Misconception of Tier Lists

[Junkhead]

I find that people misundestand how tier lists are supposed to rank characters. They read it as "good or bad" a lot of the time, but I think the reality is more like one character being better than the other, without necessarily meaning they're "bad". They'd literally be "less good".

If my unmerged Odin can 1RKO 80-90% of meta threats with the right setup, what does it matter if Tailtiu does it better? And trust me, it's possible.

 

I'm not trying to invalidate tier lists as much as I'm criticizing the way people view them and characters. The game is so balanced in the sense you can make any character really good.

[Ertrick36]

I kind of look at it as mechanical quality - meaning how good they control/operate - though that's the part of me that's into fighting games.  But generally speaking, I don't think it ever implies that a character is unusable/not viable unless they actually are that bad (the tier list would make that abundantly clear, though).

But yeah, I do think people think about it the wrong way.  They think that if a character isn't S++ tier, they're not worth using.  And they don't realize that building a high grade team of C-tier units can be just as fun and possibly more intrinsically rewarding than dominating with the very best units in the game.

[Junkhead]

The problem with that logic is that it's very robotic, and nobody really follows through either way. If you're comparing every sword unit to Ayra, of course they're going to fall short. But that just tells you how insane she is, rather than how "bad" the others are.

[indigoasis]

A skilled Roy can beat any Fox. Except a skilled Fox. Then Roy's gonna lose.

Tier lists are like advertisements. They either sway your opinion towards a certain product/character, or they don't. Most of the time, tier lists succeed in swaying a majority of people's views about a character, which is why you see so many of the same team comps in Arena and so many units with Distant Counter that have no business running it.

2 minutes ago, Junkhead said:

If you're comparing every sword unit to Ayra, of course they're going to fall short. But that just tells you how insane she is, rather than how "bad" the others are.

Ayra is trash. My brave sword Ike is better.

[Junkhead]

1 minute ago, indigospace said:

Tier lists are like advertisements. They either sway your opinion towards a certain product/character, or they don't. Most of the time, tier lists succeed in swaying a majority of people's views about a character, which is why you see so many of the same team comps in Arena and so many units with Distant Counter that have no business running it.

That's a really good analogy. And it actually works downwards, too, since you'll see them avoid certain characters like the plague.

 

[Dark Holy Elf]

As an aside, Odin is a touch underrated honestly, especially with the introduction of Tactics skills. He's a unit whose bad stat is Atk and bladetomes fix up atk nicely.

Tier lists are rarely going to be perfect, but work notably less well for games like FEH than they do for fighting games. In a fighting game there's at least a relatively agreed upon metric - defeat other human opponents playing at the highest level of play, in an agreed-upon format for competitive play (e.g. No Items, X stages only, etc.). In a game like FEH there are many metrics for measuring units, and tier lists are often deliberately vague about which they are using.

I find current FEH tier lists rather ridiculous because they put emphasis on different things than I do. For me, mobility and range are king in this game, and tier lists seem to straight-up ignore them (which is funny because I think most non-FEH Fire Emblem tier lists may err on the side of putting too much emphasis on mobility). They also ignore synergistic team buffs for some reason, and they seem very ambiguous about whether they factor in BST scoring for arena, and if so how much. But there are probably people who find them useful.

One neat thing is that FEH is inherently a relatively balanced game. Everyone has (almost) the same stat totals, barring some credits/demerits for movement type and range which is of course fair. Any stat advantage Tailtiu has over Odin is offset by a disadvantage elsewhere. Some stat builds are still more useful overall of course, but the stat total limits how glaring the difference can be (unlike, say, how Seth has way more stat points than his competition for a huge amount of FE8's content).

[Zapp Branniglenn]

I feel like Odin is the catalyst for every "Tier lists are so dumb" discussion. Can't we all agree that blade tomes are broken and still acknowledge some mages use it better than others?

It's a matter of perspective. Everybody building and analyzing tier lists is hopefully on the same page when it comes to the idea that every unit can be made great in a game where units generally have few things unique about them. However, it's also a game dictated entirely by numbers. That makes comparisons extremely easy before you start considering aspects of the game that exist outside the vacuum (your team composition, terrain, your opponents).

[Rafiel's Aria]

I think tier lists aren't necessarily rules but "guidelines." The biggest misconception is that people think of them as law. They can be a good starting place for new players who don't necessarily have enough resources/knowledge to build an OP Odin, but if they have a Tailtiu, they can take her for a spin instead. It also gives you a pretty good idea of what characters other players are more than likely going to be taking advantage of in Arena. I think it's a good idea to take a look at them to figure out where to start, but there's a point where you have to make your own choices to fit your specific playstyle and build effective teams. 

Nino is an amazing green mage. She was ranked high on early tier lists, and I promoted her as a result. She's still an amazing unit, and I still use her regularly, but Merric became my green mage of choice even though he's usually ranked pretty poorly. However I value his bulk/flexibility a bit more than her nuking power on my specific team.

Everyone prioritizes different things and plays favorites with different characters. 

[Ice Dragon]

There are actually two blatant problems with tier lists for Heroes and neither of those problems are problems with the lists themselves:

1. No one bothers to read the fine print and
2. It's really hard to convey how high up the bottom tier actually is without putting something like 20 empty tiers under the bottom tier.

The first point is probably the most important one. Few people bother to read the rules and restrictions used by the tier lists when judging characters and simply assume their own set of rules and restrictions that are typically far broader than what the tier list is intended for.

The most notable case of this is the fact that Gamepedia's tier list uses only +4 buffs to a maximum of two stats, which is a restriction that exists so that characters can be measured based on how well they perform when put on an arbitrary team rather than how well they perform when a team is built around them. You can make nearly every character a veritable god by building a team around that character, but that's not the point of most tier lists.

 

The second point doesn't really need explanation.

 

1 minute ago, indigospace said:

and so many units with Distant Counter that have no business running it.

They're running it to increase their score, which is a valid reason to run it (oftentimes probably because those units are on their offense teams and it's a giant pain to switch units back to their defense configuration after you're done using them).

Every now and then, you'll see a unit with both a Distant Counter weapon and Distant Counter in the A slot.

[Roflolxp54]

The player view on the meta is, aside from the usual "build +10 melee armors", largely boils down to how well that unit can give the middle finger to the weapon triangle (and, to a lesser extent, be effective crowd control). The meta has largely become about using powerful specials ASAP to make the weapon triangle not matter when the targeted unit gets killed thanks to the special. This is especially true for armored units thanks to ridiculous skills like Bold Fighter and Vengeful Fighter and also true for units with OP unique specials, namely Zelgius' Black Luna and Ayra's Regnal Astra. It is also because of this view that several players tend to look down on Triangle Adept/gem weapons, which enforce the weapon triangle.

It's thanks to specials that the B-skill Guard has gained a reputation of being the most anti-meta element in the game right now, aside from the basic bitch setup of Triangle Adept + antiarmor weapon + weaponbreaker. However, Guard 3 doesn't see too much usage due to its being a 200 SP-cost skill and currently requiring  5* units (there are no units that can learn Guard 3 at 4* by default) meaning, more often than not, the player would need to fork over 20K feathers to get Guard 3 - feathers that could be used elsewhere such as a merge, a new weapon, or for a 240-SP skill like Quick Riposte 3.

It's also worth noting that tier lists generally focus on units in Arena offense, meaning in the players' hands while playing in the Arena. This means that tier lists generally have little bearing on other gamemodes and in the hands of the AI (especially since the AI is predictable).

Edited July 30, 2018 by Roflolxp54

[XRay]

5 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

I find current FEH tier lists rather ridiculous because they put emphasis on different things than I do. For me, mobility and range are king in this game, and tier lists seem to straight-up ignore them (which is funny because I think most non-FEH Fire Emblem tier lists may err on the side of putting too much emphasis on mobility). They also ignore synergistic team buffs for some reason, and they seem very ambiguous about whether they factor in BST scoring for arena, and if so how much. But there are probably people who find them useful.

I agree. I find tier lists rather unhelpful due to my play style being so different. I value mobility and Player Phase ranged combat too, so it is pretty weird to see melee armor units being rated so highly. If BST was not a factor in Arena, I think armor units would not be as highly rated as they are currently.

I think it is best if they create more specialized tier lists. If I were to create a tier list, non Dancer/Singer melee units are going to be at the bottom of the list.

[MacLovin]

there should be an f2p/budget guide thread here.

for newbies.

[Ice Dragon]

9 minutes ago, XRay said:

I think it is best if they create more specialized tier lists.

There's really no need to. All that would do is move all members of a particular class (combination of movement type and range) up or down by the same number of tiers, give or take. Comparisons within a single movement type and range combination are always going to be valid regardless of how you weight mobility and reach.

[Humanoid]

I broadly like the idea of the Budget Tier List but it doesn't seem to value mergeability much if at all. I feel like long time F2P or near-F2P players kinda fall in the gap between Gamepedia's two tier lists and are not particularly well-served by either one.

[XRay]

2 minutes ago, Ice Dragon said:

There's really no need to. All that would do is move all members of a particular class (combination of movement type and range) up or down by the same number of tiers, give or take. Comparisons within a single movement type and range combination are always going to be valid regardless of how you weight mobility and reach.

No tier lists rate them by class, or at least I have not found one yet. The two most popular ones I think, Gamepedia's and Game Press's, rate them by Weapons, but that is about it. Gamepedia's list have like three sub lists that rates non-infantry units within their class, but there is no comparison between classes themselves.

[Ice Dragon]

Just now, XRay said:

No tier lists rate them by class, or at least I have not found one yet. The two most popular ones I think, Gamepedia's and Game Press's, rate them by Weapons, but that is about it. Gamepedia's list have like three sub lists that rates non-infantry units within their class, but there is no comparison between classes themselves.

Literally all you have to do is take a screenshot of the tier list and use the MS Paint eraser to remove every character that isn't a member of the class. Do that eight times for each combination and voila! Tier lists for each individual class.

[Johann]

I don't really give a shit about tier lists themselves, but I find it disappointing how many people aren't willing to think for themselves in regards to deciding a unit's value (whether gameplay based or more) or coming up with strategies of their own.

[XRay]

1 minute ago, Ice Dragon said:

Literally all you have to do is take a screenshot of the tier list and use the MS Paint eraser to remove every character that isn't a member of the class. Do that eight times for each combination and voila! Tier lists for each individual class.

Yeah, but I want a tier list that caters to ranged Player Phase players like me. Comparing everyone in their class does help, but a new player just getting into game might not know that Armor Boots exist and might think TOD!Jakob is about as mobile as other armored mages, when in fact TOD!Jakob is vastly more mobile than even most infantry archers if he got Firesweep-Armor Boots combo. You still need inter-class comparison to see how units stack up for a particular role.

14 minutes ago, Johann said:

but I find it disappointing how many people aren't willing to think for themselves in regards to deciding a unit's value (whether gameplay based or more) or coming up with strategies of their own.

Not everyone wants to put in the effort for a game when they just want to relax. Unlike a main Fire Emblem game, the difficulty levels in Heroes are not the same as the difficulty setting in the games of the main series. Winning a higher difficulty map in Heroes is crucial to getting more rewards and resources to further enhance your progress, whereas the main series do not penalize you for not completing a higher difficulty.

[FoxyGrandpa]

I generally don't have a problem with tierlist sites like gamepress even if I disagree with some of their placings. Its a good resource for newer players to understand the game better and there are a lot of clear and apparent trends in the tierlist on what makes a unit "good" (i.e. being armored) and what makes a unit bad (I.e. Lack of merges).

My biggest gripe with sites like these is that the analysis's they provide always have very generic builds. Almost every melee unit will have a build using a Wo Dao, Slaying, or Firesweep weapon for example. I can understand this too a degree since it makes the unit very strong in 1v1 combat, but it has the knock on effective of making players think that things like seasonal weapons or class effective weapons are bad, which undermines the customization element of this game greatly for most general players. Of course, this doesn't particularity affect me, so it isn't that big of a gripe.

Edited July 30, 2018 by FoxyGrandpa

[Johann]

1 minute ago, XRay said:

Not everyone wants to put in the effort for a game when they just want to relax. Unlike a main Fire Emblem game, the difficulty levels in Heroes are not the same as the difficulty setting in the games of the main series. Winning a higher difficulty map in Heroes is crucial to getting more rewards and resources to further enhance your progress, whereas the main series do not penalize you for not completing a higher difficulty.

I ain't talking about the more casual players, but the ones who jump into a discussion on unique strategies with nothing to add but "just use [X]"

[redlight]

I find them to be helpful for newer players to understand what makes a unit good. As for the players that live or die by what the top tier heroes are, the ones I've encountered so far aren't that great conversationalists. Granted, anecdotal evidence. But when I see see comments that go like "lol, if X isn't anything like Y then they're garbage. %&@-%&-# noob" I just sigh in disappointment

[Garlyle]

I do like to get hints from tier lists, but not relying on them as a rule to follow. In fact, looking at the current Gampress tier list, I have half the top tier units, but didn't use them too much yet. I think it's just made judging from their stats and unique skills, but possibly the investment they require.

My greatest hero is Brave Roy, who is Tier 3, but with minimal investment he made into all my teams and up to 5.000 feathers before Lyn or Reinhardt. Yet I see not many people use Brave Roy out there. Also like units that are strong counter to a specific type, those are must in Arena Assault, yet they got Tier 5. For example: Ursula, Deridre, NekoSakura, Kagero. I know they can be situational, but with minimal investment, they can be just as good as higher tier units. Tier list is also bad for healers, it just tells you that Cavalry healer are always better than infantry healers, yet Genny and Bride Lyn can give even better utility to your party than Priscilla or Nanna by default.

But then it comes to character who are high tier, but also look very situational. Soleil is only good because of the Firesweep Sword, but it's a weapon I believe is much better on other units instead of her. Why is Bride Cordelia Tier 2? Why is Raven better than Linus? Also dragons won't get worse than Tier 3? That means they are all better than Fjorm? Judging from tier list we should never rely on Askr trio. There's too many questioable stuff on tier list. Unless these questions are answered, I'll keep trying to build a Sigurd out of my Seliph until these questions are answered appropriately. Merge is not an answer, Male Kana is high tier.

[Vaximillian]

20 minutes ago, Garlyle said:

Soleil is only good because of the Firesweep Sword, but it's a weapon I believe is much better on other units instead of her.

Soleil is great because of 38 Atk and 35 Spd.

[XRay]

5 minutes ago, Garlyle said:

I think it's just made judging from their stats and unique skills, but possibly the investment they require.

7 hours ago, Ice Dragon said:

No one bothers to read the fine print

Unless you are looking at the budget tier lists, the regular tier lists do not take investment costs into account. Both Gamepedia's and Game Press's tier lists state their criteria and how things are rated.

12 minutes ago, Garlyle said:

Soleil is only good because of the Firesweep Sword

Soleil is not only good because of Firesweep S. She is good due to her high Atk and decent Spd.

22 minutes ago, Garlyle said:

That means they are all better than Fjorm? 

Dragons target the lower of Def/Res of ranged units and they are the only type of units who access to two types of class buffs (FH!Robin and FV!Robin can take advantage of their respective movement type buffs, e.g.: Ward Armor/Ward Flier, as well as Weapon type buffs, e.g.: Ward Dragon).

14 minutes ago, Garlyle said:

Merge is not an answer, Male Kana is high tier.

That depends on the player. Merges are pretty important for players who want to stay in Tier 20.

[Ice Dragon]

24 minutes ago, Garlyle said:

Also like units that are strong counter to a specific type, those are must in Arena Assault, yet they got Tier 5.

That's because those tier lists are for Arena offense, not Arena Assault. The specific needs are very different between those two situations.

 

25 minutes ago, Garlyle said:

Soleil is only good because of the Firesweep Sword, but it's a weapon I believe is much better on other units instead of her.

Soleil is good because she hits like a truck regardless of the weapon she's using.

 

26 minutes ago, Garlyle said:

Why is Bride Cordelia Tier 2?

She can't be Tier 1 because bows aren't free wins anymore as units gain more bulk.

 

28 minutes ago, Garlyle said:

Why is Raven better than Linus?

Merges. Natures. A higher Spd stat to make better use of Basilikos.

 

29 minutes ago, Garlyle said:

Also dragons won't get worse than Tier 3?

Yes, dragons are that good. Refined Lightning Breath+ is the best inheritable weapon in the game by a huge margin.

 

29 minutes ago, Garlyle said:

That means they are all better than Fjorm?

Yes, Fjorm is pretty average. Her Atk and Def stats are both pretty lackluster.

 

30 minutes ago, Garlyle said:

Judging from tier list we should never rely on Askr trio.

It looks dumb to add 20 empty tiers underneath the last tier to drive home the fact that the last tier is not trash.

 

33 minutes ago, Garlyle said:

Merge is not an answer, Male Kana is high tier.

Dragons are just that good.