FE7 HHM tier list unranked/efficiency v3

[chrysalid]

A 1-dimensional ordering of units is always going to be kind of stupid, you just have to pick your poison.

[CATS]

You should practice what you preach. This isn't a maximum Efficiency list. Ideals like Wendy>Treck are not accepted. LIVE WITH IT, and make your own list if you don't like it.

I find it strange that you still insist on saying things like this even after the reality of the situation has already been explained numerous times. "Ideals like Wendy>Treck" are not accepted purely because the majority finds them to be contrary to their own personal opinions and feelings. The rational counter-argument against the Wendy > Treck point has yet to appear. It has only been defeated by changing the rules and guidelines of the tier list itself; it is akin to me defeating Seth > Amelia by changing the list so that it ranks units based on who makes the game more difficult.

I don't know why you still fail to realize that the original logic presented was, and still is, entirely valid within the context of a list that ranks units based on their contributions towards efficiency. Instead, you choose to push forward your own personal opinions as if they are inherently more valid than anyone else's, when the reality is that they are not grounded in objective logic or reasoning and are, in fact, merely your personal opinions. Since this has been made clear already, and you still persist in making these baffling statements, I suppose that you will never arrive at an understanding of reality. Hence, I will likely not waste my time attempting to explain things again in the future. You are free to live in your little bubble where your opinion is the objective standard and is inherently superior to all others; I will be content to ignore posts made based on the perspective of that little bubble.

Well, I'd obviously do some more research/use my basic understandings of what different archetypes are like. I see Marcus at the top of the list. I play the game, and see that he's your Jeigan. I then understand that he's so high because he's good early on, but will likely be dropped later. I see Treck is a cavalier that joins early on, but is near the middle of the list. I can tell fairly quickly that he's not great early on, and that he likely won't ever get great, but remain decent. I see that Wendy is at the bottom of the list. I get her, and I realize that her awful base stats are what put her there, and I probably don't touch her.

So, it isn't exactly a character guide, but for the most part, someone who knows a decent amount about FE can figure out why characters are where they are. Now, admittedly, there are cases (such as RD Mia) where they are up there for reasons that are not very obvious.

My main issue with your "normal efficiency" ideas is the question of how they would handle availability of low tier units. When comparing Raven and Kent, the situation is simple and obvious. Both are good. Both will be used and contribute positively long-term. Raven is better.

However, say that we are given the comparison of Bartre and Rath. It seems relatively clear that "normal efficiency" requires a unit to be deployed in each chapter during which they are available; hence, we have Bartre being used as sub-optimal deployment for 10 chapters before Rath joins. How do you factor those 10 chapters of availability into the comparison? Go the gross system route, and define the 10 chapters as positive utility? Bartre wins by default. Continue to apply net utility, and call the 10 chapters negative utility in an attempt to accurately represent Bartre's true contributions? Rath wins by default, on account of Bartre being forced into an inefficient usage; it is akin to Lot defeating Marcus in FE6 because the tier list standards force Marcus to be deployed and crushed by Lot during the lategame.

Ignore them entirely? Then what about the Exp that Bartre gained during those chapters? Bartre consumed a significant number of kills during that time; do you ignore that Exp opportunity cost as well, and simply do the comparison as if Bartre joined in Ch 22 at L15 without any prior existence? If this is done, what about the rest of the list? Such a method of comparison is blatantly inconsistent with, say, Marcus > Harken. Is this inconsistency simply accepted and ignored? I cannot find a good solution here.

[Interceptor]

So, it isn't exactly a character guide, but for the most part, someone who knows a decent amount about FE can figure out why characters are where they are. Now, admittedly, there are cases (such as RD Mia) where they are up there for reasons that are not very obvious.

I can use a butter knife as a make-shift flathead screwdriver. This does not mean that I reach for the silverware drawer every time that I want to build a bookshelf. While it's true that you can just grab the top X people off the top of an efficiency list and do well for yourself, it's an ad hoc solution to the problem at best.

[Dat Nick]

You are free to live in your little bubble where your opinion is the objective standard and is inherently superior to all others; I will be content to ignore posts made based on the perspective of that little bubble.

You like to take my posts out of context. I'm not saying fuck your logic, I'm saying your logic won't and never will apply for this specific tier list. If you want a Maximum Efficiency list where the only characters who get tiered seriously are the top 10 units and the rest are just noobs who get tiered for forced contributions if they have any, make it yourself. I'm clearly not discouraging that action, yes?

[Narga_Rocks]

You like to take my posts out of context. I'm not saying fuck your logic, I'm saying your logic won't and never will apply for this specific tier list. If you want a Maximum Efficiency list where the only characters who get tiered seriously are the top 10 units and the rest are just noobs who get tiered for forced contributions if they have any, make it yourself. I'm clearly not discouraging that action, yes?

Actually, if he was going to make a random tier list that he knows nobody will bother with, from some of his more recent posts it sounds like it would be a "which units make the game the most interesting" tier list, rather than a maximum efficiency list. So basically, I'm not sure entirely what would make a unit interesting, but it has some of the characters like Seth at or near the bottom since he makes fe8 a snore-fest. I'm not sure which characters are interesting, though. If they have bad bases and bad growths I'm not sure if that makes them more interesting than a unit with good growths and bad bases that will become pretty good like two thirds of the way through.

(Oh, but I'd actually be somewhat interested in seeing an "Interesting Unit Tier List". Maybe even argue on it if there was a clear set of standards that I felt were consistent.)

[Rewjeo]

I can use a butter knife as a make-shift flathead screwdriver. This does not mean that I reach for the silverware drawer every time that I want to build a bookshelf. While it's true that you can just grab the top X people off the top of an efficiency list and do well for yourself, it's an ad hoc solution to the problem at best.

That's actually a great example. Let's say that there's some tier list for how well different utensils work as flathead screwdrivers. At the top is obviously a screwdriver itself, so Alan/Lance. Somewhere in there, there's a spoon (Treck), and at the bottom is a toothpick(Wendy). If I have each of the utensils at my disposal, I can see clearly why the screwdriver>everything else and the spoon>>>toothpick. Seeing as I have some experience with this type of thing, I see that the screwdriver fits perfectly and thus does a better job than everything else. The spoon fits in decently, but it's harder to use than the screwdriver. And then I try the toothpick. It's difficult to get to work at all and breaks easily and stabs into my hand when I try to use it. However, if someone told me that, without a doubt, toothpick>>>spoon but <<<<<Screwdriver, I would doubt it. Now, while this may be justifiable under certain criteria, anyone who's actually tried can tell you that the spoon is far more effective than the toothpick.

Thus, with a basic understanding of how those utensils work, I can understand why the spoon is better than the fork, even though the list itself didn't explain why that was the case.

Edit: I accidentally put fork instead of toothpick. Fix'd

Edited March 11, 2010 by Slize

[Florete]

I can use a butter knife as a make-shift flathead screwdriver. This does not mean that I reach for the silverware drawer every time that I want to build a bookshelf. While it's true that you can just grab the top X people off the top of an efficiency list and do well for yourself, it's an ad hoc solution to the problem at best.

That's actually a great example. Let's say that there's some tier list for how well different utensils work as flathead screwdrivers. At the top is obviously a screwdriver itself, so Alan/Lance. Somewhere in there, there's a spoon (Treck), and at the bottom is a toothpick(Wendy). If I have each of the utensils at my disposal, I can see clearly why the screwdriver>everything else and the spoon>>>fork. Seeing as I have some experience with this type of thing, I see that the screwdriver fits perfectly and thus does a better job than everything else. The spoon fits in decently, but it's harder to use than the screwdriver. And then I try the toothpick. It's difficult to get to work at all and breaks easily and stabs into my hand when I try to use it. However, if someone told me that, without a doubt, toothpick>>>spoon but <<<<<Screwdriver, I would doubt it. Now, while this may be justifiable under certain criteria, anyone who's actually tried can tell you that the spoon is far more effective than the toothpick.

Thus, with a basic understanding of how those utensils work, I can understand why the spoon is better than the fork, even though the list itself didn't explain why that was the case.

If it isn't too big I just might sig that.

[CATS]

You like to take my posts out of context. I'm not saying fuck your logic, I'm saying your logic won't and never will apply for this specific tier list. If you want a Maximum Efficiency list where the only characters who get tiered seriously are the top 10 units and the rest are just noobs who get tiered for forced contributions if they have any, make it yourself. I'm clearly not discouraging that action, yes?

It doesn't apply in your distorted world where your personal idea of efficiency is the widely agreed and accepted standard by default, and nothing else is remotely acceptable. The reality is that "maximum efficiency" (as you like to call it) is synonomous with the measurement of a unit's actual contributions towards overall efficiency, and thus indeed synonomous with the original aim of efficiency tier lists.

Arguments based on "maximum efficiency" were thus not purely based on opinions, as opposed to the attempted counter-arguments against them which rested on the false assumption that the tier list measures units only if they are fielded in every chapter, or only if they are used in a certain way, or other inefficient and contradictory premises. You need to realize that arguments such as Nino > Karla are not an expression of my personal opinions and standards; rather, such an argument is a rational case laid out according to the goal of a tier list which attempts to measure contributions towards efficiency. It is entirely unrelated to my personal feelings on the matter, and this is the defining difference between it and a "that's maximum efficiency!" protest against it. Protests of "that only happens on a maximum efficiency playthrough!" are utterly meaningless until the standard is clearly defined to be something other than the measurement of a unit's contributions towards an efficient playthrough. This did not happen anywhere until extremely recently, it still has not happened on this specific tier list, and these newer ideas of what constitutes "efficiency" are still vague and difficult to clearly define.

Yet again your post indicates that you have only a very basic comprehension of these concepts, at best, yet you remain inexplicably arrogant. You speak as if the standards of the tier list are clearly defined and obviously line up with whatever your abstract and still-undefined personal image of "efficiency" is, and as if arguments which do not line up with your standards should be exiled to a separate tier list. In reality, this is not even close to being the case.

[Dat Nick]

yeaheayeahyeaheyheayehyeaheyaheyaehyeayyeahyeah

Please read what I say if you are going to type a wall of text against it. The only place any ideals of "Maximum Efficiency" are being "BLOCKED OUT FROM REALITY" is in this tier list. THIS IS NOT A TIER LIST FOR MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY. IT WILL NEVER BE A TIER LIST FOR MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY. IF YOU WANT A MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY TIER LIST SO BADLY, THEN MAKE ONE.

It's like talking into a dead phone at this point. If you want to make a Maximum Efficiency tier list, Not in my Backyard. Stop trying to, in your own words, "bend existing lists to your own criteria". Discussion over.

And for the record, all your hogwash about "Maximum Efficiency not being clearly defined" or whatever the fuck you're trying to say, it's completely inane and irrelevant. You know damn well what Maximum Efficiency is, you started this whole pointless discussion. Maximum Efficiency assumes that only the top tiers and forced units are used. That's the basis which makes things like Wendy>Treck POSSIBLE on a ME tier list. It really doesn't matter if "Efficiency is not clearly defined", because I'm going to let you in on something: We've never tiered units on a ME basis on this specific tier list. And we won't tier units on a ME basis. IN THIS SPECIFIC TIER LIST. Here. I'll bold and capitalize it for you.

MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY IDEALS NEVER HAVE AND NEVER WILL BE CONSIDERED IN A NORMAL EFFICIENCY TIER LIST.

Now, if you're done hijacking this topic, I'm going to create a ME tier list so you can quit whining about how we're all blocked off from reality, seeing as how the concept of creating a list for this is completely abstract to you despite me suggesting that you do it countless times. You can discuss ME until your fingers fall off from typing in there. You can discuss "Normal" Efficiency all you want in this tier list. But for the love of fuck, keep all further hogwash about Maximum Efficiency OUT of this topic. Capishe?

Edited March 11, 2010 by s Portsman

[CATS]

Please read what I say if you are going to type a wall of text against it. The only place any ideals of "Maximum Efficiency" are being "BLOCKED OUT FROM REALITY" is in this tier list. THIS IS NOT A TIER LIST FOR MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY. IT WILL NEVER BE A TIER LIST FOR MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY. IF YOU WANT A MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY TIER LIST SO BADLY, THEN MAKE ONE.

Where does it say that? I do not see it. You assume that this is the case, but your assertion seems to be based on nothing more than thin air.

What's truly indicative of your lack of comprehension is that this has always been your attitude, even in the past when these ideas were not clearly defined at all. Even before Colonel M's FE6 tier list stated that units are assumed to be deployed, you still said things along these exact same lines; your attitude has always been the exact same as it is now, even when there was nothing at all to support it.

It's like talking into a dead phone at this point. If you want to make a Maximum Efficiency tier list, Not in my Backyard. Stop trying to, in your own words, "bend existing lists to your own criteria". Discussion over.

Ironic that you would say that. From my point of view, it's been like talking into a dead phone from the start. From the beginning of the discussion, you have utterly failed to bring any new content to the table. You have elected instead to simply repeat the same things with more emphasis, as if that will make your points more valid.

[Rewjeo]

RFoF wants to sig me

@CATS near the top of the page: That's why some units are "utility units". In an efficient playthrough, they'll be played as long as it's useful. If we're going to seriously use Bartre, though, it involves using him as a long term team member as he is not some unit meant to only make part of the game easier.

Now, admittedly, Rath>Bartre because he sucks for less time really doesn't sound right, and I don't particularly like it, but it IS accurate. Bartre's been costing me more, and Rath hasn't cost me anything yet, and he never costs so much that Bartre becomes better than him.

[Florete]

Hm, I thought I had said it somewhere, but I guess I didn't.

Anyway, I don't like the idea of "maximum efficiency" myself. It's hard to say exactly what my ideal tier list setting would be, but at best I'd call it something like "maximum usability." Pretty much assuming units are used until they're only getting worse, which would justify stuff like dropping Marcus eventually but assuming most other units are played as long as they are around, possibly opting out of a map if it would be a significant problem to have them (like Armors in the desert). It isn't without flaws, of course, but what tier list standard is?

[CATS]

@CATS near the top of the page: That's why some units are "utility units". In an efficient playthrough, they'll be played as long as it's useful. If we're going to seriously use Bartre, though, it involves using him as a long term team member as he is not some unit meant to only make part of the game easier.

Now, admittedly, Rath>Bartre because he sucks for less time really doesn't sound right, and I don't particularly like it, but it IS accurate. Bartre's been costing me more, and Rath hasn't cost me anything yet, and he never costs so much that Bartre becomes better than him.

Indeed. So according to your ideas of normal efficiency, FE7 lower tiers should look something more like this:

-Middle-

Renault

Karla

Vaida

Jaffar

Nino

Karel

Louise

Farina

-Lower Middle-

Wallace

Rath

Heath

Fiora

-Low-

Lyn

Wil

Bartre

Rebecca

Is this correct? Of course some adjustments would be made, such as Nino down for being much worse than other units in her general time period in raw abilities and etc, but this should be a good rough outline. The units with the most availability tending towards the bottom, and vice versa. Now, two more questions:

1. Do you honestly find this to be preferable over a pure efficiency-contributions ranking system, which would, say, put Nino over Karla since Nino can make extremely minor contributions without incurring a significant cost in order to be used?

2. You mention "utility units." Do these utility units automatically get placed over units who are always sub-optimal deployment and do not qualify as "utility units?" As an example, in FE6, it is perfectly arguable that Noah is never optimal deployment; meanwhile, Zealot is optimal deployment for a span of about 10 chapters. If you use them both in every chapter during which they are available, and both are given kills and Exp, it will be arguable that Noah > Zealot overall. Would your mentality place Zealot over Noah, or vice versa? I'm assuming the former, but of course I don't really know. Also, what defines a "utility unit?"

Keep in mind I'm not trying to challenge you here. I'm genuinely interested in these issues, since they need to be addressed if people want to do a serious "non-maximum-efficiency" list.

[Rewjeo]

Well, it depends how negative they are. I still see Nino much farther down because she's so negative, likewise Rath>Wallace seems justifiable to me, although I haven't checked numbers yet, so it may just be bias, based on if Wallace is negative enough to be worse than Rath's negatives.

Yeah, I don't really like that all that much. That's what "efficiency" seems like in my head, but seeing it on paper (metaphorically) I don't like it. I do like RFoF's idea of maximum usability, though. That seems as though it would fit what I'd like to see most in a tier list.

Edit: Still thinking on the Noah/Zealot thing.

Also, the biggest problem with the maximum usability thing is: Do Gatos automatically top? And what about Jeigans? What do you do with them?

Coming up with rules that everyone (or anyone) really genuinely likes is... hard.

Edit #2: After finishing reading RFoF's ideas on the usability tier list, I like it. Although I still do want to know what you'd do with Gatos...

Edited March 11, 2010 by Slize

[Dat Nick]

Although I still do want to know what you'd do with Gatos...

you do what everybody else does and beat them up for 50 silver points

[CATS]

Well, it depends how negative they are. I still see Nino much farther down because she's so negative, likewise Rath>Wallace seems justifiable to me, although I haven't checked numbers yet, so it may just be bias, based on if Wallace is negative enough to be worse than Rath's negatives.

Indeed, if someone is much worse in performance while only having a few less chapters of availability, they could still be worse overall. This only applies in a few cases, though (actually I don't really see anywhere that it would apply other than Nino). In general a gap in performance will not be able to overcome whatever availability gap there is.

Yeah, I don't really like that all that much. That's what "efficiency" seems like in my head, but seeing it on paper (metaphorically) I don't like it. I do like RFoF's idea of maximum usability, though. That seems as though it would fit what I'd like to see most in a tier list.

Well, I guess it's back to the drawing board then. Let's look at RFoF's idea.

Anyway, I don't like the idea of "maximum efficiency" myself. It's hard to say exactly what my ideal tier list setting would be, but at best I'd call it something like "maximum usability." Pretty much assuming units are used until they're only getting worse, which would justify stuff like dropping Marcus eventually but assuming most other units are played as long as they are around, possibly opting out of a map if it would be a significant problem to have them (like Armors in the desert). It isn't without flaws, of course, but what tier list standard is?

What is meant by "used until they're only getting worse?" Units never get worse in terms of pure stats--Marcus continues to improve until he caps his level, and his stats never go down. Do you mean that units are dropped if they are getting worse relative to the rest of the team? If this is the case, Marcus is never used--the rest of the team is always gaining stats and improving their abilities at a greater rate than Marcus is. Right from the start, Marcus is getting worse relative to the rest of the team.

Also, this seems to have the same issue of availability of low tiers as Slize's idea had. How would "maximum usability" deal with availability gaps on low tiers?

For that matter, how do you handle availability in general? Would Marcus still be placed over Harken on this usability list? Harken and Athos are both extremely usable while available. They should be used whenever possible, and high positions for them on the tier list would indicate this, I imagine. Marcus is ofcourse preferred deployment during the earlygame, but he may fall from this position during the lategame. He's not preferred deployment for his entire existence, like Harken and Athos are, even though he clearly contributes more to a low turncount overall. How would he compare to someone like Harken?

Coming up with rules that everyone (or anyone) really genuinely likes is... hard.

Indeed. This is the problem with deviating from full efficiency or ranked lists. People can't agree on a clear definition of what "efficiency" should be. All anyone has is a general notion of what they don't want, but they generally don't know what they do want, or don't know how to express it.

Deviating from the above clearly defined standards, without providing a clearly defined alternative, also bugs me because it removes some if not all of a tier list's objectivity. If people just change the standards of the list to match whatever positions they like best, then what's the point of the list? It's a group of people making up whatever rules they want to suit their personal preferences, is it not? I think a tier list's positions should be changed to match its standards, not the other way around.

Edited March 11, 2010 by CATS

[Rewjeo]

Remove the word "getting". Marcus is used until he is worse than the team, at which point we ditch him.

Honestly, I think it would be better if we didn't apply economics so heavily to FE. Units getting punished for being around longer is, IMO, ridiculous. But it is, according to our current rules, accurate. I'd prefer to handle this by comparing utility to an empty slot. Thus, Bartre CAN'T rack up negative utility unless we're using him in a way that forces us to slow down, and it actually gives him the edge on Rath, as opposed to comparing him to the next best unit and making him automatically worse.

Similarly, I also disagree with the application of opportunity cost as it makes almost any advantage a unit can get worthless and prevents low units from getting anything helpful. I would prefer to see something where a unit gets a resource a % of the time, and they get to reap the full benefit for when they get it. Thus RD Mia gets her resources possibly even 100% of the time she's in play as she uses them so well. Similarly, if two units use something almost exactly as well as the other, instead of getting 0 benefit from it, they'd each get it, say, 60% of the time they're in play, and reap .6*benefit instead of 0*benefit.

I'd like to see a tier list that takes into account both usability and efficiency. So one that orders them not only how helpful they are for clearing the game quickly, but also takes into account the fact that the player isn't necessarily some master tactician, and not being difficult to make good or not only being helpful for abstract strategies is good.

[Anouleth]

Honestly, I think it would be better if we didn't apply economics so heavily to FE. Units getting punished for being around longer is, IMO, ridiculous. But it is, according to our current rules, accurate. I'd prefer to handle this by comparing utility to an empty slot. Thus, Bartre CAN'T rack up negative utility unless we're using him in a way that forces us to slow down, and it actually gives him the edge on Rath, as opposed to comparing him to the next best unit and making him automatically worse.

Well, the implication of Rath > Bartre is that Rath not existing for those ~10 chapters is somehow a benefit. The only way it could be a benefit is if we gave that unit slot to a competent unit. The idea is that by using Rath over Bartre, we make it possible to field a competent unit instead from C13-C22.

But this begs the question - can Rath take credit for the contributions of this competent unit?

(Another comparison is anyone vs Karel. Fielding Karel precludes fielding Harken - thus, the competition is really { unit, Harken } vs { Karel, some other unit }. But can this first unit take credit for Harken's contributions?)

I agree - it is far easier to compare utility to an empty slot. Thus, in Rath vs Bartre, we assume Bartre's slot is empty until Rath's recruitment. It's not really very intelligent to go around with an empty slot, but otherwise, Rath is taking credit for the activity of another unit.

[dondon151]

But this begs the question - can Rath take credit for the contributions of this competent unit?

First, you're using the phrase wrong. Begging the question is the name for a logical fallacy. Second, Rath doesn't take credit for the contributions of the competent unit; Bartre is penalized for not allowing the competent unit to be in play. There is a difference, yet with respect to just those 2 characters it yields the same result. Rath doesn't get points for not being played; rather, Bartre gets points taken away from being played.

I agree - it is far easier to compare utility to an empty slot. Thus, in Rath vs Bartre, we assume Bartre's slot is empty until Rath's recruitment. It's not really very intelligent to go around with an empty slot, but otherwise, Rath is taking credit for the activity of another unit.

I just explained how he's not, and furthermore, playing with an empty slot does not accurately portray playing the game at all.

[Original Alear]

Out of curiosity, do you guys generally require no exploits? Specifically, do you allow the use of the mine glitch at all? And is there any chapter on which it is better used than Ch 20watever (not sure of the chapter #, but the one where you can get the super-spear, and has a specific # of turns so it's not like you can speed up your victory by allowing an enemy phase).

Edited March 12, 2010 by SeverIan

[Rewjeo]

Obviously Bartre's being punished for taking a better unit's slot, but right now, that's being punished so many times over that it makes someone who just exists less automatically better. Isn't punishing him once enough?

Rath gets no credit for whatever work comes before him, but it isn't an empty slot. It works in his favor some as until that point, his team was doing better, but it isn't huge, nor is it nonexistant. Or, that's how I view it.

[chrysalid]

This is a tangent, but what level do people usually have Sain and Kent at around the end of 21 if they S-rank LHM? If I'm doing the early chapters very Marcus-aggressive to shave turns all my cavs (Sain/Kent starting from level 4 and 5 without LHM and Lowen being weak on offense) get so far behind that they can't do much more than chip or kill chipped units and they suck compared to Isadora in 22, much less Marcus. I was thinking of dropping 2 of the 3 to focus XP on one of them and using Rath after 22 as mounted filler because he can at least chip without getting counterattacked, ORKO wyverns at some point and is the only mounted unit that can be Oswin's rescue buddy if both are promoted.

[CATS]

Honestly, I think it would be better if we didn't apply economics so heavily to FE. Units getting punished for being around longer is, IMO, ridiculous. But it is, according to our current rules, accurate. I'd prefer to handle this by comparing utility to an empty slot. Thus, Bartre CAN'T rack up negative utility unless we're using him in a way that forces us to slow down, and it actually gives him the edge on Rath, as opposed to comparing him to the next best unit and making him automatically worse.

So instead of Bartre losing by default because he's around longer, he wins by default because he's around longer. Why is this better?

Similarly, I also disagree with the application of opportunity cost as it makes almost any advantage a unit can get worthless and prevents low units from getting anything helpful. I would prefer to see something where a unit gets a resource a % of the time, and they get to reap the full benefit for when they get it. Thus RD Mia gets her resources possibly even 100% of the time she's in play as she uses them so well. Similarly, if two units use something almost exactly as well as the other, instead of getting 0 benefit from it, they'd each get it, say, 60% of the time they're in play, and reap .6*benefit instead of 0*benefit.

This makes sense with regards to a resource that can be used partially by multiple units, such as the Delphi Shield or a S Rank weapon. You can trade those items between different units, have different units using them from one chapter to the next, etc. I don't agree that it's viable for all-or-nothing resources where one unit gets 100% of the benefit, like a promo item or a stat booster. If Unit A and Unit B are both used, and both get the same benefit from a stat booster, then if you remove Unit A, Unit B can take the booster instead and your team gets the exact same net benefit. Unit A's presence does not change the magnitude to which that resource improves your overall performance, thus there is no reason to give them the benefits of the resource in comparisons.

I'd like to see a tier list that takes into account both usability and efficiency. So one that orders them not only how helpful they are for clearing the game quickly, but also takes into account the fact that the player isn't necessarily some master tactician, and not being difficult to make good or not only being helpful for abstract strategies is good.

This was attempted on the FE9 board. Interest in it was low, at best.

Obviously Bartre's being punished for taking a better unit's slot, but right now, that's being punished so many times over that it makes someone who just exists less automatically better. Isn't punishing him once enough?

If you ignore the period before Rath joins, or say that it's a positive for Bartre, then he's not being punished at all; so by taking into account his negative utility, he's only being punished once for that poor performance. I don't know how you could punish him twice or three times.

Edited March 12, 2010 by CATS

[Rewjeo]

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

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? 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.

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.

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

[dondon151]

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? 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.

You oppose this notion because you personally dislike it. You've yet to bring up an argument in your favor that hasn't been brought up before (and shot down).

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 degree to which a tactician can be considered perfect is debatable. Even with different degrees of imperfection, certain strategies (and therefore, certain units) take precedence over others. You're implying that the tier list player plays the game, with minimal use of rescue chains to improve turncounts, hoarding and disuse of certain effective weapons or stat boosters, and completely inefficient tactical decisions, such as letting healers and archers get attacked on enemy phase. I find this assumption ludicrous. It completely ignores the fact that healer and archer durability is negligible 99% of the time, that certain resources make borderline or even plain bad characters good in certain circumstances, and that mounted and flying units have enormous potential to make the game go faster. And even if you do assume an imperfect player, how imperfect is he? Is he a veritable tactical dumbass? Does he move units 5 spaces forward, click "end turn," and cross his fingers? Or is he near perfect, using lots of rescue chains and effective weapons but occasionally making miscalculations in movement and trade chains?