Why Availability Matters for Tier Lists
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 жов 2024
- When making tier lists I always include availability, but isn't that weird? Well, turns out things get even weirder if we don't.
BGM: Square Enix & Chill: • 𝐒𝐐𝐔𝐀𝐑𝐄 𝐄𝐍𝐈𝐗 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐂𝐇𝐈𝐋𝐋 ...
Patreon: / mekkah
Twitter: / mekkkkah
Subscribe: www.youtube.co...
Discord: / discord
Design by Ryn: / ryntai / spo.ink/ryntube
You can find the BGM here: ua-cam.com/video/wdokg_A8tOM/v-deo.html
It's called Square Enix & Chill. I thought it wasn't on UA-cam anymore so I didn't think to link it but it's still there.
Knew I liked you for a reason Mekkah. I've been jammin' to this for weeks now ha.
I thought I was going crazy when I heard music that kind of sounds like Wandering Flame but a bit different.
You have to remove availability when discussing units because if you don't then Ike has the best availability, thus he is pwnage incarnate compared to Kieran.
Roy has 14 chapters more than Melady, and since he will have slightly better stats at level 20 with stat boosters than Melady when she joins, he is therefore pwnage incarnate
Lmaooo
Soren pfp, statement checks out.
Who?
@@sasaki999pro Cue a picture of Soren at a computer after posting the original comment giving two thumbs up to the camera.
Can't save turns you aren't there for.
Edward and Black Knight are S tier for saving infinite turns in their joining chapter.
This about fire emblem or parenting.
Without availability, the black knight becomes the best character in the entire series
I love this comment.
I get your point but Nailah has more movement
@@xuanathan Nailah can carry BK to where he needs to be. BK has a better enemy phase thanks to 1-2 range
@@noreng9333
Is 1-2 range enemy phase tanking really that important in a game where half the maps are defeat boss or survive?
Just put pass on Nailah and have her make a mad dash to the boss, maybe with Micaiah on her back
merlinus is the best character, because you should always deploy him and he's always usefull. the devs knew this and took him away in the final chapter to make the fight harder
Actually its because merlinus and athos are the same person. Merlinus says he should go ultra so that he can help with the final fight and transforms into his true self, Athos.
And then for Binding Blade his ghost takes up a deployment slot every battle.
@@frknspacewizardbrett6044 the merlinus in binding blade is a mere shell of his former self, his spirit haunts the enemy instead, giving them the irresistable urge to equip steel axes and miss every time
I think one way to help visualize this topic is to imagine having a unit's contribution over the course of the game be placed on a graph and how tier lists sort of compare the area under the curve of each unit/character to each other. For example, a unit who contributes a lot over the course of the entire game will have a large area under their curve while another unit who contributes just as much but is available a lot less will have a smaller area. On the other hand, a unit who contributes very little but is available the entire game will still probably have a smaller area than the unit who contributes a lot but joins late.
So basically we should replace tier lists with density curves. I kind of like that, though it does mean attempting to codify unit contribution and potential on a per-map basis.
You expect people will use calculus to know which anime chess pieces are better?
I knew it'd be useful one day
When all you want to do is rate video game characters but accidentally invent calculus in the process.
Big brain calculus there. Tiering units as an integral function is not a bad idea.
I had this same thought a while ago and actually tried to make a graph of efficiency over each chapter for FE5 Leif. It was still tough to do because giving an efficiency rating is so different if the game is being played casually or efficiently or LTC and how much investment like early statboosters go to him.
To me, the more interesting thing to think about with regards to availability is considering how much a unit gets out of it. When tiering a bad unit with high availability like FE5 Kain, does the "efficiency" ruleset of a tierlist consider him being actively used, allowing him to make use of his high availability? If this is the case, he would get some points for his usefulness curve over the course of the game. But if the ruleset considers him to be used as effectively as possible, which in his case is doing nothing and then being benched the entire game, then he would get a score of zero for every map.
And then as sort of a related point, does the potential to be fielded give any credit? Even though in practice it should never happen, Kain has the potential to be fielded in any map after chapter 9. Someone like Galzus doesn't even have the potential to be fielded. Does that give Kain some points over Galzus when comparing?
Seth's still S+, isn't he?
Seth tier
Seth is God of Fire Emblem 😂
No he steals EXP, bab unit
@@elysium3687 bEgInNeR's TrAp
@@elysium3687 yeah. Exp thief
What the hell is a pitfall?
Smogon's in-game tier list philosophy directly references fire emblem as an example of why they value availability
Oh?
Really?
Factual?
Truthful?
Indeed?
Here's a theory.
Athos provides utility before you recruit him.
It's weird, but think about it. Because Athos exists, and you know you'll recruit him, you also know that you don't have to train a combat monster for the final map. Athos influences your decicion making, and makes you not jump through certain hoops by existing.
I’m just a humble farm boy with a pot on his head, but that seems like a valid point to me.
That's an interesting concept, but I don't think the game itself bears it out? Like, you don't go from largely disregarding extremely strong combat units in the penultimate chapter, to desperately needing one and exactly one in the final. High stats are valued throughout the game, and that remains true with or without Athos. At best, you could say that you maybe don't value Canas as highly because Athos can luna the dragon to death even better, but I don't think anyone decides to use Canas on that basis. Other than for memes, that is.
Good concept. I similarly think about how fe11 Nagi, even with a 1 chapter availability, enables an easy bosskill of Medeus. This means you dont need to neither train units more to get a similar performance nor try to play the chapter legit, wich again would demand some level of training. Therefore, she helps a lot on the global warpskip strategy, by letting you skip lategame maps and not care about exp.
I think, im no SD expert.
I think the question "how much will I miss this unit if he/she was removed from the game" is a good starting point for making a tier list. I think it's a good measure for the impact of a unit.
@@greygale it's not particularly relevant for standard fe7 play, even when assuming fast play, but it's a theory that can have a lot of weight in challenge runs. negative growths is the most prominent, since athos ( as well as other lategame prepromotes ) makes it so that you can use your power units far more liberally than you could otherwise without leaving yourself without combat units when endgame comes around. the same principle also applies to ltc runs, since it reduces how much you have to think about where your extremely limited exp while still letting you have a great magic unit endgame, even if the standard magic units don't fit well into your plans
"Why availability matters"
If availability didn't matter, then Fire Dragon is objectively the best unit in FE7. Why would it matter that you don't get to play as it at all? After all, all that matters are those sweet green numbers amirite
It also can't move. Big oof.
@@aprinnyonbreak1290 just give him boots
@@BunnyOnASnuman why not give those boots to a more useful unit? Like Batta the Beast
Also the luna effect on their breath attack. Big ouch
10 might dragonstone is pog.
Got confused for a moment because I just watched Tierzoos Lizard Tier List and wondered what availability would exactly mean in nature
Dinosaurs have pretty awful availability in the current meta.
Lifespan, perhaps
Greenland sharks would be rated higher than white sharks and that just feels wrong
How about crocodiles they have had availability since the dinosaurs one of the oldest playable characters, just givin a example
Trees are OP.
@@ChromeBirb well lifespan/availability is just one factor, so maybe a white would still be better
Availability matters....that way I know how to weigh whether to recruit an enemy unit or kill them for the exp
Big Brain time
Kill every last one of them
found the kidsworld writer
If you had to recruit your gotoh in the last chapter but someone like FE6 Karel joined after battle preps where he can one round the gotoh turn 1 it would actually be an interesting debate whether you rather want the extra unit or the free level up on the other one
Tl;dr of this vid:
If your tier list answers the question "who should I use?" then don't use availability and your tier list answers the question "which unit contributes the most over the course of a playthrough?" then use availability.
I prefer the "which unit has the most impact" as a seperate option. That way you get a better placement for units like Athos which have a big impact, but don't contribute much.
I feel like a tier list outside of availability would fall more into categorization than straight tiering. Like, endgame bombs like laguz royals would be "best unit while they're around" but Jagen-type units who are your best units for awhile but eventually get surpassed would have to be considered as well.
I personally like the idea someone else suggested of doing a density curve of contribution to quantifiably measure unit value, but that's just so much math that it sounds like something that would come up in an Unraveled or Data Daft video.
The amount of contributions doesn't properly reflect the value of that contribution. How much value a contribution has is hard to set in stone. I don't think this will make the tier list more objective or tier listing more consistent.
@@INFERN0FIRE no but the vertical axis on a graph represents the value of a contribution, the horizontal is the amount.
It doesn't make the actual vertical axis parts any easier to rank, but it allows you a neat way to factor in the number of contributions in a way that makes it easier to compare with another unit.
I actually think this is so interesting haha because I remember when I started trying to plan my “team” before a play through of an FE game, I would always try and plan an optimal squad for the final chapter... but then when I did end up playing, it meant using very few units at the beginning and struggling through a lot of the middle chapters (when I didn’t have all of my units yet/they weren’t trained at all) and then completely breezing through the final few chapters.
But like... what’s the point? Then it’s just over. I miss out of trying to handle a difficult boss (which admittedly is up to personal preference if you want that, but it definitely takes away from the story - if you care - when the antagonist is easily destroyed) and there’s never any after game (which imo is the big separation between this and Pokémon), so all of that work into that squad is now wasted. I love micromanaging and working on these units and exp distribution was very fun, but from an objective difficulty standpoint, I overall made the game harder for myself by only considering how to make the last chapter easier.
It’s super interesting to me, but I totallllly agree with mekkkah that availability is very important and that ends does NOT justify the means. It’s interesting because most tier lists for games are always about “peak condition” for a character and availability doesn’t generally matter (think fighting games like Smash and Street Fighter), but for RPGs (especially long ones with many characters), availability HAS to be considered. Idk, all I really know though is that this completely changes how I view Pokémon tier lists now haha (for in game)... it’s no longer about “who beats the E4 the most easily” but instead “1) who beats the E4 the most easily AND 2) who helps get you to the E4 the most easily” and it’s sooo simple and obvious now but that’s kind of ground-breaking for me to be honest lmao
I think there are two main reasons that many tier lists for Non-FE-RPGs don't take availability into account.
A) Most RPGs have much smaller player parties than FE, with almost every character having joined up by the halfway point, giving everyone some time to shine.
B) Unlike FE, which tends to have a difficult main campaign with little to no postgame content, most RPGs are on the easier side during the main story and have an extensive, difficult postgame. During the time were availability matters, you can progress just fine even with a weak party, and by the time players actually start caring about using the best characters to beat the game's toughest challenges, everyone is already here.
This was what I was thinking. Taking FF10 into example even though Rikku joins last she is still considered the best character for what she can do that the others can't. Some FF10 main story fights can be difficult but that is well after having all the characters.
I think on some level I'll never be completely satisfied with the way FE tier lists are constructed. I mean, I don't think it's wrong to count availability. As explained in the video, measuring in an availability vacuum is a weird rabbit hole where talking about contribution and stat boost usage gets way too messy.
That said, I think in some ways I do wish there were more rankings lists like the FE5 character guide. FE tier lists have their place, but ultimately end up being niche intellectual exercises by FE veterans and for FE veterans almost exclusively (or at least those who do the legwork to understand factors like bases, growths, and yes, availability). Plus, there's a lot of misinformation/misunderstandings out there ranging from bizarre clickbait listicles to ancient GameFAQs guides, so having a quick and dirty list that says "These units up here are great! Don't worry about using them!" or "Avoid these units down here! They'll probably suck or need tons of babying to contribute!" is potentially more useful to players across all skill levels.
Even then you still won't cover everyone. If your goal is just to beat the game you can use basically anyone in FE7; everyone's S and A tier. If your goal is to beat HHM, now you're getting somewhere but your video's only really for experienced players. If your goal is for efficiency, you should use characters when they're at their best and maybe sub people out over time but again we're talking about that niche group.
Radiant dawn is this video times 4
@Harvester of Eyes I see it like so:
Micaiah's group: Deadweights
- Lowest levels
- Hardest to raise
- Fighting for their lives
Ike's group: Juggernauts
- Highest levels
- Easiest to raise
- Having the time of their lives
Ellincia and Tibarn's group: In-betweens
- Mixed levels
- Medium difficulty raising
- Just more fighting
I think a video talking about incomplete recruitment vs complete recruitment for tier lists would be an interesting idea. Availability can be all over the place as RD has shown. TRS probably suffers a weird issue especially with how one could arrange Runan and Holmes' armies for 3 splits and determining contributions.
yea rating trs characters would be pretty difficult because of the whole pick who you want to be in that army and also because of how interesting all the characters are. sasha kinda sucks at the begaining but she promotes twice and finally into a really good class, Holmes is a typical archer which might lead you to believe he's bad or worse then runan but runan is completely outclassed by him. and then you have abosolutely broken units like meriel and her tome that hits everything and abosolutely destorys everything.
I would love to see Mekkah explain a Pokemon tier list on camera. That would be wonderful content wise, although a little different from his usual material
Mekkah talking over lofi Chrono Trigger remixes is an aesthetic I now need more of in my life
"this Will be a short video"
Then starts a 20 min rant about how the bunch of pixels that join 20 min earlier Is better than the other bunch of pixels
by my standards this is short haha
@@Mekkkah and i loved it
I mean, isn't availability the reason why Marcus is S tier and Pent is A tier in FE7 for example?
Imagine having Pent from the very beginning. The game would be an absolute cakewalk.
@@Aurirang not that it isnt with marcus, but yeah your point stands.
@@Aurirang Pent basically telling Hector that 'I might've run out of magic tomes, so you did help a wee bit' in Living Legend is still one of the best meta jokes in the series
I mean pent still has less movement and is a lot less bulkier than marcus, but yea offensively he's much better
Marcus has rescue drop utility and can take more hits but yeah pent would be an easy s just off offensive capabilities alone. Plus staff utility.
I think that availability is a much more nuanced aspect of viability that hurts a tier list at a glance but makes sense when explained. For example, somebody might see Athos in C tier and mistakenly believe that he is not worth a deployment slot over the units above him. This problem becomes much worse in games like Radiant Dawn where the only units that really get an edge from their exceptional availibility are Nephenee and Haar. Some of the best units in that game are only good or only available for a brief period of time.
I agree. Mekkah explained this a bit in the video, basically saying that we shouldn't see a tier list as a guide on which units to use, but rather, how good is a unit in the context of the game, and such.
@@MarceloKatayama the thing is, tier list are not usefull if they are not telling you wich is better to use.
Wich is my main problem of FE tiering in general. It often look like an excuse for people to navel gazing over stuff rather than something that genuinely help new player or people that want to start LTCing.
Athos is a bit of a weird case because he is locked in the last chapter. In that way he is free à la Merlinus, and I would consider him S tier as well.
@@noukan42 They are telling you which one is better, not necessarily which one you would/should use. That is the point of their existance. Because they show us which unit is better overall, then that means that each of the unit's contributions are weighted against themselves, then a unit who doesn't have the ability or opportunity to contribute is rated poorly. So it is helpful to know which unit usually contributes the most throughout a playthrough, but not necessarily which unit you would always deploy.
@@noukan42 Tier lists are not guides. They can never be guides. They make no sense as guides. Think about FE6 Marcus. The best unit in the early game, very good for a little while after, not worth deploying for the latter half of the game. Where do you put him on a "who to use" list? If he's top tier your list is useless because you're telling people they need to deploy him the whole game. If he's bottom tier your list is useless because you're telling people to not use him early. If he's in the middle your list is doubly useless because now you're not even touching on the fact that he's a unit of extremes in terms of how useful he is at various points. There's no logic to criticizing tier lists for not being something they shouldn't even try to be.
I don't think availability is over-considered in tier lists.
Honestly, I think move stat is over-considered. Almost every tier list is "horse and flying good, everyone else bad".
Edit: To be clear I'm not saying ignore move. I just think it should get like, 60% as much weight as it gets now. Not 0%. It's very important, but it really tends to dominate the majority of discussion and consideration
Mounts will always be better as long as they're not significantly worse at combat than infantry - and they almost never are. Infantry is good at combat and that's it, meanwhile mounts can do the same combat, but also move farther and use Rescue, canto, etc. They simply can do more than infantry and do it faster.
I think that’s a big result of how much the person making the list values “efficiency”. Obviously units with more move can clear maps more quickly (and for games like the GBA games, being able to rescue the lord to carry them to the throne and skip gaps makes chapters a lot faster), so no matter what their stats are, it’s objectively more efficient to use them. At that point, it becomes personal preference and Mekkkah definitely errs on the side of very fast
Movement is a big factor in tier lists because once units have reached the necessary benchmarks for combat (which high to mid or even low tiers should be able to depending on the game) the main separator between individual units becomes mobility.
You might see a unit with higher stats but average move place lower than a weaker one with a mount but that's usually because those extra stats are overkill for most of the game. In practice movement grants you a lot more flexibility than slightly higher stats. But you're also not gonna find someone like Juno or Matthis in high tier just because they have a lot of movement.
@@Docaccino move is overrated. What if I don't want to clear things fast? Check. Fucking. Mate.
@@lordtullus9942 What if you want to retreat a wounded unit back to safety but you just happen to fall 2 tiles short? There are countless scenarios in which higher movement gives you an advantage even excluding playing quickly.
Smogon doesnt use availability in competitive VS. it depends on what you’re using the tier for, single play to get through the game or against another player. Availability dont factor in VS because everyone’s assuming everybody has all the units/characters and you’re trying to beat another person. This usually means you’re finished with the single campaign already. Same thing for fighting games, it’s assuming you’ve unlocked everybody already.
Everyone knows the best way to tier units is comparing who would win in a fight at level 20 against each other, that’s most representative of gameplay
Of course. Why would you rate someone high if you can only use in one map out of 30? lol
Well, if it is not taking a deployment slot...
Athos specifically has a bigger argument over the Gotohs I think since he trivializes the final boss so hard. The game gifting you a Luna user on the specific map where Luna is the most powerful is so good it devalues Canas. I don't think he's Marcus tier or anything but I'd def give him more credit than others in his archetype.
@@arachnofiend2859 except when you get unlucky and the boss can just ohko him, sad days
Honestly. I’ve never understood how people see it that way
@@sadagusfate wait, the dragon can one shot athos? What did I miss? I always thought the dragon dealt 39 damage on hard mode, at least that's what happened in every one of my hm playthroughs...
I always saw tier lists as just answers to the question "how much would this unit be missed if they disappeared?" From S ranks being units that drastically change the game just by being in it, to F ranks who could just disappear and the game would be the same. That's all ignoring "extra" utility like starting inventories or recruiting other characters, of course.
It’s like in Pokémon, Bibarel isn’t ever going to be your strongest mon coming into the Elite 4. But with a level 15 evolution that gives it a BST higher than most of the available mons. In DPPT Bibarel will stomp the first like 4 gyms (save like Gardenia’s Roserade). After that the BST of the game starts catching up, and Bibarel becomes pretty shit. Does that make Bibarel a bad mon? Not at all! But generally ppl consider Bidoof and Bibarel terrible, and quite incorrectly.
The only other games I can think of that uses availability are certain Tales of Series games, and some Final Fantasy games. FF6 actually uses availability and some characters are harder/more time consuming to get in second half of the game. When you want efficiency in just completing the game, there are tierlists where availability is necessary.
So what Mekkah says , here are more elements to determine how good a Unit is :
- Availability as he mentions, when is the unit available to use, and the chapters they can dominate or get rekt on
- Utility , can he/she rescue, help other units to transport, staff use if it's a priest/cleric , if it has a mount or it's a flying unit
- Combat, if this unit is meant to fight , weapon ranks what they come with , bases and growths, do they need investment or not
- Relative , how much does the unit stands out from the rest, compare that good character to other character to see who does a better job , etc
I think scoring beased on combat, utility and potential is enough for tier lists, that way even newer players can see which units are better to use. Availability only really scores for draft players, who knows availability much better than others. Scoring availability also has the trap of a unit who starts strong, but bad in lategame vs. lategame unit who is strong for all of their maps.
I think the simplest way to explain why availability matters is
Without factoring availability it becomes less of a discussion of which units are better than others and more of a checklist of stats. Does the unit fly? Does the unit have a mount? Does the unit have high stats? Does the unit have 1-2 range? Without factoring availability, the whole appeal of tier lists is basically lost.
It discourages discussion, as it’s hard to argue someone like Florina is better or worse than Geitz. Yeah Florina has good growths and rescue utility, but rescue utility is dependant on the maps and availability of the unit.
It also creates multiple scenarios If we say Florina and Geitz join at chapter 1 and chapter 30, Florina would appear better in the chapter 1 scenario bc of her growths kicking in and her usefulness as a flier. But in the chapter 30 scenario Geitz would be better, because flying utility is useless in the final chapter compared to amazing stats and weapon ranks.
See the dilemma? Without accounting for availability, you’re essentially comparing characters in a vacuum outside of the game. Strictly comparing the statistics of Geitz and Florina, Geitz is better. Decent mov, high weapon ranks, good growths, high bases, and can use weapons like the brave bow with no penalty. Florina may have high mov and higher aid, but she has drastically lower stats and weapon ranks. While yes she could rescue drop and the like, how much better is she at that compared to the other fliers, or even the other cavaliers? When we don’t look at units relative to their join time and their availability, we’re essentially putting all units on chapter 1. Imagine chapter 1 but with Geitz. Would certainly be easier than chapter 1 with Florina, therefore wouldn’t Geitz be better?
TLDR, not taking availability into account opens up a multitude of conflicting scenarios and just overcomplicates things more than they would be if availability was accounted for.
Personally, Athos is C tier looks way more off to me than factoring availability.
Sure, I get it, it rates overall contribution and obviously if you're not around you can't contribute, but it gives the impression he's a mediocre unit when he obviously isn't.
A tier list that rates how much you want to use the unit when they are around sound more natural to me. Now, if a unit leaves in the middle of the game, that might hurt them because if you've been relying on them a lot and suddenly they're not around anymore that could be a problem, but for someone like Athos the only real cost of using him is what, exp if you're playing ranked?
A few tier lists actually consider units like Athos to get their own spot in a tier list, usually something like Gotoh Tier--stomps shit for one chapter, is only there for one chapter.
man, mekkah casually flexing that he invented smogon in-game tier lists lmaoo
Wait, really?
I think one of the big reasons that tier lists often don't involve availability for other games is that they started primarily in fighting games, where oftentimes this is the same for literally every character, and in tournament it may as well not be a factor
“Quick video”?
I was worried it would be like, 5 minutes. Glad to see “quick” still means 10+ minutes.
Love your work!
Mario Tier List -
S: Peach - She has the ability to float for a few seconds in the air, while her jump isn't quite as high and Mario or Luigi the ability to recover your jump horizontally makes her insane in combat.
A: Luigi/Mario - Both similar. Luigi has the potential to jump higher and farther than Mario. But slides around on the ground. Mario is a perfectly good character to get you through all games, he just doesn't shine on any point in particular. But his moveset is great for any situation.
F: Toad - Toad's main "strength" is that he can move on the ground quickly. This is actually a negative more often than not, as enemies that start on the left side of the screen leave you little time to react when on the ground. And that's just what his supposed "upside" is. His jump is pitiful and theres a reason why we haven't seen him back in more recent games. Really the noob trap of Mario Bros 2
In super Mario 3d world, Peach is the best, then toad, then Luigi and then Mario. I rated them based on which you would use in most levels.
Very cool, maybe you can explain the way you treat recruitment cost in your tier lists next?
It seems so weird to rate characters without avalability in mind to me.
A whom to use chart should have tiers like:
Should use when gotten
Could use when gotten
Good if work put in
Use until a "should use" comes
Don't bother
Save yourself the pain.
THAT KH1 MUSIC IN THE BACKGROUND!!!!!!! Also availability is important in any game. Not just for combat but also bonding with the characters. Looking at you P5.
Very good video! I'm glad that you brought it to everyone's attention. I'd like to add my two cents on something you just brushed over: you said not accuounting for availability basically rised in the tier a couple characters who join late, but I'd argue it should also lower characters who join early and lose utility over time. And yes I mean I'd lower Marcus from S tier to A or even B in a non-availability tier list. FE7 is my most played game ever, I love it. And as much as I learned to use Marcus and the cavaliers, I always find myself dropping Marcus, Lowen, Kent and Sain in favor of Florina, Fiora, Farina and Heath at around halfway through the game. "And why not deploy all of them?" Well because HHM has very limited slots, and I find myself preferring to deploy staff utility (Priscilla, Pent) and raw combat ability (Raven, Hawkeye) over cavalry movement when I already have flier movement.
If I were to build a Hector + 9 units team regardless of availability (a very common deployment number in HHM), I'd pick:
Hector, Florina, Fiora, Farina, Heath, Raven, Pent, Priscilla, Ninian/Nils, Jaffar (for lockpicking as well as combat) and an additional staff user. (Excluded Athos because he's a bit of a special case). And this applies to regular gameplay as well. Even if I myself rate Marcus S in normal tier lists, I stop using him eventually. I'll build a team that resembles the one I just said because we have better options later on.
tl;dr deployment slots matter and fliers > cavalry. Marcus does get outclassed late game.
Thanks for reading, I hope I didn't sound like I was nitpicking. I did enjoy the video and I do agree with the majority of it.
Good stats + brings you a bunch of legendary weapons + can use all magic = pwnage incarnate
Yeah, it's all contextual. If you make an FE7 tier list, it could be about unit viability in Link Arena, and if you don't say that, everyone will be confused about why some units you wouldn't expect made it so high/low on the list.
I can see both ways to think about it. Tibarn is S or S+ when he's around he's just not around that much. I can see how a list can vary if you dont take that into account.
There is a tier list for fe?
I just use good looking girls and save scumming
Ironically because of the fe community, I have started viewing availability as a crucial part of an RPG character's aspects now, which had lead to a lot of fun thoughts regarding that. It was one of the core factors in my own Lisa the Painful tier list I made on a docs and all. It's a really interesting factor overlooked a lot of the time. I think part of this just has to do with the fact some games are immensely longer than FE with a lot more time for relatively late joining party members having a long time to actually contribute to the party, especially when the game has a "post-game" like fe8 or fe echos, hence why people might be a bit iffy on availability. Most characters in games can flex for a long time even if they're only available for the remaining 30% of the game. Because that 30% could be like 20-30 hours or something like that.
I think availability as a criteria does work really well though, especially in linear games, or short experiences!
A great way to carry over availability is actually Pokemon, specifically main game playthroughs, challenge runs like Nuzlockes, etc.
Let's use two examples: Fearow and Dodrio. Specifically during the Kanto games.
In terms of stats and ability and arguably even moves, Dodrio is superior in every way, effectively a stronger Fearow, however, Fearow has far superior availability and a much better evolution time (like promoting in FE) by comparison. Not only that, but by the time you get access to Dodrio, most of the major and minor fights a Flying type exists to check have already been fought, and by that time, you're better off sticking to using a Fearow, which is already evolved and has picked up EVs, than just now picking up a Dodrio and having to train it up and evolve it and then use it on the much more limited selection of enemies weak to Flying at that point in the game.
Availability can be applied in many more games, and varies by game, since some Pokemon get better availability in other games compared to their debut game, and vice versa, not to mention how useful their typing is against major and minor encounters throughout your adventure. In that regard, it's similar to Fire Emblem.
It looks like you interpret tier lists based on their total game impact. That's why Athos and Harken were in C tier; they have high impact but don't affect most of the game. This type of list also looks strange because the letter grade implies that Athos will not perform well (absolutely not true). Perhaps the tier labels should say how much they will carry a playthrough, i.e. "carries most chapters", "good start but falls off", etc.
When availability is not part of the judging, then the tier list says which units will reward you for using them. In the adjusted list, Athos and Harken are much higher up since they mow down enemies when they join. I personally am more of a fan of this type of tier list since players can see who they should deploy and train. Again most tier lists (fighting games especially) judge characters by the rewards you get for choosing them.
The only game where availability is important is FE10 since characters will disappear from your party and re-join later. Spending exp and forged weapons on someone who will leave your party for a long time will waste those resources unlike in other titles where you can reap their rewards for the entire game.
4:17 As an example of where availability comes into play--in Overwatch, abilities go on cooldown after you use them. It's not always the case because the most broken abilities just do shit that's so out of this world amazing that it mostly doesn't matter, but sometimes abilities can be ranked better/worse than others based on how long their cooldown is.
Ah, I see you're a person of culture as well.
Whether you want tier lists to be a list of recommended units or not, I think a lot of players will still see them that way, and that's why availability is important to factor in; many newer players will probably just look at the top two tiers and wait to get those units, and probably not invest much in the units in the lower tiers at all. Units that are not as great but have really good availability so can become quite useful may get left behind and not used while waiting for Athos to show up and get used for only a chapter. This probably leads to loads of frustration and extreme disappointment, which I think we want to avoid, because that's how people give up on a series and never come back to it.
How much does a unit help you beat the game? Availability doesn't matter so much as their ability to contribute to beating each chapter.
Top tier: this unit makes the game as a whole significantly easier. If you use them, they'll be a dominant for a very large portion of the game (about half or more).
FE7 examples: Marcus, Ninils.
High tier: this unit can make a decent chunk of the game significantly easier. They might need a some resources to get going, or they might be really good for several chapters, then fall off. These units are dominant for a short period of time. FE7 examples: Kent, Pent.
Mid tier: these units are decent. They aren't going to be dominant for more than 1 or 2 chapters at best. They tend to be either pre-promotes who aren't much better than existing units when they join, or tier 1 units who need a ton of resources to get going, and are unlikely to surpass other allied units by a wide margin. FE7 examples: Athos, Canas.
Low tier: these units are unlikely to make the game noticeably easier. They tend to be decent for a short period of time. They might take a lot of resources just to catch up to the rest of the team, but the resources needed are available to the player. Or, they're just filler units when they join.
FE7 examples: Rebecca (free deployment for several chapters, chip damage), Renault (I guess he can use fortify).
Low tier: using this unit makes the game harder. They probably have no meaningful contribution to beating the game, or only a very small one. FE7 examples: Nino (keeping her alive is a challenge, no time to catch up with team and justify the resources given to her), Karla (must train Bartre to recruit, combat is worse than almost any other prepromote).
Make a tier list for each chapter, moving characters up or down as other stronger or weaker characters appear.
Availability is usually what makes rating a unit the most difficult. This category does factor in anything else than a character's pure statistics or class.
Although availability is not always important. Extreme examples are underlevelled units vs. early pre-promotes where the argument is mostly about end-game vs. early-game (although the 'end-game unit' can mostly be replaced by any of the other 50 characters in the game while the early pre-promote can't be in the early-game). It becomes interesting when reviewing units that start of as more or less regular combat units. Such would be Halvan from Thracia, Nephenee from Radiant Dawn or Dieck from Binding Blade. None of them stick out as amazing or awful. But anything they can do, other units can do as well and therefore taking away from the advantage of being in the early-game when compared to later units with similar roles. Nephenee for instances can be a good unit when trained but the player doesn't suffer any drawbacks from not using her and decides to go for later options instead. Despite Neph having the availability in her favour, it doesn't mean it should be accounted for in a positive way compared to other units with a similar build such as Mia. However, when comparing an early flyer such as Shannah towards Tate, it is a whole different story due to offering unique options you otherwise don't have an alternative to. In other situations, later options can also be better such as Zihark vs. Edward. Zihark should always be viewed as higher tiered due to his early promoted state (with an actually viable base level) while Edward needs immense babysitting instead of allocating the very limited Dawn Brigade experience (provided one doesn't use exploits) to Nolan, Jill or even Aran. (Yes, even Aran. In an environment with exceedingly accurate enemies with highly overtuned attack power, myrmidon is just the worst class to be stuck in).
I've seen some using availability as a means to justify training underlevelled or outright poor units because they appear earlier in the game, mostly under the banner of 'more availability = better' but it has to be viewed more specifically within the context of each game and the chapters that they have a headstart in. For instances, Edward may join early but the following chapters, he will simply watch Nolan and then Sothe taking on the enemies until you receive Zihark, effectively not doing anything unique to progress you through the early game. In a similar fashion, Percival should still be regarded as higher tiered than Treck and Noah, as they need some investment with already very strong (better) alternatives present. Cavaliers are always good but you already have two unpromoted ones, two good pre-promotes (Which is also unique to the GBA games due to being promoted when the items to do so are limited for each class, giving Percival a bit of an edge).
In the end, a tier list will only show one value for different aspects with a vastly different weight to them, changing in their margin for each individual character as well. This is why I find it immensely important for any tier list to be followed up by some form of explanation or else it's just very vague or even without any message at all.
The moral of the story is that tier lists are not character recommendation lists. They have two different goals and sets of criteria. We need to come up with a way to keep them separate, because it's easy for new players to just look up a tier list and misunderstand.
I think part of the problem is that no one wants to make character guides vs. tier lists, because they take more time and aren't high-level discussion, they're tips for newbies. People aren't writing guides for GameFAQs, they're posting a tier list image on reddit and starting debates.
It really sucks when a unit's performance is predicated on using them a certain way as well, which is obvious to more advanced players but not always to others. Jakob in Fates is great for example, but a newbie might not appreciate why when he needs to be reclassed to Paladin and (usually) paired up with Corrin to get the best use out of him initially. Hell, even earlygame Pegasus Knights (some of the best units, like Vanessa) look a lot worse when you take their performance against brigands at face value.
new players or players wanting a guide should not look at tier lists for suggestions in the first place.
Character guides can also be made for people that want to learn LTCing or speedrunning.
@@arman_llc624 I agree, but what I was trying to say is that new players don't know that. They just see a character list with rankings on Google and don't know the rationale behind the placements. We should do a better job of communicating exactly what tier lists are based on.
@@aperson6505 "Hell, even earlygame Pegasus Knights (some of the best units, like Vanessa) look a lot worse when you take their performance against brigands at face value."
Guilty. (Also, I thought they were annoying to play around due to archers also being a thing at times.)
I'd say in role-playing games availability is pretty important.
Often you get a character in the last quarter of the game and if it isn't pretty strong and does something unique, it will go to the bench.
For example, Maoh in Chrono Trigger, you get him before the last two chapters, but he's useful because he can use dark magic and all elemental magic, but he can't combo with anyone so he is not too op.
That was well illuminating
Tier lists that don’t account for availability are my favorite cause Stefan gob
yknow, funny thing you mentioned how the smogon ingame tier lists mention availability because there actually have been tier lists that we've made on the Nuzlocke Forums about various Pokemon games that include availability as a factor for ranking Pokemon
granted, we at first counted availability as not only "how early/late do you get the pokemon" but also "how rare is it", but then we kinda got rid of that second part altogether in future tier lists because there really was no need of ranking down a Pokemon like Tauros or Kangaskhan bc of their rarity if you already owned them.
I think it work for planning reasons. If i am going to play a nuzlelocke, i need to know wich options i am likely to actually encounter. Magickarp for example means that you will always have the option of a good water type as long as there is a city you haven't fish in.
I think when explaining a tier list for the higher tiers, it's a matter of how much a unit stands out and characters with more availability will stand out more. The final chapter best character in the game fails to stand out when the player doesn't need him, but he's still good which is why he belongs in B tier.
I think Radiant Dawn is the best example of why availability matters since it's very polar in that game. The reason Haar is the best character in the game is because he's either great or almost required (Not sure if part 2 prologue can be beaten without him on hard mode, but that would be a headache to say the least) in every chapter he shows up in which is a good chunk of the game. He also shows up in parts 2 and 3. Compare him to Tormod or Maurim who show up for three chapters and really only stand out in one chapter then disappear off the face of the Earth until part 4. If their availabilities were swapped, Tormod or Maurim would be better units than Haar. Even compare Haar to The Black Knight who are both required for one chapter, but Haar stands out more in far more chapters.
Whats with the Kingdom Hearts music all of a sudden?
Love it, it's so chill
I don't know but I love it
Oh my God, a Mekkkah video 2 days in a row!
*FE6 Karel has entered the chat*
I did a randomizer and got him on the second map as a wyvern knight.
While it isnt a character, the Falchion's horrible availability is why I always considered it to be the most unimpressive of legendary weapons.
Also in Final Fantasy Tactics, the horrible availability of your uniques is why pretty much all of them are bad units save for Cid and Ramza. By the time you get them, your starting generics will have contributed more than they ever will. And because you get them so late, when you do actually get them, they will be so hopelessly outclassed.
All of the Pokemon which have somewhere is the single digits and only appear one place are in the lowest availability for their games. None of these Pokemon will be obtained in Speedruns, Nuzlockes or even regular gameplay. Unless you go above and beyond to specifically farm for those specific Pokemon for days. In several cases, I eventually gave up farming because the Pokemon just was not going to appear. It is annoying how many of these extremely hard to encounter Pokemon in game are obtainable easily if you trade evolve their lower evolution. I am mainly thinking of Milotic and Slowking in Pokemon Black.
I find this video impossible to watch as Merlinus isn’t in S+ tier.
Tier lists works differently, even in a same franchise. Pokemon for exemple, smogon rank them based mostly in how many people are using that pokemon in determined tier, if a OU Poke is used more then others in OU, they lab what is umbalancing that paticular one pokemon and ban that strategy or the pokemon itself. But in Nuzlocke runs, a Pokemon that you can use early or in difficult fights can be considered better then a stronger but less available one for that type of challenge. FE can't run from this fact cause is part of the game, you can rank differently based on difficulty, but being available will aways be a factor.
The problem I have with availability is that it doesn't tell you whether the character is actually relevant when available. That being said, as you pointed out at 5:00, this all really depends on what the purpose of the tier list is. Even unit viability is variable because different units fulfill different roles. Can you really compare the viability of a staff bot vs that of a physical tank?
In any case, I found that the tier list you made without availability actually made more sense to me. At a glance, if the character is closer to the top, the more often I should be inclined to use the character when available. That being said, it's still not complete. Marcus is instrumental early game, but falls off towards the end.
So yeah, I don't think there's a perfect ranking system we can use. I'm actually wondering if we shouldn't be thinking in different terms. What I mean is that instead of trying to rank every character in a vacuum, we should be looking at the challenges on a chapter-by-chapter basis, identify which characters can contribute to resolving said challenges, and then produce a final ranking based on which characters were identified in the chapter-by-chapter rundown.
I think you understood this but an important point I wanted to make is that if you're using a tier list to determine who to use or deploy in a game, you're basically using a screwdriver to drive a nail into the wall. It can work but it's not the right tool.
I do think you can compare the viability of a staff bot vs that of a physical tank. They are different roles, but they both, in a way, translate into an increase of offensive and defensive power of your team. Especially in a lopsided case, like Natasha vs Seth, you can tell which one is better at a glance.
Thanks for taking the time to reply. That being said, I don't know if I can agree on comparing viability across different roles. At least, not without implicitly comparing the roles themselves.
Not to mention that in some cases, some roles do not actually translate to an increase in offense and/or defense. Warp skips in particular actually tend to lower your overall power vs. doing the chapter normally, but it's still incredibly useful because it can trivialize a lot of challenges.
I like to stick to intra-role comparisons because I'm realistically never going to ask myself whether I should use Seth or Natasha. But Natasha vs. Moulder? Vs. L'Arachel? Vs. Saleh? These questions hold more value for me, because if I need to use staves, this is where I'm going to be looking.
The reason FE and Pokémon are the only games that get ranked like this is because other RPGs lack one of
-Large Party Member Pool. Most games usually see you using a small cast party members throughout the game, capping out 10, usually lower. FE gives you 30+ potential party members per game.
Pokemon... has literal thousands.
-A Relatively Small Party Member Team. Most games have a party size large enough to fit the majority of its playable cast at any given time. FE has 30+ potential units, but once you reach the midgame, you will need to start benching units, meaning more often than not a majority of units don't see combat.
Pokemon has hundreds (if we're going by family) options, but only 6 slots. In some games you can use a revolving party of up to 12 using the Exp Share (this is the preferred way to play XY btw) but that's still a tiny portion of the available options.
-Potential Party Members aren't (usually) made to become obselete. Lots of games have temporary party members, change your party manually over the course of the story, or give you party members which feasibly be used during later portions of the game. FE has Raidant Dawn, which is hell to tier, but otherwise rarely does this. Pokemon has a few untouchables, but the generous cap between the final boss levels and the level cap means that even the worst Pokemon can usually sweep the game alone by Level 100, not to mention a team of six.
-EXP and Time are limited. In order to make party members truly compete, they need to compete over something. In both Fire Emblem and Pokemon, it's a mix of available EXP and Time. Both games have unlimited forms of EXP to some extent, but they're often restricted by the incredibly long time it takes to take advantage of them. Having this resource to battle is over is what makes efficiency matter in these games.
-Less a true requirement, but both games also benefit from having lots of variety per party member. Between Fire Emblem's growth rates and Pokemon's Individual Value and Nature Systems, using the same party member twice in a row can yield a range of results, which makes a truly objective rank difficult to theorize and less consistently definitive in practice.
Are they any other games that fit this kind of model? I'm curious if any Digimon games do, although I'm guessing the obseletion problem plays a part there
If you still don't think availability isn't a big thing, play D&D or some other tabletop game sometime where it takes months, if not years to get to max level and 95% of games don't reach the halfway point of levels. There are some D&D abilities where you boop the DM's nose and tell them that you win the game the way you want it, forever, but no one cares because those are often literally the last abilities you could theoretically get and the campaign is supposed to be over anyway. Compare that to some bitterly-complained about abilities like Orb of Imposition in pre-errata 4E D&D or Conjure Animals in 5E D&D that are nowhere near as dramatic but show up reasonably early and completely change how you play the game from then on out.
I know I’m kind of missing the point but
Why shouldn’t Wallace be at Oswin’s level without availability counted? They arent too different stat wise iirc
I suppose Wallace would have to be brought up or Oswin brought down, yeah. You could argue that by the time Wallace joins Oswin's stats are a lot higher in direct comparison, so there is no time when Wallace is truly better. So basically even if we ignore the chapters where Wallace isn't around and Oswin is, Oswin is still better. But the gap would still be considerably smaller.
getting wallace means not getting geitz, it also means you have to play the loyd version of the chapter. same as with Karel, if you get karel you lose harken
@@Mekkkah oswins stats are higher by the time Wallace arrives? OH YEAH GROWTHS TIME
@@Mekkkah On the same note, Nino would probably be with Erk since her main problem is when she joins
FF3 music lets GOOOO Eternal Wind!
I think the reason availability isn't a factor in most tier lists is because in most games, there's a post game area that's far more difficult than the main story which allows you to use all the tools available to you, or the point where you gain access to all your tools quite early in your play through, which is why availability doesn't seem to matter as much. In pvz for example, it would seem odd to rate peashooter highly despite the fact that the game is literally uncompleteable without it because you bench it the minute you get literally anything else that can attack, because the main story is such a small part of the game.
Is the song in the first 2 or 3 minutes a remix of Kairi's theme from Kingdom Hearts?
You should make an Availability Tier List.
It super matters.
Didn't watch the video yet but the main reason I can see right away is all super strong story specific characters or weapons that you have for one fight or something. The best example I know is (spoiler name) in xenoblade chronicles, which is a weapon that make you return to life with 1 hp whenever you die, but you only have for one short fight.
Saying it is the strongest weapon in the game is just wrong, because its only use is to win that one fight
Merlinus S tier, the obvious choice
He can die more than twice, he is immortal. So OP he's banned from the final chapter.
The most used Pokemon tier list is one based on competitive usage, not truly on overall power. That's the Uber-OU-UU-NU-PU that most people think of whenever people talk about pokemon viability. However, since the purpose of this is to discuss which Pokemon are the most viable in a competitive setting there is no accounting for availability because if you want to be the most competitive it doesn't matter how hard something is to obtain or when in the game you get it.
However, if I were to make a tier list ranking Pokemon for their usage in say a Nuzlocke then of course I think that availability should be part of it, and I can't really understand anyone who thinks otherwise.
Speeruns very much nail the availability aspect. They rig the RNG to get a perfect Pokemon that joins early that has a better movepool than the starter or stick with the starter.
I was talking about the in-game tier lists that you see on like the Orange Islands subforum, not the Smogon OU/etc tier lists.
I just think of it as “how well can a character get you through the game” and if a character is not available then they don’t do it well
Smogon, most card and moba tier lists I see don't factor in the cost of your set up, If you can build a team it's just as ready as anything else. But for fire emblem a lot of units can come in the late game and leveling them becomes a lot more urgent if there's room to grow or you've been grinding characters from early on. It's a bit unfair to compare two players fighting one another and FE's single player optimization and grinding means taking damage some maps.
Also, tier lists can be very subjective and at a glance leave out the situations a C or D tier is vital or more important than A tiers. S is usually outright broken or worth building around, F are generally poor but unless the game is broke you can make something out of them and have "fFuN".
Not factoring in availability means that Nino is suddenly super good. Averages higher than Erk and Pent in everyway, comes with a Elfire and an Elixer, D Anima. She'd totally rock if she didn't come 2 chapters (5 if you count paralogues) before the final chapter
It is not, she is still bad at base. Not factoring aviability and grinding are two different things. Now, if you want to tier for link arena(LOL) or if FE7 had a superboss like Omega weapon that require ludicrous stats, then Nino 20/20 average would factor and she would be the best mage. Wich is why i'd kinda like for FE to have superbosses.
No, because you can use all that screentime to arena abuse Erk, and you would have to go to hell and back to get Nino staff rank, meanwhile Pent has A and Erk can get to A because of all the FoWs and defense maps.
I thought of a solution. Fire Emblem games should add New Game +. You get to keep all the units, with the following options:
1-Everybody level is reset to 1, and base class. You get to build them all over again.
2-Units keep their levels and promotions, but enemies match your highest level, and its Madening difficulty.
Redundancy is another thing that's kinda complicated to consider. Do we punish units who can do something but are clearly outclassed? How much? Do we reward the best unit in their class in that case?
I guess there's an audience for each type of tier list, both with availability and without availability factored in, provided that the 'availability not factored in' list is defined somewhat differently. At least, these are some of my idle thoughts on it:
For the availability factored in, the audience who gets use out of it is the kind who is looking at the entire game, looking and seeing "over the course of the entire journey, how useful is this unit," or perhaps "does this unit make the game easier or harder to play?". and that's the kind of use it would be for, thinking how useful a unit is over the course of the whole game and perhaps planning accordingly for the full game run. That way, you're not saying "I want a magic user, I guess I'll hold out for Athos", and instead thinking about the whole game.
For the other kind, I'd define that criteria as a "how useful is this unit in the section of the journey that they're available for?" almost treating it like the part of the game that the unit is available for is the whole game - though with a major caveat, you'd also have to take into account what the 'average team' would be for the player who was up to that point. While defining what an "average team" would be is a big definition/scope/boundary problem, you actually demonstrate how this could be done, when you talk about Pent and Sain and Kent, and how they're probably promoted paladins by that point. Indeed, you'd probably be able to use the 'availability factored in' tier list to help with doing this kind of thing, kind of. And the same stuff where you talk about opportunity costs would still apply, though perhaps you'd have to assume that all other units would be leveled as they would as if they were used for all the chapters that they're available and useful for, since you're doing a hypothetical anyway.
So this sounds like a lot of work, and it does in a way factor in availability, but what would be the benefit of this? Who would use it? Well, it could be used in a kind of "as you go" kind of guide. it'd tell you "hmm, well I'm at this point of the game, and there's this unit. How is that unit likely to benefit me for the rest of the game?" That way, it could give you an indication of how useful they are, how easy they are to train (if that's necessary), and whether you should use them if you have another unit who you've trained and could do similar things, but better or worse, like how you could say "well, you can recruit nino, and she could grow a lot, but considering when she joins, you probably have a promoted Erk or Pent or someone who is going to make the rest of the game much easier compared to what Nino could do." whereas for Athos, you could say "well, he's only around for one chapter, but for that chapter, he's really good, probably the best unit in the game, even though your sages could still hold up capably. So for the time he's around, you may as well use him (ignoring that I think he's force deployed? I can't remember) . Of course, then you'd probably also have to kind of factor in availability, but it could help a bit more in an "as you go" sense, whereas if you were referring to the full-game availability-factored-in tier list as you were going through and using it as a guide to say "is this unit worth using for the chapters they're in", then you might see Athos in C tier and think "well, he's only C tier, not really much point in using him".
I guess ultimately, both of them benefit a lot from more explanation than just the image of a tier list, as is true with many things. And of course, there's just a different use and audience for each.
I'm curious as to your thoughts on this, but these are my ideas.
3 Houses is probably a good game to look at to consider how to tier without considering availability.
Personally, I never thought of it as considering their availability, but more about what the unit can do when they are around. It would still inflate Athos's ranking to think of it that way, probably, but Marcus is still undoubtedly better because he's around more, contributing for a larger portion of the game.
Typing it out, I think it's just a round about way of making availability a factor.
I think you've illustrated the problem where people think availability is some kind of separate criteria to a character's rating when it's really just a dimension of how much they stand to contribute. If you can do something well, you're probably a good character. If you can do something well for the whole game then you are undeniably useful
Availability is sometimes a factor when people discuss other jrpgs for who the best/worst characters are, though those games tier list don't get as heated as FE's
I feel like FE tier lists should be visualized with more than one axis. For example have the characters strength on a vertical line and the availability on a horizontal one. That way it would be more clear why that unit is in a certain spot in a tierlist.
Weirdly, I came into this video understanding why availability is used and not having a problem with it. After the video I think I actually like it less. The very function of a tier list is meant to inform lower skill or newer players looking for information what is “worth using”. I think docking great units that are worth using because of availability sort of subverts the usefulness of a tier list and instead just kind of functions purely as a point of conversation and debate for people who are already informed enough to know about these units being good.
"The very function of a tier list is meant to inform lower skill or newer players looking for information what is “worth using”"
This is actually wrong. The function of a tier list is to compare all the available units according to a metagame that the community agrees upon. Tier lists compare, guides rate. They're actually very different. If people want something to help new players, then people should start actually writing guides like it used to be commonly done years ago. Tiering is one thing and your personal rating is another, tiering is a community process while rating is individual.
@@Astralevin I think the problem is that tier lists solely devoted to character viability discussion is that it takes one extra logical step for its own justification (considering the popular origin of tier lists to begin with). Also the point that was presented against no-availability tier lists is that they would require too much nuanced explanations such as sothe. But these tier lists have the exact same problem. It’s equally as non representative of a character’s viability to just package how key in act 1 and how bad he is in the end of the game and just split the difference somewhere in the middle. Considering that middle approach requires too much consideration as well.
I think disregarding availability would be easier in games with an infinite Endgame, like Sacred Stones. You judge each unit by how viable they are fully trained during the endgame.
This massively changes things up IMO and can make some crap characters godly
I wonder if someone (not me because I'm a lazy girl) could make a tier list giving actual numerical values to each character, like giving them points for each chapter they're available in, points for x amount of points in a given stat compared to enemy averages upon joining, points based on class, weapon levels, et cetera. But that just sounds like too much work.
It’d be cool but there’s an absolutely massive amount of variables to factor in. Even if we could, we can’t assign a numerical value to an attribute of a unit without being subjective.
That would be pretty hard to do for many reasons :
Do we reward a unit more for availabilty or for having better bases? , And I am assuming is on Hard Mode? because on Normal Mode , any unit is Top Tier
An example of this can be on FE6 , lets compare Wolt, Allen and Lance vs Percieval :
- Lance , Allen and Wolt joins you since chapter 1, Wolt is an archer , can only attack at range , and it's a sitting duck on enemy phase , Allen and Lance are cavalries units , and help you a lot in the early game , and they can hold their own on some parts of the game , but with some investment , they become good units.
- Percieval joins on Chapter 15 with Hard Mode bonuses, have A rank on both sword and lance , C rank on Axe , have the BEST BASES on FE6, it's a pre promote , Lance and Allen even promoting at lvl 20, won't even catch up to him lol. Percieval also does not requires any investment , the moment you get him , he just goes wild and murder all those beefy enemies on his path
- If we assume we give more points on each chapter available , Lance and Allen would have more value than Percieval, they have 14 Chapters more than him , and have 3 potentials gaidens, which is 17 more Chapters over Percieval
- But if we give more points on what the unit offers you when they join , Percieval pretty much single handedly would win it, the guy can carry your army, while Lance and Allen even though they are available during all the game , they need investment , and would struggle a lot with the mid game- late game enemies even when promote at 20.
Yeah, that's what I thought. I assume it'd be possible but it'd take so long, and as both of you said, too many variables and subjective value in some of them, way too difficult.
getting brownie points for existing (i.e the hector example in his joining maps) is as illogical as docking points from a win button (athos) no matter how bad your comp prior is. But that's just my take.
I get the argument for "being around/contribution" but "good with no investment" is also pretty damn good.
I think a middle ground between the two tier lists you showed is actually the most logical, not one of the two binary extremes
nice music choice.
i think avail is important, it's just like base stats or weapon ranks or something - it's part of the unit's value. i personally can't put X unit with their stats of literal caps but they join in the last map ABOVE Y unit that has middling stats but is supporting you all game long.
it gets complicated depending on the game (radiant dawn) and sometimes you just need to weigh it against all other factions. does it offset the weaker factors, or not totally?
Mekkah 😃
Availability is a factor but honestly it's not that big of a deal when compared to the benefit of being a prepromote with high base stats. Late game prepromotes tend to do more in 1 or 2 chapters than trainee scrubs do for the entire game. And they have no training cost compared to most early game units.
The best way to tier is to think: "how much easier does the game become because this unit exists?" That automatically factors in availability because Athos won't make most of the game easier while still acknowledging his OPness. Like I don't care if Gilliam, Garcia, Ross, Lute, Kyle, Forde, Neimi, or Joshua doesn't exist so they're low tier for me but if Gerik didn't exist the game would be so much harder.
I don't think going fast is a benefit unless going fast makes the game easier (which it usually is). Warp is amazing because it let's you 1 turn maps but there's no inherent value in 1 turning. The value lies in negating all the challenge of 10 turning a map. If there was another way to 1 turn a map but it wasn't as easy or reliable as "OR I COULD JUST USE THE WARP STAFF" then it isn't as good. Like the fog of war defend map in Sacred Stone is a PAIN IN THE ASS without warp. Conquest Endgame is a nightmare without rescue skip..
Best way I heard it explained is that if you try a challenge run where you don't use Athos, and another one where you don't use Marcus, which one would be more difficult?
Having heath above Fiora makes no sense, if you think about it he should be below Farina as well. This is because Heath doesn't really start to become useful in combat until Crazed Beast, the same chapter that Farina joins and she is also more useful in Crazed Beast anyway. If a character is bad when they join you should count their availability as the chapter they stop being a hinderance. Heath is unlikely to gain more than 1 lvl in his join chp, then the desert is filled with magic users, then Geneses has promoted sages that ORKO with bolting, Lloyd chapter has several ballistae, the next chapter is crazed beast and Farnia(a better unit in all ways but funds). It's ok to use all three Pegasus knights, wyverns being cool doesn't make them better than falcoknights.
Heath is useful in every chapter he's in. He doesn't become bonkers until he promotes, but even while underleveled he can still be more useful just because he flies and has good strength. Because of his high mobility he can steal kills without endangering himself, since he's more flexible than mages and especially archers. I think he can be useful in Genesis if you early promote him, but I understand not wanting to do that or field him there at all - but that still leaves him the first 6 turns of Crazed Beast before Farina joins, where he can easily rack up kills on either Pirates (w/ Axereaver/Iron Sword), Cavaliers, or Monks (Barrier'd, of course).
Then after Farina joins, he still has a lot more strength and bulk. Her speed advantage also isn't exactly huge: she has 11 base AS with an Iron Lance (12 if you instapromo), which is basically the same as Heath if he promotes ASAP. And their speed growth is equal. Farina's only notable advantage is res, which has its applications in HHM, but is still less important than physical bulk, which Heath has significantly more of. 10/1 Heath has 34-35 hp and 11 def, while 12/1 Farina has 29 hp/12 def. And a lot of that comes from her promo bonus of 5 hp/2 def, while Heath gets 4 hp/0 def, so if both are staying unpromoted Heath's bulk is even better relatively speaking.
@@Mekkkah My problem with Heath is not where he winds up, but the opportunity cost to get him there. I've never tried early promoting him, but I could see that making him less of a liability in genesis, but what did we gain from having a 10/1 Heath over Florina & Fiora in a chapter filled with powerful magic users?
Comparing Heath & Farina, we should ask what it takes to make these characters worthy of a scarce HHM deployment slot. Farina's joining chp has an endless supply of monks that she can ORKO, racking up several levels in about the same amount of turns it will take most players to clear the western side of the map, it would be inconvenient not to use her for that role; making the opportunity cost to train her 0. Even if you wanted to use Heath & another flier she would have no competition for the Elysian whip gained in Crazed Beast(aside from selling it, but I'm assuming efficient play not ranked run). If you early promote Heath will he stay deployed in every chapter, or does he fall off?
Btw for clarification, my comparison is more to say that Heath should be closer to Farina at the bottom of B tier/ top of C tier, not that Farina should be in A tier.
Off-topic, but I never got why Florina is considered better than Fiora.
I get Flo has a four-chapter lead but she's near useless in three of those
Chapter 16, a ballista greatly restricts her movement and though she can ferry your starting units across the peak Marcus and Hector can (albeit slowly) walk across. Chapters 17 and 18 are filled with bow and axe enemies. Maybe I'm just unlucky but by the time Fiora joins she ends up surpassing her sister, even when comparing average stats Florina has a significant lead in luck and +1 strength and speed when Fiora has higher res and significant skill.
I usually skip to Hector normal where your first elysian whip is Ch 21, and I'm aware that on Hector hard you can steal Ch 17 but that's right before Fiora joins 3 levels from promo.
If you play Lyn mode then you can get Flo to a higher level but getting Kent/Sain to level 10 will probably take priority.
I think Flo's a bit worse than early game cavs with Fiora beating them all out.
Ya I've always found fiora to be better but i guess florina is better if you really feed her early.
I guess for FE availability won't matter if you sandbox the game like with fates and awakening but that's only if you go for that playstyle other than that Availability should matter for everything else