+/- Utility

[dondon151]

See, this is where the whole "negative utility argument doesn't exist" argument crumbles: Because this simply isn't true. Using FEDS examples again, take Gordin. Gordin's doing nothing but helping in C1-3 because he doesn't eat up a slot, fine. But the further the game goes, the more trying to keep Gordin alive and trying to utilize his shit chip damage [5 base str and 20% growth and never doubling ever? Yuck] becomes a billion times more of a hassle than it really is. And it never gets better: Gordin will just suck up a ton of resources and not make any use of them as he's going to suck the whole game, demand protection from your other units who could have had better things to do like kill this guy or wall X guy who's about to die instead, and guess what? His damage is still balls and it's just not worth the time, EXP, and effort it takes to field him past C3 [if he's kept as archer]: I.e he's pretty much negative utility past chapter 3.

You're assuming that the player puts Gordin in situations that require the efforts of other units to protect him. In this case, the negative utility is a result of player stupidity rather than simply the unit's crappiness.

[Reikken]

Yes, anyone indeed helps more than an empty slot. An empty slot is the worst thing you can take with you to the field, barring the existence of a survival rank and reinforcements that come from behind or something, or getting +bexp for having an empty slot.

Of course, this also means that this crappy unit may not be gaining much exp at all (or in extreme cases, not staying alive), as having to gain that exp could force the unit to be used in situations where it does indeed perform worse than an empty slot.

I'm not sure what the relevance of being better than an empty slot is though, because tl;dr.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Reikken

[Progenitus]

speaking of reposting things, let me do that too.

Negative utility is when not fielding the unit (and giving the kills/resources/etc. that I would have originally given to that unit to other people on the team) > fielding that unit. Usually when the unit performs worse than the average unit, that unit is negative utility.

For example, say we have Lyre. She sucks massively, doing horrible damage and dying really fast and has the worst laguz class ever. The amount of time and effort I have to spend setting up kills for Lyre and/or throwing energy drops/BEXP/etc. on her does not outweigh Lyre's performance. That's why she has a negative utility.

Generally, however, when I say "negative utility", I'm assuming that this unit is trying to get the same number of kills as the other people on the team. For example, if we were using 7 people in the GMs, I'm assuming that Lyre is getting 1/7th of the kills.

This is just for being fair. If you just gave out kills based on who can just do the job rather than trying to spread the kills evenly throughout the team, generally the good units would be killing more (since they have an easier time getting said kills) than the bad ones. For example, in our 7 man team, Ike might be getting 2/7ths of the kills naturally, rather than just 1/7, because he's that good and it's very easy for him to get kills, while Lyre might get 1 kill in the entire map because she's that bad and the chances of an enemy being at a low enough HP for her to kill it off (on top of surviving the enemy phase(s)) are very low. However, this would make future comparisons retarded (yes, unit A with more kills than unit B gains more exp and improves more, and thus wins the next chapter anyway, and future chapters as well!), so in fairness we give both Ike and Lyre the same number of kills.

There *are* ways to use Lyre where she doesn't drag the team down that badly. For example, Lyre can just stand in the back and shove people. This does give her a very minor positive utility. However, it makes debates overall extremely boring, and makes comparisons between crappy units about who has the most availability and/or is forced into more chapters and thus has more opportunities to make small contributions, rather than a debate about actual potential/usefulness. For example, say we had Lyre vs Fiona. And we don't bother to train either of them. Lyre just does a couple of shoves per chapter, and Fiona does a couple of rescues/blocks ledges in 3-13. It makes for a very boring debate.

(However, there are still exceptions to this too. For example, Marcus in FE7, or Sothe in FE10, who steadily decline over the game to the point where they're crap. At that point, we're likely dropping them/not feeding them kills/having them stick to utility roles, rather than try to bother with their suck. Of course, they're an exception because they've had a period of time where they were good, and so there's no real need for them to just build up suck for no reason. It's different from, say, Lyre, who just sucks the entire game).

Or for a rather extreme example, say we had Fiona vs Renning. We could say "Fiona can do rescues/block ledges in 3-13 and be useful, while Renning is only available in 4-E and gets outclassed by many people where we don't even need to field Fiona anymore, and thus can't do anything ever without hurting us!", but that's ridiculously stupid and gives an extreme unfair advantage to Fiona just because she exists for more chapters, rather than actual potential about her combat abilities and being able to help us through the game through fighting/etc. This argument would boil down to "who has more availability", not "who is actually more useful".

As others have said, yes, it's very easy to be better than an empty slot. However, at least in my case, when I say "negative utility", I'm assuming that the unit is trying to get the same number of kills as the other teammates (unless you can't fight or really suck at fighting, like dancers or something). This is how a unit like Lyre builds up negative utility, because she's trying to get the same number of kills as your people like Ike and Haar. The negative utility comes from the hassle of giving Lyre these kills when they could have gone to other people on the team, only much easier to feed it to them because they're better at fighting and whatnot.

It is possible for terrible units like Lyre to be positive utility, be it through shoving things and whatnot, but it is generally minor, and makes debates among lower tiers very boring, and into a "who has more availability/forced into more chapters" argument rather than who is actually better.

[CATS]

If the most efficient way to play a unit is to not play him at all, then you are ignoring any possible contributions he may have to the team.

No you aren't. If he contributes nothing that would not be accomplished by a different unit if he didn't exist, then he contributes nothing at all. You could remove him from the game and there would be no effect on the player's efficiency.

The reason why I'm responding to your question with a question of my own is because neither issue can be simultaneously addressed with whatever principle of utility that tier lists will be ranked upon. One of them has to be ignored.

Okay, cool. Are you going to answer my question, or keep deflecting? This whole discussion is going to keep coming back to this:

Yes, anyone helps more than an empty slot. So what? You don't have empty slots. The question is, why pretend that you do?

So you might as well go ahead and address it directly, as opposed to dancing around it by responding with your own questions or w/e.

Efficient play and optimal character choice aren't the same thing.

They're related. Optimal character choice is a part of efficient play.

And if they are, then even considering the negatively efficient characters is contradictory to the principle of the tier list.

It looks to me like you're just making this "core priniciple of the tier list" up out of nowhere. This is what the tier list FAQ says:

Characters are compared based on how they contribute towards an efficient playthrough. By efficiency I am mainly referring to turn count and resource expenditure. Normally you’d expect a high tier unit to require fairly basic weapons and items while giving great returns in terms of their combat usefulness. Conversely, a lower ranked unit would probably require a lot of resources while giving less satisfactory combat returns.

The wording is quite specific. Characters are compared based on how they contribute towards an efficient playthrough. Earlier in the topic you stated your supposed "most basic principle" of the tier list to be this:

The tier list is created under the premise of high efficiency play yet it entails selecting negatively efficient units for comparison.

The tier list FAQ agrees with the first part of your statement. It clearly implies an assumption of efficient play. The second part of your statement, after the word "yet," I don't see anywhere in the tier list FAQ, nor do I remember seeing it anywhere else. So, did you just totally make this up and it's just your opinion, or are you getting this "most basic principle" thing from an external source, or did I just miss the part where it says this in the tier list FAQ, or what?

My point is that the debaters will not move on to a discussion of inefficient playthroughs. Why would they? It will still be a contest of who can be less negatively efficient, and the discussion will inevitably regress to talking about an efficient playthrough.

Okay then, don't discuss inefficient runs if you don't want to. I still don't see your point.

I'd like to bring up again whatever Quasar or Narga_Rocks said earlier about how diminishing marginal returns make a character's overall positive or negative utility rather small. This means that the overall effect of availability on a unit's position in the tier list is not that significant; i.e. having 2x the availability doesn't mean that it can only be balanced out with 2x the performance.

Sure. The magnitude of it has nothing to do with the fact that it exists, though.

I'm not sure what the relevance of being better than an empty slot is though, because tl;dr.

Don't worry, you're not missing much. I'm reading all (or most) of this and I still don't see what the relevance is.

[Narga_Rocks]

And if they are, then even considering the negatively efficient characters is contradictory to the principle of the tier list.

It looks to me like you're just making this "core priniciple of the tier list" up out of nowhere. This is what the tier list FAQ says:

Characters are compared based on how they contribute towards an efficient playthrough. By efficiency I am mainly referring to turn count and resource expenditure. Normally you’d expect a high tier unit to require fairly basic weapons and items while giving great returns in terms of their combat usefulness. Conversely, a lower ranked unit would probably require a lot of resources while giving less satisfactory combat returns.

The wording is quite specific. Characters are compared based on how they contribute towards an efficient playthrough. Earlier in the topic you stated your supposed "most basic principle" of the tier list to be this:

The tier list is created under the premise of high efficiency play yet it entails selecting negatively efficient units for comparison.

The tier list FAQ agrees with the first part of your statement. It clearly implies an assumption of efficient play. The second part of your statement, after the word "yet," I don't see anywhere in the tier list FAQ, nor do I remember seeing it anywhere else. So, did you just totally make this up and it's just your opinion, or are you getting this "most basic principle" thing from an external source, or did I just miss the part where it says this in the tier list FAQ, or what?

Every single time we start comparing two units that should never ever be deployed in an efficient playthrough we are doing a tier list entailing selecting negatively efficient units for comparison. Every time we put a really bad unit on the field to see how good it does we are already operating in a way mutually exclusive with "Characters are compared based on how they contribute towards an efficient playthrough." Because the way in which Lyre contributes towards an efficient playthrough is by entertaining Gatrie between chapters so he can be more relaxed during a map. She does not contribute towards an efficient playthrough by being fielded. By fielding her we make a mockery of the very idea of an efficient playthrough.

Therefore I have no real issue with Dondon saying: The tier list is created under the premise of high efficiency play yet it entails selecting negatively efficient units for comparison.

Ofcourse it matters. That option is invalid when there is no clear perfect team choice. In that case, I'm leaning more towards the mid tier = neutral side of things. If we have a god tier of 10 units, then two tier gaps between the rest of the units in the game, and 10 deployment slots available for every chapter, and all 10 god tiers join in the first chapter, then yes, you have an obvious perfect team choice. But that's not how it is.

But that's the beauty of the word "assuming". It never needs to actually be possible to know the best set. By selecting "mid tier is roughly neutral utility" that is basically stating that even if we could know the perfect team choice then mid tier would still be roughly neutral utility. By not selecting "Assuming there's a perfect team choice, anyone who doesn't belong to it has negative utility of some sort", everyone has basically stated that even if there is a perfect team choice negative utility is not automatically anyone not belonging to that team. The fact that this situation might never actually present itself is irrelevant.

However, I can't argue with this:

Regardless, I hardly think this discussion should be centered around the definitions and validity of the poll choices. Rather, it's about whether or not the existence of negative utility is a fact, and if it is, then why should it be ignored.

So it doesn't really matter that people have rejected an option because it'll never happen despite the fact that the word "assuming" does not mean "will it ever happen?" but actually "say it has happened. Now what does that mean?"

Well, I did a thing on diminishing marginal returns earlier. The point is, once you have 7 or 8 really good characters and there are 13 slots, another 4 or 5 really good units don't really have much to do anymore. 4 or 5 decent units in most maps can cover what those same 4 or 5 units are doing anyway, so calling them negative simply because their stats aren't as good seems silly since they are doing the same thing anyway. In some cases all 13 units need to be good and anything less will slow you down, but that doesn't happen very often. It is quite possible for a low tier unit to fill a sufficient role that it isn't an issue to deploy it instead of some upper mid unit. Maybe not for every single turn in every single map, but enough that it is very much positive overall. That's why I take issue with applying a blanket negative utility to anyone under a certain level.

I don't see how this means anything.

By the time that everyone becomes good, your chosen team of units has generally progressed in levels to the point that no one else aside from some later joining prepromos is worth fielding (and those filler prepromo guys get points on their own for being usable without requiring any resources invested in them). Yes, Bartre and Raven can perform similarly against hordes of really crappy enemies in the lategame. But both of them need lots of training earlier in the game to reach that point, and Bartre sucks alot more during that earlier time, so using him is still alot worse than using Raven no matter how similar they may be later in the game. And it's true that they're never equal, even very late. There are still promoted enemies mixed in with the lulzy ones, where the differences between Bartre and Raven are still very apparent.

No, the idea isn't that everyone becomes good eventually. The idea is that in, say, chapter 8, when you have 10 slots and 13 units, and 10 of the units are clearly better than the other 3, those three units do not automatically have negative utility by being fielded. This is because on most maps all 10 of those "better units" are not always operating at peak output. There are only so many enemies, only so many places through which enemies attack, and only so many of your units will be in position to do something on enemy phase. As such, it is entirely possible that whatever your tenth unit is doing in a normal playthough could very easily be done by one of the other 3. If this is the case, then those 3 units do not have negative utility for being fielded. They aren't hurting us in any way whatsoever.

Now, that is not to say that those 3 units are equal to any of the better 10. They are obviously worse. If those 3 are fielded, the only thing they are capable of is the cleanup duties. Those other 10 units could either be on clean up duty or more dangerous duty. All 10 of those units are better because any of them could do the harder work. That does not automatically make the lesser 3 negative. They have the potential to be neutral for those chapters.

However, they are getting kills and using weapons and maybe skills or boosters or whatever. So then the question becomes would the experience be better used on better units? To answer that, the rest of the game needs to be considered. How good will these 3 units be later on down the road? If these units will not be good anytime soon, then we can ask will there come a time before these three units reach goodness when we need every unit in every slot to be good and perform at peak output? If so, then at that point deploying those 3 units in earlier maps prevents us from deploying and training better units. Then when we need 10 good units later on we might only have 7 good ones and 3 decent ones, which slow us down. (ie: not good)

On the other hand, if these 3 less good units grow rather quickly and eventually become good, even if it is only as good, and by the time we need every slot to be good they are ready and able, then they never were negative during this time. They were not as good as the other 10, and in a tier list those other 10 would obviously be higher because they were better the whole time. But those 10 chapters of being not as good can't be held against those 3 units because it never hurt us. Therefore if another unit were to appear in chapter 18 after the other 3 have become good, the other 3 units don't have to overcome 10 chapters of negative just to be better than the new unit. They either are better now, or they aren't. They even might get a little bit of credit for those 10 chapters, but they might not get much. Case by case basis at this point.

(You might notice I at least never say those 3 are better than an empty slot. All I'm saying is: they can do what we need done just as well as any better unit since we don't need much from those 3 slots.)

Just because a unit that is around for 20 chapters and slightly subpar is worse than a unit that is around for 3 chapters yet majorly subpar under this standpoint.

Only if the latter unit is able to do something useful during those 3 chapters that they're around which the other guy can't match in any of the 20 chapters that he's around. Otherwise they're still worse. Bartre is still rated above Nino despite Nino joining much later and both of them sucking enough to not be actively used.

But if A is bad for 18 chapters and B is bad for 6 chapters, shouldn't B have to be more than three times as bad as A is in order to be ranked lower? By my understanding of negative utility, if B is only twice as bad as A is for the 6 chapters they are together, B should be higher than A.

Like, unit A gets a "-2" for each chapter it is around. unit B is so bad it gets a "-5" for each chapter it is around.

unit A has "-2" x 18 = -36.

unit B has "-5" x 6 = -30.

Therefore unit B gets placed higher on the list than unit A. I don't really see unit B needing to do anything useful during those 3 chapters. Just not suck quite enough for it's number to be worse.

If I'm understanding negative utility incorrectly, then please enlighten me. Or if you think B should be higher, then that's fine too, since that would just mean I understand negative utility correctly. I'd say A > B, and I'd also say that maybe A and B should never actually be used but that doesn't really help us rate them.

Calling it negative utility and saying they build up so much more just seems unfair when they can do more towards an efficient playthrough than Mr. 3 chapters.

If they can do more towards an efficient playthrough, then they're obviously not worse. It's only negative utility if you use them poorly and inefficiently, for example fielding Wil all the time and trying to feed him kills on every turn, even if it slows you down in order to do so. You don't have to assume that this is what's happening. This whole thing stemmed from the Karla debaet in the FE7 tier list, which is a special case as far as I can see. It's one of the few instances (possibly the only one?) in which you do have to assume that this is happening. You are required to feed Bartre levels and a promotion item; there is no way around it.

I don't have a big problem with putting him in the top of low instead of the bottom, I suppose, but I really think that the whole "negative utility" thing as I understand it from an economics standpoint should place this guy at the top of mid. That I have a problem with.

Why? What's the logic against it?

You mean the logic against sticking Mr. Useless above those 10 guys that are 5RKOd and 3HKO all the enemies? I just find it strange that a unit that does nothing ever gets a pass simply because it doesn't kick out other units. A guy that does absolutely nothing ever can get above units that can serve our purposes well enough. They aren't as good as the next guy, but at least they can do something. Kill enemies, pick things up, heal stuff, shove stuff, whatever. Mr. Useless goes from bottom of bottom tier to top of mid simply as a result of being forced.

Well, I think we are assuming that if the earlier unit is around for say 10 more chapters, then the later unit has an appropriate level for the difference in chapters. Then our issue is #2 is automatically better than #1.

I repeat, if you have #1 (early joiner) and #2 (later joiner) joining on different levels, then they're not equal in any sense of the word. A higher level coupled with (more importantly) higher base stats is an advantage in and of itself, as demonstrated by Seth / Marcus / Titania / etc. #2 is better because he has higher base stats and is thus more useful without requiring resource investment. It has nothing to do with availability. Indeed, if you put them on the same level, then #1 wins precisely because he joins earlier. And if #2 is on a higher level and wins, then making him join earlier would obviously just make him win by even more. In no instances is it shown that greater availability is a disadvantage in and of itself.

But unit 2 doesn't join earlier. If we have a level 1 unit A with appropriate stats for level 1 that shows up on chapter 3, and a level 15 unit B with appropriate stats for level 15 shows up in chapter 14, and by chapter 14 unit B will be level 15 with comparable stats, then we have our "equal" comparison. Except of course A was around longer, used resources along the way, and may have taken a deployment slot from a better unit in some or all of it's chapters. Seth/Marcus/Titania etc show up at or near the beginning, so they aren't exactly unit B. Of course unit B would be better if it showed up at the same time as unit A. It has everything to do with availability. If unit B had the same stats and level and showed up in chapter 10, then it is easily going to be better than unit A, since unit A will likely be ~level 9 and have worse stats. If unit B shows up in chapter 18, then unit A will possibly be better since it is 20/1 now and has way better stats (depends on how we look at chapters 3 to 17).

The real question of this whole negative utility stuff is:

When unit B shows up in chapter 14, then they perform similarly throughout the remainder of the game, who goes higher on the list? If we accept negative utility, then the question is how bad does unit A need to be throughout chapters 3 to 13 to actually be worse than unit B? If unit A was the 5th best out of 7 units, is that bad enough? If he was the 10th best out of 10? If he was the 8th best out of 11? Also, does the number of slots matter? If there are enough slots to always field unit A without kicking out a better unit, does it matter that he is under average for those 11 chapters? If there were not enough slots to always field unit A without kicking out a better (or maybe only slightly better) unit then is A < B? Does it matter how good unit A and unit B are in chapter 14? In other words, if after all this training of unit A in those 11 chapters units A and B are still only 12th out of 18 units does it change the math from if after the training unit A he is 4th best out of 18 units? (In which case B is also 4th best out of 18)

Is unit A > B if they become 12th out of 18 but B > A if they become 4th out of 18? Or the other way around? Or A > B always? Or vice versa?

I'm just saying it's far more complicated than "Mid tier is roughly neutral utility"

So I don't really see what your example is aiming to prove.

I'm not trying to prove anything, though. I'm just trying to say that I take issue with #2 being better than #1 automatically. I have no issue with unit #2 being better than #1 sometimes, as long as the possibility is left open for #1 being better than #2 depending on circumstances, both of how the other chapters play out and other various factors. It seems to me that the idea of negative utility automatically makes #2>#1. Am I wrong in my understanding of negative utility?

But if we do that, then a unit that is forced in a couple of chapters is better than a subpar character that isn't ever forced. See, the whole "If that makes no difference or distinction" line isn't always true. Take RD, Kyza is never forced. Kyza is very much subpar. Pretty much everyone can see that there are many better options for deployment than Kyza. Fiona is not forced but is not competing for a slot in any part 3 chapter. There are x slots, and x possible units for those slots. There is no cost whatsoever in deploying her. With negative utility in mind, all she has to do is use a torch item once in 3-6 and she's now better than Kyza. She has a slight positive, he has 0. There is a difference now, so there is no reason to compare them in a less efficient playthrough because Fiona is better than Kyza in the only playthrough that is supposed to matter: the efficient one.

The fact that Kyza might be better in a less efficient playthrough should be irrelevant because she's better in the optimal playthrough.

This also highlights my issue with negative utility.

What is your problem with this scenario? Do you just plain dislike it?

It's not like discussion of what happens when the units are actively used couldn't still happen. It's just that one would also have to acknowledge what they are able to contribute without taking away from anything else.

My problem with the scenario is that a lot of people say "negative utility" this and "negative utility" that, but then say Kyza > Fiona. For the sake of logical consistency, I'd much rather see Fiona > Kyza. But then some people decide they don't like the idea of Fiona > Kyza, so they add in some crazy rule that we must deploy Fiona in every one of her maps and Kyza in every one of his maps and compare them. Fiona already won the only comparison that matters, the ideal playthrough. She should be better than Kyza. Why are we making a tier list for an "efficient playthrough" and then deploying Fiona and Kyza when there is no reason to do so? I'd understand forcing Lyre and Kyza to be deployed, since neither one has any free chapters, so in order to judge which one is better they must be force deployed, and judged on what they can do. Fiona and Kyza don't need that kind of tie breaker, so forcing Fiona to be deployed is against the very idea of an "efficient playthrough". (and no smash, it isn't a competition of availability, it is a competition of who has more free chapters (not forced, free, Fiona doesn't have forced chapters). If a unit is so bad that it should never be deployed, then by the very idea of negative utility the forced unit should be better. And as for your issues with this type of competition, the tier list is about efficiency and which unit does more for efficiency. Of course the forced unit should win, because it actually contributes towards an efficient playthrough. The non-forced unit will always be worse than the other choices and will thus always be a detriment to an efficient playthrough. Thus, worse.)

One simply can't have a tier list about "efficiency" then include "negative utility" and then try to fix issues like Fiona > Kyza by making the playthrough inefficient. If negative utility exists, and we want an efficient playthrough, then Fiona > Kyza. If we don't want to make a tier list about efficiency, or if we don't want to have "negative utility", then go ahead and make Kyza > Fiona. Just don't claim the tier list is something that it isn't.

Now, this obviously isn't an issue with you, since you aren't involved in the RD tier list. My complaints about negative utility stem from the desire for logical consistency. Well, maybe a couple other things, too, I'm not sure. But the main thing is nothing seems to be applied in a consistent way.

I'd like to bring up again whatever Quasar or Narga_Rocks said earlier about how diminishing marginal returns make a character's overall positive or negative utility rather small. This means that the overall effect of availability on a unit's position in the tier list is not that significant; i.e. having 2x the availability doesn't mean that it can only be balanced out with 2x the performance.

Well, I suppose it does potentially reduce some positives. I was mostly using it to reduce the negative affect of availability when a unit isn't as good. I suppose it does actually reduce the positives of the still good but not as good units. Since there are still better units out there (6th out of 20 still loses to 5 units) then those other units are likely doing the heavy lifting. At which point, just because you can take on 3 enemies on enemy phase doesn't mean they are always going to be there. Some other unit might be taking on 6 units and all #6 is left with is 1 or 2 units that #12 could have taken on. #6 still gets more positive than #12 though because #6 could take on 3 enemies at once, and on some turns may even need to do so. But I guess you could possibly argue that the effect of availability is reduced because it doesn't necessarily get all of it's maximum utility in each chapter.

[Dat Nick]

You're assuming that the player puts Gordin in situations that require the efforts of other units to protect him

...Which needs to be done unless you want a dead Gordin (which defeats the entire purpose in using him), because his AS sucks so hard that he gets doubled for his entire career as an archer. It only gets MARGINALLY better when he promotes, he still isn't doubling a goddamn thing. You're just better off without needing to wall him every other turn for shit damage in return. You really are.

In this case, the negative utility is a result of player stupidity rather than simply the unit's crappiness.

Since when was "trying to keep units on our team alive" an example of player stupidity? Unit shittiness doesn't change the fact that we don't kill off the units we're USING. Unless the character's a utility guy or something, we're going to keep him alive. If we're using Cord, we're keeping him alive. If we're using Dolph, we're keeping him alive. If we're using Ceasar, we're keeping him alive. If we're using Rickard, we're keeping him alive [Rickard is another shining example of negative utility, btw] Why the hell does this very basic rule not apply to Gordin all of a sudden? Are you conceding to the fact that Gordin is more trouble than he's worth?

Edited August 19, 2009 by Miyamoto Powers

[Rodykitty]

This topic shouldn't be five pages.

Miyamoto is right, negative utility is measured by an entire existence. For instance, George is known for good utility, though is still considered a negative later on which is why he isn't above Nagi/Gotoh. Same for Wrys, while he makes a good healer, his garbage performance as Sage will hurt him later on. I put Lena near Nagi/Gotoh in Upper Mid (at the time) because she could alleviate negative utility by her special traits not requiring EXP.

Wendell is considered more of a positive than a negative, though he's risen scarily high. I had to flat out tell people he's never leaving Upper Mid since his late game is enough of a negative to not warrant it.

Also, there is no such thing as neutral utility, though late gamers like Nagi/Gotoh or Athos are the closest to it. This does not mean that they are auto-mid tier though. If there are a ton of units that are more positive than negative (such as in FE7's case), then the "near-neutral" line will probably be lower on the tier list.

I'm trying to make this as simple as possible to avoid arguments rather than create new ones.

[Quasar]

This topic shouldn't be five pages.

Cool arrogance, bro.

Miyamoto is right, negative utility is measured by an entire existence. For instance, George is known for good utility, though is still considered a negative later on which is why he isn't above Nagi/Gotoh. Same for Wrys, while he makes a good healer, his garbage performance as Sage will hurt him later on. I put Lena near Nagi/Gotoh in Upper Mid (at the time) because she could alleviate negative utility by her special traits not requiring EXP.

So what you're saying is that you play people for the entire period they're available and give them negative or positive utility for the period. Let me show you something. Let's say you'd give characters points on scale that goes from 10 to -10 based on their utility on every chapter and then you'd put them in score order, deciding the tier list. Sounds about right? With this characters with similiar availability it's no different that having a scale of 20 to 0 except that you can have a bigger cap in points for characters for no apparent reason. The thing is now you're effectively punishing availability, again. A shit character joins at first chapter, gets -10 for every chapter in game and ends up with -100. A shit character joins halfway through, gets -10 for every chapter fielded and is better with -50. This has been said a ton of times already but I'll just say it again because apparently five pages wasn't enough.

@CATS:

Why do you keep insisting that bad characters reduce efficiency and should thus receive negative utility for not being equally efficient than the best characters? Of course they're not as efficient as "the optimal team". That's why they're not equal to "the optimal team" in the tier list - they are not as efficient. What's the point of the list if you argue every non-optimal character as a negative? Just state the best characters in a single post then, there's nothing to tier there.

[Interceptor]

The funny thing about this thread is that the option that's the most technically accurate -- option #3 -- is the one that nobody is choosing. It has zero votes at this time of this post.

This says to me that people have an understanding, whether they realize it or not, that the concept of negative utility does not really serve the cause of tiering a Fire Emblem game when taken strictly. Even Reikken couches his choice of the definition of negative utility with an arbitrary modifier that has nothing to do with negative utility at all: the likelyhood of a particular team and/or support.

[Rodykitty]

So what you're saying is that you play people for the entire period they're available and give them negative or positive utility for the period. Let me show you something. Let's say you'd give characters points on scale that goes from 10 to -10 based on their utility on every chapter and then you'd put them in score order, deciding the tier list. Sounds about right? With this characters with similiar availability it's no different that having a scale of 20 to 0 except that you can have a bigger cap in points for characters for no apparent reason. The thing is now you're effectively punishing availability, again. A shit character joins at first chapter, gets -10 for every chapter in game and ends up with -100. A shit character joins halfway through, gets -10 for every chapter fielded and is better with -50. This has been said a ton of times already but I'll just say it again because apparently five pages wasn't enough.

Availability doesn't help a character if you are only good for a couple of chapters and never really improve, unless Gordon goes healer, but even then he'll eventually have to deal with having no offense or durability as Sage.

This still means that Gordon has positives, but he has more negatives/not as many positives than those that are above him.

@Those that feel there is no negative utility: Yeah, no, I'm not tiering half of FEDS' cast based on their ability to sacrifice themselves as the most useful thing they can do.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Rody

[Quasar]

@Those that feel there is no negative utility: Yeah, no, I'm not tiering half of FEDS' cast based on their ability to sacrifice themselves as the most useful thing they can do.

Actually there's a misunderstanding here. People who assume negative utility say people sacrifice themselves to avoid being negatives. What the supporters of no negative utility want is people being played during the entire time they're available and tiered as per their performance, not needing to bench or chump block with them after one chapter. Like I tried to point out earlier, your view on the matter is more of the "no negative utility camp" than the one of people assuming negatives, interestingly.

[Rodykitty]

Then the philosophy should be called "tiering based on positives", not "there is no such thing as negative utility". The latter sounds like some idealist mindset that tries to embrace all characters as good, when the reality is that we're ditching some characters early because they're a negative later on.

And we can't even ignore negative utility for characters that have to be a negative in order to become a positive later on.

[dondon151]

And we can't even ignore negative utility for characters that have to be a negative in order to become a positive later on.

Yes, but this sort of negative utility is a little different from negative utility just garnered by taking another unit's slot. I already said it twice before that it's not that "negative utility doesn't exist;" it's "opportunity cost with regard to unit deployment should be ignored."

[Zkirsche]

Unit A takes an energy drop from Unit B.

Unit A takes a unit slot away from Unit B.

What's the difference? They're both slowing others down.

[Rodykitty]

I've always ignored opportunity cost when tiering characters on H5, so I definitely agree with you there. It's just random punishing of characters for not being "the main guys you should pick".

[dondon151]

No you aren't. If he contributes nothing that would not be accomplished by a different unit if he didn't exist, then he contributes nothing at all. You could remove him from the game and there would be no effect on the player's efficiency.

Hence, you're ignoring normal utility. I find this a particularly bold statement to make, as you're implying that units under a certain point on the tier list don't even need to be tiered, which is exactly the problem that I've been delineating in my last however many number of posts.

Okay, cool. Are you going to answer my question, or keep deflecting? This whole discussion is going to keep coming back to this:

Are you going to answer my question, or are you going to keep asking me to answer your question? Or do you just simply not get why this is going to go in circles, because neither question can be answered satisfactorily?

So you might as well go ahead and address it directly, as opposed to dancing around it by responding with your own questions or w/e.

Of course you have empty slots. When you're picking units for a chapter, you start with the forced units, and then everyone else is selected to the player's discretion.

They're related. Optimal character choice is a part of efficient play.

Partially true, but this still contradicts the assumption that negatively efficient characters need to be played to be tiered when they shouldn't be played at all.

The tier list FAQ agrees with the first part of your statement. It clearly implies an assumption of efficient play. The second part of your statement, after the word "yet," I don't see anywhere in the tier list FAQ, nor do I remember seeing it anywhere else. So, did you just totally make this up and it's just your opinion, or are you getting this "most basic principle" thing from an external source, or did I just miss the part where it says this in the tier list FAQ, or what?

You said it yourself that optimal character choice and efficient play are related, then you flip-flop and say that there's nothing wrong with playing negatively efficient characters, all while citing Vykan's tier list FAQ as an infallible source that must be taken word for word. Every debater knows that the basic principle behind a tier list is efficiency; Vykan doesn't need to tell them.

Okay then, don't discuss inefficient runs if you don't want to. I still don't see your point.

An inefficient run will never be discussed, even if it wants to be discussed.

I wish tier lists would go back to "unit is xRKOing and being yRKO'd back, which is pretty good/bad" instead of "unit has 2x availability which can only be compensated by being 2x as good or bad which is hard to define in the first place."

Unit A takes an energy drop from Unit B.

Unit A takes a unit slot away from Unit B.

What's the difference? They're both slowing others down.

The difference is that for a character to be played and therefore tiered, the character must be designated a unit slot (i.e. no one else can have it, otherwise the point of its discussion is null). The character doesn't necessarily need an Energy Drop to be played.

Edited August 19, 2009 by dondon151

[Interceptor]

I wish tier lists would go back to "unit is xRKOing and being yRKO'd back, which is pretty good/bad" instead of "unit has 2x availability which can only be compensated by being 2x as good or bad which is hard to define in the first place."

Then why don't you make your own tier list, with blackjack, hookers, and straightforward numerical comparisons that can be resolved with a minimum of fuss? I think that there is an appetite for recognizing that availbility actually matters when it comes to game completion, and therefore factoring that somehow into a tier list that ranks characters based on that idea.

[Dat Nick]

The difference is that for a character to be played and therefore tiered, the character must be designated a unit slot (i.e. no one else can have it, otherwise the point of its discussion is null). The character doesn't necessarily need an Energy Drop to be played.

I think Kirsche was agreeing with you...or at least that's what it seemed like.

[CATS]

Every single time we start comparing two units that should never ever be deployed in an efficient playthrough we are doing a tier list entailing selecting negatively efficient units for comparison. Every time we put a really bad unit on the field to see how good it does we are already operating in a way mutually exclusive with "Characters are compared based on how they contribute towards an efficient playthrough." Because the way in which Lyre contributes towards an efficient playthrough is by entertaining Gatrie between chapters so he can be more relaxed during a map. She does not contribute towards an efficient playthrough by being fielded. By fielding her we make a mockery of the very idea of an efficient playthrough.

It's not like discussion of what happens when the units are actively used couldn't still happen. It's just that one would also have to acknowledge what they are able to contribute without taking away from anything else.

By selecting "mid tier is roughly neutral utility" that is basically stating that even if we could know the perfect team choice then mid tier would still be roughly neutral utility.

No. That's obviously not what it says. It doesn't say "Assuming we know the perfect team choice, mid tier is still neutral utility."

No, the idea isn't that everyone becomes good eventually. The idea is that in, say, chapter 8, when you have 10 slots and 13 units, and 10 of the units are clearly better than the other 3, those three units do not automatically have negative utility by being fielded. This is because on most maps all 10 of those "better units" are not always operating at peak output. There are only so many enemies, only so many places through which enemies attack, and only so many of your units will be in position to do something on enemy phase. As such, it is entirely possible that whatever your tenth unit is doing in a normal playthough could very easily be done by one of the other 3. If this is the case, then those 3 units do not have negative utility for being fielded. They aren't hurting us in any way whatsoever.

I don't quite understand your argument here. Are you saying that here, negative utility doesn't exist because a lesser unit can get the job done anyway?

But if A is bad for 18 chapters and B is bad for 6 chapters, shouldn't B have to be more than three times as bad as A is in order to be ranked lower?

If you deploy both units in every chapter that they're available, then sure, something like that. There's no reason to assume that's what happens, though.

You mean the logic against sticking Mr. Useless above those 10 guys that are 5RKOd and 3HKO all the enemies? I just find it strange that a unit that does nothing ever gets a pass simply because it doesn't kick out other units.

Oh, indeed. Them's the breaks, though. In this case, the fact that he isn't consuming a limited and important resource (i.e. your deployment slots) is a pretty big advantage for him, even if he sucks at the rest of everything, just like in FEDS prepromos get points because they don't consume a limited and valuable resource (Master Seals).

Of course unit B would be better if it showed up at the same time as unit A. It has everything to do with availability.

Well now I'm just confused, because you're agreeing with my points while arguing against them. You're trying to show that greater availability can be a disadvantage when you acknowledge negative utility, correct? I'm telling you otherwise. Adding more availability to a unit will only ever cause them to be ranked higher on the tier list. Assume that Nino joins in Ch 11 instead of BBD, for example.

Your own example does not compare two equal units joining at different times; you added more stats and levels to the later joining unit. That's an advantage for that unit; he has higher stats without requiring any resource investment. The two are not equal. If you truly keep everything else the same and only adjust availability, the earlier joining unit is always better. Greater availability is never a disadvantage in and of itself, negative utility or not.

My problem with the scenario is that a lot of people say "negative utility" this and "negative utility" that, but then say Kyza > Fiona. For the sake of logical consistency, I'd much rather see Fiona > Kyza.

Well phooey on those people then.

@CATS:

Why do you keep insisting that bad characters reduce efficiency and should thus receive negative utility for not being equally efficient than the best characters?

Because that's what the topic is about.

What's the point of the list if you argue every non-optimal character as a negative? Just state the best characters in a single post then, there's nothing to tier there.

Sure there is. Even when dealing with units who are pure negatives and just made of suck, you can rank them based on which one is least negative--which one is more usable or can contribute more without sucking up resources. Or not, if you don't feel like discussing crappy units. But don't pretend that it isn't possible unless you ignore negative utility.

[CATS]

I apologize in advance if double posting is against the rules or something. I didn't want to simply edit this into the tail end of my last post, as then it could go unnoticed by some people who had already read the post.

Hence, you're ignoring normal utility. I find this a particularly bold statement to make, as you're implying that units under a certain point on the tier list don't even need to be tiered, which is exactly the problem that I've been delineating in my last however many number of posts.

No, you're implying that. I've never said anything like it. I suppose it's true that you don't "need" to tier lower ranked units, in the same sense that we don't "need" to do tiers at all. But it's very obviously still possible to rank those lower units, should you wish to do so. This is a very poor excuse for ignoring negative utility.

Of course you have empty slots. When you're picking units for a chapter, you start with the forced units, and then everyone else is selected to the player's discretion.

Sure. Then suddenly you run out of slots before you can select everyone, leaving no empty ones left over. The point is that it isn't a question of bringing Bartre or having an empty slot. It's a question of bringing Bartre or bringing someone else in his slot. Thus you don't rank Bartre as if the former is the case.

You said it yourself that optimal character choice and efficient play are related, then you flip-flop and say that there's nothing wrong with playing negatively efficient characters.

Where did I say this?

Every debater knows that the basic principle behind a tier list is efficiency; Vykan doesn't need to tell them.

You didn't cite "the basic principle" as just efficiency. And since you seemed to be giving so much weight to your conception of "the basic principle of the tier list," I thought it appropriate to question how you were drawing the authority to define the basis of the list yourself.

Partially true, but this still contradicts the assumption that negatively efficient characters need to be played to be tiered when they shouldn't be played at all.

No, they don't have to be played in order to be tiered. I've never actively played Wil on my FE7 team, but I'm still perfectly capable of discussing his position on the tier list. And they sure don't have to be deployed in every single chapter in order to be tiered. There's nothing at all to support that line of thinking.

You seem to be arguing that the acknowledgement of negative utility shuts down alot of tier discussion, but this is only true if you want it to be. Discussion is purely theoretical. People can discuss whatever they feel like discussing. This is already demonstrated by the arbitrary assumptions that the tier lists make; i.e., everyone agrees that ranks are ignored, that Lord's seizing is disregarded as an argument, etc. I suppose the argument boils down to whether or not "negative utility is ignored" should be added to that list or not. My problem is that I don't see any reasons why it should be. It doesn't facilitate more interesting discussion. Only less accurate or realistic discussion, as units like Wil are allowed to consume large amounts of resources, have those costs be totally ignored, and then be ranked over someone like Vaida.

An inefficient run will never be discussed, even if it wants to be discussed.

You might never discuss an inefficient run. I don't see any rules stating that others can't discuss it if they feel like doing so.

Edited August 19, 2009 by CATS

[Reikken]

Even Reikken couches his choice of the definition of negative utility with an arbitrary modifier that has nothing to do with negative utility at all: the likelyhood of a particular team and/or support.

I fail to see how that has nothing to do with negative utility. I thought I explained it already, but I'll give it another shot.

A unit who performs worse than the worst unit's slot it would be taking in order to be fielded has negative utility, as your overall performance becomes weaker by adding that unit to your team. Pretty straightforward, right? Now, where the "likelyhood of a particular team" comes in is this. If a better unit would not have been fielded anyway, the unit whose utility is in question can not be taking the place of that unit. Thus this unit's opportunity cost will vary depending on the particular team that otherwise would have been used. To account for all situations and form an overall or average opportunity cost, take the cost for each team weighted by the "likelyhood of [that] particular team" and average them all together.

And as for the "arbitrary" bit: It's not arbitrary at all; it's just impossible/impractical to calculate, so I do the best I can practically do and estimate it. The value I come up with may be arbitrary, depending on your conception of that term, but the value that it's based on is certainly not.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Reikken

[Rodykitty]

A unit who performs worse than the worst unit's slot it would be taking in order to be fielded has negative utility, as your overall performance becomes weaker by adding that unit to your team. Pretty straightforward, right? Now, where the "likelyhood of a particular team" comes in is this. If a better unit would not have been fielded anyway, the unit whose utility is in question can not be taking the place of that unit. Thus this unit's opportunity cost will vary depending on the particular team that otherwise would have been used. To account for all situations and form an overall or average opportunity cost, take the cost for each team weighted by the "likelyhood of [that] particular team" and average them all together.

No.

This is just saying, "Let's punish units on the tier list for already being lower on the tier list." You can be not as good as the "optimal team" and still not be a negative.

[Quasar]

Sure there is. Even when dealing with units who are pure negatives and just made of suck, you can rank them based on which one is least negative--which one is more usable or can contribute more without sucking up resources. Or not, if you don't feel like discussing crappy units. But don't pretend that it isn't possible unless you ignore negative utility.

You can do that, but your arguments have always been "doesn't get fielded after forced period" and "goes out there, damages something and dies". So you say there is a difference in theory but in practice you cancel out the possibility and call everyone non-optimal a bench-warmer. With your logic instead of the theory you keep calling out there's no sense in having a tier list. Just look at your own arguments that concern negative utility.

I'm still going to say that people who want one chapter tier placements made with a single sentence containing the words "goes" "out" "there" "and" "dies" can have their own lists. It's becoming increasingly apparent coexisting isn't an option.

[dondon151]

No, you're implying that. I've never said anything like it. I suppose it's true that you don't "need" to tier lower ranked units, in the same sense that we don't "need" to do tiers at all. But it's very obviously still possible to rank those lower units, should you wish to do so. This is a very poor excuse for ignoring negative utility.

Whether we acknowledge or ignore the opportunity cost of deployment affects how non-ideal units are tiered. If the best way to play non-ideal units is to not play them at all, then every one of those units is virtually identical and cannot be tiered.

Sure. Then suddenly you run out of slots before you can select everyone, leaving no empty ones left over. The point is that it isn't a question of bringing Bartre or having an empty slot. It's a question of bringing Bartre or bringing someone else in his slot. Thus you don't rank Bartre as if the former is the case.

Then does Bartre get credit for allowing a superior unit to take his slot if he's not played?

Where did I say this?

"They're related. Optimal character choice is a part of efficient play."

"The second part of your statement, after the word "yet," I don't see anywhere in the tier list FAQ, nor do I remember seeing it anywhere else."

And the statement that you were referring to: "The tier list is created under the premise of high efficiency play yet it entails selecting negatively efficient units for comparison."

You didn't cite "the basic principle" as just efficiency. And since you seemed to be giving so much weight to your conception of "the basic principle of the tier list," I thought it appropriate to question how you were drawing the authority to define the basis of the list yourself.

I don't think anyone would disagree with me that the basic principle of a tier list is efficiency, and I don't think I had to cite it outright, though anyone with the ability of inference can deduce that much.

No, they don't have to be played in order to be tiered. I've never actively played Wil on my FE7 team, but I'm still perfectly capable of discussing his position on the tier list. And they sure don't have to be deployed in every single chapter in order to be tiered. There's nothing at all to support that line of thinking.

Uh... I never said about playing a character in personal experience. If Wil is to be tiered, then the theoretical player has to use him on the team, otherwise Wil is equivalent to nothing.

Only less accurate or realistic discussion, as units like Wil are allowed to consume large amounts of resources, have those costs be totally ignored, and then be ranked over someone like Vaida.

Are you even reading my posts now? This will be the fourth time that I said that the only opportunity cost that will be ignored is the cost of deployment. Stuff like the cost of weapons, support slots, stat boosters, and promotion items are not ignored.

You might never discuss an inefficient run. I don't see any rules stating that others can't discuss it if they feel like doing so.

See, here's how the discussion will boil down.

1: debaters agree to discuss inefficient play.

2: one debater will point out that playing a character a certain way will decrease negative efficiency, and the other debater will attempt to counter it.

3: debate switches to discussing efficient play.

[Reikken]

A unit who performs worse than the worst unit's slot it would be taking in order to be fielded has negative utility, as your overall performance becomes weaker by adding that unit to your team. Pretty straightforward, right? Now, where the "likelyhood of a particular team" comes in is this. If a better unit would not have been fielded anyway, the unit whose utility is in question can not be taking the place of that unit. Thus this unit's opportunity cost will vary depending on the particular team that otherwise would have been used. To account for all situations and form an overall or average opportunity cost, take the cost for each team weighted by the "likelyhood of [that] particular team" and average them all together.

No.

This is just saying, "Let's punish units on the tier list for already being lower on the tier list." You can be not as good as the "optimal team" and still not be a negative.

So you're saying that I am wrong because you don't think that I'm right even though I have a logical argument and you do not. (There is no argument in your post, just a voicing of disagreement.)

btw, units are lower on the tier list because they are worse, not the other way around. Their position on the tier list doesn't directly have anything to do with "negative utility".

It's not like "This unit is bad. Oh, and they also have negative utility which pulls them down even more." Instead, "negative utility" is a reflection of them being bad, or simply another way of looking at how bad they are. It's not 'in addition to' anything.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Reikken