Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Empirate" data-source="post: 5663167" data-attributes="member: 78958">I think a lot of what Arrowhawk's complaints regarding the tiers is about is that JaronK used numerative descriptors for the tiers. This can lead to a (false) observation that &quot;the tier system is numerical, ergo quantifiable, ergo needs to be mathematically provable&quot;. This is not the case.Instead of &quot;1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6&quot;, the tiers could easily have been labeled &quot;Epsilon, Gordion, Delphi, Hephaistos, Okeanos, Tyche&quot;: &quot;Gordion&quot; classes are generally about as powerful as &quot;Epsilon&quot; classes, but the latter have more versatility much of the time. &quot;Tyche&quot; classes are not worth playing unless in a very low-power environment, and will struggle to solve even simple problems much of the time. A party composed of all &quot;Delphi&quot; and &quot;Hephaistos&quot; classes can be expected to be able to perform well in most fields, but will usually not be able to trivialize any challenge with a single ability. Etc.But JaronK used numbers - why? Because there's a progression from &quot;most powerful AND versatile&quot; to &quot;least powerful AND versatile&quot;, and numbers show this more easily than other names (although a, b, c etc. will work as well).HOWEVER, the general statement that there is a progression from &quot;most whatever&quot; to &quot;least whatever&quot; doesn't mean that it is quantifiable. In fact, the tiers are qualitative categories, measured not in DPS, or spells/day, or something else, but in qualitative standards. JaronK provides these standards in short, concise descriptions. He also provides a bunch of example challenges, qualitatively measuring each class against their potential to perform well in a number of situations.To remind you what the tiers actually mean:Insistence on quantifiability of tiers, or game balance for that matter, misses the point. By an unmeasurable distance. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Empirate, post: 5663167, member: 78958"] I think a lot of what Arrowhawk's complaints regarding the tiers is about is that JaronK used numerative descriptors for the tiers. This can lead to a (false) observation that "the tier system is numerical, ergo quantifiable, ergo needs to be mathematically provable". This is not the case. Instead of "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6", the tiers could easily have been labeled "Epsilon, Gordion, Delphi, Hephaistos, Okeanos, Tyche": "Gordion" classes are generally about as powerful as "Epsilon" classes, but the latter have more versatility much of the time. "Tyche" classes are not worth playing unless in a very low-power environment, and will struggle to solve even simple problems much of the time. A party composed of all "Delphi" and "Hephaistos" classes can be expected to be able to perform well in most fields, but will usually not be able to trivialize any challenge with a single ability. Etc. But JaronK used numbers - why? Because there's a progression from "most powerful AND versatile" to "least powerful AND versatile", and numbers show this more easily than other names (although a, b, c etc. will work as well). HOWEVER, the general statement that there is a progression from "most whatever" to "least whatever" doesn't mean that it is quantifiable. In fact, the tiers are [I]qualitative [/I]categories, measured not in DPS, or spells/day, or something else, but in [I]qualitative [/I]standards. JaronK provides these standards in short, concise descriptions. He also provides a bunch of example challenges, [I]qualitatively [/I]measuring each class against their potential to perform well in a number of situations. To remind you what the tiers [I]actually mean[/I]: Insistence on quantifiability of tiers, or game balance for that matter, misses the point. By an unmeasurable distance. :p [/QUOTE]

Verification