[FE7 tier list, HHM Ranked]

So, yeah, BB.

Bartre > Rath and possibly Rebecca. No one had any objections to that.

Bartre's a liability early-game, and mediocre mid-game. Dart is mediocre mid-game. I'd give the win to Dart, even with the Gross system being used.

[FE7 tier list, HHM Ranked]

Except that means you agree with me, but you clearly don't...

I'm not stubborn or anything. You've put into words what I've been trying to say for a while now. Even if it's not the most "convenient" answer, it makes good logical sense; why wouldn't I agree with it?

Now, were to to unanimously adopt a Gross system where opportunity costs are ignored for unit slots, what would the implications be? Using a unit still isn't "free," since experience remains limited and needs to be distributed properly. In that way, we still may end up with units who contribute negatively to the team's utility if used, but it's far less extreme than what we have now. For specific comparisons, this gives further credibility to having Guy equal to Raven, since Guy's early-game is now 100% better than Raven's (as opposed to before, when taking up a unit slot hurt Guy's performance somewhat). Hm... anything important I'm missing?

[FE7 tier list, HHM Ranked]

Anyway, one of the reasons why I advocate ignoring the opportunity cost of unit slots is because it's akin to why firms operate - even if a firm has a negative economic profit, it will operate as long as it makes a normal profit (which, as far as I'm concerned, every unit in this game makes). The other reason is because factoring in opportunity costs is either inconsistent to the point where it doesn't make sense or it doesn't promote healthy tier list discussion. The one basic premise for tiering the unit is the assumption that the unit is used, but if the unit can't be used, then what is there to tier the unit on? Just one chapter of performance? In that case, you have many units whose performances are relatively close because their utility spans only a couple of chapters and a small group of units who far outclass everyone else because they're used throughout the whole game.

...This is easily the best summary of the problem I've seen. A tip of my hat, sir.

[FE7 tier list, HHM Ranked]

I guess 2 levels under with better combat to yield us more exp doesn't factor into it? Bleh, perhaps it is a miniscule amount in comparison to an early promotion...

That's definitely something to consider, but I too would place more of an importance on Florina's early promotion.

How are you defining good? If there are 9 slots, at the very least it can generally be shown which units are 12th best or worst, and depending on the units we might even figure out who is 10th best. Economic profit should then obviously cause the 12th best unit to have negative economic utility if (s)he is deployed. What he does during the chapter must have a smaller normal profit than what #9 does during the chapter, otherwise #12 would not in fact be #12 and would be ranked better, or #9 would not be #9 and would be ranked worse, or a combination thereof. So that means #12 doesn't get deployed, or deploying him causes negative profit and he moves down the list from where he would be if we stopped deploying him once he's no longer forced.

...Which translates into the three categories I mentioned before, yes?

Logically which position makes sense? Ours or yours?

In this case, I was referring to yours.

Also, if under a specific assumption the logical conclusion is undesirable, the correct course of action is to change your assumptions. The assumption in this case is that opportunity cost of deployment should be applied to the utility of various units. If you don't like where that leads, don't do it. You can't take the assumption and only half follow the logic and then dance around the conclusion to get something that doesn't contradict the purpose of the tier list.

It's a definite Catch-22. If we go by a "gross" system, then unit slots get no value. If we go by a "net" system, then (in my mind) unit slots get too much value. As a matter of fact, they end up determining the placement of several characters on their own.

Back over at GameFAQs, I proposed that we should make two tier lists, one gross (more like the one we have now) and one net (the kind of list that, honestly, I've never seen completed before). Afterward, we could compare and contrast to see which fits best. Right around that point, Moribalken proposed her middle-ground solution which I've been supporting ever since, as it clears up certain close calls without messing up the tier stability too much. Granted, there's a chance that such a method IS somewhat inconsistent, and it's something that we should explore more. But before we do, I'd like to here what Moribalken herself has to say. It's her solution, after all, and I feel that she can defend it better than I can.

If you're talking about staves, Canas gets halved EXP (5 EXP per heal). Staff users in this game don't level up quickly under the assumption of low turns for tactics rank, so staff EXP does not make up one bit the EXP lost from early promotion. And Canas would have had access to those staves anyway if he promoted later as 20/0. Plus, if Canas heals for 5 EXP, he prevents one of your unpromoted healers from healing for 11 EXP, which is a net loss of 6 EXP per heal.

This is probably true in a "net" system, since Canas won't even be seeing play outside of Chapter 17x! This is just another reason why we need to sort out the core principles of the list before proceeding further.

[FE7 tier list, HHM Ranked]

Wouldn't that kill his exp gain and thus the exp rank?

Seeing as the experience pool a promoted Canas has to work with is in much less demand, I'd say no.

Speaking of which, Lucius>Florina for that reason? Lucius joins late and has 1 tome to work with until the final boss in Lyn's mode, of which you have to take time to cut downt he tree, walk his ass down there, and buy it, then shoot down the tree, just to attack the boss. Florina joins earlier and has all that time. She could easily be higher level when she returns in HHM.

Then combat. Who has it better? Level 7 she has 20 HP and 4 Def. I do not see this avoiding a 2RKO in any form. Basic iron weighs her down to 8 speed. 15 Mt I do not find impressive. Level 5 Lucius has 10 speed, 14 ATK. Seems worse, but do remember he is attacking a weaker defensive stat for the most part, and is doing that at range to avoid a counter. Florina with a javy would be doing the same damage physically (as in not as much), and has 5 AS. Durably, probably no different aside from not being dependent on melee.

You telling me flight outdoes these things?

Flight is one thing; virtually no competition for her promotion item is another. Even from the analysis you gave, I see that Florina is the winner- although it's certainly close, hence them being adjacent to one another.

[FE7 tier list, HHM Ranked]

Seeing as I'm currently studying economics, I don't appreciate being accused of "twisting" terms around. What you all are failing to consider is the end result of applying this "net gain" system fully. What will inevitably happen is that all units will be divided into three categories: those who will always be used (because they contribute a net gain), those who will sometimes be used (because they are either good for a time or free for a time; see Dorcas/Bartre), and those who will never be used. It's no longer a question of individual unit quality. What we get instead is a mandate for how to play the game. Logically, such a position makes sense, but you have to wonder if it doesn't outright contradict the purpose of these tiers in the first place.

We can either take the principle to the extreme, or simply consider it as one factor among many. Both are acceptable ways of doing things, but the final results differ greatly.

[FE7 tier list, HHM Ranked]

Your entire argument pretty much rests upon the notion that Bartre/Hawkeye/etc. won't be used beyond the point where they contribute ONLY a positive "net gain." I reject that for reasons stated earlier, so much of what you said doesn't hold much weight.

However, you mentioned that Isadora > Canas was decided here earlier. The reason he's so high in our list is because of an interesting possibility that I proposed earlier this year: if Canas promotes at level 10, he goes from mediocre offensive unit to above-average healer. That puts him above Isadora for sure.

[FE7 tier list, HHM Ranked]

You either take a method all the way or you don't take it at all. Otherwise, there will be numerous logical inconsistencies with the tier list.

Bartre doing something and Dorcas doing it better doesn't mean that Bartre has negative utility when he is forced. There are so many instances when both Bartre and Dorcas will have to do their thing that Dorcas doesn't exclude Bartre just because one of them outclasses the other. Additionally, you don't need to baby Bartre to use him if you're just going to drop him later. It's a good idea to use him anyway because of EXP rank.

Just think about it: if a character is forced on the map, and there is at least 1 opportunity for him to do something that helps you to complete the chapter, then he has positive utility.

No, there won't be "logical inconsistencies." Docking Bartre because he consumes a unit slot that better characters could also use is far different than strictly limiting him to only those chapters where the opportunity cost of his use is zero. The same principle can be used for Hawkeye, or any other character that isn't the cream-of-the-crop. And using Bartre isn't going to help your rankings very much: because he gets doubled by everything left and right for at least a few levels (if not more), putting him in harm's way over more sturdy units is going to impact your Tactics ranking. This is coupled with the fact that, even early on, there are plenty of superior contenders for helping with the experience rank.

Although he has his guaranteed slot for a few chapters, using Bartre certainly isn't "free." Having him takes hits and kills is a poor allocation of experience; you wouldn't use Hector for combat once he hits level 20/--, right? Even though he's "free" to use?

No, I don't. If Isadora > Hawkeye, then it logically follows that Isadora > Canas and Vaida. If that's not true, then they will have to be reassessed, not Isadora. How do I know in the first place that their tier positions are accurate? If I show that Isadora > Hawkeye, then their positions relative to each other are fixed, and other characters can move around.

Let's say that in the other FE7 tier list I put Marcus under Nino to make everyone mad. Does everyone else have to argue him above Nino, then Karla, then Renault, then Wil, etc. all the way up to Raven for the positioning to be valid? If Marcus is better than the second best character in the game, then he's better than the third best, fourth best, etc. all the way down.

The only instance where I'd want to argue a character up a little at a time is if the original "target" simply cannot be shown to be worse than the unit in question.

You act as if these were arbitrary placements. Things like Vaida > Isadora and Canas > Isadora have been discussed and debated thoroughly, so the burden's on you to take the appropriate place. I'd recommend starting either with an Isadora > Canas or Vaida > Hawkeye argument first, since it would be easier for you and us both.

Basically the same thing dondon said, but the definition of 'opportunity cost' explains it.

'The value of the next best alternative foregone as the result of making a decision.'

For there to be an opportunity cost, a decision has to have been made. You don't get to decide if he gets fielded or not; he simple is. That means there's also no alternative to Bartre, because that slot is guaranteed to be Bartre's. Thus there's no positive opportunity cost. Or rather, no opportunity cost at all when it comes to unit deployment.

You answered your own question! There's no opportunity cost for Bartre's deployment, but his USE is an entirely different issue altogether.

[FE7 tier list, HHM Ranked]

Also, it's worth noting that debating Isadora over Hawkeye is getting several steps ahead. You'd need to solidify Isadora > Canas and Vaida before trying to move him up even further.

[FE7 tier list, HHM Ranked]

Free units don't contribute negatively. Sorry. The opportunity cost of a free unit is 0. Revenue is always positive (really, the only instance where revenue can be negative is if a unit can cause you to lose, which as far as I know never happens in this game). Therefore, Bartre and Rebecca are positive for as long as they are forced when considering opportunity cost of deployment slots. Whatever the case, you'd have to be daft that Rebecca's chip damage and Bartre's rather large per hit damage do not help you significantly in completing the early chapters. I am 100% certain that if you were to not use either of the two units, your turn counts will increase.

I'm going to stay out of the Isadora/Hawkeye deabte for now, but on the above point...

This is why we don't take the "net gain" method to its extreme, because it yields rather ridiculous results like Bartre > Hawkeye. True, Bartre is free to use for more chapters than Hawkeye, but there's also the fact that he's a garbage unit whose use- even in the "free" chapters- takes away experience from far better units down the road. Rebecca's chip damage isn't nearly large enough to be considered significant, and Bartre is *far* from being helpful in the early-game: because he needs to be babied so much, using him is sure to hurt your Tactics rank. Besides, Dorcas does his job about a thousand times better.

Also, Moribalken's a girl? News to me!

[FE7 tier list, HHM Ranked]

Hawkeye, Vaida need to move down.

Hawkeye's bases aren't really in the right places (namely, he doesn't have enough AS to double for awhile) and he steals EXP (aka hurts EXP rank). Vaida joins too late and doesn't really contribute anything, in addition to being a subpar unit anyway.

Hawkeye has some solid offense thanks to his Killer Axe and built-in +15% crit, and his huge HP allows him to tank fairly well. Vaida may come late, but her HHM-boosted bases make her a good choice for late-game filler. Sure, they're not the best units in the game, but they deserve their slots relative to who's beneath them.

[FE7 tier list, HHM Ranked]

Hey there! I'm both a Serenes lurker and a GameFAQs FE7 regular, and since Moribalken has decided to hop on over here, I figured I'd follow suit.

A little bit of background: contrary to popular belief, the fad-starting perverts with which the GFaqs FE boards are normally associated do not represent those of us who play Fire Emblem seriously. In fact, we've had consistent and productive Tier List discussion since the game's release almost six years ago. I'd like to think that our current list is the most definitive one available, especially considering how far we've come. The list itself is mostly finished, with only a few minor blemishes in need of wrinkling out; now it's simply a matter of defending it and seeing how well it holds up. Any input on the list, then, is much appreciated, since it allows us to gauge how successful our efforts have been.

Since it's been brought up, allow me to elaborate upon the "net gain" system. Intuitively, the idea's been present in the minds of many since day 1- that you can't compare units in a vacuum. Just because Unit A and Unit B are both being used doesn't mean that they're also guaranteed unit slots, promotion items, etc. free of charge. Rather, using a more comprehensive, opportunity-cost system yields a more accurate result. This wasn't formalized until recently, because... we honestly haven't needed it until recently. Debates like Guy/Raven and Lowen/Kent/Sain have proven close enough to warrant these additional measures of quality, making a unit's performance less "gross" and more "net". Hence the name. However, one can't take this principle to the extreme. If net benefit is the sole determinant of unit quality, then all characters will inevitably be lumped under the headings of Always Used, Sometimes Used, and Never Used; not particularly helpful! So, this system is always CONSIDERED as a factor, but is never taken to a logical extremity unless the variance in unit performance is marginal enough to warrant it. At least, that's the current train of thought.

Anyway, this is some great discussion so far, and I hope you guys like having me on board! If you have any questions about why we've made certain decisions on the list, feel free to ask.