unit A + team vs unit B + team

[Paperblade]

I am shocked that you even responded to that, Paperblade, alas so far the nature of your response is predictable (I have not finished reading it yet, though). Before I finish, and before I forgot, however, I wanted to provide you with something that you requested of Narga.

k.

Narga's massive Colin Powell Doctrine argument for moving Mia up. (just skip to the last three paragraphs if you don't want your worldview to be destroyed)

Oh man, first thing I noticed was 3-P being 7 turns. This isn't really related, but I want to bitch about 3-P's BEXP requirement because it makes 4-4's look like a walk in the park by comparison. You have to have like Ike/Rolf/Shinon/Mia/Oscar with Bond stacking/Your Killer Axe user critting left and right and using max move to do it that fast (slow assholes like Gatrie/Soren/Rhys bring up the rear finishing off other stuff), on top of chain-shoving to the boss and then one rounding with a crit and needing to get lucky with the Laguz so that their fail doesn't get in your way. If the rest of the BEXP reqs were holding us to that standard then every other chapter pretty much has to be running straight to the boss, which means no time to ponder such questions as Link has just grabbed a smash ball for stuff like "run to that General in the lower right corner and play the Disarm game to steal his Storm Sword" or "Gimp Ike's attack with Disarm-Flourish to steal weapons we can already buy". You know Prog's Speedrun? Of course you do, everyone does. 3-P's holding the player to that standard. On Hard Mode. Yeah, fuck 3-P's BEXP requirement.

Anyway. He just assumes Ike needs more attack. In fact, if we scroll up, it's even pointed out that the bonus Mt barely helps Ike at all, and I'm assuming that's with Ettard so a forged sword does the same bloody thing as a Mia support, and since we're swimming in money this should be no problem, which means the only thing Ike loses out on is going from 32 to 34 attack with the Wind Edge, which is really tragic, since it drops him from 2HKOing Sages to 2HKOing Sages, and 3HKOing everything else to 3HKOing (goes from 3RKOing to 4RKOing vs. Generals, but Generals are assholes)

And before you go "But we don't have enough gold to buy Ike such wtfpwnstomp weapons!" Gold may not be much of an issue, but we apparently have enough gold for Mia to apparently attack and then counter 2+ enemies every turn. That's 720g per turn with 0 Adept activations and only countering 2 enemies. If we're capable of spending that sort of gold, I expect the entire DB and the entire GMs to have max Might forges (and max Hit where applicable), including Ike. Do you have a budget you wanna give me where I can afford to forge Mia a new awesome sword every other chapter while still getting everyone else max might forges or am I to assume you're talking out your ass?

So anyway. No numbers, just "Hey Ike cares about that +2 atk from Mia and Boyd/Soren/Mist/Rhys aren't options". He doesn't even give numbers for anyone else's durability with Earth support. Oh cool, she's better than Heather at offense? Pretty sure Astrid is too. Never mind that enemies don't line up in a nice line for Ike and Mia to stand right next to each other and still both be attacking (and not having them both attack is a total waste of their "best offense"). Ike isn't using his max Move every turn, otherwise chapters would end in about 5 turns because he's JUST THAT MANLY, so his argument that low Move units are left in the dust is wrong. Never mind that Narga apparently totally forgot the Provoke and Shade exist (although apparently we're going to make use Ike's "best offense" by giving him Flourish and Disarm, since killing things quickly coincides with dicking around trying to steal weapons we can already buy).

And you actually suggested Shinon wants to support SOREN? God, for all Narga's talk about support speed, the fact that his counterargument for that is "Soren sucks for Endgame" instead of "It's the slowest support in the game" is hilarious. Did you actually look at the support list before you posted that?

He didn't even mention Ulki or Janaff, which is funny, since Mia doesn't A Ike in 3-3 when they're not there, and chokepoint land means that on the 30% chance she does fail we're sitting there twiddling our thumbs. Which means she's good in 3-4, which is fighting uphill so Laguz and Haar get everywhere twice as fast as her plus it has like no enemies anyway. And 3-5, which is a cool story bro chapters since to the left are lolsages which anyone can pwn and to the right are lolgenerals which pwn Mia's offense, and down the middle are loladins.

I'm personally not impressed by proofs that Mia is better at duoing a vaguely defined chapters with Ike than amazing combat units such as Heather, Mist, and Reyson.

A short post with a casual mention of opportunity cost as it relates to Gatrie and Mia.

Cool evidence bro. "Gatrie with crown is best." "Mia with Ike support is best." A child can make a Proof by Assertion, you wanna give me something concrete? Compared to his example where the opportunity costs are clearly defined and given numbers, rather than "barely matters", I'm not seeing the same thing.

Although it's a casual mention, so whatever. Neither of those is like the "SEE THE OPPORTUNITY COST HERE IS 4, BUT THE GAIN IS 9, SO WE HAVE A NETGAIN OF 5" like it is in his example.

I know that you won't thank me for it, ungracious as you are, but you're welcome anyway.

It's a shame that there is so much uselessness in this thread, crowding out real points. Narga has never argued with you before, so he took your accusations of fallacy seriously and responded to them honestly, not realizing that it just contributes to your rhetorical smokescreen. C'est la vie. I'm sure that now he realizes that you argue in bad faith, that he'll be more inclined to stick to the meat and potatoes.

Reputation is an idle and most false imposition; oft got without merit and lost without deserving.

Time to keep reading, to see if there's anything particularly stupid that needs to be responded to.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

[Interceptor]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

Quoting this for (ir)relevance. Paperblade, you ought to know by now that I'm the person least likely to be distracted by your smokescreen. Flinging up a bunch of silly side-rants wastes your time in writing them, and my time in reading them prior to ignoring them.

Anyway, you asked for something, and I provided it to you. I am sorry to hear that it does not fit your arbitrary and needlessly demanding requirements, and by "sorry" I mean "not at all surprised". I did you a favor by linking you deep into the Mia discussion in the ier list thread. It is not my problem that you are unable to understand the logic contained therein, nor is it my responsibility to continue to entertain you every time that you move the goal posts again.

As a general point, directed towards the very minute portions of your rantings that briefly touched something resembling an on-topic comment: the link that I gave you was not the entirety of the Mia discussion. Indeed, it could not possibly contain all of the arguments, which span multiple pages with several serious list participants. You are not an active follower of the tier list, so all of these intervening points are lost to you (such as specific numbers for other support options, or particular chapters with detailed examples of enemies/tactics) owing to your habit of swooping in, making a giant post that misrepesents several points, and then vanishing like a ninja without ever engaging anyone in a substantial debate. This thread is the latest victim.

Narga has given up on you, which is the correct decision. He already has gone to great lengths to explain to you the logical reasoning behind how he views opportunity cost as it applies to Fire Emblem efficiency tier lists. It's pretty close to a definitive resource on the subject, as a matter of fact. But, you are naturally disinterested in debating theories in good faith, instead resorting to mocking his well-researched arguments with your childish retorts.

No matter. If you ever have the urge to have a serious discussion, feel free to post about some targetted issue that you are interested in going over, however with the stipulation that off-topic tangents will be wholly ignored.

[Narga_Rocks]

Oh man, first thing I noticed was 3-P being 7 turns. This isn't really related, but I want to bitch about 3-P's BEXP requirement because it makes 4-4's look like a walk in the park by comparison. You have to have like Ike/Rolf/Shinon/Mia/Oscar with Bond stacking/Your Killer Axe user critting left and right and using max move to do it that fast (slow assholes like Gatrie/Soren/Rhys bring up the rear finishing off other stuff), on top of chain-shoving to the boss and then one rounding with a crit and needing to get lucky with the Laguz so that their fail doesn't get in your way.

This is another example of why Transfer Ike deserves his own tier. He goes from 3RKOing this boss to 1RKOing. I'm serious. 36mt 3HKOs the guy and 23 speed doesn't double. 25 speed does double and 38 mt 2HKOs the guy. He does just 18 damage without transfers and 39 with a str+spd transfer. There are of course many other situations in which transfer Ike is vastly superior to normal Ike, but this one is just funny. Boyd and Gatrie shove Ike and Ike goes and butchers the guy. A 7 turn clear is actually rather easy with a transfer Ike, but as you said, more difficult without.

Narga has given up on you, which is the correct decision.

You know, I hate doing it, but even with Smash I almost feel like I'm getting somewhere (before the ignoring thing). Also, this isn't the tier list topic anyway.

Of course, that won't prevent me from attempting to get Transfer Ike some recognition for his superiority over normal ike.

Edited October 4, 2009 by Narga_Rocks

[Florete]

You know, I hate doing it, but even with Smash I almost feel like I'm getting somewhere (before the ignoring thing). Also, this isn't the tier list topic anyway.

Of course, that won't prevent me from attempting to get Transfer Ike some recognition for his superiority over normal ike.

A little off topic here, (though it's smash's thread, so I guess it's okay) but we never did finish that transfers discussion....Perhaps I should just toss the transfer versions of characters on and see where it goes?

[Narga_Rocks]

A little off topic here, (though it's smash's thread, so I guess it's okay)

Topic is about dead anyway. Probably another post from PaperBlade tomorrow, maybe a final word by Int (possibly followed by yet another post from PB). After that there probably won't be anything. (well, I probably should go and fix a bunch of typos and stuff (possible worst offender: "And considering they aren't likely to hit 20/20/1 until tempest blades have appeared, she's got nice 2RKO." where I meant nice 2 range offence, since tempest 1RKOs in 4-1 and 4-4 depending on levels and if she can/can't manage what is basically a 68% chance of getting 29 str by 20/8 assuming capping of tier 2 str with some slowplaying.) but I won't.)

but we never did finish that transfers discussion....Perhaps I should just toss the transfer versions of characters on and see where it goes?

Aside from the new length that the tier list will reach, I agree. Those possibilities exist and should be accounted for. As for adjudicating what transfers, your idea in the topic you created was good, but so was Int's fixed mode + reasonable band usage idea. Also units that end up one robe away from capping HP is another possibility, unless there are more than 3 of them, I guess.

edit: Don't know if you'll come check out this topic again before another post is made, but just want to say if nothing else, sticking an extra 20 or more characters on the list and placing them somewhere might generate more discussion.

Edited October 4, 2009 by Narga_Rocks

[Progenitus]

Given that my OP was not addressed adequately and the topic derailed into Mia vs Titania, I'm assuming everyone agrees with my main points, then.

Edited October 30, 2009 by 8========================D

[Vykan12]

There's no way in hell I'm reading all that tl;dr but isn't Titania vs Mia acting as a posterboy example of this whole resource allotment issue? If that's the case, the topic hasn't been derailed at all.

[Narga_Rocks]

There's no way in hell I'm reading all that tl;dr but isn't Titania vs Mia acting as a posterboy example of this whole resource allotment issue? If that's the case, the topic hasn't been derailed at all.

I'd say Mia/Titania/Gatrie vs. Janaff is more appropriate for being a posterboy of the resource allotment issue.

Without a wing Titania rarely doubles much of importance. Without a crown Gats is stuck at 23 AS for a long time. Janaff is helped by a drop, sure, but he's still ORKOing a fair amount without the drop. Certainly more than Titania or Gatrie when she's not passing 23 until promotion and even then only has 25, and he is stuck not doubling anything with >= 20 AS. Frankly if you don't buy giving Mia adept (at least pre-3-8)and Ike then I see no reason to buy Titania getting a wing or Gatrie getting a crown.

So Titania vs. Mia isn't a good posterboy example. Mia's durability isn't that much worse than Titania's. Especially once you reach the halfway point of part 3. And Mia with a simple crit forge has all kinds of offensive advantages over Titania (even if you give her Adept and a crit forge).

And while he brought up the resource element of the discussion, the focal point is the idea that it is better to assume unit A is not on unit B's team ever. Which is ludicrous. It's all well and good to consider them in that situation, but if one situation is more common then the other (in some cases both deployed), it should have more weight. You shouldn't ignore the situation where both are fielded just because 20% of the time only one is fielded. But I do understand that you shouldn't ignore the situation where only one is fielded just because 80% of the time both are fielded. (I realize not every A vs. B has a mere 20% chance of just one fielded, but that's why the weighting should be done on a case by case basis, not a blanket rule like he suggests.)

So to this:

Given that my OP was not addressed adequately and the topic derailed into Mia vs Titania, I'm assuming everyone agrees with my main points, then.

I'd have to say NO. Not in a million years.

(to anyone that wants to say that Smash did say:

Unit A + team vs unit B + team can assume that unit A and B are fielded at the same time (unit B is part of unit A's team, e.g. unit A + team which includes unit B vs unit B + team which includes unit A, which is basically the same thing as unit A + unit B + team), but it can also assume the situations where unit A and B are not fielded at the same time.

I have to respond he also said:

Frankly, the only time I assume unit A and B are fielded at the same time is if they are each other's best support, e.g. Alan and lance, or RD Janaff and Ulki, etc., although they should still get the same resources (or resources of equal value) even if one uses it better than the other. Otherwise I assume they are not, even if they are extremely good units.

The last bolded statement should tell you that he thinks it is better to assume that the 80% doesn't even exist.)

If he rewords it and drops this idea:

Otherwise I assume they are not, even if they are extremely good units.

It could become more acceptable. But as long as he continues to believe this sentence, I'd have to say I will continue to strongly disagree.

Edited October 30, 2009 by Narga_Rocks

[Vykan12]

the focal point is the idea that it is better to assume unit A is not on unit B's team ever. Which is ludicrous.

In reality, you certainly will have times where unit A and B will overlap in the same army, especially if both are high tier. However, for comparison purposes, it is more constructive to compare units as though they are part of separate armies. If you don't agree, why not just do both? Thoroughness ftw.

[Narga_Rocks]

the focal point is the idea that it is better to assume unit A is not on unit B's team ever. Which is ludicrous.

In reality, you certainly will have times where unit A and B will overlap in the same army, especially if both are high tier. However, for comparison purposes, it is more constructive to compare units as though they are part of separate armies. If you don't agree, why not just do both? Thoroughness ftw.

I agree with comparing both situations. Unless it's like Meg vs. Fiona or something. Or Ike vs. Haar.

Edited October 30, 2009 by Narga_Rocks

[Progenitus]

There's no way in hell I'm reading all that tl;dr but isn't Titania vs Mia acting as a posterboy example of this whole resource allotment issue? If that's the case, the topic hasn't been derailed at all.

Not really. The whole topic derailed into a strict Titania vs Mia comparison, not about considering we should acknowledge the disadvantage that Mia is taking resources even if she is the best for said resources (and likewise for Titania, though no one ever assumes Titania to get anything, or rather anything significant), which was one of my main points, and the reason why I brought up the example. I didn't intend to turn the topic into Titania vs Mia

In reality, you certainly will have times where unit A and B will overlap in the same army, especially if both are high tier. However, for comparison purposes, it is more constructive to compare units as though they are part of separate armies. If you don't agree, why not just do both? Thoroughness ftw.

The big reason why I don't assume unit A and B are not on the same team (if they are both high tier, anyway) is that it makes it easier to see whose contributions are worth more.

As an example I brought up earlier, FE7 Marcus vs Raven. They are both extremely good. But an easy way to see who is better is to see which team is hurting more should the unit be removed. Therefore, the team without Marcus will be SOL for multiple earlygame chapters. The team without Raven will not have an asskicker lategame, or a solid unit earlygame.

And, another problem with this is that it may sometimes degrade into circular logic. Take Mia again. Many people assume that Mia is good, because with several resources she becomes good, and thus we're fielding Mia very often so she can take those resources and be good.

"X unit is good with Y resources, so Y resources aren't going to anyone else because they're going to X unit!"

What it should be is "X unit is good, but is even better if given Y resources".

It would be like saying "Lyn with early heaven seal + LYn's mode angelic robe + some other stuffs is good, and thus Lyn is played often and we end up dumping the early heaven seal/robe/whatever on her".

[Vykan12]

Smash, I hope you realize that you and Narga/Int have fairly different philosophies on how a tier list compares units.

You re-posted some stuff from your OP, but it doesn't really address their perspective on it. Eg/

"X unit is good with Y resources, so Y resources aren't going to anyone else because they're going to X unit!"

The idea is for resource Y to always go to the unit who best uses it while considering it as having 0 opportunity cost.

What it should be is "X unit is good, but is even better if given Z resources".

I changed the letter from Y to Z here to illustrate a different point. If unit x isn't the best user of resource Z, they won't get any consideration for that resource, so the statement about them becoming better with it is ultimately pointless.

I've already voiced my discontent for this approach on FE genesis, but you should at least be clear on what their arguments are (supposing I didn't mis-interpret anything).

[Progenitus]

Prog, that's exactly the problem. The logic is flawed. If it was not flawed, I wouldn't be complaining about it.

I changed the letter from Y to Z here to illustrate a different point. If unit x isn't the best user of resource Z, they won't get any consideration for that resource, so the statement about them becoming better with it is ultimately pointless.

The statement you changed is exactly what it SHOULD be.

As in...

the bad logic - "X unit is good with Y resources, so Y resources aren't going to anyone else because they're going to X unit!"

what it should be - "X unit is good, but is even better if given Y resources".

I don't see the point with why you made the change. I understand what the logic is, and it's wrong.

Edited October 31, 2009 by 8========================D

[Vykan12]

I wouldn't say the logic is flawed more so than it's limited to the concept of a perfect playthrough.

[Narga_Rocks]

There's no way in hell I'm reading all that tl;dr but isn't Titania vs Mia acting as a posterboy example of this whole resource allotment issue? If that's the case, the topic hasn't been derailed at all.

Not really. The whole topic derailed into a strict Titania vs Mia comparison, not about considering we should acknowledge the disadvantage that Mia is taking resources even if she is the best for said resources (and likewise for Titania, though no one ever assumes Titania to get anything, or rather anything significant), which was one of my main points, and the reason why I brought up the example. I didn't intend to turn the topic into Titania vs Mia

@bold. Okay, I know you never bother to read in detail anything that goes on, but if we didn't assume Titania gets a wing, or at least a really good shot at one, Int and I would be arguing her down to Shinon's level, probably. Well, I'm not sure where I'd argue her down, but a Titania with 21AS is not better than Gatrie. Not even close. Just because you may think she is that good without the wing doesn't mean anybody else does. And the wing is certainly something significant. In fact, if we were to operate by your standards for how many wings we have in 3-2, I'd still argue her down since having only 1 wing to give out means she is competing with Haar who flies and can get an extra chapter out of it. She is not winning that competition.

In reality, you certainly will have times where unit A and B will overlap in the same army, especially if both are high tier. However, for comparison purposes, it is more constructive to compare units as though they are part of separate armies. If you don't agree, why not just do both? Thoroughness ftw.

The big reason why I don't assume unit A and B are not on the same team (if they are both high tier, anyway) is that it makes it easier to see whose contributions are worth more.

As an example I brought up earlier, FE7 Marcus vs Raven. They are both extremely good. But an easy way to see who is better is to see which team is hurting more should the unit be removed. Therefore, the team without Marcus will be SOL for multiple earlygame chapters. The team without Raven will not have an asskicker lategame, or a solid unit earlygame.

And, another problem with this is that it may sometimes degrade into circular logic. Take Mia again. Many people assume that Mia is good, because with several resources she becomes good, and thus we're fielding Mia very often so she can take those resources and be good.

"X unit is good with Y resources, so Y resources aren't going to anyone else because they're going to X unit!"

What it should be is "X unit is good, but is even better if given Y resources".

It would be like saying "Lyn with early heaven seal + LYn's mode angelic robe + some other stuffs is good, and thus Lyn is played often and we end up dumping the early heaven seal/robe/whatever on her".

And yet, Lyn may face stiffer competition.

And what you are not getting is:

Mia gets it when she is in play, so she doesn't need to be compared without it. However, that doesn't mean other units have no chance at stuff. Especially in PoR where she isn't even beyond upper mid even with the stuff that makes the most sense to go her way (ie: it really doesn't hurt other units' chance of getting wrath since there are plenty of teams in chapter 19 and beyond without her in them). But in RD she is still quite good without it all, what with doubling when not much else is (like how your wingless Titania performs) and having swordmaster crit and high skill making a crit forge a good idea. Considering even you gave her an 8 and you assume she gets diddly I'd have to say she's got a good chance of being fielded. Which means that while I could give her adept and Ike to some other unit when she's not around, I should at least acknowledge that a fair amount of the time a better candidate is fielded. You can't assume the other unit always gets it, like you can with Mia, even if the other units is #2 in line.

Smash, I hope you realize that you and Narga/Int have fairly different philosophies on how a tier list compares units.

You re-posted some stuff from your OP, but it doesn't really address their perspective on it. Eg/

"X unit is good with Y resources, so Y resources aren't going to anyone else because they're going to X unit!"

The idea is for resource Y to always go to the unit who best uses it while considering it as having 0 opportunity cost.

I wouldn't say we take it with 0 cost. We don't think there is a point in comparing them without the item, but we tend not to let them have stuff for free. Maybe we just think the opportunity cost of them getting it hurts less than you think it does. We likely disagree on the magnitude of the difference between their boost to the team's efficiency with it and any other units'.

Like, we think the improvement to the team with an item on our unit is 8 and the next best is 2 so the net improvement of 6 is enough to push them past some other unit on the list. You might think 7 and 3 is more accurate, and that 4 isn't enough in your mind to push them past some unit.

Prog, that's exactly the problem. The logic is flawed. If it was not flawed, I wouldn't be complaining about it.

No, if it involved shoving Zihark or Aran or Shinon up the list in RD you wouldn't be complaining about it. Anything that involves Mia going up will end with you complaining. Considering you can call her crappy in PoR when she isn't (even without extra stuff), it suggests you have a strong bias against her. I'm not saying she is great in that game or anything, but she certainly isn't crappy.

I don't see the point with why you made the change. I understand what the logic is, and it's wrong.

If you understood the logic, we wouldn't have to correct you so often, would we? I suppose since you read what you want to read in anything I shouldn't be surprised you never noticed.

I wouldn't say the logic is flawed more so than it's limited to the concept of a perfect playthrough.

If you have chosen 8 to 12 units for a playthough, aren't we trying to use them as best we can? Mia helps the team the most with certain things. When she happens to be fielded, why not? Now, if there is a team out there where somehow making Boyd have a 20% chance at ORKOing an enemy improves the team more than giving Mia a 50% chance of ORKOing something then there may be some point to not assuming Mia gets it. If there is even one team out there that has Mia deployed for the whole game in which it is a better choice to give it to notMia for 3-P to 3-7 at a minimum, I could understand. Even if Mia is still the best use for 95% of the teams, I'd understand the need to point out the 5% and have it acknowledged. That's not really the case.

[Vykan12]

Like, we think the improvement to the team with an item on our unit is 8 and the next best is 2 so the net improvement of 6 is enough to push them past some other unit on the list. You might think 7 and 3 is more accurate, and that 4 isn't enough in your mind to push them past some unit.

Whoa what? Nobody is ever going to use a resource 75% better than the next best competitor. Take adept in part 4 for example; we have 3 scrolls but like 2 dozen units with high speed stats close to each other. The difference between how the best unit uses adept effectively and the second best would be really negligible.

If you have chosen 8 to 12 units for a playthough, aren't we trying to use them as best we can?

Look at it this way. A tier list gives a more powerful conclusion if it has a broader range. What tells you more, a list that's applicable to a single playstyle, or one that's applicable to infinitely many? Like, let's pretend the TP has a very defensive style. It might shift some advantages around (mobility matters less, healing has a greater impact, healers also reach higher levels, etc) but the bases of comparison are still roughly the same. Hell, you guys like to write so much, look at it from an argumentative standpoint. Restricting a resource to a single or a very small list of candidates will generate less discussion than looking at hypotheticals where we consider useful resources on just about anybody in a comparison.

[Paperblade]

Holy shit this topic is still alive.

[Narga_Rocks]

Holy shit this topic is still alive.

Smash res'd it 26 days after the last post in order to claim that everybody agrees with his main points. I'd say more "alive again" rather than "still alive".

[dondon151]

By the way, the resource doesn't go to the unit who incurs 0 opportunity cost. Everyone incurs an opportunity cost. But only 1 unit (i.e. the most optimal unit for the resource) will have a total return greater than the incurred opportunity cost, or a positive total economic profit. All other units will have negative economic profit, but positive normal profit.

[Progenitus]

By the way, the resource doesn't go to the unit who incurs 0 opportunity cost. Everyone incurs an opportunity cost. But only 1 unit (i.e. the most optimal unit for the resource) will have a total return greater than the incurred opportunity cost, or a positive total economic profit. All other units will have negative economic profit, but positive normal profit.

What's your point?

[dondon151]

You're smart enough to figure it out, I hope.

[Dat Nick]

Can I say something?

To the original point of this topic, or at least the topic title, I most certainly agree comparisons should be done by Unit A v team vs unit B vs team. Using FEDS as an example when comparing Merric vs Cord, Merric's better than Cord if he gets the first master seal, but Cord ideally wants to promote by at least 15 which he will be by C10 so that's not fair, but it's also not fair if Cord is assumed the seal over Merric since then Cord is better than Merric. A "doritos" argument doesn't really work here either because Merric is not so much better than Cord that he has a sole right to promotion. So "Merric's army" and "Cord's army" is the ideal way to compare the performance of both of them.

[Interceptor]

I can't believe that this thread got resurrected just so that smash could declare victory after everyone had already left.

Seriously, he makes some pedestrian observation in the OP, coupled with weasel-wording to create a specter for him to refute. An interesting discussion happens anyway, in spite the retarded premise of the thread, and he waltzes through it with characteristic Dubya-style stubbornness and total lack of intellectual curiosity. After the battle is over and corpses have been cold for a month, he ninjas back in and hangs up a "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" sign. Wow guy, a winrar is you.

Look at it this way. A tier list gives a more powerful conclusion if it has a broader range. What tells you more, a list that's applicable to a single playstyle, or one that's applicable to infinitely many?

Speaking of infinity, I can't help but point out to you -- again, for the umpteenth time -- that there are infinitely more retarded ways to play Fire Emblem than there are efficient ways to do so. Even if we remove the Lord-suicide Game Overs, there are basically an unlimited supply of plodding strategies and bad army configurations that will get you to the ending credits eventually.

You are basically begging the question here, because the basic assumption of the above quote is that a tier list is supposed to have a powerful conclusion and/or tell us a lot. Where do you even get that from? Tier lists lack nearly all of the necessary elements for a nuanced look at anything, seeing as how they are just ordered lists of names broken into semi-arbitrary groups.

Like, let's pretend the TP has a very defensive style. It might shift some advantages around (mobility matters less, healing has a greater impact, healers also reach higher levels, etc) but the bases of comparison are still roughly the same.

OK, sure, let me take your idea and run with it. Let's pretend that the tier player is a retard, and only makes it through the game via divine intervention, as he's constantly putting units in danger without regard to their safety. We'll give big advantages to units that don't know how to die, no matter what they do for damage output personally, because those are the units that will help the most. ORKO wonders like Laura are basically useless, and we don't care that Aran can't kill anything.

Boy, that was fun. What now? Oh right, now we have to reconcile these conclusions with the ones for other possible play styles, which is an impossible task because the advantages/disadvantages will be essentially diametrically opposed to each other and you didn't bother to explain how we're supposed to adjudicate it.

I'd rather throw myself down a flight of stairs face-first than try to debate a tier list under your idea. Units would be shifting so much based on the specific weight given to any given play style that it'd be a useless blur of motion. I don't see how it's even feasible without a lot of ground rules.

Hell, you guys like to write so much, look at it from an argumentative standpoint. Restricting a resource to a single or a very small list of candidates will generate less discussion than looking at hypotheticals where we consider useful resources on just about anybody in a comparison.

How so? More is not necessarily better than less when you're just replacing signal with noise. The process of determining a resource's doritos generates a lot of discussion as it is.

[Progenitus]

You're smart enough to figure it out, I hope.

I'm sorry if I can't make the connection when you say something random in relation to unit A + team vs unit B + team.

What does taking resources have to do with the main point?

To the original point of this topic, or at least the topic title, I most certainly agree comparisons should be done by Unit A v team vs unit B vs team. Using FEDS as an example when comparing Merric vs Cord, Merric's better than Cord if he gets the first master seal, but Cord ideally wants to promote by at least 15 which he will be by C10 so that's not fair, but it's also not fair if Cord is assumed the seal over Merric since then Cord is better than Merric. A "doritos" argument doesn't really work here either because Merric is not so much better than Cord that he has a sole right to promotion. So "Merric's army" and "Cord's army" is the ideal way to compare the performance of both of them.

Pretty much my point. By singling out the two units (in this case, Merric and Cord), it becomes easier to see their direct impacts on the team and determine who is better.

"but if those two units are both good then they're both likely to be played! Fielding only one of them is not something the tier player would do!"

So what? The supposed tier player wouldn't field mid or low tiers either, yet for purpose of creating a tier list we have to assume that when trying to rank a character, the tier player is going to field that unit, despite it going against efficiency. Singling out the two units may go against efficiency, but it also makes the comparison much easier, and it also helps eliminate any circular logic (such as one of teh two units apparently being good if given several resources, and then assuming that the unit is always going to get those resources, and the other unit won't have those extra resources on the team because they're already going to the first one).

Edited November 7, 2009 by 8========================D