You can find the BGM here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rcqfnsqQpp7Yf4E.html It's called Square Enix & Chill. I thought it wasn't on KZfaq anymore so I didn't think to link it but it's still there.

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.

Without availability, the black knight becomes the best character in the entire series

Can't save turns you aren't there for.

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

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.

Seth's still S+, isn't he?

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.

Smogon's in-game tier list philosophy directly references fire emblem as an example of why they value availability

"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

Got confused for a moment because I just watched Tierzoos Lizard Tier List and wondered what availability would exactly mean in nature

Availability matters....that way I know how to weigh whether to recruit an enemy unit or kill them for the exp

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 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.

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

Mekkah talking over lofi Chrono Trigger remixes is an aesthetic I now need more of in my life

Radiant dawn is this video times 4

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.

"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

I mean, isn't availability the reason why Marcus is S tier and Pent is A tier in FE7 for example?

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.

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.

man, mekkah casually flexing that he invented smogon in-game tier lists lmaoo

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.

It seems so weird to rate characters without avalability in mind to me.

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.

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

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

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

Of course. Why would you rate someone high if you can only use in one map out of 30? lol

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.

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.

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!

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.

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 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.

Oh my God, a Mekkkah video 2 days in a row!

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.

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?

Availability should be a big factor for tier-list as the best units in most games are often: super late (if not post-game), require a lot of work, or DLC/micro-transactions

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.

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.

Very cool, maybe you can explain the way you treat recruitment cost in your tier lists next?

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.

Somewhat unrelated, but I recently came across a tier list video for another game series and one of the things the author of the list stressed at the end is that the optimal team comp to use all game composed of four characters he rated poorly on his tier list. The reason they're the optimal team comp? Well, it's because they are the characters you are forced to bring along in the final boss fight of the game, which isn't even challenging tbh. I couldn't help but bust out laughing and it immediately made me think of old Fire Emblem tier lists.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Good stats + brings you a bunch of legendary weapons + can use all magic = pwnage incarnate

Make a tier list for each chapter, moving characters up or down as other stronger or weaker characters appear.

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.

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

I find this video impossible to watch as Merlinus isn’t in S+ tier.

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!

In order for availability to not matter you'd have to make a tier list for ever chapter and think about how much a unit will help me in each chapter.

i feel like a better casual based "not caring about unit availability" would be ranking every unit for specifically their performance in endgame when trained up, because obviously that's the hardest map smh

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 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

Is the song in the first 2 or 3 minutes a remix of Kairi's theme from Kingdom Hearts?

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

One can consider the value of a unit in a normal tier list to be equal to the sum of the value they bring to each chapter minus the total cost / opportunity cost of using them, with a value of 0 in both for chapters they are absent in. Using v=value, c=cost, and N= unit's worth, that's N=Σ(v)-Σ(c) In a tier list that doesn't factor in availability, a unit's value can best be equated to their average value over the chapters they are present minus the average cost of using them. Using the same variables as before, and adding in a=number of chapters they are in, we get N=(Σ(v)/a)-(Σ(c)/a), or N=(Σ(v)-Σ(c))/a Of course these are all somewhat abstract concepts that are difficult to assign numbers to, but I think this system works for Availability-less tier lists.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

*FE6 Karel has entered the chat* I did a randomizer and got him on the second map as a wyvern knight.

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

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?

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

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

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).

I would LOVE to see you do videos on the ingame Smogon tiers!

Tier lists that don’t account for availability are my favorite cause Stefan gob

Very interesting!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

You should make an Availability Tier List.

Merlinus S tier, the obvious choice

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.

FF3 music lets GOOOO Eternal Wind!

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

Mekkah 😃

Whats with the Kingdom Hearts music all of a sudden?

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.

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.

There is a tier list for fe? I just use good looking girls and save scumming

Jeritza was a unit that used to pique my interest when it came to 3H tier lists. He joins in CF chapter 13 and is immediately amazing. But that's 12 chapters plus paralogue and auxiliary maps that he's not available for. I'd still rate him highly in CF tho. Side note, although it's not the point of this video, why is Heath above Fiora? Is he better in Hector mode or something? I've only played Eliwood mode before and I found her better. I can't remember when she joins vs his join time, although I thought she was earlier too.

Put simply, availability matters because of the time you can spend training your units.