tier list

[Interceptor]

This whole "but sanaki is forced, therefore all her negatives can be ignored" ordeal is getting very tiring and dull.

You know, I'd have sympathy for your position here, but Sanaki's inevitable rise is the logical result of the rules that you laid out in the OP, so I am having a hard time feeling sorry for something that you should have seen coming a mile away. Let's recap the specific details of the hole that you've dug for yourself.

First, your rule of Comparisons are assumed "unit A + team vs unit B + team" immediately gives Sanaki a big advantage, since she has no opportunity cost for deployment. Sanaki can always deploy the best team for the job. This is the Bastian/Oliver problem, because they are terrible, and forcing them to be deployed is a kneecap to their army's efficiency.

Secondly, your rule of Net utility (as opposed to gross utility), e.g. not existing > sucking prevents average units from accruing enough utility to overcome Sanaki's contribution. This is the Stefan problem, because he gets no credit for being the 11th (exaggeration) best choice in a contest with only 10 winners. The fact that he stomps all over Sanaki's performance in nearly every possible aspect gets washed away by the fact that he can't provide you with more than a top team: only the same or less.

Finally, your rule of Units are assumed to get equal amounts of resources (again, the less you need to be good, the better) is the last nail in the coffin. The only thing that Sanaki needs to contribute utility is her no-cost PRF weapon, and maybe a siege tome, perhaps even one with only 1 use left in it. Hardly anyone can beat this minimal cost, except wtfbroken Royals that don't use weapons. Anything that you give a character that Sanaki is being compared with, Sanaki can give it to one of hers, since she wants nothing in terms of resources.

So honestly, you've tied your hands by selecting these particular rules. If you don't like it, well, tough shit, that's how you set it up. You pride yourself on your logic -- for some reason that I've never been able to understand -- but here you are insisting that the logical conclusion of your rules be ignored. Not for any logical reason, mind you, but because you think the conclusions are "ridiculous".

As proof, look at other tier lists. [...] I might actually take this sort of logic seriously if you guys go to other games and argue the same logic for those lists.

It's your logic. If you stipulate rules that result in a conclusion that you don't like, don't bitch and moan at the people who are just following the natural progression of things. Blame the guy who came up with the parameters in the first place.

[Narga_Rocks]

It's your logic. If you stipulate rules that result in a conclusion that you don't like, don't bitch and moan at the people who are just following the natural progression of things. Blame the guy who came up with the parameters in the first place.

But it is sooo much easier to just blame other people for the holes he finds himself in.

[Interceptor]

Calill

Nolan

Ike at the start of 4-P (I think the promotion is before 4-P rather than before 4-1, not like it makes a difference)

Forgot about that third Nihil. Oh well, thanks for the correction.

I'm not convinced that stun actually works if she does 0 damage. Since this is Smash's inefficient distribution of resources efficiency tier list, Sandbagged!Elincia may not have 37/39 mt with Amiti.

If this is the case, so be it. I thought that she could Stun with 0-damage hits, but that's a hazy memory of mine going back to 2-P. There are things (like level-ups) that mitigate that, and in any case the Wyrmslayer performance is still OK as long as she does not get OHKO'ed. The +3 DEF from Amiti making her more RNG-proof on them defensively is why I brought that one up.

[Narga_Rocks]

If this is the case, so be it. I thought that she could Stun with 0-damage hits, but that's a hazy memory of mine going back to 2-P. There are things (like level-ups) that mitigate that, and in any case the Wyrmslayer performance is still OK as long as she does not get OHKO'ed. The +3 DEF from Amiti making her more RNG-proof on them defensively is why I brought that one up.

It's possible that stun does work. I don't think I did the chapter multiple times. I just had Elincia try for a stun at least 6 times on the 2-P boss while at neutral bio or better. I suppose for a more accurate test I should have tried at least 20 times, but I wasn't interested in testing it at the time.

[Candlejack]

Still unsure as to why being forced to deploy a bad unit is good for your performance as a whole. I don't understand why forcing a terrible unit to the battlefield is helpful; it forces you to take extra precautions in order to keep this unit alive, assuming you want everyone to live, and this may disrupt your strategy. Granted, you'll probably have epic map-soloing gods by the point you get her... then again you get them at god-level in 3-P (Or 1-5 if you are talking long term). Still, you are taking a necessary step to guard a bad unit, thus contributing a net negative to your team.

[nflchamp]

Still unsure as to why being forced to deploy a bad unit is good for your performance as a whole. I don't understand why forcing a terrible unit to the battlefield is helpful; it forces you to take extra precautions in order to keep this unit alive, assuming you want everyone to live, and this may disrupt your strategy. Granted, you'll probably have epic map-soloing gods by the point you get her... then again you get them at god-level in 3-P (Or 1-5 if you are talking long term). Still, you are taking a necessary step to guard a bad unit, thus contributing a net negative to your team.

The fact of the matter is, Sanaki isn't bad enough and it is easy enough to protect her (aka her negative for durability is small). And she does good damage as not everyone on your team is one-rounding (aka she gains positive utility).

[Florete]

Still unsure as to why being forced to deploy a bad unit is good for your performance as a whole. I don't understand why forcing a terrible unit to the battlefield is helpful; it forces you to take extra precautions in order to keep this unit alive, assuming you want everyone to live, and this may disrupt your strategy. Granted, you'll probably have epic map-soloing gods by the point you get her... then again you get them at god-level in 3-P (Or 1-5 if you are talking long term). Still, you are taking a necessary step to guard a bad unit, thus contributing a net negative to your team.

I think at this point I can safely call you an idiot when it comes to FE debating, so I'll describe this as simply as possible just for you.

For Endgame you are allowed 10 units to choose. You know this, and if you didn't, you do now. Let's say the top 10 units for Endgame are the following (not necessarily in order):

Tibarn

Nailah

Naesala

Caineghis

Giffca

Elincia

Shinon

Mia

Jill

Nephenee

And if you want, you can swap some for people like Zihark, Volug, Nolan, Haar, etc. It doesn't really matter. What does matter is that Bastian does not find himself on this list. In fact, he's not even very close; I could make two or three Endgame teams with entirely different units every time and as long as I'm only picking the best, Bastian still wouldn't make it. Still with me?

Now we go to what smash has listed as a rule for the list: - Comparisons are assumed "unit A + team vs unit B + team". So when comparing Sanaki to Bastian, we insert their names in for "Unit A" and "Unit B," making it "Sanaki + team vs Bastian + team." Let's look at Sanaki's team first, minus forced units of course.

Tibarn

Nailah

Naesala

Caineghis

Giffca

Elincia

Shinon

Mia

Jill

Nephenee

Now let's look at Bastian's team:

Tibarn

Nailah

Naesala

Caineghis

Giffca

Elincia

Shinon

Mia

Jill

Bastian

Oops, we have a problem. Bastian is not even in the running for a top unit for Endgame, meaning Sanaki's team is stronger than Bastian's since Bastian is on Bastian's team but not on Sanaki's (Sanaki is on both). Since Endgame is pretty much the only utility Bastian ever has (as Paperblade splendidly pointed out that unless your name is Reyson or Tibarn (and possibly Elincia), no one gets credit for 4-5), this means that by smash's own rule, Sanaki > Bastian.

I had a paragraph for another of smash's rules ready, but I think I'll just leave it at this.

Edited February 21, 2010 by Red Fox of Fire

[Progenitus]

Still unsure as to why being forced to deploy a bad unit is good for your performance as a whole. I don't understand why forcing a terrible unit to the battlefield is helpful; it forces you to take extra precautions in order to keep this unit alive, assuming you want everyone to live, and this may disrupt your strategy. Granted, you'll probably have epic map-soloing gods by the point you get her... then again you get them at god-level in 3-P (Or 1-5 if you are talking long term). Still, you are taking a necessary step to guard a bad unit, thus contributing a net negative to your team.

You're forgetting that everyone here assumes the tier list player is a MASTER strategist completely incapable of committing errors and will make the perfect move at all times. With such skill at fire emblem, forming a wall of meat in front of Sanaki is no longer a problem.

Which is funny because it goes against the idea of the tier list player wanting to use the best units possible. After all, being a master strategist, he could easily use mid tiers and beat the game just as quickly (or only marginally slower) than with a team of top tiers.

(extra stuff is quoted for telling the context that it is in.)

I am going to start with Bastian because he is easy to talk about:

I don't want to dig into the Gamefaqs topic to find the Pelleas vs Snacky arguing that I made with you, but you seemed pretty big on staff utility and claiming that was why Pelleas>Snacky. Cross apply that to Bastian. During 4-5 alone, he has staff utility and can be given a physic to heal guys. Plus, since he has control of all the elements in a laguz chapter where he is 20/20/10, he is a pretty solid fighter for that chapter too. I am thinking of his 4-5 performance alone when comparing him here, because I don't see a single negative to using him, while you conceded that using Rolf is a negative to your team and according to you, Doing nothing>Sucking and slowing the team. And, staff utility+okay prepromote fighter for one chapter>doing nothing. Therefore, Staff util+okay prepromote fighter for 1 chapter>Sucking and slowing down the team.

Also, although I am sure everyone is going to shoot me down on this, but using your arguments and logic, and seeing how you concede in the same quote that Boyd breaks even performance wise, why not raise Bastian above him? He is only being a positive.

Snacky:

Siggy sucks. We all know this. Therefore, during 4-P/4-3, she isn't going to be necessary for anything special and may just be sitting in a corner. Now, pair Siggy with Snacky. THsoe two together can kill an enemy in 1 turn. Neither have movement reduction in their chapters. 4-3 is a plus because Snacky and Siggy cna dive into diffused mobs and be able to kill one enemy without having to worry about others killing them on enemy phase. If you have a crown laying around, you can give it to siggy to help boost her effectiveness. This team shoudl be considered positive utility, becuase 4-P is going to be more likely to take on a defensive strat (at least, that is what I do. If low turn counting chapters drastically change defense strats to offense, I guess this argument won't be as valid). This means that siggy can hurt an enemy than run off, while snacky can hide behind someone and finish them off.

4-E-1 through 4-E-3, Snacky is essentially forced. I dunno about 4-E-1, but maybe snacky can find something useful to do in this chapter. If not, oh well. 4-E-2, she can make getting wishblade easier by giving her a siege tome and potshotting Levail. 4-E-3, Snacky is going to enjoy. She gets to siege tome enemies and not worry about being hurt. There is no negative utility to this, and only positive utility.

I don't want to bring every argument together unless I have to, but just using the 4-E-3 argument, we can deduct this: Snacky is forced; therefore, no oppurtunity cost exists. Damaging dragons is a plus. A positive value>A negative value. Sanaki can only give a positive value and be fine. Rolf needs to have high negative value in order to have some positive value according to you, and negative o/w positive. Snacky is the postive value; rolf is the negative. Snacky>Rolf.

Sorry if I am just pulling a "no shit sherlock" kinda thing with that last statement. Haven't debated on a tier list in a while. Just wanted to argue that though, because I never have felt like Snacky has gotten what she deserves.

The assumption I was making was that we were using the units with the long-term in mind. For example, Rolf. We train rolf and baby him through his suck and he builds up negative utility, so that in the future he can become a capable fighter (unfortunately his positives never outweigh his negatives, so he's in the lower tiers overall, but that's beside the point).

On the other hand, taht's not the only way to use Rolf. You can, for example, only use him to make a couple of potshots, man ballistas in 3-P and 3-5, shove, etc. In this case his negative utility is small, at least relative to his positive utility.

The problem here is that many units can do the same thing, and in debates between low tiers, debates just become very, very boring. For example, a debate between Lyre and Fiona would end up boiling down to Lyre doing a couple of shoves in part 3 while Fioan blocks a couple of ledges.

The argument basically boils down to what was discussed in this topic...

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=17344&st=0

[Narga_Rocks]

The problem here is that many units can do the same thing, and in debates between low tiers, debates just become very, very boring. For example, a debate between Lyre and Fiona would end up boiling down to Lyre doing a couple of shoves in part 3 while Fioan blocks a couple of ledges.

You still don't seem to get it. Fiona is free deployment. Your Rolf example is actually decent since he can be deployed for free in 3-P, 3-1, 3-2, and there is only one unit that can't be deployed for 3-5, and having Rolf man a ballista is probably better than Brom if you haven't been using Brom.

Lyre never has free deployment. Even in part 4, if you haven't been using Lyre there are bound to be 35 to 45 units that are better than her, so she doesn't even have free deployment when your army splits in three. You always bring this as an example, and yet it completely goes against your alleged rules. You always harp on any alleged inconsistencies you see in our posts, but you seem completely blind to your own.

The debate between Lyre and Fiona boils down to Lyre never being deployed and Fiona burning some torches in 3-6 and blocking ledges in 3-13. Fiona wins since Lyre can't do anything without kicking off a better unit.

Comparisons are assumed "unit A + team vs unit B + team"

- Net utility (as opposed to gross utility)

Utility is also based on "what would happen if this unit didn't exist?"

(cut out your example from the second quoted line since it is just an "e.g." rather than "i.e.", and hence net utility doesn't solely mean what you have there)

Net utility, unless you are using a truly smash-esque definition rather than the Economic definition, involves the opportunity cost of being deployed. And since there are always better options than Lyre, her net utility is always negative if she is deployed. So you can maximize her net utility by never ever deploying her.

So, if Fiona isn't there you lose an edge blocker, and you need as many as you can get. That's a problem. Meg and Ed could probably handle torching 3-6, but Fiona's move is a little bit of an advantage there. If Lyre doesn't exist nothing changes, since she wasn't ever deployed anyway.

Advantage Fiona.

Fiona doesn't take up a slot that could go somewhere better.

Advantage Fiona.

Basically, by the rules you have set up, Fiona > Lyre.

You might want to add the inefficient rule that units are "assumed to be deployed throughout their existence and raised seriously" to your rules, since that at least helps guide the tier list closer to what you seem to want out of it. Plus, it gives you the leeway to make whatever you want to happen with the list happen since you can define "Raised Seriously" on a sliding scale adjusted based off who you want to win. At least, that seems to be the way you are using the rules you have so far. There is no other way to explain Sanaki. Yes, it is odd to have Sanaki > Stefan. Unfortunately, your rules demand it. Adding my suggested rule actually allows you to rationalize Stefan > Sanaki, since "raised seriously" can require getting Sanaki to level 15 or so by 4-E-5, which would obviously be rather annoying to pull off. At least Stefan can be raised more easily and you get more from doing so.

Good thing our Tier List doesn't have to either add rules to make things work or contradict the rules in order to make ourselves feel good about the positions of the characters. We can have Stefan > Sanaki because it makes sense.

[Progenitus]

You still don't seem to get it. Fiona is free deployment. Your Rolf example is actually decent since he can be deployed for free in 3-P, 3-1, 3-2, and there is only one unit that can't be deployed for 3-5, and having Rolf man a ballista is probably better than Brom if you haven't been using Brom.

Lyre never has free deployment. Even in part 4, if you haven't been using Lyre there are bound to be 35 to 45 units that are better than her, so she doesn't even have free deployment when your army splits in three. You always bring this as an example, and yet it completely goes against your alleged rules. You always harp on any alleged inconsistencies you see in our posts, but you seem completely blind to your own.

The debate between Lyre and Fiona boils down to Lyre never being deployed and Fiona burning some torches in 3-6 and blocking ledges in 3-13. Fiona wins since Lyre can't do anything without kicking off a better unit.

(cut out your example from the second quoted line since it is just an "e.g." rather than "i.e.", and hence net utility doesn't solely mean what you have there)

Net utility, unless you are using a truly smash-esque definition rather than the Economic definition, involves the opportunity cost of being deployed. And since there are always better options than Lyre, her net utility is always negative if she is deployed. So you can maximize her net utility by never ever deploying her.

So, if Fiona isn't there you lose an edge blocker, and you need as many as you can get. That's a problem. Meg and Ed could probably handle torching 3-6, but Fiona's move is a little bit of an advantage there. If Lyre doesn't exist nothing changes, since she wasn't ever deployed anyway.

Advantage Fiona.

Fiona doesn't take up a slot that could go somewhere better.

Advantage Fiona.

Basically, by the rules you have set up, Fiona > Lyre.

You might want to add the inefficient rule that units are "assumed to be deployed throughout their existence and raised seriously" to your rules, since that at least helps guide the tier list closer to what you seem to want out of it. Plus, it gives you the leeway to make whatever you want to happen with the list happen since you can define "Raised Seriously" on a sliding scale adjusted based off who you want to win. At least, that seems to be the way you are using the rules you have so far. There is no other way to explain Sanaki. Yes, it is odd to have Sanaki > Stefan. Unfortunately, your rules demand it. Adding my suggested rule actually allows you to rationalize Stefan > Sanaki, since "raised seriously" can require getting Sanaki to level 15 or so by 4-E-5, which would obviously be rather annoying to pull off. At least Stefan can be raised more easily and you get more from doing so.

Good thing our Tier List doesn't have to either add rules to make things work or contradict the rules in order to make ourselves feel good about the positions of the characters. We can have Stefan > Sanaki because it makes sense.

xfd

this is what narga actually believes

[Narga_Rocks]

xfd

this is what narga actually believes

What, that you dug a hole with your own rules? Since that's really all I'm saying.

Do you honestly believe I'm suggesting Sanaki > Stefan on a real tier list? Just yours, since you set the rules up that way.

I suppose you can't make a real response since you know I'm right about your list so you just make a baseless attack. Typical.

(and you still haven't admitted you are being an idiot about your Lyre vs. Fiona comparison. "In this case his negative utility is small, at least relative to his positive utility." That's about Rolf. There's a reason there is little "negative utility" for Rolf. Fiona has that as well. Lyre doesn't.)

Edited February 21, 2010 by Narga_Rocks

[Florete]

This topic has reminded me why we always make fun of smash.

[Narga_Rocks]

This topic has reminded me why we always make fun of smash.

I suppose there's that. When he's like this it's just so hard not to. Have you been keeping track of his "responses" on the gamefaqs one, too?

[Progenitus]

What, that you dug a hole with your own rules? Since that's really all I'm saying.

Do you honestly believe I'm suggesting Sanaki > Stefan on a real tier list? Just yours, since you set the rules up that way.

I suppose you can't make a real response since you know I'm right about your list so you just make a baseless attack. Typical.

(and you still haven't admitted you are being an idiot about your Lyre vs. Fiona comparison. "In this case his negative utility is small, at least relative to his positive utility." That's about Rolf. There's a reason there is little "negative utility" for Rolf. Fiona has that as well. Lyre doesn't.)

xfd

nerdrage more

Edited February 21, 2010 by Andrew W.K.

[Anouleth]

You might want to add the inefficient rule that units are "assumed to be deployed throughout their existence and raised seriously" to your rules, since that at least helps guide the tier list closer to what you seem to want out of it. Plus, it gives you the leeway to make whatever you want to happen with the list happen since you can define "Raised Seriously" on a sliding scale adjusted based off who you want to win. At least, that seems to be the way you are using the rules you have so far. There is no other way to explain Sanaki. Yes, it is odd to have Sanaki > Stefan. Unfortunately, your rules demand it. Adding my suggested rule actually allows you to rationalize Stefan > Sanaki, since "raised seriously" can require getting Sanaki to level 15 or so by 4-E-5, which would obviously be rather annoying to pull off. At least Stefan can be raised more easily and you get more from doing so.

I don't know, that rule has some strange implications. For a start, Haar would have to go down below Ike, since he kinda fails for 4-E. I don't know what you'd do with Laura - on the one hand, she's nearly essential for efficient play, on the other hand, she's extremely hard to train seriously without boss abuse. Or Geoffrey - does using Geoffrey for 2-3 and 3-9 now require us to drag his ass into Endgame, too?

(As for Oliver, I was just pointing out that even if you failed to train anyone in the rest of the game or everyone got RNG-screwed or whatever, you could still construct an Endgame team entirely from prepromotes that are better than him.)

[tehnikhil]

The assumption I was making was that we were using the units with the long-term in mind. For example, Rolf. We train rolf and baby him through his suck and he builds up negative utility, so that in the future he can become a capable fighter (unfortunately his positives never outweigh his negatives, so he's in the lower tiers overall, but that's beside the point).

On the other hand, taht's not the only way to use Rolf. You can, for example, only use him to make a couple of potshots, man ballistas in 3-P and 3-5, shove, etc. In this case his negative utility is small, at least relative to his positive utility.

The problem here is that many units can do the same thing, and in debates between low tiers, debates just become very, very boring. For example, a debate between Lyre and Fiona would end up boiling down to Lyre doing a couple of shoves in part 3 while Fioan blocks a couple of ledges.

The argument basically boils down to what was discussed in this topic...

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=17344&st=0

So, what was the real conclusion. I skipped to page 3 but couldn't find one.

Also, because there are two ways of debating this out, with the Communist way or the other way (don't know the name of it), do we still assume a Communist framework, or are we changing the framework differently for this debate? Since, we are using Snacky/Rolf in ways that don't really require them to have exp. Also, with a communist framework, doesn't Rolf slow the team down more than sanaki since doin 9 damage to a 30 hp enemy<doing 30 damage to a 45 hp enemy?

Also, how exactly would you argue that Rolf's Balista shooting outweighs Sanaki's 4-E-3 performance on arguably the hardest chapter of the game? On 3-5, your units will be tearing mobs of enemies apart and not really be scared of any apparent death. 4-E-3 has the hardest monsters in the game that royals may have a hard time 1 shotting. 3-P, shooting enemies in front of the laguz is pointless, and your own units should be killing all of the enemies in sight anyways.

Dunno if we also need to pretend that we are a master strategist that know where enemies exactly are in FOW maps, but on 3-1, isn't it a bit unsafe to be moving Rolf around in that map due to being ambushed anywhere and getting killed? People have to protect him, and slow down their rampage, and wouldn't this o/w his 9 damage potshots? 3-2, I guess he can do a few things, but his assistance is very neglible and most likely won't save the team a turn.

Also, was it established that 4-5 doesn't "count" as a chapter?

[Narga_Rocks]

xfd

nerdrage more

Oh yeah, that's much more effective than countering points. You might as well say you concede since you can't come up with anything better to say in response. It's also extremely mature .

So, what was the real conclusion. I skipped to page 3 but couldn't find one.

Also, because there are two ways of debating this out, with the Communist way or the other way (don't know the name of it), do we still assume a Communist framework, or are we changing the framework differently for this debate? Since, we are using Snacky/Rolf in ways that don't really require them to have exp. Also, with a communist framework, doesn't Rolf slow the team down more than sanaki since doin 9 damage to a 30 hp enemy<doing 30 damage to a 45 hp enemy?

Also, how exactly would you argue that Rolf's Balista shooting outweighs Sanaki's 4-E-3 performance on arguably the hardest chapter of the game? On 3-5, your units will be tearing mobs of enemies apart and not really be scared of any apparent death. 4-E-3 has the hardest monsters in the game that royals may have a hard time 1 shotting. 3-P, shooting enemies in front of the laguz is pointless, and your own units should be killing all of the enemies in sight anyways.

Dunno if we also need to pretend that we are a master strategist that know where enemies exactly are in FOW maps, but on 3-1, isn't it a bit unsafe to be moving Rolf around in that map due to being ambushed anywhere and getting killed? People have to protect him, and slow down their rampage, and wouldn't this o/w his 9 damage potshots? 3-2, I guess he can do a few things, but his assistance is very neglible and most likely won't save the team a turn.

Also, was it established that 4-5 doesn't "count" as a chapter?

No, you are missing his point about Rolf and the others. He doesn't want his tier list to go for that kind of efficiency. His idea of "net utility" is arbitrary. On some units he is okay with only using them in specific chapters (like Geoffrey in 2-3 and 3-9) and then either assessing minimal punishment to their other chapters or none at all. Others he seems to want to force to be deployed and judge them based off of that. Your Rolf vs. Sanaki comparison won't affect him at all since he was using the Rolf thing as an attempt at showing why you shouldn't be maximizing each character's individual utility by only deploying them when their gains > their negatives. Hence the suggested rule. Trouble is, that rule has problems for other units he likes so he won't use it. As such, "net utility" is arbitrary. Probably why he used an example rather than gave a definition.

Edited February 21, 2010 by Narga_Rocks

[Florete]

xfd

nerdrage more

Weren't you bitching about me blowing you off in my rating topic?

[Narga_Rocks]

Weren't you bitching about me blowing you off in my rating topic?

Don't bother with hypocrites. But yes, Smash is easily one of the board's greatest hypocrites.

[Progenitus]

So, what was the real conclusion. I skipped to page 3 but couldn't find one.

Also, because there are two ways of debating this out, with the Communist way or the other way (don't know the name of it), do we still assume a Communist framework, or are we changing the framework differently for this debate? Since, we are using Snacky/Rolf in ways that don't really require them to have exp.

There unfortunately was none >_>

However, the point remains. There are two major ways of debating, as the OP pointed out. I have problems with both extremes, and there must be some sort of middle ground/compromise.

However, for the time being, until a solid conclusion is made about how to debate, I'd say that both extremes should carry weight. As an example, taking ROlf vs Sanaki, both of these situations should be considered in ranking them and in terms of who wins the matchup...

1) Both units are used in the most "efficient" way as possible. For Rolf and sanaki, that would be Rolf's couple early part 3 potshots vs Sanaki's part 4 potshots.

2) Both units are used as if they were a serious member of the team. For Rolf and Sanaki, Rolf builds up massive suck in part 3, but by part 4 he should become a capable fighter, much better than Sanaki could ever hope to imagine.

Also, with a communist framework, doesn't Rolf slow the team down more than sanaki since doin 9 damage to a 30 hp enemy<doing 30 damage to a 45 hp enemy?

Rolf in part 3 is doing 25% HP damage to enemies when a large majority of your units are doing 50% HP damage to those same enemies.

Sanaki in part 4 is doing 50+% HP damage to enemies when a large majority of your units are actually capable of 1RKOing those enemies.

Rolf's damage output relative to Sanaki's is about the same.

The difference stems from the fact that Rolf's durability is better (in case he takes a stray hit he will survive, while Sanaki won't), ballistas in a couple of chapters to keep him very safe, and if you're crazy enough you can give him some good bows to increase his potshot damage, while Sanaki is already using her best tome, so Rolf's potshot damage will increase.

Also, how exactly would you argue that Rolf's Balista shooting outweighs Sanaki's 4-E-3 performance on arguably the hardest chapter of the game? On 3-5, your units will be tearing mobs of enemies apart and not really be scared of any apparent death. 4-E-3 has the hardest monsters in the game that royals may have a hard time 1 shotting. 3-P, shooting enemies in front of the laguz is pointless, and your own units should be killing all of the enemies in sight anyways.

4-E-3 is not hard as long as you go at a slow enough pace. (Of course going slow can help with most chapters, but not all. e.g. 4-4 will swamp you with reinforcements if you take too long, extending the chapter even further).

3-5 actually requires rushing if you want to get the energy drop the boss has, since there's a time limit. It also requires you to clear out basically every paladin in the general area for Heather to steal, since she gets 2HKO'd by everything.

3-P requires some rushing because the laguz AI is stupid and likes doing dumb things like parking themselves next to fire mages and whatnot, so Rolf can help pick off some of the enemies.

etc.

Dunno if we also need to pretend that we are a master strategist that know where enemies exactly are in FOW maps, but on 3-1, isn't it a bit unsafe to be moving Rolf around in that map due to being ambushed anywhere and getting killed? People have to protect him, and slow down their rampage, and wouldn't this o/w his 9 damage potshots? 3-2, I guess he can do a few things, but his assistance is very neglible and most likely won't save the team a turn.

He can stay around the torches for the time being, and you know an area is safe if you send out someone like Ike the turn before you send in Rolf, so Ike can clear out the nearby enemies and Rolf can help finish off the leftovers.

Anyway, I don't assume that the tier player is a "master strategist", although I assume that he's at least competent and won't do things like have Reyson tank.

Also, was it established that 4-5 doesn't "count" as a chapter?

It's given fairly minimal weight.

Weren't you bitching about me blowing you off in my rating topic?

Don't bother with hypocrites. But yes, Smash is easily one of the board's greatest hypocrites.

Uh oh.

Someone better call the WAAAAHMBULANCE

[Narga_Rocks]

Uh oh.

Someone better call the WAAAAHMBULANCE

Did they exist back when you were complaining about RF brushing you off on her rating topic? If so, I guess we should have called them then. Anyway, you better make sure they know they aren't being called for you this time, since generally I'd think they assume they are being called for you.

[Candlejack]

1. It's the BAWWWWWlice for one thing smash.

2. I like how I try and make a rhetoric about how if Sanaki wasn't forced, she would be removed IMMEDIATELY, but it gets rebuked as irrelevant. Then I go and see that people make arguments that Character A would be top tier if he was available for Y amount of chapters.

[Narga_Rocks]

2. I like how I try and make a rhetoric about how if Sanaki wasn't forced, she would be removed IMMEDIATELY, but it gets rebuked as irrelevant. Then I go and see that people make arguments that Character A would be top tier if he was available for Y amount of chapters.

And is that used as an argument to raise A, or just as a complaint about what the designers did? Also, where is this argument being used? Can you post some quotes so I can explain the difference (if there is one) to you?

See, it is entirely irrelevant that she may not be deployed if she wasn't forced. There are only 10 slots for units you can choose (aside from the heron). If you don't use Sanaki, you get 10 choices. If you do use Sanaki, you get 10 choices. That should be glaringly obvious. If you start playing with hypotheticals, Leanne should be a tier above Rafiel. Why? She has flying and his early chapters are tight quarters so his 4 vigor vs. her 2 vigor advantage isn't as significant. She can fly over the swamp in 1-8 since Nailah doesn't really need a heron. She has canto and can fly so she has no cost up ledges. If he goes up a ledge he effectively has 3 move. She still has 5. When she transforms late in the chapter she has 6. In 4-1 she has canto, and in 4-4 there's the ledge thing again.

Rafiel? He falls out of the sky in 2-P, no canto in 2-2, can't fly over all the ledges in 2-E so is much less useful, 4-P he could be better than her, 4-3 he has mage movement so he manages 5 move, but still lacks canto and can't fly over the little hills. But there isn't really any point in considering how bad Rafiel is in some of Leanne's chapters and how good she'd be in some of his. If I could have Leanne in all of her own chapters and all of Rafiel's, I'd seriously consider doing so until 4-E. Maybe 4-P I'd choose him, but the rest?

[Candlejack]

Still, the fact remains that she takes up a slot. And the fact ALSO remains that a unit as weak as her still remains on the battlefield, and if you aren't careful, it is likely she gets OHKO'd. In the endgame, you'd expect most of your units to be... well, not OHKO'd. FFS, Sigrun isn't even OHKO'd and her bases are godawful.

[Florete]

Still, the fact remains that she takes up a slot. And the fact ALSO remains that a unit as weak as her still remains on the battlefield, and if you aren't careful, it is likely she gets OHKO'd. In the endgame, you'd expect most of your units to be... well, not OHKO'd. FFS, Sigrun isn't even OHKO'd and her bases are godawful.

If you don't understand this yet, I get the feeling you never will. I don't want to just be mean, but seriously, do you consider yourself good at Fire Emblem at all?