FE9 Tier list v3

[Anouleth]

No. This is stupid. It punishes strategies that have a high rate of success but not a perfect rate of success far too much.

Who are you to say that it punishes certain strategies too much? It's entirely up to individual opinion which kind of strategies are desirable and which aren't. Now, in order for the tier list to make sense, we have to reach some consensus about what strategies will be considered, but ultimately it's just an arbitrary decision. Don't act like your personal view is somehow the only valid one.

If you have an 80% strategy (which is pretty damn good in most FE games because getting perfect hit rates is generally impossible), that already adds 2 turns of penalty. In some cases, that's already the full length of the strategy itself.

So what? Some of us place a higher priority on reliability than you do. Enough to take an extra turn for an extra 10% chance of victory.

If you don't think 80% is high, that's the chance of hitting 5 of 5 attacks at 85 displayed hit. That's the chance of Sothe finding 1 hidden item in FE10. That's the chance of a unit hitting the boss every attack in most FE games where the seize points yield avo bonuses.

I know what 80% means.

Of course we'd be resetting often. We'd want Marcia to be a juggernaut as soon as we get her. Why settle at just 2 of str, spd, def?

Because after a certain point, she's durable enough to not die, strong enough to 2HKO, and fast enough to double. In other words, she already is a juggernaut. Just as after a certain point, you stop giving Marcia BEXP because she no longer needs it to rock and roll.

But anyway, Marcia as a bad example because her growths are fairly good. Let's look at Reyson. His biggest problem is that he dies to a slight breeze. Solution? Pump a bunch of BEXP into him and manipulate HP, def levels. 9.75% chance of both going up - an average of 9 resets per level up, and the guy has 13 levels before he caps spd. Ouch. Even then, 35 HP, 15 def isn't terribly durable, so maybe you'd want to manipulate spd and luk on ever level, for a 2.9% chance of all 4 going up - 33 resets per level up.

It's almost certainly faster to manipulate HP/SPD/DEF on other characters and just give every Seraph Robe, Speedwing and Dracoshield in the game to Reyson.

I don't see the need to use BEXP in the way that saves 1 BEXP per every x EXP applied because that doesn't end up saving that much BEXP in the first place and I don't think anyone actually does that when playing the game, especially when the magic increments are small.

What people "actually" do is irrelevant.

It also needlessly complicates BEXP calculations.

Actually, it simplifies them because instead of needing irregular amounts of BEXP to gain a level, you need a regular amount.

Bullshit. Please don't put words in my mouth. I appreciate reliability just as much as anyone else (except for Narga; he doesn't accept anything less than 101%) because I am usually at the mercy of the RNG when recording my playthroughs.

I am not putting words into your mouth. You appreciate reliability only as a means to the end of reducing the amount of time you spend. The only issue you have with resetting the game is the amount of physical time it takes.

Heck, we just need to apply the formula to see how well it works. FE6 is a good game to look at because bosskilling strategies have generally low chances of success and warpskipping is possible. Ignore the effects of redundant RNG seeding, though.

Let's look at chapter 14x:

- Warpskipping with Rutger is 2 turns at a 51.6% CoS. N / P is 3.88.

- Warpskipping with Miledy is 2 turns at a 27.8% CoS. N / P is 7.19.

- Playing through the chapter normally takes like, what, 8 turns at minimum? Probably longer, to be sure.

Warpskipping with Rutger is clearly dominant. Warpskipping with Miledy is probably passable.

Let's look at chapter 16x:

- Warpskipping with Percival is 4 turns at a 22.4% CoS. N / P is 17.86.

- Playing through the chapter normally takes around 10 turns at minimum, probably longer for a more reliable bosskill.

Even if playing through the chapter normally takes longer than 10 turns, it's still dominant to warpskipping by a good margin.

N / P very effectively weeds out strategies that aren't exceedingly short yet still have a crappy chance at success.

Except that "exceedingly short" and "crappy chance at success" are completely subjective terms. Your "crappy chance" or "exceedingly short" is not the same as someone elses. All Raven's formula does is line up with your own ideas of what constitutes an acceptable risk.

It's more forgiving for strategies that are very short and compete with very long alternatives. Most of all, it actually makes sense: if a player has to play through a chapter twice, he's effectively taking twice as many turns to do the chapter.

In other words, it weeds out strategies that you don't think are good.

Yeah, sure. What's your point? This is not representative of the game, hence it is irrelevant. If there was such a fast way to abuse BEXP level ups, then our solution would be to apply a clause restricting this form of abuse in order to promote discussion of the tier list.

You don't get it, do you? Even if resetting the game for a BEXP level up took zero seconds, a tier list is supposed to rank character on how good they are. I think that good characters shouldn't need someone to hit the reset button on their growths or their accuracy, even if that reset button takes nanoseconds to press. If you think that needing to manipulate a character's levels doesn't make them a bad character, then clearly, your definition of what makes a character good or bad is so completely different to mine that this conversation is pointless.

And this isn't about promoting discussion. You shouldn't need to apply a clause forbidding RNG abuse, because the criteria of the tier list shouldn't reward being able to take advantage of RNG abuse in the first place (in the same way that clauses that specifically forbid arena or boss abuse are unnecessary because the criteria doesn't reward them in the first place).

If a mechanic essentially broke the game, there would be nothing of value to discuss now, would there?

Being able to RNG abuse level ups is powerful, but there are many far more broken mechanics that are frequently applied in tier lists, such as Warp and FE11 forging. I think that "because it's broken" is an exceedingly weak argument to not use a particular mechanic. The distinction is that while being able to teleport to the other side of the map and instantly complete the chapter is the mark of a good character, being able pull off unique strategies only when the stars align and bless you with low RNs is not really the mark of a good character.

This is a false dichotomy and it also misrepresents my stance (oh, what a surprise). Try again. I will also point out that "RNG abuse" is a term that's very difficult to define.

I am not misrepresenting your stance at all:

-The only complaint you have about RNG abusing BEXP level ups is that it's time consuming

-You are perfectly happy to accept resetting for favourable strategies under the basis that it doesn't take a lot of time to restart a chapter

-You say that if BEXP abuse took less time, then it would be game breaking (implying that it's not broken because it takes physical time to perform).

I wouldn't consider going for a 75% successful strategy a form of RNG abuse (especially if it's that likely to succeed).

That's ok.

Why? Because your ego might be broken? Because you live in an alternate universe where every time the player presses a combination of B, X, start, the game adds 5 turns to the chapter's turncount?

You're the one who came up with assigning an arbitrary number to the "cost" of a reset. I think it's a horrible idea, which is why I specified "if".

And the game adding 5 turns to the chapter's turncount is no more ludicrous than the game adding 0.1. At least 5 is an integer.

It also makes no sense to assign any other arbitrary cost to resets because it wholly misrepresents the actual cost to the player of a reset. When a player resets a chapter once or twice (and knows what he's doing, e.g. me), he doesn't commit physical self-injury or anything like that as the result of a reset.

It makes no sense to use your arbitrary cost because it doesn't accurately represent the implications of a reset for how "good" the character is. If a character needed 20 resets to do what a different character needed no resets to do, only he does it two turns faster, I hardly think that would make him better, even if it came at less "cost" to the player. (assume that you reset for enemy stats or some other thing that takes zero turns to try).

In addition, to speak of "cost" to the player is ridiculous. It's not like he commits seppuku for taking an extra turn, any more than he does for resetting.

[dondon151]

We're at a crossroads here as to how to penalize the player for resetting, where it's just my idea against yours.

I am not putting words into your mouth. You appreciate reliability only as a means to the end of reducing the amount of time you spend. The only issue you have with resetting the game is the amount of physical time it takes.

What exactly is your issue with resetting the game, if it's not the amount of time it takes? When a player plays the game, that is his only concern when he resets (and the fact that he has to play through the chapter again, which is a cost already accounted for by N / P). He doesn't think, "oh damn, this is bad for the tier list."

Except that "exceedingly short" and "crappy chance at success" are completely subjective terms. Your "crappy chance" or "exceedingly short" is not the same as someone elses. All Raven's formula does is line up with your own ideas of what constitutes an acceptable risk.

In other words, it weeds out strategies that you don't think are good.

Entirely incorrect. It's just a coincidence that the formula conforms to my ideas; rather, I believe the formula to be an accurate representation because when a player plays through 2 turns of a chapter twice, he plays through 4 turns total. 2 times 2 is 4. Elementary math.

You don't get it, do you? Even if resetting the game for a BEXP level up took zero seconds, a tier list is supposed to rank character on how good they are. I think that good characters shouldn't need someone to hit the reset button on their growths or their accuracy, even if that reset button takes nanoseconds to press. If you think that needing to manipulate a character's levels doesn't make them a bad character, then clearly, your definition of what makes a character good or bad is so completely different to mine that this conversation is pointless.

Then let me counter your thought experiment with one of my own. Say that in the base, there is an optional command that immediately maxes out every possible parameter for a character. Would you use it? Or, say that we discovered a glitch in the game that somehow resulted in the same effect. Wouldn't that break the game and stifle all possible discussion? Now, how is your impossible hypothetical scenario different?

I am not misrepresenting your stance at all:

Even the summaries to your hyperlinks are misrepresenting my stance. All I did was to come up with a metric that could easily calculate the "true" required turncount of a given strategy and then to couple it with an assumption made for the sake of convenience. Then you, GE, and Narga decided to try and nitpick it to death. But yes - there is a basis for this assumption in physical time - so what? Does it make more sense to base this assumption on imaginary time? Or on the player's mood? Or just arbitrarily give it a penalty many times more than what it actually is even though this game has a very heavy random element?

It makes no sense to use your arbitrary cost because it doesn't accurately represent the implications of a reset for how "good" the character is. If a character needed 20 resets to do what a different character needed no resets to do, only he does it two turns faster, I hardly think that would make him better, even if it came at less "cost" to the player. (assume that you reset for enemy stats or some other thing that takes zero turns to try).

What the fuck is wrong with your example? In what case would your example hold true using the N / P formula? There is no natural number value of N that satisfies the equation N / 0.05 > N + 2. Please, if you use something as misinformed as that as your counterexample, I suggest you try rereading my posts, specifically the calculations I did for FE6 chapters 14x and 16x.

[GreatEclipse]

What exactly is your issue with resetting the game, if it's not the amount of time it takes? When a player plays the game, that is his only concern when he resets (and the fact that he has to play through the chapter again, which is a cost already accounted for by N / P). He doesn't think, "oh damn, this is bad for the tier list."

I inherently dislike being at the mercy of the RNG, independent of averages. I like to feel in control when I play, and will accept even significantly higher turn counts as a result. It is why after playing FE6 and FE7 on the fixed growth patch, I can never go back. Warp skipping 14x with Rutger is an example of something I would probably never do, even if going the long way around took 20 turns or more (I did it in 7 while pumping Cass with Exp, so I'm sure a player of your skill can clear in less than 8). Besides doing an awful lot to "kill discussion" by reducing all the work load to under 5 units, you are removing a large number of variables that would need to be accounted for on a more traditional attempt and replacing it with a single, luck-based action. Clearing it that way actually reflects worse on your skill as player. It is why I try not to use save states on high avoid bosses. What would it prove if I achieved a lower turn count as a result?

Edited September 18, 2011 by GreatEclipse

[Anouleth]

We're at a crossroads here as to how to penalize the player for resetting, where it's just my idea against yours.

Pretty much. It's really up to opinion what measures how "good" a character is: their "expected turncount" or rather vaguely just excluding "risky" strategies.

What exactly is your issue with resetting the game, if it's not the amount of time it takes? When a player plays the game, that is his only concern when he resets (and the fact that he has to play through the chapter again, which is a cost already accounted for by N / P). He doesn't think, "oh damn, this is bad for the tier list."

My issue with resetting the game is that characters who require resetting to perform should not be defined as good as the tier list, even if it takes less physical time to do so. Using advance knowledge of the RNG, Toothache was able to practically solo FE6 with Alan taking an extremely short amount of physical time and likely, he'd never reset due to unexpected RNs. That does not make Alan the best character in FE6, even though by your formula, since the strategies do not fail and are as short as possible, he would get the lowest turncount. In fact, you could go ahead and apply it to all of FE6-FE8, since they all use fixed RNGs. RNG abuse is not very difficult in those games, especially with savestates: the amount of physical time needed to rig everything and anything is quite small. In fact, it reduces to zero when you have complete knowledge of the RNG. Should that mean that Gonzales' bad accuracy is no longer a flaw because all that means is spending a slighter

Then let me counter your thought experiment with one of my own. Say that in the base, there is an optional command that immediately maxes out every possible parameter for a character. Would you use it? Or, say that we discovered a glitch in the game that somehow resulted in the same effect. Wouldn't that break the game and stifle all possible discussion? Now, how is your impossible hypothetical scenario different?

It requires you to physically reset the game. Obviously, if such a command existed in the base, then differences between characters would cease to matter (beyond caps and Canto). And there would probably need to be a rule specifically forbidding it, because it actually does make all characters equally "good". Whereas, being able to BEXP abuse ad infinitum does not make all characters equally "good", because they require the player to reset.

Even the summaries to your hyperlinks are misrepresenting my stance. All I did was to come up with a metric that could easily calculate the "true" required turncount of a given strategy and then to couple it with an assumption made for the sake of convenience. Then you, GE, and Narga decided to try and nitpick it to death. But yes - there is a basis for this assumption in physical time - so what? Does it make more sense to base this assumption on imaginary time? Or on the player's mood? Or just arbitrarily give it a penalty many times more than what it actually is even though this game has a very heavy random element?

I'm not saying that it's some terrible war crime to prioritise physical time over reliability, so I don't get why you're being so absurdly defensive over this.

What the fuck is wrong with your example? In what case would your example hold true using the N / P formula?

Maybe you should read my example. I specified that the RNG abuse didn't take any turns: for example, if you were trying to manipulate an enemy to have a certain number of stats, the amount of time would be negligible and the "cost" of the resets would be zero.

[Darthvader]

Why are Brom and Gatrie so low? Yet Astrid, Marcia, Jill, and Tanith are so high while three of them are allergic to bows and Astrid she's allergic to everything because she can't take a hit, at least Brom and Gatrie have sufficient defense to survive enemies. Am I missing something here?

Edited September 20, 2011 by Darthvader

[Florete]

Brom/Gatrie have 5/6 Move and a bad movement type while those others have 8/9 Move and either a horse or flight. That's about 75% of the argument right there. The other 25% is those four starting with or easily growing into good combat.

[Anouleth]

Why are Brom and Gatrie so low? Yet Astrid, Marcia, Jill, and Tanith are so high while three of them are allergic to bows and Astrid she's allergic to everything because she can't take a hit, at least Brom and Gatrie have sufficient defense to survive enemies. Am I missing something here?

Brom and Gatrie don't have sufficient defense, they have totally wtf over the top defense, more than you could ever need or want.

[Dark Sage]

I'm not certain this is an appropriate post here, but I've recently been accused of cutting too much so I'm hesitant to remove this post.

This was meant to be a reminder that tier lists aren't really worth getting worked up over and basically to urge everybody to calm down. I attempted to do this with humor, but obviously, it didn't work .

Feel free to delete if you want. I don't really mind.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Clockwork Sage

[samthedigital]

This whole argument is about reliability. Now for you, reliability doesn't seem to be an important part of being a "good" character (aside as a means to the end of minimising your turncount and physical time spent). If in theory, it took 0.01 seconds to reset the game and reapply a BEXP level up, then you would have absolutely no problem with resetting even to assure +6 or +7 level-ups. For me, I consider reliability to be a quality that the tier list should measure. Tier lists are supposed to, after all, rank characters based on how "good" they are: I would not consider a character that needed BEXP abuse or RNG abuse to be "good" even if they turned into a very valuable character after doing so and if it took very little time to do so. Obviously, this is a subjective difference. Different people are always going to have different ideas of what makes a character good or bad.

The problem with this is that it isn't subjective. Assuming that characters are ranked by efficiency resets don't matter as long as the result is the most efficient one.

Personally, I suggest using this formula instead:

Turncount + (chance of failure*10) = True Turncount

There we go, there's a mathematically defined turn value system.

This is a poor way to determine what is more efficient because if things are defined in terms of efficiency then time takes precedence over turns taken and failure. If you wanted to depreciate the value of resets you would focus on the chance of success of a single strategy over a longer period of time. For example if a strategy only works 20% of the time but is faster to use on average than any other strategy normally it's likely not going to be a strategy used in a single segment run. Note that efficiency still takes precedence over reliability, but reliability does become more important in this situation.

My issue with resetting the game is that characters who require resetting to perform should not be defined as good as the tier list, even if it takes less physical time to do so. Using advance knowledge of the RNG, Toothache was able to practically solo FE6 with Alan taking an extremely short amount of physical time and likely, he'd never reset due to unexpected RNs. That does not make Alan the best character in FE6, even though by your formula, since the strategies do not fail and are as short as possible, he would get the lowest turncount. In fact, you could go ahead and apply it to all of FE6-FE8, since they all use fixed RNGs. RNG abuse is not very difficult in those games, especially with savestates: the amount of physical time needed to rig everything and anything is quite small. In fact, it reduces to zero when you have complete knowledge of the RNG.

Toothache's TAS is a good example of Fire Emblem 6 being played. RNG abuse is simply a tool used to play Fire Emblem better, so I personally don't understand why no one considers RNG abuse in tier lists. Perhaps it makes ranking characters less interesting, but it is a more accurate representation of the game rather than trying to 'fix' the game to make it more 'interesting' to debate.

I don't think that the amount of physical time taken is at all relevant. After all, we're willing to painstakingly feed characters 1BEXP at a time to keep it's cost down, which is quite time-consuming.

How would you rank characters in a tier list? I find that giving characters 1BEXP at a time to maximize their level ups to be a pointless exercise. It doesn't even change stats to a significant degree. Ultimately though it doesn't matter how the characters are ranked, but I find that it is more useful to know which characters are better for beating a game quickly than it is knowing which set of characters beats the game the most reliably There is still a correlation between the two making the latter somewhat important anyway, but I think you get the point.

[Anouleth]

The problem with this is that it isn't subjective. Assuming that characters are ranked by efficiency resets don't matter as long as the result is the most efficient one.

What is the purpose of a tier list? To rank characters based on how "good" they are. Now, what makes a character good is subjective. Some people think it's 20/20 stats, some people think that it's contribution to an optimal playthrough, some people think it's contribution to an efficient playthrough, all with varying value placed on reliability. Ultimately, the criteria we use to rank characters is arbitrary.

Toothache's TAS is a good example of Fire Emblem 6 being played. RNG abuse is simply a tool used to play Fire Emblem better, so I personally don't understand why no one considers RNG abuse in tier lists. Perhaps it makes ranking characters less interesting, but it is a more accurate representation of the game rather than trying to 'fix' the game to make it more 'interesting' to debate.

People don't consider RNG abuse mainly because they don't consider that it makes a character good. I'm not trying to fix the game to make it more interesting to debate. This is why I don't like the idea, as dondon suggested, of simply making a rule against certain types of RNG abuse. The tier list should not reward RNG abuse in the first place.

How would you rank characters in a tier list? I find that giving characters 1BEXP at a time to maximize their level ups to be a pointless exercise. It doesn't even change stats to a significant degree.

Depending on the character, it does have a significant effect. For example, it's possible to get Makalov to proc HP/STR/SKL/SPD/DEF on every level up. The same goes for Ike, and even Titania. If nothing else, it drastically reduces the amount of BEXP you have to give them. Obviously, not everyone's growths are as favourable to this sort of play as Makalov/Ike/Titania, but it's still true that if you urgently need a point of stat X for strategy Y, you can usually rig it. And Titania's endgame is pretty ridiculous when she gets HP/STR/SKL/SPD/DEF/RES on every level!

Ultimately though it doesn't matter how the characters are ranked, but I find that it is more useful to know which characters are better for beating a game quickly than it is knowing which set of characters beats the game the most reliably There is still a correlation between the two making the latter somewhat important anyway, but I think you get the point.

Right. And that's your opinion of what the tier list should show.

[Lord Raven]

of simply making a rule against certain types of RNG abuse.

It's not hard to understand that something like a 70+% chance of a low turn clear is a pretty good clear but something like a 50% or lower is fairly unreliable.

[Narga_Rocks]

It's not hard to understand that something like a 70+% chance of a low turn clear is a pretty good clear but something like a 50% or lower is fairly unreliable.

And to rephrase that to the point of view that seems to be held by GE and Anouleth:

It's not hard to understand that something like a 90+% chance of a low turn clear is a pretty good clear but something like a 75% or lower is fairly unreliable.

See how there's not much difference here? Your sentence there is circular, by the way, as you are attempting to prove that 70+% is reliable enough by stating that it is reliable enough.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Narga_Rocks

[Lord Raven]

Except it's not fairly unreliable. What about it is fairly unreliable? Personal opinion? It's -Cynthia-'s judgment call. Not that it's done anything to bump down Marcia's position considering a bunch of those "low turn unreliable clears" have more reliable versions _with_ Marcia involved anyway.

[Narga_Rocks]

Except it's not fairly unreliable. What about it is fairly unreliable? Personal opinion? It's -Cynthia-'s judgment call. Not that it's done anything to bump down Marcia's position considering a bunch of those "low turn unreliable clears" have more reliable versions _with_ Marcia involved anyway.

Except it's not fairly reliable. What about it is fairly reliable?

See how this works? We just have different opinions about "reliable". That's apparently never going to change, and I'm okay with that fact.

Anyway, I'm happy for Marcia to be quite high. It's funny that we've spent how long arguing about chapter 15 with neither side having any intention (that I know of) to move Marcia even one spot on the tier list? And by funny I don't mean funny "ha ha".

Edited September 22, 2011 by Narga_Rocks

[samthedigital]

What is the purpose of a tier list? To rank characters based on how "good" they are. Now, what makes a character good is subjective. Some people think it's 20/20 stats, some people think that it's contribution to an optimal playthrough, some people think it's contribution to an efficient playthrough, all with varying value placed on reliability. Ultimately, the criteria we use to rank characters is arbitrary.

I wasn't talking about the diversity of criteria we could use to rank characters. I was talking about the specific criteria being used. The OP posts the tier list FAQ, so using that assumption one should easily come to the conclusion that this is the main criteria:

Characters are compared based on how they contribute towards an efficient playthrough. By efficiency I am mainly referring to turn count and resource expenditure. Normally you'd expect a high tier unit to require fairly basic weapons and items while giving great returns in terms of their combat usefulness. Conversely, a lower ranked unit would probably require a lot of resources while giving less satisfactory combat returns.

This isn't a well defined system, but it does show that faster average turn counts are more important than more consistent strategies.

People don't consider RNG abuse mainly because they don't consider that it makes a character good.

What? This doesn't even address the main point. The games use an easily manipulable number generator that lets the player control how the game plays out. This has nothing to do with Path of Radiance in particular, but whatever.

Depending on the character, it does have a significant effect. For example, it's possible to get Makalov to proc HP/STR/SKL/SPD/DEF on every level up. The same goes for Ike, and even Titania. If nothing else, it drastically reduces the amount of BEXP you have to give them. Obviously, not everyone's growths are as favourable to this sort of play as Makalov/Ike/Titania, but it's still true that if you urgently need a point of stat X for strategy Y, you can usually rig it. And Titania's endgame is pretty ridiculous when she gets HP/STR/SKL/SPD/DEF/RES on every level!

Giving a character a certain amount of experience at a time to maximize leveling potential is different from abusing specific stat gains.

Edited September 22, 2011 by samthedigital

[Anouleth]

I wasn't talking about the diversity of criteria we could use to rank characters. I was talking about the specific criteria being used. The OP posts the tier list FAQ, so using that assumption one should easily come to the conclusion that this is the main criteria:

This isn't a well defined system, but it does show that faster average turn counts are more important than more consistent strategies.

Really? Because he also says this:

-No RNG or glitch abuse of any kind. This should be pretty self-explanatory.

Which seems to go exactly against your argument.

What? This doesn't even address the main point. The games use an easily manipulable number generator that lets the player control how the game plays out. This has nothing to do with Path of Radiance in particular, but whatever.

So what? RNG abuse has nothing to do with the tier lists on SF, any more than boss abuse or arena abuse or Tower abuse does. It is sooooo easy to put people into the Tower of Valni, or to have them level up infinitely from boss exp. Doesn't mean we have to give a shit.

Giving a character a certain amount of experience at a time to maximize leveling potential is different from abusing specific stat gains.

That wasn't my point. I'm merely illustrating that Fixed Mode manipulation can be just as powerful as RNG abuse.

[aku chi]

Not that it's done anything to bump down Marcia's position considering a bunch of those "low turn unreliable clears" have more reliable versions _with_ Marcia involved anyway.

Usually, it's the Marcia solos that are fastest but least reliable. Consider chapter 14: there is a ~70% reliable 2-turn clear that is mostly a Marcia solo. But there are more reliable 3-turn clears where we can bring a few Paladins (like Titania, Oscar, and Kieran) to attack Gashilma safely from 2-range before delivering the final blow (or tank the potential crit, like 20/1 Oscar). Marcia could get in on this combination boss kill, or she can recruit Makalov and help get Vantage. Either way, she's helpful, but no longer the most important unit in the chapter clear.

Anyway, I'm happy for Marcia to be quite high. It's funny that we've spent how long arguing about chapter 15 with neither side having any intention (that I know of) to move Marcia even one spot on the tier list? And by funny I don't mean funny "ha ha".

At this point, I believe: Oscar > Jill > Marcia. But I'm having a hard time trying to make a meaningful comparison between Oscar and the early-join fliers. If I had to choose just one of the three to use in a single efficient playthrough, Oscar would be my last choice (assuming Titania was used). If, on the other hand, I got to choose to use 2 of the 3 in a playthrough, I would choose Oscar plus one of the early-join fliers without a second thought. And if I were to use all three, only one of {Marcia, Jill} would see much use, in all likelihood.

Oscar has two major advantages over both fliers:

+ Seven chapters of important availability: Oscar is one of the best units in seven free-depoly early chapters. He can make important, "turn-saving" contributions in several of them.

+ Demands fewer resources: Oscar needs no resources to be helpful in his early chapters. Oscar's optimal resource bundle for the rest of the game is just a handful of Bexp (~300-600) and perhaps the Knight Ward if he's soloing a chapter. Marcia and Jill need extensive resources before they can be useful as combat units. Both need at least 1000 Bexp. Marcia wants a variety of stat boosters and a Full Guard monopoly. Jill wants a stat booster or two and the Full Guard when she's soloing a chapter. Both Marcia and Jill are potential Boots candidates.

The fliers, of course, have one major advantage over Oscar:

+ They fly: Marcia and Jill are hugely useful in chapters 15 and 25 (especially compared to the Paladins). Marcia can also be hugely useful in chapter 12. The fliers also have significant advantages in chapters 17-2, 17-4, 20, and 21 and minor advantages in chapters 14, 17-1, 18, 23, 24, 28, and Endgame. The fliers have no competition until C18, making it optimal to train at least one of them.

Then there are a variety of minor advantages, like Marcia being easiest to shove, but being the least durable by far. Marcia > Oscar > Jill with respect to doubling the fastest enemies. Jill > Oscar > Marcia with respect to Atk.

So, I'm struggling with how to make a meaningful comparison that captures all of these advantages. The opportunity costs of taking more resources is the big difficulty. Opportunity costs are difficult to measure, so I fear that most tier list denizens ignore them for this reason. But they are crucially important in an Oscar vs. Marcia evaluation.

My tentative plan is to make an Oscar vs. Jill comparison where Jill receives her optimal resource bundle and Oscar receives equivalent resources to Jill. If Oscar is better than Jill in this comparison, he is more valuable than Jill when both get their optimal resource bundles.

[Lord Raven]

I'm about to work but I will say my opinion on opportunity costs- if someone makes a very large net positive from a ton of resources then the opportunity cost is not a very strong argument. Oscar has the benefit of not needing to use them, but he also has the "disadvantage" of not making as big a use of his resources as Marcia and Jill do if he gets the same as those two. The fact is that he cannot fly (which is, once again, a Big Deal) on top of how Chapters 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 (guessed since I'm strapped for time) don't really have nearly as much Oscar being used in them as the later chapters have Marcia and Jill. The most helpful I see Oscar is in a chapter where he has to ferry Ike and another chapter where he gets rid of Titania's scraps- he's not very crucial to low turns as Marcia is.

The way I see it, Jill and Marcia aren't necessarily recruited in tandem enough for their comparison as "people who aren't unique" to matter as much, so Jill AND Marcia are more or less interchangeable and I personally believe that they are far too close to judge... I'd honestly be in favor of saying Jill/Marcia in high tier, simply because Jill's better offense is rather offset by Marcia contributing to more in their chapters before. (Meaning Jill = Marcia)

Marcia could get in on this combination boss kill, or she can recruit Makalov and help get Vantage. Either way, she's helpful, but no longer the most important unit in the chapter clear.

Can you remind me of the calculations involved? Compare Iron Sword Marcia to Steel Lance Marcia against Gashilama. I'm not trying to challenge you or anything, but I had an argument and it actually relies on finding this calculation; it's still very easy to get Marcia a 3 turn clear (without Makalov, which is kinda dumb but at the same time while Makalov is great he's not always necessary) that is reliable. Or a 2-turn clear that ends on enemy phase (forged Iron Sword?). Edited September 22, 2011 by Mercenary Raven

[Narga_Rocks]

My tentative plan is to make an Oscar vs. Jill comparison where Jill receives her optimal resource bundle and Oscar receives equivalent resources to Jill. If Oscar is better than Jill in this comparison, he is more valuable than Jill when both get their optimal resource bundles.

I find it unlikely that Oscar will be better than Jill when both get the same amount of bexp. Highly unlikely. But go ahead and try.

[aku chi]

I'm about to work but I will say my opinion on opportunity costs- if someone makes a very large net positive from a ton of resources then the opportunity cost is not a very strong argument. Oscar has the benefit of not needing to use them, but he also has the "disadvantage" of not making as big a use of his resources as Marcia and Jill do.

I'm afraid you don't understand the concept of opportunity costs. If Marcia is taking "a ton of resources", those resources cannot go to Jill or any other unit. So when we consider Marcia vs. Oscar, we need actually consider how much better Jill (or whomever) would be with Marcia's optimal resource bundle and count that against Marcia. We also need to consider the lesser opportunity cost of Oscar's optimal resource bundle going to Jill, Kieran or whomever. The resources Marcia and Oscar take come at a cost: the value of those resources to the next best recipient. The more valuable the resources taken, the greater the cost. When it comes to a resource such as the Boots, the cost is huge.

On top of how Chapters 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 (guessed since I'm strapped for time) don't really have nearly as much Oscar being used in them as the later chapters have Marcia and Jill. The most helpful I see Oscar is in a chapter where he has to ferry Ike and another chapter where he gets rid of Titania's scraps- he's not very crucial to low turns as Marcia is.

Obviously. But Oscar is also very valuable in "later chapters". Oscar is even slightly more valuable in some later chapters than Marcia. Whether Oscar's performance advantages are greater than the fliers' advantages throughout a playthrough is one aspect of the comparison. The other aspect is the resources they need to deliver their performances. (Correction: Oscar is in C2, not C4.)

The way I see it, Jill and Marcia aren't necessarily recruited in tandem enough for their comparison as "people who aren't unique" to matter as much, so Jill AND Marcia are more or less interchangeable and I personally believe that they are far too close to judge...

I think it matters, in that there are unique contributions Oscar can make in his early chapters, but the same can't be said for Jill (Marcia has C12 going for her). This isn't an attempt to diminish any contributions that Jill or Marcia can both make, just to put those contributions into context.

Can you remind me of the calculations involved? Compare Iron Sword Marcia to Steel Lance Marcia against Gashilama. I'm not trying to challenge you or anything, but I had an argument and it actually relies on finding this calculation; it's still very easy to get Marcia a 3 turn clear (without Makalov, which is kinda dumb but at the same time while Makalov is great he's not always necessary) that is reliable. Or a 2-turn clear that ends on enemy phase (forged Iron Sword?).

Well, Marcia needs 31 Atk to even 2HKO Gashilama. With WTD, Marcia needs to be ~20/3-4 with a max-Mt Steel Lance forge or at least 18/1 with an Energy Drop. With a max-Hit Steel Lance forge, Marcia has ~[85,100] displayed Hit depending on biorhythm. In the median case, Marcia has nearly perfect true hit, but in the worst case, Marcia has an 8.5% chance to miss one of her two attacks. I'm not sure how to accurately calculate the average case, but I'll assume a 96% chance that Marcia connects with both hits.

A 20/2 Marcia (lance-equipped) with both a Dracoshield and Seraph Robe is borderline on being crit-killed by Gashilama. So under most circumstances, Marcia will be crit-killed. Gashilama has ~[40, 60] displayed hit on Marcia and ~40 crit. In the median case (which this time is identical to the average case), Gashilama has a 50% chance to hit Marcia and a 20% chance to crit Marcia. So, Marcia has a ~76% chance to avoid a crit-kill and 2HKO Gashilama in the average case. That's actually a bit better than I had thought. Surprisingly, Biorythm has a really big role to play here. With best biorythm, Marcia has an 87% chance of victory. With worst biorhythm, Marcia has a 66.4% chance of victory. If we give Marcia enough resources to survive a crit-kill, though, her average chance of success is ~98% - very good indeed.

I'm not sure the Iron Sword 3HKO on enemy phase strategy is particularly sound. I believe Marcia would need to survive two attacks from Gashilama (at considerably lower hit, granted), but also any nearby enemies (which might include a Tiger). At any rate, there are too many variables to bother calculating. Feel free to do it yourself.

I find it unlikely that Oscar will be better than Jill when both get the same amount of bexp. Highly unlikely. But go ahead and try.

I think it's pretty obvious that Oscar > Jill if both are given 0 Bexp. Or even 400 Bexp. But that doesn't prove Oscar > Jill. To do that, I plan to give Jill her optimal resource bundle and Oscar equivalent resources.

Edited September 22, 2011 by aku chi

[Lord Raven]

I'm afraid you don't understand the concept of opportunity costs. If Marcia is taking "a ton of resources", those resources cannot go to Jill or any other unit. So when we consider Marcia vs. Oscar, we need actually consider how much better Jill (or whomever) would be with Marcia's optimal resource bundle and count that against Marcia. We also need to consider the lesser opportunity cost of Oscar's optimal resource bundle going to Jill, Kieran or whomever. The resources Marcia and Oscar take come at a cost: the value of those resources to the next best recipient. The more valuable the resources taken, the greater the cost. When it comes to a resource such as the Boots, the cost is huge.

And yet we should also consider what happens when Jill isn't recruited (meaning there is no opportunity cost in relation to Jill). We should also keep in mind that Jill and Marcia are more or less the exact same unit when they get the same bundle; Jill's only advantage is that she has Axes (which is a nuisance to her because you get more powerful throwing spears before you get stronger throwing axes; you get a Spear and Short Spear before you get a Tomahawk, because the Short Axe is stupidly inefficient to have if i recall correctly). You are essentially doing nothing to show that Jill is doing a significant amount better than Marcia with the same resources; yes she is doing better, but Marcia still does deserve her share of resources.

You've also done nothing to show why Kieran and Oscar are so much more powerful with the same resources; pump the same resources into Marcia and Oscar and compare them. You will see that Marcia and Jill are still doing more for the sake of efficiency than Oscar is, Boots and same resources or not simply because of one thing. They're riding a flying mythical creature; Oscar's on a horse.

Obviously. But Oscar is also very valuable in "later chapters". Oscar is even slightly more valuable in some later chapters than Marcia. Whether Oscar's performance advantages are greater than the fliers' advantages throughout a playthrough is one aspect of the comparison. The other aspect is the resources they need to deliver their performances. (Correction: Oscar is in C2, not C4.)

How is Oscar more valuable in later chapters once they get the same resources? If anything, their value is comparable at that point.

I think it matters, in that there are unique contributions Oscar can make in his early chapters, but the same can't be said for Jill (Marcia has C12 going for her). This isn't an attempt to diminish any contributions that Jill or Marcia can both make, just to put those contributions into context.

They're unique contributions if you recruited one but not the other, which is very likely to happen in an efficiency playthrough. I could have saved ~2-3 turns instead of recruiting Marcia and ~3 turns instead of recruit Jill (because Jill is Marcia 2.0 if you decide to recruit Jill after Marcia and Marcia is Jill 2.0 if you decide to pump more resources into Jill as opposed to Marcia). I am not punishing either of them for not being conveniently recruitable, merely showing that their contributions are unique in certain playthroughs.

The one that is getting the resources provides the more unique contributions, whereas the one that isn't becomes redundant; it just happens it's a toss up as to who is getting the resources and it's up to the player. Keeping both in mind, Jill > (Marcia = Oscar) once Jill gets resources, Marcia > (Jill > Oscar) if Marcia gets the resources.

Therefore we can conclude Jill > Marcia because Jill is Marcia's only real (ie: non-negligible) opportunity cost and vice-versa; it just so happens that pumping resources into Marcia takes away from Jill (but pumping resources into either makes Oscar only slightly better; therefore, pouring those resources into Oscar takes away from being able to clear things as efficiently as Jill and Marcia).

Well, Marcia needs 31 Atk to even 2HKO Gashilama. With WTD, Marcia needs to be ~20/3-4 with a max-Mt Steel Lance forge or at least 18/1 with an Energy Drop. With a max-Hit Steel Lance forge, Marcia has ~[85,100] displayed Hit depending on biorhythm. In the median case, Marcia has nearly perfect true hit, but in the worst case, Marcia has an 8.5% chance to miss one of her two attacks. I'm not sure how to accurately calculate the average case, but I'll assume a 96% chance that Marcia connects with both hits.

I'm sorry but weren't you arguing in favor of a Soren 2HKO on some boss in a later chapter based on placing a bunch of resources into him (and not taking into account the opportunity cost that is Tormod throughout most of the game) on just around the same thing? "8.5% chance to miss one of her two attacks" is pretty stupid anyway because that's still an 80 something percent chance of clear. And who says we need to 2HKO Gasilama? Forged Iron Sword lowers her necessary attack because she can attack four times and with a much more assured hit and dodge rate. Using a Thief (or another unit since I guess Thieves don't have boosted FOW vision in this game?) with a torch also gives you more visibility to attack Gashilama on Turn 2 Player phase (and if a thief does have boosted FOW- Paladins can easily attack him). Of course, this is a point in Marcia's favor but the other Paladins can more easily attack from a distance at Turn 3 while she's recruiting Makalov. She's crucial to a lower turn clear of the chapter, however.

A 20/2 Marcia (lance-equipped) with both a Dracoshield and Seraph Robe is borderline on being crit-killed by Gashilama. So under most circumstances, Marcia will be crit-killed. Gashilama has ~[40, 60] displayed hit on Marcia and ~40 crit. In the median case (which this time is identical to the average case), Gashilama has a 50% chance to hit Marcia and a 20% chance to crit Marcia. So, Marcia has a ~76% chance to avoid a crit-kill and 2HKO Gashilama in the average case. That's actually a bit better than I had thought. Surprisingly, Biorythm has a really big role to play here. With best biorythm, Marcia has an 87% chance of victory. With worst biorhythm, Marcia has a 66.4% chance of victory. If we give Marcia enough resources to survive a crit-kill, though, her average chance of success is ~98% - very good indeed.

Why wouldn't you give a Seraph Robe and Dracoshield to Marcia then?

I'm not sure the Iron Sword 3HKO on enemy phase strategy is particularly sound. I believe Marcia would need to survive two attacks from Gashilama (at considerably lower hit, granted), but also any nearby enemies (which might include a Tiger). At any rate, there are too many variables to bother calculating. Feel free to do it yourself.

Laguzguard helps against the Laguz but they don't move- instead a Mage just tinks her. She dodges Gashilama far more easily too because of the +30% evasion rate (relative to the Steel Lance forge, +15% relative to a neutral Weapon Triangle) on top of the hit doing 3 less damage (meaning the Dracoshield isn't as necessary) in the case of a critical. Edited September 22, 2011 by Mercenary Raven

[Anouleth]

I'm sorry but weren't you arguing in favor of a Soren 2HKO on some boss in a later chapter based on placing a bunch of resources into him (and not taking into account the opportunity cost that is Tormod throughout most of the game) on just around the same thing? "8.5% chance to miss one of her two attacks" is pretty stupid anyway because that's still an 80 something percent chance of clear. And who says we need to 2HKO Gasilama? Forged Iron Sword lowers her necessary attack because she can attack four times and with a much more assured hit and dodge rate. Using a Thief like Sothe or Volke with a torch also gives you more visibility to hit Gashilama (especially since by Turn 2 you can have a formation in the sense that your Paladins and what not are able to prevent your thieves from taking hits). Of course, this is a point in Marcia's favor since the other Paladins can more easily attack from a distance at Turn 3 while she's recruiting Makalov, but she is crucial to a lower turn clear of the chapter.

Gashilama has a tendency to start moving and run away into the water if he takes damage. I couldn't say for sure if he'd do that after being weakened by Marcia, but you can't count on Marcia being able to do anything to him on enemy phase.

Laguzguard helps against the Laguz but they don't move- instead a Mage just tinks her. She dodges Gashilama far more easily too because of the +30% evasion rate (relative to the Steel Lance forge, +15% relative to a neutral Weapon Triangle) on top of the hit doing 3 less damage (meaning the Dracoshield isn't as necessary) in the case of a critical.

Weapon triangle in FE9 is +10/-10 hit, it's only +15/-15 in FE8.

[Narga_Rocks]

I'm afraid you don't understand the concept of opportunity costs. If Marcia is taking "a ton of resources", those resources cannot go to Jill or any other unit. So when we consider Marcia vs. Oscar, we need actually consider how much better Jill (or whomever) would be with Marcia's optimal resource bundle and count that against Marcia. We also need to consider the lesser opportunity cost of Oscar's optimal resource bundle going to Jill, Kieran or whomever. The resources Marcia and Oscar take come at a cost: the value of those resources to the next best recipient. The more valuable the resources taken, the greater the cost. When it comes to a resource such as the Boots, the cost is huge.

And yet, the gains from the boots is even larger. Marcia has the ability to get this positive from the boots and it is very difficult to accurately calculate how big that gain is. So, the fact that Oscar isn't getting as big a benefit is a problem for him. And Oscar's "team"s boots might go to Jill, but then we get into the question of how much to consider other units when comparing Marcia to Oscar.

I think it's pretty obvious that Oscar > Jill if both are given 0 Bexp. Or even 400 Bexp. But that doesn't prove Oscar > Jill. To do that, I plan to give Jill her optimal resource bundle and Oscar equivalent resources.

I thought it was obvious I meant when Jill gets enough to stomp, as that is the Jill that is being considered when she is placed where she is.

[aku chi]

Mercenary Raven, do you intentionally branch out and talk about things unrelated to my point when you can't refute it? I was explaining opportunity costs to you (which you evidently didn't understand) and your response to that section was essentially "Is Jill > Marcia?". It's very frustrating to have a discussion with you when you avoid pusuits towards common understanding and closure.

And yet we should also consider what happens when Jill isn't recruited (meaning there is no opportunity cost in relation to Jill). We should also keep in mind that Jill and Marcia are more or less the exact same unit when they get the same bundle; Jill's only advantage is that she has Axes (which is a nuisance to her because you get more powerful throwing spears before you get stronger throwing axes; you get a Spear and Short Spear before you get a Tomahawk, because the Short Axe is stupidly inefficient to have if i recall correctly). You are essentially doing nothing to show that Jill is doing a significant amount better than Marcia with the same resources; yes she is doing better, but Marcia still does deserve her share of resources.

- In PoR, Jill starts with Lances and gets Axes on promotion.

- Jill's real advantage over Marcia is superior durability.

- You've stated that Jill > Marcia many times. Have you changed your mind?

You've also done nothing to show why Kieran and Oscar are so much more powerful with the same resources; pump the same resources into Marcia and Oscar and compare them. You will see that Marcia and Jill are still doing more for the sake of efficiency than Oscar is, Boots and same resources or not simply because of one thing. They're riding a flying mythical creature; Oscar's on a horse.

Patience. That analysis is yet to come. But I don't disagree that Marcia/Jill are more valuable than Oscar in their shared chapters if they both get a bunch of resources. Oscar has his early-game performance to consider, so Jill's later wins need to exceed Oscar's early-game wins.

How is Oscar more valuable in later chapters once they get the same resources? If anything, their value is comparable at that point.

I said "in some chapters". With similar resources, Oscar has considerably more durability and slightly higher Atk than Marcia, making him more valuable in chapters 26 and 27, for instance.

The one that is getting the resources provides the more unique contributions, whereas the one that isn't becomes redundant; it just happens it's a toss up as to who is getting the resources and it's up to the player. Keeping both in mind, Jill > (Marcia = Oscar) once Jill gets resources, Marcia > (Jill > Oscar) if Marcia gets the resources.

LOL. Marcia and Jill need a bunch of resources to be able to contribute as anything more than a fragile flying ferry. What were you thinking a Level 5 Marcia was going to do?

Therefore we can conclude Jill > Marcia because Jill is Marcia's only real (ie: non-negligible) opportunity cost and vice-versa; it just so happens that pumping resources into Marcia takes away from Jill (but pumping resources into either makes Oscar only slightly better; therefore, pouring those resources into Oscar takes away from being able to clear things as efficiently as Jill and Marcia).

"We" can't conclude that because I disagree with the preceding statement. I also disagree with: "Jill is Marcia's only real (ie: non-negligible) opportunity cost".

Why wouldn't you give a Seraph Robe and Dracoshield to Marcia then?

If you wanted a reliable 2-turn clear of C14, it seems like you would. Except that I left out the enemies that will attack Marcia on turn 1 enemy phase. If she gets hit by any of these enemies, she'll drop into Gashilama crit-kill range. Maybe a promoted Mist can reach her to heal, but I'm quite sure that unpromoted Rhys or Mist cannot.

Laguzguard helps against the Laguz but they don't move- instead a Mage just tinks her. She dodges Gashilama far more easily too because of the +30% evasion rate (relative to the Steel Lance forge, +15% relative to a neutral Weapon Triangle) on top of the hit doing 3 less damage (meaning the Dracoshield isn't as necessary) in the case of a critical.

Anouleth brought into suspicion the soundness of this enemy-phase 2-turn strategy. I'd like to see (hear of) it in action before considering it further.

And yet, the gains from the boots is even larger. Marcia has the ability to get this positive from the boots and it is very difficult to accurately calculate how big that gain is. So, the fact that Oscar isn't getting as big a benefit is a problem for him. And Oscar's "team"s boots might go to Jill, but then we get into the question of how much to consider other units when comparing Marcia to Oscar.

It's not impossible to consider the opportunity cost of Marcia taking the Boots. We consider the value of Jill or Reyson getting the Boots instead. There was some discussion a page or two back outlining the benefits of the Boots when given to Marcia or Reyson.

Edited September 22, 2011 by aku chi

[Narga_Rocks]

It's not impossible to consider the opportunity cost of Marcia taking the Boots. We consider the value of Jill or Reyson getting the Boots instead. There was some discussion a page or two back outlining the benefits of the Boots when given to Marcia or Reyson.

Not impossible. Simply difficult. The main point here is that Marcia gets something from the boots and Oscar does not. This isn't to say that we compare them as if Marcia had 11 move and Oscar had 9 as if the boots were only usable on Marcia. That'd be silly. The important part is that this is something she can do that Oscar can't. And even if you include Jill in the discussion, Jill is harder to shove so Marcia has some chapters like parts of 17 in her favour. Also, it's weird to think about both Jill and Marcia because you can only spam one of them to promotion super-quick. The other will take a little more time. The only way to have Oscar > Jill and Marcia would be if you consider Jill and Marcia to cancel each other out in those gains and give Oscar the win. I think that sounds a little off but it depends on how Cynthia wants to run the list. As it is, the list seems to lean more towards not cancelling the two units and thus Oscar loses to them.

Now, if we are really going gaga over lowest turns regardless of low (imo) reliability, then you could also do a comparison of number of turns saved by giving Marcia the boots in comparison to all the others. Is Reyson ever, in any chapter, saving turns compared to Marcia getting the boots? How about the reverse? Ditto Jill.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Narga_Rocks