FE7 tier list, HHM Ranked

[dondon151]

Hawkeye is not better than Isadora. Isadora doubles and has a horse (and WT control).

And that's exactly what I mean. They're not the best units in the game, so their opportunity costs exceed their revenue, so they shouldn't be deployed past when they're required.

Edited October 14, 2009 by dondon151

[Tangerine]

Hawkeye is not better than Isadora. Isadora doubles and has a horse (and WT control).

Her doubles are weak. Not to mention she could have trouble doubling in her chapter anyway. Silver Sword Isadora has 14 AS and WTD against pretty much every enemy in the chapter. She can't do much of anything with Lances since she only has a B. She needs the power from a Silver weapon to make up for her STR. Her garbage HP, defense, avoid loss and WTD don't add up to something good.

And that's exactly what I mean. They're not the best units in the game, so their opportunity costs exceed their revenue, so they shouldn't be deployed past when they're required.

Hawkeye is forced into two chapters. If we're not deploying them past the chapters they're required, Hawkeye has an automatic advantage.

[dondon151]

13 AS doubles every enemy in chapter 22. Killer Lance weighs her down to 13 AS, and she has 23 atk. Silver Sword weighs her down to 14 AS, and she has 26 atk. Killing Edge weighs her down to 15 AS, and she has 22 atk.

Axereaver WKs have 29 HP/11 def maximum. ORKO with Silver Sword.

Swordreaver fighters have 31 HP/4 def maximum. Isadora actually only needs 20 atk with doubled WTA to ORKO these chumps, and she gets 20 atk with Iron Lance before WT anyway.

Lancereaver cavs have 29 HP/8 def, but there are only 2 of them. They are also likely to not have 9 AS, and they are actually the fastest enemies on the map. Iron Axe weighs Isadora down to 12 AS and gives her 21 atk, so +2 MT from WTA results in a ORKO. Or, you can give her a Halberd, which has (10 + 2)*2 + 13 = 37 atk, which also ORKOs regardless of enemy AS.

Mages have 7-8 AS. The 7 AS ones are ORKO'd from 1-2 range with Javelin. Shamans have like 5 AS.

I'd appreciate it if you can move past general statements, because her performance is rather good in this chapter. Enemy AS takes a downward spike until chapter 26 (steel is heavier than reaver), and then takes another downward spike until endgame. Isadora is pretty comparable to Kent pre-promotion, and he won't promote until chapter 26 at least.

With regard to criticals: Isadora has 36 crit with whatever killer weapon at base. Per round of combat, she has a (.64)^2 = .41 or 41% chance at not critting, or a 59% chance of a crit, which kills enemies that she 4HKOs. Hawkeye has 52% chance of a crit, which kills enemies that he 3HKOs. So, Hawkeye's crit advantage doesn't help him when he doesn't double, and he needs 1-2 spd procs to double enemies up to chapter 31 (with the exception of chapter 26) and 3 spd procs for enemies in chapter 31.

Hawkeye is forced into two chapters. If we're not deploying them past the chapters they're required, Hawkeye has an automatic advantage.

Rebecca and Bartre are forced for more chapters when PC quality is not very good. Hawkeye's performance in chapter 23 is not very good (no one performs well unless you're a flier, thief, or mage).

Edited October 14, 2009 by dondon151

[Tangerine]

Axereaver WKs have 29 HP/11 def maximum. ORKO with Silver Sword.

Swordreaver fighters have 31 HP/4 def maximum. Isadora actually only needs 20 atk with doubled WTA to ORKO these chumps, and she gets 20 atk with Iron Lance before WT anyway.

Lancereaver cavs have 29 HP/8 def, but there are only 2 of them. They are also likely to not have 9 AS, and they are actually the fastest enemies on the map. Iron Axe weighs Isadora down to 12 AS and gives her 21 atk, so +2 MT from WTA results in a ORKO. Or, you can give her a Halberd, which has (10 + 2)*2 + 13 = 37 atk, which also ORKOs regardless of enemy AS.

Mages have 7-8 AS. The 7 AS ones are ORKO'd from 1-2 range with Javelin. Shamans have like 5 AS.

Er, all you did was list a couple enemies she could beat. She can't beat them all at once either; leaving her with a weapon not effective against all of them on the enemy phase means you need to waste other units' turns because she isn't good enough. Her garbage durability REQUIRES you protect her if you want her to "help" as much as you're suggesting, wasting more units' turns and slowing yourself down. You also either wasted a better character's turn giving those weapons to her or wasted one of her turns getting them from Merlinus.

You should be listing the enemies' levels anyway, not telling us what some of their stats are. Especially if those stats were just written down using in-game as reference.

With regard to criticals: Isadora has 36 crit with whatever killer weapon at base. Per round of combat, she has a (.64)^2 = .41 or 41% chance at not critting, or a 59% chance of a crit, which kills enemies that she 4HKOs. Hawkeye has 52% chance of a crit, which kills enemies that he 3HKOs. So, Hawkeye's crit advantage doesn't help him when he doesn't double, and he needs 1-2 spd procs to double enemies up to chapter 31 (with the exception of chapter 26) and 3 spd procs for enemies in chapter 31.

Using Killers. Using a Silver Axe, Hawkeye has 33 attack. That's enough to one hit the frail units in his first chapter. Using a Halberd, Hawkeye can one hit the Cavs too. Hawkeye can also use the Brave Axe in Genesis without wasting any turns. Hawkeye isn't afraid of being on the front line either, because his durability doesn't fail like hers.

Rebecca and Bartre are forced for more chapters when PC quality is not very good. Hawkeye's performance in chapter 23 is not very good (no one performs well unless you're a flier, thief, or mage).

Wow. Bartre gets DOUBLED by some Brigands/Pirates at base speed and Rebecca is an archer. Yeah right. You know, if a free unit is bad enough to still contribute negatively, you don't pretend they help just because they're free.

Hawkeye's performance is better than all of your other foot soldiers because he's promoted, so he gets extra move in sand. His crit is an easy way to deal with the first boss as well. If Hawkeye sucked and couldn't fight without being protected, it might not matter. Fortunately, he isn't Isadora.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Moribalken

[dondon151]

Er, all you did was list a couple enemies she could beat. She can't beat them all at once either; leaving her with a weapon not effective against all of them on the enemy phase means you need to waste other units' turns because she isn't good enough. Her garbage durability REQUIRES you protect her if you want her to "help" as much as you're suggesting, wasting more units' turns and slowing yourself down. You also either wasted a better character's turn giving those weapons to her or wasted one of her turns getting them from Merlinus.

OK, who exactly beats them all at once? Aside from the fact that any 1 range physical character faces -2 MT and -30 hit against any enemy type on this map, who exactly is far superior statistically to Isadora at that point? Kent doesn't reach Isadora's base str until somewhere between 18/0 and 19/0. Sain doesn't reach 13 AS until that same time frame. Raven probably, but he's locked to one weapon type and is seriously threatened by the Swordreaver fighters. But then, unless you promoted him early, he has no 2 range option against the mages, shamans, and monks on the map. That is a different matter, however.

Which brings me to my next point: your group will very likely face each type of enemy sequentially. The enemies that start nearest to you are Axereaver knights. Then, there are Lancereaver cavaliers right behind them (they likely won't be able to all attack you at the same time because they'll crowd each other out). Then, Axereaver WKs and Swordreaver fighters start at about the same position, but the WKs have more move, so those are the third type of enemy that you'll face. And finally are the fighters. I don't recall the reinforcement pattern too well, but I seem to remember them being mostly cavs and WKs, so swords work against them. Therefore, not being able to "beat them all at once" is not a very strong argument.

My last point: there is a unit slot that is adjacent to Merlinus. Any mounted unit can take from the supply the first turn, then end the turn adjacent to Isadora, and then Isadora can trade with that unit and position herself for enemy phase. There's also Ninian, but she's probably busy helping units get to the treasure room and Heath. And I'll say once again: who exactly is superior (at least offensively) to Isadora?

You should be listing the enemies' levels anyway, not telling us what some of their stats are. Especially if those stats were just written down using in-game as reference.

Please enlighten me where in damage calculation formulas does level come in. And explain to me how stats taken from in-game do not accurately represent in-game enemies, especially when I specifically said that the stats I extracted were maxima. I could have chosen to list the 28 HP/10 def WK and falsely conclude that a hypothetical 12 str Isadora could ORKO all WKs on the map.

Using Killers. Using a Silver Axe, Hawkeye has 33 attack. That's enough to one hit the frail units in his first chapter. Using a Halberd, Hawkeye can one hit the Cavs too.

Nice use of numbers. I'll do for you what you were supposed to do:

Archers have 27 HP/5 def. Hawkeye OHKOs these with Silver Axe, except, you know, it's 1-range, so Hawkeye can have fun OHKOing 1 archer per turn. It's the same thing with the 26 HP/4 def mages. With a Hand Axe, Hawkeye doubles the archers (who have 4-5 AS), but he doesn't double about half of the mages (7-8 AS). And you have to consider that he has movement problems. 3 move may beat the rest of your foot units, but it certainly doesn't beat fliers or mages, and you have enough of them to marginalize Hawkeye's performance to some extent. His performance against Paul and Jasmine doesn't swing much in his favor either. Jasmine has 15 AS (if not 15, a good chance at it) and doubles him with a Hand Axe. Paul has 57 hit and 23 crit for a chance at OHKOing Hawkeye (32 atk against 50 HP/14 def). Using a sword unit or Axereaver flier to draw him in and then chipping away at him is more effective.

Hawkeye can also use the Brave Axe in Genesis without wasting any turns. Hawkeye isn't afraid of being on the front line either, because his durability doesn't fail like hers.

There are two problems with Brave Axe allocation. First, Hawkeye has competition for it. Dorcas and Bartre want it if they're being used in the long term, or even if they are being used in the short term because of EXP rank. Second, the Brave Axe represents about 15 rounds of combat, a bit more because Hawkeye will crit on average the first hit of a round of combat once per 4-5 rounds of combat. But this doesn't really solve his offensive problems; it just postpones them. Isadora, meanwhile, has numerous ways to solve her offensive problems (despite the fact that her offense is actually pretty good) thanks to access to the entire weapon triangle.

As for Isadora's defensive problems: let's take a look at her performance in chapter 24G. I'll assume that she's --/3 owing to chapters 22 and 23x.

Steel Sword mercs have 17-18 atk and ~103 hit. Isadora with Killer Lance has 29.5 HP/8.4 def and 39 avo. That's a 4RKO at ~49 disp hit, and in all honesty you're not going to face 4 mercs at once. Swordreaver is also an option, but she probably doesn't have the rank.

Steel Lance WKs have 23-24 atk and ~86 hit. Isadora with Iron Axe has 37 avo. Lower ends 3RKO, higher ends 2RKO at ~34 disp hit. However, if Isadora has proc'd def, all of them 3RKO. She could also use a Lancereaver for a guaranteed 3RKO and disp hit of ~17.

Steel Axe corsairs have 21-22 atk and ~79 hit. Isadora with Killing Edge has 43 avo. 3RKO at ~21 disp hit.

So it's not too bad. It's certainly worse than a few other units, but Isadora can work around those problems pretty easily. First, she won't die against mercs unless the player is retarded, and that assumption doesn't fly in a tier list. Second, Isadora is shaky against WKs, but she can also amass enough avo so that they're almost no threat at all. Third, Isadora doesn't have to worry about corsairs.

The way the chapter is structured, you're not likely to have to contend with more than one enemy type. If you go north, you're going to face almost exclusively mercs. If you go east, you're going to face 3 mercs and then almost exclusively WKs. Corsairs are always last because of water.

And finally, consider that the player will never put Isadora in a group of enemies by herself. That just isn't realistic in the first place, but she will almost always be accompanied by at least one of Sain, Kent, Lowen, maybe Marcus, and probably Priscilla, which justifies the claim that her durability is "good enough." The "front line" kind of implies that there is a line, which means that the number of positions that she can be attacked from is drastically reduced (inaccessible from one side, likely inaccessible from the back, which means accessible from only the front and maybe one side).

Wow. Bartre gets DOUBLED by some Brigands/Pirates at base speed and Rebecca is an archer. Yeah right. You know, if a free unit is bad enough to still contribute negatively, you don't pretend they help just because they're free.

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

Edited October 14, 2009 by dondon151

[Geriba]

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

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

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

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

[Geriba]

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

[dondon151]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited October 14, 2009 by dondon151

[Tino]

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

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

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

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

[Geriba]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[dondon151]

No, there won't be "logical inconsistencies." Docking Bartre because he consumes a unit slot that better characters could also use is far different than strictly limiting him to only those chapters where the opportunity cost of his use is zero. The same principle can be used for Hawkeye, or any other character that isn't the cream-of-the-crop.

So you agree with me that Bartre > Hawkeye because neither should be used past their forced periods.

And using Bartre isn't going to help your rankings very much: because he gets doubled by everything left and right for at least a few levels (if not more), putting him in harm's way over more sturdy units is going to impact your Tactics ranking. This is coupled with the fact that, even early on, there are plenty of superior contenders for helping with the experience rank.

He gets doubled by mercs, myrms, and nomads. He doesn't get doubled by anything else on average. In addition, the player will NOT put Bartre in a position that will purposely harm the tactics ranking; it is assumed that the player will only do what is beneficial to his ranking (like I said before, you can't assume that the player is a dumbass and hold it against a character). Again, I challenge you to show that using Bartre doesn't shave off a few turns off your earlygame turncount compared to using no one at all.

By the way, I just looked back at my playthrough log. Brigands have 6 AS in chapter 13x, so no getting doubled for base Bartre (though he obviously won't be at base).

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

Of course I would use Hector if I had to. This isn't even the same thing anyway; distributing EXP over a greater number of units is more efficient use of EXP relative to the EXP rank itself. Now, I wouldn't have Bartre do anything on enemy phase if someone else could do it better given the scenario, but that doesn't exclude any of his player phase actions.

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

Poor logic. You act as if tier placements are set in stone. If that were the case, then why am I allowed to argue Isadora over Hawkeye? I'm not going to bother with Isadora > Canas (that was already shown in a debate here) or Isadora > Vaida (this doesn't even require any effort; Vaida won't be used, but Isadora is one of your better offensive units at join time and thus will be used) if I can have Isadora > Canas, Vaida, and Hawkeye.

But fine, let's pretend like the transitive property doesn't exist! If A > B and B > C, then A might not be > C! Fire Emblem is not a fighting game where the characters fight amongst themselves and individual matchups void the transitive property.

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

His use is entirely profitable over his non-use. He gains EXP (good for EXP rank) and helps you complete the chapter (good for tactics).

Edited October 14, 2009 by dondon151

[Geriba]

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

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

[Candlejack]

I don't see what the difference is between Serenes and GameFAQs. GameFAQs may have a reputation for housing less-than mature posters, but you can't honestly tell me Serenes has no troublemakers of its own. Even then, brushing Jaffar and I off just because we're from GameFAQs is pretty ignorant, especially when I think we've shown that we have little in common with the types you're relating us to. Internet message board segregation is a joke.

I've just been around there for too long; generalizations pop on to you like that.

[dondon151]

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

And why would they be used beyond that point if using them more would hurt their total worth, or reduce their "profit?" Obviously almost all characters have to be used to a point because of EXP rank, but you can't penalize them for that, because even if they are negatively affecting another rank by taking the slot of a superior unit, they are positively affecting the EXP rank by a larger magnitude. For that reason, there's another point for Bartre - he helps EXP rank more than Hawkeye does.

Since you like arguing that way, I reject what you said for these reasons, so your argument is null, lalala.

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

Let's promote Canas at level 10. That's 10 levels that has to be compensated for with a worse character, so the net effect is actually a negative for Canas.

[Narga_Rocks]

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

If unit A is worse than the other options after its forced period and it is deployed anyway, applying opportunity cost to any other unit's non-forced deployment at any point in any other spot in the tier list means that you have to apply opportunity cost to deploying unit A at this point. That opportunity cost will naturally be higher than unit A's normal profit. Hence, unit A's economic profit is negative at this point, and until such a time as it is not worse than the best unit denied a spot in the roster could have been.

So, chances are if you start deploying them after they aren't forced anymore they just go down the list, not up.

If you want to avoid

rather ridiculous results like Bartre > Hawkeye

then the only way to actually accomplish that without massive inconsistencies is to reject the application of opportunity cost as it applies to deployment slots in its entirety.

[dondon151]

then the only way to actually accomplish that without massive inconsistencies is to reject the application of opportunity cost as it applies to deployment slots in its entirety.

Right, exactly. I'm glad you came to my defense.

[Narga_Rocks]

then the only way to actually accomplish that without massive inconsistencies is to reject the application of opportunity cost as it applies to deployment slots in its entirety.

Right, exactly. I'm glad you came to my defense.

No problem.

For some reason I just can't help but post when economics concepts get twisted around.

[grandjackal]

Let's promote Canas at level 10. That's 10 levels that has to be compensated for with a worse character, so the net effect is actually a negative for Canas.

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

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

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

You telling me flight outdoes these things?

[Geriba]

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

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

[Geriba]

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

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

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

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

You telling me flight outdoes these things?

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

[grandjackal]

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

[Narga_Rocks]

Seeing as I'm currently studying economics, I don't appreciate being accused of "twisting" terms around.

The twisting is mostly in the half application to fire emblem, not suggesting someone doesn't understand opportunity cost in a classroom setting.

What you all are failing to consider is the end result of applying this "net gain" system fully. What will inevitably happen is that all units will be divided into three categories: those who will always be used (because they contribute a net gain), those who will sometimes be used (because they are either good for a time or free for a time; see Dorcas/Bartre), and those who will never be used.

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

It's no longer a question of individual unit quality. What we get instead is a mandate for how to play the game.

What does that have to do with unit A kicking out a unit that provides more utility? It shouldn't be a question of individual unit quality, of course, but what they do for the team. But if there is a unit that does more for the team than unit A, and using unit A causes us to drop this other unit, unit A is just building negative economic profit.

Logically, such a position makes sense, but you have to wonder if it doesn't outright contradict the purpose of these tiers in the first place.

Logically which position makes sense? Ours or yours?

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

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

You either follow the principle where it leads or you don't use it at all. Besides, even when we follow the principle where it leads, it is still one factor among many. That principle on it's own doesn't really tell us much of anything without looking at more details.

I just don't see how half-implementing an idea is an acceptable way of doing things.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Narga_Rocks

[dondon151]

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

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

Edited October 15, 2009 by dondon151

[Geriba]

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

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

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

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

Logically which position makes sense? Ours or yours?

In this case, I was referring to yours.

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

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

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

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

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

Edited October 15, 2009 by Jaffar7

[dondon151]

There is no middle ground solution without great inconsistencies. You can't draw a line in the middle and say "well the units below here are negative if deployed but the units above here are positive if deployed even though their respective economic profits dictate that they should be negative anyway."

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

Edited October 15, 2009 by dondon151