FE7 HHM tier list unranked/efficiency v3

[CATS]

Doesn't it make more sense for someone to win because they've contributed more rather than lose?

That's the thing. Bartre being used when he's not preferred deployment doesn't actually contribute anything. A team that can't use him isn't any worse off than a team that can. There's a difference between existing and contributing. If Bartre actually contributed more than Rath, of course he would win, but he doesn't (not under the scenario given, at least).

It makes the least sense if we're applying it to things that can be split. Why would we only assume someone gets to use a ridersbane a certain percent of the time they're in play at all?

Well, it's limited. The demand is greater than the supply, so they definitely don't get to use it all. I guess if you're arguing that they should get no uses of it, I could buy that. But if you're not, then the only thing that's left is that they get some partial use of it.

And then with opportunity cost, one-shot items become useless. I mean, it doesn't matter how good someone is with a resource, it does nothing for them. Why? Because someone else wants something. There are only a handful of resources that actually make a difference. If someone gets the full benefit a certain percent of the time, then the resources the game gives don't become useless for tiering.

This is also an inaccurate depiction of the unit's performance, so I don't see why you're so attached to the concept.

That one assumed that the player had no information not provided with the game. I think it just makes sense to assume that the player isn't a perfect tactician. That represents the community better. The community is not full of perfect tacticians, but it IS full of people who have access to external information.

The core concept is pretty much the same. I don't think the topic would've gone any differently had it been assumed that the player has access to information sites.

It's more like the punishment is being way overblown so that existing less is actually good.

"Way overblown" is your opinion.

Existing less is only good when you force Bartre to be used inefficiently. You're creating the problem by using him in that way, so it seems strange to then turn around and complain about it.

[Rewjeo]

The current system makes it so that the only person who gets any sort of considerable credit from anything is the unit who acquires something. Let's say there's an item that gets stolen. It makes one unit go from a 5/10 to a 9/10. But there's another unit that goes from a 6/10 to a 10/10. Both units get huge benefits from the item, but neither of them get any credit because the other one uses it just as well. The only unit that gets any credit is the thief. But what if this was automatically gotten without any special actions. Well, it may as well not exist as no one can get anything from it. But that's inaccurate as it drastically improves a unit's performance and yet the current rules treat them as if they were still a 5/10 or 6/10. Even when you take into account the fact that the one who doesn't get it likely won't be in play as it hurts their performance so much. This system makes it so that removing all one use items except for promotion items would make little difference to a lot of units. Thieves would plummet, and a few others would drop as well, but that's it.

I don't think you quite understand what I'm saying. I'm saying that it's ridiculous to assume that Abel only gets to use a ridersbane at all 50% of the time he's in play. He should get SOME amount of use from it every single time he's in play, but not all of it any time he's in play.

Obviously I don't assume the tactician is retarded or anything like that. I would assume them to be a good tactician. But they're human. They make stupid mistakes on occasion and not all strategies are super obvious. Especially in RD where you have to count enemy movement. Is it ludicrous to assume that they might once get someone attacked on accident? So, of your options, I'd go with near perfect. But not quite.

So it's inaccurate to measure a unit's performance with resources? 'Cause that's what I'm getting from that.

Well you obviously aren't using him inefficiently. You use him as best you can during that time. And he's clearly contributing as it's not hard to make him better than an empty slot. Now, if you compare +/- utility with the worst unit on the team otherwise, then these ideas don't work.

Edit: Scratch all that. I've been saying things that have really just been popping into my head. I actually took a minute and thought about it and remembered why opportunity cost and comparing a unit to the worst one already on the team make sense.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Slize

[CATS]

The current system makes it so that the only person who gets any sort of considerable credit from anything is the unit who acquires something. Let's say there's an item that gets stolen. It makes one unit go from a 5/10 to a 9/10. But there's another unit that goes from a 6/10 to a 10/10. Both units get huge benefits from the item, but neither of them get any credit because the other one uses it just as well. The only unit that gets any credit is the thief. But what if this was automatically gotten without any special actions. Well, it may as well not exist as no one can get anything from it. But that's inaccurate as it drastically improves a unit's performance and yet the current rules treat them as if they were still a 5/10 or 6/10.

What this doesn't represent is the overall performance of the team. A unit's value is grounded in how much the performance of the team as a whole is improved when you use that unit.

Assume that you have 4 top tier units: Rutger, Barst, Raven and Seth, and that you have a one-use booster shot which will improve the performance of whatever unit it is given to. Rutger's performance starts off as a 12, and Barst/Seth/Raven all as a 10. The total performance of your team is thus 42. If given the shot, Barst/Seth/Raven will improve to a 13, while if the shot is given to Rutger, he will only improve by 0.5, to a 12.5. In a comparison between Barst and Rutger, should it be concluded that Barst is better because he is better when both are given the shot? Absolutely not.

Assume that you are forced to pick between Barst and Rutger; the team that can't use Barst gives the shot to Seth instead, so that the total performance of the team is 35 (10 + 12 + 13). The team that can't use Rutger gives the shot to Barst; but since that's not any better than giving it to Seth, and this team can't get Rutger's inherent +2 performance points over the others, their total performance is still less. It's only 33 (13 + 10 + 10). Hence, a clear demonstration that Rutger is more valuable. The team that uses him is stronger; the team that used Barst has a unit which is stronger than Rutger in pure stats, but in exchange, someone else on Barst's team is weaker than they are on Rutger's team by a much larger margin.

Even when you take into account the fact that the one who doesn't get it likely won't be in play as it hurts their performance so much. This system makes it so that removing all one use items except for promotion items would make little difference to a lot of units. Thieves would plummet, and a few others would drop as well, but that's it.

Indeed, this is already the case. How much do you really think discussion would change if stat boosters were removed from the game, considering how often they're currently brought up during discussion?

I don't think you quite understand what I'm saying. I'm saying that it's ridiculous to assume that Abel only gets to use a ridersbane at all 50% of the time he's in play. He should get SOME amount of use from it every single time he's in play, but not all of it any time he's in play.

Yeah, we misunderstood each other. This is also what I had in mind.

So it's inaccurate to measure a unit's performance with resources? 'Cause that's what I'm getting from that.

It is inaccurate to, in the example above, declare Barst > Rutger on the basis that Barst will be stronger when both are given the shot. Hopefully this is a good example of the point I'm trying to get across.

Well you obviously aren't using him inefficiently.

Yes, you are. You force him onto the field when it's preferable to not use him, hence making his team weaker than the team which uses Rath until Rath joins. In reality the player does not have this arbitrary restriction. It's the same as forcing FE6 Marcus to be fielded lategame and then saying Lot > Marcus because Marcus gets crushed lategame.

[Anouleth]

The current system makes it so that the only person who gets any sort of considerable credit from anything is the unit who acquires something. Let's say there's an item that gets stolen. It makes one unit go from a 5/10 to a 9/10. But there's another unit that goes from a 6/10 to a 10/10. Both units get huge benefits from the item, but neither of them get any credit because the other one uses it just as well. The only unit that gets any credit is the thief. But what if this was automatically gotten without any special actions. Well, it may as well not exist as no one can get anything from it. But that's inaccurate as it drastically improves a unit's performance and yet the current rules treat them as if they were still a 5/10 or 6/10. Even when you take into account the fact that the one who doesn't get it likely won't be in play as it hurts their performance so much. This system makes it so that removing all one use items except for promotion items would make little difference to a lot of units. Thieves would plummet, and a few others would drop as well, but that's it.

Principle 2 of economics: The price of anything is what you give up to get it.

Translation: Choices are really bad.

[Rewjeo]

Read the edit. After actually thinking more on it instead of spewing whatever popped into my mind, I pretty much agree with what you said.

[Narga_Rocks]

Principle 2 of economics: The price of anything is what you give up to get it.

Translation: Choices are really bad.

I think somebody saw a certain video about translating Mankiw's rules of economics.

[nflchamp]

I think somebody saw a certain video about translating Mankiw's rules of economics.

Just remember, people are stupid.

But people aren't that stupid.

[Narga_Rocks]

Just remember, people are stupid.

But people aren't that stupid.

It's funny that the two hypothetical units that arguably get the same benefit from the hypothetical item is rather similar to the two snickers example given by the guy, and yet I'm betting Slize hasn't seen that video. (Let's just say: don't offer an Economist a choice between two identical snickers bars. You might as well offer them nothing.)

[Crimson_Edge]

Professor Mankiw ftw.

Even though I didn't take his class. v_v My roommates did, however, and apparently he's pretty cool.

[Narga_Rocks]

Professor Mankiw ftw.

Even though I didn't take his class. v_v My roommates did, however, and apparently he's pretty cool.

Take Mankiw's class? Or the class of the guy in the video about which we are talking?

[Crimson_Edge]

Take Mankiw's class? Or the class of the guy in the video about which we are talking?

Mankiw's class. He teaches introductory economics here.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

Enough derailing.

What's the reasoning behind Pent < Eliwood besides availability?

[CATS]

That's the reasoning. Eliwood vs Harken was already discussed; Eliwood vs Pent isn't much different. Keep in mind that Pent jumped to high tier essentially for no reason at all.

Also, Hawkeye > Dart. This was posted a long time ago and no one ever responded, so I'll just C/P:

Funnily enough Dart can promote at pretty much the exact same time that Hawkeye joins. Bad news for Dart is that he's pretty crappy when he first shows up and you don't want to use him in the coming chapters if you don't have to. He's probably better off gaining two levels in his join chap and then benching for a while.

10/1 Dart: 14.3 Str, 10.2 Spd, 13 Con----39.4 Hp, 8.4 Def, 3.3 Res, 24.1 Avo, 3.7 CEV

Base Hawkeye: 18 Str, 11 Spd, 16 Con----50 Hp, 14 Def, 10 Res, 35 Avo, 13 CEV

And this is assuming that blowing that 25K on Dart's promotion doesn't hurt you in the least bit. Yeah, I'd say Hawkeye wins.

Even if you complain that this is somehow unfair to Dart, let's say 14/1 if he gets used in those chaps between 19 and 23.

14/1 Dart: 16.9 Str, 11.6 Spd, 13 Con----42.2 Hp, 9.2 Def, 3.9 Res, 28.3 Avo

Base Hawkeye: 18 Str, 11 Spd, 16 Con----50 Hp, 14 Def, 10 Res, 35 Avo

I'd still say Hawkeye wins.

Then Weapons responded with:

This is just at Hawkeye's join time though,

Later:

20/4 Dart:

48 hp, 22 str, 12 skl, 18 spd, 8 lck, 11 def, 5 res

--/12 Hawkeye:

54 hp, 21 str, 16 skl, 13 spd, 16 lck, 16 def, 13 res

Hawkeye's still got that nice def and slight hp lead, but Dart's offense is developing into something which Hawkeye's never getting.

Which was followed by:

20/4 Dart has to put up with more time of being unpromoted in exchange for those higher later stats. Compare 14 Dart to base Hawkeye without the promotion item.

Taking 14/1 Dart again, let's say maybe 14/10 Dart and 11 Hawkeye later.

14/10 Dart: 22.75 Str, 17 Spd, 13 Con----48.5 Hp, 11 Def, 5.25 Res, 42.25 Avo

11 Hawkeye: 20.8 Str, 12.8 Spd, 16 Con----53.5 Hp, 15.4 Def, 12.5 Res, 41.4 Avo

So instead of Hawkeye ripping Dart to shreds, it simply turns into offense vs defense. Not impressed, and still going with Hawkeye overall. Hawkeye also has 2 forced chapters vs Dart's 1, and he's exceptional in one of them (Genesis; high Hp/Res + Brave Axe/Killer Axe is a winning combo in that chapter).

Don't really see how Dart wins.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Speedwagon

[Inui]

I must say I think Hawkeye is better than Dart no matter what the tier list's standards are, lol. Unless it's "makes the game harder" or something.

Eliwood vs Pent is different from Eliwood vs Harken. Pent's in 1.5 more chapters and can use staves and doesn't need to play support catch up.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

That's the reasoning. Eliwood vs Harken was already discussed; Eliwood vs Pent isn't much different. Keep in mind that Pent jumped to high tier essentially for no reason at all.

As Inui pointed out, Pent has staves in addition to his decent bases and a little more availability and isn't Eliwood somewhat average during the earlygame or did I forget how shitty the enemies are in this?

Also, it would've been better to just edit that Hawkeye and Dart post in the one I'm quoting instead of double positing so I'm merging them but try not to double post outside of exceptions again.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Speedwagon

[CATS]

Eliwood has alot of forced chapters earlier. Like, a lot. 12, 13, 13x, 14, 20, 22, 26, and Final off the top of my head, I feel like I'm forgetting atleast one or two. That's enough to be quite significant even if you discount all the rest of his availability advantage. Considering they're pretty close after Harken Pent shows up, I could see this being worth a tier gap.

Ofcourse you can take off 26 since Pent is forced there too, but that still leaves 7 chapters. About equal to Pent's entire run of existence.

[Inui]

Not all chapters are created equal.

[CATS]

Indeed they aren't. Forced chapters carry alot more weight than a chapter where both units have to consume a slot in order to be deployed; a unit slot is a huge cost.

[Inui]

Eh, still not a big fan of those arguments. Being forced kinda means they are auto-eating a deployment slot, as they still count towards the fraction shown on the prep screen and they eat a spot on the map and can't be moved. I find it more inconvenient than beneficial when units are forced because I don't consider that them being "free" more than being forced upon you.

[Anouleth]

Indeed they aren't. Forced chapters carry alot more weight than a chapter where both units have to consume a slot in order to be deployed; a unit slot is a huge cost.

Is it? I can't say I really care that Eliwood is forced into C12, or C13 or C14 when I have enough room to deploy whoever the hell I feel like anyway.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Anouleth

[CATS]

Eh, still not a big fan of those arguments. Being forced kinda means they are auto-eating a deployment slot, as they still count towards the fraction shown on the prep screen and they eat a spot on the map and can't be moved. I find it more inconvenient than beneficial when units are forced because I don't consider that them being "free" more than being forced upon you.

A matter of opinion I suppose, but here's what I see:

When I don't use Eliwood, I'm entirely missing a unit in Ch 12, 13, 13x and 14. It's the same as having an empty slot for those chapters. When I don't use Eliwood, I have a level 1 unpromoted unit who can't do anything forced onto the field in Ch 20, 22, 26 and Final (and also 28x iirc). When I do use Eliwood, now I have a competent and trained unit who is able to do something on Ch 20/22/26/etc instead of the L1 wimp who can't do anything. However, when I don't use Pent, then after 26 I never have a worthless unit forced onto me as a cost of not using him. The team that uses Pent and not Eliwood will be down a unit for all of Eliwood's forced chapters, but the team that uses Eliwood and not Pent will only be down a unit in Ch 26 (and Pent's team is also down a unit there since that's also a forced chapter for Eliwood).

Is it? I can't say I really care that Eliwood is forced into C12, or C13 or C14 when I have enough room to deploy whoever the hell I feel like anyway.

What's your point?

Edited March 17, 2010 by CATS

[Anouleth]

You said that a unit slot is a 'huge cost'. I don't think it is in the case of Chapters 12, 13, 13x and 14. The benefit of not taking a deployment slot is that it frees up room to deploy another character, but if we can deploy all our characters already, it's worthless. If anything, it's an annoyance since we can't pick where to place Eliwood at the start of the battle.

Edited March 18, 2010 by Anouleth

[CATS]

You said that a unit slot is a 'huge cost'. I don't think it is in the case of Chapters 12, 13, 13x and 14. The benefit of not taking a deployment slot is that it frees up room to deploy another character, but if we can deploy all our characters already, it's worthless. If anything, it's an annoyance since we can't pick where to place Eliwood at the start of the battle.

The fact that you can deploy everyone is precisely what makes it valuable. Since there's no one on the bench, there's no one to fill Eliwood's shoes if you take him out of the picture. If he is removed from play, you are entirely missing a unit in that spot; your unit count is reduced by 1. This is not the case when you don't use Pent on Ch 28 or w/e.

[Anouleth]

The fact that you can deploy everyone is precisely what makes it valuable. Since there's no one on the bench, there's no one to fill Eliwood's shoes if you take him out of the picture. If he is removed from play, you are entirely missing a unit in that spot; your unit count is reduced by 1. This is not the case when you don't use Pent on Ch 28 or w/e.

I didn't think of it that way. I was thinking of it in terms of comparing Eliwood to the ~dozen other characters around in those chapters, but since he still contributes positively, it doesn't matter.

[GreatEclipse]

I also dislike this argument. I find Eliwood to be pain early on free deployment or not, and later forced chapters tend to have more slots anyway. At times I even have more than I need on efficiency runs, since no EXP rank allows for smaller teams.

Edited March 18, 2010 by GreatEclipse