FE6 hard mode tier list, take 2

[grandjackal]

The point is that Gonzo's gotta get there first. Geese's got plenty of time having the brave axe mainly for all himself.

[dondon151]

the point is that geese doesn't want the brave axe all to himself unless he wants to die

[CATS]

It looks like Marcus got moved out of high just by dondon pointing out how he does in Ch 13 or something and another topic comparing him to Gonzales (who is now high on Ilia anyways). Marcus's Ch 13 performance is entirely irrelevant to the reason why he was placed in High to begin with. He makes a bigger contribution in the early chapters alone than a mediocre character who is just being mediocre for the entire game. Go fire up the first chapter, place Marcus in a corner with no weapons and keep him away from the enemies, and have fun seeing how well you do without him.

Pointing out his performance in Ch 13 assumes that you're still fielding him by then, which demonstrates a gross system mindset (supported by another comment from dondon in the topic: "Being average in the early parts of the game is better than being totally shitty or not deployed in the mid to later parts of the game."). If that's how you want to approach it, then sure, Marcus is probably too high if anything, and although I'm not looking forward to it, I'll argue against that again if people come in supporting a gross system mindset here.

But outside of that, I don't see the justification for moving him out of high.

Edited November 28, 2009 by CATS

[dondon151]

Uh, the "gross" system only helps Marcus, because it doesn't incur a penalty if he's assumed to be deployed when he sucks.

Go fire up the first chapter, place Marcus in a corner with no weapons and keep him away from the enemies, and have fun seeing how well you do without him.

Brom and Eddie, for example, are not high tier despite being in this same situation.

Even if you put greater weight on the early chapters, Marcus just doesn't measure up to units in high tier that are good for pretty much their entire existences, and I'd even contend that he's not as good as a few units currently below him in upper mid tier, because units like Thany are useful for the entire game and don't require EXP investment. Or Lot, who is definitely worse than Marcus in the earlygame but doesn't blow chunks, and outperforms Marcus by a mile starting from midgame.

[CATS]

Uh, the "gross" system only helps Marcus, because it doesn't incur a penalty if he's assumed to be deployed when he sucks.

In those terms, yes, the gross system "helps" everyone. The total contribution of any unit is raised because they're no longer having an opportunity cost subtracted from it.

In terms of Marcus's position on the list, he's now considerably worse off. While earlygame contributions are presumably a similar gap under both systems, contributions afterwards change significantly in favor of all the various mediocre units if you apply the gross system. Under the net system Marcus isn't used after earlygame and Mediocre Unit #1337 is barely contributing anything notable, so after the earlygame, net contributions for both units are negligible. Marcus is overall more valuable since he contributes something meaningful at some point during the game.

However, under the gross system, the performance of Random Mediocre Unit is now considered a significant asset, since you're no longer subtracting an opportunity cost nearly equal to the unit's contributions. A direct comparison of Random Mediocre Unit and Marcus across the entire game, previously irrelevant, now becomes entirely relevant, and obviously Random Mediocre Unit will be winning by quite a bit for the latter half of the game.

Even if you put greater weight on the early chapters, Marcus just doesn't measure up to units in high tier that are good for pretty much their entire existences, and I'd even contend that he's not as good as a few units currently below him in upper mid tier, because units like Thany are useful for the entire game and don't require EXP investment. Or Lot, who is definitely worse than Marcus in the earlygame but doesn't blow chunks, and outperforms Marcus by a mile starting from midgame.

"outperforms Marcus by a mile starting from midgame" and other such statements demonstrate that you're still assuming Marcus gets used after the earlygame. Reikken responded effectively to this line of thinking when he first posted for Marcus to rise.

Marcus isn't used for said rest of the game, so them beating him via a direct comparison is irrelevant.

Lot is never any better than average, and usually worse, depending on what "average" is (in a good team, he'll be among the worst, if not the worst).

Marcus's contributions during earlygame chapters where he's immensely helpful could be seen as contributing perhaps +2 positive utility per chapter. Lot post-earlygame might be contributing +2.2 positive utility, whereas the next best unit who could've been going in his spot would be contributing +2, so Lot's net contributions per chapter are only 0.2, obviously never matching up to the positive utility that Marcus builds up in the early chapters alone (keep in mind these are just arbitrary values, I'm only using them to illustrate a point).

Edited November 30, 2009 by CATS

[dondon151]

In terms of Marcus's position on the list, he's now considerably worse off. While earlygame contributions are presumably a similar gap under both systems, contributions afterwards change significantly in favor of all the various mediocre units if you apply the gross system. Under the net system Marcus isn't used after earlygame and Mediocre Unit #1337 is barely contributing anything notable, so after the earlygame, net contributions for both units are negligible. Marcus is overall more valuable since he contributes something meaningful at some point during the game.

Units in upper mid and high tier aren't "mediocre" by any means. Their contributions at no point are negligible; your contention for Marcus in high makes that assumption when it's not true in the first place. And units that exist in earlygame have no opportunity cost anyway because deployment slots are fixed until chapter 6, so units like Thany and Ellen who are under Marcus yet are in a similar position of having utility in high demand should be judged in the same way. The difference is that their utility extends past earlygame while Marcus's doesn't, so they should logically be above Marcus, but they are not already.

"outperforms Marcus by a mile starting from midgame" and other such statements demonstrate that you're still assuming Marcus gets used after the earlygame. Reikken responded effectively to this line of thinking when he first posted for Marcus to rise.

Marcus isn't used for said rest of the game, so them beating him via a direct comparison is irrelevant.

Lot is never any better than average, and usually worse, depending on what "average" is (in a good team, he'll be among the worst, if not the worst).

How do you know I wasn't only implying that Marcus gets used after earlygame? Even if Marcus doesn't get used after earlygame, Lot still "outperforms Marcus by a mile" because he's outperforming someone who's not performing at all due to player choice. That statement covers either approach. And I don't see how a direct comparison is irrelevant when a Marcus vs. Lot comparison involves, you know, a comparison. You can't attribute another unit's performance to Marcus (i.e. you can't say "Marcus frees up a unit slot") because I can easily say that for anyone else, put Dieck in his place, and then the resulting argument no longer involves the characters that we were originally debating.

Marcus's contributions during earlygame chapters where he's immensely helpful could be seen as contributing perhaps +2 positive utility per chapter. Lot post-earlygame might be contributing +2.2 positive utility, whereas the next best unit who could've been going in his spot would be contributing +2, so Lot's net contributions per chapter are only 0.2, obviously never matching up to the positive utility that Marcus builds up in the early chapters alone (keep in mind these are just arbitrary values, I'm only using them to illustrate a point).

Of course these values illustrate your point if they're arbitrarily skewed in favor of your argument. Marcus is only really faceraping probably the first 4 chapters. By then, other units like Lance and Allen are starting to measure up to Marcus offensively (though they obviously still pale in comparison, the decreasing difference in performance corresponds to less economic utility) and you will have gotten Dieck and Rutger, who both compare offensively to Marcus without much EXP input. Then you get Zealot in chapter 7 who is basically Marcus but better, and you know from looking at Zealot's current position on the tier list that contributions from chapter 7 on for Marcus don't really matter anymore. So Marcus has 20% of the game with lots of utility attributed to it while Lot has 100% of the game with less utility attributed to it, or, Marcus needs to be more than 5 times better in the course of 6 chapters than Lot is better over the entire game.

If I change your arbitrarily assigned value for Lot to something above .4, then Lot wins. And Lot gets plenty of utility from earlygame chapters as well because he's forced.

[Narga_Rocks]

How do you know I wasn't only implying that Marcus gets used after earlygame? Even if Marcus doesn't get used after earlygame, Lot still "outperforms Marcus by a mile" because he's outperforming someone who's not performing at all due to player choice. That statement covers either approach. And I don't see how a direct comparison is irrelevant when a Marcus vs. Lot comparison involves, you know, a comparison. You can't attribute another unit's performance to Marcus (i.e. you can't say "Marcus frees up a unit slot") because I can easily say that for anyone else, put Dieck in his place, and then the resulting argument no longer involves the characters that we were originally debating.

Well, technically, while you could argue that you make both units not present and compare their replacements, this would result in x vs. x, since you can use the same unit in either case. So it would fall back to what they did before neither was deployed.

Of course these values illustrate your point if they're arbitrarily skewed in favor of your argument. Marcus is only really faceraping probably the first 4 chapters. By then, other units like Lance and Allen are starting to measure up to Marcus offensively (though they obviously still pale in comparison, the decreasing difference in performance corresponds to less economic utility) and you will have gotten Dieck and Rutger, who both compare offensively to Marcus without much EXP input. Then you get Zealot in chapter 7 who is basically Marcus but better, and you know from looking at Zealot's current position on the tier list that contributions from chapter 7 on for Marcus don't really matter anymore. So Marcus has 20% of the game with lots of utility attributed to it while Lot has 100% of the game with less utility attributed to it, or, Marcus needs to be more than 5 times better in the course of 6 chapters than Lot is better over the entire game.

If I change your arbitrarily assigned value for Lot to something above .4, then Lot wins. And Lot gets plenty of utility from earlygame chapters as well because he's forced.

Agree.

Marcus has, on average, x economic profit per chapter for y chapters.

Lot has, on average, w economic profit per chapter for z chapters.

If xy < wz, then Lot > Marcus.

If y is 6, and z is 30 (including Gaidens) then you get

6x vs. 30w

x vs 5w

So, if w > (1/5)x (or can be seen as 5w > x), then Lot > Marcus

if w < (1/5)x (or can be seen as 5w < x), then Marcus > Lot

There is the question of whether or not to apply extra weight to earlier chapters, but even so you likely won't get the requirement to be anything more than w > (1/3)x for Lot to be better.

(Though I'll grant this:

x = a - c

w = b - c

a = average profit of Marcus over the 6 chapters.

b = average profit of Lot over the 30 chapters.

c = average opportunity cost of deployment.

You could argue that under net, the requirement is 5w > x

Under gross, you could argue the requirement is 5b > a

Comparing the two, 5(b-c)>(a-c)

5b - 5c > a - c

5b > a + 4c

So under net, Lot must have 5b > a + 4c, but under gross, 5b > a alone.

So to come out above Marcus under net he must be an extra 4c good compared to how good he needs to be under gross.

At least, that's an argument you could make, I suppose.

)

Still, it seems like it's not overly difficult to come out above Marcus even with needing 5b > a + 4c, to be honest. How bad can a guy in upper mid be?

edit: fixed tons of mistakes in letters used

Edit: it is possible I shouldn't have used c for both and instead used c and d. There is no opportunity cost of deployment at the beginning when nobody needs to be left out, after all. If desired, just focus on how in one form of rating Lot needs to be a little bit better along the way to come out on top. He still doesn't need to pull all that much economic profit over his 30 chapters to pull out on top.

Edited November 30, 2009 by Narga_Rocks

[Candlejack]

I find it incredibly disturbing how remarkable Gonzales' base SPD is compared to many characters early on. 4 less than a Thief on an axe user is just wtf. And you don't get a unit with as much STR as him until Klein either.

So Gonzo's supports suck, best one being Echidna at 1 + 1 and Dayan with 1 + 1. His bases override that; he doesn't need much support to begin with and he'll keep up his offensive powerhouse-rage.

It's funny; Gonzales is kind of like Cord from FE11, only with better growths and bases. And Cord is, like, Top Tier (Which is below Sedgar/Wolf Tier).

So yeah, Gonzales above Astohl. I'd go more in depth but I'm not feeling it right now. I just need 20 minutes.

EDIT: Okay, I'm back.

Gonzales follows a trend many Top or High Tier axe users follow as well, i.e. Boyd/Kieran FE9, Cord FE11, and Othin/Halvan; he has enough SPD to double in their earlygame and combined with their STR, they are offensive monsters. Oh, and their promotion bonuses are nucking futs. Except for FE9 Boyd, save +6 HP.

Astohl's thief utility can only go so far, after all. After Ch. 8, you're going to get jack shit until Ch. 12 and 12x, then 16, then 20A/B, and 22. Even so, Astohl has to take up an item slot for lockpicks and reduces holder effectiveness.

Not to mention how lopsided Gonzo is compared to Astohl. Gonzo wins STR by 9 and HP by 8. Astohl only has marginal wins in the important stats save SPD, but they both double anyway. Astohl wins in SKL by 1 and RES by 2, but screw RES anyway. Astohl might have more dependable HIT and AVO, but these two are only off by two chapters and Astohl's growths aren't very impressive; i.e. 35% STR and 20% DEF growths. Gonzales has 60% STR and the same SPD growth as Astohl. Okay, he has a shitty SKL growth... of 15%. But since Gonzo's base catches up to Astohl's SKL by Lvl. 9 on average. Oh, and +5 SKL on promotion helps too.

So is anyone up for this?

EDIT: Umm, I'd actually give consideration to move Gonzo over Chad in Ilia route as well. Gonzo is seriously better than most people give him credit for. He might even be better than Elphin/Lalum, but that is a much more difficult argument to explain.

Edited December 4, 2009 by Sedgar the Hero

[CATS]

Units in upper mid and high tier aren't "mediocre" by any means. Their contributions at no point are negligible; your contention for Marcus in high makes that assumption when it's not true in the first place. And units that exist in earlygame have no opportunity cost anyway because deployment slots are fixed until chapter 6, so units like Thany and Ellen who are under Marcus yet are in a similar position of having utility in high demand should be judged in the same way. The difference is that their utility extends past earlygame while Marcus's doesn't, so they should logically be above Marcus, but they are not already.

Units in upper mid are not entirely mediocre, but they are close to being so. Upper Mid means the upper end of Middle Tier. Hence why I used the phrase "barely contributing anything notable," not "contributing nothing."

I'd certainly argue that Thany and Ellen's contributions during earlygame are less than those of Marcus. If you feel that their utility is being undervalued, though, then feel free to argue that they should rise.

How do you know I wasn't only implying that Marcus gets used after earlygame? Even if Marcus doesn't get used after earlygame, Lot still "outperforms Marcus by a mile" because he's outperforming someone who's not performing at all due to player choice.

Yes, under the gross system, being there > not being there. This is why I said that Lot > Marcus is pretty easy under gross system, and also why I'm not going to bother arguing Marcus under that line of thinking. Under the net system, however, being there is not necessarily better than being absent, or might be only barely better.

And I don't see how a direct comparison is irrelevant when a Marcus vs. Lot comparison involves, you know, a comparison. You can't attribute another unit's performance to Marcus (i.e. you can't say "Marcus frees up a unit slot") because I can easily say that for anyone else, put Dieck in his place, and then the resulting argument no longer involves the characters that we were originally debating.

A direct comparison against a unit not on the field is irrelevant to anything. Pent outperforms Nino in Ch 27, but no one is using this as an argument for him to rise. Likewise, a promoted Lot outperforming a sideline'd Marcus in whatever lategame chapter means nothing in and of itself.

Going by the logic of "But then it's not a comparison at all!", Harken > Marcus in FE7. We can't compare contributions before Harken joins, because there's no comparison to make, right? If you refuse to measure contributions unless both units are present on the field, then this must be the logical end of your reasoning.

Of course these values illustrate your point if they're arbitrarily skewed in favor of your argument.

Yes, and that's why I said to keep in mind that they were simply arbitrary values.

Anyways, Marcus's contributions in Ch 1 alone are hilarious. Reikken emphasized that earlygame Marcus makes a bigger impact than any other individual unit in any other chapter (or chapters, I suppose).

In Ch 1, the rest of your team is 2-3RKO'd, generally 2RKO'd. The only ones avoiding 2RKO are Bors if he doesn't get doubled (gets doubled by about half the axe enemies) and Alan against two weaker Fighters (they have either 17 or 18 Atk, once again about evenly distributed, so if two with 17 Atk hit him Alan can survive with 1 Hp), and 6 of them rush you at the start, including an Archer, so in reality it's almost never safe to expose anyone to more than 1 Fighter at a time. And you're 3-4RKOing in return (generally 4RKOing, only Alan has a consistent 3RKO). Without Marcus your performance, or even the survival of your units at all (if you get unlucky with dodging/hitting, you may be forced to sac someone), is partially luck-based, and even assuming that things mostly go in your favor, you have to slow down massively in order to advance without risking your units' lives.

Without Marcus you have to wall off the initial rush of enemies at the chokepoint above your starting position and just camp there, not moving forward at all for multiple turns, to avoid any casualties while you slowly wear down the enemies. You can't really do anything else except turtle, as otherwise you risk the Archer + 2 Fighters ganging up on someone for a high chance of death, which slows you down in the rest of the chapter (or longer than that if it's Alan/Lance that bites it). Considering that your units mostly 4RKO and you can only safely counter/attack with 1-2 of them at a time, this takes quite a while. Assuming a 4RKO with two units acting per player/enemy phase, it takes you 5 turns just to take care of the 5 axemen, and then another one for the Archer.

This is about twice as long as it takes to get past this with Marcus in the picture, who reduces that 4RKO to a OHKO for 2-3 enemies per turn. With Marcus countering two enemies and attacking one per turn, you take out the initial rush in literally half the time or less. The rest of the chapter proceeds similarly; you don't have the enemies actively rushing you anymore, so you don't have to turtle as much w/o Marcus, but you also have to waste turns using Vulneraries to heal. Whereas with Marcus in the picture, no one needs to heal at all. Even with single-digit Hp, your swordies can safely off a couple enemies lured in by Marcus with minimal risk.

Then the boss takes exponentially longer to kill without Marcus. Assuming Alan proc'd Str, he does 5 damage per counter, and then Wolt does 1 damage and Javelin Bors does 3 (with atrocious hit), while the boss regens 3 Hp per turn. He heals faster than you can hurt him unless Alan keeps dodging and remains able to counter, and if Alan gets hit he has to use a Vulnerary twice while the boss sits and regens, so you're set back a turn or two for every time that happens (and if you get screwed badly enough and run out of Vulneraries, then you're just, well, screwed).

Playing this chapter normally, I got a turncount of 11. I then tried to play it with Marcus stuffed into the lower left corner. After a few resets, I managed to beat it without any deaths, for a turncount of 31. To show how absurd that is, allow me to quote Reikken from one of his debaets:

And btw, even a 1-turn improvement is still very substantial. Considering that it's one action by one unit in one chapter. Or even if it's just like 70% of a turn. It really adds up. To help put that in perspective, if you have just two 70%-of-a-turn things per chapter by just 7 of your like 10-12 units over the game's 30ish chapters, that's about 300 turns.

--

I'll take a moment to say a bit more on that before moving on. Let's take just Thany, over ch 2-6. i.e. before Zealot joins. Just her saving 0.7 turns twice per chapter (This is being very conservative. It easily amounts to much more than this, especially considering that it's using Thany vs using no one at all for the first 4 and then Thany vs the likes of Bors and Wolt for ch 6), that amounts to 7 turns. Does Zealot save you 7 turns all by himself in ch 7? I think not. You can even spend a few turns retreating a bit from the wyverns and whatever else, while getting better positioning and thinning them enough to advance again, and still come out fewer than 7 turns under.

Obviously from a Thany vs Zealot debaet, but the principles still apply. Marcus here is shaving off 20 turns in one chapter. You might claim that 20 is too high or inflated or w/e, but if so, then I'm fairly sure it's not by much. He lets you move about twice as fast before reaching the boss, at least, and then speeds up your boss-killing by even greater factor than that. And that's Ch 1 alone.

Compare to Lot's stuff after Marcus is gone. First of all it's not 30 chapters for Lot; if he makes the team, then he's almost certainly among the worst on the team and unlikely to be taken into gaidens, which have reduced numbers of deployment slots (all gaidens except 20x have 8-10 unit slots). Next let's consider a team of 12 units.

Roy

Lance

Alan

Dieck

Rutger

Miledy

Percival

Clarine

Echidna

Lalum

Gonzales

Thany

Whoops, that's 12. Lot's not even on there. And there's still another combat unit ranked between him and Thany, and I wonder whether or not you would seriously use a team with only 1 staff user for the entire game (again, maybe we should argue Ellen/Saul up). Lot's looking at more like doing filler duty until Percival shows up or something. So I do indeed find it difficult to believe that Lot finds more significant contributions than Marcus over the course of the game.

Edited December 13, 2009 by CATS

[dondon151]

I'd certainly argue that Thany and Ellen's contributions during earlygame are less than those of Marcus. If you feel that their utility is being undervalued, though, then feel free to argue that they should rise.

Why only earlygame? Thany can be used for the whole game. So can Ellen, I guess, but she fails at combat.

Yes, under the gross system, being there > not being there. This is why I said that Lot > Marcus is pretty easy under gross system, and also why I'm not going to bother arguing Marcus under that line of thinking. Under the net system, however, being there is not necessarily better than being absent, or might be only barely better.

You seem to misunderstand that quote. I said that even if Marcus were not to be played for 0 economic profit, Lot would still be having positive economic profit, so it's still net gains for Lot.

A direct comparison against a unit not on the field is irrelevant to anything. Pent outperforms Nino in Ch 27, but no one is using this as an argument for him to rise. Likewise, a promoted Lot outperforming a sideline'd Marcus in whatever lategame chapter means nothing in and of itself.

Going by the logic of "But then it's not a comparison at all!", Harken > Marcus in FE7. We can't compare contributions before Harken joins, because there's no comparison to make, right? If you refuse to measure contributions unless both units are present on the field, then this must be the logical end of your reasoning.

Pent outperforming Nino in a certain chapter doesn't matter in the first place because there is not one instance in the game where Nino is superior to Pent.

That isn't the logical conclusion of my reasoning; that is the logical conclusion of your reasoning. If you say that Lot outperforming an unused Marcus means nothing, then Marcus outperforming an absent Harken also means nothing. You associated my point with a completely different example, which is great for the express purpose of defeating a point that is relatively more difficult to contest. But under the premise that being used is always better than not being used, then Marcus should always be deployed whenever he is available, and thus there should always be a direct comparison. Even under the premise that it's better to not be used when economic profit becomes negative, it's still a comparison between one unit turning a profit and another unit turning 0 profit.

I never said anything resembling "but then it's not a comparison at all!" in the first place.

Anyways, Marcus's contributions in Ch 1 alone are hilarious. Reikken emphasized that earlygame Marcus makes a bigger impact than any other individual unit in any other chapter (or chapters, I suppose).

(stuff about how Marcus saves turns in chapter 1)

This has been done before. The Black Knight saves you an infinite amount of turns in 1-9, but that doesn't get him any higher than upper mid. Brom and Nephenee respectively save a substantial amount of turns in 2-1, but neither of them are where they are based solely on their performance in that chapter. And for that matter, the lords in any game save an infinite amount of turns by being able to end the chapter. The "seize argument" can only help a unit to a certain extent.

Compare to Lot's stuff after Marcus is gone. First of all it's not 30 chapters for Lot; if he makes the team, then he's almost certainly among the worst on the team and unlikely to be taken into gaidens, which have reduced numbers of deployment slots (all gaidens except 20x have 8-10 unit slots). Next let's consider a team of 12 units.

Whoops, that's 12. Lot's not even on there. And there's still another combat unit ranked between him and Thany, and I wonder whether or not you would seriously use a team with only 1 staff user for the entire game (again, maybe we should argue Ellen/Saul up). Lot's looking at more like doing filler duty until Percival shows up or something. So I do indeed find it difficult to believe that Lot finds more significant contributions than Marcus over the course of the game.

Your team of 12 units has 12 arbitrarily selected units based on their positions in the tier list without considering any other factors. Miledy and Percival don't join until halfway through the game, so it's safe to assume that Lot gets used before then. Lot also benefits from 2 units on that hypothetical team and benefits them in return to the fullest extent. Echidna, while consistently good at offense, has questionable defense (especially in comparison to Lot), and it might be better to drop her in lategame. Rutger, too, starts petering out offensively in lategame. So there's a bit of leeway for Lot to be used in the long term, and he will definitely be used in the short term.

[Swordsalmon]

Is this tier in order? Because if so, why does Dieck>Rutger? I can probably see this due to having a fast Lot support and general utility early-game, but additional explaination would be greatly appreciated.

[Mekkah]

Axes and 1-2 range, pretty much. Considering their chances at an early promotion, Dieck comes out a lot better at that. That's the short story.

[Swordsalmon]

That's understandable, then. Haven't been in a tier list discussion in forever. Thanks.:)

[CATS]

Why only earlygame? Thany can be used for the whole game. So can Ellen, I guess, but she fails at combat.

Yes, that was your point. My point was that, while Marcus isn't used for the whole game, his utility while used is greater than that of Ellen or Thany.

You seem to misunderstand that quote. I said that even if Marcus were not to be played for 0 economic profit, Lot would still be having positive economic profit, so it's still net gains for Lot.

Let's see.

Even if Marcus doesn't get used after earlygame, Lot still "outperforms Marcus by a mile" because he's outperforming someone who's not performing at all due to player choice.

Lot outperforms Marcus because he's outperforming someone who's not performing at all (i.e. not there). A pretty ambiguous statement; I suppose I figured you were referring to gross system or something because you still said "outperforms by a mile," when in reality I think Lot's post-earlygame positive utility is small or none.

But under the premise that being used is always better than not being used, then Marcus should always be deployed whenever he is available, and thus there should always be a direct comparison.

Yes, under the gross system, Marcus is dragged onto the field so that Lot can defeat him in a direct comparison, even though this is inefficient play. Yes, under the gross system, Lot > Marcus is easy.

Even under the premise that it's better to not be used when economic profit becomes negative, it's still a comparison between one unit turning a profit and another unit turning 0 profit.

Indeed. However, this hinges on the assumption that one unit is in fact turning some sort of a significant profit.

This has been done before. The Black Knight saves you an infinite amount of turns in 1-9, but that doesn't get him any higher than upper mid. Brom and Nephenee respectively save a substantial amount of turns in 2-1, but neither of them are where they are based solely on their performance in that chapter. And for that matter, the lords in any game save an infinite amount of turns by being able to end the chapter. The "seize argument" can only help a unit to a certain extent.

This isn't seizing. The seize argument equates a lord to the king in chess; their worth becomes effectively infinite, and for all intents and purposes they are unrankable, so far above the other units that there is nothing to discuss about their position.

FE6Marcus is quite different from that; he's not necessary to complete the game, rather, he's just saving you a metric fuckton of turns. I don't really see your argument for how or why this is to be disregarded. It looks like you're saying that it shouldn't count because it's "too good" or something by comparing him to units which technically save you an infinite number of turns, which is cool, but if that's the case then at the very minimum he should obviously be high tier.

Your team of 12 units has 12 arbitrarily selected units based on their positions in the tier list without considering any other factors. Miledy and Percival don't join until halfway through the game, so it's safe to assume that Lot gets used before then.

Yes, as I said, Lot is looking at filler duty until one of the later joining units pops in. That still significantly cuts down the period of time where he has any positive economic utility. I'm pretty sure that Lot's contributions in Ch 8-15 are less than those of Marcus in Ch 1-7.

Lot also benefits from 2 units on that hypothetical team and benefits them in return to the fullest extent.

Supports are usually considered in comparisons, so I was assuming that those supports had already been considered for Lot and that this was his position even with them taken into account. If you think they're being underrated, then feel free to argue Lot up into high tier or something. I'll continue arguing Marcus against whatever unit takes his place.

Echidna, while consistently good at offense, has questionable defense (especially in comparison to Lot), and it might be better to drop her in lategame. Rutger, too, starts petering out offensively in lategame. So there's a bit of leeway for Lot to be used in the long term, and he will definitely be used in the short term.

You have to actually train Lot up in order to make him worthwhile lategame, which can't be done if you're using Echidna or Rutger in his spot earlier in the game.

[Vykan12]

This has been done before. The Black Knight saves you an infinite amount of turns in 1-9, but that doesn't get him any higher than upper mid. Brom and Nephenee respectively save a substantial amount of turns in 2-1, but neither of them are where they are based solely on their performance in that chapter. And for that matter, the lords in any game save an infinite amount of turns by being able to end the chapter. The "seize argument" can only help a unit to a certain extent.

This isn't seizing. The seize argument equates a lord to the king in chess; their worth becomes effectively infinite, and for all intents and purposes they are unrankable, so far above the other units that there is nothing to discuss about their position.

FE6Marcus is quite different from that; he's not necessary to complete the game, rather, he's just saving you a metric fuckton of turns. I don't really see your argument for how or why this is to be disregarded. It looks like you're saying that it shouldn't count because it's "too good" or something by comparing him to units which technically save you an infinite number of turns, which is cool, but if that's the case then at the very minimum he should obviously be high tier.

I have to agree with this. There's a very important distinction between near infinite worth and actual infinite worth. Only the latter gets disregarded in tier discussions.

[Candlejack]

Thany

lolThany

IF you've already mentioned Miledy as the flier, why is Thany even on here?

Also:

Echidna Lalum

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using them, but this won't happen if you go on A Route. B Route, you'd have room for Elphin and one extra slot since lolBartre. This slot is very likely going to Lott since the team already has someone outperforming them or they just plain suck (lolFartre)

[CATS]

Thany was next in line on the tier list, presumably there is something about her that makes her worth using. For example, Miledy is not there until Ch 13, and after she joins the player would still rather use her massive stats to actually fight as opposed to just carrying people around.

As for B Route, do tell why that route should be taken over A Route, which nets you a better Gonzo, a better pre-promote, and buyable Killer Axes in Ch 11.

Edited December 17, 2009 by CATS

[dondon151]

I have to agree with this. There's a very important distinction between near infinite worth and actual infinite worth. Only the latter gets disregarded in tier discussions.

So what is the BK in FE10?

[Narga_Rocks]

I have to agree with this. There's a very important distinction between near infinite worth and actual infinite worth. Only the latter gets disregarded in tier discussions.

So what is the BK in FE10?

I'm not 100% sure he has infinite worth in 1-9. I suspect he probably does, though, assuming no abuse of Micaiah's levels. Even at level 20 with the draco shield and a seraph robe, I'm not convinced she can survive very long, and it takes too long for her to KO things anyway. 2RKOing everything on the map while having to vulnerary every turn sucks, and she can't even stand in a special place to avoid getting attacked by more than 2 enemies since many of them have range.

As for the infinite worth vs. non-infinite worth idea, I prefer to think of it as there is only so much worth a character can get out of each chapter. If you are the "best" or "most important" for any chapter, you can get the "max" for that chapter. Basically, BK can't be given no credit for 1-9. That wouldn't be fair. But he doesn't auto-top the tier list because there is only so much credit that a single chapter can give.

but how does that affect this list? Is that saying that Lords should get more credit for seizing? Or that Marcus should not get any extra credit for cutting turns from 50 to 10 or whatever it is because he's just that important early on (and by "extra credit", I mean credit beyond the credit we'd give him for simply being the best without considering the massive effect on turncount)? If it's an argument for lowering the BK in fe10, I'd suggest putting it there.

[CATS]

The reduction in turncount created by a unit's presence obviously demonstrates how useful they actually are. Simply saying "they're the best" in general is not always an accurate assessment of their value. Seth is the best in FE8 Ch 4, and so is Marcus in FE6 Ch 1, but Marcus's effect on turncount in his particular chapter is far greater.

I see no reason that a "cap" should be placed on how much a unit can reduce your turncount, as if you should deliberately hold them back and play inefficiently or something. If someone is fucking awesome, then that should be recognized, as it generally is (hello FE8 Seth a tier above the second best unit). And even were such a cap to exist, it certainly shouldn't apply to units who aren't going to top the list or even come close anyways (FE6 Marcus). The whole point of such a measure would presumably be to prevent certain units from being "too good," but someone who is only high tier without the restriction in place is obviously not "too good."

Seize argument is the only case where I could actually see a unit being "too good" to the point of needing some sort of arbitrary limitation, since if the argument is allowed, it just effectively removes certain units from the list (lords and apparently FE10 BK), poof, just like that. It's a choice between ranking them somewhere or not ranking them at all, and since the core purpose of the tier list is discussion, the former is preferable. In all other cases (except maybe FE8 Seth? but it took some amount of discussion for him to reach his current position, way back in the day), there's still something to discuss without need for arbitrary limitations on how you play or w/e.

[Narga_Rocks]

The reduction in turncount created by a unit's presence obviously demonstrates how useful they actually are. Simply saying "they're the best" in general is not always an accurate assessment of their value. Seth is the best in FE8 Ch 4, and so is Marcus in FE6 Ch 1, but Marcus's effect on turncount in his particular chapter is far greater.

I see no reason that a "cap" should be placed on how much a unit can reduce your turncount, as if you should deliberately hold them back and play inefficiently or something. If someone is fucking awesome, then that should be recognized, as it generally is (hello FE8 Seth a tier above the second best unit). And even were such a cap to exist, it certainly shouldn't apply to units who aren't going to top the list or even come close anyways (FE6 Marcus). The whole point of such a measure would presumably be to prevent certain units from being "too good," but someone who is only high tier without the restriction in place is obviously not "too good."

Seize argument is the only case where I could actually see a unit being "too good" to the point of needing some sort of arbitrary limitation, since if the argument is allowed, it just effectively removes certain units from the list (lords and apparently FE10 BK), poof, just like that. It's a choice between ranking them somewhere or not ranking them at all, and since the core purpose of the tier list is discussion, the former is preferable. In all other cases (except maybe FE8 Seth? but it took some amount of discussion for him to reach his current position, way back in the day), there's still something to discuss without need for arbitrary limitations on how you play or w/e.

Oh, it would be a disgustingly high cap that isn't reached by anyone that doesn't prevent completion of the chapter if they aren't there. Trouble is, a Lord would still be auto high, probably auto top tier (even if not at the top of that tier) as a result.

But the thing is, BK should get credit for 1-9. The question is how much? However, if we allow one unit to get some credit for something when without him you can't finish the game, why shouldn't Lords get credit for seize (though I think that they shouldn't). It just leaves the door open for someone to complain about inconsistency. But the thing is, BK should get credit for 1-9, and Lords should not get credit for seizing. Because BKs amazingness isn't a game mechanic in terms of being literally impossible to complete without doing. Like, say, seizing. Laura, Micaiah, Lucia, Geoffrey, Ike, Ranulf all auto-top in RD. That would be stupid.

Actually, it is theoretically possible for Micaiah to solo 1-9. It may be just a (1x10^-10)% of success, but it is still doable. That is already different from seizing.

But if you don't cap BK's utility there, he really is auto-skittles. There is only so much credit Haar or Ike or Reyson can get for their maps considering they'll only cut down a few turns over time. If they got, say, a score of 20 on average per chapter, it is reasonable to give BK a score of 10000 for his 1-9, simply because of how small the probability of Micaiah solo-ing 1-9 actually is.

That's why I'd rather look at it as how much better a unit is and how important a unit is as well as their affect on turn counts. There are limits to how much better a unit is. You can't do better than ORKOing everything, for example. And being literally impossible to kill isn't much different from being 20RKOd, what with the existence of healers and the limited number of enemies on a map.

But if you go by turncounts alone, how many units will really be chopping off 50 turns over their existence compared to if they didn't exist and some other unit was there? Probably nobody. Maybe Haar cuts a few turns from 3-3, but in a lot of maps whether Haar existed or not changes my count by no more than one. PoR Titania/Seth/Marcus in their prime chapters? They probably cut turns more in 3 or 4 chapters than any other unit during its entire available period. If you just look at turncounts, Marcus is probably top of top anyway, from the sounds of his help in the first few chapters. And Edward is at least high tier in RD thanks to 1-P. I doubt you can reasonably finish with just Micaiah and Leo in under 20 turns, but under 10 is quite easy with Ed's help. Not many high tiers are chopping off 10+ turns in their entire existence compared to what would happen if some other unit was used.

[Vykan12]

Igrene moved up a bit more. Link. Specifically, I'm putting her above Lilina on both routes and Ray on Sacae.

Zealot > Oujay. Link. Zealot may be subject to more list climbing seeing as it's being argued that the tier gap between him and Marcus shouldn't be more than 1.

Edit: Turns out Noah > Zealot was proven in the previous thread, so I'm just going to move him back up to above Zealot. The people on IRC don't seem to have a problem with Treck being directly under Zealot either. Protest now or forever hold your peace.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Oliver

[Candlejack]

That's because Treck is the worst Horseman in FE6. Fuck, I'd go so far as to say he's worse than Dayan.

Well, nobody is worse than Sue when it comes to horseys.

[CATS]

I wonder if you could hold 1-9 against Micaiah, since she causes game over if she dies there, and it becomes impossible to finish the game. Probably not since, even though I've never played FE10, it sounds like she is in little danger so long as the BK is used with some intelligence.

Anyways, why should the BK get credit for 1-9? His combat in 1-9 is a function necessary (or close enough to necessary) for game completion, exactly like seizing. The fact that it's a different function shouldn't matter, I don't think. Seizing isn't disregarded because it's seizing, it's disregarded because it's necessary for game completion.

Likewise, I don't see how looking at "how much better a unit is" or "how important a unit is" is any different from examining its effect on turncounts. Indeed there are limits to how good a unit can be, and this is reflected when examining turncounts; if units A and B have 1000 and 500 in all stats respectively, technically A's stats are incredibly superior, but his actual effect on your turncount is no different as the two are effectively equal against the game's enemies.

But if you go by turncounts alone, how many units will really be chopping off 50 turns over their existence compared to if they didn't exist and some other unit was there? Probably nobody. Maybe Haar cuts a few turns from 3-3, but in a lot of maps whether Haar existed or not changes my count by no more than one. PoR Titania/Seth/Marcus in their prime chapters? They probably cut turns more in 3 or 4 chapters than any other unit during its entire available period. If you just look at turncounts, Marcus is probably top of top anyway, from the sounds of his help in the first few chapters. And Edward is at least high tier in RD thanks to 1-P. I doubt you can reasonably finish with just Micaiah and Leo in under 20 turns, but under 10 is quite easy with Ed's help. Not many high tiers are chopping off 10+ turns in their entire existence compared to what would happen if some other unit was used.

Which should demonstrate just how useful those few units truly are. Notice that both Seth and FE9 Titania are a tier above top, and FE7 Marcus is top of top, recognizing this usefulness. The only inconsistency is FE6 Marcus being all the way down in upper mid (a 3 tier gap between Seth/Titania), when he still has the most significant part of the other Jeigans' usefulness (massive contributions in early chapters).

[Vykan12]

I don't think it's that hard for Micaiah to do well in 1-9. You just need to give her resolve, manipulate 20 spd on her and force her into high biorhythm. Then once you reach 1-9, stick her on some vines for the entirety of the chapter. She'll have 110 avo vs 110-120 hit rates, which means about a 0-2% real chance of death per attack. That can realistically be done without SD card save abuse, particularly if she's 2HKOed.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Oliver