3434 replies to this topic

[Paperblade]

The problem the second standard (Formally known as the gross system) ran into was that units who gave a mediocre performance from chapter 1 all the way to final come out better than pre-promotes who join around 3/4th of the way in and are amazing for the whole of their existence, because to account for what could have been accomplished had said mediocre growth unit been replaced with someone else would be to invoke the first standard (Known as the net system). Someone would need to be so bad that trying to use them actively worked against you in absolute terms for availability to not be an unconditional benefit, and that is unlikely to be the case for anyone in this game at least.

How does the idea that each unit has an equal chance of being used (which is technically from a probability perspective) require us to the use the gross system?

A second, much less discussed, problem is that if everyone is equally likely to be in play, then no good reason exists to assume that the lowest turn strategies are being used, because those are premised on the best units being in play. This does not result in units being impossible to tier, because you can still put Titania above Soren for having the potential to help achieve a lower turn count, even if it is up in the air whether that particular turn count with be achieved. However, when comparing Soren to, say, Ilyana, you no reason to assume (Or not to assume) that the preceding chapters were a Titania stomp, because the player, despite the apparent assumption that he/she desires clearing in fewer turns than more whenever possible, is under no obligation to give Titania even a single kill for the entirety of the game. This has profound implications for how fast units in Soren's position can be expected to grow, and it creates a huge number of other problems as well. For example, if an optimal team can clear X chapter in 6 turns with optimal tactics, and a sub-optimal team can clear that same chapter in 8 with equally optimal tactics, and both outcomes are considered acceptable by the list, then why should an 8 turn clear with the optimal team, using sub-optimal tactics, not also be considered an acceptable outcome? Attempts have been made to draw a distinction between "Normal Efficiency" and "Maximum Efficiency", but any dividing line that is drawn is sure to be completely arbitrary.

To be honest I do not see the problem with this.

[Lord Raven]

That changes no arguments at all, though

[GreatEclipse]

How does the idea that each unit has an equal chance of being used (which is technically from a probability perspective) require us to the use the gross system?

To apply opportunity cost to deployment would be to imply that units who contribute most to the goal being pursued are more entitled to a unit slot than others that do not, which is contradictory to the assumption that units are being selected are random. To give an example, if Oscar contributes 84 utility to the team when selected for the 8th available slot, and Rolf contributes 16, then a list that assumes a conscience choice to maximize utility by the player must logically assume Oscar will be selected every time. The only coherent way to make both equally likely to fill that slot is to assume both are equally entitled to the resource, in which case the only fair way to decide how it will be distributed when scarce is through the lottery. Indeed, punishing Rolf for the cost of his deployment should he be selected by the hypothetical RNG would make no sense. That presupposes you could deploy someone else who was not also selected and therefore already on the field, and that would invalidate the whole point of running the lottery.

To be honest I do not see the problem with this.

I assume you mean you do not have problems with the fact that it compromises the stated objective of the list, as the objection that it does not was already responded to. In that case, it only creates a problem in deciding just how fast the player is required to clear.

Why would none of the issues raised affect placement, Lord Raven?

Edited by GreatEclipse, 11 July 2012 - 01:24 AM.

[Snowy_One]

To apply opportunity cost to deployment would be to imply that units who contribute most to the goal being pursued are more entitled to a unit slot than others that do not, which is contradictory to the assumption that units are being selected are random. To give an example, if Oscar contributes 84 utility to the team when selected for the 8th available slot, and Rolf contributes 16, then a list that assumes a conscience choice to maximize utility by the player must logically assume Oscar will be selected every time. The only coherent way to make both equally likely to fill that slot is to assume both are equally entitled to the resource, in which case the only fair way to decide how it will be distributed when scarce is through the lottery. Indeed, punishing Rolf for the cost of his deployment should he be selected by the hypothetical RNG would make no sense. That presupposes you could deploy someone else who was not also selected and therefore already on the field, and that would invalidate the whole point of running the lottery.

But doesn't that also ruin the point of a tier list as well? We can find the means, the manner, and the method to find the nine or so units who contribute the most utility, the lowest turncounts, and such, and then we have no reason to ever remove any of them from the team as doing so results in a sub-optimal team that can't achieve as low a turn count. Why does it matter if Soren is better than Ilyana after all if we have to kick Oscar from the team to do it? What if one of the two is definably better than the other but the rest of the 'optimal' team is simply so STRONG as to make the difference moot? OH NO! ZIHARK IS BETTER THAN MIA AND... neither of them... really help out on the list because Marcia, Jill, and Titania are gonna rapid-clear the entire chapter anyways... Might as well have Rolf be as good as them since they're all sub-optimal and the mega-mounties are gonna blast through the chapter anyways.

Edit: Just in case, what I'm getting from this is that certain units have a high-enough opportunity cost to be assumed to be always deployed. If I have misunderstood, I apologize and will delete this.

Edited by Snowy_One, 11 July 2012 - 05:51 PM.

[Paperblade]

To apply opportunity cost to deployment would be to imply that units who contribute most to the goal being pursued are more entitled to a unit slot than others that do not, which is contradictory to the assumption that units are being selected are random. To give an example, if Oscar contributes 84 utility to the team when selected for the 8th available slot, and Rolf contributes 16, then a list that assumes a conscience choice to maximize utility by the player must logically assume Oscar will be selected every time.

This is circular reasoning. The determining of a unit's utility is how useful they are if they are being used, but if you say "Well Oscar is more efficient than Rolf so Oscar is going to be fielded for our maximum efficiency team therefore Oscar is more efficient" you are being fallacious. Utility is an ends, not a means.

The only coherent way to make both equally likely to fill that slot is to assume both are equally entitled to the resource, in which case the only fair way to decide how it will be distributed when scarce is through the lottery.

The "lottery" in this case is a player who has no preset biases as to which character is better, and is thus equally likely to pick any combination of units for his team.

Indeed, punishing Rolf for the cost of his deployment should he be selected by the hypothetical RNG would make no sense. That presupposes you could deploy someone else who was not also selected and therefore already on the field, and that would invalidate the whole point of running the lottery.

I think you and I disagree on what negative utility is. There are arguments to be made that sometimes fielding a unit can be worse than just fielding no one at all, because attempting to use them causes them to get in the way. That's the negative utility I am talking about.

For example, Rolf's poor defenses and bow lock would cause him to eat enemy phase attacks that would otherwise be suicided onto melee units capable of taking the punishment and retaliating for possibly lethal damage), which hinders your goal (in this case, LTC). Even if you argue "well if you use better tactics to block him off," that is still a disadvantage because the player is being forced to be less flexible to make up for Rolf's shortcomings and his offense and advantages are not great enough to overcome this loss of flexibility.

Technically you can argue that you could have the unit sit in a corner and not do anything but that is not possible in some maps and in the others, it's effectively the same as not fielding them at all.

I assume you mean you do not have problems with the fact that it compromises the stated objective of the list, as the objection that it does not was already responded to. In that case, it only creates a problem in deciding just how fast the player is required to clear.

The objective of current tier lists don't mean anything because no one can agree on what the goal is, so they just selectively apply concepts to fit their biases. Thus I don't see a problem with it contradicting current tier lists.

[Hawk King]

Heres an easy one.

Ranulf > Largo


He joins earlier, has higher movement, and can be used for shove chains.

What significant contributions does Largo possibly have over Ranulf?

[GreatEclipse]

This is circular reasoning. The determining of a unit's utility is how useful they are if they are being used, but if you say "Well Oscar is more efficient than Rolf so Oscar is going to be fielded for our maximum efficiency team therefore Oscar is more efficient" you are being fallacious. Utility is an ends, not a means.

The (hypothetical) numbers 84 and 16 refer to gross utility, not net, and so there is no circularity. The fact that Oscar is a better candidate for the slot is already accounted for, so it is not as if I am simply fielding Oscar while leaving Rolf on the bench and then concluding, based entirely on the fact that Oscar contributed and Rolf did not, that Oscar is better. Rather, if the next-best option for the 8th unit slot has 70 utility, then you maximize the net utility of Oscar by fielding him and maximize it for Rolf by not fielding him. To field Oscar is a net benefit of 14, while fielding Rolf is -54. As such, when comparing someone in the position of Rolf to someone like Bastion, assuming Rolf is regularly fielded and trained before Bastion joins actively works against him compared to leaving him on the bench, because the contributions a superior unit could have made in his place are being subtracted from his performance every time (this is why the net system has repeatedly been abandoned, only for people to start running back to it after a brief experiment with the gross version). The only way around it is to wave the cost of deployment and assume everyone is equally entitled to a slot, which in turn requires a team selected at random for the distribution of slots to be fair.

Though I do feel kind of silly for putting so much thought drawn from real world political economy into this.

The "lottery" in this case is a player who has no preset biases as to which character is better, and is thus equally likely to pick any combination of units for his team.

Which produces the same result, from the perspective of the list, as assuming the whole team save Ike is selected by an RNG. There is no simply no criteria related to the actual performance of the units for deciding who is most likely to be used in that situation.

I think you and I disagree on what negative utility is. There are arguments to be made that sometimes fielding a unit can be worse than just fielding no one at all, because attempting to use them causes them to get in the way. That's the negative utility I am talking about.

For example, Rolf's poor defenses and bow lock would cause him to eat enemy phase attacks that would otherwise be suicided onto melee units capable of taking the punishment and retaliating for possibly lethal damage), which hinders your goal (in this case, LTC). Even if you argue "well if you use better tactics to block him off," that is still a disadvantage because the player is being forced to be less flexible to make up for Rolf's shortcomings and his offense and advantages are not great enough to overcome this loss of flexibility.

Technically you can argue that you could have the unit sit in a corner and not do anything but that is not possible in some maps and in the others, it's effectively the same as not fielding them at all.

I did say in passing that Bastion would still be better if fielding and training Rolf was counter-productive in absolute terms, I just doubted that it would be the case most of the time. The fact that Rolf cannot counter at close range certainly makes him less flexible than he would be otherwise, but teams with multiple bow-locked units are not inherently less flexible on the whole than teams without them, from my experience. Similar to how not every country can be a net exporter, not every unit can clear out a whole room on every enemy phase, and so if you replace someone like Mia with Rolf the team as a whole is likely to get in just as many counter attacks. You need to be fighting enemies with massive attack ranges in large, open areas for it to be a major problem, and the enemies that most ofter applies to are also either weak to arrows or can be countered by them.

[bottlegnomes]

When did Ike get so high?

[kirsche]

Soren has 2-3 more magic than Ilyana. I don't know what your definition of bad is, but that's not much of a difference, especially with forged Thunder tomes.

I do tend to have a habit of exaggerating, but Ilyana's stats are worse and she has no utility to make up for it. The lead is existant, as there are enemies from the get-go that Soren can double that Ilyana can not, and I don't assume spell forges because they are expensive and ultimately not worth it when we should be giving our forges to Oscar/Boyd/Titania that early on (as we can only forge once per chapter, the forge choice is ultimately important and they are doritos for it).

.....Do you assume that the player is only going to be using mounted units in this game? There's no problem fielding one 6 move unit and one 7 move unit in.. any chapter. Also, tier lists don't mean too much when it comes to who we're going to train. For example, Mordecai is an upper-mid tier when he's mainly useful early on and due to his Smite skill.

The majority of the upper mid and above units are there to be trained, and everyone from high and top are definitely there to be trained. Only Mordecai and Mist are not main combatants in the top few tiers.

What significant contributions does Largo possibly have over Ranulf?

Chapter 25 is apparently the only chapter Largo can do well in. The main problem with Ranulf is that he doesn't transform until turn 3 or so, so is out of action for half the chapter.

[Hawk King]

Ranulf can use a demi band. And if he doesnt he can shove until he transforms. In many LTC clears, Ranulf is needed to shove one of your mounts. Largo cant shove any mounts.

Largo has 1 potential Chapter to make contributions. Ranulf joins earlier, can make the same contributions in Chapter 25 that Largo can make, and Ranulf can be used in shove chains.


So.... Ranulf > Largo anyone??

[aku chi]

I don't assume spell forges because they are expensive and ultimately not worth it when we should be giving our forges to Oscar/Boyd/Titania that early on (as we can only forge once per chapter, the forge choice is ultimately important and they are doritos for it).

Chapter 13 is a fine time for a Thunder forge. A Thunder forge at this point is affordable. We've already had 5 iron forge opportunities at this point. We may very well have forges for every beorc combat unit at this point. C13 is a de facto rout, so if a forge enables Soren or Ilyana to ORKO where they would otherwise not, it's helpful. A Thunder forge here is arguably more valuable than an Iron Axe forge for Titania, who can use a Steel Axe to 2HKO most units at high accuracy (the extra +2 Mt from the Iron forge is very situational). A Thunder forge helps Soren more than Ilyana, however, because it can be used to get around his pitiful Str.

Chapter 25 is apparently the only chapter Largo can do well in. The main problem with Ranulf is that he doesn't transform until turn 3 or so, so is out of action for half the chapter.

1) Largo is pretty good in C27, where he can clear out the chokepoint Generals and help get some treasure.
2) Turn 3 (turn 2 if he's attacked) is not a terrible transformation time, but I don't see why we shouldn't consider Ranulf using the Demi Band. Muarim would have to be a very high level indeed to have a notable advantage over Ranulf, so Ranulf is often the best candidate for the Demi Band.

Ranulf can use a demi band. And if he doesnt he can shove until he transforms. In many LTC clears, Ranulf is needed to shove one of your mounts. Largo cant shove any mounts.

Largo has 1 potential Chapter to make contributions. Ranulf joins earlier, can make the same contributions in Chapter 25 that Largo can make, and Ranulf can be used in shove chains.


So.... Ranulf > Largo anyone??

Ranulf cannot make the same contributions as Largo in C25, but he is more valuable in other chapters, so I can see Ranulf > Largo.

[Lord Raven]

When did Ike get so high?

It's a similar (but not as extreme) argument to Celice; he actually needs to be really good for efficient clears, even though he has a lot of weak points (especially early on).

[Olwen]

20 mag Ike > Titania on the tier list.

[Snowy_One]

The lead is existant, as there are enemies from the get-go that Soren can double that Ilyana can not, and I don't assume spell forges because they are expensive and ultimately not worth it when we should be giving our forges to Oscar/Boyd/Titania that early on (as we can only forge once per chapter, the forge choice is ultimately important and they are doritos for it).

Correct me if I'm wrong buuuut...

Hand axes can't be forged until chapter 18, steel weapons until 14. Actual steel weapons, however, can be bought as early as chapter 8 though and a forged iron weapon has about the same MT as a steel weapon. While it's true a steel axe has 15 weight and a steel lance 13 weight, Boyd can wield a steel axe without a AS loss as early as level 15. Oscar at level 18. Titania at level 7. They won't need the steel for the weaker and faster enemies (which iron is more useful against and more durable) so it will only be the stronger enemies that the steel would be used against. Plus, shouldn't Titania be capable of killing most enemies with a normal iron axe anyways?

Basically, is there some huge denomination of mega-tough and speedy non-boss enemies that require Oscar and Boyd to be capable of using steel-level weapons at 0 AS loss before chapter 14-16? That's the only way I can see the demand being so great as to make it so that a mage outright cannot get a forged thunder (as that's the best non-steel forge).

Edit: IMO, Soren vs. Ilyana is quite simple. There is no such thing as negative utility and Soren joins earlier and does the same things Ilyana does. So if Soren's pre-Ilyana chapters are >= 0 than the only way Ilyana can beat Soren is if she can be better for her chapters. Her primary advantages are 1) Higher DEF (moot as neither is durable to be a front-liner. Ilyana *might take one more hit, but that's about it*) 2) More STR (moot for anything other than doubling with a siege tome) 3) Arguably better supports (doesn't really matter even if they ARE better). So, three advantages, three of them moot meaning Ilyana is only *slightly* better if at all during her existence. Point, Soren.

Edited by Snowy_One, 15 July 2012 - 11:14 PM.

[Peekayell]

Ranulf can use a demi band. And if he doesnt he can shove until he transforms. In many LTC clears, Ranulf is needed to shove one of your mounts. Largo cant shove any mounts.

Largo has 1 potential Chapter to make contributions. Ranulf joins earlier, can make the same contributions in Chapter 25 that Largo can make, and Ranulf can be used in shove chains.


So.... Ranulf > Largo anyone??

I agree with this. Demi Band Ranulf can shove/smite promoted Pallies and stuff, hes pretty good.

Edited by Ghost Marcia Drafter, 06 August 2012 - 11:33 AM.

[Dr. Silent]

I'm curious...why is Titania at the very top in a tier all by herself? Is it a joke or have I missed something? I've always found Oscar/Kieran to be much better...except in early chapters obviously.

[Olwen]

I'm curious...why is Titania at the very top in a tier all by herself? Is it a joke or have I missed something? I've always found Oscar/Kieran to be much better...except in early chapters obviously.

Because the earlygame chapters are the most important ones.

On the topic of Titania, do people support me making a new tier list? This is a little outdated for my tastes.

Edited by Aeine, 08 August 2012 - 03:56 PM.

[Ether]

I'm not really an active member of the tiering community anymore, but in the past, if you wanted to make a new list, you were free to, but people may choose to discuss the old one in it's stead depending on their thoughts on the deviations you've made, or something to that effect.

[dondon151]

On the topic of Titania, do people support me making a new tier list? This is a little outdated for my tastes.

or we could just scoot marcia and jill up to top tier and call it a day

[Anouleth]

I'm curious...why is Titania at the very top in a tier all by herself? Is it a joke or have I missed something? I've always found Oscar/Kieran to be much better...except in early chapters obviously.

Oscar and Kieran are a little bit better later on in the game, but Titania is far far better in earlygame.