What is efficiency?

[Chiki]

Yeah, but the turns in his formula can vary depending upon the turncounts he wants to aim for.

[Redwall]

There's no problem. I simply choose the one strategy that minimizes <true TC> across the game.

I'll probably make a new topic in the next few days or so to clear up any misconceptions.

Edited June 8, 2013 by Redwall

[XeKr]

inb4 people start complaining about varying contexts. <_<

Edited June 8, 2013 by XeKr

[Chiki]

inb4 people start complaining about varying contexts. <_<

I doubt anyone will. It's just common sense that we have to consider different playthroughs to see how much a unit contributions overall.

Ex: Marcia's presence needs to be missed in playthroughs without her in order for her to be good.

[eclipse]

Efficiency is subjective; thus, trying to objectify it looks silly. Saying that people's opinions don't count in something subjective is equally silly.

[Chiki]

Efficiency is subjective; thus, trying to objectify it looks silly. Saying that people's opinions don't count in something subjective is equally silly.

Sorry, but did you read the thread? I'm actually trying to use people's opinions to come to an arbitrary definition of efficiency. Like a democracy, we vote on how fast we should go.

Edited June 8, 2013 by Chiki

[eclipse]

Sorry, but did you read the thread? I'm actually trying to use people's opinions to come to an arbitrary definition of efficiency. Like a democracy, we vote on how fast we should go.

Sorry, but did you realize you're trying to objectify something that's subjective? If you want to have your own merry definition of efficiency, go for it. Make your own tier list. But do NOT shit on other people's opinions of it.

[The Fush]

I think that some people tend to put efficiency and LTC together, and there's a reason why they're so different:

LTC is exactly what it says on the tin; you go for the lowest turn count possible.

An efficiency playthrough, is one that you make decisions that increase the efficiency of the playthrough. You'll not only want turn count to be briskly paced, this is regarding rescources, expending, grinding length and the structure of your team. There is a lot more flexibility and relaxation in an efficiency playthrough because it's not confining you to the utter limits; so long as everything is going at an allegro pace, you're pretty much fine. LTC, on the other hand, is meant as a challenge, regarding only turn count, and the challenge of using what you can, and what you must use, in order to achieve the lowest possible turn count in every chapter. Something notable is that the rescources you use must also contribute to the use of a low count; for example, using a second seal on the FeMU to make her become a Pegasus Knight and acquire Galeforce and flying mount mobility.

Just throwing that out there.

that feel when I haven't ever done an efficiency or LTC playthrough of anything so I'm a hypocrite for posting this

Edited June 8, 2013 by The Fush

[Chiki]

Sorry, but did you realize you're trying to objectify something that's subjective? If you want to have your own merry definition of efficiency, go for it. Make your own tier list. But do NOT shit on other people's opinions of it.

Erm, I'm trying to consider other people's opinions by trying to have people vote on turn limits for chapters.

And I'm not trying to "objectify" it. To objectify something is to make it testable by science.. voting on turn limits per chapters is not objectification.

[eclipse]

Erm, I'm trying to consider other people's opinions by trying to have people vote on turn limits for chapters.

And I'm not trying to "objectify" it. To objectify something is to make it testable by science.. voting on turn limits per chapters is not objectification.

I could go off on a long spiel about how this could very well turn into a science experiment, but that's for another thread.

You'll have to accept that not everyone will have the same views on what "efficient" is. For example, I'm willing to spend a couple extra turns on Chapter 10 in FE13 for the Master Seal, because half my usable team wants it.

[-Cynthia-]

I personally prefer a mixture of 1 and 2. I want to go as fast as possible, since going fast is good and it really allows us to see the difference between units as much as possible. Units like the Avatar, Morgan and Sumia shine in FE13 whereas units like Sully really drop in usefulness im comparison if we don't assume going as fast as possible. But I also want to establish an arbitrary, widely-agreed upon limit for reliability. For example, a set of actions over, say, 60% reliability is acceptable while we go as quickly as possible. A 4 turn clear, the lowest possible clear while keeping reliability above a certain point, with a 61% chance is preferable over a 5 turn clear with a 90% chance. That is my view.

I think most 'efficiency' players would say that the more reliable clear is better, despite taking an extra turn. Taking 5 turns to improve reliability by 5% isn't a good tradeoff, but one turn for 29% less resetting sounds reasonable.

I think we all know what sorts of behaviors are inefficient- boss abuse, excessive milking of reinforcements, excessive arena use, standing around not trying to clear the map to grind supports/get as much staff exp as possible. It may be wiser to focus on these behaviors rather than the turncount itself.

[Scarlet]

For what it's worth, my idea of efficiency is that I don't want to spend more real time than is necessary to complete the game in my pace - in other words, I don't want to bother resetting. This is not 100% reliability (I don't care too much if I have to take an extra turn because the RNG decides to make me miss an important attack), but I do want a 0% chance of death (or the lowest chance of death that is at all possible - for instance, you can't do much to avoid getting your face torn off by a random crit in the prologue if you're playing FE13 Lunatic) and want to go as fast as possible withhin that constraint.

So if I'm presented with a choice between a 5 turn clear with a 10% chance of death and a 6 turn clear with no chance of death, I will gladly take the 6 turn clear, as I want to avoid resetting at all costs. This rewards units for actually being (or becoming) good combatants, as fast clears with no chance of death are hardly possible without a number of well-trained units. Strategies that rely on ridiculous stuff like "let's have Lon'qu dodge-tank everything at 30 display hit" wouldn't be considered because there's always a significant chance of death involved in those.

[Da Bear]

For what it's worth, my idea of efficiency is that I don't want to spend more real time than is necessary to complete the game in my pace - in other words, I don't want to bother resetting. This is not 100% reliability (I don't care too much if I have to take an extra turn because the RNG decides to make me miss an important attack), but I do want a 0% chance of death (or the lowest chance of death that is at all possible - for instance, you can't do much to avoid getting your face torn off by a random crit in the prologue if you're playing FE13 Lunatic) and want to go as fast as possible withhin that constraint.

So if I'm presented with a choice between a 5 turn clear with a 10% chance of death and a 6 turn clear with no chance of death, I will gladly take the 6 turn clear, as I want to avoid resetting at all costs. This rewards units for actually being (or becoming) good combatants, as fast clears with no chance of death are hardly possible without a number of well-trained units. Strategies that rely on ridiculous stuff like "let's have Lon'qu dodge-tank everything at 30 display hit" wouldn't be considered because there's always a significant chance of death involved in those.

This is great and I agree entirely.

Turns are way overrated anyway imo.

[PKL]

^ In your opinion.

[Baldrick]

For what it's worth, my idea of efficiency is that I don't want to spend more real time than is necessary to complete the game in my pace - in other words, I don't want to bother resetting. This is not 100% reliability (I don't care too much if I have to take an extra turn because the RNG decides to make me miss an important attack), but I do want a 0% chance of death (or the lowest chance of death that is at all possible - for instance, you can't do much to avoid getting your face torn off by a random crit in the prologue if you're playing FE13 Lunatic) and want to go as fast as possible withhin that constraint.

So if I'm presented with a choice between a 5 turn clear with a 10% chance of death and a 6 turn clear with no chance of death, I will gladly take the 6 turn clear, as I want to avoid resetting at all costs. This rewards units for actually being (or becoming) good combatants, as fast clears with no chance of death are hardly possible without a number of well-trained units. Strategies that rely on ridiculous stuff like "let's have Lon'qu dodge-tank everything at 30 display hit" wouldn't be considered because there's always a significant chance of death involved in those.

QFT.

The meaning of efficiency is completely dependent on the opinion of the person. When completing a chapter in the miminum possible amount of turns, and turtling your way through a chapter never facing a chance you will be forced to reset can both be considered the pinacle of efficiency, how can you possibly reach an objective definition?

Edited June 9, 2013 by Baldrick

[The Fush]

QFT.

The meaning of efficiency is completely dependent on the opinion of the person. When completing a chapter in the miminum possible amount of turns, and turtling your way through a chapter never facing a chance you will be forced to reset can both be considered the pinacle of efficiency, how can you possibly reach an objective definition?

Because someone's definition of efficiency will have to link slightly to the dictionary definition, or else what you think it means is (mostly) obsolete. If somebody thinks it's something that isn't even slightly related to the dictionary definition, then what they talking about is, technically, not efficiency, This creates a range of definitons that will always have slight links to each other so that one's opinion can not influence what they're rating/talking about to a degree where all sense is completely lost.

[XeKr]

I'm someone who greatly prefers minimal chance of death as well, when possible. However, it's completely impossible to get 100% strats, particularly when accounting for the RNG in growths.

Do you reject a strategy that relies on dodging a 1% disp hit? 10%? Where's the cutoff of what you deem allowable and not? This is what expected turn count resolves.This is the purpose of using statistics to summarize a wide range of possibilities.

Edited June 9, 2013 by XeKr

[Baldrick]

Because someone's definition of efficiency will have to link slightly to the dictionary definition,

The dictionary definition goes something like "Achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense." Until you define what resources you value (turns, exp, money, real-time, etc.) you cannot reasonably define efficiency.

Do you reject a strategy that relies on dodging a 1% disp hit? 10%?

If it's a one-off thing, sure, it's generally worth the risk. But several small chances of death can add up surprisingly quickly. Having to dodge 6 attacks at 10% hit will mean there's a 47% chance you will have to reset. Resetting is a much bigger deal in real-time efficiency compared to turncount efficiency.

[XeKr]

You’re very right. I only brought up that point to illustrate that players take those kinds of risks all the time. There is no 100% safe strategy.

Obviously there are tons of other stuff at play when you start to discuss real-time efficiency. Honestly should just speedrun. >_>

[Constable Reggie]

Two users have a different idea about how quickly we should play, and about how much we should punish Nowi for not being able to gain levels without spending turns.

Couldn't be further from the truth. Whether Nowi is commonly accepted to get 1 or 2 levels in ch9 is unimportant to me, rather, the sheer bullshit in manipulating the gains [like, only after 15 min too] to further bolster ones "argument", is what is important. This is clearly evident if you actually see the context behind the quote you used, but of course, doing that would only further incriminate yourself.

Use an actual example if you want to make a point.

Edited June 9, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[The Fush]

The dictionary definition goes something like "Achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense." Until you define what resources you value (turns, exp, money, real-time, etc.) you cannot reasonably define efficiency.

But my point is that your final biased definition of efficiency will still have to link to the dictionary definition in some way. It may not be the clearest thing ever, but the link will always have to be there or, as I said, you're technically not talking about efficiency.

[Paper Jam]

But my point is that your final biased definition of efficiency will still have to link to the dictionary definition in some way. It may not be the clearest thing ever, but the link will always have to be there or, as I said, you're technically not talking about efficiency.

Which means that, in order to define "efficiency", you need to define "productivity", "effort", and "expense."

I personally don't see spending a lot of turns on a chapter as being an "effort" or an "expense," and finishing a chapter in as few turns as possible isn't particularly "productive" either, especially if you have to sacrifice some level-ups or assets to do it.

Which means, I guess, that my definition of efficiency is the opposite of LTC.

Heck, even arena abuse can be considered efficient, if you consider one turn to be worth ~60-90 EXP and ~1400-2100 gold (assuming two or three arena fights per turn). (Granted, the Law of Diminishing Returns ensures that eventually you won't.)

[dondon151]

I think we all know what sorts of behaviors are inefficient- boss abuse, excessive milking of reinforcements, excessive arena use, standing around not trying to clear the map to grind supports/get as much staff exp as possible. It may be wiser to focus on these behaviors rather than the turncount itself.

precisely. the abstract definition of efficiency is easy for everyone to grasp. these behaviors have a strong effect on turncount, but do not dictate it absolutely, because there are many other more benign behaviors that may or may not be efficient to everyone that tend to inflate or deflate turncount.

due to the snowball effect of training units, even 1 or 2 extra turns spent in a certain point in the game can lead to drastic differences in unit performance.

[Chiki]

precisely. the abstract definition of efficiency is easy for everyone to grasp

Doesn't seem like it. In the FE13 Lunatic tier list, for example, people can't agree on how fast to go to measure usefulness.

[dondon151]

did you just not read the rest of my post or something, or do you have difficulty with reading comprehension?