| Welcome to Fire Emblem Fusion. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| FE 8 Tier List | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 20 2008, 10:36 PM (2,479 Views) | |
| Mekkah | Jan 22 2008, 01:40 PM Post #31 |
|
He isn't "better" per se. His wins over others in combat are overshadowed by the fact that others improve more by fighting, especially against shit like Soldiers which are just free EXP for weaker units. He may be the most powerful, but since using his power provides negatives for the team, he doesn't get auto-top-tier for that. |
 |
 
|
| Super Saiyan SolidSense | Jan 22 2008, 03:45 PM Post #32 |
|
It's a combination of using and not using, not just one way or the other. Yes, Duessel does get points for that. No, not Top Tier. It's better than what his stats suggest, but his stats don't suggest much, so the difference is much less. Also, that's under the assumption that Method Y is better than Method X to begin with, which you guys are saying--I don't agree with that at all.
But if you replace, say, Vanessa for Seth, Vanessa is no longer on your team. She's the only one who lost out. Vanessa would have gotten, say, 5 kills in a particular chapter. Seth gets 5 kills. The rest of your team did not lose out on EXP at all. In any way whatsoever. I don't understand how you fail to see this. No, it's not just "Reikken logic." WJC and I also used to argue against this, and then we realized that it was indeed true. The rest of your team loses out on nothing if you use Seth. Nothing. Seth, himself, gains less EXP. That doesn't affect the _rest_ of your team. It's not "using Seth" vs "not using him." It's "using Seth" vs "using Character Y." Every character, when they take a kill, is letting others get less EXP. That's not exclusive to Seth. The only difference is Seth gains levels slower, and that affect future comparisons. To penalize a unit for having a higher level is just plain stupid, not to mention counterintuitive. Let me put it to you in simpler terms. Say there are 50 enemies in a given chapter, and you have 5 units: Vanessa, Franz, Gilliam, Lute, and Artur. Each gets exactly 10 kills. The four of Vanessa, Franz, Gilliam, and Lute each get 250 EXP. Now, say you don't use Artur, and instead, you use Seth. Now you have Vanessa Franz, Gilliam, Lute, and Seth. Each gets exactly 10 kills. Vanessa, Franz, Gilliam, and Lute each get 250 EXP. Your team lost out on 0 EXP from using Seth instead of Artur. But now, you got to use his pwn earlier. The only difference is that Artur would have gained more EXP than Seth were he used instead, but that's no problem--it's not how much EXP you gain, it's how good you are. Or, if you're really concerned about EXP, consider that Seth comes with a free 2000 EXP from his joining level. You can see how silly it is to give a "value" to EXP gains. That's already represented by the fact that Seth grows slower--what you're trying to do is add a second negative to a high level, and that's just ghey. |
| this is the best Brawl match ever....EVER | |
|
|
|
| Mekkah | Jan 22 2008, 03:57 PM Post #33 |
|
You know what's counterintuitive? Giving a unit that gets practically nothing out of a kill a kill that could have given me like 30 more EXP. It doesn't affect the rest of the team's EXP, but it does affect your overall improvement, which is what you should be using to see how you should use your resources (EXP). So the best way of using Seth's bases and high level in the most efficient way possible is to let him do practically nothing and let other units do the hard work. That pretty much negates his stat lead for the earlygame. All he has left is being low maintenance and stuff, but guess what? I can raise up the same point for Myrrh or Saleh, or include Colm in my team and not train him. But I don't see the former two being bumped immensely high because of that. What makes Seth so good? He can't kick ass early on, because you get nothing out of it. He can kind of kick ass mid and later on, but so can everyone. |
|
|
|
| Blackbird | Jan 22 2008, 06:46 PM Post #34 |
|
Ok, here's a counter example. In a given area, you have the units Seth and Lute, and both are equally capable of killing the 5 enemy units there. In example A, Lv 20/1 Seth kills all 5 units himself, and gains 30 exp. In example B, Lv 5/0 Lute kills all 5 units herself, and gains 150 exp (she is not yet promoted, and so gains about 30 exp a kill). Lute gains a level, and increases her stats. In these examples, B team has improved in a tangible way (Lute gained stats) whereas A team has not. If this example is repeated over a number of maps, we would see something like Lute has gained 5 levels, compared to Seth gaining 1 for the same number of kills. It is always better to kill units with a lower level unit, when possible, to gain the best exp return (and, by extension, the best statistical return). In an ideal situation, everyone is close to the same level, so everyone gets similar exp and is equally entitled to kills. |
|
|
|
| Super Saiyan SolidSense | Jan 22 2008, 07:13 PM Post #35 |
|
So, what you're telling me is, it's better to have Seth on your team than any other character? If you have any other character, the rest of your team doesn't get extra levels. If you have Seth on your team, the rest of your team gets extra levels. If each of Seth, Artur, and Lute take 40 kills, your team is now Seth + 40 kills, Artur + 40 kills, and Lute + 40 kills. If Artur and Lute get 60 kills each and Seth gets none, your team is now Seth, Artur + 60 kills, and Lute + 60 kills. If each of Gilliam, Artur, and Lute take 40 kills, your team is now Gilliam + 40 kills, Artur + 40 kills, and Lute + 40 kills. The first two teams are clearly better than the third one, and each involves Seth. It's not how much the team improves; it's how good the team actually is, viewing the game as a whole. The team with Seth is much better early and midgame and worse lategame. The team without Seth is worse early and midgame and slightly better lategame (Seth remains a good unit).
You're telling me, in a nutshell, that being worse is better than being better. That makes no sense. You can't penalize Seth by denying him kills just because he's better. How much EXP you gain has no relevance, it's how good you are that matters. If Seth + 30 kills worth of EXP is still better than Lute + 30 kills worth of EXP, then it makes no sense to give those 30 kills to Lute. By the time Lute does get better, Seth has been pwning enough that overall he's added more to the team.
Why can't he? Think about what you're saying. You're telling me that having a high level is a bad thing. Better stats is a bad thing. Might as well forget about stat boosters, then. There's no point in one character being better than another. All that matters is joining time now; level and bases are irrelevant. wth The goal of this game is not to get EXP. Gaining EXP is just a method by which to finish faster, and Seth killing things helps you do that more than someone like Vanessa killing things less efficiently for a long while before finally beating Seth near the end. That's obvious. What you're trying to say is that gaining EXP is more important than finishing the game faster. That's total bull.
Ok? How does that affect Seth's positioning? Seth doesn't need the kills, so he lets Lute take them. Now your team is Lute w/a higher level + Seth rather than Seth w/a higher level + Lute. Seth improves your team by the same amount. That's just a different way of using him. And no one has yet addressed the fact that logically speaking, if it's better to use a character one way in lieu of another, that character's value should _increase_, not decrease. We're just using the assumption that Seth is actually used and gains levels to measure the worth of the "worst possible way" (from your viewpoint) of using him. If he's better than everyone else under the "inferior" method of using him, he must be even better than that under the so-called "superior" method of using him. |
| this is the best Brawl match ever....EVER | |
|
|
|
| Paperblade | Jan 22 2008, 08:16 PM Post #36 |
|
What? So, let me get this straight. I start out with a unit that's just awesome. He has 8 movement, great stats, ends up great (only losing to Franz, and arguably Ephraim on Ephraim route). But we should give EXP to a unit that not only is worse NOW, but is likely going to end up worse, because they get more EXP out of it and thus improve faster? So let's give these units numbers in worth. Let's say that Unit A is worth 100 points, and Unit B or whoever is worth like 40 when they first join because Unit A rapes them in durability, mobility, and offense. Unit A from Level 1 to Level 10 is going to improve by about 100 points to 200. But Unit B is going to increase from 40 to 150, a 110 point increase. Unit B got more from the same amount of kills, but is still worse because Unit A is worth 200 and Unit B is worth 150. You're saying that underleveled > overleveled because underleveled units level quicker? With this sort of logic, Seth would be better if he joined as a Level 1 Cavalier but had the same averages because he's improving faster, which makes it a "better use of resources". Hell, Nino for Top Tier because she gets the most out of level ups and so we should waste our time feeding her kills in BBD, instead of killing 10 units a turn, we're killing 1 a turn because underleveled unit is getting more EXP from the kill. It's. . . completely nonsensical.
So you're that using good units is bad if they're overleveled. So, if I had a Paladin with all stats maxed out and A ranks in all weapons that joined in the first chapter, and by late game all other characters have caught up to him in stats. 1-2 have surpassed, most haven't. That this Paladin would be bad because his stats are too good early game? Please, tell me how this makes sense. Never mind that Seth doesn't one round with Slim, meaning that even if you don't buy that argument, he can still be used to weaken things and let other people leech off his work, while still being an excellent mid and lategame unit. OR he can just kill stuff all early game and be good mid and lategame. Having options > Not having options, especially when those options are just the options of other units plus some other stuff.
So, because you chose not to use a unit, he's bad early game? lolwut. That makes no sense. Just because you benched him for nearly half the game doesn't mean he's a bad unit. And even then, he's STILL going to be better than other units because he's still perfectly usable and the rest of your team is higher leveled than using any other character because they have one less person competing for EXP (save healers and other prepromos, but Seth destroys the other prepromos in stats and can still early game meatshield and soften up with Slim if need be) |
|
|
|
| Blackbird | Jan 22 2008, 08:21 PM Post #37 |
|
This is why Seth is good. You don't need to level him early on; he is already good. You can pretty much avoid having Seth kill things early on and divert the extra exp into people that will level quickly. Seth + 11 people fight 12 units. Seth doesn't kill one, because he's overleveled/already powerful. 11 people reap the exp of 12 kills. 12 people fight 12 units. Each one gets only one kill. It's the same reason healers are considered great for exp, they aren't competing with the combat exp pool. Later on, towards the midgame, when your party's levels are more balanced, you can begin giving Seth kills/make an effort to level him, and he will still remain good because he has decent growths (unlike most prepromoted units). So Seth fights well and assists the team with his survivability early on when most of your units suck, and when midgame rolls around and your underleveled units catch up, Seth remains good because when it does make sense (from the viewpoint of gaining exp efficiently) to start leveling him, his growths are good enough that he isn't eclipsed by non-prepromotes. Seth is useful for the whole game. |
|
|
|
| Super Saiyan SolidSense | Jan 22 2008, 08:44 PM Post #38 |
|
Oh. Yes, I know that. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing against the people who say that he shouldn't be Top Tier. |
| this is the best Brawl match ever....EVER | |
|
|
|
| Kuiper | Jan 31 2008, 07:20 PM Post #39 |
|
Myrrh is ranked in the "low" tier below Amelia, Rennac, Innes, and several other cruddy units, but I'd consider her one of the best units in the game. She has phenomenal growth rates, often gaining a level every one or two kills, and it's unlikely that she'll fight without killing. She has the best stat growths in the game and the best growth rate in the game, meaning that er only sustained vulnerability is bows since all of her defensive stats shoot up rapidly. The only possible reason I can see for her placement is the limited use of the Dragonstone, but she shouldn't be breaking it in a normal playthrough. It takes half her Dragonstone to reach level 20, and she shouldn't use up the second half before the end of the game. The only place where you'd need more than 50 uses of the Dragonstone is creature campaign, and if you're there you might as well abuse the Gorgon eggs to restore it, or get a dragon to give you its Wretched Air. Join time can't be a condition for low placement, since Athos is often ranked in FE7's top tier. If anything, Myrrh is better than Athos since she assists both in the final chapter and those preceding it. I'd move her to the bottom of the top tier or the top of the high tier, but at least remove her from the low tier. |
|
|
|
| Barst | Jan 31 2008, 07:36 PM Post #40 |
Like I said before... I am perfect.
|
Athos is god tier on nppb sites. This is not a nppb site. Joining time is a factor. Myrrh is low tier. |
| Formerly Othin | |
|
|
|
| Kuiper | Jan 31 2008, 07:49 PM Post #41 |
|
In that case, Myrrh (along with Tethys, Colm, and Ephraim) should be excluded as they are on the FE7 tier list. |
|
|
|
| Simon | Jan 31 2008, 08:27 PM Post #42 |
The strongest among you may not wear a crown
|
...Huh? Myrrh, Tethys, Colm, and Ephraim should be excluded because they're on the FE7 tier list? No, they're not, and even if they were, why should they be excluded? They're in the game. |
Previously: Ron DeLite, Simon
| |
|
|
|
| Kuiper | Jan 31 2008, 09:34 PM Post #43 |
|
The following are excluded from the FE7 tier list: Athos Hector Karla Legault Matthew Nils Ninian Renault Myrrh should be excluded for late-game awesomeness that disqualified Athos, Tethys is a clone of Ninian/Nils, Colm is the only thief in the game and deserves disqualification on that basis more than Matthew, and Ephraim is an even better lord than Hector. |
|
|
|
| Simon | Jan 31 2008, 09:38 PM Post #44 |
|
The strongest among you may not wear a crown
|
Ohh...alright, I understand now. I agree with you on Colm, Ephraim, and Tethys on those bases, but Athos was ready to go from the start and didn't have limited uses. Myrrh's not really all that awesome in the lategame; her Attack is insane, but she's not one-rounding promoted enemies without a critical, she gets doubled like crazy in *Normal* Mode, never mind Hard Mode. And, if she doesn't get the Fili Shield, 3xMt Silver Bow doubling her -- and that's anything with a Silver Bow in Chapters 16 or 19 -- is punching right through that defense without a second thought or any hope on Myrrh's part on avoiding the kill. That argument's different from the pegasi because they can dodge while Myrrh cannot. |
Previously: Ron DeLite, Simon
| |
|
|
|
| Kuiper | Feb 4 2008, 10:34 PM Post #45 |
|
I think that the tier list in the OP should be further divided. There are several units in the high tier that are too weak for that tier but too strong for mid tier, and the top of the mid tier is arguably on par with that. I'd suggest splitting the mid tier and moving the bottom of the high tier (which is pretty crowded anyway) to the top of the upper-mid tier. Gilliam is definitely High tier material. He has the best join time in the game (Seth and Eirika beat him by an incredibly marginal amount) and he supports with Franz (who joins the same turn) and Moulder (another unit that joins shortly after). His affinity actually helps Franz and Moulder quite a bit for the earlier part of the game, since defensive affinities help both of them more: Franz's defense is rather shoddy, and defensive affinities are the only ones that Moulder benefits from. Gilliam also benefits from Franz's more offensive affinity. Franz and Gilliam together make a great tanking crew that split up with the rest of the party, feeding off their supports which do an excellent job of compensating their weaknesses. Late game, they become an even better duo as Gilliam struggles less to keep up with Franz and gains command of the weapon triangle, and the two of them can block corridors and such quite nicely. Actually, Gilliam himself is a veritable tank for the bulk of the game; give him a Steel or Iron Lance and occasionally let him equip a javelin to take out ranged attackers and he'll take physical blows more easily than even Seth. For the first part of the game, he outranks everyone but Lute in strength, making him a good boss killer. Gilliam also benefits from the swiftsoles the same way that Lute benefits from the Body Ring: it's a massive help, but you can get by without it. And Gilliam arguably should be getting those swiftsoles; they'd be a waste on someone like Tethys. Tana should have a split rank. She essentially joins one chapter earlier in Eirika's route (or at least half a chapter earlier for all intents and purposes), and flying units are a tremendous help in chapter 9 of Eirika's route for flying folks like Gilliam, Seth or Franz over the water. Also, Cormag joins later in Eirika's route, meaning that Tana plays a more vital role as secondary flier, and when he does come, it's unlikely that he'll replace her. Eirika route Tana probably belongs somewhere around the top of the high tier. Vanessa is ranked too high; Colm beats her for utility for the second half of the game. Both of them have a crappy prepromote that they outclass, but Vanessa also has to compete with two other fliers who can duplicate her function, whereas Colm has no replacement. Actually, Ephraim route Ephraim probably deserves higher, since in the later half of the game Vanessa's strength suffers enough to limit her to mostly just utility, while Ephraim is an awesome brawler from start to finish. Vanessa belongs at the bottom of the top tier with Lute. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Fire Emblem 6-8 · Next Topic » |
1:33 PM Nov 23
