Byleth:

• Physically, it is Byleth's body.
• She is named Byleth and listed among Byleth's alts in the barracks.

Sothis:

• Has Sothis' VA
• All dialogue is Sothis speaking, not Byleth.
• Sothis is a separate consciousness from Byleth, not an alternate identity but her own being.
• In the context of Three Hopes, at this point Byleth has "died" and given her body over to Sothis to get revenge on Shez for killing Jeralt.

What makes it an alt of a character? It being them physically, or it having the soul of that character? Do you consider the Grima Robins to be Grima alts or Robin alts?

This is another thread of calculations based on the tier list's new method of calculating the performance of the ever-elusive FE4 banner. It's a long read of why I think there are serious flaws in this new methodology, along with examples that I think illustrate just how unreliable it can be. I don't think that calculating hourly decline on the second day can be used to extrapolate Day 1 performances.

From what I understand, in layman's terms, the new methodology u/Flareblitz12 has used is essentially:

1. Find the ranking at 8am the next day ("morning ranking")

2. Find the latest ranking from that day ("evening ranking")

3. Divide the difference by the number of hours between the two rankings (usually 15) to get an hourly decline rate

4. Take the morning ranking, and minus the hourly decline rate multiplied by the number of hours after midnight (usually 8)

Essentially, it assumes that there is a constant decrease in banner performance over the course of the second day, and that from the morning ranking you can extrapolate backwards to find the end ranking at the end of Day 1.

Genealogy NH

So here's how the calculation works in practise:

(Evening - Morning) / Number of hours between = Hourly decline

Morning - (Hourly decline x hours from midnight) = End of Day 1 Ranking

Using this method, the result is that the Genealogy banner ranked 82JP/180US at the end of Day 1:

82JP

(107 - 91)/15 = 1.07

91 - (1.07 x 8) = 82.47 (82JP)

180US

(192 - 184)/15 = 0.53

184 - (0.53 x 8) = 179.73 (180US)

The question is, does this method actually work? The best way to test its accuracy is to actually apply it to the Day 2 morning and evening rankings of banners we DO know the Day 1 rankings for. Can it be used to accurately extrapolate the peak rankings from the previous day?

Well, no. Not really.

FE7 New Heroes

First of all, the banner most similar to the FE4 New Heroes banner is the FE7 one, due to similar rankings in the data we do have. It's also the fairest example to give first because it shows Flare's model coming somewhat close to the actual result, before we get into every other recent banner.

At March 17th, 7am GMT the FE7 NH banner was at 186US.

At March 17th, 4pm GMT the FE7 NH banner was at 199US. This is the latest we have data for it because it fell off Sensortower very quickly, unlike the FE4 banner which was up for all of Day 2.

So we take the morning ranking, we take the evening ranking, and we take the number of hours of data we have.

Throwing this into the formula, you get:

(199 - 186)/9 = 1.44

186 - (1.44 x 8) = 174.48 (174US)

However, the actual ranking for the FE7 NH banner was 165US, so the formula lowballed the ranking by +9US. That doesn't seem like a lot, but it greatly increases the perception of the banner when it comes to how the data is formatted on the charts (I'll get back to this later). The margin of error will also change depending on what times you sample from.

On the JP side:

At March 17th, 8am GMT the banner ranked at 83JP.

At March 17th, 11pm GMT the banner ranked at 108JP.

(108 - 83)/15 = 1.67

83 - (1.67 x 8) = 69.64 (70JP)

Sensortower's actual report for the FE7 banner was 69JP/165US. The formula would have output 70JP/174US (+1JP and +9US). The formula lowballs the banner and inflates its figures, but in this instance it's only slightly. The issue comes when you begin applying it to other banners:

Lyon & Sombron

Actual: 94JP/141US

Flare's method:

106JP

(132 - 115) / 15 = 1.13

115 - (1.13 x 8) = 105.96 (106JP)

169US

(174 - 171)/15 = 0.2

171 - (0.2 x 8) = 169.4 (169US)

Difference: +12JP, +28US

This is a huge miss that would have radically changed where the banner placed on the chart.

3H Kids

Actual: 45JP/106US

Flare's method:

51JP

(74 - 59)/15 = 1

59 - (1 x 8) = 51 (51JP)

110US

(145 - 122)/15 = 1.53

122 - (1.53 x 8) = 109.76 (110US)

Difference: +6JP, +4US

Emblem Lucina

Actual: 70JP/144US

Flare's method:

62JP

(120 - 82)/15 = 2.53

82 - (2.53 x 8) = 61.76 (62JP)

152US

(152 - 152)/15 = 0

152 - (0 x 8) = 152 (152US)

Difference: -8JP, +8US

Spring

Actual: 63JP/134US

Flare's method:

67JP

(91 - 75)/15 = 1.06

75 - (1.06 x 8) = 66.5 (67JP)

151US

(171 - 158)/15 = 0.86

158 - (0.86 x 8) = 151.12 (151US)

Difference: +4JP, +17US

Mythic A!Tiki

Actual: 91JP/159US

Flare's method:

80JP

(117 - 93)/15 = 1.6

93 - (1.6 x 8) = 80 (80JP)

165US

(163 - 168)/ 15 = -0.3

163 - (-0.3 x 8) = 165.4 (165US)

Difference: -10JP, +6US

When you look at these differences, the method averages between a -10 overestimate and a +11 underestimate on the JP side, and anywhere from a +3 underestimate to a +30 underestimate on the US side.

The main issue with this method is that it assumes a flat rate of decline for banners in their second day, which just doesn't happen. Banners fluctuate, the ranking across the second day is never consistent. In the instance of the Mythic Tiki banner it actually went down, up and back down again on the third day. It also assumes banners of the same type or from the same game will all decline at the same rate, which they don't.

It also incentivises a banner dropping off as fast as possible, like with FE7. The faster the banner drops off, the higher the resulting multiplier is likely to be (as the sum is being divided by less), which means the total being subtracted from the morning ranking increases. Likewise, depending on the timeframe you count, you get completely different results. In essence, the method allows you to get the results you want to get.

Because the method is so inaccurate, and the margin of error is so wide, just on these examples alone the "82JP/180US" estimate could range anywhere from "71JP/153US" to "92JP/177US." Or it could have undercounted it even worse, because I'm sure it's undershot by even bigger margins in banners I didn't look at. There really is no rhyme or reason to the outputs it gives. It almost never gets close to the actual result, and it consistently lowballs banners. It's not so much a question of if it's going to miss, but how hard it's missing by. You would get the same success rate from picking a random number between 1 and 20 on either side and then subtracting it from the morning ranking.

Even at a face value, it's extremely unlikely that the 82JP/180US could be accurate. That would suggest that in the 8 hours between the end of Day 1 and 8am Day 2 the banner only dropped 9 ranks in Japan and 4 ranks in the US. This is just way too low. The FE7 banner, which finished Day 1 at 69JP/165US, was already at 83JP/186US by 8am the next day. That was a drop of 14 ranks in Japan and 21 ranks in the US. The actual Day 1 ranking for the FE4 banner would have been substantially higher than 82JP/180US.

In the hard underestimate scenario, the banner would actually then place something more like what the second OP image shows. Regardless, it's definitely not in the tier that the list claims it is, because as the third OP image shows, even the underestimate is barely behind the Engage seasonal at the top of that tier, and the methodology has been shown to lowball banners.

BUT I'm not claiming that that is how the banner actually ranked. As I stressed in the previous thread, we really, really don't know. The best idea that we have is that at the start of the second day in the US it was tracking alongside the FE7 NH banner, and by the end of the second day it had also levelled off in Japan. That's why in the previous thread I suggested that it did somewhere around the level of FE7, at 69JP/163US.

I would suggest that is probably the ballpark for the banner, high 60s/low 70s in Japan and somewhere in the 160s in the US.

Why does this matter?

This matters because the margin of error in the method is huge, and with the strange way the charts are sometimes laid out, it creates misconceptions that can be extremely misleading.

Now to be fair, these charts are well-made, visually appealing and high effort, and that has to be praised. This is what gives them a sense of legitimacy and professionalism. However, as the third OP image demonstrates, there is honestly no apparent rhyme or reason to the spacing of the different banners away from one another. Apparently, the gap between Engage Valentine's and the (lowballed) estimate for Genealogy is bigger than the gap between the FE7 banner and Mythic Tiki. This makes no sense. Most people don't look at the numbers, but once you do, it becomes clear that they are completely arbitrary. If you look at the gaps, they don't actually reflect a difference in numbers at all, but most casual observers aren't reading these, and take it at face value.

I would suggest some other way of formatting, like simply having two straight lists, one for each region, which just ranks them based on how they performed in either region.

People are already inherently sceptical with Sensortower data. Presenting it in this arbitrary way, and then creating "estimates" for certain banners using a method that will consistently undercount the banner (without actually testing that the method even works), is irresponsible because of the narratives it then generates. It's fine to admit that we just don't have data for one banner out of 40. Sales discourse is already bad enough, we don't need post-data sales discourse where we all come up with our own method for making our own numbers.

The recent post of u/Flareblitz12's banner rankings has led to some controversy over the accuracy of their estimates, so I thought I'd throw my hat into the ring. I believe that you actually CAN get a very good estimate of how the banner did in both the JP and the US regions. I also don't believe there's any malignant conspiracy at play to make FE4 look bad or whatever, because I don't know how many people actually know that you can view Sensortower's data this way.

For those who don't know, Sensortower froze on April 17th, so we don't have actual figures for that day. This means we don't have a reported ranking for that day's New Heroes banner, which was the FE4 one.

What a lot of people don't know is that it is actually possible to retrieve data from various times on the following day, not just the final ranking. If you look inside Sensortower's API, you can actually find unix time codes for a lot of different times on a given day that AREN'T the final ranking. So you can find out how the banner was doing the morning of the next day, or the afternoon, or any time you like if Sensortower pinged it.

If you have an account, this shows every hit Sensortower got over the last three months in the US REGION:

https://app.sensortower.com/api/ios/category/category_history?app_ids=1181774280&os=ios&countries=US&categories=6014&chart_type_ids=topgrossingapplications&start_date=2026-02-05T00%3A00%3A00.000Z&end_date=2026-05-05T00%3A00%3A00.000Z&is_hourly=true

This does it likewise for the JP region:

https://app.sensortower.com/api/ios/category/category_history?app_ids=1181774280&os=ios&countries=JP&categories=6014&chart_type_ids=topgrossingapplications&start_date=2026-02-05T00%3A00%3A00.000Z&end_date=2026-05-05T00%3A00%3A00.000Z&is_hourly=true

===Calculating the US rank===

This is the most controversial part of Flare's estimate, because they seem to have default assumed that it ranked 200+US based on a lack of any data from the end of Day 2. The problem with assuming this is that modern New Heroes banners never rank in the top 200 by the end of Day 2 anyway, so it isn't actually an indication of anything. The FE7 New Heroes banner ALSO didn't rank in the US by the end of Day 2, and that did not have a 200+ Day 1. Because of the timestamps, there is, however, data from the start of Day 2.

"1776499200" is the unix time stamp for April 18th, 8am GMT.

At this point, Sensortower actually does resume reporting data after the freeze, and 8 hours into Day 2, the FE4 banner is STILL at 184US. That means that its ranking on the 17th was likely decently higher than this. And it also means that its ranking in the US definitely was not anywhere near 200+.

Now that we know this, we are able to make a direct comparison with Day 2 of the FE7 New Heroes banner in the US.

"1773730800" is the unix time stamp for March 17th, 7am GMT. It updated an hour earlier than the second day of FE4.

At this point, Sensortower reports that 7 hours in to the second day of FE7's New Heroes banner, the banner is now at 186US.

This means that from points we can measure, the FE4 New Heroes banner was actually outperforming the FE7 New Heroes banner by a very slight margin.

Since FE7 ranked at 165US on Day 1, the simplest estimate is just knocking two off of that.

If I had to guess, FE4's first day in the US was probably 163US.

Regardless, the important thing here is that there is no way it was 200+ on Day 1 if it was still outranking FE7 at the start of Day 2. This, in turn, has huge implications on its final performance. I'll come back to this later.

===Calculating the JP rank===

We actually have two ways of calculating the banner's performance in Japan based on Day 2, because we have more data.

Firstly, we can use the same method again:

We're able to look at "1776499200" again in the JP data. (April 18th, 8am GMT.) Here we see that 8 hours into Day 2, the FE4 banner is at 91JP.

Now we can compare this to "1773734400", which is March 17th, 8am GMT (it actually has a listing unlike the US version), where the FE7 banner was at 83JP.

Alternatively, we have the final ranking for the two days: Day 2 FE7 finished at 108JP. Day 2 of FE4 finished at 107JP. So by the end of the day they were effectively the same. FE4 held up better over the course of Day 2, while FE7 declined faster, so they met at the end.

===Conclusion===

Based on the start of Day 2 data in the US region, and the end of Day 2 data in the JP region, I would estimate that the FE4 New Heroes banner likely ranked something like 69JP/163US on Day 1.

I base this off of FE4 starting Day 2 in the US slightly ahead, and the fact that by the end of Day 2 in Japan, both had roughly evened out. I could also have seen FE4 starting lower on Day 1 in Japan but holding up better, because we can see that it declined at a slower rate on Day 2.

Basically, from the data that is visible, it doesn't seem to be a flop at all, but rather a fairly standard performance for a modern NH banner. We were already able to estimate its JP ranking and it wasn't a horrendous flop in that region - rather it was a fairly standard performance for a modern New Heroes banner there. This method allows us to estimate the same for the US region - where we see the same. It did about average.

Hopefully now that I've put this out there it has cleared things up, and also shows people a way that they can estimate banner performances in the future.