Personal experience means nothing!

[CGV]

Personal experience means nothing.

Just because on ONE playthrough a characters stats developed in a certain way, means nothing about the actual character.

It's a very common phrase that's used on almost all serious Fire Emblem debate forums such as FEP and FEFF. It's to demonstrate that just because something happened to you doesn't mean it should hold any weight in a real debate. Usually, only actual character averages count.

For instance, I once had Dorcas max out speed in FE7. That's incredibly rare though, as he usually has one of the worst speed stats in the game. Thus, I'm not allowed to argue that Dorcas has good speed, because even though it happened once through personal experience, it doesn't mean a thing to other people.

As I said, usually only stat averages matter for ranking characters statistically. Fire Emblem is governed completely by mathematics and probability. All stat growths can be determined exactly, and they're easily comparable between characters. Say if Geese averages about 27 strength and 22 or so speed at 20/20 Berserker; on average, he won't even come close to capping those two stats (whereas Gonzales will on average, even without the hard mode bonus of 8 extra level growths).

true, but who says it's always for ONE playthrough?

Without personal experience, all you'd be playing with is a calculator.

EXACTLY!!! Gawd, that's explains what I think about PE perfectly. This isn't math class, it's a game

Debates mean nothing

The way I see it, yes, but some benefit from it

[Paper Jam]

Your basing your argument on something that dosent even happen most of the time!

This.

Neither your personal experience nor the average happens most of the time, and so it is pointless to base your argument on either one.

[Admiral "Bull" Halsey]

true, but who says it's always for ONE playthrough?

That was actually an example. Other playthroughs doesn't count if that happens all the time. So yes, Personal Experience do lie to you occasionally.

[dondon151]

Personal experience counts for SOMETHING.

Yes, but not in terms of a unit's level and stats at a certain point in the game.

In theory, averages, and favortism arguments make sense, but in real playthoughs for something calles fun it is ok to abuse to make up for level leads, and the fact that the averages never come close (except fe4 sometimes) bother me!

What? Stats come closer to averages than to any other arbitrary number. Learn your maths.

Your basing your argument on something that dosent even happen most of the time!

Except it does happen most of the time. At 20/1, for example, Canas will have 15 speed most often, then 14 and 16 speed slightly less often, then 13 and 17 speed even less often, etc.

Also, if you are debating for two really good units, if you can get them both WHAT IS THE POINT? you will end up using them both!

To see which one is better in certain circumstances? And to see which one should be picked if a player puts some weird limitations on himself that only allows one of the two mentioned characters to be used?

And said that it doesn't count in tier lists/debates and all this stuff, but tier lists are inaccurate because the averages aren't guaranteed to happen.

Then what more accurate guidelines for stats do you propose that debaters follow? That's right, there aren't any.

If one were to make a tier list for every possible permutation of stats at every level for every unit, and then sum them all, the result would be the tier list according to the averages.

Edited January 30, 2009 by dondon151

[Robert]

To see which one is better in certain circumstances? And to see which one should be picked if a player puts some weird limitations on himself that only allows one of the two mentioned characters to be used?

When in the rare event that that outlandish circumstance is specified, and highly unlikely you are right.

Yes, but not in terms of a unit's level and stats at a certain point in the game.

I mean in a general sense. For example, a averages set may say that so and so only gets to 16 speed, but you know that every time you used so and so, he got to 19 or greater, which is enough to double.

It may not count for alot, but certainly something.

What? Stats come closer to averages than to any other arbitrary number. Learn your maths.

see above

Except it does happen most of the time. At 20/1, for example, Canas will have 15 speed most often, then 14 and 16 speed slightly less often, then 13 and 17 speed even less often, etc.

that can be the difference between doubling, or a kill or a dodge, or critical.

[dondon151]

When in the rare event that that outlandish circumstance is specified, and highly unlikely you are right.

So no one wants to know whether x or y character is better? Even when they're both good?

I mean in a general sense. For example, a averages set may say that so and so only gets to 16 speed, but you know that every time you used so and so, he got to 19 or greater, which is enough to double.

And every time I used this character, he got 13 speed and was doubled. Who's right?

Say that personal experience matters. People will argue that x character is good because his speed is consistently 4 points above average (which is paradoxical, but we'll let that slide). Other people will argue that x character is bad because his speed is consistently 4 points below average. And if we merge together all of these arguments... Average stats! Magic! Maths!

It may not count for alot, but certainly something.

If a character, for example, has an average speed that's just under what is needed to double attack, but is fairly likely to have 1 more speed at that level, then that is already considered in debating. At least, any half-decent debater will bring that up.

Edited January 30, 2009 by dondon151

[General Spoon]

Hi guys! My Hector is 20/20, and he has base strength, plus his promotion gain. God, Hector must suck. He can't hurt anything. Hector is a bad character because he has low strength. Everyone should avoid using Hector since he sucks.

[/sarcasm]

[CGV]

That was actually an example. Other playthroughs doesn't count if that happens all the time. So yes, Personal Experience do lie to you occasionally.

Wait, huh? Personal experience can LIE to you? wtf are you talking about? Someone explain because I'm lost

[Admiral "Bull" Halsey]

I meant they turn out average more than any other specific set. That's why they're called "averages". And while it's unlike to have every single stat hit the exact average, chances are at least a few will land, or come close. Plus, it's good to have insurance against RNG-screwed. That's why Personal Experience "lies" to you.

Edited January 30, 2009 by Namie Amuro

[Robert]

So no one wants to know whether x or y character is better? Even when they're both good?

If you use them both, I do not see why it matters.

I am not saying that, I am saying it simply that most of the time character x gets better stat y than the averages say so.

Hi guys! My Hector is 20/20, and he has base strength, plus his promotion gain. God, Hector must suck. He can't hurt anything. Hector is a bad character because he has low strength. Everyone should avoid using Hector since he sucks.

[/sarcasm]

...

[Vykan12]

I don't want to partake in this too much, though there is one thing I wanted to address.

People counter PEMN by saying averages account for very few gameplay possibilities. However, that is ignoring things like chances to reach x in a stat or lower, which you can find on a lot of sites that contain averages. One's ability to analyze the game is limited only to the amount of data they can collect. All that personal experience contributes to an argument is knowledge about certain factors about the maps, chapter length, objectives, etc. but even those things can be found by watching videos or reading the arguments of others.

[dondon151]

I am not saying that, I am saying it simply that most of the time character x gets better stat y than the averages say so.

Only half the time. Know what happens the other half of the time? This statement contradicts itself, anyway.

Edited January 31, 2009 by dondon151

[Rodykitty]

With personal experience with the RNG, characters are going to go from being better than other characters to being better than other characters.

Think of growths as the likelihood of gaining stats.

<X> character has these growths: 80%, 45%, 30%, 35%, 80%, 15%, 30%

<Y> character has these growths: 70%, 30%, 50%, 20%, 50%, 10%, 10%

This is not taking into account join time or base stats, but since most players that use personal experience as an argument don't care about that anyway, let's assume both of these characters start out unpromoted with mediocre base stats.

X character is less likely to be RNG screwed than Y character. This is really obvious.

X character is more likely to be RNG blessed than Y character. This is also obvious.

Therefore, if you're going to say that your Y character got RNG blessed, then it's only fair to compare it to an X character that also got RNG blessed. The conclusion? Just use averages, because in the end they say the exact same thing.

For RNG variation, that's already taken into account if the averages show it (though not every average table shows it, so try to find one that does). Even then, it boils down to statistical study such as "Abel has a 50% chance of having one extra speed point needed to double in Chapter 1" and still has little to do with personal experience.

[luigi bros]

I know you can't argue a low speed growth character is fast (as an example), but you I think you can say they may gain some speed, if you're lucky. The chances of getting adverage stats exactly is extremely unlikely.

[Lord Raven]

Not "extremely unlikely" but saying that x unit a small chance of gaining speed (and using it as a factor in their own advantage) is like saying that you can still get hit quite by a 4% shot. You should be prepared for when the 4% comes, but it will not come often. It's also a cop out because a much easier time gaining speed > a very hard time gaining speed no matter how you sugarcoat it.

[luigi bros]

Not "extremely unlikely" but saying that x unit a small chance of gaining speed (and using it as a factor in their own advantage) is like saying that you can still get hit quite by a 4% shot. You should be prepared for when the 4% comes, but it will not come often. It's also a cop out because a much easier time gaining speed > a very hard time gaining speed no matter how you sugarcoat it.

You can't argue that they're speedy, but you can argue that they're fast for a slow unit. (If that makes sense)

[Kintenbo]

Personal experience is something that's meant to be personal. It's a somewhat great reason to like a certain character, but it's not recommendable when arguing who's better than who. Fire Emblem is random. Sometimes your character can develop to be amazing, other times, the character gets it rough. When people argue based on personal experience, it turns into a tons of "uh-uhs", and "nuh-uhs". I preferably don't try to argue characters nowadays, but I understand the meaning "personal experience means nothing" when it comes to debating characters. Anywhere else, that statement is useless.

[Lord Raven]

You can't argue that they're speedy, but you can argue that they're fast for a slow unit. (If that makes sense)

That makes no sense, actually.

[luigi bros]

That makes no sense, actually.

I mean I think that there's three groups of slow units:

Super Slow

Slow

Below adverage speed

You can say that they're in the third group I listed right?

[Lord Raven]

You can, but it's a point against them if they're below average. Low speed is always a disadvantage no matter how you want to say it; being better than people with low speed is stupid if the character themself is slow. And using that as a point when you're trying to rectify their lack of speed vs a faster character? It's a terrible argument.

[luigi bros]

You can, but it's a point against them if they're below average. Low speed is always a disadvantage no matter how you want to say it; being better than people with low speed is stupid if the character themself is slow. And using that as a point when you're trying to rectify their lack of speed vs a faster character? It's a terrible argument.

I'm not going to debate anytime soon, but I'd imagine saying one character has say 5 speed and the other has 9 that's low but you can still say that the character with 9 speed is faster right?

[Lord Raven]

Yeah, but if you're saying one char has 5 speed, one has 9, and one has 26 then the 9 speed, as compared to the 5, is still irrelevant in that 17 speed lead. Unless everyone in the game has 5 or less speed and the 9 speed one has a million defense whereas the 26 speed one has zero HP/defense, but that's beyond the point of comparing speed stats.

[Robert]

Yeah, but if you're saying one char has 5 speed, one has 9, and one has 26 then the 9 speed, as compared to the 5, is still irrelevant in that 17 speed lead. Unless everyone in the game has 5 or less speed and the 9 speed one has a million defense whereas the 26 speed one has zero HP/defense, but that's beyond the point of comparing speed stats.

that is partially true, but what about enemy units with 5 speed and around that? the 26 speed unit would win but it puts the 9 speed unit past the five speed unit. Making a difference. Weapon weight, avoid, being doubled by enemies, or in fe4, having no con and wielding heavier weapon. It does matter a lot actually.

[Lord Raven]

Read my post again, it pretty much refers to enemy units.

[Robert]

That is just enemies. What about the other factors mentioned?