: when comparing two upper tier units we aren't concerned with the lower tiers (that one is probably thin)

c: unless the lower tier unit won't be able to level without it, I don't see how it hurts them, and we are in this for efficiency anyway

d: when discussing 2 lower tiers, if one uses that resource better than another, they can at least get some credit for being able to use it better (although sometimes not much depending on what the item is)

A: This is favortism in itself. Please stop enforcing "chance of play" as a factor in character tier position, it's not helping accuracy at all.

C: If a character can't level without resources, then they're probably garbage anyway. Otherwise it does hurt said character because people want to make their positions lower than they already are in contrast to a perfect team instead of comparing to the characters around them.

When I said the lower tier won't always be in play, that didn't say anything about the upper tier unit. It's not favouritism to state reality. You only have so many slots.

Boyd isn't garbage. But he's not doing much with adept. But we haven't actually tried to make his position any lower. The units above him (Oscar, Nephenee, Ranulf) happen to use Adept better than he does, and the units below him use it worse. And if we ignore Adept's existence, the units above him are still above him, and the units below him are still below. The fact that we suggest Mia should get Adept because of what she does with it doesn't really have any bearing on Boyd's position.

B & D: We shouldn't differenciate how we treat characters depending on their tier position. Their tier position is a result of debate, not the other way around. Their ability to handle resources should be based on circumstance and not tier position.

I already said B was a little thin, but the point is that when comparing two characters we have to look at what the rest of the team can do with whatever I want to throw at Titania and Gatrie to see who comes out on top. In the end, if I can give Titania something that boosts the team's overall efficiency by more than if I give it to anybody else, then it's fine. Ditto Gats. It happens to be a wing and a crown. It's irrelevant what position the other units are in. We can usually take a quick glance at the bottom of the list and know which units probably don't even matter in the comparison, but that's not just a result of us putting them there. It's a time saver. We could go through each and every one of them and make the comparison, but frankly we already know going into it that they'll come up short in the comparison because there is a reason we put them there in the first place. So yes, their ability to use the resource should be analyzed on a case by case basis, but there are so many characters that it's too much work. Frankly, if someone wants to go and find a unit down the list that can use something nicely, fine, bring it up. But since I'm not looking at Sigrun's tier placement while comparing Titania and Mia, there isn't really a point in me going unit by unit just to show that any potential team is not hurt by Mia getting it.

An example of c is Mia with Adept in part 3 of RD. Giving it to Boyd, for example, isn't really going to save him from meh-ness. A 20% adept rate won't suddenly make him super useful, nor will it significantly improve his ability to level. And it certainly isn't going to cause a significant boost to efficiency. Giving it to Mia, on the other hand, causes a semi-reliable proc rate and can definitely boost efficiency, and since she isn't killing everything she faces, plenty of enemies are left with low enough hit for Boyd to get kills anyway.

I would say that Mia should definitely be noted for doing this well, but that other characters should not be punished (outside of availability issues, etc) because Mia benefits more. Same as my Julian example above. Let's go for consistency.

What do you even mean by that? If I'm giving Mia something because of what she does with it, the only way I can see what you are saying matters is if there is some other unit that would suddenly jump 5 slots in the tier list if I were to give it to him instead. But all the units above him also get consideration for anything they can use. If even that consideration still means that the item would jump the units' position by 5 slots, then he'd have to get some credit too. If we go by everyone has equal chance to be fielded, that means a large portion of the time that unit can get it without interfering with Mia getting it, since they only have a 1 in 16 chance of both being fielded at the same time, or something (and that's just if both have a 1 in 4 chance of being played based on # of slots). Then in the case where both are fielded, they are now on the same team and whichever unit can make the team as a whole stronger with it, they should get it.

Anyway, the whole point is that we have a tier list about the efficient completion of this game, and we have a ton of resources to assist in achieving that goal, so if one unit is basically a machine with an input of a couple of resources and an output of game breaking proportions, I'd say that's worth something. (not mia in this game)

I don't believe that's the ultimate goal of a tier list. The ultimate goal of a tier list is to rank the effectiveness of characters from best to worst with an efficient playstyle, but people put so much emphasis on efficiency that they're losing sight that all characters are needing to be played efficiently, not just the most efficient team.

No, whatever team you happen to be using needs to be played efficiently. If Mia happens to be on that team, then what she does with a resource needs to be compared to what others can do with the same resource. Since she comes out on top, yay her. When she's not around because of not being deployed, well then she's not taking anything anymore, is she? So that other team can get it and try to use it as efficiently as possible. I don't really see how giving Mia the item while deployed is a problem. To maximize efficiency, if she's deployed she gets it.

(I wish I had examples from this game so it would at least be on topic, oh well)

Edited September 25, 2009 by Narga_Rocks

[Rodykitty]

The idea of ignoring chances of play isn't to ignore reality, it's to prevent certain characters for being punished for stupid reasons. "Oh, Rofl isn't likely to be played. Auto-bottom tier."

When I said the lower tier won't always be in play, that didn't say anything about the upper tier unit. It's not favouritism to state reality. You only have so many slots.

We just assume the team is prepped to accommodate the unit in advance.

What do you even mean by that?

I mean that Mia gets points for making better use of something, but is not entitled for consistency's sake. If her ability to use these things are so much better, then yeah that'll be weighed more heavily.

This is very scematic based, but a possible compromise if you can grasp what I'm trying to say. The ability is acknowledged and not the taking of resources. This can then allow other units, even if it's a minor boost to have said resources if they're being compared to characters not named Mia. Granted, I haven't played FE10 so maybe nobody cares about taking whatever Mia is taking, but I still would like to see some solid consistency.

No, whatever team you happen to be using needs to be played efficiently.

Which is what I said. Believe it or not, the previous statement I quoted before actually implies something heavily different that would just lead to two tiers: Characters we're using and characters we're not using.

[Ether]

Okay,so let's see if Geoffrey really has all that much of a lead.I'll do a comparison in chapter 26,with Mia at 20/12(13 at chapter 11,and one level each chapter since,she could probably be higher) vs. Base Geoffrey,since he can't do anything in 25.For supports,Mia has A Rhys B Ilyana.

Defensively first,Mia has 37/16/74 Hp/Def/Avo,while Geoffrey has 43/21/50

So it's 6 Hp and 5 Def vs. 24 Avo and VantageBlicking,(she also has a 2 res lead)

As for that,Mia has 20% chance with Silver,30% with a forge,and 50% with a killing edge.

For now I'll call it even,24 Avo is a big lead,and she blicks a good amount of the enemies that swing at her,but geoff has a good concrete lead,so a tie is good.

Offensively,Geoff misses doubling 15/44 of the initial enemies,so 1/3 that she stomps him against,heck,the Brave sword SM doubles him.

Now for attack values,

Mia

KE:32 Att/56 Crit

Silver:36 Att/26 Crit

Geoff:

KL:28 Att/38 Crit

Silver:33 Att/ 8 Crit

KB:27 Att/38 crit

So Geoffrey needs to use a Silvah lance to beat Mia's damage with a killing Edge,and even with killers he is nowhere near her proc rate.

So Mia wins offense by a landslide.

If Mia > Geoff when both exist,then i see no hope for him.

Also,let's not forget Wrath.

Edited September 25, 2009 by Ether

[grandjackal]

Looks like a clear win for Mia to me. Nice to see her out of the lows.

Anyways to Narga, I think the point here is that a tier list should see how each unit can be used efficiently in a team rather than just trying to find who the best team is. If you're just trying to find the perfect team, the list would be no bigger than there is available unit slots.

Basically the RD list assumes that the top tiers are always in play, when we have no reason to think that because we can't force the player him or herself. Basically, the list punishes anyone in anything below upper mid for being below upper mid. We can't just assume high tiers are in play any more than lower tiers. It's more likely, but it doesn't mean always. Example.

Mia does put the best use to Adept, but she's not always in play. What if she's not in play? Your list is basically assuming it goes to no one. Oscar could and Nephenee could. If they are argued against Mia, then it's a definite. But otherwise, I don't have to assume Mia's in play.

Example from the DS board. Maric puts the first seal to best use as he can basically instantly become one of the best units on your team. However, we also assume what to do with it when he's not in play. Thus others who can put the first seal to good use are weighed getting it as well, as it's an advantage they have over the rest of the cast. I don't punish them for needing to take the seal from Maric. They are still lower than Maric due to when he uses it he is far better, but again I can't just assume the player is using him every playthrough.

It's as silly as saying someone's stealing exp really.

[Dat Nick]

To clarify: "How often is X unit played?" only really applies and should really only apply to supports.

Edited September 25, 2009 by Joker

[Interceptor]

Dividing up resources should be a decision on the player's part, and not a decision of the tier list.

You're going to have to explain what you're talking about, here. Tier lists are not capable of decision-making, seeing as how they lack self-awareness. They are, after all, just lists of names on the Interwebs. People who run and/or participate in tier lists are capable of decision-making, but that's a horse of a different color, isn't it?

I have a really bad feeling that you're one of those people who think that tier lists ought to be psychology experiments that attempt to predict what random FE players will do. If that's true, you and I are guaranteed to not get along.

That, and people seem to have the idea that using anything but top tier characters is suddenly playing inefficiently. You can still play efficiently with worse characters, it'll just take a different planning and division of resources to pull off.

If we were to define efficient play as minimizing turn counts and maximizing chance of success, bad characters will never get you to the optimal scenario. If you were define efficient play as simply doing the best with what you have, that's all well and good, but I don't see the usefulness of that WRT tiering.

Tier lists in fighting games and Smash Bros games (I will report trolls that attempt to start an argument as to whether the latter is a fighting game or not) typically tier characters assuming the players in question are equally skilled.

So apparently you've reported yourself. How'd that turn out?

Never mind. I have seen many tier lists for fighting games, and the serious ones (based on facts rather than some snot-nosed tween's gut instincts) do not make the entirely silly assumption that players are equally skilled. The assumption that they make is that the players know what they are doing. Many tiering decisions in fighting game lists hinge on particular mechanics, be they universal or character specific. The point that I am getting at, here, is that the likely result of an A vs. B match-up can change depending on player knowledge/mastery, and therefore cannot be represented properly on a monolithic list. How could it? You'd need an entry for every character/skill level combination.

But, that's all moot, and was just an excuse for me to taunt you about reporting yourself, because fighting game tier lists are for competitive purposes and have little to nothing to do with a single-player turn-based strategy game. When people say to me that "tier lists are supposed to do X", I like to retort by asking for a link to to Official Fire Emblem Tier List Consortium website, with its official tiering rule standards, official debating frameworks, and offical overpriced OFETLC t-shirts, mousepads, and bobblehead dolls. To a man, everyone fails to produce such a thing, largely because this thing doesn't actually exist.

In the absence of an internationally-recogniized standards organization, I posit that FE tier lists are defined by the goals that they are designed to represent, and those goals are determined by consensus or fiat. In other words, tier lists are what people choose to make of them. Fin.

In FE games' case, we can replace skill with being given the same resources. Worse characters are still going to do worse, and that is the goal of the tier list is to rank characters from best to worst.

That's one way to tier but it's not the only way (see: name length tier list) and I'd argue that it's not the most interesting way, either.

Communist tier lists (like the H5 one) has a nice ring to it.

Better dead than red, comrade.

This is a tier list for an efficient playthrough, the question is whether Mia performing at an average or slightly above average level for longer is better than Geoffrey being significantly above average for a short period of time, I'm inclined to go with the latter. Obviously we can't do comparisons solely based off availability or on direct statistical comparisons, efficiency is a mxture of the two.

That raises the question: what does efficient mean in this tier list? How much of a difference does a unit have to make? Mia is impacting her world for at least four times longer than Geoff is. That might be a key point, since there is generally a limit as to how much a unit is actually capable of moving the needle of efficiency in a given amount of time, after all.

[Rodykitty]

You're going to have to explain what you're talking about, here. Tier lists are not capable of decision-making, seeing as how they lack self-awareness. They are, after all, just lists of names on the Interwebs. People who run and/or participate in tier lists are capable of decision-making, but that's a horse of a different color, isn't it?

The player is defined as a person doing his own personal playthrough and making decisions for his own playthrough. The tier list just examines the characters within the game.

I have a really bad feeling that you're one of those people who think that tier lists ought to be psychology experiments that attempt to predict what random FE players will do. If that's true, you and I are guaranteed to not get along.

No no. I want to minimize randomness and look at what characters do for the player, rather than what the player can do for the characters.

That's one way to tier but it's not the only way (see: name length tier list) and I'd argue that it's not the most interesting way, either.

I think the most interesting ways to debate should be conditional then, or on the debate board. The reason I have a list of rules on the H5 tier list is so that we can spend more time arguing about the characters instead of arguing tier criteria.

I'm usually open to suggestions, though half the time they fail.

Better dead than red, comrade.

We'll see about that.

(For the record, I hope nobody takes the communism thing seriously.)

[Interceptor]

The player is defined as a person doing his own personal playthrough and making decisions for his own playthrough. The tier list just examines the characters within the game.

Ahh yes, the vaunted "tier player". Chief amongst my many issues with this, is that a playthrough without sufficient guidelines doesn't give enough context for accurate ranking of characters. For example, Rolf is fairly useful if you Paladin-bomb this game and give him plenty of hax units to hide behind. However, if you're not doing that, the "Hard" in Hard Mode is no longer shorthand for "Hard To Lose", and he's measurably less useful for an efficient (efficient by my earlier definition) playthrough.

My personal feeling on resources is that some units are just manifestly better with them than others, and a failure to account for that is a failure to be accurate. My favorite way to express that in a pithy sort of way has been immortalized in Narga's sig: if someone is objectively the best use of a particular resource, and you only give it to them half the time when they are deployed, that suggests that half the time you're a retard.

No no. I want to minimize randomness and look at what characters do for the player, rather than what the player can do for the characters.

Best of luck with that, since it's trivial to prove that player decisions change the relative worth of characters.

I think the most interesting ways to debate should be conditional then, or on the debate board. The reason I have a list of rules on the H5 tier list is so that we can spend more time arguing about the characters instead of arguing tier criteria.

I don't favor tier lists that are hamstrung with unrealistic ground rules, but we'll clearly differ on this point, so there's nothing left to say.

[Dat Nick]

I do just want to say that he does seem to give "Who can use what the best way" some consideration at least, or at least that's the message he sent. He never said anything about me assuming some resources only mages can use [spirit Dusts and tomes acquired earlier] on Merric, who is one of two viable mage units in FEDS.

edt:

Level 13 Mia (knight band equipped when leveling up with BEXP): 24.5 hp, 10 str, 2.1 mag, 13.15 skl, 17.2 spd, 9.15 lck, 8.6 def, 3.75 res

Level 10 Zihark: 25 hp, 10 str, 1 mag, 13 skl, 15 spd, 6 lck, 7 def, 0 res

I'm all for Mia up and everything, but 13 looks way too high for Mia.

Edited September 25, 2009 by Joker

[Zkirsche]

I'm not reall seeing it tbh, unless we want to make the entire tier list an availability fest.

Availability is a pretty big part of teh game. Lehran's the best unit in 4-E-5, better than Ike, even, yet he is <<<<<<<<<< Ike in the FE10 tier list. Why? Because of Ike's availability advantage.

Geoffrey is really good from 26-E, like Kieran level good, and this requires a minimum of resources. Mia has a pretty bad start, then she's fairly goodish from 18-25, then he beats her pretty handily for the last few chapters(horse, 1-2 range, durability, ORKOing a lot more, prettymuch everything).

Goodish? More like Godly. Lol Vantage+Wrath combo on an SM with +15 Crit. This pretty much crushes Geoffrey when it comes to Durability and offence. Heck, even 1-2 range isn't a clear lead anymore, Why? The sonic sword, and eventually the rune sword. Take a level 20/9 Mia, she has 23 Atk with the Sonic sword, as well as 76 Crit with wrath activated. Let's check out an enemy she'd want to have this sword to fight against in chapter 26:

1x Warrior lv 10 short axe: 50 hp, 33 Avo, 13 def, 8 res, 7 cev

Basically, she need 1 crit to finish this guy off. so that's a 90.39% chance of killing this guy. In comparison, Geoffrey with a max MT and Crit forged javelin has 29 Atk + 17 Crit. So that's a 19% chance of killing the enemy. Better 1-2 range? Lolno. And when the Runesword comes along, this lead will be even bigger.

The only thing that Geoff really wins is Mobility. And that <<< 12 chapters of Wrath + Vantage pwning.

Overall, Mia > Geoff.

[grandjackal]

I'm all for Mia up and everything, but 13 looks way too high for Mia.

Regardless, they'd be remarkably similar.

@Interceptor: It is true that people put resources to use better than others, but with your style of a list, anyone not top you should just argue "I'm not using them". If you don't, you're all the time wasting energy bothering.

[Rodykitty]

Ahh yes, the vaunted "tier player". Chief amongst my many issues with this, is that a playthrough without sufficient guidelines doesn't give enough context for accurate ranking of characters. For example, Rolf is fairly useful if you Paladin-bomb this game and give him plenty of hax units to hide behind. However, if you're not doing that, the "Hard" in Hard Mode is no longer shorthand for "Hard To Lose", and he's measurably less useful for an efficient (efficient by my earlier definition) playthrough.

Just to make this clear, this is a criticism of the lack of guidelines and direction for the FE9 tier list, right?

My personal feeling on resources is that some units are just manifestly better with them than others, and a failure to account for that is a failure to be accurate. My favorite way to express that in a pithy sort of way has been immortalized in Narga's sig: if someone is objectively the best use of a particular resource, and you only give it to them half the time when they are deployed, that suggests that half the time you're a retard.

A character using a resource better is simply a strength of the character. It's fine if FE10!Mia can use certain resources better than most characters, just as long as it doesn't prevent other characters that benefit (keywords: that benefit) from having these resources as an existing, but not as significant as Mia's, strength. If no other character benefits, I guess that's just the loss of the rest of the game then.

[Interceptor]

@Interceptor: It is true that people put resources to use better than others, but with your style of a list, anyone not top you should just argue "I'm not using them". If you don't, you're all the time wasting energy bothering.

1) It's not "my style". I claim no ownership of the idea.

2) Clearly I need to deploy units to measure their worth, whatever that might be, so your objection makes no sense.

Just to make this clear, this is a criticism of the lack of guidelines and direction for the FE9 tier list, right?

It's a twofer. It's true that I'm criticizing the rudderless nature of this tier list, but I'm also specifically engaging your theories, since hardly anyone else is putting things forth.

A character using a resource better is simply a strength of the character. It's fine if FE10!Mia can use certain resources better than most characters, just as long as it doesn't prevent other characters that benefit (keywords: that benefit) from having these resources as an existing, but not as significant as Mia's, strength. If no other character benefits, I guess that's just the loss of the rest of the game then.

I don't understand your objection, here. If we're ranking Mia, we're assuming that she's deployed (otherwise it makes ranking sort of difficult). If she's objectively the best with resource X in terms of meeting the tier list's goals, that suggests that a Mia comparison has her using the resource. That does not imply that there is no opportunity cost for giving the resource to Mia, nor that second-string units don't get "credit" for what they do with it.

I suppose this is where an FE9/10 comparison becomes relevant. FE9 Mia is the best with Wrath, but not a great unit. FE10 Mia is the best with X/Y/Z in her game, but is actually one of your best units. So, in a random FE9 comparison that involved a second-string Wrath user (Oscar perhaps), the argument that FE9 Mia is already using Wrath would be less persuasive, since she's not a strong contributor to efficient completion in the first place, aka not likely to be deployed anyway.

Edited September 25, 2009 by Interceptor

[Rodykitty]

If she's objectively the best with resource X in terms of meeting the tier list's goals, that suggests that a Mia comparison has her using the resource.

I never said FE10!Mia should not be using the resource, but that her use of it should not prevent the possibility of others being able to use it. Maybe there are no other character that could possibly benefit (which would be weird, but still consistent with my approach to this situation), but I haven't played FE10 so I wouldn't know.

[Interceptor]

I never said FE10!Mia should not be using the resource, but that her use of it should not prevent the possibility of others being able to use it. Maybe there are no other character that could possibly benefit (which would be weird, but still consistent with my approach to this situation), but I haven't played FE10 so I wouldn't know.

I was talking about FE9 Mia in that particular case. I think it's fairly plain that any army configuration that includes Mia and is being played efficiently, will have Mia as the best candidate for Wrath. It's been about a year since my last FE9 playthrough, but I'm pretty sure about this.

WRT FE10 Mia, it's not actually the case that she's the only one who benefits. The issue with her is that she's beating most of her competition by a factor of like 2-3x with some of the resources that can be given to her (there are people who are close, but most are not even on the same planet). The difference between the two Mias is that FE9 is unlikely to be deployed outside of her army, but FE10 is highly likely to be deployed outside of hers, since she's just that good.

[Rodykitty]

I was talking about FE9 Mia in that particular case. I think it's fairly plain that any army configuration that includes Mia and is being played efficiently, will have Mia as the best candidate for Wrath. It's been about a year since my last FE9 playthrough, but I'm pretty sure about this.

WRT FE10 Mia, it's not actually the case that she's the only one who benefits. The issue with her is that she's beating most of her competition by a factor of like 2-3x with some of the resources that can be given to her (there are people who are close, but most are not even on the same planet).

Like I said, treat those like a strength she has (for both versions of Mia). It's really a lot like someone being the best with a weapon that some other characters can benefit from.

I know this is actually agreeing with you guys, but I wanted to find a way to acknowledge Mia's particular strengths without it resulting in resource arguments. It might help you guys with the whole Smash Fanatic stuff too.

Edited September 25, 2009 by Alucart

[Mr. Francis York Morgan]

Smash has them on ignore alucart. You could make all the most logical points in the world and smash still wouldn't read them.

Edited September 25, 2009 by Lancelot

[Interceptor]

Like I said, treat those like a strength she has (for both versions of Mia). It's really a lot like someone being the best with a weapon that some other characters can benefit from.

I already addressed this, you just didn't acknowledge it. We may be saying the same thing in general, but I am being very specific about my word choice for a reason. If Mia is deployed, and Mia is the best with X, she gets it. End of story. If the story continues, we have a problem. Why do we have a problem? Allow me to illustrate with a formula:

Z = X/Y

Let X be the number of intelligent/optimal/efficient ways to do something, and let Y be the number of retarded/inefficient ways to do something. It does not take a large leap of logic to realize that Z is infinitely close to zero. Therefore, whenever someone suggests something that's inefficient in an efficiency tier list, this poster objects immediately.

[EDIT: by the way, I only got a B in Calculus, like 10 years ago, so be gentle if my specific conclusion is inaccurate]

I know this is actually agreeing with you guys, but I wanted to find a way to acknowledge Mia's particular strengths without it resulting in resource arguments.

The way to acknowledge this is by dispensing of useless words like "favoritism", and instead looking at things like opportunity cost. In my opinion.

It might help you guys with the whole Smash Fanatic stuff too.

I appreciate the thought, but you have a better chance of finding the cure for cancer in a bag of Skittles than you do resolving THAT particular intractable conflict.

Edited September 25, 2009 by Interceptor