30 replies to this topic

[Furetchen]

That's because recent tier lists suck.

I kinda think we should pin all the tier lists to their respective subforums, then they'd at least keep updated. I mean, I don't know much about LTC, but I don't think Oswin > Pent and Harken is still a commonly held viewpoint.

[Progenitus]

I kinda think we should pin all the tier lists to their respective subforums, then they'd at least keep updated. I mean, I don't know much about LTC, but I don't think Oswin > Pent and Harken is still a commonly held viewpoint.

lack of discussion is a product of the tier lists sucking now, not the reason

if the tier lists were worth discussing, they would always be bumped regularly anyway

Edited by Progenitus, 18 July 2012 - 05:08 AM.

[Aquaman]

If the goal is absolute LTC, then isn't every time a unit saves a turn, or contributes to the saving of a turn, equally important?

I'm not saying that tier lists or RTUs are actually wrong for ranking units in a certain way, it just seems like in terms of actually aiming for LTC, the gap between say 100 turns and 99 turns is just as important as the gap between 500 turns and 99 turns, except insofar as the player needs to improve their skill at playing FE and their skill and patience with rng abuse (I'm thinking of how, IIRC, LTC prolougue in FE10 involved proccing one or multiple Micaiah crits).

Obviously, neither 100 or 500 plays are least turn count plays if someone else has played the same game in only 99 turns, unless we consider an "LTC play" to be a play where the player aims for the lowest turncount, rather than a play where the player achieves, and presumably was aiming for, the lowest recorded/stated/possible turncount. And just about every element of the play that saves turns is equally important in achieving that lowest turncount, if we're talking about lowest possibile turncount (if we're talking about lowest recorded, then any turns saved past a count lower than the previous LTC are overkill).

Wow, you were there from the start? Jeez, YOU ARE OLD. I bet that when you think about how bad things have gotten since the golden days of the RTUs you just break down and cry...I know I do.

They used to be sane.

Also, the RTUs started like 8 months ago.
It's not that old, but yeah.

Elieson had a nice idea, but too many people took it seriously and too many trolled.

[Espinosa]

Radiant Dawn LTCs keep Micaiah away from the Barbarians I believe... You just need Edward to take just enough damage to stay alive and be in Wrath HP range, and then double everyone with crits while evading everything (or healing himself to be put back into Wrath range immediately during enemy phase; Barbarians have ~50% accurate attacks so you're gambling by taking either path really). The lowest turn count in Prologue is very different from developing a reliable efficient strategy, I'd say.

[Lord Raven]

Wow, you were there from the start? Jeez, YOU ARE OLD. I bet that when you think about how bad things have gotten since the golden days of the RTUs you just break down and cry...I know I do.

The start was like early 2012 or something, that's not even a year

RTUs were always pretty stupid

Edited by Lord Raven, 20 July 2012 - 06:30 AM.

[Mekkah]

If me and Paperblade both gave you a dollar every day, but I started doing it today and he started doing it next week, which one of us is more helpful to you?

[Espinosa]

If me and Paperblade both gave you a dollar every day, but I started doing it today and he started doing it next week, which one of us is more helpful to you?

That's easy, but what if Paperblade gave him 2 dollars instead? I think this is more or less the argument here.

[CrashGordon94]

Few people care about what I say but I think availability is important, but not as much as some would make it out to be. Basically if you aren't available for very long but you're used for the whole time you're pretty good, even if you're not amazing.

[Mekkah]

That's easy, but what if Paperblade gave him 2 dollars instead? I think this is more or less the argument here.

Then which one is better depends on how long we do it for. That's essentially the same as what tier lists do: multiplying availability by usefulness.

[General Banzai]

Probably because nobody knows what they're doing

[Anouleth]

I was looking at the FE10 RTU and I was surprised to see Caineghis get such a low rating.

I can understand for Est units that they join late and are severly underleveled, but why would a unit be given a low rating if they join late, but are good and can easily fit into the team?

The way I see it Caineghis is one of the best units in the game since he can fight well, and he requires no effort to get to that point.

If we did it your way, you would be penalising other characters for having high availability. After all, in 1-6, Tauroneo is a very capable fighter, that doesn't require any previous investment, just like Caineghis. However, he's not really so great after he rejoins in Part 3. Essentially, you'd be saying that existing in a chapter and being below average is a negative (which is what smashfanatic thinks, hence putting Lehran in the middle of every list he makes). This is also referred to as "net utility", because we are adjusting the rating of a unit based on how they contribute compared to the other units on the team, rather than "gross utility" which just adds up all a character's contributions.

Moreover, I don't think that current lists/RTUs really penalise low availability or reward high availability. Units like FE9 Rolf and FE10 Ilyana have great availability, but they're still shafted on the tier lists.

Probably because nobody knows what they're doing

Yes, it can't possibly just be a difference of opinion.

Edited by Anouleth, 25 July 2012 - 04:09 AM.