- Rankings of all creatures. - Subjective rankings?? - An idea doomed to criticism. I just looked and immediately saw: gremlin - 92, gremlin+ -- 103

+

Such rankings have no practical application, unlike "rankings" based on AI Value or at least rankings based on simple cost, which are sometimes inaccurate (ifrit is considered weaker than nagas? lol), but at least they are proportional and logical.

For example, according to the proposed formula, it turns out that a unit will receive the same increase in ranking if it increases its defense from 1 to 2 (doubling it) as if it increases its health from 10 to 20 (also doubling it). But this is complete nonsense. The idea of "normalizing" characteristics in this way, without taking into account their real importance in combat or game formulas, is doomed to failure from the start.

Also, the question should be asked: what is the use of knowing that one creature has a rating of 110 and another has a rating of 90? Does this mean that 9 of the first creatures are equal to 11 of the second creatures? Not at all, because the rankings don't even try to be proportional. Unlike price or AI Value.

The point is not even that "everyone has an opinion that should be respected." But that the proposed rankings don't even try to be useful in any way. The author does not offer any use for them. No conclusions can be drawn about the relative strength of creatures or the benefits of hiring them (and why is cost even mentioned?).

In my opinion, such rankings belong in a "beauty contest" section, and if FizMig doesn't have one yet, it should be created (or it's easier to just delete the meaningless content).