Defining Efficiency

[Narga_Rocks]

Wolt has that one turn in his favor, Fir's use in Chapter 9 onwards is more efficient and actually requires less turns than trying to use Wolt in Chapter 3 onwards. Wolt is dead weight; Fir is not. Therefore, if she can get a couple kills in chapters after Chapter 4 (ie Chapter 9 onwards) or chip well enough, she's obviously doing better than Wolt because things like that contribute far more to low turns than being a dead weight after Chapter 1.

Do we need to explain Economic Profit and Opportunity Cost to you? As a basic example of the implications, if there is a deployment cap of, say, 10, and Fir is the 12th best unit that can be deployed, she'd be a net negative for deploying her. This is because if you deployed the top 10, you'd be better off than if you just deployed the top 9 + Fir. Hence, she'd be a net negative (assuming it's not possible to complete a chapter in the same number of turns with Fir compared to without). Hence, Wolt's forced deployment chapters would put him above Fir, as what he achieves before we bench him is postitive, and Fir is never positive.

At least, that's the argument they are using here. If we are considering optimal strategies and rewarding characters for being part of the optimal strategies, then Wolt should be rewarded for being capable of pulling a net positive.

[Anouleth]

Not responding to you anymore in this thread, you're not only countering points I am not making but it's way off topic too.

Congratulations. I started this thread in an attempt to get some feedback on the formula and a more concrete definition of efficiency but I got absolutely nothing out of it but a raised blood pressure.

Pfft, don't blame me. If your definition of efficiency leads to conclusions that you don't like, that's not my fault.

[Lord Raven]

My definition of efficiency is not too different from yours, it just happens that I feel the lower turn, chancier (and i'm not even that ridiculous about chancy strategies; 75% is not very chancy, whereas 50% is where it gets ridiculous) are more efficient than higher turn, less chancy strategies simply because of a mathematical formula that's been shown to work via series. Everything else is just an implication from people who have said "this is the way I argue"- where it's the unit being deployed and the rest of the units are the best units to use at that portion of the game.

If we are considering optimal strategies and rewarding characters for being part of the optimal strategies, then Wolt should be rewarded for being capable of pulling a net positive.

Yes, he should, and that is why he is beating most of his tier right now.

Furthermore, I wasn't aware we were judging tier lists by net positives and opportunity costs- if the unit in the tier list is assumed deployed (hence the main way to judge them), then what are you supposed to assume for every other unit being deployed?

Edited September 17, 2011 by Mercenary Raven

[Narga_Rocks]

Furthermore, I wasn't aware we were judging tier lists by net positives and opportunity costs

We aren't really doing anything so consistent. It seems to be part of many considerations, and yet not used across the board. Also, some people argue it more often than others. GE is implementing it here for Wolt > Fir.

- if the unit in the tier list is assumed deployed (hence the main way to judge them), then what are you supposed to assume for every other unit being deployed?

But that isn't always the case. Marcus is deployed when he is good, and left alone when he isn't. If there is no assumption of deployment for everyone, then shouldn't there be a cost calculated on deployment? Beyond that, even if deployment is assumed, it is potentially reasonable to consider what we'd have if we deployed someone else.

[Anouleth]

My definition of efficiency is not too different from yours, it just happens that I feel the lower turn, chancier (and i'm not even that ridiculous about chancy strategies; 75% is not very chancy, whereas 50% is where it gets ridiculous) are more efficient than higher turn, less chancy strategies simply because of a mathematical formula that's been shown to work via series.

So much for "objectivity". All this has just been because you "felt" that chancy strategies are acceptable?

[Lord Raven]

We aren't really doing anything so consistent. It seems to be part of many considerations, and yet not used across the board. Also, some people argue it more often than others. GE is implementing it here for Wolt > Fir.

I find it weird to see arguments between two people over tier lists where some ignore opportunity costs and some don't.

But that isn't always the case. Marcus is deployed when he is good, and left alone when he isn't. If there is no assumption of deployment for everyone, then shouldn't there be a cost calculated on deployment? Beyond that, even if deployment is assumed, it is potentially reasonable to consider what we'd have if we deployed someone else.

I don't think there should be a cost calculated for deployment, I think the nature of the tier list takes care of that. A better unit is obviously given more priority for a slot or looks better.

So much for "objectivity". All this has just been because you "felt" that chancy strategies are acceptable?

Yes. And I am not the only one either. Far from the only one. It's also somewhat foolproof in that a completely low chance is multiplied by a very high number and a "fairly high but not quite 100%" is multiplied by a pretty low number overall. People are free to argue lower chances all they want, but I believe the strategy that has a lower turn value than another which has a low-but-not-as-low turn value should both be factored in, but the former should have more weight. Edited September 18, 2011 by Mercenary Raven

[Narga_Rocks]

I don't think there should be a cost calculated for deployment, I think the nature of the tier list takes care of that. A better unit is obviously given more priority for a slot or looks better.

This runs into trouble, though, when you have one character that is only deployed during its free chapters because it sucks outside them and another character that only ever has unforced chapters. Fir can be compared to Alan, Lance, and Rutger easily enough. She loses, it doesn't matter about deployment. But then you compare to Wolt. If deployment has a cost, she loses. If deployment doesn't have a cost, she wins. The tier list doesn't really take care of that as you can't easily state which unit wins.

[Lord Raven]

Then that argument applies to units where they share chapters in a preparations screen. In which case, it should be specified somewhere what is taken into consideration and what is assumed when the unit is being used. It says in the FAQ everyone judges by that "The better a unit is, the higher chance of them being used"- that is where I drew my statement of "deploy that unit, and assume every other unit is the best unit to use for that chapter." A weird standard indeed, but it's something I'm interested in learning how to hammer out because I don't feel it's enough to leave the definition of efficiency as vague as it currently is. Especially since the Tier List FAQ is sort of outdated and states something about combat usefulness when in reality, combat usefulness isn't everything (if arguments about Thany, Vanessa, and Mordecai are of note).

[Narga_Rocks]

Then that argument applies to units where they share chapters in a preparations screen. In which case, it should be specified somewhere what is taken into consideration and what is assumed when the unit is being used. It says in the FAQ everyone judges by that "The better a unit is, the higher chance of them being used"- that is where I drew my statement of "deploy that unit, and assume every other unit is the best unit to use for that chapter." A weird standard indeed, but it's something I'm interested in learning how to hammer out because I don't feel it's enough to leave the definition of efficiency as vague as it currently is. Especially since the Tier List FAQ is sort of outdated and states something about combat usefulness when in reality, combat usefulness isn't everything (if arguments about Thany, Vanessa, and Mordecai are of note).

Yeah, the FAQ was from the good ol' days. Then dondon got a hold of things and there's a lot more leaning towards opportunity cost of deployment as well as optimal strategies and lowest turncounts. I think that's around the point I stopped caring and Interceptor became a background arguer. I frankly have no idea what the heck they are going for now, sometimes.

[Anouleth]

I find it weird to see arguments between two people over tier lists where some ignore opportunity costs and some don't.

I don't think there should be a cost calculated for deployment, I think the nature of the tier list takes care of that.

The issue with not applying a cost to deployment is that characters with lots of availability get placed over characters with less availability. Take for example, Boyd versus Caineghis. If you don't penalise Boyd for being deployed, then Boyd does far over the course of the game than Caineghis could ever hope to do. In this way, the tier list is valuing Boyd being able to contribute a lot to a sub-optimal playthrough over Caineghis contributing a small amount to an optimal playthrough.

People are free to argue lower chances all they want, but I believe the strategy that has a lower turn value than another which has a low-but-not-as-low turn value should both be factored in, but the former should have more weight.

It's one thing to suggest that the optimum strategy should have more weight, but it's quite another to suggest that it is infinitely more value than sub-optimal playthroughs, which should be used purely as a tie-breaker. Fir vs Wolt demonstrates that: Fir can contribute a significant amount to sub-optimal playthroughs, and that should be more valuable than Wolt being able to contribute a small amount to optimal playthroughs.

[Lord Raven]

I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort. I never stated it was infinity more valuable, I merely stated it should have more weight.

[Narga_Rocks]

I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort. I never stated it was infinity more valuable, I merely stated it should have more weight.

Unfortunately, "more weight" is kinda ambiguous. Maybe you two are seeing different values implied by "more weight".

[Anouleth]

Unfortunately, "more weight" is kinda ambiguous. Maybe you two are seeing different values implied by "more weight".

The way he put it, sub-optimal playthroughs would only be used as a tie breaker. Implying that no amount of sub-optimal contribution could ever match optimal contributions: which implies that optimal contributions are "infinitely" more valuable than sub-optimal ones.

[Lord Raven]

That is not what I said or even attempted to imply.

[Aethereal]

Raven, the point that got to me is somewhat contradictory stances. I want to explain, and I don't want it to be me "twisting" words, or your intended meaning, or whatever, so I'll be really specific. I'm also not harping trying to harp on specific cases which you could be swayed on, but your overall stance, and showing you the conclusion of those stances.

There is no measurable way to judge efficiency as it stands now, and the fact that people use "Turns saved" in some arguments and then when a unit like Edward comes around who is generally poor throughout the game but is good in the first couple chapters he's in- without even scraping high tier

Wolt's post-chapter 5 isn't very heavy factoring as his very minor pre-chapter 5 contributions. You can tell by the pre-Chapter 5 that his performance is poor and if you pour resources into him he is still poor so... since he's not even required past chapter 5, he cannot be considered a hindrance simply because you have the option to not use him.

But she has decent enough offense against Brigands and Fighters in the following chapter and she is able to contribute WAY more in the next couple chapters than Wolt can in his own chapters. In fact, Wolt's chipping is barely worth anything in the chapters he's in; he's not even *that* useful for when he exists but this is for neither here nor there.

This quote is referring to Fir.

If someone contributes more to optimum strategies then they obviously are better because they are contributing to the most efficiency strategy.

Wolt has that one turn in his favor, Fir's use in Chapter 9 onwards is more efficient and actually requires less turns than trying to use Wolt in Chapter 3 onwards. Wolt is dead weight; Fir is not. Therefore, if she can get a couple kills in chapters after Chapter 4 (ie Chapter 9 onwards) or chip well enough, she's obviously doing better than Wolt because things like that contribute far more to low turns than being a dead weight after Chapter 1.

I'm not completely positive on the first quote, because I feel like you either didn't finish the thought, or "without even scraping high tier" is meant to be the conclusion of the sentence. I'm kinda assuming you mean you're upset that Edward isn't high tier, but this could be wrong if you just didn't type out the rest of the sentence, I just have no way of knowing that. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here though.

So, Edward and Wolt are your "Contribute something to the start, do nothing later" units. They contribute to pretty much any efficient playthrough (I'm sure you'd still get low turns without Wolt, but it's the principle.)

Additionally, you say that Wolt has one turn in his favor, and Fir's use after C9 is more efficient. But, by the judgement that the most efficient strategy has a lot of meaning, or that "if some one contributes more to optimum strategies then they are obviously better", and understanding that Fir contributes to 0 optimum strategies, with the possible exception of her recruitment chapter, then Wolt is obviously better. Additionally she doesn't contribute If she happens to save 1 turn in that chapter, and Wolt's pre-C5 contributions only include saving 1 turn, then they would be the same, I guess, but that's still a pretty bold statement to make. I realize that that is NOT what you specifically said in your quote, but the idea that an optimum strategy indicates which unit is better, indicates that a unit who is used in optimum strategy's contributions>any unit who does not.

You say that Wolt cannot be considered a hindrance past Chapter 5 because you have the option to not use him. I disagree, but then, later so did you? You said that Wolt is dead weight, and that it is more efficient to use Fir in Ch.9 Onward than Wolt in Ch.5 Onward. You also said that this shows that if Fir can get some kills or chip at some enemies, she does more than Wolt. I agree with that, but I can then say that this is contradictory to your stance that optimum strategies hold weight. It COSTS turns to use Fir over other units, or it is at least not saving us any turns. Since turncounts are what you wanted to compare by, she does not contribute "WAY more". She kills more, but I don't think that killing is the same contributing. I completely agree that units should be considered used, but this idea that there should be a time when Wolt is considered done, as in "Oh, we drop him here, and it doesn't hurt him or his placement that we do", yet he is considered bad because he is being compared to a unit who you think we should use after the 'optimum' time to drop her, is backwards. The optimum time to drop Fir is after C9. This is what I meant when I said it's arbitrary to decide who gets dropped when. You CAN do it, but it is not objective to do so, unless only considering optimum strategies.

To summarize, here's what I mean:

I agree that Wolt<Fir.

I think Wolt<Fir, because I think that non-optimum playthroughs hold at least as much weight as optimum ones, and that turncounts, while important, should not be looked at through the lense of optimum playthroughs. It should be "What can each character contribute to a complete playthrough of this game?"

I also think this because I believe that being unusable after a certain point is a point to be held against a unit, not that it is "not considered a hindrance, simply because you have the option not to use him".

Obviously Optimum playthroughs have some importance to them. But there's no way that they should tell you who is "obviously better". At all.

[Lord Raven]

You CAN do it, but it is not objective to do so, unless only considering optimum strategies.

I changed my stance halfway through (kinda subtly; it was more or less in the sense that I was applying "no arbitrary cut-off" to prove that a unit is actually poor enough to stay where he is, which is consistent enough with arguing that they aren't being used after a certain chapter [sorta complicated to word, but it's just easier to say I changed my stance]), but I am not arguing Edward into high tier because it actually is consistent with his being dead weight after a certain point.

I do know what you mean though, and I don't think optimum strategies are as big a weight in judgment as many people took it. But I still feel that units who are the crux of an optimal turncount strategy have not only that going for them but regular efficient strategies too because they still have the same advantages over other units.

I generally agree with what you said, though.

[Loki Laufeyson]

I frankly have no idea what the heck they are going for now, sometimes.

Hah! I feel that way all the time. I have no idea what anyone really aims for anymore. Even after reading four pages of shit on this thread, i still am unclear just whats considered efficient when playing Fire Emblem.

[Ike-Mike]

Trying to find the best and most versatile tools and the most optimal way to beat the game as quickly and with the most rewards as possible...

Fire Emblem truly is the shmup of SRPGs!

[Celice]

Hah! I feel that way all the time. I have no idea what anyone really aims for anymore. Even after reading four pages of shit on this thread, i still am unclear just whats considered efficient when playing Fire Emblem.

Clearly involving people to decide leads to the most inefficient outcome.

[dondon151]

Once again, Celice feels compelled to express his uncontainable snark.

[Celice]

Merci. It's nice to see you at the tail each time.

[Vykan12]

Been checking the forums once in a while for the past few months, finally an interesting topic! Well, at least for the first 10-20 posts, then the arguments just go in circles with ridiculous walls of text.

Tier debating was so much more amusing in the dark ages where most people would use fanboyism as their main argument for moving a character up/down in a tier list. Then you could rip their argument to shreds. Now we spend more time arguing about some almighty tiering standard than we do actually arguing about character placement.

The reality is, FE tiering is ultimately subjective, and it's a vain effort trying to objectify something that is subjective at heart. Besides, true objectivity would take all the fun out of it, in fact I'd argue that it already has. Debating your favorite character loses a lot of its appeal to most people when it turns into a statistics and optimization problem. It's more of a math exercise than a battle of clashing wits.

Believe it or not, I'd say the biggest problem with FE tiering is that it's simply being taken too seriously. People are recording entire "efficiency playthroughs" dedicated to helping the tiering process. People will spend hours making huge write-ups about instances that would never happen in normal play (that is, play that doesn't require exceptional dondon-level planning) to prove one character > another. People will get so emotionally attached to their tiering views that they will argue endlessly with an opposing viewpoint, no matter how many circular arguments and rationalizations are involved. And, above all, esoteric questions are constantly being raised. How do we measure efficiency? What makes one character better than another? Might as well be asking, "what is the meaning of life?" "are we real, or are a product of the matrix?".

Tiering was a fun little concept that exploded in the FE community, but the well has really run dry. Every game except maybe FE12 has been discussed to death. The increasing intensity of discussion is alienating more and more people from the process that aren't already on the hardcore bandwagon. And again, the arguments have gotten so intense in nature that we spend most of our energy focusing on the core structure of tiering, but said structure is always going to be shaky because of the game's intensely statistical nature. A character could get slightly blessed in an important stat, which produces a butterfly effect that makes the unit awesome. The team you uses will affect the performance of the character you're trying to evaluate. One player might reset much more than another, and therefore accept bigger risks in his/her playstyle. Personal biases will affect who you chose to give exp to, and how you allocate your resources. I could go on forever.

I say, **** efficiency up a horsie's anus. Stop debating tier criteria and just compare characters based on your own arbitrary standards. It would probably be a ****storm at first, but the reduced rigor would do it some good as an argumentative construct. I say this half jokingly, I honestly think tiering is a lost cause at this point.

Now watch as someone takes the time to address every point in my post and tell me at length that I'm wrong. Could be entertaining. Though, not as entertaining as BOOBIES.

[Florete]

Though, not as entertaining as BOOBIES.

...That's one way to put it.

I actually largely agree with you. I haven't been following this topic, but I definitely find it annoying when half the arguments I get involved in come down to tier philosophy. Everything just feels so formulaic but I don't think there's an easy fix.

[dondon151]

We've gone too far to revert back to the dark ages.

Might as well be asking, "what is the meaning of life?" "are we real, or are a product of the matrix?".

This is a huge hyperbole. We know what makes some characters better than others. If we took two random characters from any often discussed FE game and matched them, 90% of the time we'd agree on which one is better than the other. The remaining 10% generally falls into the realm of competing tiering philosophy as opposed to which character is actually better.

But isn't that really what drives tiering? The revolution in tiering philosophy from 3, 4 years ago has resulted in a massive upheaval of pretty much every tier list. Before we were arguing about things like whether base stats or 20/20 stats were more important; now we're arguing about things like whether forced deployment in the first 5 chapters of the game or mediocre performance for the entirety of the game is more important. I'm sure back then it was once we established a criterion for the tier list, the characters affected by the paradigm shift were argued into their new positions.

Edited September 21, 2011 by dondon151

[Vykan12]

I took the time to read through the rest of the topic without skimming, and while I stand by my previous post, it seems the same contentious issues keep popping up.

-Do we assume optimal deployment or is the player free to choose any team he wants to raise?

-If a character starts strong but dwindles over time, should said character eventually be dropped from the line-up?

-Do we look at everything in terms of net positives and opportunity cost, or are we free to allocate resources more liberally?

-Are we strictly aiming for low turn count, or is there an agreeable compromise between efficiency and reliability?

-Should a terrible character with some forced deployment be better than a mediocre character with no forced deployment?

-How do we compensate for usefulness that is skyrocketed by circumstance (i.e. 1-P Edward type stuff)?

Having a difference in opinion in just one of these many areas can lead to a serious argumentative impasse. Now just imagine debating with someone who differs in philosophy on multiple points. You might as well try drowning a fish. What's worse is that you probably don't know your "opponent's" specific philosophies, but rather have to infer them from his/her posts.

Not that this is a solution, but if we could get the community as a whole to take a certain stance on all these issues (and ones I may have forgotten), and stick with their decisions, we might actually get somewhere. Perhaps a poll could be useful for that? Some might argue the majority stance would be flawed since the people partaking in a tier debate can be counted on 1 or 2 hands. Ionno. Maybe it's best that people have differing philosophies, and we should embrace that instead of trying to come up with some unified standard of character comparison.

But isn't that really what drives tiering? The revolution in tiering philosophy from 3, 4 years ago has resulted in a massive upheaval of pretty much every tier list. Before we were arguing about things like whether base stats or 20/20 stats were more important; now we're arguing about things like whether forced deployment in the first 5 chapters of the game or mediocre performance for the entirety of the game is more important. I'm sure back then it was once we established a criterion for the tier list, the characters affected by the paradigm shift were argued into their new positions.

I agree that the paradigm shift from 20/20 stats to more recent ideas was pretty awesome, but now we're at a point where pretty much all arguments eventually devolve into tiering philosophy, which I think is just as responsible for tier "recession" as the series losing out in popularity and long arguments running their course.

Edit: To further reinforce my point, I want to draw attention to a post Cynthia made.

I think one of the main issues with defining efficiency is assuming whether characters are deployed or not, how long they are deployed for, and if they are "punished" for taking up a slot. There isn't a right answer to these questions but this is usually what I assume:

Character uis deployed in every chapter they are in. This becomes tricky for characters who start off good and then decline sharply (like FE6 Marcus), or when the amount of available slots decreases significantly (gaiden chapters for instance).

Characters are not punished for taking up a slot. Basically this measures what characters can do, instead of what other characters could have done with the same slot. Their performance relative to other characters is still important, but it is an attempt to avoid double jeopardy situations. For example, Fir being worse than Rutger is already represented by her being below him, conaidering that we could have fielded him over Fir in a Fir vs. Klein comparison doesn't seem especially relevant to me.

I actually think this is a pretty cool idea, but that's beside the point. IMO Cynthia's philosophy is very unique, I'd be surprised if any of the serious FE debaters shared this exact viewpoint. This is just to illustrate the potential for vastly different philosphies that can be produced from the few issues I've presented.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Vykan12