S Rank Tier List for FE7

[Anouleth]

Why is Merlinus so low? He should at least be in mid because OMG he doesn't take a deployment slot!

[Life]

Honestly, who cares? I'm done taking him seriously. And the other guy who likes to just toss out dumb points for the sake of it.

[GreatEclipse]

That is not my tier list, I only made a few revisions that had been discussed. I do not have an option on Merlinus, to be honest. That fact that he does not consume a slot is certainly a point in his favor, the problem is determining his Gross Value in the first place.

Yes, tier lists are serous business.

Edited April 30, 2010 by GreatEclipse

[CATS]

Uh oh. I thought we were done with the Nino argument. *equips flame shield and popcorn*

[GreatEclipse]

I could not help myself from bringing it up.

If your curious about Hector, he auto-topped after it was realized Matthew had a small but plausible chance of being able to kill the boss in chapter 11 if you dumped all your resources into him during LHM. Hector becomes game-best unit for Tactics on his contributions in that chapter alone. Combine that with his strong overall performance, your "No opportunity cost to deployment" argument, and unlocking 23x, and even Hector vs. Matthew is laughable.

[CATS]

Makes sense to me; it'll probably be us vs the world if we try it here though, so let's not.

[Crimson_Edge]

lol, when I first made that unit slot argument for Hector, it was actually a joke.

Also, the Marcus vs. Raven argument is frankly absurd. Simply hand-waving EXP Rank arguments for Marcus won't work; they exist, and indeed they are pretty significant. The simple reason is this: if you remove Marcus from use in the earlygame, your EXP Rank penalty is gone. Remove Raven from use? The disadvantage still occurs--it's just that another unit is perpetrating it. Marcus is 100% responsible for the EXP gap earlygame. Raven is nowhere close to 100% responsible. Bringing in Tactics on top of this muddles things, and Marcus may well be superior to Raven, but to claim that both suffer the same EXP Rank issues is just ridiculous.

[GreatEclipse]

Raven was never singled out, it was clearly stated than any member on the core team one-rounding late was bad for EXP relative to what you could have gained. It is not true that if you hold back on Raven, another promoted unit is certain to kill in his place. The option to slow down in order to maximize EXP exists and matters.

Marcus is not forced to kill something if you do not want him to. What makes him special is his ability to make significant reductions to early turn counts at the expense of EXP when doing so would be beneficial. The fact that Raven is another promoted unit with high stats among many during his prime makes his net contributions to Tactics insignificant in comparison.

Edited May 1, 2010 by GreatEclipse

[CATS]

lol, when I first made that unit slot argument for Hector, it was actually a joke.

Also, the Marcus vs. Raven argument is frankly absurd. Simply hand-waving EXP Rank arguments for Marcus won't work; they exist, and indeed they are pretty significant. The simple reason is this: if you remove Marcus from use in the earlygame, your EXP Rank penalty is gone. Remove Raven from use? The disadvantage still occurs--it's just that another unit is perpetrating it. Marcus is 100% responsible for the EXP gap earlygame. Raven is nowhere close to 100% responsible. Bringing in Tactics on top of this muddles things, and Marcus may well be superior to Raven, but to claim that both suffer the same EXP Rank issues is just ridiculous.

The point isn't that Raven is 100% responsible for all lost Exp in the lategame. It's that he's 100% responsible for the losses from the kills that he takes. Raven might not be the only one with low Exp gains later on, but the number of kills that he takes and the total loss in Exp from those kills should be similar to what Marcus incurs earlier in the game. Once again:

The other side of the coin is that there's alot more kills to give up on Raven's side. Lategame chapters have higher enemy counts, and with mostly promoted units on the field, they'll be taking a higher percentage of the chapter's kills than just Marcus is taking early on. If there's 35 kills taken by 5 promoted units in a lategame chapter, and 7 kills taken by Marcus in an earlygame chapter, each of the 5 promoted units hurt Exp rank to a similar extent as Marcus in the earlygame chapter. Now if it was something like 7 kills between 5 promoted units during the lategame chapter, I would agree with you, but I don't think that will be the case. And even if it is, you almost certainly sacrificed Tactics if you held your good units back like that.

If Marcus ends up taking more kills early than Raven does late, that only means that the Tactics benefits from those kills outweighed the Exp losses (since, as GE pointed out, the player has complete control over how many kills Marcus takes, and thus he will not use Marcus in a way that produces a net negative), so Marcus still has a good case.

Edited May 1, 2010 by CATS

[GreatEclipse]

You also have the potential to gain far more EXP late than early, in absolute terms. This is the reason I prefer to blow my turn counts out of the water early and make up the EXP later. What I can gain per turn in chapter 13 is tiny compared to what I can get with the proper setup in 28x or 32x.

Are you actually the one responsible for that unit slot argument, Solid? I was certain CATS thought that up. If so, credit should be given when due. I did not fully believe in it until I realized I finally had a chance to dethrone Matthew, and suddenly thought "Great Scott, this is actually valid"!

Edited May 1, 2010 by GreatEclipse

[Crimson_Edge]

The point isn't that Raven is 100% responsible for all lost Exp in the lategame. It's that he's 100% responsible for the losses from the kills that he takes. Raven might not be the only one with low Exp gains later on, but the number of kills that he takes and the total loss in Exp from those kills should be similar to what Marcus incurs earlier in the game. Once again:

Incorrect. Raven is not 100% responsible for the losses he incurs from killing because removing Raven does not remove the negative. It is not necessarily true that without Raven, you will have greater EXP gains. It is undeniably true that without earlygame Marcus, you will have higher EXP gains. Besides, Nino or whoever else can still be used in order to maximize EXP while satisfying Tactics alongside Raven. Raven does not need to be replaced. In the case of Marcus, if you want to maximize EXP, at some point you are going to have to discard him. This is undeniable. There are a number of possible alternatives to Raven, yes, and this reduces his Tactics win--at the same time, it reduces his EXP loss, and by a greater margin (since his combat in the lategame is unsurpassed, or nearly so). If Raven is not used, Sain might be used in his place, and EXP is still hurt--removing Raven did not in itself remove the negative. In the earlygame, if Marcus is not used, there is no EXP-reducing alternative to use in Marcus' place (except Oswin to an extent). If Marcus gains 100% of the proceeds of his Tactics win by virtue of being the solitary unit able to contribute, then Raven also does not incur 100% of the negative of his EXP loss lategame by virtue of being one of many units able to damage it.

My argument is not Raven > Marcus. My argument is only that the EXP reductions are not equivalent. The logic propelling this line of thinking would have us all believe that Guy consumes more Funds than Harken due to existing longer--this is untrue, as in Guy's absence, those weapons would need to be consumed anyway (in order to kill enemies). I will go into much greater detail on this argument if need be. I'm all for absurd notions, but they should at least be logical in their absurdiy, and the idea of Marcus' earlygame EXP hit matching Raven's lategame one simply is not.

And yeah, I came up with the unit slot argument when I was going to do Hector vs. Oswin vs. Zorak. I thought it was a cheap way to win and never posted it, so instead I simply made a joke tier list with Hector at the top here on this forum. Whether or not WJC came up with it independently is another matter.

edit: lawl, GE, you're 4 days younger than I am. That officially makes you the youngest FE debater on FEFF, I believe.

Edited May 1, 2010 by Crimson_Edge

[GreatEclipse]

If Raven is putting his high stats to use, then you are not by definition maximizing EXP. Maximizing EXP on a late chapter would amount to weakening with someone like Dorcas and finishing with someone like Nino at every possible opportunity. If you want to discount kills made simply keeping someone like Nino safe, then you also need to discount Marcus killing something only to keep someone like Eliwood safe. You can use Nino along side Raven and still achieve the tactics requirements. You can also use everyone else along side Marcus early while still gaining EXP.

The main point is that killing vs. not killing is a trade off at all points in the game. We can agree to disagree on this, but repeatedly calling it absurd does not help you. If it is, it should be made obvious by your counter arguments.

I may not be the youngest much longer. I suck massively at official debates, and everything else at FEFF is dead.

Edited May 1, 2010 by GreatEclipse

[Crimson_Edge]

I'm not sure I follow your logic in that passage, and I'm equivalently not sure how it defends the view I was addressing (or the limited scope within which I was addressing it). My point is only that removing Raven does not remove the EXP penalty in the lategame. Removing Marcus does. There is a clear difference here as far as EXP Rank is concerned, Tactics aside.

I've called the argument absurd precisely twice, which I would hardly call "repeatedly." I only use the word absurd at all because I generally agree with your claims, but I think this one is, as others are claiming, hand-waving. Or, if the word absurd does not suit you, try: it does not make sense. It ignores parts of a concept (in this case the concept being more complicated than simple opportunity cost) and tries to apply other parts. I'm having trouble seeing where you're coming from in saying that Raven's penalty to EXP is the exact same as Marcus'. Attempt a playthrough without earlygame Marcus, and then attempt a playthrough without lategame Raven. I will almost guarantee that Raven's playthrough will have higher EXP gains.

Plus, my other point was that Nino replacing Sain would be the same as Nino replacing Raven for EXP, while this isn't true of any other non-Marcus unit in the earlygame.

Edited May 1, 2010 by Crimson_Edge

[CATS]

Incorrect. Raven is not 100% responsible for the losses he incurs from killing because removing Raven does not remove the negative. It is not necessarily true that without Raven, you will have greater EXP gains. It is undeniably true that without earlygame Marcus, you will have higher EXP gains.

In the case of Exp gains, the next best alternative to killing with Raven is to kill with Heath or w/e for much, much more Exp. Taking a kill with Raven prevents this next best alternative from happening. Therefore, in terms of Exp gains, Raven is a net negative. The fact that you can get the same Exp gains as Raven does without using him is meaningless. Opportunity cost is based on the next best alternative, not the next worst alternative. If I want to, I can get really bad Tactics scores without using Nino; "It is not necessarily true that without Nino, you will have a lower turncount." This does not change the fact that using Nino is not good for your Tactics rank.

Besides, Nino or whoever else can still be used in order to maximize EXP while satisfying Tactics alongside Raven. Raven does not need to be replaced.

Unpromoted units in the earlygame are doing the exact same thing relative to Marcus.

If Marcus gains 100% of the proceeds of his Tactics win by virtue of being the solitary unit able to contribute, then Raven also does not incur 100% of the negative of his EXP loss lategame by virtue of being one of many units able to damage it.

Let's say we have Resource Alpha and 10 units. Alpha adds +1 to the value of 9 of the units, and +2 to the value of the tenth unit. When doing comparisons, the tenth unit has a net +1 gain from the existence of Alpha; the performance of the other 9 units is unaffected, as their net contributions go down if given the resource. Let's say we have Resource Alpha and 2 units. Alpha adds +1 to the value of the first unit, and +2 to the value of the second unit. When doing comparisons, the second unit has a net +1 gain from the existence of Alpha; the performance of the first unit is unaffected, as his net contributions go down if given the resource. Let's say we have Resource Alpha and 100 units. You see what I'm getting at; increasing the number of inferior alternatives does not change the way in which opportunity cost affects them.

My argument is not Raven > Marcus. My argument is only that the EXP reductions are not equivalent. The logic propelling this line of thinking would have us all believe that Guy consumes more Funds than Harken due to existing longer--this is untrue, as in Guy's absence, those weapons would need to be consumed anyway (in order to kill enemies). I will go into much greater detail on this argument if need be. I'm all for absurd notions, but they should at least be logical in their absurdiy, and the idea of Marcus' earlygame EXP hit matching Raven's lategame one simply is not.

It might be true that they're not equivalent; it's tough to measure, so it would be difficult for us to be sure that they are equivalent. However, it is clear that the Exp negative for Raven is there and it's significant.

Attempt a playthrough without earlygame Marcus, and then attempt a playthrough without lategame Raven. I will almost guarantee that Raven's playthrough will have higher EXP gains.

Remember that what "will" happen does not erase what could happen. Giving Raven's kills to other promoted units might be better overall because of the Tactics rank, but that does not reduce or eliminate the damage to the Exp rank. Giving Oswin a Speedwing is more beneficial to you than giving it to Erk, so during actual play, that is what will happen. However, Erk would still benefit to some extent from that Speedwing, and when doing comparisons, you would need to account for that fact. Just because you don't see it during gameplay does not mean that it's irrelevant or insignificant.

I've called the argument absurd precisely twice, which I would hardly call "repeatedly." I only use the word absurd at all because I generally agree with your claims, but I think this one is, as others are claiming, hand-waving.

Where is this idea of "hand-waving" coming from? What is being hand-waved? Did someone say Marcus isn't bad for the Exp rank?

[Narga_Rocks]

In the case of Exp gains, the next best alternative to killing with Raven is to kill with Heath or w/e for much, much more Exp. Taking a kill with Raven prevents this next best alternative from happening. Therefore, in terms of Exp gains, Raven is a net negative. The fact that you can get the same Exp gains as Raven does without using him is meaningless. Opportunity cost is based on the next best alternative, not the next worst alternative. If I want to, I can get really bad Tactics scores without using Nino; "It is not necessarily true that without Nino, you will have a lower turncount." This does not change the fact that using Nino is not good for your Tactics rank.

Widen your scope. You are still trying to beat the tactics rank. The next best alternative, should you eliminate Raven, is still going to be a blend of what is good for all the ranks. Hence, the "next best alternative" to letting Raven kill something would not be to let the lowest leveled unit in existence kill that thing. In general, it will probably be some other promoted unit that is good. Not exactly a huge exp sink to let Raven kill it. In the case of early-game Marcus, the "next best alternative" for that kill will be something that isn't promoted. Much higher exp sink.

He isn't actually saying anything about which unit is better overall. Just saying that the "Raven's cost to exp rank = Marcus' cost to exp rank" argument is flawed because of the team structure at the times they are doing stuff.

Where is this idea of "hand-waving" coming from? What is being hand-waved? Did someone say Marcus isn't bad for the Exp rank?

The hand-waving is that somehow Marcus has an equal affect on exp rank to Raven. Or, more accurately, the hand-waving is in how this argument is made.

[GreatEclipse]

I'm not sure I follow your logic in that passage, and I'm equivalently not sure how it defends the view I was addressing (or the limited scope within which I was addressing it). My point is only that removing Raven does not remove the EXP penalty in the lategame. Removing Marcus does. There is a clear difference here as far as EXP Rank is concerned, Tactics aside.

Slowing to a crawl during late chapters to maximize EXP, only one-rounding as a defensive measure, is a completely viable strategy during HHM ranked. I pumped 8 levels into Will during chapter 26, 10 into Rath during chapter 27, and around 20 in total between Dart, Nino and Legault during 28x. The benefits of killing in 1 round as opposed to 2 would have been tiny compared to the EXP that I managed to gain. You claimed that a player that looks to maximize EXP during early chapters will be unable to use Marcus, and this is true. You implied that promoted Raven was different in this respect, however, and that is what I am challenging. Using him to kill even a single enemy for any purpose beyond keeping my units safe would not by definition be maximizing EXP, because that kill could have gone to someone who gains much more.

Attempt a playthrough without earlygame Marcus, and then attempt a playthrough without lategame Raven. I will almost guarantee that Raven's playthrough will have higher EXP gains.

I strongly disagree with this. The purpose of Marcus making significant reductions to turn counts early is so far more EXP can be gained down the line. As I said, what you can potentially gain per turn in chapter 12 or 13 is peanuts relative to what can be achieved later.

Edited May 1, 2010 by GreatEclipse

[Crimson_Edge]

In the case of Exp gains, the next best alternative to killing with Raven is to kill with Heath or w/e for much, much more Exp. Taking a kill with Raven prevents this next best alternative from happening. Therefore, in terms of Exp gains, Raven is a net negative. The fact that you can get the same Exp gains as Raven does without using him is meaningless. Opportunity cost is based on the next best alternative, not the next worst alternative. If I want to, I can get really bad Tactics scores without using Nino; "It is not necessarily true that without Nino, you will have a lower turncount." This does not change the fact that using Nino is not good for your Tactics rank.

Okay? The goal is to S Rank. I'm not comparing earlygame Marcus vs. lategame Raven. I'm only comparing how they affect the EXP Rank, and the easiest way to do that is to measure the rank in the absence of each.

Your assumption is that opportunity cost is based on the next-best alternative. This is false. This is a way only to hand-wave a unit's relative advantage in a rank. Instead, opportunity cost should be based on what occurs in the absence of the item beng measured (Raven, in this case).

On a slightly related point, when greater EXP is desired in the lategaem, that EXP can come from replacing the actions of non-Raven units. This is never the case for earlygame Marcus. There is almost nothing to argue if you simply turn a blind eye to this. Further, as to my other point: there are a handful of units like Nino in the lategame, while there are many such units in the earlygame (compared to Marcus). All possible alternatives should be considered, or at least most (barring ones unlikely to occur).

[Dat Nick]

If your curious about Hector, he auto-topped after it was realized Matthew had a small but plausible chance of being able to kill the boss in chapter 11 if you dumped all your resources into him during LHM.

black knight to top of the list in his own tier

[Narga_Rocks]

black knight to top of the list in his own tier

Right above Edward due to changing a 20+ 1-P into 6 or 7. BK is the only one with a bigger contribution. Brom and Neph need to rise, too, since you can probably finish with just one of them but not as quickly.

[Dat Nick]

Edward's prologue utility is cool and everything but it shouldn't be something that auto High or Tops him.

[Crimson_Edge]

Just to hammer in my previous point: an opportunity cost lesson, kids.

Suppose that I am given a choice between three artifacts of objective worth, with monetary value M and sentimental value S each. The first item is 4 M, 3 S; the second, 2 M, 5 S; and the third, 5 M, 1 S.

Now suppose I believe that the S-value of the last item is too low, and I want to measure the opportunity cost of picking the last option on S. By your logic, you would say that this is 4 S, because the best alternative for S is the second option. But this is only the case if the second option is actually chosen. What if I want to maximize my S, but I want M to be higher than S? Then, if I am restricted from choosing the third option, I clearly am going to go for the first, and not the second. So the actual opportunity cost of choosing the third option in terms of S is 2, not 4. Opportunity cost is based on choices that will actually be made, not theoretically maximal options that won't be exercised.

Now replace money with Tactics and sentimentality with EXP, and you'll see what I mean.

Edited May 2, 2010 by Crimson_Edge

[Narga_Rocks]

Just to hammer in my previous point: an opportunity cost lesson, kids.

Suppose that I am given a choice between three artifacts of objective worth, with monetary value M and sentimental value S each. The first item is 4 M, 3 S; the second, 2 M, 5 S; and the third, 5 M, 1 S.

Now suppose I believe that the S-value of the last item is too low, and I want to measure the opportunity cost of picking the last option on S. By your logic, you would say that this is 4 S, because the best alternative for S is the second option. But this is only the case if the second option is actually chosen. What if I want to maximize my S, but I want M to be higher than S? Then, if I am restricted from choosing the third option, I clearly am going to go for the first, and not the second. So the actual opportunity cost of choosing the third option in terms of S is 2, not 4. Opportunity cost is based on choices that will actually be made, not theoretically maximal options that won't be exercised.

Now replace money with Tactics and sentimentality with EXP, and you'll see what I mean.

Which is why the next best alternative when talking about the exp that Raven costs us is probably not going to be "Heath or w/e". It's probably some random promoted unit that isn't quite as good as Raven but is a few levels lower so it may get a little more exp than Raven would. Not nearly the difference between Marcus and the "next best alternative" in early game because there are no other promoted units running around. It is likely that only options 2 and 3 exist in the early game and Marcus is #3 and thus costs a lot of S. Which is pretty much what I said earlier, only I didn't go into definitional explanations of why what I said applies.

[CATS]

Widen your scope. You are still trying to beat the tactics rank. The next best alternative, should you eliminate Raven, is still going to be a blend of what is good for all the ranks. Hence, the "next best alternative" to letting Raven kill something would not be to let the lowest leveled unit in existence kill that thing. In general, it will probably be some other promoted unit that is good. Not exactly a huge exp sink to let Raven kill it. In the case of early-game Marcus, the "next best alternative" for that kill will be something that isn't promoted. Much higher exp sink.

He isn't actually saying anything about which unit is better overall. Just saying that the "Raven's cost to exp rank = Marcus' cost to exp rank" argument is flawed because of the team structure at the times they are doing stuff.

Absolutely. The problem here is that we're talking in terms of Exp gains and Exp rank, not ranks overall. Letting Sain kill instead of Heath is better for Tactics, worse for Exp, and arguably better for ranks overall. Notice that it's still worse for Exp, in spite of being better for the ranks overall. It's inaccurate to say that, because Tactics is more important than Exp, the action is not detrimental to Exp. It is detrimental to Exp; it's simply that the Exp cost is justified and outweighed by the benefits in other areas. But simply because the benefits outweigh the cost, does not mean that the cost isn't there.

Okay? The goal is to S Rank. I'm not comparing earlygame Marcus vs. lategame Raven. I'm only comparing how they affect the EXP Rank, and the easiest way to do that is to measure the rank in the absence of each.

And that's inaccurate. You can't consider only the choices are actually made, for reasons outlined above. If I'm comparing Erk and Oswin, I can't assume that Oswin gets a Speedwing and Erk doesn't, ignoring the possibility for the Speedwing to go to Erk, on the basis that that's what the player will do when actually playing the game. Similarly, you can't ignore the option for Heath or Dart to take a kill over Sain or Raven, on the basis that this isn't what will actually happen during gameplay. This mentality ignores opportunity cost.

Your assumption is that opportunity cost is based on the next-best alternative. This is false. This is a way only to hand-wave a unit's relative advantage in a rank. Instead, opportunity cost should be based on what occurs in the absence of the item beng measured (Raven, in this case).

Why isn't opportunity cost based on the next best alternative?

Just to hammer in my previous point: an opportunity cost lesson, kids.

Suppose that I am given a choice between three artifacts of objective worth, with monetary value M and sentimental value S each. The first item is 4 M, 3 S; the second, 2 M, 5 S; and the third, 5 M, 1 S.

Now suppose I believe that the S-value of the last item is too low, and I want to measure the opportunity cost of picking the last option on S. By your logic, you would say that this is 4 S, because the best alternative for S is the second option. But this is only the case if the second option is actually chosen. What if I want to maximize my S, but I want M to be higher than S? Then, if I am restricted from choosing the third option, I clearly am going to go for the first, and not the second. So the actual opportunity cost of choosing the third option in terms of S is 2, not 4. Opportunity cost is based on choices that will actually be made, not theoretically maximal options that won't be exercised.

Now replace money with Tactics and sentimentality with EXP, and you'll see what I mean.

This is exactly the same as Narga's point, so my response is the same.

[Anouleth]

Right above Edward due to changing a 20+ 1-P into 6 or 7. BK is the only one with a bigger contribution. Brom and Neph need to rise, too, since you can probably finish with just one of them but not as quickly.

Probably Brom. Nephenee isn't durable enough to solo her chapter.

I don't think it's possible to beat 1-1 without Nolan either. You can hole up near the beginning with just Edward/Micaiah/Leonardo, but I honestly doubt whether the chapter can be beaten in 10 turns, especially if Edward is screwedout of his speed point.

[-Cynthia-]

I remember Mekkah posting a general consideration that being better against more enemies is better than being good against less enemies, which favors being good in later chapters as opposed to being good in earlier chapters.