A character comparison consists of Unit A + team vs Unit B + team. In some cases, the question of exactly what other units are on the team is relevant. For example in FE11, in a team composed solely of High and Upper Mid units, Ogma has a monopoly or near-monopoly on the two early Killing Edges, the early Silver Silver Sword, and Mercurius. However, if there's a significant chance for Mid Tier units like Navarre or Athena to be on the team, his claim to those weapons is reduced.
The tier list's assumption of efficient play leads to the logical conclusion that your team will consist of top and high tiers, with possibly one or two upper mid units. A player going for efficiency obviously will use the best units available.
However, I've heard people at various points argue that "you can't ignore this unit's existence just because they're lower mid!" and such. I recall someone stating that top/high tiers are only "more likely" to be used, indicating that every unit has some chance to be used, and that chance simply increases the better that a unit is. I have no idea how you would actually apply this concept in tier discussions; would top tiers have a 90% chance to be played, then high tiers have 75%, and etc, down to bottom tiers with a 5% chance to be played, or something like that, or what?
Thoughts on the issue, so that in the future we don't have to squabble over whether or not this random mid or lower mid unit will be around to claim a resource otherwise exclusive to a high/top tier?
The first option, i.e. that the team is generally top/high tier with possibly 1-2 upper mids, is the more logical conclusion going by the tier list's assumption of efficient play. I don't see any logical arguments to support the use of the second option, where all units have some significant chance to be used.
The tier list's assumption of efficient play leads to the logical conclusion that your team will consist of top and high tiers, with possibly one or two upper mid units. A player going for efficiency obviously will use the best units available.
However, I've heard people at various points argue that "you can't ignore this unit's existence just because they're lower mid!" and such. I recall someone stating that top/high tiers are only "more likely" to be used, indicating that every unit has some chance to be used, and that chance simply increases the better that a unit is. I have no idea how you would actually apply this concept in tier discussions; would top tiers have a 90% chance to be played, then high tiers have 75%, and etc, down to bottom tiers with a 5% chance to be played, or something like that, or what?
Thoughts on the issue, so that in the future we don't have to squabble over whether or not this random mid or lower mid unit will be around to claim a resource otherwise exclusive to a high/top tier?
The first option, i.e. that the team is generally top/high tier with possibly 1-2 upper mids, is the more logical conclusion going by the tier list's assumption of efficient play. I don't see any logical arguments to support the use of the second option, where all units have some significant chance to be used.