FE7 HHM tier list unranked/efficiency v3

[CATS]

So now asinine = pointless?

I surmised from his following statement which included the phrase "fool's errand" in reference to tiering healers/dancers/thieves. "It's stupid to tier those units" is a very vague and ambiguous statement, so I was forced to attempt to infer his meaning. If you assert that it is also not pointless to tier those units, as you and he seem to be doing, then the meaning of Interceptor's position becomes even more convoluted and difficult to understand, though I will grant that he has now elaborated to some extent and his opinion is no longer quite as baffling.

Anyway, it was an observation, not an argument. Narga's screed brought the issue to the forefront, once again: healers, much like dancers and thieves, are in the awkward position of being ranked alongside units that operate completely differently than they do. The best that you can generally do is plop them somewhere based on some gauzy idea of their overall worth. The significance of this is that they get pushed around by people who are particularly adept at defining whatever arbitrary place that they've drawn the line.

Your observation is that these units are simply placed according to the opinions of those who are most effective at expressing and defending their viewpoints--but is not this the nature of the entire list itself? I do not see why this would not also apply to, say, Guy vs Erk; the debater who makes the more convincing case for his unit should subsequently see his unit higher on the list, correct? I do not see the difference, though perhaps it exists and I am simply blind to it.

Anyways, as such, it would appear that this line of reasoning would lead to the conclusion that the entire tier list is "asinine." The tier list is simply an ordering of units that get pushed around by people who are particularly adept at defining and defending the positions they think to be valid. I suppose that this is technically true, and a somewhat interesting observation into the tier list's basic nature. But it seems that smash was correct in observing that your viewpoint is not constructive, as there is certainly no use in pointing this out and nothing achieved by the recognition of it. Discussion is pursued for its own sake, and will continue regardless of whether or not other people consider it to be "asinine."

[Interceptor]

Besides, it's clearly not an argument to remove healers/thieves/dancers from tier lists. Trolling isn't the same as making a comedic post to display displeasure at something a person finds irritating about certain units on tier lists in general.

I was going to ask why two people predisposed to see anything I do in the worst possible light would fail to see where I was going with that, but then I realized that I answered my own question.

[Narga_Rocks]

Harken prevents me from using Karel.

Karel prevents me from using harken.

Both units are punished accordingly (Harken not so much because Karel is terrible, while Karel is punished more because Harken is actually good).

Comprende?

It was a late edit, but please now go onto fe6 and argue down Lalum and Elphin. No, you don't want to? Guess you'll just be inconsistent.

wtf? Why would one healer randomly be at a much higher level than the other? Having Serra heal soemthing isn't going to stop Prissy from healing soemthing else. You're not going to have only one injured unit per turn.

Because you are trying to promote him/her, maybe? Sure, it may not be 12 levels. Maybe it's just 20/1 and level 13 instead of 17 and 16. The point is that if you choose to raise healer A, she gets the physic. She gets the Restore. She gets pretty much any opportunity to do something that only one of them can do. Why? Because promoting faster is better. There is little point of raising them both equally since it will make them quite bad when they finally get to start attacking stuff.

Now, if you think that you will always have 2 units to heal so there is never that choice to make, and you think that both healers can be promoted in a reasonable amount of time and both will be quite good when they promote, and that it is impossible to speed up the promotion of healer A through any attempt at focusing the high exp items on her, then there is ZERO reduction in the utility of the first healer by having a second one. This is because whether healer B exists or not, healer A is apparently doing the exact same stuff as if healer B didn't exist. If that's the case, why would healer A suddenly have to drop on the list just because healer B exists?

I know you seem to love jumping on things I say to try to prove me wrong, but do keep in mind that the original point of my statement was to prevent Serra/Pris from dropping. The implications of what you are saying accomplish exactly what I set out to accomplish. The fact that it is a different argument from mine doesn't really bother me.

now, explain to me why your titania/tiamat example is more closer to this silly serra/prissy stuff than an ingame example like Harken/Karel.

Care to explain to me why I need to, first?

If you make healer B your backup healer, then healer A is doing the same stuff whether healer B exists or not. Healer B simply means that fewer units need vulneraries/elixirs than if healer B didn't exist. Healer A is in no way diminished by healer B's existence.

Now, Titania/Tiamat is not closer to Serra/Priscilla than Harken/Karel. But guess what? It doesn't need to be. In order for idea X to be similar to idea Y, it doesn't have to be closer to idea X than idea Z is to idea X.

A pen is similar to a pencil. They both write stuff.

A pen is similar to a marker. They both write stuff.

A pen is arguably closer to a marker than it is to a pencil because neither marker nor pen ink can be erased, but a pencil's markings can generally be erased quite easily. Does this mean that a pen has no similarities to a pencil? I should think not.

P.S. I love how you changed my argument from "similar" to "closer than this other thing that is obviously closer". It makes it really easy for you to counter when you make up your own arguments rather than attempt to counter mine, doesn't it?

[CATS]

I was going to ask why two people predisposed to see anything I do in the worst possible light would fail to see where I was going with that, but then I realized that I answered my own question.

I can only assume that you refer to myself and smash fanatic. From where do you draw the conclusion that I am predisposed against you? I would ask for the evidence you used to come to this conclusion, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it does not exist, and that you simply made an assumption based on your personal opinion of the situation, without any way of actually knowing the reality.

Furthermore, why would you make such an assumption? The only reason which seems likely to me is that you wish for an excuse to dismiss my comments on the basis that they are biased, yet once again, this is an unproven assumption, and furthermore it bears no relevance to the validity of any actual logic I might use when commenting on your viewpoints. I might be personally pre-disposed strongly in favor of Seth in FE8, considering him to be my favorite unit, while also having the personal opinion that Syrene is an extremely poor unit. If I then post in the tier list topic defending my viewpoint with accurate evidence and strong logical reasoning, does it matter that my viewpoint is biased? Certainly it does not; an unbiased person could say the exact same things with differing motivation, and the point would remain sufficiently proven either way.

[Rewjeo]

They're not really similar. The most logical solution, IMO, the the hypothetical Tiamat/Titania thing would be to tier them as one entity since it makes no impact on gameplay no matter who you choose. However, tiering Serra and Prissy as one entity makes no sense as it DOES impact gameplay depending on who you choose.

[Narga_Rocks]

Your observation is that these units are simply placed according to the opinions of those who are most effective at expressing and defending their viewpoints--but is not this the nature of the entire list itself? I do not see why this would not also apply to, say, Guy vs Erk; the debater who makes the more convincing case for his unit should subsequently see his unit higher on the list, correct? I do not see the difference, though perhaps it exists and I am simply blind to it.

Anyways, as such, it would appear that this line of reasoning would lead to the conclusion that the entire tier list is "asinine." The tier list is simply an ordering of units that get pushed around by people who are particularly adept at defining and defending the positions they think to be valid. I suppose that this is technically true, and a somewhat interesting observation into the tier list's basic nature. But it seems that smash was correct in observing that your viewpoint is not constructive, as there is certainly no use in pointing this out and nothing achieved by the recognition of it. Discussion is pursued for its own sake, and will continue regardless of whether or not other people consider it to be "asinine."

The idea is that when they are all combat units there are more concrete details on which to base an argument. You can see what they ORKO and you can compare their durability. If a unit dodges more and another takes more hits it becomes a little more based on the strengths of the debaters, but there is still some baseline on which you can agree. Healers/Thieves/Dancers aren't so simple. They have little in common with any of the other units in their games, and are thus more up to the whims of the best debaters. You could argue a healer up to the highest tier or down to mid based off the value placed into healing. The value based off killing stuff and not dying doesn't change from combat unit to combat unit, so it's less subjective.

I can only assume that you refer to myself and smash fanatic. From where do you draw the conclusion that I am predisposed against you? I would ask for the evidence you used to come to this conclusion, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it does not exist, and that you simply made an assumption based on your personal opinion of the situation, without any way of actually knowing the reality.

Furthermore, why would you make such an assumption? The only reason which seems likely to me is that you wish for an excuse to dismiss my comments on the basis that they are biased, yet once again, this is an unproven assumption, and furthermore it bears no relevance to the validity of any actual logic I might use when commenting on your viewpoints. I might be personally pre-disposed strongly in favor of Seth in FE8, considering him to be my favorite unit, while also having the personal opinion that Syrene is an extremely poor unit. If I then post in the tier list topic defending my viewpoint with accurate evidence and strong logical reasoning, does it matter that my viewpoint is biased? Certainly it does not; an unbiased person could say the exact same things with differing motivation, and the point would remain sufficiently proven either way.

I can only assume that it is his view that your interpretations of what he says are about as negative as he could possibly imagine, and thus his conclusion that you are predisposed helps him make sense of it. There are many different ways to interpret what someone says, and if you consistently interpret what he says in the worst light, certain conclusions are reached. They aren't necessarily the correct conclusions. Maybe you two just think very differently. But it is a possible conclusion. As such,

I would ask for the evidence you used to come to this conclusion

is merely every time you posted a response to Interceptor that (to him) seemed to have very little to do with what he said or what he was driving at. I admit it wouldn't be proof like if he could find a post of you saying "now how can I interpret this in a negative light", but I don't think his conclusion is a result of this:

The only reason which seems likely to me is that you wish for an excuse to dismiss my comments on the basis that they are biased,

They're not really similar. The most logical solution, IMO, the the hypothetical Tiamat/Titania thing would be to tier them as one entity since it makes no impact on gameplay no matter who you choose. However, tiering Serra and Prissy as one entity makes no sense as it DOES impact gameplay depending on who you choose.

Ahh, but at the end I said just give one of them +1 str and the other +1 def. Now they are different entities. You can't pair them into one entity.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting that they are the exact same, just that Serra is not diminished by Pris' existence and that Pris is not diminished by Serra's. Which isn't really relevant to certain people because according to them the two Ts are in mid tier if they are tiered separately, which really doesn't help Serra and Pris in the slightest.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Narga_Rocks

[Interceptor]

I can only assume that you refer to myself and smash fanatic. From where do you draw the conclusion that I am predisposed against you? I would ask for the evidence you used to come to this conclusion, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it does not exist, and that you simply made an assumption based on your personal opinion of the situation, without any way of actually knowing the reality.

The clever reader will notice here that you did not deny the accusation.

Oh, but I am just kidding. You are, of course, correct that there is no evidence of anything. I'm sure that this continued attention to a half-serious off-topic comment that's already been adequately explained is just a coincidence.

You have any other tidbits about my motivations?

Edited March 8, 2010 by Interceptor

[Progenitus]

It was a late edit, but please now go onto fe6 and argue down Lalum and Elphin. No, you don't want to? Guess you'll just be inconsistent.

It's not my job to be your bitch just because you're butthurt about how shitty and irrelevant your Titania/Tiamat example is.

If you're still going to just sit here and bitch at me, I suggest you read Slize's post which I expressed some agreement to. If the units precluding each other are similar enough, you can simply put them next to each other on a tier list, like your Titania/Tiamat example, or here perhaps Lalum/Elphin. Is it logically consistent? I don't know. But at the very least it'll get the argument out of the way and we won't get idiots like you complaining to other people to go to every other tier list out there and make changes just because you made a terrible argument.

Because you are trying to promote him/her, maybe? Sure, it may not be 12 levels. Maybe it's just 20/1 and level 13 instead of 17 and 16. The point is that if you choose to raise healer A, she gets the physic. She gets the Restore. She gets pretty much any opportunity to do something that only one of them can do. Why? Because promoting faster is better. There is little point of raising them both equally since it will make them quite bad when they finally get to start attacking stuff.

Now, if you think that you will always have 2 units to heal so there is never that choice to make, and you think that both healers can be promoted in a reasonable amount of time and both will be quite good when they promote, and that it is impossible to speed up the promotion of healer A through any attempt at focusing the high exp items on her, then there is ZERO reduction in the utility of the first healer by having a second one. This is because whether healer B exists or not, healer A is apparently doing the exact same stuff as if healer B didn't exist. If that's the case, why would healer A suddenly have to drop on the list just because healer B exists?

Again, if there were 20 thieves available earlygame, Matt would drop like a rock.

If we have Vaida and Geitz and Harken and karel all available at chapter 1, Marcus would drop like a rock.

If we had 20 healers, Serra/Prissy would drop like a rock.

Why do you think Laura in FE10 is so high? Only healer available AT ALL in part 1. Likewise, why do you think both mist and Rhys are below Laura? Their existence devalues each other. If one didn't exist, the other would rise (at least slightly) in usefulness.

Did you even read Reikken's post? Offering something unique is what makes you good. So if healer B exists, healer A does indeed become worse than if healer B didn't exist.

At least you did elaborate on your serra/prissy example. The problem now is that their tier position largely stems from the fact that they're low maintenance for a decent output. The fact that one of them can use high rank staves and get lots of exp for a quicker promotion to turn into a decent fighter while still having staves makes them even better. As an example, if in FE10 there was a method to make Laura into a good fighter, she would catapult. But as is, she's relegated to being just a staff chick and stuck in upper mid or something.

And yes, Serra using it prevents Prissy from using it. However, because the competition is so small, there's still a good chance for Serra to get those high rank staves. As an example, if we had to argue who got the brave sword, we can't assume any single unit is using it, because we have tons and tons of sword users and only one brave sword. However, if we only had two sword users in the game, then we can easily assume that one of them can get some arbitrary amount of time with it.

I know you seem to love jumping on things I say to try to prove me wrong, but do keep in mind that the original point of my statement was to prevent Serra/Pris from dropping. The implications of what you are saying accomplish exactly what I set out to accomplish. The fact that it is a different argument from mine doesn't really bother me.

Yeah, it only means your example isn't relevant to the reality if Serra and Prissy or how your Titania/Tiamat example is not the same thing.

Care to explain to me why I need to, first?

If you want your example to have any semblance of relevance, yes, you need to.

Now, Titania/Tiamat is not closer to Serra/Priscilla than Harken/Karel. But guess what? It doesn't need to be. In order for idea X to be similar to idea Y, it doesn't have to be closer to idea X than idea Z is to idea X.

Yeah, the problem is taht idea X (Titania/Tiamat) is not even close to idea Y (Serra/Prissy). Although it is close to idea Z (Harken/Karel).

[CATS]

The idea is that when they are all combat units there are more concrete details on which to base an argument. You can see what they ORKO and you can compare their durability. If a unit dodges more and another takes more hits it becomes a little more based on the strengths of the debaters, but there is still some baseline on which you can agree. Healers/Thieves/Dancers aren't so simple. They have little in common with any of the other units in their games, and are thus more up to the whims of the best debaters. You could argue a healer up to the highest tier or down to mid based off the value placed into healing. The value based off killing stuff and not dying doesn't change from combat unit to combat unit, so it's less subjective.

Quite true, I agree that the amount of subjective material varies depending on the subject. However, I also believe the fact remains that there is a strong subjective factor in arguing the combat units, even if it is less than the factor associated with utility units. It has been clearly seen in the past that a far superior debater, when matched against a lesser opponent, can easily make a very convincing case that his unit is superior, even if his unit is generally considered to be much worse than the opponent's. This influence becomes less and less significant as the gap between the two units being argued increases--for example, it is doubtful that anyone could come into the topic and successfully argue Nino > Raven--but it becomes quite significant when you are discussing units who are relatively close to each other and the lines between their performance start to get blurry.

Likewise, tier list events can be influenced merely by who does or doesn't care about the topic at hand. Notice the recent change made by RFoF, of moving Pent into high tier. Red Fox posted only very cursory evidence in favor of her suggestion, and after receiving no significant response, she decided to make the change. However, were someone present who strongly believed Pent to be an Upper Mid unit, and were this person willing and able to fiercely and convincingly defend their position, is it not significantly more likely that Pent would have remained in Upper Mid as a result of this person's viewpoint?

Due to factors like these, I do not see how one can assert that it is "asinine" to attempt to tier the utility units, yet also assert that the same does not apply to the combat units. It may apply to a lesser extent; however, certainly it still applies to some extent (a quite significant extent, in my opinion).

---

Interceptor is surely free to draw his own conclusions and develop his own interpretation of events, but as you said, his own views provide no definitive proof on their own. My point had nothing to do with why he came to this conclusion--surely it is, as you posited, merely a result of his own interpretation of events. Perhaps I should've worded my statement better. I was wondering exactly why he would bother to bring this viewpoint (that I am strongly biased against him) to the table. Did he merely wish to let me know that he thinks I am biased, for no particular reason at all? I suppose this is a possibility, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt and assumed that he had brought it up because he thought it had some sort of relevance to the point at hand. I will grant that it is of course possible that I was wrong in assuming this, though, and that he had some other motivation for his statement which I currently am unable to see or comprehend.

The clever reader will notice here that you did not deny the accusation.

It would be pointless for me to deny the accusation, would it not? I have no more evidence than you do in favor of my personal viewpoints and opinions. There would be no way for me to show that I am not merely pretending to be objective. Regardless, if you wish, I will provide an official statement:

I am not biased against you, Interceptor. If I disagree with your viewpoints, it is because I find them to be disagreeable, not because I dislike your person.

There you are.

You have any other tidbits about my motivations?

No, not really, unless you wish to continue the discussion. I've said pretty much everything that was on my mind.

Edited March 8, 2010 by CATS

[Narga_Rocks]

It's not my job to be your bitch just because you're butthurt about how shitty and irrelevant your Titania/Tiamat example is.

If you're still going to just sit here and bitch at me, I suggest you read Slize's post which I expressed some agreement to. If the units precluding each other are similar enough, you can simply put them next to each other on a tier list, like your Titania/Tiamat example, or here perhaps Lalum/Elphin. Is it logically consistent? I don't know. But at the very least it'll get the argument out of the way and we won't get idiots like you complaining to other people to go to every other tier list out there and make changes just because you made a terrible argument.

Pretty sure I could consider this flaming if I wanted to. Besides, whether or not my argument is "terrible" isn't relevant to whether or not you are applying your beliefs consistently. If you are happy with being known as someone that is inconsistent (or one that doesn't care about the legitimacy of the fe6 tier list), then clearly there is no reason for you to attempt to discuss it on that list. My "terrible argument" is not the reason for you to consider explaining yourself on that list. My "terrible argument", in fact, has nothing to do with it.

Again, if there were 20 thieves available earlygame, Matt would drop like a rock.

If we have Vaida and Geitz and Harken and karel all available at chapter 1, Marcus would drop like a rock.

If we had 20 healers, Serra/Prissy would drop like a rock.

Why do you think Laura in FE10 is so high? Only healer available AT ALL in part 1. Likewise, why do you think both mist and Rhys are below Laura? Their existence devalues each other. If one didn't exist, the other would rise (at least slightly) in usefulness.

Did you even read Reikken's post? Offering something unique is what makes you good. So if healer B exists, healer A does indeed become worse than if healer B didn't exist.

In the examples of multiple (say 3) thieves or prepromotes, since you don't really care if one gets 30 steals/kills or 10 each, this argument wouldn't apply, and thus their contributions would be devalued by having multiple sources. This especially applies to things like the Silver Card, since even if you did care about their experience gains, stealing the silver card is no different from stealing a vulnerary, so even if you wanted to focus exp on one of them, you can still get exp for the one you are focusing on raising while another thief steals the silver card.

Who's not reading now? The point is that if you have any intention of promoting the healers then you just choose one. You aren't alternating along the way leaving 10 healers at level 5 instead of getting one to promote. As for RD, in part 1 you can't get enough xp to pormote either of them in a reasonable amount of time. So it falls back to what I said in the quoted paragraph. If you don't care about where the xp goes then Laura is devalued by Rhys' existence since it doesn't really matter if you get 7 levels for Laura or 4 levels for each of them.

As for what happens if you have 20 healers, it actually is still similar to the Titania thing, even if you can't see it. Do you put Titania in mid, or do you stick her on top? If you stick her on top, then the healers are all pretty good too. Since it makes sense to focus on just one of them, if Titania isn't reduced by Tiamat then healer A isn't reduced by the other healers. If Titania is stuck in mid, then all the healers are devalued by your options with the others, and thus they are pretty much all neutral since they are all perfectly replaceable by each other (assuming their 20/1 stats are similar).

At least you did elaborate on your serra/prissy example. The problem now is that their tier position largely stems from the fact that they're low maintenance for a decent output. The fact that one of them can use high rank staves and get lots of exp for a quicker promotion to turn into a decent fighter while still having staves makes them even better. As an example, if in FE10 there was a method to make Laura into a good fighter, she would catapult. But as is, she's relegated to being just a staff chick and stuck in upper mid or something.

And yes, Serra using it prevents Prissy from using it. However, because the competition is so small, there's still a good chance for Serra to get those high rank staves. As an example, if we had to argue who got the brave sword, we can't assume any single unit is using it, because we have tons and tons of sword users and only one brave sword. However, if we only had two sword users in the game, then we can easily assume that one of them can get some arbitrary amount of time with it.

Serra and Prissy only devalue each other under the assumption the two Ts are in mid tier. Since in any given playthrough you should, in theory, focus on one of them, you either rank them based off how good they can be given those conditions, or you rank them based on some kind of averaging out of having the two healers. Like, half the time Serra is 20/1 by chapter X, the other half she's just level 14 in chapter X because Prissy was favoured that game. It's a choice you can make in tiering. However, if you are going with unit A + team vs unit B + team, then I would think that you aren't punishing unit A for all the playthroughs in which unit A is not played seriously. Does Makalov get punished in the PoR tier list for the chance that the player chooses not to use him? Pretty sure Mak is tiered as if he was the one chosen.

Yeah, it only means your example isn't relevant to the reality if Serra and Prissy or how your Titania/Tiamat example is not the same thing.

A: I don't particularly care if my example would be proved to be the worst simile ever created (stating "idea A is like idea B" is a simile), as long as Serra and Prissy aren't somehow unable to be top tier just because the other exists. I simply don't really care what others think of the comparison, just what they do with the healers.

B: The whole point of stating things are similar is acknowledging that they have differences but focusing on their similarities. Hence, I KNOW they aren't the same thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simile

A simile is a figure of speech comparing two unlike things, often introduced with the words "like" or "as".

Notice that I don't need things to be the same thing to identify their similarities.

If you want your example to have any semblance of relevance, yes, you need to.

I need to prove that two things that have similarities are closer together than two other things that have similarities in order to prove that the first set's similarities matter? That's not very logical. The first set's similarities matter or don't simply based on what they are, not whether they are more similar than some other set.

Yeah, the problem is taht idea X (Titania/Tiamat) is not even close to idea Y (Serra/Prissy). Although it is close to idea Z (Harken/Karel).

Close enough. If the two Ts are mid tier, then Pris devalues Serra and vice versa. If the two Ts are top tier, then Pris and Serra do not devalue each other. Seems like a strong enough similarity to me that the comparison is meaningful. It doesn't much matter how close they actually are.

[Reikken]

tl;dr at the rest of this topic, but as to the Titania/Taimat issue...

If only one can exist at a time, then...you only have one. So they both would be in the same place, where Titania is now. That's how I see it, anyway. But it's just as valid to see it the other way, and then they'd each have the early utility devalued a bit, so they'd drop some, out of W1n/Titania tier and into top tier. ...probably. They might still be just so good that they stay in w1n tier. iirc Titania > all first half, = top tier second half, so that's still uber.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Reikken

[Rewjeo]

I don't suppose you read my solution to the Tiamat/Titania thing, did you? It's pretty much exactly what Reikken said. And it's very different from how you'd solve the Serra/Prissy thing.

[Narga_Rocks]

I don't suppose you read my solution to the Tiamat/Titania thing, did you? It's pretty much exactly what Reikken said. And it's very different from how you'd solve the Serra/Prissy thing.

If you are talking to me I read and responded. Titania has +1 str, Tiamat has +1 def. Now you can't stick them in the same place since they truly aren't the same.

Besides, from an economics perspective sticking them in the same slot (if they were identical) still doesn't solve the issue. The profits of the two of them are identical, and hence the opportunity cost = their profit, thus economic profit = 0. It doesn't matter if you give them the same slot. They simply aren't the same unit (they have a different name and hair colour). There are two of them. The question is simply whether or not we should care about the opportunity cost. There are good reasons not to care. It's generally accepted that when tiering a unit, you consider it to be seriously used. For Serra/Pris, this means that it is the one given the staves that provide more experience because you are using her "seriously". When using them, like RFoF suggested it seems better to focus on one. This decision is much easier in games like PoR where we know Rhys < Mist at most points of their existence, so if you choose to favour one over the other hoping for promotion then for efficiency purposes you should probably favour Mist. In the case of Pris/Serra, the determination comes by more definitional means. If you are comparing Pris to, say, Guy, then you are trying to promote Pris ASAP and so you favour her. Ditto Serra v. Guy only then you want to promote Serra ASAP. The core of the argument is what to do about opportunity cost, not whether or not the two Ts are dealt with in the same way as Serra/Prys.

Basically, if half the time Pris is favoured, and the other half of the time Serra is favoured, do you average out their performance between when they are favoured and when they aren't, or do you just look at what happens when they are favoured. I think it should be the latter.

[Meteor]

I know this isn't really my argument, but maybe my input can help... Narga, your example doesn't correlate all that well. As others have already pointed out, Serra and Priscilla both exist simultaneously, while your theoretical characters are mutually exclusive. Your scenario makes more sense if the player were given both at the start instead of just one. Don't get me wrong, I see where you going with it, but it could be improved.

Using one harms the other, so they bring each other down.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Meteor

[Narga_Rocks]

I know this isn't really my argument, but maybe my input can help... Narga, your example doesn't correlate all that well. As others have already pointed out, Serra and Priscilla both exist simultaneously, while your theoretical characters are mutually exclusive. Your scenario makes more sense if the player were given both at the start instead of just one. Don't get me wrong, I see where you going with it, but it could be improved.

Using one harms the other, so they bring each other down.

Here's the thing, though. Using Tiamat certainly harms Titania since Titania doesn't get to do anything. Using Serra harms Priscilla less, actually, since Pris gets to still exist.

If Titania and Tiamat existed simultaneously, you'd have some similarities but I'm not sure it is actually as strong. Titania (the real one) certainly appreciates boss kills, so you could argue that to get full use out of one you should mostly ignore the other one. On the other hand, you could argue you could use both of them together and just accept that they would start slowing down a lot earlier than Titania does in the real game. You get twice the benefit early on, but much less along the way (as early as chapter 8, really). It's possible that the example could work better this way (since you have to choose whether or not to favour one over the other), but I think it works well enough either way. They both lead to the same point/question.

Do you tier Serra based on her being favoured (and Pris as if Pris is favoured instead), or do you tier them based on some kind of average utility that they should never actually be played as? My argument is for the former.

[Meteor]

Do you tier Serra based on her being favoured (and Pris as if Pris is favoured instead), or do you tier them based on some kind of average utility that they should never actually be played as? My argument is for the former.

Maybe you guys wouldn't like this (or maybe it's what you're suggesting), but here's how I'd do it, because it makes the most logical sense to me:

...

Serra/Priscilla (favored)

...

Priscilla/Serra (neglected)

...

Rank them both at their higher position, and their lower position. It wouldn't make sense to put them both at the highest spot, because they can't both achieve that ranking, yet you can't really push them together as one person because they both exist.

In the case of two mutually exclusive characters, rank them each as if you had picked him/her, and then move the worse of the two down for forcing you to miss a superior character. In your case, neither would move down because neither can really be claimed better than the other.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Meteor

[Narga_Rocks]

Maybe you guys wouldn't like this (or maybe it's what you're suggesting), but here's how I'd do it, because it makes the most logical sense to me:

...

Serra/Priscilla (favored)

...

Priscilla/Serra (neglected)

...

Rank them both at their higher position, and their lower position. It wouldn't make sense to put them both at the highest spot, because they can't both achieve that ranking, yet you can't really push them together as one person because they both exist.

Well, I'd suggest that due to move a favoured Pris is better than a favoured Serra. You can't really stick them both together. What I meant by average is you look at [u(favoured Serra) + U(neglected Serra)]/2 and stick her somewhere on the list, and [u(favoured Pris) + U(neglected Pris)]/2 and stick her somewhere on the list. I don't really like it, but it's an option that would likely send them both down a tier. It is true that unlike, say, Mak and Astrid, favoured Pris and favoured Serra can't coexist, but I don't see too big a problem with that.

[Meteor]

Well, I'd suggest that due to move a favoured Pris is better than a favoured Serra.

With that being the case, I would rank Pricilla as the one always favored. She should take the higher position, and Serra would occupy the neglected slot.

An average would be a poor alternative, because one of them is capable of a much higher spot.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Meteor

[Narga_Rocks]

With that being the case, I would rank Pricilla as the one always favored. She should take the higher position, and Serra would occupy the neglected slot.

An average would be a poor alternative, because one is capable of a much higher spot while the other is not.

That's an option, but then we'd have to start applying opportunity cost more heavily.

One way to do it is to set up a baseline for where they are when not favoured and go from there.

Say Pris is a 9.5 when favoured and Serra is a 9 when favoured, but they are both 7s when neglected. Then you could argue that Pris is a 7.5 and Serra is a 6.5. Pris gets a +2.5 if favoured, but prevents Serra from getting a +2, so the net gain is +.5 and she's a 7.5. The same process applies to Serra, only she ends up with a 6.5 (alternatively, just assume she isn't favoured at all and leave her at a 7). Personally, I don't like this option because it lowers them down to the level of other units that they are better than if allowed to grow compared to the units that are now tied with them. Like, it sticks them with other 7s and 7.5s that can't even become 8s, ever.

It is an alternative, though.

[Anouleth]

If you had only like 2 combat units, one of which was Bartre, he too would be top tier. (make the rest healers/dancers or something)

Someone needs to hack the game to do this. Bartre and 30 healers/dancers.

They can call it BartreFE.

[dondon151]

Titania vs. Tiamat only takes into account opportunity cost for those 2 units. But you have to also compare each individual to the rest of the team, and each one still exhibits positive economic profit relative to the rest of the team, even though they are neutral to each other.

[Narga_Rocks]

Titania vs. Tiamat only takes into account opportunity cost for those 2 units. But you have to also compare each individual to the rest of the team, and each one still exhibits positive economic profit relative to the rest of the team, even though they are neutral to each other.

The example itself wasn't the intended focus. As for the example itself, even comparing Titania to Boyd, for example, wouldn't Titania still have the opportunity cost of Tiamat (and one of the other units that could have been fielded besides Titania)? Boyd only has the opportunity cost of the (x+1)th best unit that could be fielded when the max deployment is x. Titania has that plus Tiamat. (well, not really plus. More like max[utility of (x+1)th best unit, Tiamat].)

I suppose it's a matter of how you go about applying opportunity cost. Which was where the whole "what do you do with Serra/Pris on the list" came from in the first place, really.

[Inference]

I'm having a hard time seeing why Lyn is so low. Her stats are pretty good and, well, the Mani Katti. I don't think there's anything Fiora or Rebecca can do to be better than her.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Inference

[Anouleth]

Bad durability forever, late promotion, meh STR, mono-swords. I'd use her until the Mani Katti breaks, but after that I wouldn't bother.

[-Cynthia-]

Bad durability forever, late promotion, meh STR, mono-swords. I'd use her until the Mani Katti breaks, but after that I wouldn't bother.

She's forced in a few chapters, so there's an incentive to use her, plus she has some decently fast supports (Hector and Florina).

Fiora flies, eventually has WTC and a better promotion. I personally am not big on Rebecca> Lyn, since I find Rebecca a pain to level up, but I'm too lazy to make an argument.

Edited March 9, 2010 by -Cynthia-