Determining the logic to use in tier lists, take 2

[Progenitus]

Reposting with a new topic since I think it'll catch more people's attention than trying to revive a dead one.

Anyway, reposting what was in the OP of the old topic since it's important.

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=17344&st=0

There seems to be two extreme views on how units are fielded.

Method 1. Some people say that units should/can be dropped once they hit their period of suck, or outlive their usefulness. For example, Marcus/Jeigan aren't fielded/killed off after they outlive their usefulness so they don't drag down their own usefulness with their suck. Basically, everyone is used as efficiently as possible and won't be used if it won't generate any efficiency.

Method 2. Another view is that units are used every chapter. We can't drop Marcus/Jeigan after they outlive their usefulness.

I have problems with both views. For the first one, it basically turns the thing into a maximum efficiency playthrough. In other words, even mid tiers are no longer fielded, as they are not efficient. Then as you get to the bottom tiers, debates become stupidly boring. like, Unit A does a couple rescues or whatever and then run off to be cannon fodder vs unit B does a couple potshots or whatever and then run off to be cannon fodder.

But the other extreme is bad, because Marcus/Jeigan/etc. end up building up an unnecessary amount of suck when it's completely avoidable if you simply didn't field them or had them hide in a corner. It'd be like throwing a dancer on the frontlines and complaining that they can't attack.

Basically, the first one forces you to conform to a certain playstyle (it tells you how to play), but the second is unrealistic.

There needs to be a sort of middle ground, or at least consistent logic. This topic has sprung up in various tier list topics, but I don't ever think a centralized topic was made for it.

Personally, as of right now, how about this?

1) You go with method 1. Assume we are aiming for a maximum efficiency playthrough. However, there is an exception. See number 2.

2) When it is clear that both units cannot...

I) be dropped at a given point in the game, while having accumulated positive utility when used as a full-time unit...

II) Their overall utility throughout the game is negative...

... if both requirements are fulfilled, then we assume that both units are still fielded as full-time units, but now the debate turns into "who hurts the team the LEAST?"

Now, let me try to elaborate on what "full-time unit" means. The unit will try to attack and be a major contributing member to the team. For example, in FE10, we will try to give a poor unit like Lyre the same number of kills as your other fighters you're fielding, such as Ike, Haar, Titania, etc. We will then examine how difficult, or how taxing it is on the rest of the team.

Why the exception? Because debates between low tiers are no longer boring, and more importantly it gives me what I think will be the correct answer. For example, in the case of, say, Lyre vs Fiona, it no longer becomes a debate of "Lyre shoving, etc." vs "Fiona rescuing, blocking ledges, etc", or really silly stuff. It now becomes "if both are used as serious members of the team, who is dragging me down less?"

This will give me what I think is the correct answer to situations such as Wolt vs Treck, as well as Marcus vs Eliwood.

For example, if you strictly adhere to Method 1, it will give us Wolt > Treck and Marucs > Eliwood. Personally I find Wolt > Treck to be very, very silly, but under method 1 it would be true. Wolt can make 1-2 potshots in his forced chapters and contribute more to the team than Treck, who cannot do anything without taking the slot of a superior unit.

But, if you go with Method 2, then it will give us Wolt < Treck and Marcus < Eliwood. Now the latter doesn't make sense. Marcus is too much of a beast earlygame to say that Eliwood's "average" utility throughout the game is greater. I certainly find Marcus to be a much better unit, a more clutch unit, than Eliwood ever will be.

Now, with my suggestion, if my logic is correct, it will give us Wolt < Treck, and Marcus > Eliwood. Why?

Let's look at Marcus vs Eliwood, and check to see if they fulfill both exceptions. Reposting for convenience...

I) be dropped at a given point in the game, while having accumulated positive utility when used as a full-time unit...

II) Their overall utility throughout the game is negative...

Marcus certainly doesn't fulfill requirement I, as he obviously has use from his very first chapter up until midgameish or so. Meanwhile, Eliwood doesn't fulfill requirement II, as while he sucks earlygame, he does pick up eventually, and his overall contributions are positive. Therefore, we go with Rule 1; maximum efficiency. This means Marcus can now be dropped to avoid his mediocre (or downright bad) performance, which of course makes more sense than having a unit that was this useful up until this point be hurting the team when it can be avoided.

Now let's look at Wolt vs Treck.

Both fulfill requirement I. While Wolt is forced in the earlygame chapters and he can make a couple of potshots to gain positive utility, he cannot be used as a "full-time unit" and gain positive utility. Obviously, if Wolt is trying to get the same number of kills as good units like Dieck or Lance, he's going to slow us down. And Treck obviously starts off below average.

They both fulfill requirement II, or at least I'm very sure of it. They may pick up lategame, but their overall contributions will be negative.

Therefore, we will field both as full-time units, and the debate will turn into "who hurts the team the least?" This means Wolt can't "cheat" his way into winning by making a couple of potshots in his forced chapters, and it will let us look at their performance throughout the entire game. While fielding Treck will hurt efficiency, he'll hurt it LESS than Wolt.

This may be a roundabout way to say it, but I was never the best at explaining anything without using a convoluted example or two. Feel free to make comments or suggestions about this.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Andrew W.K.

[Rodykitty]

Instead of trying to determine what should be generally accepted logic, let them be free to debate what they think makes a character good.

[Mekkah]

It would probably be easier to read this if you turned off smileys or used something besides b ) for lists.

I don't mind this solution at all. At a first glance it seems to work for the example provided, but maybe I should try coming up with one that it won't work for...

[Progenitus]

Instead of trying to determine what should be generally accepted logic, let them be free to debate what they think makes a character good.

Except debates between the lower tiers turn into just that; what style of logic/debating to use. We can concentrate all of those kinds of arguments in a single topic, and we won't clutter the tier topics with such arguments.

I don't mind this solution at all. At a first glance it seems to work for the example provided, but maybe I should try coming up with one that it won't work for...

I'd expect this to be difficult for FE10 due to the large cast and how characters have awkward availability and split teams, etc.

also, changing OP.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Andrew W.K.

[Colonel M]

Hmmm...

If I'm determining this right, you want to seek a middle path. Using both of the logics with a bit of a different description.

By the way, I'm not mocking you. I'm actually intrigued in this subject.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Tyranel M

[Rodykitty]

Except debates between the lower tiers turn into just that; what style of logic/debating to use. We can concentrate all of those kinds of arguments in a single topic, and we won't clutter the tier topics with such arguments.

Isn't this what FEG, the site that nobody goes to, is for? Making topics on specific characters?

Anyway, it is true that low tiers end up being logical debates, but I suspect people won't want to let go of their methods of arguing/debate so easily, especially because the premise of this topic will naturally result in a logic that favors one unit over another.

Edited March 2, 2010 by FE3 Player

[Narga_Rocks]

Hmmm...

If I'm determining this right, you want to seek a middle path. Using both of the logics with a bit of a different description.

That's no surprise. Smash has indicated in the past that he's not happy with either outlook and wants something in the middle. The trick is coming up with something that can be applied consistently rather than applying one set of rules for mid-tier and above and a different set of rules for anything below mid-tier. If Mekkah thinks the statements in the first post could work then maybe Smash has found it now. Of course, if Mekkah can show an example where it doesn't work then it's back to the drawing board.

Anyway, there's no reason for other tier lists to follow whatever Smash comes up with. If he can get something he can live with for his own tier list that's great, but like FE3 Player pointed out, guidelines will always favour one unit over another and what Smash can live with, others might not be able to.

Of course, I don't think that this is all that different from what has been proposed in the past by others.

>For any units that can have a decent amount of net positive, use them until they start being negative. ie: use until the opportunity cost of fielding/training them is > what they give us (if they are always positive, field them forever). For any units that start negative, if they can eventually become a net positive, i.e. accumulate enough positive eventually to override their initial negative, then allow them to achieve their maximum value and compare that way. For units that are never positive, force them to be fielded as a form of a tiebreaker and see which one is less negative.<

One difference between this and what Smash is saying (if I'm understanding him right) is that units that aren't very good in their forced chapters don't automatically get to be above units that are never truly positive. With previously proposed solutions, Fiona > Lyre lets Fiona win thanks to free chapters. (since, afterall, +.001 is > any negative number, so there is no reason to field Fiona after her free period, and so she is a net postive, but Lyre never gets a free period and is thus negative overall. Fiona wins outright, and hence there is no need for a tiebreaker where Fiona is fielded every map in which she is available). I'm assuming smash is setting up rules to allow Lyre > Fiona (assuming that when forced to perform Lyre does better in her team than Fiona in hers, which may or may not be true), among other things.

Now, I would like to ask what happens with two equally bad units if one has twice as many chapters of that level of badness. So, if one unit is basically a -3 for each of its 20 chapters, so -60, and the other is -3 for each of its 10 chapters, so -30. As near as I can tell, either of the above solutions (in my post and smash's) result in the -30 winning. But how about if the second unit is a -4 for each of its 10 chapters? It's only a -40 overall, so it wins against the -60, but it is clearly worse for its entire existence because in each chapter it has -4 rather than -3. The above solution in my post results in the -40 winning (which, depending on the exact circumstances, I don't like). I can't figure out which one would win in Smash's set up. The -40 arguably hurts the team less since it is present for less time, but it's worse when it is there and letting the apparently worse unit win would seem to simply punish availability (which is why I don't like that result from the solution above in my post.) "who hurts the team the LEAST?" seems to result in the -40 winning again.

[Progenitus]

Anyway, it is true that low tiers end up being logical debates, but I suspect people won't want to let go of their methods of arguing/debate so easily, especially because the premise of this topic will naturally result in a logic that favors one unit over another.

That's fine. I'm simply trying to make up a logic/style that I think is the best, because it's one I want to use.

That's no surprise. Smash has indicated in the past that he's not happy with either outlook and wants something in the middle. The trick is coming up with something that can be applied consistently rather than applying one set of rules for mid-tier and above and a different set of rules for anything below mid-tier. If Mekkah thinks the statements in the first post could work then maybe Smash has found it now. Of course, if Mekkah can show an example where it doesn't work then it's back to the drawing board.

Of course. I don't want to be arguing semantics in tiers. I want to be arguing the units.

One difference between this and what Smash is saying (if I'm understanding him right) is that units that aren't very good in their forced chapters don't automatically get to be above units that are never truly positive. With previously proposed solutions, Fiona > Lyre lets Fiona win thanks to free chapters. (since, afterall, +.001 is > any negative number, so there is no reason to field Fiona after her free period, and so she is a net postive, but Lyre never gets a free period and is thus negative overall. Fiona wins outright, and hence there is no need for a tiebreaker where Fiona is fielded every map in which she is available). I'm assuming smash is setting up rules to allow Lyre > Fiona (assuming that when forced to perform Lyre does better in her team than Fiona in hers, which may or may not be true), among other things.

Yes, my proposal sought to make those changes. Yes, Fiona > Lyre makes no sense to me. Again, Fiona > Lyre will occur using "method 1" of 100% efficiency, and I don't like that because that method is basically telling us exactly how to play the game.

Now, I would like to ask what happens with two equally bad units if one has twice as many chapters of that level of badness. So, if one unit is basically a -3 for each of its 20 chapters, so -60, and the other is -3 for each of its 10 chapters, so -30. As near as I can tell, either of the above solutions (in my post and smash's) result in the -30 winning. But how about if the second unit is a -4 for each of its 10 chapters? It's only a -40 overall, so it wins against the -60, but it is clearly worse for its entire existence because in each chapter it has -4 rather than -3. The above solution in my post results in the -40 winning (which, depending on the exact circumstances, I don't like). I can't figure out which one would win in Smash's set up. The -40 arguably hurts the team less since it is present for less time, but it's worse when it is there and letting the apparently worse unit win would seem to simply punish availability (which is why I don't like that result from the solution above in my post.) "who hurts the team the LEAST?" seems to result in the -40 winning again.

It makes sense to me. From what I gather, the early joining unit isn't being punished just because of existing for longer, it's being punished because of lower stats.

Okay, let me make an example and see if I can illustrate your example with something a bit more concrete. Let's take Meg. She's rly horrible and crappy. She obviously is level 3 in 1-4. Let's call this Meg, Meg A. Now let's say at the end of 1-E, she's level 15 (let's not argue about her exact level).

Now let's say we have Meg B. She will have the same weapon levels, supports, etc. as Meg A. She joins at the end of 1-E, at level 15, but has -1 to all stats that an average Meg A would have at that level (e.g. if Meg normalyl averages 28 HP at level 15, then Meg B will have 27 HP).

Obviously, when they both exist, Meg A > Meg B due to that stat lead. But is all that suckage over 1-4 to 1-E worth it to train Meg A for that lead in performance when they both exist? I'd certainly say no. Therefore, Meg B > Meg A.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Andrew W.K.

[Silith]

I like this topic.

I mean I'm a hypocrite. I can discuss whether one unit if better then the other for their efficiency and blame others for doing things otherwise but at the same time I'm doing all these Playthroughs doing things as they aren't supposed to be done. (Leanne MVP and my upcoming (if i ever finish it) 1337 reference). Surely I would blame others for doing these things while I do them myself.

Now FE10 is a bit of a strange thing to use as example for it has all these army changes and weird availabilities but you could check at something else.

For example FE:7 Dart. He's a beast arguable the best unit in the game but he isn't in top tier. His low starting stats make him a liability to use not to mention his expensive promotion item cutting on the ranking. So if the normal Dart is Dart A and let's say we make another Dart in the way you did for Meg.

Dart B would join in chapter 25/26 as a Level 1 Berserker with all his stats 1 below the average of Dart A. While it's true that Dart A will have better stats if trained properly in the tier lists Dart B would be higher thanks to him being far more efficient from the time he joins.

I know I basicly repeated your Meg example but I hope you can forgive me. It's some interresting stuff to say the least.

[Integrity]

I only have one question for now 'cause it's still early:

If something happens here, what happens to that sodding Merlinus debate in the FE7 thread now? If it dies, I'll be happy to work on whatever compromise we can.

[Colonel M]

Actually Meg's situation could be applied in FEDS with Cain / Abel vs. Hardin, but the slight problem with that is that Cain and Abel are forced for 3 chapters, but it looks similar to his example.

Also Narga, I wouldn't turn this suggestion down. I don't think this is smash's way of getting "his way". Either argument favors one unit over another in the first place (Option 1 favors Marcus, Option 2 favors Eliwood). Though I agree that FEG should've been used a little bit more to help narrow down the discussion (and it worked), that's not what I think the point is here. It's to help narrow down a more "sensible" logic in which most tier players can agree to, but of course that's up to the interpretation of said people.

[Interceptor]

The entirety of this thread's major points can be adequately summarized by something that could be the title of a book: The Search for An Appropriate Logical Construct to Justify Smash's Personal Feelings.

I understand where you are coming from, here, but trying to solve everything in a single massive ruleset -- one ring tier list to rule them all -- is utterly quixotic. What is the point? This might blow everyone's minds -- so make sure you're sitting down before you continue -- but we already have a solution to this non-problem, and it goes something like: "make more than one list". Your endgame determines the best course of action.

- Are you trying to guide someone on how to play effectively? Make a ranking thread with specific advice and long-form analysis, like Colonel Tyranel M did for FEDS.

- Is your goal to figure out where all of the units in a game fit relative to each other in their contributions to the most efficient play style? See RFoF's FE10 tier list.

- Or perhaps you want to argue about unit contribution to some arbitrary in-game goal with conflicting criteria? FE7 ranking thread ahoy.

- Do you want to do something retarded? Make a tier list using gross utility.

- Maybe you want something different? See the esoteric list with weird-ass guidelines that the FEFF cabal came up with for FE9. Or a list where you throw a bunch of boosters on shit units and see how well they do.

Point is, TIMTOWTODI. I see no reason to amalgamate two opposing guidelines into a single list, when the obvious solution is that they just live peacefully in their own little worlds. There is no value added to your special omelet, except that you personally approved of the ingredients and like what you had for breakfast. That works for you, but what does it do for everyone else?

Edited March 2, 2010 by Interceptor

[dondon151]

I have to agree with Int, minus the eloquence. I'm fine with creating a set of rules that encourage discussion, but at the same time I absolutely hate inconsistency.

And for the lower tiers, you're basically completely ignoring the value of free deployment slots. I'm 98% convinced that Sanaki vs. Bastian was fresh on your mind when you created this topic, and under your proposal it seems like the value of Sanaki's free deployment is completely ignored.

[Narga_Rocks]

I have to agree with Int, minus the eloquence. I'm fine with creating a set of rules that encourage discussion, but at the same time I absolutely hate inconsistency.

And for the lower tiers, you're basically completely ignoring the value of free deployment slots. I'm 98% convinced that Sanaki vs. Bastian was fresh on your mind when you created this topic, and under your proposal it seems like the value of Sanaki's free deployment is completely ignored.

Whatever may have sparked new interest in this topic, Smash has been, for a long time, trying to come up with a "logic":

a: he can consistently apply throughout a tier list

b: such that he can live with the results of said logic

Both are necessary, but it is hard to accomplish both a and b at the same time.

It's an admirable quest (sort of), so whatever the questionable timing it doesn't really matter.

[CATS]

Separate tier lists obviously is not an effective solution. There are no two separate tier lists for net and gross in FE7 and FE6 nor have there ever been. Even were this to occur, I have a strong feeling that one or the other would get more activity and marginalize the other one anyways. Look at the FE7 board right now. Is anyone posting in the FE7 efficiency list? No. Even were both of them to get activity, this remains arguably undesirable since it would split people's attention; the amount of activity in each list would likely be less than the amount of activity in a combined list.

The fact is that debates over this issue still happen. Look at that Fir/Lot debate in the FE6 list that happened like yesterday. The best way to get this stuff out of the tier lists is to get people to agree on one consistent standard so that they no longer have any reason to argue over it, and I don't blame smash for pursuing this goal. I also agree 100% with the system he proposed; it creates the best combination of both accuracy with regards to contributions towards efficiency, and facilitating discussion. Maybe he's only putting it out there to justify his personal beliefs, but that's irrelevant to the fact that it's a good idea.

[Colonel M]

Look at the FE7 board right now. Is anyone posting in the FE7 efficiency list? No. Even were both of them to get activity, this remains arguably undesirable since it would split people's attention; the amount of activity in each list would likely be less than the amount of activity in a combined list.

Keep in mind it's two entirely different tier lists where you can't have a happy medium in. Even I hate Ranks to some extents and would play the game more efficiently anyway. Then again, others think the complete opposite A better example, IMO, is the FE10 board atm.

[Interceptor]

CATS, I'm tired of seeing your every contribution to the tiering scene to be the same thing, ad nauseum: repeated assertions with flimsy or non-existent supporting evidence. No matter what actually happens in reality, you spin events in a way most favorable to your philosophy, like it was your job.

For example:

Even were this to occur, I have a strong feeling that one or the other would get more activity and marginalize the other one anyways. Look at the FE7 board right now. Is anyone posting in the FE7 efficiency list? No. Even were both of them to get activity, this remains arguably undesirable since it would split people's attention; the amount of activity in each list would likely be less than the amount of activity in a combined list.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that the whole is less than the sum of its parts? I'd ask for the bar graph of tier list activity that you used for the underlying argument, but for some reason I have this sneaking suspicion that you just created a plausible-sounding scenario from thin air that supports and confirms your viewpoint of the superiority of a monolithic tier list.

The fact is that debates over this issue still happen. Look at that Fir/Lot debate in the FE6 list that happened like yesterday. The best way to get this stuff out of the tier lists is to get people to agree on one consistent standard so that they no longer have any reason to argue over it, and I don't blame smash for pursuing this goal. I also agree 100% with the system he proposed; it creates the best combination of both accuracy with regards to contributions towards efficiency, and facilitating discussion. Maybe he's only putting it out there to justify his personal beliefs, but that's irrelevant to the fact that it's a good idea.

Doesn't the continued existence of arguments about tiering criteria over the years suggest to you -- even just a little bit -- that agreement on a consistent standard is probably not going to happen? The larger the community, the more divergence you are likely to have on principles. How do you propose to bridge the gap between, for instance, the people who like to argue about maximally efficient play vs. those who prefer to measure an average, flawed player? In the same tier list? Neither position is wrong, but they are not reconcilable either. In CATS' world, which one loses?

I don't blame smash for pursuing his ideal either, and I can respect his motivations, but that doesn't mean I think he's not tilting at windmills. The both of you are, I think, pretty naive on this point.

[CATS]

CATS, I'm tired of seeing your every contribution to the tiering scene to be the same thing, ad nauseum: repeated assertions with flimsy or non-existent supporting evidence. No matter what actually happens in reality, you spin events in a way most favorable to your philosophy, like it was your job.

Interceptor, I'm tired of getting insulted and accused of bullshit that isn't true, isn't relevant, or both. It's immature and annoying, even if you phrase it eloquently. Please quit posting ad hominem junk like this.

Doesn't the continued existence of arguments about tiering criteria over the years suggest to you -- even just a little bit -- that agreement on a consistent standard is probably not going to happen?

Agreement is unlikely, sure. Does that mean it's not okay to try and reach it anyways?

[Interceptor]

Interceptor, I'm tired of getting insulted and accused of bullshit that isn't true, isn't relevant, or both. It's immature and annoying, even if you phrase it eloquently. Please quit posting ad hominem junk like this.

You are mistaken in your characterization of my complaints. If only it were actually possible to make a criticism go away just by declaring it to be "ad hominem junk". You are entitled to keep making statements backed up by nothing but wishful thinking and fairy dust, but I will continue to call you out on it, because it's goddamn irritating.

Agreement is unlikely, sure. Does that mean it's not okay to try and reach it anyways?

Did you even bother to read anything past the first sentence in that paragraph?

There are irreconcilable differences between certain tiering positions. One example that I gave, was between those who want to argue under the umbrella of a perfect tactician, and those who don't. I asked you for your opinion on a solution to bridge the gap, but all I got in reply was one part righteous indignation, one part content-free rhetorical question, and one part deafening silence. Of course, your lack of a pointed response is a response in and of itself: there IS no middle ground between those two positions, that's what makes them irreconcilable in the first place.

Whether it's "okay" to attempt for the unlikely is not relevant, as least not as much as whether "unlikely" is actually closer to "impossible". Reasonable people can agree on that one.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Interceptor

[CATS]

You are mistaken in your characterization of my complaints. If only it were actually possible to make a criticism go away just by declaring it to be "ad hominem junk". You are entitled to keep making statements backed up by nothing but wishful thinking and fairy dust, but I will continue to call you out on it, because it's goddamn irritating.

I see. Nothing you've said is derogatory in any way, and I retract my former statement.

There are irreconcilable differences between certain tiering positions. One example that I gave, was between those who want to argue under the umbrella of a perfect tactician, and those who don't. I asked you for your opinion on a solution to bridge the gap, but all I got in reply was one part righteous indignation, one part content-free rhetorical question, and one part deafening silence. Of course, your lack of a pointed response is a response in and of itself: there IS no middle ground between those two positions, that's what makes them irreconcilable in the first place.

I ignored this because it isn't relevant to the topic at all. Suppose that it is true that the two groups you are referring to cannot be reconciled and there is no middle ground in that case. Are you saying that, because it is so in that case, it is also so in this case (net vs gross and etc) which smash is addressing in this topic? If not, then I don't see what your point is.

[Interceptor]

I ignored this because it isn't relevant to the topic at all. Suppose that it is true that the two groups you are referring to cannot be reconciled and there is no middle ground in that case. Are you saying that, because it is so in that case, it is also so in this case (net vs gross and etc) which smash is addressing in this topic? If not, then I don't see what your point is.

The point is, we already have situations where philosophies contradict to the point where they cannot co-exist, to say nothing of any number of other possible projects that have different goals. Separate lists are a reasonable solution in these cases. So why not the same for net/gross? You say that it's not effective, but you never substantiate your claim with credible evidence, so my only response to that is mocking dismissal.

smash's preliminary solution is to insert a giant IF statement in the middle of the logic and make the whole thing inconsistent. What is the value of this omelet, except to people like himself? It's not self-evident.

[CATS]

Under the assumption that two positions are in fact irreconcilable, and thus the debaters on each side will refuse to post in each others' tier lists, separate lists are undesirable because they compartmentalize the discussion. Sure, the total amount of discussion on the whole board is the same, but each person only posts in and cares about a smaller section of it as compared to a board where there's only one universal list. Those other debaters talking about stuff under their different premises is totally irrelevant to the discussions I'm participating in on my tier list. Since there's less people in each topic, each individual person has less discussion available to them and less opportunities to participate.

Under ideal conditions, everyone would post actively in every list even if we had 4 different lists on FE7 (ranked net utility, ranked gross utility, efficiency net utility, efficiency gross utility), but realistically I think it's pretty clear that this wouldn't happen. Hence it's preferable to pursue agreement of some sort and condense the discussion into fewer topics. If you disagree, then meh. It's not something that can be empirically proven as far as I can see.

What is the value of this omelet, except to people like himself? It's not self-evident.

There are two things going on in a tier list. First is the discussion. Obviously the simple act of discussing the tier list has worth, otherwise these topics wouldn't exist. It's thus preferable to promote discussion and seek not to shut it down or limit it. Second is the accuracy of the list. People are always trying to create a more accurate tier list, since the discussion needs a goal to aim for.

The net system helps the second goal of accuracy, since (by the current definition at least) it is more logical and more accurate than the gross system. On the other hand, it hurts the first goal of promoting discussion, since arguments about lower mid units and below become severely limited as compared to the amount of material you'd have to discuss with them under gross system. Gross system theoretically does the opposite. You can compare Wil and Rath throughout the entire game instead of only their join chapters now, but in exchange, your tier list is horribly wrong and doesn't reflect actual contributions towards efficiency at all, with stuff like Rebecca > Harken and etc.

smash's system is attempting to create a mindset which will, to the greatest extent possible, combine the good parts of these systems while minimizing or eliminating the disadvantages. When discussing say, Harken and Rebecca, you have two choices:

Under net system:

Upper Mid tier

people

Harken

people

Lower Mid tier

people

Rebecca

or

Under gross system:

High tier

people

Rebecca

people

Lower Mid tier

people

Harken

Or something like that. Clearly defined and separate positions exist in both cases, thus it is preferable to take the one which is more accurate. However, when discussing something like Rath and Wil, the options are more along the lines of:

Under net system:

Not used tier

people/Wil/Rath/people

or

Under gross system:

Upper Mid tier

people

Wil

people

Low Tier

Rath

Or something like that. It's a choice between either having them be roughly equivalent, with little to nothing to discuss about their position (similar to late-joining units in an FE11 warpskip tier list), or going with gross system and actually having material to discuss. smash proposes that in cases like these, the gross system's way of deploying units for the whole game should be adopted (to some extent) as a tie-breaker of sorts, sacrificing some technical accuracy simply in order to provide more discussion in a case where otherwise little or none would be possible.

Whether this is preferable or not is of course a matter of opinion, and you seem to think it's worthless and pointless, so w/e. I happen to think it's a pretty good shot at accomplishing the goals that it has in mind (namely to maximize those two tier list goals I outlined above), as explained above. You can reply again that it's all just my personal philosophy and write it off with another "mocking dismissal" if you like, I probably won't bother to respond in that case.

[Dat Nick]

According to max efficiency premises, Wendy>Treck just because Wendy's easier to recruit and 'neither get used anyway' despite Treck being like 20x better. Fuck it, going by that kind of logic is retarded. I'm not quite sure what Smash is proposing, but if it knows this sort of logic is retarded and has a solution to it, I'm in.

[Crimson_Edge]

The logical inconsistency of smash’s proposition bugs me. If the goal is to maximize discussion, then on an efficiency tier list for FE6, one can also add the IF statement “If either of the units are underleveled, EXP Rank is considered valid as an argument”—this adds another dimension of discussion, but, as with smash’s proposition, is logically inconsistent with the rest of the tier list (here the distinction falling between overleveled and underleveled units as opposed to between good units and bad units). Personally I think the pursuit of "accuracy" (or at least logical consistency) is more important than the pursuit of greater discussion simply because any number of things can promote greater discussion.

[dondon151]

No one cares about EXP. EXP is simply a means to an end; an end that can be obtained with no EXP needing to be gained at all.