tier list

[Life]

Couple of questions. I don't debate RD on the basis that I've never played it but I see a couple of fundamental problems here.

1. I've been reading the past 6 or so pages and in all of them, Smash has responded to proper arguments by Narga and Interceptor with "lol at whatever you said, I'm not listening" for the most part. It makes me wonder if he's ever going to actually make a change on this list if he refuses to listen to anything that breaks down his logic. So what's the story? Why is this list even up for debate if Smash can't be bothered to admit that other people might just be right?

2. I've got a problem with this line. Maybe it's just the way that it's worded.

- Units are based on whose absence hurts the team the most. For example, in a Haar vs Ike comparison, the winner is which team becomes weaker when the unit is not used.

A team without Haar still has all the unit slots in use. If we have "x + Haar" units out on the field and we replace Haar with the next best unit, we have "x + unit after Haar" units in play. If we try to do the same with Ike, we end up with only "x" units on the field as Ike can never be benched.

What I'm asking is if Smash is considering a team without Haar and now has an empty unit slot that nobody takes is the same as a team without Ike in terms of determining which team suffers more. If that's the case, then it seems stupid to me as Haar (or anyone else who doesn't have forced deployment) is now a special case as you can argue that a still decent unit can take his place while nobody can take Ike's place which would knock Ike down the list as his forced deployment now acts as a negative.

The entire thing just sounds stupid. It seems that I'm penalizing Ike (or anyone with a forced deployment) just for the sake of a comparison that's based on the fact that not having him in use makes the team weaker while not having Haar still means that I can field and use the exact same number of units.

EDIT: I'm trying to get a fix on my logic but it seems that I can either argue every forced unit to the bottom or top of the list with Smash's statement. I just can't figure out which way.

Then again, we could always listen to the wise words of General Spoon, forever immortalized in my signature...

Edited March 21, 2010 by Admiral Lifey Crunch

[Progenitus]

Couple of questions. I don't debate RD on the basis that I've never played it but I see a couple of fundamental problems here.

1. I've been reading the past 6 or so pages and in all of them, Smash has responded to proper arguments by Narga and Interceptor with "lol at whatever you said, I'm not listening" for the most part. It makes me wonder if he's ever going to actually make a change on this list if he refuses to listen to anything that breaks down his logic. So what's the story? Why is this list even up for debate if Smash can't be bothered to admit that other people might just be right?

Imagine that you and I got into an argument.

No matter what you post, all I do is repeat whatever you already countered while throwing some flames your way. My posts are also littered with logical fallacies like strawmen or taking things out of context.

Now imagine that we got into a debate over every. single. thing. Or more accurately, I feel the need to respond to every single post you make to prove how you're wrong.

After a certain point, would you ever bother with me?

You probably haven't argued with narga or int often so you may not understand, but I'm sick and tired of arguing with a brick wall. Note that their argument only looks sound because I'm not bothering to read it and counter it. I'm pretty sure they're just as good as all the other arguments they've made, like the time where in a team of Mia + ulki vs Titania + Ulki, the latter team's Ulki suddenly lost the ability to BEXP or use a satori sign for whatever reason and was forced to use wrath (rather than, you know, take adept, since wrath sucks). Or the time where narga or int assumed that Mia was in a thicket 24/7 for 3-P (or 3-1; one of those chapters), or how Mia is magically never facing any generals, ever (because, you know, her offense against them in those chapters is a problem). Or how apparently Mia has better offense than Janaff, and they denied Janaff an energy drop because he one rounds anyway.

2. I've got a problem with this line. Maybe it's just the way that it's worded.

- Units are based on whose absence hurts the team the most. For example, in a Haar vs Ike comparison, the winner is which team becomes weaker when the unit is not used.

A team without Haar still has all the unit slots in use. If we have "x + Haar" units out on the field and we replace Haar with the next best unit, we have "x + unit after Haar" units in play. If we try to do the same with Ike, we end up with only "x" units on the field as Ike can never be benched.

What I'm asking is if Smash is considering a team without Haar and now has an empty unit slot that nobody takes is the same as a team without Ike in terms of determining which team suffers more. If that's the case, then it seems stupid to me as Haar (or anyone else who doesn't have forced deployment) is now a special case as you can argue that a still decent unit can take his place while nobody can take Ike's place which would knock Ike down the list as his forced deployment now acts as a negative.

The entire thing just sounds stupid. It seems that I'm penalizing Ike (or anyone with a forced deployment) just for the sake of a comparison that's based on the fact that not having him in use makes the team weaker while not having Haar still means that I can field and use the exact same number of units.

EDIT: I'm trying to get a fix on my logic but it seems that I can either argue every forced unit to the bottom or top of the list with Smash's statement. I just can't figure out which way.

Sure, Ike's team would have a free unit slot. This doesn't mean that Ike's team has more resources to work with (other than that freed up unit slot). For example, if you are training 6 units and you have 10 open slots, then the other four slots are either going to be empty or filled with units that don't do much or make some potshots or whatever.

Unit slots in general are misunderstood. It's not the slot that's the big resource(s), although it is a resource. It's the kills, gold spent on weapons, any stat boosters/skills/etc. the unit might want or need, etc. Unit slots are only a problem if you're training a giant team, which is generally not advised.

[Narga_Rocks]

Imagine that you and I got into an argument.

No matter what you post, all I do is repeat whatever you already countered while throwing some flames your way. My posts are also littered with logical fallacies like strawmen or taking things out of context.

Now imagine that we got into a debate over every. single. thing. Or more accurately, I feel the need to respond to every single post you make to prove how you're wrong.

After a certain point, would you ever bother with me?

You probably haven't argued with narga or int often so you may not understand, but I'm sick and tired of arguing with a brick wall. Note that their argument only looks sound because I'm not bothering to read it and counter it. I'm pretty sure they're just as good as all the other arguments they've made, like the time where in a team of Mia + ulki vs Titania + Ulki, the latter team's Ulki suddenly lost the ability to BEXP or use a satori sign for whatever reason and was forced to use wrath (rather than, you know, take adept, since wrath sucks). Or the time where narga or int assumed that Mia was in a thicket 24/7 for 3-P (or 3-1; one of those chapters), or how Mia is magically never facing any generals, ever (because, you know, her offense against them in those chapters is a problem). Or how apparently Mia has better offense than Janaff, and they denied Janaff an energy drop because he one rounds anyway.

And here you've proven again that you still don't actually understand anything we are saying. Look, I don't care if you disagree with the actual arguments. That would be fine. But that you rewrite our arguments into something you can easily refute is what bothers me. Your intro here is amusing, considering

"No matter what you post, all I do is repeat whatever you already countered while throwing some flames your way. My posts are also littered with logical fallacies like strawmen or taking things out of context."

No matter how easily we refute just about everything you say, you still think you are right. As such, you repeat things we've already countered. Also, one of your more recent responses to me (less than 2 weeks ago, I think) outright called me an idiot, which is clearly flaming. Anyway, you make a pretty good description of what you actually do. You take so many things out of context, as the rest of your posts shows. I already countered Paperblade's misrepresentation of my argument in that topic, just a few posts after he made it. Clearly you didn't read it, otherwise you wouldn't accuse me of saying things I didn't. "taking things out of context", check. Misrepresenting an argument so it is easier for you to refute (hence, strawman), check.

My most favourite of all your misrepresentations is the accusation that we are attempting to deny Janaff an energy drop. The reason it is my favourite is because I was arguing with RF and Cynthia about giving Janaff an energy drop just a few days before you started spinning that yarn. And guess which side I was on? I was trying to give it to him. And then you come along and start talking about Janaff and an energy drop, and a few months later I'm somehow on the side of denying him one? I've even told you in multiple topics on this board about my position on Janaff and the drop. In fact, the first time one of you (I forget if it was PB or you) accused me of this I even went to the trouble to provide links to the relevant posts. This is amazing, even for you. And hence, that's why it's my favourite of your misrepresentations.

Sure, Ike's team would have a free unit slot. This doesn't mean that Ike's team has more resources to work with (other than that freed up unit slot). For example, if you are training 6 units and you have 10 open slots, then the other four slots are either going to be empty or filled with units that don't do much or make some potshots or whatever.

Unit slots in general are misunderstood. It's not the slot that's the big resource(s), although it is a resource. It's the kills, gold spent on weapons, any stat boosters/skills/etc. the unit might want or need, etc. Unit slots are only a problem if you're training a giant team, which is generally not advised.

Um, you realize he misinterpreted your statement in the first place, right? Unlike you, though, I have confidence that Life Admiral's was an honest misinterpretation, though.

(edit: oh, and you seem to act like you are one of the few people capable of seeing holes in an argument and that without your amazing skills everyone else would be duped into believing Interceptor and me. "Note that their argument only looks sound because I'm not bothering to read it and counter it." So basically, everyone else doesn't have the proper knowledge of the game and will simply believe what we say if you don't come along and shed light on the issues? What do you think of people on this board? What do you think of yourself? Has it ever occurred to you that there is some small chance that our arguments actually have merit? Or that other people have analytical skills of their own?)

Edited March 21, 2010 by Narga_Rocks

[Progenitus]

And here you've proven again that you still don't actually understand anything we are saying. Look, I don't care if you disagree with the actual arguments. That would be fine. But that you rewrite our arguments into something you can easily refute is what bothers me. Your intro here is amusing, considering

"No matter what you post, all I do is repeat whatever you already countered while throwing some flames your way. My posts are also littered with logical fallacies like strawmen or taking things out of context."

No matter how easily we refute just about everything you say, you still think you are right. As such, you repeat things we've already countered. Also, one of your more recent responses to me (less than 2 weeks ago, I think) outright called me an idiot, which is clearly flaming. Anyway, you make a pretty good description of what you actually do. You take so many things out of context, as the rest of your posts shows. I already countered Paperblade's misrepresentation of my argument in that topic, just a few posts after he made it. Clearly you didn't read it, otherwise you wouldn't accuse me of saying things I didn't. "taking things out of context", check. Misrepresenting an argument so it is easier for you to refute (hence, strawman), check.

cool story bro

My most favourite of all your misrepresentations is the accusation that we are attempting to deny Janaff an energy drop. The reason it is my favourite is because I was arguing with RF and Cynthia about giving Janaff an energy drop just a few days before you started spinning that yarn. And guess which side I was on? I was trying to give it to him. And then you come along and start talking about Janaff and an energy drop, and a few months later I'm somehow on the side of denying him one? I've even told you in multiple topics on this board about my position on Janaff and the drop. In fact, the first time one of you (I forget if it was PB or you) accused me of this I even went to the trouble to provide links to the relevant posts. This is amazing, even for you. And hence, that's why it's my favourite of your misrepresentations.

Yes, give him the drop, he still loses to Mia. And since he benefits on only a few enemies during part 3 I'd have to say the opportunity cost of putting a drop on him rather than Ulki/Ranulf/Oscar is rather significant.

>> implying that Janaff ORKOs anyway.

>> also implying that the cost of giving Janaff a drop is significantly higher than giving Mia adept/cancel/crit forges/ike support/whatever.

Um, you realize he misinterpreted your statement in the first place, right? Unlike you, though, I have confidence that Life Admiral's was an honest misinterpretation, though.

Oh, it does look like a misinterpretation. We'll have to see if he posts again.

Edited March 21, 2010 by Andrew W.K.

[Narga_Rocks]

cool story bro

Oh yeah, very good response. That completely decimates.....wait, that just shows that you are incapable of countering it.

@below, so you really want to do this again? Fine.

Yes, give him the drop, he still loses to Mia. And since he benefits on only a few enemies during part 3 I'd have to say the opportunity cost of putting a drop on him rather than Ulki/Ranulf/Oscar is rather significant

We'll start here:

>> implying that Janaff ORKOs anyway.

So, yeah, what was that? He misses some enemies, gets others. Your statement seems to think that I'm saying he ORKOs everything anyway. First misrepresentation. I clearly stated that the drop improves his combat on some enemies. In what other way could I possibly think he is benefiting?

Second issue, where in that do I say he can't have it?

You still don't seem to understand opportunity cost. Every decision, every action, is mutually exclusive with at least one other decision or action. The opportunity cost of making one action is then the value of the best alternative forgone. Everything has an opportunity cost. Stating that there is an opportunity cost to a decision is clearly not the same as saying that you should not make that decision. If I offered you a $100 bill or a $10 bill, and said I'd only give you one, the opportunity cost of choosing the $100 bill is that you can't have the $10 bill. By suggesting that there is an opportunity cost, does that mean I am saying that taking the $100 bill is a bad idea? Am I denying you the $100 bill? Hardly.

I tried to convince RF and Cynthia to give him a drop, they came up with points against it. I decided to go with them for later discussions on the matter of it not being virtually free. One of their reasons was that if Janaff is killing a fair amount of units without the drop, giving him the drop may not be as beneficial as sending it elsewhere (since some other units may get a much larger improvement out of it in terms of enemies ORKOd pre-drop vs. enemies ORKOd post-drop). Hence, giving him the drop comes with a hefty opportunity cost. This isn't to say you can't give it to him at all. This is just to say that giving it to him hurts. Maybe his utility gained is greater than the cost, but maybe not by all that much.

Besides, you aren't looking at the most important part of the whole thing.

"Yes, give him the drop, he still loses to Mia."

I'm saying that the cost of his gauge and his losing availability (and some other stuff) are what is causing him to lose. Giving him 4 extra mt from 3-7 or 3-8 till the end of the game aren't going to change the conclusion.

Oh, and look above what you quoted.

"Well, there's only really one energy drop for Janaff, not 3. Considering the 1-2 drop should be used long before 3-8, and even the 2-E one should be used in 2-E or the 3-2 base or even on Ranulf, I'd have to say he only has access to one. And do you even read the tier list? I've been trying to get Red Fox to give Janaff the drop. Honestly, why do you waste your time making arguments against things nobody is actually saying."

Basically, I'm not saying he can't have one. I'm questioning how much net utility he gets out of it, but that is far from the same thing as denying him one.

Also, I still find your "argument" to give Janaff a drop amusing. I think my argument on the tier list that attempted to get RF to let him have one was much superior. I especially liked

What this means is that, if Janaff is not one rounding already, then having Ranulf and Ulki being at Janaff's att level will not let them one round. On the other hand, if the energy drop is enough to let Ranulf/Ulki 2HKO, then that means Janaff doesn't even need it in the first place.

Why not just run the numbers (as I actually did, rather in depth, in the tier list topic) and pick one? More importantly, though, 40 mt isn't some magical line where everything is either ORKOd or not. Warriors and Snipers and Halbs are all ORKOd by different values. Sometimes the same, I suppose, but frequently different. The idea that "Janaff gets something out of it => Ulki and Ranulf don't get anything out of it" is quite hilarious.

(for everyone that hasn't been taught mathematical logic, or at least seen some, "=>" means "implies", not attempting to say "greater than or equal to")

The question becomes "do we value having 2 units at 40 mt more than one at 44 and the other at 36". I think given the level of ORKOing that 40 mt (and 41 and 42 at reasonable times for the Ulki + Janaff support to take effect) is capable of, having 2 at 40 is potentially more valuable. Truth be told, I'm still not certain which way I land on this. Like I said, I was trying to get RF to give Janaff the drop, but she brought up some good points. I'm not even leaning in either direction right now. Regardless of which plan is actually superior, though, I came to the conclusion that there is undeniably a "rather significant" opportunity cost if you give the drop to Janaff. (As an interesting note, it takes far too long for Janaff to build a support with anyone but Ulki, or Ulki with anyone not Janaff. There really is no reason to have the two of them not support each other if both are used. So, if Ulki is in play, then Janaff gets Ulki and that actually gives an important improvement to his ability to ORKO. If Ulki is not in play, then Janaff loses one of the best competitions for the drop, and so it may be easier to buy giving Janaff a drop. What's cool is that Janaff is helped whether Ulki is in play or not. This still doesn't let Janaff win against Mia/Gatrie/Titania, but at least it's something in his favour.)

(For the record, this is different from, say, comparing having two units at 36mt to one at 32 and the other at 40. For that comparison, given what 36 is capable of compared to 40, I'd think having one at 40 and one at 32 is superior.)

But again, the drop is secondary to the whole thing. Mia wins anyway, for reasons that have been put in many ways on many occasions. If you still haven't gone so far as to actually understand the basic argument, let alone even consider accepting it, there is little point in going over it again. Others at least manage not to misrepresent the argument. Whether they believe it or agree with the conclusions involved is secondary at the moment. Heck, whether they even remember the precise details of the argument isn't even relevant at the moment. They at least understood, or appeared to have understood, what we were actually arguing back when we argued it, whatever their personal thoughts on the validity of those arguments may have been.

edit:

Oh, I see this too:

>> also implying that the cost of giving Janaff a drop is significantly higher than giving Mia adept/cancel/crit forges/ike support/whatever.

And you disagree? First off, the cost alone isn't relevant. What is relevant is "gains - cost", not simply "gains", and not simply "cost". The two have to be looked at together in order to get the economic profit. Second off, she really only needs one crit-forge. Considering the amounts of money you can get and the demands for it, one crit forge isn't relevant. Well, one crit-forge and as many steel blades as she needs. Then in 3-E one Silver Blade. In part 4 a few other things. gains - cost when it comes to one forge is so lopsided it's funny you still have problems with it.

Adept, Cancel, Ike support. All she needs is net profit and it's worth giving them to her. I'm not sure Janaff actually has a net profit from the drop given what Ulki gets out of it. But even if he does, hell yes I'm saying that Mia's economic profit from what she gets is significantly higher than Janaff's economic profit from a drop. Why wouldn't it be? Despite your inept protestations about where Ike is best spent, Mia really is head and shoulders above the rest of the cast in terms of the Ike support. The same applies to Cancel and Adept (for Adept, at least until 3-8 when you can give it to the hawks if you so desire. At that point I think she is probably the best, but if she is then probably not by a whole lot, depending on whether or not Zihark's adept was brought to the GMs. Then in 3-11 you get another and it no longer matters). I've repeated the arguments over and over so I see little point in shouting at a brick wall yet again, though, so I'm not going into details.

(really late edit, bit of an afterthought. My statement also doesn't actually imply anything about the comparison in the costs, though. I say she wins, but in that particular paragraph I didn't say anything about why she wins. I said stuff about that elsewhere (I think some of which in that very post). That statement itself is only saying that Janaff faces a "rather significant" opportunity cost. Taken with the rest of that post and many others, sure, I'm saying that Mia's economic profit from all the resources both get is bigger. But that particular paragraph does not have that particular implication. The only part about Mia in that entire paragraph is that taken over the whole game with their contributions towards an efficient completion of the entire game, Mia > Janaff whether or not he gets the drop.)

Edited March 21, 2010 by Narga_Rocks

[Life]

Imagine that you and I got into an argument.

No matter what you post, all I do is repeat whatever you already countered while throwing some flames your way. My posts are also littered with logical fallacies like strawmen or taking things out of context.

Now imagine that we got into a debate over every. single. thing. Or more accurately, I feel the need to respond to every single post you make to prove how you're wrong.

After a certain point, would you ever bother with me?

You probably haven't argued with narga or int often so you may not understand, but I'm sick and tired of arguing with a brick wall. Note that their argument only looks sound because I'm not bothering to read it and counter it. I'm pretty sure they're just as good as all the other arguments they've made, like the time where in a team of Mia + ulki vs Titania + Ulki, the latter team's Ulki suddenly lost the ability to BEXP or use a satori sign for whatever reason and was forced to use wrath (rather than, you know, take adept, since wrath sucks). Or the time where narga or int assumed that Mia was in a thicket 24/7 for 3-P (or 3-1; one of those chapters), or how Mia is magically never facing any generals, ever (because, you know, her offense against them in those chapters is a problem). Or how apparently Mia has better offense than Janaff, and they denied Janaff an energy drop because he one rounds anyway.

To be honest, yes I would and do take the time to argue with them because they're still bringing valid points. But here's the thing, Smash. I'm reading both sides of the debate and I can see where Narga and Interceptor are coming from. At this point, all they are doing are pointing out the fundamental logic flaws in your posts. They're not going after minor details and trying to make you look stupid. What they're doing is showing why your own post makes no sense.

I've said this in the past but I like to think that one of my strengths in debating (not that I have many) is that I know when to accept my losses, which I do quite often because I usually have the weaker position. I haven't seen you do the same in this topic at all. You constantly think that your logic is absolute when it is littered with holes. Even a 10 year old can see the problems.

As Narga said above, the perfect case is the Energy Drop. If Mia is beating Janaff in offense after each gets 2+ Str, then why should Janaff get the Drop if he ORKOs before it? Mia benefits from it more and ORKOs a ton (or OHKO with a Crit, I'm not sure what makes the girl so awesome in this game) after you give it to her but it doesn't happen so much (or at all, again I'm not sure based on the "never played this game" clause) before it's distributed. If you're going to keep your position by saying that it's not fair that Janaff isn't given the Energy Drop and as a result Mia has better offense, then it's no wonder why Narga or Interceptor think you're dumb.

Sure, Ike's team would have a free unit slot. This doesn't mean that Ike's team has more resources to work with (other than that freed up unit slot). For example, if you are training 6 units and you have 10 open slots, then the other four slots are either going to be empty or filled with units that don't do much or make some potshots or whatever.

Unit slots in general are misunderstood. It's not the slot that's the big resource(s), although it is a resource. It's the kills, gold spent on weapons, any stat boosters/skills/etc. the unit might want or need, etc. Unit slots are only a problem if you're training a giant team, which is generally not advised.

So I was right. I did say "I've got a problem with this line. Maybe it's just the way that it's worded". In that case, don't mention slots as a way to determine which team suffers more. Rather say that "x + Haar" does more for clearing a chapter quickly than a team that is "x + Ike with Haar's resources" because it makes more sense in my opinion.

[Progenitus]

To be honest, yes I would and do take the time to argue with them because they're still bringing valid points. But here's the thing, Smash. I'm reading both sides of the debate and I can see where Narga and Interceptor are coming from. At this point, all they are doing are pointing out the fundamental logic flaws in your posts. They're not going after minor details and trying to make you look stupid. What they're doing is showing why your own post makes no sense.

I've said this in the past but I like to think that one of my strengths in debating (not that I have many) is that I know when to accept my losses, which I do quite often because I usually have the weaker position. I haven't seen you do the same in this topic at all. You constantly think that your logic is absolute when it is littered with holes. Even a 10 year old can see the problems.

I would actually respond to their points, but I don't want to bother to read whatever they made up because it's likely littered with flames.

In most cases we've butted heads on repeated issues anyway, but paperblade or some other person roflstomped them in my place. For example, read this topic.

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=16775

This topic deals with basically my biggest gripe in their view towards Mia, in which they're ignoring the drawbacks of giving Mia certain resources. Honestly, if you can read that topic and tell me with a straight face that narga/int/etc. won that topic and not paperblade (do remember that the person who gets the last word doesn't necessarily make him the winner of the argument), then I don't have anything else to say to you.

As Narga said above, the perfect case is the Energy Drop. If Mia is beating Janaff in offense after each gets 2+ Str, then why should Janaff get the Drop if he ORKOs before it? Mia benefits from it more and ORKOs a ton (or OHKO with a Crit, I'm not sure what makes the girl so awesome in this game) after you give it to her but it doesn't happen so much (or at all, again I'm not sure based on the "never played this game" clause) before it's distributed.

The point is that the reason used against janaff for not getting the drop is because he ORKOs anyway. In that case, how is he NOT beating Mia, at least in offense (nevermind his giant mobility and defense leads, but let's not get into janaff vs mia right now)?

If you're going to keep your position by saying that it's not fair that Janaff isn't given the Energy Drop and as a result Mia has better offense, then it's no wonder why Narga or Interceptor think you're dumb.

No, Mia is not beating Janaff. Mia with adept/crit forge/etc. and Janaff getting absolutely nothing may be beating him, but that's an obviously retarded comparison.

So I was right. I did say "I've got a problem with this line. Maybe it's just the way that it's worded". In that case, don't mention slots as a way to determine which team suffers more. Rather say that "x + Haar" does more for clearing a chapter quickly than a team that is "x + Ike with Haar's resources" because it makes more sense in my opinion.

...huh? the line here...

- Units are based on whose absence hurts the team the most. For example, in a Haar vs Ike comparison, the winner is which team becomes weaker when the unit is not used.

says absolutely nothing about slots. It just says "whose absence hurts the team the most".

You still don't seem to understand opportunity cost. Every decision, every action, is mutually exclusive with at least one other decision or action.

You know what narga, since you still don't understand that "opportunity cost", or whatever the fuck you call "omg this unit uses this resource 1% better than all these other desperate units that would love this resource, let's lock this resource to the first unit!" is stupid, I'm just going to repost something from paperblade on the matter. He was actually addressing FE9 Mia in this particular passage, but the point remains for both FE9 and FE10 Mia's, since they're both getting tons of resources and you/int/etc. are ignoring the drawbacks.

The difference between Mia and other Upper Mid units is that other Upper Mid units are not totally reliant on this level of resources to achieve. The tier list compares units relative to other units. If I have 3 units, and one of them one rounds everything without trying, another requires 100BEXP to one round everything, and a third requires 200BEXP to one round everything, and all of have the same durability when given equal BEXP...,I have 300BEXP, these units are not equal. They're ranked

0 BEXP > 100BEXP > 200 BEXP, because the 0BEXP unit still stands to improve, and using the 200BEXP precludes him from improving. Yes, giving the 200BEXP to the worst unit is the best idea if I can field all three, but the 200BEXP unit is also the most desperate for resources, and precludes the other 2 units from reaching their potential

However, under Int's tier list, the 200BEXP unit would "improve the most", and thus always get the BEXP, and end up with superior durability and similar offense. Thus, his tier list would be

200BEXP unit > 100BEXP unit > 0BEXP unit

Really, the idea of "omg opportunity cost" just boils back down to unit A + team vs unit B + team. you know, how you're actually supposed to do comparisons, not this unit A + unit B + team or whatever the fuck you're doing.

Edited March 21, 2010 by Andrew W.K.

[Life]

I would actually respond to their points, but I don't want to bother to read whatever they made up because it's likely littered with flames.

In most cases we've butted heads on repeated issues anyway, but paperblade or some other person roflstomped them in my place. For example, read this topic.

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=16775

This topic deals with basically my biggest gripe in their view towards Mia, in which they're ignoring the drawbacks of giving Mia certain resources. Honestly, if you can read that topic and tell me with a straight face that narga/int/etc. won that topic and not paperblade (do remember that the person who gets the last word doesn't necessarily make him the winner of the argument), then I don't have anything else to say to you.

It's called a vicious circle. You complaining about them flaming you comes as a result of you ignoring posts and putting words into other people's mouths which comes as a result of them flaming you... You see where I'm going with this?

The point is that the reason used against janaff for not getting the drop is because he ORKOs anyway. In that case, how is he NOT beating Mia, at least in offense (nevermind his giant mobility and defense leads, but let's not get into janaff vs mia right now)?

No, Mia is not beating Janaff. Mia with adept/crit forge/etc. and Janaff getting absolutely nothing may be beating him, but that's an obviously retarded comparison.

Take it up with someone who plays the game. I'm here for the logic behind the tier list.

...huh? the line here...

- Units are based on whose absence hurts the team the most. For example, in a Haar vs Ike comparison, the winner is which team becomes weaker when the unit is not used.

says absolutely nothing about slots. It just says "whose absence hurts the team the most".[/Quote]

And you wonder why you get flamed...

If I don't use Ike, I have nobody to replace him. If I don't use Haar, I can replace him with the next best unit as I don't have to field Haar. It's a team of 9 (Ike's absence) vs. a team of 10 (Haar's absence). Obviously Ike's hurts the team more and I could potentially drag him down to the bottom of the tier list with this argument. That's why your line makes no sense to me.

[Florete]

If I don't use Ike, I have nobody to replace him. If I don't use Haar, I can replace him with the next best unit as I don't have to field Haar. It's a team of 9 (Ike's absence) vs. a team of 10 (Haar's absence). Obviously Ike's hurts the team more and I could potentially drag him down to the bottom of the tier list with this argument. That's why your line makes no sense to me.

The winner is whose team becomes weaker, so this logic would shoot Ike to the top, not drag him down. Ike's absence hurts more, thus making him better as a unit.

[Progenitus]

It's called a vicious circle. You complaining about them flaming you comes as a result of you ignoring posts and putting words into other people's mouths which comes as a result of them flaming you... You see where I'm going with this?

I was actually quite civil with narga, and even interceptor, when I first started arguing with them. It was only until I realized that they flame me, strawman me, etc., that I stopped bothering with them.

And you wonder why you get flamed...

If I don't use Ike, I have nobody to replace him. If I don't use Haar, I can replace him with the next best unit as I don't have to field Haar. It's a team of 9 (Ike's absence) vs. a team of 10 (Haar's absence). Obviously Ike's hurts the team more and I could potentially drag him down to the bottom of the tier list with this argument. That's why your line makes no sense to me.

...if Ike's absence does hurt the team more on the basis that his team has fewer units to work with, then that means he would WIN the comparison, not be dragged down to the bottom of the tier list. Of course I already explained that unit slots is not a significant problem, that being unable to replace Ike's slot with someone else doesn't let Ike auto-win a comparison vs Haar.

[Mekkah]

hey I'm not Intnarga can you respond please

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=19003&view=findpost&p=912329

[Life]

The winner is whose team becomes weaker, so this logic would shoot Ike to the top, not drag him down. Ike's absence hurts more, thus making him better as a unit.

...if Ike's absence does hurt the team more on the basis that his team has fewer units to work with, then that means he would WIN the comparison, not be dragged down to the bottom of the tier list. Of course I already explained that unit slots is not a significant problem, that being unable to replace Ike's slot with someone else doesn't let Ike auto-win a comparison vs Haar.

My bad. Then Micaiah for Top Tier, correct?

[Progenitus]

hey I'm not Intnarga can you respond please

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=19003&view=findpost&p=912329

my bad.

Well I personally don't care who wins between Ike and Reyson, largely because I'm not certain myself who's better. As long as Haar is above both of them, since that's what I'm quite sure of, is fine. So I can make the change, but if someone makes an argument for Reyson > Ike, it can quickly change back.

My bad. Then Micaiah for Top Tier, correct?

You failed to understand my point, or perhaps forgot about it.

Again, "unit is forced, doesn't take a slot" doesn't let that unit auto-top the tiers. It's not so much the slot that's the resource; it's the kills, stat boosters, etc. If I didn't use Micaiah, sure, that's 1 less unit than if it was, say, Nolan. But the number of kills available doesn't change; if my team was 4 units and there were 20 kills on the map, each unit would be getting 5 kills. If you had, say, 10 slots available in the map, and both Micaiah and Nolan's team are training 4 units, Micaiah's team would have 10 members but only 4 are doing any serious work, while Nolan's team would have 9 members but only 4 are doing any serious work. Sure, Micaiah's team has 1 more unit, but that unit is likely just going to be a potshotter or something, so it's not going to amount to much.

Now if the map had, say, only 2 unit slots open at all (suppose 5 total, but Micaiah/Sothe/Volug are forced into 3 of them)), then this would be a notable advantage for her because Nolan is quite likely forcing out one of your serious members of the team. But this rarely happens. Even 1-8 this isn't a big issue, since with Micaiah/Sothe/Volug/Rafiel/Nailah/Tormod/Muarim/Vika ALL forced, you really only need 4 more units to cover your manpower. Likewise, if in a given FE game you had a 10 man team, but there were only 6 slots open, then your forced units, assuming they're at least competent, would be doing pretty well on the basis that they're not using a slot.

[Life]

You failed to understand my point, or perhaps forgot about it.

Again, "unit is forced, doesn't take a slot" doesn't let that unit auto-top the tiers. It's not so much the slot that's the resource; it's the kills, stat boosters, etc. If I didn't use Micaiah, sure, that's 1 less unit than if it was, say, Nolan. But the number of kills available doesn't change; if my team was 4 units and there were 20 kills on the map, each unit would be getting 5 kills. If you had, say, 10 slots available in the map, and both Micaiah and Nolan's team are training 4 units, Micaiah's team would have 10 members but only 4 are doing any serious work, while Nolan's team would have 9 members but only 4 are doing any serious work. Sure, Micaiah's team has 1 more unit, but that unit is likely just going to be a potshotter or something, so it's not going to amount to much.

Now if the map had, say, only 2 unit slots open at all (suppose 5 total, but Micaiah/Sothe/Volug are forced into 3 of them)), then this would be a notable advantage for her because Nolan is quite likely forcing out one of your serious members of the team. But this rarely happens. Even 1-8 this isn't a big issue, since with Micaiah/Sothe/Volug/Rafiel/Nailah/Tormod/Muarim/Vika ALL forced, you really only need 4 more units to cover your manpower. Likewise, if in a given FE game you had a 10 man team, but there were only 6 slots open, then your forced units, assuming they're at least competent, would be doing pretty well on the basis that they're not using a slot.

I didn't misunderstand your point, you're just putting words into my mouth.

I never said "Micaiah doesn't cost a slot, therefore auto top". I said that because Micaiah is forced, a team without her is going to be worse than a team with her because she is an extra attacker/healer.

Let's assume that for the sake of convenience, every unit was equal in power. 1-7 is the first chapter that you can choose your units and actually have to exclude some, right? We can field 9 units there, including M, Sothe and Volug.

Team 1 (Micaiah's team):

Micaiah

Sothe

Volug

Ilyana

Edward (in place of Nolan)

Jill

Zihark

Laura

Aran

Team 2 (Nolan's team):

Micaiah (unusable)

Sothe

Volug

Ilyana

Nolan

Jill

Zihark

Laura

Aran

There are 37 enemies in 1-7 before the boss. Let's say that a unit levels up from 4 kills a piece, no matter what level they are at.

Team 1 will have each unit gaining 4.625 (4) kills (Laura can't fight) and as a result, everyone levels up once. Team 2 will have everyone gaining ~5.29 kills but everyone will still level up once. But since 4.1 kills might be too much to handle, I'll put it like this:

Team 1:

Micaiah - 5 kills - 1 level up

Sothe - 5 kills - 1 level up

Volug - 5 kills - 1 level up

Ilyana - 5 kills - 1 level up

Edward - 5 kills - 1 level up

Jill - 4 kills - 1 level up

Zihark - 4 kills - 1 level up

Laura

Aran - 4 kills - 1 level up

Team 2:

Micaiah - 0 kills - No level up

Sothe - 6 kills - 1 level up

Volug - 5 kills - 1 level up

Ilyana - 5 kills - 1 level up

Nolan - 6 kills - 1 level up

Jill - 5 kills - 1 level up

Zihark - 5 kills - 1 level up

Laura

Aran - 5 kills - 1 level up

One extra kill per person does not make a team better. You're under this assumption that units get stronger from every kill that they get. But one extra attacker does. Why is this hard to understand?

Disclaimer: Obviously this is the most simplified case that exists and you're going to say something like "it takes more than 5 kills to level up Volug/Sothe/Jill/Zihark" or "Edward sucks in comparison to Nolan, why would you ever play him" or nitpick somewhere else but the point stands as in 1 extra unit doing something > 1 extra kill per character which doesn't guarantee a stronger unit.

Edited March 21, 2010 by Admiral Lifey Crunch

[Progenitus]

I never said "Micaiah doesn't cost a slot, therefore auto top". I said that because Micaiah is forced, a team without her is going to be worse than a team with her because she is an extra attacker/healer.

If that was your intention, then elaborate next time. When you say something like "My bad. Then Micaiah for Top Tier, correct?" and that's literally all you said in your post (quoting posts doesn't count), I'm either forced to make assumptions, or ask you something like "Why?", which would've been avoided if you at least tried to elaborate in the first place. One sentence explanation is better than none.

Let's assume that for the sake of convenience, every unit was equal in power.

That's where the problem is. Rarely (or more accurately, almost never) is every unit on the team going to be equal. in most cases, that extra unit that you field in place of Nolan is going to be very weak, like in your example, Edward. Being able to field a weak unit is not a significant advantage. In fact, if Micaiah's team decides to field Edward instead of simply leaving the slot empty, it might actually hinder you, given Edward's horrible durability. If we actually bother to field Edward (or crappy people like Leo or Ilyana) in a chapter like 1-7, they're going to be breaking the prisoner doors down at the absolute best, and in the worst case they stand around and do nothing, or you end up spending more time trying to keep them out of danger so they don't die. Or if you don't like that, replace Edward with a unit you didn't bother to train in that playthrough, like Aran or whoever. It doesn't matter.

Now if you indeed had chapters where you had more good units than unit slots, then not requiring a slot would be an advantage, blah blah blah. I said this in my previous post, and since you apparently ignored everything in it except for the first two sentences, I'm not going to say it again, but instead ask you to reread my post.

One extra kill per person does not make a team better. You're under this assumption that units get stronger from every kill that they get. But one extra attacker does. Why is this hard to understand?

Disclaimer: Obviously this is the most simplified case that exists and you're going to say something like "it takes more than 5 kills to level up Volug/Sothe/Jill/Zihark" or "Edward sucks in comparison to Nolan, why would you ever play him" or nitpick somewhere else but the point stands as in 1 extra unit doing something > 1 extra kill per character which doesn't guarantee a stronger unit.

Just to note, I'm not nitpicking. The fact that you assumed every unit was equal in power is a huge flaw in your example that renders almost everything in it useless.

Note that nowhere did I ever deny that being able to field X + 1 units > being able to field X units. But it's not just the number of unit slots you have; it's the individual power of those units who take those unit slots, as well as how many units that you can viably train, etc. Taking your example; Micaiah's team may have an extra unit over Nolan's team, but Nolan is most likely better than Micaiah + whoever your extra unit is combined.

Now if, in 1-7, we could only field 2 extra units (with Micaiah/Sothe/Volug getting free slots), then nolan is most likely taking a slot from one of your better units, like Zihark or Laura. In that case, Micaiah is likely more helpful, since Nolan is probably worse than something like Micaiah + Laura combined. But that's not the case in the actual 1-7. With 6 extra slots, Nolan is likely taking a slot instead of someone crappy like Edward (who's most likely underleveled, since if he WAS leveled then instead we'd drop someone we didn't level), and I can quite easily see Nolan > Micaiah + underleveled Edward combined.

[Life]

I'm not going to keep arguing semantics on this tier list because any one of you know this game 100x times better than me. But here's my issue.

If that was your intention, then elaborate next time. When you say something like "My bad. Then Micaiah for Top Tier, correct?" and that's literally all you said in your post (quoting posts doesn't count), I'm either forced to make assumptions, or ask you something like "Why?", which would've been avoided if you at least tried to elaborate in the first place. One sentence explanation is better than none.

Really? Are you actually so thick that I have spell this shit out for you? There's a reason why I also quoted Fox's post. The whole thing about Micaiah was based on what I said before about Ike. I wasn't randomly switching gears for the sake of switching gears. If you have a brain that possesses some sort of true logical thinking, then you're clearly not using it.

[Narga_Rocks]

You know what narga, since you still don't understand that "opportunity cost", or whatever the fuck you call "omg this unit uses this resource 1% better than all these other desperate units that would love this resource, let's lock this resource to the first unit!" is stupid, I'm just going to repost something from paperblade on the matter. He was actually addressing FE9 Mia in this particular passage, but the point remains for both FE9 and FE10 Mia's, since they're both getting tons of resources and you/int/etc. are ignoring the drawbacks.

Gee smash, didn't realize you've decided that a basic concept of economics is flawed. Also, you still don't understand it, if you think opportunity cost means "omg this unit uses this resource 1% better than all these other desperate units that would love this resource, let's lock this resource to the first unit!"

Here is some light reading for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_%28economics%29

Read it for once. I'm sick of explaining such simple concepts to you when you refuse to learn. I'll let wikipedia do the work. Maybe you'll listen to them.

The difference between Mia and other Upper Mid units is that other Upper Mid units are not totally reliant on this level of resources to achieve. The tier list compares units relative to other units. If I have 3 units, and one of them one rounds everything without trying, another requires 100BEXP to one round everything, and a third requires 200BEXP to one round everything, and all of have the same durability when given equal BEXP...,I have 300BEXP, these units are not equal. They're ranked

0 BEXP > 100BEXP > 200 BEXP, because the 0BEXP unit still stands to improve, and using the 200BEXP precludes him from improving. Yes, giving the 200BEXP to the worst unit is the best idea if I can field all three, but the 200BEXP unit is also the most desperate for resources, and precludes the other 2 units from reaching their potential

However, under Int's tier list, the 200BEXP unit would "improve the most", and thus always get the BEXP, and end up with superior durability and similar offense. Thus, his tier list would be

200BEXP unit > 100BEXP unit > 0BEXP unit

Really, the idea of "omg opportunity cost" just boils back down to unit A + team vs unit B + team. you know, how you're actually supposed to do comparisons, not this unit A + unit B + team or whatever the fuck you're doing.

You know, you really should start reading after posts that you think are so amazing. If you did, you might see where people rip apart the post. Like, see where RF pointed out that all those units in chapter 8 (even Soren on Cynthia's tier list) are above Mia. If Paperblade's little point actually had anything to do with reality at all, maybe it would mean something. Unfortunately, it doesn't.

By his post, shouldn't Mia be launched above a bunch of units on the tier list because we determined sending her up to level 10 is a good idea for chapter 8?

Also, you still completely don't understand economic profit.

gains - cost.

If you think we are saying:

"omg this unit uses this resource 1% better than all these other desperate units that would love this resource, let's lock this resource to the first unit!"

You clearly understand nothing. (Now, granted, we are saying to give the resource to the unit that uses it best, however if what is in your quote were true for any unit they just wouldn't get much out of it)

Think about it, if Mia's profit is 100, and the next best is 99, then Mia doesn't get 100 out of it, she gets 1 out of it. If all she is getting is 1, that's not going to do much for her tier list position. This is actually what Janaff's case for the drop is like. He gets little out of it because other units get almost as much of an improvement, and theirs may be almost as important, if not more important, than his.

Unfortunately for you, in Mia's case it's more like 100 vs. 20 or ridiculous things like that for most of what we give her. Thus, her gains are like 80 or 70 or big numbers like that. Now, I have no issues with you disagreeing with the numbers. If you think that Soren really is like a 99 for Adept to Mia's 100, then fine. I think you would be dead wrong, but fine. If your protest is that units whose gains from certain resources are closer to Mia's than we say they are, fine. We've done enough to show to just about everyone else that those other units' gains are vastly inferior, but whatever. Just don't misrepresent our case and suggest that we think she can take something that she uses 1% better and get full gains out of it. That is clearly not what we are saying, and I've corrected you on this so many times that at this point you are clearly living in denial. Maybe you need us to think something so ridiculous so that you feel better when you flame us. Whatever, I don't really know why you choose to strawman. Just please stop it. If you want your posts to have some actual meaning, focus on proving what we are actually saying is wrong, rather than flinging strawmen.

[CATS]

As Narga said above, the perfect case is the Energy Drop. If Mia is beating Janaff in offense after each gets 2+ Str, then why should Janaff get the Drop if he ORKOs before it? Mia benefits from it more and ORKOs a ton (or OHKO with a Crit, I'm not sure what makes the girl so awesome in this game) after you give it to her but it doesn't happen so much (or at all, again I'm not sure based on the "never played this game" clause) before it's distributed. If you're going to keep your position by saying that it's not fair that Janaff isn't given the Energy Drop and as a result Mia has better offense, then it's no wonder why Narga or Interceptor think you're dumb.

Is the cost for other units who can use the Drop accounted for? It's not like only Mia/Janaff can use it, right? Janaff might get much less benefit than Mia, but there's probably some other unit aside from those 2 who gets alot more out of it than Janaff does. I don't really see that being accounted for on topics like these, but maybe it is and I'm just missing it.

[Narga_Rocks]

Is the cost for other units who can use the Drop accounted for? It's not like only Mia/Janaff can use it, right? Janaff might get much less benefit than Mia, but there's probably some other unit aside from those 2 who gets alot more out of it than Janaff does. I don't really see that being accounted for on topics like these, but maybe it is and I'm just missing it.

I actually have no intention of giving any drops to Mia. Don't know where he got that from. Janaff's main competition comes from Ulki and Ranulf. Oscar you could consider as a potential recipient, but really since he's not top 3 he'd only come into the equation on playthroughs in which 2 of the top 3 aren't being used seriously.

Janaff is actually among the best candidates for it, and Mia is really not. She could easily have 21 str by 3-7 (you get the 3-5 drop at the end of 3-5, 3-6 is not the GMs, so the competition for it starts in 3-7) and her tier 2 cap is 23. Unless you are intending to early crown her, she's not really a good candidate. Also, she's not a good candidate for an early crown either, so yeah.

It's just, the distance between Janaff and #2 (if Janaff is even #1) is rather small.

[Progenitus]

Really? Are you actually so thick that I have spell this shit out for you? There's a reason why I also quoted Fox's post. The whole thing about Micaiah was based on what I said before about Ike. I wasn't randomly switching gears for the sake of switching gears. If you have a brain that possesses some sort of true logical thinking, then you're clearly not using it.

You quoted fox and my post, and then proceeded to give a one sentence response that I had already addressed. Remember this?

Sure, Ike's team would have a free unit slot. This doesn't mean that Ike's team has more resources to work with (other than that freed up unit slot). For example, if you are training 6 units and you have 10 open slots, then the other four slots are either going to be empty or filled with units that don't do much or make some potshots or whatever.

Unit slots in general are misunderstood. It's not the slot that's the big resource(s), although it is a resource. It's the kills, gold spent on weapons, any stat boosters/skills/etc. the unit might want or need, etc. Unit slots are only a problem if you're training a giant team, which is generally not advised.

Sure, I made it when you misunderstood the point, but it doesn't matter.

Honestly, I was being civil towards you, and now you're flaming me?

Gee smash, didn't realize you've decided that a basic concept of economics is flawed. Also, you still don't understand it, if you think opportunity cost means "omg this unit uses this resource 1% better than all these other desperate units that would love this resource, let's lock this resource to the first unit!"

I understand the concept of opportunity cost. THe problem is that it's not the time to apply it. When you give something like adept to Mia because you've predetermined that she uses it best, you're ignoring the fact that other units on the team still want it.

Really, this whole thing just boils down to the fact that you still don't understand that comparisons are supposed to be unit A + team vs unit B + team rather than whatever the hell you're assuming, and in most cases you should assume that the two units being compared are not on each other's team. This is because when you isolate the two units, it's easier to determine who is better (or rather, whose absence hurts you more). Sure, if both units are really good (like Ike and Haar) then in most cases they're fielded simultaneously, and unit A + team vs unit B + team is not the most realistic situation (do note however that you can actually have Ike on unit A's team, and Haar on unit B's team, so it becomes Ike + Haar + team. If you really wanted to), but if we were talking about "realistic", then we would be doing things like assuming that only the top X units are ever used in a playthrough, with the same supports, skill setups, etc., and it turns into a maximum efficiency playthrough rather than a tier list.

BTW, it's not just me. Prog himself voiced his discontent over you/int/etc. applying this opportunity cost over resources.

I've already voiced my discontent for this approach on FE genesis, but you should at least be clear on what their arguments are (supposing I didn't mis-interpret anything).

I wouldn't say the logic is flawed more so than it's limited to the concept of a perfect playthrough.

Look at it this way. A tier list gives a more powerful conclusion if it has a broader range. What tells you more, a list that's applicable to a single playstyle, or one that's applicable to infinitely many? Like, let's pretend the TP has a very defensive style. It might shift some advantages around (mobility matters less, healing has a greater impact, healers also reach higher levels, etc) but the bases of comparison are still roughly the same. Hell, you guys like to write so much, look at it from an argumentative standpoint. Restricting a resource to a single or a very small list of candidates will generate less discussion than looking at hypotheticals where we consider useful resources on just about anybody in a comparison.

"but we countered prog!"

And that isn't the point.

You know, you really should start reading after posts that you think are so amazing. If you did, you might see where people rip apart the post.

If you're complaining that paperblade got "countered" (and by countered, moar like "fox made a shitty counter and paperblade rapestomped it"), read the entire topic (up until the point where int thought he could take on WJC, anyway, since that's around the time the mia argument stopped) and not just the single italicized statement I posted.

Like, see where RF pointed out that all those units in chapter 8 (even Soren on Cynthia's tier list) are above Mia.

That's not the point.

By his post, shouldn't Mia be launched above a bunch of units on the tier list because we determined sending her up to level 10 is a good idea for chapter 8?

Mia was pumped with BEXP when int had other units on his team that could've used it. He didn't even need to give it to Oscar or other chapter 8 peeps; he could've waiting until chapter 11 where you get Kieran/Neph/Brom, or chapter 10 when you can first BEXP Marcia. Int's reasoning for not giving the BEXP to other units is that their improvements wouldn't matter compared to Mia's gains (who we didn't even freaking need, because we only have three chokepoints and Titania/Boyd/Oscar/Ike already available to block them. Mia is 5th string for something that has only 3 job openings). But was Oscar capable of one rounding at 1-2 range and not require healing (or when he did, be able to get it without wasting time)? Was the same true for all units? No? Then it's not overkill.

[Narga_Rocks]

I understand the concept of opportunity cost. THe problem is that it's not the time to apply it. When you give something like adept to Mia because you've predetermined that she uses it best, you're ignoring the fact that other units on the team still want it.

If you can say that then you really should read the wikipedia things.

Think for a minute. If I'm saying that her economic profit is determined by her gains minus the cost, and that the cost is determined by the gains of the next best candidate, how could I possibly be ignoring that other units "want" it? That doesn't make any logical sense. Give up.

Really, this whole thing just boils down to the fact that you still don't understand that comparisons are supposed to be unit A + team vs unit B + team rather than whatever the hell you're assuming, and in most cases you should assume that the two units being compared are not on each other's team. This is because when you isolate the two units, it's easier to determine who is better (or rather, whose absence hurts you more). Sure, if both units are really good (like Ike and Haar) then in most cases they're fielded simultaneously, and unit A + team vs unit B + team is not the most realistic situation (do note however that you can actually have Ike on unit A's team, and Haar on unit B's team, so it becomes Ike + Haar + team. If you really wanted to), but if we were talking about "realistic", then we would be doing things like assuming that only the top X units are ever used in a playthrough, with the same supports, skill setups, etc., and it turns into a maximum efficiency playthrough rather than a tier list.

Um, if you start assuming that Mia is on a team that isn't full of the best units then suddenly her competition for the resources becomes even less. If you drop out Ulki and Janaff in 3-8, then she has like no competition for Adept. None of the other units can even compete on the same planet except possibly Neph. Trust me, your best way of attempting to deny resources to the unit that uses them best is to enforce the top units rather than allow for the possibility that the player is not using the top.

Also, I am considering team A vs. team B. Aside from Adept for a couple of chapters, what do Janaff and Mia even compete over? Nothing. He would like a drop or an Ulki support. I'm sure he'd like the bexp to get to 30 so that he can have Tear as well. Mia wants Adept and Ike and Cancel. Janaff's team gets whatever Mia isn't around to take anymore, Mia gets whatever Janaff isn't around to take anymore. That's what happens when you compare one team to the other. Mia isn't on his, Janaff isn't on hers, yes? Except guess what? Any gains on Janaff's team that happen because Mia isn't eating the resources were already accounted for when we considered Mia's economic profit. Mia's economic profit were determined by her gains minus the gains of the next best alternative. So really, no matter how you want to word things I'm already considering what other units could do with it. Stop with the strawmanning already.

BTW, it's not just me. Prog himself voiced his discontent over you/int/etc. applying this opportunity cost over resources.

I've already voiced my discontent for this approach on FE genesis, but you should at least be clear on what their arguments are (supposing I didn't mis-interpret anything).

I wouldn't say the logic is flawed more so than it's limited to the concept of a perfect playthrough.

Look at it this way. A tier list gives a more powerful conclusion if it has a broader range. What tells you more, a list that's applicable to a single playstyle, or one that's applicable to infinitely many? Like, let's pretend the TP has a very defensive style. It might shift some advantages around (mobility matters less, healing has a greater impact, healers also reach higher levels, etc) but the bases of comparison are still roughly the same. Hell, you guys like to write so much, look at it from an argumentative standpoint. Restricting a resource to a single or a very small list of candidates will generate less discussion than looking at hypotheticals where we consider useful resources on just about anybody in a comparison.

"but we countered prog!"

And that isn't the point.

Do tell what the point is? I don't see the point of spreading resources out over the team in an incompetent manner. Also, how do you really make a tier list that combines completely different playstyles together? unit A > unit B in type 1,2,3, unit B > unit A in type 4,5,6. Who wins overall?

Also, a "perfect playthrough" would seem to imply using only the best units all the time, and throw in utility units here and there. We aren't doing that. We just want whatever units you end up using to be used to make the strongest team they can make. That tends to result in Mia supporting Ike, Titania getting a wing, Haar getting a wing, etc etc.

If you're complaining that paperblade got "countered" (and by countered, moar like "fox made a shitty counter and paperblade rapestomped it"), read the entire topic (up until the point where int thought he could take on WJC, anyway, since that's around the time the mia argument stopped) and not just the single italicized statement I posted.

Um links please? The one I remember had him ignoring her post entirely and neither quoting nor responding to her point that the tier list in no way reflects what he claims. It was a short blurb like "now if only the tier list actually reflected that then you'd have a point" or something.

That's not the point.

Mia was pumped with BEXP when int had other units on his team that could've used it. He didn't even need to give it to Oscar or other chapter 8 peeps; he could've waiting until chapter 11 where you get Kieran/Neph/Brom, or chapter 10 when you can first BEXP Marcia. Int's reasoning for not giving the BEXP to other units is that their improvements wouldn't matter compared to Mia's gains (who we didn't even freaking need, because we only have three chokepoints and Titania/Boyd/Oscar/Ike already available to block them. Mia is 5th string for something that has only 3 job openings). But was Oscar capable of one rounding at 1-2 range and not require healing (or when he did, be able to get it without wasting time)? Was the same true for all units? No? Then it's not overkill.

I think somebody is ignoring how Int had enough bexp left over to raise a unit from level 7 to level 20/1. Kinda kills your case there. Oh noes, she took bexp nobody else needed anyway. Whatever are we going to do?

Also, if you just want to sit there and block I suppose you only need 3 units to do so. If, on the other hand, you want to kill everything, every unit is important. The bexp that she spent is canceled by the extra cexp he got by killing everything.

[Life]

You quoted fox and my post, and then proceeded to give a one sentence response that I had already addressed. Remember this?

Sure, Ike's team would have a free unit slot. This doesn't mean that Ike's team has more resources to work with (other than that freed up unit slot). For example, if you are training 6 units and you have 10 open slots, then the other four slots are either going to be empty or filled with units that don't do much or make some potshots or whatever.

Unit slots in general are misunderstood. It's not the slot that's the big resource(s), although it is a resource. It's the kills, gold spent on weapons, any stat boosters/skills/etc. the unit might want or need, etc. Unit slots are only a problem if you're training a giant team, which is generally not advised.

Sure, I made it when you misunderstood the point, but it doesn't matter.

Honestly, I was being civil towards you, and now you're flaming me?

Explain to me why my "one sentence response" has anything to do with your above quote of yourself. I don't see a connection here, mostly because there is none.

[Colonel M]

Except who the flying fuck else is going to use Adept? Are we ganna be cool and give it to Boyd?

No, you good sir do not understand it. The reason it is practically prea-determined on her is because she makes the best use of it for her duration of time. Ike ORKOes Jebus and most others are borderline on doubling even with the wing. Then we have Ranulf who is a goddamn Cat and half the time we have to use Olivi Grass on the sunovabitch just to keep him reasonable in combat. This specifically reminds me when you pulled the Speedwing "list" and didn't even bother to come up with an answer. Instead you acted like a second grader trying to learn trigonometry. First you can't understand what's going on so you try to look smart by making a list. Then when pressured under "who has the greatest optimal use of it", you use logic that makes little sense. Finally when I proved my argument you bawwed and asked "will it shut you up if I add it?".

I can see exactly why people treat you like this. Because you do act like a child. You rely on big ol' Paperblade to come and defend you, and now you don't even have that. In fact he dug you a bigger hole with the critforge argument back at FEFF, so to -not- assume a critforge we might as well never assume forges for anyone. If Mia can't get Adept because you don't think that she is the best user of it, we might as well assume no one gets skills. Fuck we might as well assume that we're playing the game with Iron weapons, using whatever units that we have, and fuck BEXP and skills because we're cool being Commies about resources.

Besides, Mia taking Adept isn't going to end the world. FFS I only assume these 4 things:

- Adept, which people barey give two shits to give her. Shinon is probably the only one bawing and its only useful with lolCrossbow, which requires someone to trade him.

- Critforge, which if she can't get one no one should deserve a forge period.

- Some BEXP. See argument with Critforge.

- Ike support.

Who else should support Ike anyway? Let's review a basic team:

Titania

Gatrie

Haar

Shinon

Mia

Nephenee

Boyd

Oscar (though IMO I NEVER find this dude optimal to ever be used)

The rest no one really cares about or comes too late to matter (Ranulf), so we might as well think these guys. Gatrie and Haar have move difference, and Haar flies on top of this and he's fine on his own for the most part. Titania also has a Mov difference on him, is forced on his team in Pt 4, and the Canto deal helps. Take chapters like 3-7 though where Titania has no passage in the swamp or 4-4 where Ike could climb the ledge. Then she's mediocre Endgame because of her Spd cap. Fuck Oscar really. Boyd has major doubling issues and he is only good once he's built up. Not worth it. Shinon lacks Enemy Phase unless you waste your time with trading. Being about as slow as Mia doesn't help much either (or its slowe. Dunno.). Mia is like Top 3 for the support, possibly #1 if you consider Shinon's lack of Enemy Phase and Titania's horse problems.

I didn't hop onto your Titania > Mia train because you thought Mia was too high or w/e. The REASON I went to think about it was because Prog had some good points with Titania being better in some aspects (relevant 2 range, Canto helping with setting up Vigors, easy to slowplay BEXP when given resources, etc.). The main question is if Titania's duration of being awesome outclasses when Mia is awesome (this specifically speaking with Endgame for sure and a bit after that). That's even questionable since Titania can miss doubling stuff and Mia doubles just about everything which can mean a win for Mia with crit and / or Adept proc.

Of course I don't think you will respond to this (whether it be civil-like or "lol"-like) and neither will I, but w/e I'm bored enough to post it.

[-Cynthia-]

I'll throw my $0.02 on the resources available to Mia.

Critforge- Really not an issue. If we get all the sellable items, probably transferring some from the DB, there should be more than enough money for forges for everyone.

Earth support- I'm not seeing any setup that's really a good reason to deny Mia an Earth support. Gatrie/Haar/Shinon get more out of a hit or dmg boost than more duability. Titania is either going to be ahead of Ike or behind him when there are cliffs/swamps/etc. Oscarx Ike is overkill, both would like an avoid boost and a damage boost rather than a superfluous avoid boost. Nephenee shows up too late and no one wants Wind.

This leaves Mia, Boyd, and Soren who get a significant boost from Ike and he wants them back. Considering Oscar also wants to support a +mt, that's 2 earth supports for 3 characters, meaning Mia only pays a significant opportunity cost if both boyd/Soren are in play, which is unlikely.

Adept- Probably the trickiest one. Giving Adept to someone who doesn't double (or who just ORKOs when they double) makes very little sense (since the activation rate drops significantly), so that leaves Shinon, Janaff, Ranulf, Ulki, and Nephenee. Shinon doesn't have an Enemy Phase outside of Xbows which often don't 3HKO anyway and the laguz have to grass to keep up gauge, so they are inferior options. There is the possibility of 2 Adepts by 3-2, since zihark has trouble using his effectively during Part 3.

Edited March 21, 2010 by -Cynthia-

[Anouleth]

This leaves Mia, Boyd, and Soren who get a significant boost from Ike and he wants them back. Considering Oscar also wants to support a +mt, that's 2 earth supports for 3 characters, meaning Mia only pays a significant opportunity cost if both boyd/Soren are in play, which is unlikely.

Until Soren gets to A Ike, his avoid still sucks, and even then he's getting 2HKOed by everything. He'd need the Ike support + BEXP to cap his speed + a Crown in order to be durable.

Boyd is more interested in supporting Oscar, since it's faster, but he'll settle for Ike. I think I'd rather have the Earth on Mia though, since her avoid is much better.