GamePress

GamePress offered an explanation for the tier list

And I'm very appreciative of this measure. Now I understand much better where they're coming from.

I was surprised to learn that they don't care too much about the scoring aspect of BST, which I think is actually very relevant when the list openly declares itself as an arena offense tiering. Moreover, I think it might be good to consider two separate lists or even three: one for just straight up combat, a second which ranks units according to how good they are at spamming scoring mechanisms while feeding kills to a bonus unit, maybe a third for how well they feed to a bonus unit regardless of score.

One thing I still find unclear is the question of whether units requiring more SI get ranked lower, all other things being equal. That's a type of opportunity cost in itself, because it's fodder (or orbs/feathers) not spent on merges or really anything else. Arguably, the point of the tier list is still a bit unclear. It's supposed to answer the question of "who is the best on an arena offense tram?" but "good" is not clearly defined. Does it mean, as I suggested earlier, combative potential or support and scoring potential? Does it mean any of these with orb/feather cost weighed into the equation? Does it care about scoring range, since, for example, fielding all 175BST armours with super-rallies still forces dancers out via scoring politics?

My main other disagreements are two, or maybe three.
- some units gain more with buff support (fliers, blade mages, and L.Marth, for instance) than other units, which means that they may be significantly worse than units they rank highly when not properly supported but potentially better when well supported. Does the tier list compare them near the peak of their potential or for minimal investment? Is it even possible to do both in the same tier list?
- it is poor to argue that player phase monsters who struggle during enemy phase are higher opportunity cost when there are units who don't want to do anything on player phase other than rally or reposition someone out.
- it is probably poor to argue that armoured immobility is irrelevant because their enemy phase is so strong. If nothing else, the easy dual phase that some armours have becomes mostly just enemy phase if they can't reach the enemy, and it gets worse if they can't tank the remainder of the enemy team and need to be repositioned out like any Nino they criticize for having this weakness. It doesn't help that 90%ish of armours are melee, including 100% of non-seasonals. Moreover, duel skills mean we're going to start seeing more stuff like dancers helping ranged units force matchups unfavourable to the arena offense player or even wrathful dazzle if colourless duel comes. Veronica is an extremely popular unit.

Having considered these things, who else besides me thinks that it might be better to show different tier lists for slightly different purposes? The current list seems maybe too general to be of much use

Asked by Seeker3 months ago

Report

Answers

I think the biggest problem is that you can't rate units too well in the exact same way.
Putting individual use in front risks putting units low that really work great in the right teams (like Odin)

I also feel like mobility is underappreciated on defence units.
Sure, the enemy does the most moving, but Quan is way better at avoiding the range of green mages than Effie is. Just as example.

Besides, some units are generalists and some specialists.
I think you should look at what they CAN do, not what they can't unless there's not enough that they can, or it directly cripples them.

Lastly SP and skill oppertunity has no place on a pure tier list, those factors have a better place on a budget/new player tier list.
Because new players are the ones who need a good list the most, so they probably should get a seperate list.

I agree with most of what you said, but the last point was my favorite by far. New players are the ones who might want a tier list; most of us have a reasonable idea of what other units can do. Did you see my "maturity in the game" tier list which ranks units according to how well you need to understand the game and how much investment units require to function well?

The one point I did not agree with is the BST/SP thing. This tier list offers itself as a guide to a game mode with a bogus system. If it is to be accurate to that bogus system, it needs to be bogus to that extent. If we were making a general tier list then BST and SP would count for almost nothing outside of how they affect combat.

Well, I was mostly talking about that harder to build units shouldn't be rated lower.
Since that would mean that 5* should get a penalty because they are so hard to merge.

I do agree that SP is needed in arena tier lists, because of the score, which would mean that any free unit would sink to the bottom.

All of this just hammers home that FEH needs more than one way to rank units.

I still wouldn't follow what they say since its there opinion on units, also why are they having this as a guide!? The fuck would i need a reason to rate waifus :/, again there opinion.

Or you could just say fuck the teir list and use the units you love, like 90% of the units in the 3-4* poll are in the teir 6-8 on the list but they can do just as well as units in teir 2-4 if built right

Apparently I didn't build my Catria right for a "Tier 5" build:

"Catria is a pegasus knight with solid attack and speed, but relatively balanced stats compared to the several other pegasus knights available. She cannot run a Brave Lance+ build as well as Cordelia, Hinoka or Est, LEAVING HER WITH THE CHOICE of a Killer/Slaying Lance+ build, a Desperation build or a Firesweeper build. Of the three, she's arguably best suited to a sweeper build with Firesweep Lance+ and Drag Back." (Emphasis added)

My Catria is just an Omni-tank... (still looking for a +Res -HP IV)

It is kind of funny that the tier list explanation goes on about how enemy phase units are better than player phase and then rates Catria low because she can't run a player phase set as well.

Sumia has power-crept her though, her stats are just better. I don't think Catria being in the same tier as other good units like Fjorm and Lukas is too unfair.

I wasn't complaining about her placement, just found their explanation of her placement rather amusing. I complained a lot about her placement when she was 2 spots below Sumia, but at 1 spot I can understand.

What's sad that the powercreep has made me hate Sumia though - should I ever pull one I'll be using crystals to level 40 her and foddering that B*@%# off!

The explanations are pretty useless. Some units don't even have them, some are painfully outdated.
"Caeda is the definition of missed potential: instead of her signature Wing Spear, Caeda's weapon is an Armourslayer+"

True they haven't been updated, probably ever. I guess it's more that they were so closed minded-about flier builds back then that was the source of my amusement.

Well I agree with not letting tier lists dictate your decisions, but the reason tier lists get so much flak is because they don't openly state the purpose according to which units get ranked, or it's not specific enough to actually mean much. We would have more respect for tier lists if they were actually good information.

For example, on a tier list that cares only about max arena score and nothing else, Merric is objectively above Nino due to the prf, and Nino is currently above Tharja due to G infantry duel.

On a list of units for feeding kills to a bonus unit without regard to score, Azama would probably rank very high due to pain+ double savage blow, low atk plus damage penalty without wrathful staff, tankiness for survivability, and ability to heal the bonus unit. If we care about score, then Caeda is better due to R flying duel and prf; she can spam SP using windsweep, a super-rally, and ploys.

For players like me who started with FEH and don't have especially strong attachments coming in (and for me, also that I'm starting to see the game less as a way of playing favourites as of developing a play style I can call mine, including in aspects such as resource management), a meaningful tier list can actually be a good tool.

It is what is is my dude. Having three different tier lists greatly increases the amount of work to maintain them. People are already ubhappy when its a week late in updating now multiply this by 3.

Also the tier list assumes many things. Acess to perfect ivs, all skills and since suportive units are not ranked higher (other than dancers) is also assumed that it does not take bonus units into consideration.

You can take this as it meaning that it only applies to whales then. Since theyre the ones to have multiple +10 bonus units with perfect ivs and fully decked. Or just as a general overview of the strongest units in the game that can net you the most matchup wins.

See, but the more specific they get, the more obvious it is who ranks where, and it might even end up being less work to maintain. See my reply to GVader. Being that specific doesn't necessarily answer people's questions about who they should invest in, but they need to answer that for themselves anyways so I say it's better to provide some solid data for them to work with.

And I think I could draw up a tier list that assumes f2p, i.e. ideal IVs only assumed on units available below 5*, few to no merges on 5* exclusives. And I might define it as being for PvE play other than abyssal and arena at 710 and below. I would also specify whether high investment builds automatically rank lower on the list. I think that there are players who could use such a tier list as a guide along with other info. Do you agree?

I guess I finally have an explanation for why Deirdre is tier 6 now.

The biggest problem with all of the tier lists is that they assume the unit doesn't have a team. But I think tier lists like in all games are aimed at new players so they have an easier time choosing characters that will give them the most with the least amount of effort. They aren't aimed at people who are more experienced.

I've always known that they don't consider arena scoring when making the tier list or that they are very bad at it. Every dancer is tier 4 or above. Every horse healer is higher on the list even though they have less bst. Zelgius above Hardin when he'd score less. Same with OG Hector among the others of tier 1.

The only other tier list that I think would matter is an arena scoring tier list but gamepedia already has it so :/

My attempt to demonstrate that tier lists can be helpful if it's clear what the criteria are:
https://fireemblem.gamepress.gg/q-a/difficulty-tier-list

PSA!

Tiers are merely estimations of unit potential meant to be a rough guide. No tier lists are perfect.

"We're here. There's tiers. Get used to it."
The sooner this point is understood, the sooner y'all can stop complaining.