Fire Emblem Genesis

screw playing, i want to argue about it on the internet


You are not connected. Please login or register

Misconception about opportunity cost

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 Misconception about opportunity cost on Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:36 am

Lately I've seen a few users make the statement "giving unit a resource has no opportunity cost" or "does giving unit a resource have no opportunity cost?" or something similar in that vein.

Every action has an opportunity cost (i.e. there is no such thing as a free lunch). Yes, there is an opportunity cost even for the most optimal decision, and the opportunity cost of that is equivalent to the value of the next best decision, and the next best decision only. The reason for this is because the value of each succeeding less optimal decision is already included in the value of the next best decision, and counting each of them separately would involve double-counting.

For example, the opportunity cost of Sedgar going general is the value of Sedgar going hero. The opportunity cost of Merric getting the chapter 8 Master Seal is the value of Barst getting that Master Seal (assuming that Barst is second best with that promotion).

The opportunity cost of Gatrie getting the 3-3 Master Crown is the value of Titania getting that Master Crown (assuming that Titania is second best with that promotion), not the combined value of Soren getting the crown, Oscar getting the crown, Shinon getting the crown, Haar getting crown, etc. These are certainly existent costs and should probably be mentioned, but they are already encompassed in the value attributed to Titania getting the crown.

Being the most optimal decision means that you have no negative economic profit, not that you have no opportunity cost. I see a few of you throwing these words around interchangeably, but they don't mean the same thing.

View user profile

2 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:59 pm

Points for not directly mentioning me.

View user profile

3 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Wed Dec 02, 2009 3:02 pm

Yeah... We kind of went over this in the Jill thread for the RD tier list.

View user profile

4 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Wed Dec 02, 2009 3:55 pm

Even Narga and Int are aware of opportunity costs, and if this isn't being directed at them, I truly have no idea what the point in this topic is since this is common knowledge to anybody.

Unless you still think the price of "hay we can't have a bunch of dumbshit awful generic mages since the only other two half-decent ones at this point are Maric and Wendell, and we have slots for them too" for Mage Shiida is still worth complaining about. And complaining about it when it doesn't prove my point wrong is stupid either way.

View user profile

5 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:07 pm

I don't like the pejorative tone of your post, son.

View user profile

6 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:13 pm

I wasn't implying anything about it.

I was trying to illustrate that if he wasn't complaining about you two, who would be the only people TO complain about opportunity costs, and since (in my eyes) you two do have a decent grasp on things, then what on earth is the purpose of this topic? To tell everybody here something they should already know?

View user profile

7 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Wed Dec 02, 2009 5:10 pm

sPortsman wrote:Even Narga and Int are aware of opportunity costs, and if this isn't being directed at them, I truly have no idea what the point in this topic is since this is common knowledge to anybody.

Unless you still think the price of "hay we can't have a bunch of dumbshit awful generic mages since the only other two half-decent ones at this point are Maric and Wendell, and we have slots for them too" for Mage Shiida is still worth complaining about. And complaining about it when it doesn't prove my point wrong is stupid either way.


No, the cost is that she isn't a pegasus or whatever her next best class is. If she is worse in her first map or two of mage then she'd be in her original class, that is a cost. There are a lot of things that are costs. Some large, some not. Some aren't relevant. Some are.

View user profile

8 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Wed Dec 02, 2009 5:11 pm

No, the cost is that she isn't a pegasus or whatever her next best class is.

But Mage Shiida is BETTER than Pegasus on 6x.

View user profile

9 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Wed Dec 02, 2009 6:17 pm

sPortsman wrote:Even Narga and Int are aware of opportunity costs, and if this isn't being directed at them, I truly have no idea what the point in this topic is since this is common knowledge to anybody.

Apparently it's not, because otherwise I wouldn't hear people throw around statements like "this has no opportunity cost." There is always an opportunity cost.

sPortsman wrote:Unless you still think the price of "hay we can't have a bunch of dumbshit awful generic mages since the only other two half-decent ones at this point are Maric and Wendell, and we have slots for them too" for Mage Shiida is still worth complaining about. And complaining about it when it doesn't prove my point wrong is stupid either way.

I don't make topics pretending to lecture the rest of the uninformed community because I'm butthurt about having one of my arguments dismissed or defeated. I didn't create this topic because I have a secret agenda of PK Shiida > mage Shiida; I created this topic because people weren't applying key terms correctly in numerous circumstances across different games.

sPortsman wrote:But Mage Shiida is BETTER than Pegasus on 6x.

See, this statement demonstrates my point. Even the best decisions have an opportunity cost. Decisions with a positive economic profit still have a cost associated to them; namely, it's normal profit - opportunity cost.

study (Edited by: Vykan12. Removed a stab at smash.)

View user profile

10 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Wed Dec 02, 2009 6:45 pm

See, this statement demonstrates my point. Even the best decisions have an opportunity cost.

The fact that we can't deploy Generic Mages in 6x ASSUMING Merric is going Mage that chapter is something so small nobody in their right mind would give less than two shits about it.

So why even bring it up? Even if there is a cost, who gives a shit?

View user profile

11 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:29 pm

Dondon's point applies to any game, not just this FEDS comparison. Also, based on Dondon's OP, we should really only be discussing economic profit when talking about resource allocation.

Best usage of speedwing - 2nd best = small economic profit, or a small advantage for some unit in a comparison against someone else.

5th best usage - best = relatively large economic loss, so it wouldn't be worth considering the 5th best unit with a speedwing unless the other 4 units aren't in play or something.

Also, if you compare two characters, there's no point giving one unit a resource they use best and give the other nothing. That's giving the first unit the full advantage of the normal profit instead of the much smaller economic profit. Though, doing it this way makes economic profit an abstract advantage...

View user profile

12 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:54 am

sPortsman wrote:The fact that we can't deploy Generic Mages in 6x ASSUMING Merric is going Mage that chapter is something so small nobody in their right mind would give less than two shits about it.

So why even bring it up? Even if there is a cost, who gives a shit?
Is this the only example you can think of? What about in other games where a stat booster or promotion item, for example, is highly contested and there is no clear cut distinction between the best and the second best? In that case, people would care about the opportunity cost, and we can't have a mixed standard where in some cases we give opportunity cost the treatment it deserves and in other cases we pretend like it doesn't exist.

View user profile

13 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:53 am

Even if more valuable resources have a higher opportunity cost, what difference does it make? If we distribute resources such as to produce an economic profit in each case, then the opportunity cost would be irrelevant. It just means using a resource un-optimally (given whatever team is in play) would have a larger negative effect, but said negative effect will never occur.

View user profile

14 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:15 am

The thing is, we don't know for sure which opportunity cost is greater, and therefore which would yield greater returns. In that case, we can't just dismiss opportunity costs.

View user profile

15 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:50 am

dondon151 wrote:
sPortsman wrote:The fact that we can't deploy Generic Mages in 6x ASSUMING Merric is going Mage that chapter is something so small nobody in their right mind would give less than two shits about it.

So why even bring it up? Even if there is a cost, who gives a shit?
Is this the only example you can think of? What about in other games where a stat booster or promotion item, for example, is highly contested and there is no clear cut distinction between the best and the second best? In that case, people would care about the opportunity cost, and we can't have a mixed standard where in some cases we give opportunity cost the treatment it deserves and in other cases we pretend like it doesn't exist.

The thing is, no matter which way you try to present it, trying to weigh the cost of a stat booster or a promotion item against oh noes we can't field dumbshit useless generic mages is...well, stupid. In the stat booster case people would actually care about the opportunity cost because the negative effects of it are obvious enough to be seen, yes. If there's a disadvantage to not being able to field generic mage units in one chapter, it's so small not even a microscope can see it, so why waste your time pointing it out, especially when it doesn't change the validity of my argument?

View user profile

16 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:12 am

My argument for PK Shiida > mage Shiida is simply that what you gain from going mage is less that what you lose from not going PK; it has nothing to do whatsoever with being or not being able to use generic mages. I don't even recall myself arguing specifically against Shiida going mage for chapter 6x; you seem to be the one fabricating the argument out of thin air just so you can defeat it (i.e. strawmanning).

View user profile

17 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:28 am

Mekkah

avatar
Admin
i'm not seeing what the problem is anyway.

okay we'll take into account the opportunity costs of everything...but the only ones we are not taking into account yet are so small that they do not change any tier positions.

View user profile http://fegenesis.forummotion.com

18 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Thu Dec 03, 2009 4:01 pm

I don't even recall myself arguing specifically against Shiida going mage for chapter 6x

*flashback to Serenes a week or two ago*

Me: 6x is the perfect time to put Shiida on mage, there's nothing she can Wing spear so she performs better in that chapter
You: lol opportunity cost

I can draw no other conclusion from there being an opportunity cost EXCEPT Generic mages. And don't try to say you didn't say this either, I'll link to the thread if I have to.

View user profile

19 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Thu Dec 03, 2009 4:10 pm

Guys! This argument is tearing us all apart! We've got to stop before everyone's friendships are destroyed!

View user profile

20 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:08 pm

sPortsman wrote:*flashback to Serenes a week or two ago*

Me: 6x is the perfect time to put Shiida on mage, there's nothing she can Wing spear so she performs better in that chapter
You: lol opportunity cost

I can draw no other conclusion from there being an opportunity cost EXCEPT Generic mages. And don't try to say you didn't say this either, I'll link to the thread if I have to.
I'm looking back at the topic, and I can say for sure that I wasn't arguing PK Shiida > mage Shiida in chapter 6x. I was merely pointing out that your statement "there is no cost for mage in 6x" is untrue because there is no such thing as a free lunch.

And in case you're wondering exactly what the opportunity cost of mage Shiida is, it is 2 move, flying, lance rank, and HP/def (mage Shiida risks being OHKO'd in that chapter).

If you're honestly that confused about why opportunity cost always exists, look up "there is no such thing as a free lunch" on Wikipedia. The concept of an always present opportunity cost is a key concept of economics, and it would frankly be stupid if we overlooked that here.

View user profile

21 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:17 pm

"there is no cost for mage in 6x" is untrue because

Outside of onoes mage slots, explain how it's untrue.

it is 2 move, flying

It's FEDS. Move is not wholly relevant. Especially not for somebody like Shiida who will get raepd if she zooms out too far.


Losing Lance rank isn't a problem if you won't be using them anymore.

and HP/def (mage Shiida risks being OHKO'd in that chapter)

8/0 Mage Shiida: 19 HP, 5 def

That's only a bit more than a level a chapter for her, too, so it's perfectly fair. This Shiida is only OHKOd by Steel Axe Pirates at their maximum power. And Peg Shiida would have to eat a counter or do piss poor damage otherwise by attacking them, which is more than a fair trade.

If you're honestly that confused about why opportunity cost always exists, look up "there is no such thing as a free lunch" on Wikipedia. The concept of an always present opportunity cost is a key concept of economics, and it would frankly be stupid if we overlooked that here.

My best friend Billy Joe Jim Bob gave me a bolonga sandwich and a chocolate milk when I was at work today. Now, Billy Joe Jim Bob had to buy the Bolonga, the Bread, and the Chocolate milk, and the manufacturers had to hire the workers to make those things, and the people at Colonel M's grocery store had to pay him and everybody else who works there to check out Billy Joe Jim Bob and his bolonga, bread, and chocolate milk, plus the shit about packaging, but quite frankly the only thing I give two shits about is that I'm getting a bolonga sandwich and a chocolate milk and I didn't have to pay a goddamn thing for it.

In other words, Mage Shiida is my Bolonga sandwich and chocolate milk, and Peg Shiida is the rest of the cash that I don't have to pay for, and thus I don't give a shit.

The concept of an always present opportunity cost is a key concept of economics

I'm not going to debate with you about whether or not there's an opportunity cost, because even if there is one for this scenario, I don't give a shit, because, as earlier stated, and as I just supported, it's so small you can't even see it with a microscope. In the rest of the cases, we know there's opportunity costs and it's always considered when it's relevant (BAW GUYS SAMSON BLOCKS ME OUT OF ARRAN THE HALBERDIER AND HIS ONLY GOOD FOR BISHOPNESS WHEN I HAVE LIKE 20000 GUYS WITH D STAVES OR BETTER ALREADY) Smash has only been fighting Int and Narga on the Doritos system since the dawn of time, and even Int and Narga who proposed the system have a perfect grasp on the cost. You're doing the exact same thing "smish phonetic" did when he made the "PCs need to be compared vs themselves, not enemies" topic, whether you're aware of it or not. Whether you came in here with the Shiida shit on your mind or not I don't know or I don't care, but you might as well just have posted "2+2=4" because there is not a single person on this forum who will dispute that there is an opportunity cost involved in giving Ogma a Secret Book.

And I want to close with we don't need to be lectured on opportunity cost every goddamn time one comes up. Suppose for some reason Samson was discovered to be loads better than we all first assumed he was without favoritism through some master strategic, foolproof way around his crap durability to the point where he could go all the way to Lower Mid.

I'd whack the first person who countered a gigantic argument like that (which will never exist, btw) with "BUH HE BLOCKS OUT TEH ARRAN" across the face with a ten foot trout, because we don't need whole, concise arguments like that being shit on by somebody bringing up a irrelevant/borderline irrelevant cost of Samson being in play that doesn't change the reality of the situation one bit, which is still what I feel you did on Serenes.

study

(Edited by: Vykan12. Removed a comment that was insulting Dondon's purpose of the topic.)



Last edited by sPortsman on Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:37 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile

22 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:35 pm

study

(Edited by: Vykan12. Please do not make purely obnoxious posts).

View user profile

23 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:52 pm

sPortsman wrote:Outside of onoes mage slots, explain how it's untrue.
Because you're trading the advantages of PK for the advantages of mage? If you can prove that a mage is a better PK, then the only opportunity cost would be mage slots, but I seriously doubt that you can prove that.

I'm not going to bother continuing the Shiida discussion because that's not the point of this topic, even though you adamantly insist that it is. If anything, you're the one with the smash fanatic lecture hat, not me, because you're the one who suddenly decided that Shiida needs to go mage instead of PK in this topic. I didn't have a certain unit or scenario in mind when I decided to write this topic; I started it solely because people were misusing and/or misunderstanding the term "opportunity cost" as it applies to economics.

When it gets through to some of you (not going to point fingers here) that "something has no opportunity cost" and "something has positive economic profit because revenue exceeds opportunity cost" are not equivalent statements, I will be satisfied.

sPortsman wrote:My best friend Billy Joe Jim Bob gave me a bolonga sandwich and a chocolate milk when I was at work today. Now, Billy Joe Jim Bob had to buy the Bolonga, the Bread, and the Chocolate milk, and the manufacturers had to hire the workers to make those things, and the people at Colonel M's grocery store had to pay him and everybody else who works there to check out Billy Joe Jim Bob and his bolonga, bread, and chocolate milk, plus the shit about packaging, but quite frankly the only thing I give two shits about is that I'm getting a bolonga sandwich and a chocolate milk and I didn't have to pay a goddamn thing for it.
What about the time that you spent eating that sandwich and drinking that milk? That's a cost that you paid and forgot to consider.

sPortsman wrote:I'm not going to debate with you about whether or not there's an opportunity cost, because even if there is one for this scenario, I don't give a shit, because, as earlier stated, and as I just supported, it's so small you can't even see it with a microscope.
That's fine if you don't give a shit, just say "there is a positive economic profit" instead of "there is no opportunity cost" because there is always an opportunity cost.

sPortsman wrote:And I want to close with we don't need to be lectured on opportunity cost every goddamn time one comes up.
It is exactly for the reason that you guys don't need to be lectured on opportunity cost every time it comes up that I made this topic. Imagine how much effort it would require on my (and probably Narga/Int's) part to do that every time when I can just kill every bird with one stone.

To summarize: use the fucking words right.

study (Edited by: Vykan12. Removed a cynical comment related to strawmanning.)

View user profile

24 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:35 pm

Because you're trading the advantages of PK for the advantages of mage? If you can prove that a mage is a better PK, then the only opportunity cost would be mage slots, but I seriously doubt that you can prove that.

I did prove that. I proved it just now. For one chapter maybe, but one chapter was what the argument was about on Serenes anyway.

When it gets through to some of you (not going to point fingers here) that "something has no opportunity cost" and "something has positive economic profit because revenue exceeds opportunity cost" are not equivalent statements, I will be satisfied.

No, I'm going to ask that you DO point fingers here, because I question the membership privileges of anybody who doesn't understand that statement, on top of the fact I've seen nobody doing this and I follow pretty much every post here [okay I mostly skim the FE10 shit]

Also. Louie and Klark are two people wandering in the desert. Louie finds a stray canteen, Klark is ecstatic. Louie puts his lips to the canteen to drink, only to discover that there is a single drop left in it. Louie turns to Klark and says "Don't get excited, Klark, it's empty."

Louie didn't necessarily mean it was empty, did he?

That's fine if you don't give a shit, just say "there is a positive economic profit" instead of "there is no opportunity cost" because there is always an opportunity cost.

As soon as you admit that bringing up "We need to field Midia to recruit Astram" is not necessarily un-synonymous with "wasting everybody's fucking time". The same thing applies with acknowledging "Refuting an argument for Dolph up because he blocks out Tomas" is very well associated with "acting like a complete asshat".

It is exactly for the reason that you guys don't need to be lectured on opportunity cost every time it comes up that I made this topic. Imagine how much effort it would require on my (and probably Narga/Int's) part to do that every time when I can just kill every bird with one stone.

This isn't SF. n00bs don't just join and make an illogical objection to the tier list every other Tuesday. Every user registered here is well informed of intricacies of this issue, and that's why I stand by my statement that this topic accomplishes nothing.

study

(Edited by: Vykan12. I removed Dondon's strawman comment earlier, so by extension I don't see any reason to keep Sportsman's response to it. I'm sure you're both aware of what the word means, so quit flaming each other.)

View user profile

25 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:19 pm

sPortsman wrote:I did prove that. I proved it just now. For one chapter maybe, but one chapter was what the argument was about on Serenes anyway.
No, you didn't. You didn't prove that mages have 8 move and ignore terrain. You didn't prove that they have the same durability as PKs. You didn't prove that they hit from 1-2 range at least as hard as PK hits from 1 range with their strongest weapon.

sPortsman wrote:No, I'm going to ask that you DO point fingers here, because I question the membership privileges of anybody who doesn't understand that statement, on top of the fact I've seen nobody doing this and I follow pretty much every post here [okay I mostly skim the FE10 shit]
OK, I will.

BB, FEDS tier list on SF wrote:
In case you still haven't been paying attention, there is no cost for Mage in C6x because the Wing spear is completely useless in that chapter. From there it's just another half chapter of being stuck at E Tomes.
You explicitly state that there is no cost associated with a certain decision when there always is.

Ninji, FE10 tier list on SF wrote:
The whole "let's give Jill the robe cost free" thing, though? Not as pointless.
Ninji was either purposely misrepresenting the opposition or just didn't understand that they (kirsche, Ether) never said anything about the Angelic Robe having no cost.

smash fanatic, unit A + team etc. thread on SF wrote:
A real life example is RD Mia vs anyone. What happens is that Mia gets multiple resources thrown on her without anyone batting an eye, while failing to realize that other units could use those resources.
smash also represented the opposition as believing that there is no opportunity costs associated with certain decisions.

sPortsman wrote:If that's how low you're willing to sink [I eat faster than the normal person, btw], fuck it, I'm not continuing that point.
You bothered listing all of the meaningless costs that don't directly pertain to you, and then brush off the one that does? A cost is a cost, even if it's small.

sPortsman wrote:I didn't take nor distort any of your words regarding the issue of how they came to be posted on this forum, I read them and formed my own opinion upon the reasoning of how they came to exist. That isn't a strawman. I'm sure there's some word to describe my actions, but it's not strawman.
Of course you did. Some examples:

sPortsman wrote:As soon as you admit that bringing up "We need to field Midia to recruit Astram" is not necessarily un-synonymous with "wasting everybody's fucking time". The same thing applies with acknowledging "Refuting an argument for Dolph up because he blocks out Tomas" is very well associated with "acting like a complete asshat".
Not what I said (i.e. strawman), especially the last part. First, the opportunity cost of fielding Dolph isn't not being able to field Tomas, because Tomas is clearly not the next best option. Second, assuming that this argument was actually consistent with the definition of opportunity cost, Dolph would still have positive economic profit and would still move up. Third, acknowledging that there is an opportunity cost doesn't automatically imply that the cost is greater than the revenue.

sPortsman wrote:Unless you still think the price of "hay we can't have a bunch of dumbshit awful generic mages since the only other two half-decent ones at this point are Maric and Wendell, and we have slots for them too" for Mage Shiida is still worth complaining about. And complaining about it when it doesn't prove my point wrong is stupid either way.
Not only did I not bring up Shiida at all in this topic, but that isn't even what I regard the opportunity cost as. But it's a convenient statement for your to refute, so it's a strawman.

sPortsman wrote:Me: 6x is the perfect time to put Shiida on mage, there's nothing she can Wing spear so she performs better in that chapter
You: lol opportunity cost

I can draw no other conclusion from there being an opportunity cost EXCEPT Generic mages. And don't try to say you didn't say this either, I'll link to the thread if I have to.
What I said in that topic wasn't aimed at refuting anything, but you portray it as if it did. Furthermore, this post was after I said that generic mages had nothing to do with anything, but you keep on going with it anyway.

sPortsman wrote:I'd whack the first person who countered a gigantic argument like that (which will never exist, btw) with "BUH HE BLOCKS OUT TEH ARRAN" across the face with a ten foot trout, because we don't need whole, concise arguments like that being shit on by somebody bringing up a irrelevant/borderline irrelevant cost of Samson being in play that doesn't change the reality of the situation one bit, which is still what I feel you did on Serenes.
Not what I'm saying. Even if you only consider the costs when they're relevant, irrelevant costs still exist and it would be incorrect to say that there are no costs. It would suffice to say, you know, that the costs are irrelevant.

That's 4 examples.

sPortsman wrote:This isn't SF. n00bs don't just join and make an illogical objection to the tier list every other Tuesday. Every user registered here is well informed of intricacies of this issue, and that's why I stand by my statement that this topic accomplishes nothing.
Most are, but I just listed 3 examples of posts that didn't demonstrate understanding of the concept.

View user profile

26 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:37 pm

You explicitly state that there is no cost associated with a certain decision when there always is.

Because there is no cost for a unit sucking less if it requires a unit taking a class it already has. Also, I'd advise you read the story I posted about Louie and Klark.


No, you didn't. You didn't prove that mages have 8 move and ignore terrain. You didn't prove that they have the same durability as PKs. You didn't prove that they hit from 1-2 range at least as hard as PK hits from 1 range with their strongest weapon.

It's FEDS. Move is not wholly relevant. Especially not for somebody like Shiida who will get raepd if she zooms out too far.



Losing Lance rank isn't a problem if you won't be using them anymore.

and HP/def (mage Shiida risks being OHKO'd in that chapter)



8/0 Mage Shiida: 19 HP, 5 def

That's only a bit more than a level a chapter for her, too, so it's perfectly fair. This Shiida is only OHKOd by Steel Axe Pirates at their maximum power. And Peg Shiida would have to eat a counter or do piss poor damage otherwise by attacking them, which is more than a fair trade.

Yes, I did.

You bothered listing all of the meaningless costs that don't directly pertain to you, and then brush off the one that does? A cost is a cost, even if it's small.

I wanted to refute that one anyway, because I came up with a better counter.

I didn't have time to eat breakfast because I was running late to work and I didn't have time to pack a lunch at the time Billy Joe Jim Bob offers me his own lunch. I certainly don't give a fuck about having to take 2 minutes to eat.

study

(Edited by: Vykan12. Removed Sportsman quoting one of his own earlier comments that had been moderated.)

View user profile

27 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:39 pm

smash also represented the opposition as believing that there is no opportunity costs associated with certain decisions.

I'm pretty sure that smash had a problem with the argument used to trivialize the opportunity cost rather than the idea of opportunity cost itself.

Edit: And I don't see how what he's supposedly doing as any different than what you're doing now.

View user profile

28 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:47 pm

Dondon and sportsman, keep it civil. I already have to clean up a lot of your recent posts as is.

View user profile

29 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:01 pm

Yeah, the only one that should allowed to gratuitously insult people is Interceptor.

View user profile

30 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:13 pm

By the way, as I understand it, here are Dondon's and Sportsman's stances.

Dondon: Everything has an opportunity cost.
Sportsman: Some opportunity costs are so negligible that nobody cares about them.

I don't know anything about FE11, but if making Shiida a mage in 6x has a positive economic profit, and people recognize her class change has an opportunity cost of some magnitude (however small it may be), then what are you guys even arguing about?

View user profile

31 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:26 pm

sPortsman wrote:
You explicitly state that there is no cost associated with a certain decision when there always is.

Because there is no cost for a unit sucking less if it requires a unit taking a class it already has. Also, I'd advise you read the story I posted about Louie and Klark.
I'm assuming your story is meant to show that sometimes hyperbole is used to get a point across?



No, you didn't. You didn't prove that mages have 8 move and ignore terrain. You didn't prove that they have the same durability as PKs. You didn't prove that they hit from 1-2 range at least as hard as PK hits from 1 range with their strongest weapon.

It's FEDS. Move is not wholly relevant. Especially not for somebody like Shiida who will get raepd if she zooms out too far.



Losing Lance rank isn't a problem if you won't be using them anymore.

and HP/def (mage Shiida risks being OHKO'd in that chapter)



8/0 Mage Shiida: 19 HP, 5 def

That's only a bit more than a level a chapter for her, too, so it's perfectly fair. This Shiida is only OHKOd by Steel Axe Pirates at their maximum power. And Peg Shiida would have to eat a counter or do piss poor damage otherwise by attacking them, which is more than a fair trade.

Yes, I did.
Nope. You may have proved utility of mage > utility of pk, but that doesn't prove that a mage makes a better pk than a pk. Maybe it proves that a mage Shiida makes a better unit than a pk Shiida, but that doesn't show they have 8 move and ignore terrain or that they have the same or better durability. You may have shown that the 8 move and flight doesn't mean as much for her since she can't put it to good use, or that the durability lead of the pk Shiida over the mage Shiida isn't relevant. That doesn't say mage Shiida makes a better pk than pk Shiida.

Besides, you've stated that she's not hitting D tomes until partway through chapter 7. Are there any cavs in chapter 7?

Also, what if there is a time later on where pk movement would allow her to wing spear some cav when mage movement doesn't? Even if it is 5 or more chapters later, the cost of switching to mage includes that. Remember, this isn't to say one is better than the other. There could be 100 situations where mage is better and only 10 where pk is better. Unless the 10 for the pk are vastly more important, going mage is obviously the best choice. That doesn't mean it comes at no cost.

(Reclassing system certainly adds annoying complexity to opportunity cost. Seriously, comparing a unit to itself? 100 becoming 90 because the unit could be something else? Urg.)

You bothered listing all of the meaningless costs that don't directly pertain to you, and then brush off the one that does? A cost is a cost, even if it's small.

I wanted to refute that one anyway, because I came up with a better counter.

I didn't have time to eat breakfast because I was running late to work and I didn't have time to pack a lunch at the time Billy Joe Jim Bob offers me his own lunch. I certainly don't give a fuck about having to take 2 minutes to eat.
This just drives up the utility you get from eating it. Instead of 5 - 1 = 4, you now have 100 - 1 = 99, or something. That doesn't do anything to turn the 1 into a 0. There are other things you could do in the 2 minutes aside from eat. Just because none of those things are better than eating, just because eating is >>> those things, that doesn't mean those things don't exist. Even if the best alternative forgone was staring at the sun for those two minutes and burning out your eyes, that is still an opportunity lost (at least for those two minutes). Don't ask me why I think the second best thing to do for those 2 minutes is staring at the sun. The point is, unless not eating were to cause you to blink out of existence for those 2 minutes (and thus for those 2 minutes it is the eating or nothing) there is still an opportunity cost. Well, maybe missing out on the chance to not exist for two minutes is a non-zero opportunity cost.

Stacking on more reasons to choose one action just makes it an even bigger optimal. It increases the economic profit, but it does not reduce the value of the best alternative forgone. Even if the second best thing you can think of doing is going cannibal because of your hunger.


But pointing out the existence of an opportunity cost is very much not the same as implying that the reward you get from one action is less than the reward from the lost opportunity we are pointing out. If A is large, and B is small, when we point out B we aren't trying to block out A, we are just saying B exists. Economic profit is still large if you go A, it just isn't quite equal to A.




(Also, if Vykan must edit stuff, I definitely like the way he's doing it right now. It shows where, he's even stating what he took out and why.)

View user profile

32 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:43 pm

Horsedick.MPEG wrote:study

(Edited by: Vykan12. Please do not make purely obnoxious posts).
Come now, I'm sure his user name was probably worse than anything in the post. >_>

View user profile

33 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:10 pm

For one chapter maybe, but one chapter was what the argument was about on Serenes anyway.

View user profile

34 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:25 pm

sPortsman wrote:
For one chapter maybe, but one chapter was what the argument was about on Serenes anyway.

dondon's first post on the matter at SF:
"The point with mage Shiida is that the player at some point has to accept some cost in the short term for profit in the long term. The player can also accept no cost in the short term for less profit in the long term by sticking with PK Shiida. There is probably some optimal point where the transition yields the greatest total profit."

Okay, not his first post on the matter, but near enough.


Your response:
"In case you still haven't been paying attention, there is no cost for Mage in C6x because the Wing spear is completely useless in that chapter. From there it's just another half chapter of being stuck at E Tomes."

You are the one that made it solely about 6x. There is apparently at least another half chapter of being stuck at E Tomes. Maybe dondon let you guide him down the 6x path later on in the argument, I'm not going to bother looking. The point is that initially there is a drop in her ability. You can minimize this drop by having her switch in a chapter like 6x where pk and wing spear utility is small anyway, but unless she can get out of her hole by the end of 6x there will still be a not insignificant cost incurred the following chapter. Even if it is only for half of chapter 7, or whatever.

Anyway, the analysis of the cost of the switch goes beyond 6x regardless. Like I said before, even if there are only a couple of times that pk Shiida could have reached some enemy that mage Shiida can't, it is still, however small, a cost.

View user profile

35 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Fri Dec 04, 2009 12:48 am

Come now, I'm sure his user name was probably worse than anything in the post. >_>

If people have a problem with horsedick.mpeg as a username, they can make a complaint in the questions & suggestions subforum or PM Mekkah, me, or IOS.

View user profile

36 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:52 am

Seriously, how can it be this hard to understand the concepts of opportunity cost, economic profit and normal profit? Why do there seem to be such huge trouble with them?

Opportunity cost is, as very often mentioned by now, is (if the terms “alternative” and “forgone” are too difficult to understand) the value of the next-best mutually exclusive option. In other words, you can find the opportunity cost value by looking at the next best option when making a decision and looking at its value, but only if the best and next-best option cannot be picked simultaneously. For example, if you have $50 to buy either a $35 shirt or a $40 jacket, the opportunity cost of buying the jacket is the value of the shirt, so $35.

Though let’s look at a case where there is a clear best option. Say, we have a choice between getting $1,000 and getting $900, both tax free. Obviously we’d rather get the $1,000 than the $900. However, what would be the best alternative that we cannot choose anymore? That’s right $900.

This is where normal/economic profit comes in. The economic profit is the difference between revenue and opportunity costs.

Profit = Revenue – opportunity cost

Not exactly a difficult to grasp concept. So, let’s say we took the $1,000.

Profit = $1,000 - $900 = $100

Though, if we would have taken the $900.

Profit = $900 - $1,000 = -$100

This is a lot different from what many people think. Many people think they should apply normal profit. Hey, we got $1,000, we didn’t have to sacrifice anything at all, so we made a total profit of $1,000. But we definitely had to sacrifice something, namely our next-best alternative, which we couldn’t choose on top of the $1,000. So we actually lost $900, gained that $1,000 on top of it to get an economic profit of only $100 instead of $1,000.

I don’t know, but this doesn’t seem too hard to understand to me…

View user profile

37 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Fri Dec 04, 2009 7:28 am

You are the one that made it solely about 6x.

He wanted to know when going Mage doesn't slow Shiida down in some other post.

View user profile

38 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Fri Dec 04, 2009 12:57 pm

Tino wrote:Seriously, how can it be this hard to understand the concepts of opportunity cost, economic profit and normal profit? Why do there seem to be such huge trouble with them?

Opportunity cost is, as very often mentioned by now, is (if the terms “alternative” and “forgone” are too difficult to understand) the value of the next-best mutually exclusive option. In other words, you can find the opportunity cost value by looking at the next best option when making a decision and looking at its value, but only if the best and next-best option cannot be picked simultaneously. For example, if you have $50 to buy either a $35 shirt or a $40 jacket, the opportunity cost of buying the jacket is the value of the shirt, so $35.

Though let’s look at a case where there is a clear best option. Say, we have a choice between getting $1,000 and getting $900, both tax free. Obviously we’d rather get the $1,000 than the $900. However, what would be the best alternative that we cannot choose anymore? That’s right $900.

This is where normal/economic profit comes in. The economic profit is the difference between revenue and opportunity costs.

Profit = Revenue – opportunity cost

Not exactly a difficult to grasp concept. So, let’s say we took the $1,000.

Profit = $1,000 - $900 = $100

Though, if we would have taken the $900.

Profit = $900 - $1,000 = -$100

This is a lot different from what many people think. Many people think they should apply normal profit. Hey, we got $1,000, we didn’t have to sacrifice anything at all, so we made a total profit of $1,000. But we definitely had to sacrifice something, namely our next-best alternative, which we couldn’t choose on top of the $1,000. So we actually lost $900, gained that $1,000 on top of it to get an economic profit of only $100 instead of $1,000.

I don’t know, but this doesn’t seem too hard to understand to me…


I like the snickers example more.

Snickers is worth $1 to me. In each example I can only choose one thing and thus miss out on the other options.

1) Someone offers me Snickers or nothing (I value nothing at $0).

I choose Snickers and my EP is $1.


Rolo is worth 30 cents to me.

2) Someone offers me Snickers or Rolo (or nothing).

I choose Snickers and my EP is 70 cents.


Then comes the worst thing that I could be offered.

3) Someone offers me Snickers or another Snickers (or nothing). Now, most people wouldn't see the difference between that and 1). Unfortunately, Economics states a clear difference.

I choose either Snickers and my EP is zero. Why oh why did that person have to offer me Snickers or Snickers?






@sPortsman
Also, I was pointing out the cost is more than 6x. You said "but one chapter was what the argument was about on Serenes anyway." I'm pointing out that this does not mean the other chapters can simply be ignored. Just because one argument's focus became too narrow, doesn't mean this one must follow the same path.

View user profile

39 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:00 pm

I usually choose Lay's Stax or Pringles as my most cost effective junk food. They last much longer in enjoyment than a candy bar, and are still around just a dollar.

View user profile

40 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:17 pm

FE3_Player wrote:I usually choose Lay's Stax or Pringles as my most cost effective junk food. They last much longer in enjoyment than a candy bar, and are still around just a dollar.

Reason for choosing Snickers in my example


Also, I chose Doritos as the "Doritos" of my original argument way back in July on SF in the RD tier list topic. Don't really know why I chose them, though. Anyway, they should also last longer than a random candy bar.

View user profile

41 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Fri Dec 04, 2009 10:33 pm

I watched that video in AP Micro/Marco Economics. It was hilarious then and its still hilarious now.

View user profile

42 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Fri Dec 04, 2009 11:03 pm

I like the slice of pizza back in my economics class. =/

View user profile

43 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Fri Dec 04, 2009 11:33 pm

Colonel M wrote:I like the slice of pizza back in my economics class. =/

I don't get it.


nflchamp wrote:I watched that video in AP Micro/Marco Economics. It was hilarious then and its still hilarious now.

Yep, funny stuff there.

View user profile

44 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Fri Dec 04, 2009 11:36 pm

Narga_Rocks wrote:
Colonel M wrote:I like the slice of pizza back in my economics class. =/

I don't get it.
It isn't a joke. Basically supply and demand, we used the Slice of Pizza as an example.

View user profile

45 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Sat Dec 05, 2009 10:46 am

Colonel M wrote:
Narga_Rocks wrote:
Colonel M wrote:I like the slice of pizza back in my economics class. =/

I don't get it.
It isn't a joke. Basically supply and demand, we used the Slice of Pizza as an example.

I didn't think it was a joke. I just didn't know what to think about your statement at all.

I forget what type of products my classes used.

View user profile

46 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Sat Dec 05, 2009 7:06 pm

Does it really matter? You're not exactly furthering progress...

View user profile

47 Re: Misconception about opportunity cost on Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm

Paperblade wrote:Edit: And I don't see how what he's supposedly doing as any different than what you're doing now.
smash starts his topics because he has a problem with some argument on some tier list. I started this topic because I was annoyed by people getting definitions wrong, i.e. this has no relationship to any specific tier list, nor would it affect any character's position on any tier list.

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum