Gross vs Net

[Narga_Rocks]

Get off the Haterade for a second, Narga.

I don't think I actually hate smash. It's just something to do: point out irony when it appears. And in other circumstances state what I disagree with. I suppose I may go overboard sometimes, but that's because I lack restraint. I don't think it comes from hatred.

Because, you know, none of the other FE games exist where that logic applies (note how I brought up something like FE7 as another example, which was part of those 10 paragraphs you conveniently ignored). It's perfectly possible for RNG screwage/blessing to happen in every other FE game since they don't have fixed mode. Nope, I forgot, only FE9 exists. Silly me, simple facts like this flying over my head.

Not to mention that we may not always play fixed mode, since random mode also exists. Unless you want to suggest the player will only play fixed mode.

Alas, I forgot. I'm talking to the great dondon here. I must submit to you. Your logic is astounding.

Bolded part is what was responded to.

Look, I know dondon ignored the other points. I'm not sure why, and I don't really care why. Smash's post is ironic since Smash was going off on dondon about ignoring smash's points. I never said smash was wrong that dondon was ignoring points. Nor did I suggest that dondon's two sentence response was epic. Now, granted smash ignores Int and me (pseudo)completely, and that is different from what dondon did, but that doesn't make smash's post not ironic. Just not as ironic as it could be.

I suppose I could easily have gone on living without making that post, and it is most certainly off topic, but I seem to find enjoyment out of pointing out irony when it is displayed so clearly (by smash, anyway. It is possible I have neglected to point out irony in other cases).

[Paperblade]

What's ironic?

That

A. Smash says you ignore his points and finds it ironic that others accuse him of ignoring their points.

B. Others say he ignores their points and find it ironic that he accuses others of ignoring their points.

?

Yeah, funny, maybe. Standard as far as flame wars go. I guess ironic from your point of view, although to say that people that disagree with smash don't ignore arguments is... uninformed at best.

Edited November 9, 2009 by Paperblade

[Narga_Rocks]

What's ironic?

That

A. Smash says you ignore his points and finds it ironic that others accuse him of ignoring their points.

B. Others say he ignores their points and find it ironic that he accuses others of ignoring their points.

?

Yeah, funny, maybe. Standard as far as flame wars go. I guess ironic from your point of view, although to say that people that disagree with smash don't ignore arguments is... uninformed at best.

Huh?

Smash ignores person A's points.

Person B ignores Smash's points.

Smash goes off on person B for ignoring his points.

It is ironic since smash yells at person B for doing what smash himself is doing.

If you have a better word for that, go ahead. I'm all ears.

(Okay, I know it is the internet and I'm reading.)

[Paperblade]

See, that was the point I'm trying to make. In the average debater's mind, he/she isn't ignoring the other person's points.

Edit: Typo

Edited November 9, 2009 by Paperblade

[Progenitus]

I imagine because neither one would get very much activity if people's attentions were divided. For example, I would entirely ignore the Gross list, and I imagine that someone like dondon would likewise ignore the Net list.

I actually would advocate for having two separate tier lists for a game (one for net and one for gross). That way we won't be arguing over tier list standards and instead can just simply compare characters, and there will be two sets of rules. And people will just use the set of rules they prefer.

Edited November 9, 2009 by 8========================D

[dondon151]

I chose to respond ad hominem to smash because that's what he did at first to me. An eye for an eye.

And furthermore, I'd accuse smash of ignoring what I posted before what Int posted (because our two posts together address all of smash's post) before I'd plead guilty to ignoring him in retaliation. In any other circumstance I'd offer an opposing debater my full response (unless I feel like halfassing), but I believe that in this situation I am completely justified in my actions.

Edited November 9, 2009 by dondon151

[Narga_Rocks]

I chose to respond ad hominem to smash because that's what he did at first to me. An eye for an eye.

And furthermore, I'd accuse smash of ignoring what I posted before what Int posted (because our two posts together address all of smash's post) before I'd plead guilty to ignoring him in retaliation. In any other circumstance I'd offer an opposing debater my full response (unless I feel like halfassing), but I believe that in this situation I am completely justified in my actions.

It's true. You are justified in those actions. And also you don't need to reiterate what Interceptor has already said just because Smash ignores him, so if a point you would make is already out there, there is no need to make it. If the only option left is what you chose, there is no problems.

[Interceptor]

Good lord, what a tempest in a teacup.

dondon kicked out a load-bearing beam in smash's argument, causing a large portion of the rest of his post to immediately take a digger. Nothing survives except support options, which was a minor point at best. I can sympathize with smash, truly, because it sucks to make a mega-post on something and miss a niggling detail that makes the entire thing fall apart. It's happened to me before, and it's why I vet my own arguments carefully before I spend too much time on them.

The essential problem with your overly broad assertion, smash, is that it doesn't survive daylight. You say that we can't know who the best theoretical team is, and even if we did, the RNG changes the composition of the team. Problem is, one counter-example -- a counter using YOUR OWN EXAMPLE -- proves your assertion false. Do you know what that means, smash? It means you go back to the drawing board, because you've failed to make a cogent general point.

There is really no cause here to be complaining that dondon didn't clean up your shitty argument, smash, because it's not his job to wipe your nose. For you to throw out a sarcastic (sardonic?) rhetorical swing like that, is to show people the true measure of your ability to discuss something like an adult.

[WeaponsofMassConstruction]

So why not have two?

I imagine because neither one would get very much activity if people's attentions were divided. For example, I would entirely ignore the Gross list, and I imagine that someone like dondon would likewise ignore the Net list.

The goal of a tier list is to be as correct as possible, so activity isn't really an issue. I'm sure there will be plenty of discussion anyway if there were two, since there are probably a lot of people who would jump between the two.

[Progenitus]

I chose to respond ad hominem to smash because that's what he did at first to me. An eye for an eye.

And furthermore, I'd accuse smash of ignoring what I posted before what Int posted (because our two posts together address all of smash's post) before I'd plead guilty to ignoring him in retaliation. In any other circumstance I'd offer an opposing debater my full response (unless I feel like halfassing), but I believe that in this situation I am completely justified in my actions.

lol @ trying to justify your trolling

In case you forgot, it's actually your turn to respond. Cause this is how the flame war debate went...

rick astley: rng is a factor, supports are a factor, etc.

troll: BUT FE9 HAS FIXED MODE LULZ

rick astley: There is still every other FE game in existence plus FE9 has two modes to pick from (and as far as I know no one has made an assertion that one mode is superior to the other, thus we can assume that it's only played about half the time)

troll: LOL IMMA TROLL YOU

rick astley: shit guys he's a master 'bater

So are you going to continue to ignore every other FE game in existence (and effectively half of FE9) or are you going to just keep on trollin'? If you want to keep trolling me, that's fine, I'll just ignore you.

[Narga_Rocks]

I chose to respond ad hominem to smash because that's what he did at first to me. An eye for an eye.

And furthermore, I'd accuse smash of ignoring what I posted before what Int posted (because our two posts together address all of smash's post) before I'd plead guilty to ignoring him in retaliation. In any other circumstance I'd offer an opposing debater my full response (unless I feel like halfassing), but I believe that in this situation I am completely justified in my actions.

lol @ trying to justify your trolling

In case you forgot, it's actually your turn to respond. Cause this is how the flame war debate went...

rick astley: rng is a factor, supports are a factor, etc.

troll: BUT FE9 HAS FIXED MODE LULZ

rick astley: There is still every other FE game in existence plus FE9 has two modes to pick from (and as far as I know no one has made an assertion that one mode is superior to the other, thus we can assume that it's only played about half the time)

troll: LOL IMMA TROLL YOU

rick astley: shit guys he's a master 'bater

So are you going to continue to ignore every other FE game in existence (and effectively half of FE9) or are you going to just keep on trollin'? If you want to keep trolling me, that's fine, I'll just ignore you.

Inaccurate representation of events ftw.

I think you are ignoring how dondon made a post even earlier (in response to one of yours, which was kinda in response to one of his, which was in response to your first in the topic) than where your "recap" begins and you basically gave a one paragraph statement that he surely agrees with your other points (though he didn't) because he only responded to one of your statements (though his response applied to more than what he quoted) out of 10. So, your claim that dondon is trolling is obviously incorrect. Oh, and there are some points covered by interceptor, so dondon has no reason to copy + paste them just so you can read them without directly reading a post by Interceptor. See, when you ignore two people that tend to make points damaging to your case, sometimes the situation appears different in your eyes to what it actually is.

I suppose paperblade may jump in again about my urge to claim you are the epitome of irony, but I'll say it anyway.

Also, when I read this post:

You assume that Soren is going to get 2 points blessed in one of his lowest growths (def) and then claim that the chances are low. What if instead we were looking for him to be blessed in spd by 2? That's now a 23% chance rather than a 7% chance of getting def blessed. In general, the higher the growth, the greater the chance for it to be blessed. In fact I could just take anyone, like Mia's str, and apply it.

It's still less than a 1/16 chance of both occurring, and then you're forgetting that good units need to be screwed in multiple stats and bad units need to be blessed in multiple stats for the replacement to occur. And then you have every unit in upper mid or so and below vying for 1 of about 10 free combat slots that normally are reserved to units who have a very low chance of being RNG screwed to the point where they're not optimal.

Keep in mind that to be defined as "RNG screwed," a unit needs to have gained enough levels to be below average by a certain amount. If a unit gets RNG screwed early, then he may be dropped. If a unit gets RNG screwed late, however, he is still performing better than those other units who never got EXP in the first place, so he probably won't be dropped. Therefore, we can say that replacement is only an efficient solution in an early time frame. So if Boyd gains 2 str and 1 spd in his first 5 levels, we can definitively say that he's been RNG screwed to the point where we should probably ditch him, but that exact scenario only happens 4.74% of the time anyway.

So you're working with very small numbers. For each character going down the tier list, his chance at deployment grows exponentially smaller. If you really want to nitpick with "but wait what if x character gets RNG screwed," then why don't you just ignore opportunity cost altogether? Then you can worry about tiering characters without worrying about if they'll be played once every 30 playthroughs.

I just can't reconcile this post:

Given how you only responded to one paragraph out of my 10 or so, I'm assuming you agree with me and you're only nitpicking at this point.

with any form of logic. At least, considering a fair number of his points apply quite well to the rest of this just fine.

So you ignore his points first, you misrepresent his argument (or misinterpret, I suppose it is possible you simply fail that hard), he continues on knowing that he already typed certain things, and since you continue on as if he hadn't I think he simply decided there was no point in forcing the rest of us to read his points again since you clearly have no intention of reading them if he did retype them. So instead of retyping another argument that would likely just reiterate his earlier points, he made the decision he made.

[Dat Nick]

I call it counter-intuitive because every time I bring it up, people immediately object to it, sometimes without providing a logical rebuttal. For example, on page 17 of the old FE7 list, I brought it up and Joker responded to my statement with "It's not worth describing how ridiculously retarded this is with just words," then declined to respond any further when I pressed the subject.

I do want to say that I wasn't reading your post very clearly and thought you were actually arguing that Rebecca/Bartre should actually be Upper Mid instead of illustrating a double standard.

Edited November 10, 2009 by laws b122

[dondon151]

Also, one more very important thing that I forgot to mention are supports. The top 10 units don't generally all support each other. For example, the top 10 units in the FE9 tier list are Titania, Jill, Kieran, Oscar, Boyd, Reyson, Ike, Marcia, Tanith, and Astrid. Note that several of them are going supportless or only have 1 support (Jill/Astrid have no support, Boyd has one support at best). What's going to happen to Astrid? We usually assume that Mak is in play, but if he's not on this best team, then Astrid is going supportless and it may be enough to drop her for someone else.

And this applies to all games. Take FE7. The top 10 units are Marcus, Raven, Prissy, Serra, Ninian, Matthew, Lowen, Sain, Kent, Oswin. But what about peeps like Hector and Eliwood, lords that we should probably train because they're forced? What happens in lategame when Marcus has outlived his usefulness? What about Pent and Harken, who are great but are lower in the tiers because of their limited availability? Plenty of these units are also going supportless or only have one support. Matthew has none, Oswin has none, kent only has sain, etc. What's the best team for FE7?

I haven't addressed this yet, so I'll do so now. Supports aren't the end-all factors for determining deployment. If 2 upper mid tier units with a support are superior to 2 high tier units without a support, then those 2 upper mid tier units are definitely worth allocating deployment slots to. Now, if 1 of those high tier units has a support with 1 lower mid tier unit, and that combination is superior to 2 high tier units without supports, then that lower mid tier unit is worth allocating a deployment slot to. But chances are that support bonuses generally aren't enough to outweigh the fact that 1 lower mid tier pales in a raw parameter comparison to 1 high tier unit, or that 2 upper mid tier units are still inferior to 2 high tier units. Occasionally you get some supports that do, but even those have their issues.

A support is an investment. It must be built up first in nearly all cases (exceptions are Pent x Louise and Micaiah x Sothe, and probably Roy x Lilina to an extent). Low level supports generally yield very insignificant bonuses. So assuming that, for example, a combination of 2 supporting inferior units doesn't surpass a combination of 2 non-supporting superior units until the latter reaches A support, then you have all that time beforehand where you're accepting a negative economic profit for the hope of a payoff later on. And that payoff doesn't necessarily meet or exceed the investment.

So generally when we assume supports, we assume that the combination of 2 units is good enough to get each of them a deployment slot (this is, for the most part, equivalent to the "units get supports with other units that are likely to be in play" assumption, but not necessarily so). Which is why units in upper mid tier and above are the only ones ever listed as support options, because a combination of anything plus a lower mid tier or worse is not going to displace (i.e. be superior to) a supportless high tier.

The factor that has the largest impact in altering the correlation between the assumed team and the top x units is the demand for unique utility. If a chapter requires 3 units capable of using the Restore staff for optimal completion, you'd be damn sure that there will be 3 staff users deployed even if any of those units are not in the top x units. If a chapter requires thieves, you'll eschew a few units for thieves. Same with fliers, and mounted units to a lesser extent. And occasionally, a certain weapon type will dominate a chapter (the example that comes to mind is FE6's chapter 18S, where bow users like Klein and Igrene rule). But regardless, this correlation will generally remain strong because the specific role of most FE units is to kill enemies as quickly and as risk-free as possible. Special utility is honestly not very widespread.

Edited November 10, 2009 by dondon151

[Progenitus]

Also, one more very important thing that I forgot to mention are supports. The top 10 units don't generally all support each other. For example, the top 10 units in the FE9 tier list are Titania, Jill, Kieran, Oscar, Boyd, Reyson, Ike, Marcia, Tanith, and Astrid. Note that several of them are going supportless or only have 1 support (Jill/Astrid have no support, Boyd has one support at best). What's going to happen to Astrid? We usually assume that Mak is in play, but if he's not on this best team, then Astrid is going supportless and it may be enough to drop her for someone else.

And this applies to all games. Take FE7. The top 10 units are Marcus, Raven, Prissy, Serra, Ninian, Matthew, Lowen, Sain, Kent, Oswin. But what about peeps like Hector and Eliwood, lords that we should probably train because they're forced? What happens in lategame when Marcus has outlived his usefulness? What about Pent and Harken, who are great but are lower in the tiers because of their limited availability? Plenty of these units are also going supportless or only have one support. Matthew has none, Oswin has none, kent only has sain, etc. What's the best team for FE7?

I haven't addressed this yet, so I'll do so now. Supports aren't the end-all factors for determining deployment. If 2 upper mid tier units with a support are superior to 2 high tier units without a support, then those 2 upper mid tier units are definitely worth allocating deployment slots to. Now, if 1 of those high tier units has a support with 1 lower mid tier unit, and that combination is superior to 2 high tier units without supports, then that lower mid tier unit is worth allocating a deployment slot to. But chances are that support bonuses generally aren't enough to outweigh the fact that 1 lower mid tier pales in a raw parameter comparison to 1 high tier unit, or that 2 upper mid tier units are still inferior to 2 high tier units. Occasionally you get some supports that do, but even those have their issues.

A support is an investment. It must be built up first in nearly all cases (exceptions are Pent x Louise and Micaiah x Sothe, and probably Roy x Lilina to an extent). Low level supports generally yield very insignificant bonuses. So assuming that, for example, a combination of 2 supporting inferior units doesn't surpass a combination of 2 non-supporting superior units until the latter reaches A support, then you have all that time beforehand where you're accepting a negative economic profit for the hope of a payoff later on. And that payoff doesn't necessarily meet or exceed the investment.

So generally when we assume supports, we assume that the combination of 2 units is good enough to get each of them a deployment slot (this is, for the most part, equivalent to the "units get supports with other units that are likely to be in play" assumption, but not necessarily so). Which is why units in upper mid tier and above are the only ones ever listed as support options, because a combination of anything plus a lower mid tier or worse is not going to displace (i.e. be superior to) a supportless high tier.

The factor that has the largest impact in altering the correlation between the assumed team and the top x units is the demand for unique utility. If a chapter requires 3 units capable of using the Restore staff for optimal completion, you'd be damn sure that there will be 3 staff users deployed even if any of those units are not in the top x units. If a chapter requires thieves, you'll eschew a few units for thieves. Same with fliers, and mounted units to a lesser extent. And occasionally, a certain weapon type will dominate a chapter (the example that comes to mind is FE6's chapter 18S, where bow users like Klein and Igrene rule). But regardless, this correlation will generally remain strong because the specific role of most FE units is to kill enemies as quickly and as risk-free as possible. Special utility is honestly not very widespread.

...okay? So if upper mid tiers are the lowest you will go in terms of digging up units for supports, then that means that there is in fact no "best team" (since all the units from top to upper mid is generally much greater than the number of slots on the team), since you are implying that it is in fact possible to construct a near optimal team even if you use an upper mid tier (or several) because it fits well with supports. Which was my point.

[dondon151]

...okay? So if upper mid tiers are the lowest you will go in terms of digging up units for supports, then that means that there is in fact no "best team" (since all the units from top to upper mid is generally much greater than the number of slots on the team), since you are implying that it is in fact possible to construct a near optimal team even if you use an upper mid tier (or several) because it fits well with supports. Which was my point.

But now you're nitpicking and missing the main point. What about the lower mid tiers? Or low/bottom tiers? They will still almost never be played. So really you've claimed to having alleviated the whole problem through a non-comprehensive solution. The approach still falls apart; it doesn't matter where it falls apart.

I should probably add that if an upper mid tier unit displaces a high tier unit consistently enough due to having a good support option, then their respective placements on the tier list should also be in question.

Edited November 13, 2009 by dondon151

[Progenitus]

What's this "main point" you're talking about? Shall I remind you that the actual "main point" of this topic is whether to adapt a gross or net utility system? I can't read minds, so if you randomly mention that I'm missing the "main point" and then say something about crap tier units who aren't played very often when I fail to see how that's relevant to the discussion at hand, you'll need to explain yourself.

[CATS]

His complaint about Net systems in general is that they make discussion of low tiers pointless, and he thinks your proposals are flawed because they still fail to address this issue; even with supports, most lower mid and pretty much anyone low tier and below still aren't worth using.

[Progenitus]

If that's the case, then we can still field said crap tier for purpose of discussion and to tier that unit. It's not like all the units not considered for the best team will get thrown into bottom tier.

[dondon151]

Why would we do that when fielding a unit is worse than not fielding that unit?

[Progenitus]

You clearly didn't read my post, so I'm forced to assume that you're only arguing with me for the sake of arguing with me.

[CATS]

Why would we do that when fielding a unit is worse than not fielding that unit?

For the exact same reason that you seem to advocate the Gross system; because it facilitates discussion.

Edited November 14, 2009 by CATS

[dondon151]

You clearly didn't read my post, so I'm forced to assume that you're only arguing with me for the sake of arguing with me.

I clearly did read your post. Assuming a different criterion for the sake of discussion is rather pointless for 2 reasons. Why not assume that criterion as the default in the first place? And if a criterion is the default, then why should the debater argue by a different one if, relative to the first, it is obviously not as advantageous for a character being discussed? It is akin to fighting a duel with the prerequisite that both duelists stab themselves in the foot.

For the exact same reason that you seem to advocate the Gross system; because it facilitates discussion.

The difference is that I advocate a system, which sets a standard that can be adhered to across the board, while smash advocates an alternative within a system that only applies when certain conditions are met.

Edited November 15, 2009 by dondon151

[CATS]

The difference is that I advocate a system, which sets a standard that can be adhered to across the board, while smash advocates an alternative within a system that only applies when certain conditions are met.

The other difference is that the net system is the one that makes more sense given the actual conditions of the game and the premise of the tier list. Thus, it's better to amend that system than to entirely replace it; the amended net system is still more consistent with the premise of efficiency than the gross system, and it doesn't shut down discussion.

[dondon151]

The other difference is that the net system is the one that makes more sense given the actual conditions of the game and the premise of the tier list.

See, the thing is, once you "amend" the system that should take into account opportunity cost of deployment so that under a certain point it doesn't take into opportunity cost, you're going to obtain the same result as a system that doesn't take into account opportunity cost of deployment. You have to put all your eggs in one basket, so to speak.

[CATS]

No, you don't get the same results. Gross system hands you things like Rebecca > Harken. That's why I pointed it out in the first place.