isetrh Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) If I'm understanding correctly, when tiering units, if a unit is the best character to receive a given resource, it's assumed they get it, and taking it isn't counted against them. There's something that's been bugging me about this. Let's say that hypothetical units Alice and Bob are both top tier in a hypothetical FE without any statboosters, so it's reasonable to assume that both will be used. Both would however benefit from a particular statbooster, of which there is only one (or maybe the others of it come really late in the game or cost an unreasonable amount of turns or something). Whichever of the two gets the stat booster will end up a little better than the other. Bob benefits a lot more from the booster than Alice. Alice with the booster is better than Bob with it, and Alice without is better than Bob without. Something like this: Alice (boost) > Bob (boost) > Alice >>>>> Bob > most other units in the game Bob would be assumed to get the booster. Since boosted Bob is better than unboosted Alice, and Bob is not penalized for taking the booster since he's the best candidate for it, Bob would be tiered above Alice. This doesn't seem right to me, since amy given Alice will always be better than a Bob who has the same level of investment as her. I might have come to this conclusion due to misunderstanding tiering philosophy. Would someone be willing to explain to me what I'm getting wrong? Edited July 11, 2015 by isetrh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florete Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) What needs to be noted in this hypothetical is that Bob w/boost + Alice > Alice w/boost + Bob, as teams. Bob getting the boost results in the better team. As far as tiering them goes, it would probably come down to ten pages of arguing over minutia and somehow RD chapter 3-6 would come into it. My gut says Alice would probably ultimately be ranked higher because unboosted ability typically takes priority over boosted ability. Edited July 11, 2015 by Red Fox of Fire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 practically speaking, bob is better than alice. playthroughs investing in bob would be faster than playthroughs investing in alice. incidentally this is part of the reason we don't do tier lists any more, because it's hard to say one thing (that alice is supposed to be better than bob) while knowing that the opposite (that bob is better than alice) is true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Banzai Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 as I always said, tier lists should be geared toward helping new players find the best units to simply complete the game they would actually serve a use that way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isetrh Posted July 11, 2015 Author Share Posted July 11, 2015 Huh, so there are different opinions even on this. Thanks for explaining it to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shrouded In Myth Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 practically speaking, bob is better than alice. playthroughs investing in bob would be faster than playthroughs investing in alice. incidentally this is part of the reason we don't do tier lists any more, because it's hard to say one thing (that alice is supposed to be better than bob) while knowing that the opposite (that bob is better than alice) is true. It's quite a shame, I was just a lurker when the big tier list debates were happening, but I always found them interesting and nothing else is quite like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Banzai Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 It's quite a shame, I was just a lurker when the big tier list debates were happening, but I always found them interesting and nothing else is quite like it. When you can say with absolute certainty how many turns a unit saves, and thus accurately place it in an LTC tier list without fail, it kinda stifles actual debate. People simply stopped making conjectures and guesstimates and actually LTCed enough to figure out the fastest ways to beat the game, and then... what else can you say? Not a whole lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shrouded In Myth Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 When you can say with absolute certainty how many turns a unit saves, and thus accurately place it in an LTC tier list without fail, it kinda stifles actual debate. People simply stopped making conjectures and guesstimates and actually LTCed enough to figure out the fastest ways to beat the game, and then... what else can you say? Not a whole lot. Probably debating the lower tiers? I always found tier list discussions to be interesting because people actually discuss how certain units are used, the tools they have and of course if they're useful. Tier lists promote discussion about strategy, which I like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Banzai Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Probably debating the lower tiers? I always found tier list discussions to be interesting because people actually discuss how certain units are used, the tools they have and of course if they're useful. Tier lists promote discussion about strategy, which I like. But lower tier units can also be measured in how many turns they save (or cost, which is more often the case). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florete Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 When you can say with absolute certainty how many turns a unit saves, and thus accurately place it in an LTC tier list without fail, it kinda stifles actual debate. People simply stopped making conjectures and guesstimates and actually LTCed enough to figure out the fastest ways to beat the game, and then... what else can you say? Not a whole lot.That's why people didn't like Chiki's lists. They left no room for discussion, they just were what they were. People ultimately got bored of the whole tier thing despite that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekkah Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 as I always said, tier lists should be geared toward helping new players find the best units to simply complete the game they would actually serve a use that way That's what character guides are for. Tier lists have always had the aim to promote discussion between experienced players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Banzai Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 That's what character guides are for. Tier lists have always had the aim to promote discussion between experienced players. Name a character guide that wasn't made by some rando on GameFAQs and didn't give Nino a 9 out of 10 Putting some actual thought into a so-called guide like that would promote discussion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.