Is Armsthrift overrated?

[Tables]

It's a typical argument ploy, really. If you can't win an argument outright* and your opponents arguments are stronger than your own, start changing the question and arguing semantics. You go from "This is why I think Armsthrift isn't useful" to "This is why I think Armsthrift isn't necessary" to "This is how I think these are the same things." In the end, you can keep believing you haven't lost, because you can keep saying things, but you keep having to get further and further from the points you were arguing.

*And you almost never can, because people (males especially) become defensive and rather than wanting to find the truth, want to not be proved wrong. You need some kind of impartial judge really for a proper debate.

[Chiki]

It's a typical argument ploy, really. If you can't win an argument outright* and your opponents arguments are stronger than your own, start changing the question and arguing semantics. You go from "This is why I think Armsthrift isn't useful" to "This is why I think Armsthrift isn't necessary" to "This is how I think these are the same things." In the end, you can keep believing you haven't lost, because you can keep saying things, but you keep having to get further and further from the points you were arguing.

*And you almost never can, because people (males especially) become defensive and rather than wanting to find the truth, want to not be proved wrong. You need some kind of impartial judge really for a proper debate.

Yes, because ignoring the points others make and being snarky when one has nothing to say clearly means that they've won the debate.

I'm pretty sure any proper judge with some skill in debating would recognize the fact that people have been nothing but snarky when they were unable to reply to my points--because that's what I actually do in college.

But it's fine. I know I'm in a place filled with teenage video gamers who get a kick out of being rude to people, so your opinion is pretty much not worthwhile at all.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Chiki

[Constable Reggie]

Impartial judge (actually, I'd even say she's more partial to [helping] Chiki over Interceptor):

Winner: Interceptor.

90% of the "argument" that went on after this post is irrelevant since you guys went off on some tangent about necessariness or some shit.

Also, the hypocrisy in the above post is hilarious.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Randa]

I don't think there is a winner. Because they wasn't really a debat, they were just insulting each other.

[Redwall]

Some of your arguments have been addressed. Both your playthrough and Interceptor's playthrough were dependent on the RNG for growths; this is obviously not a problem in Awakening due to the high enemy density, so as long as Frederick isn't getting many kills, a player who plays optimally has only a vanishingly small chance of getting held back by bad growths.

Interceptor's argument is that his long-term strategy is more robust than yours specifically when it comes to skillset distribution. Your task is to show that the odds of an optimal Sol/Nosf player losing are less than or equal to those of an optimal bow player.

Also, no need to lash out at anyone, certainly not Tables, who wasn't attacking you personally at all.

[Chiki]

Some of your arguments have been addressed. Both your playthrough and Interceptor's playthrough were dependent on the RNG for growths; this is obviously not a problem in Awakening due to the high enemy density, so as long as Frederick isn't getting many kills, a player who plays optimally has only a vanishingly small chance of getting held back by bad growths.

Interceptor's argument is that his long-term strategy is more robust than yours specifically when it comes to skillset distribution. Your task is to show that the odds of an optimal Sol/Nosf player losing are less than or equal to those of an optimal bow player.

Also, no need to lash out at anyone, certainly not Tables, who wasn't attacking you personally at all.

I didn't lash out on him at all.

Unfortunately, Interceptor didn't admit the bolded part.

I pointed out another strategy which Interceptor ignored: http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=40473

The person who did this playthrough typed it all out and said it was quite easy.

Interceptor himself said:

Seems like he is kiting with Galeforce, and hoping that the Counter clouds can be evaded long enough.

It's quite an easy way to play the game, simply because he doesn't focus on a team. The best way to beat this mode is to focus on one unit, because it's needlessly tedious to not do so.

[Constable Reggie]

But it's fine. I know I'm in a place filled with teenage video gamers who get a kick out of being rude to people, so your opinion is pretty much not worthwhile at all.

So I assume this isn't lashing out, and simply complimenting Tables on the fact that he has gotten acknowledgement from the almighty lord Olwen himself.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Tables]

It's ironic, because I'm probably older than Chiki. But I've never liked debating. It's like taking Mafia, but replacing the fun with your ego.

[CT075]

I'm pretty sure any proper judge with some skill in debating would recognize the fact that people have been nothing but snarky when they were unable to reply to my points--because that's what I actually do in college.

"I win because I would say that I won"

yeah ok

[Interceptor]

Interceptor's argument is that his long-term strategy is more robust than yours specifically when it comes to skillset distribution. Your task is to show that the odds of an optimal Sol/Nosf player losing are less than or equal to those of an optimal bow player.

While I appreciate the even-handedness here, this is a distraction. Digging into this argument means accepting his implication that only the "best" [playthrough/strategy] matters. It's a ludicrous proposition.

The only reason that we are here, is because of this:

I personally think it's only good for grinding. Postgame, you only have to worry about the Brave weapons anyway.

Well, you're wrong here -- to nobody's great surprise -- though it's mostly by omission. Armsthrift is useful any time that money is a factor, which includes a large number of no-DLC and/or no-grind runs that you'll see. And that is by no means an exhaustive list of runs where Armsthrift is good, just a couple obvious ones.

He can't accept the concept of Armsthrift being considered useful in contexts outside the little rock that is his entire world. It doesn't even matter if my L+ run is more reliable than his, since it's irrelevant to the point; that's why I don't bother to defend it. I am not so easily distracted.

[Chiki]

While I appreciate the even-handedness here, this is a distraction. Digging into this argument means accepting his implication that only the "best" [playthrough/strategy] matters. It's a ludicrous proposition.

The only reason that we are here, is because of this:

He can't accept the concept of Armsthrift being considered useful in contexts outside the little rock that is his entire world. It doesn't even matter if my L+ run is more reliable than his, since it's irrelevant to the point; that's why I don't bother to defend it. I am not so easily distracted.

Yep, I admit that Armsthrift is good for those contexts.

But this is the question: why should I care about them? Why should I care about that Donnel solo in normal mode which makes great use of Armsthrift? Why is your bow playthrough worth considering when the objective is to beat L+?

Edited June 21, 2013 by Chiki

[Interceptor]

But this is the question: why should I care about them?

Yes, the question mark on the end of the sentence was a dead giveaway.

I can't tell you why you "should" care about something. Either you do or you don't. Clearly, you don't. I'm not going to try to widen your horizons in an attempt to make you a more tolerant human being, I'm just going to ignore you.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Interceptor

[Chiki]

Yes, the question mark on the end of the sentence was a dead giveaway.

I can't tell you why you "should" care about something. Either you do or you don't. Clearly, you don't. I'm not going to try to widen your horizons in an attempt to make you a more tolerant human being, I'm just going to ignore you.

I'll care about it if you can demonstrate to me that it's better and easier to beat the game with than the Galeforce strategy (I'll use that one instead because my Sol + Nosferatu one isn't yet well documented).

Armsthrift is good for beating normal mode with a Ricken or a Donnel solo, too. But that doesn't mean they are worth considering. That doesn't make Armsthrift any better. For Armsthrift to be better, it has to be good in a valuable way--that is, beating Lunatic+. So why is a bow playthrough the superior way to beat Lunatic+?

I really hope you will answer this question instead of making more sarcastic remarks and personal insults.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Chiki

[Interceptor]

I'll care about it if you can demonstrate to me that it's better and easier [...]

Christ on a cracker, it's like trying to explain to concept of swimming to someone who has never seen a body of water deeper than a puddle.

Are you cognizant of the fact that you asked an entire forum for its opinion on a skill in Fire Emblem, you gave no parameters for judgment, the forum is filled with people who have different styles, and that these people are not wrong/degenerates for having different values than you?

If I just blew your mind, put the word "sophistry" in your response. That will be the safety word.

[Chiki]

Christ on a cracker, it's like trying to explain to concept of swimming to someone who has never seen a body of water deeper than a puddle.

Are you cognizant of the fact that you asked an entire forum for its opinion on a skill in Fire Emblem, you gave no parameters for judgment, the forum is filled with people who have different styles, and that these people are not wrong/degenerates for having different values than you?

If I just blew your mind, put the word "sophistry" in your response. That will be the safety word.

Why did you spend so much time responding to me in the earlier pages if this is just an opinion thread? I'm pretty sure you don't even agree with yourself.

I'll try to get a response out of you one last time, so we can have a proper debate.

Advantages of a bow only playthrough:

1. Avoid Counter

Advantages of a Galeforce only playthrough:

1. Avoid Counter

2. Train only one unit

3. Avoid enemy phase combat by 1 turning maps

4. Allows you to avoid getting ganged up on thanks to Galeforce on rout maps

Why is the bow only playthrough different from the Donnel solo on normal mode? I'll ask this one last time. Otherwise, it's clear that being a good debater on SF requires you to avoid arguments consistently and flame the opposing side.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Chiki

[comingsoon]

I'll care about it if you can demonstrate to me that it's better and easier to beat the game with than the Galeforce strategy (I'll use that one instead because my Sol + Nosferatu one isn't yet well documented).

Armsthrift is good for beating normal mode with a Ricken or a Donnel solo, too. But that doesn't mean they are worth considering. That doesn't make Armsthrift any better. For Armsthrift to be better, it has to be good in a valuable way--that is, beating Lunatic+. So why is a bow playthrough the superior way to beat Lunatic+?

I really hope you will answer this question instead of making more sarcastic remarks and personal insults.

The problem is only because you don`t see a viable use for armshift does not mean everyone else doesn`t. You are oversimplifying YOUR OPINION ≠ EVERYONE ELSE.

Once again you need to define ``better.`` Does it mean more reliable? Does it mean LTC? Easy to imitate? If you want the game to be easier why don't you just grind/use bonus box/spotpass?

Why is it some people play NM/casual while others play 0% growth H5? It's because people have different views on how to play the game and only because armshift isn't viable to you ≠ it isn't viable to everyone else.

[Interceptor]

Are you cognizant of the fact that you asked an entire forum for its opinion on a skill in Fire Emblem, you gave no parameters for judgment, the forum is filled with people who have different styles, and that these people are not wrong/degenerates for having different values than you?

[No.]

Right, I thought so.

Why is the bow only playthrough different from the Donnel solo on normal mode?

Is this a trick question? There are a lot of differences, and one of them is that Donnel isn't in the bow playthrough.

[Chiki]

The problem is only because you don`t see a viable use for armshift does not mean everyone else doesn`t. You are oversimplifying YOUR OPINION ≠ EVERYONE ELSE.

Once again you need to define ``better.`` Does it mean more reliable? Does it mean LTC? Easy to imitate? If you want the game to be easier why don't you just grind/use bonus box/spotpass?

Why is it some people play NM/casual while others play 0% growth H5? It's because people have different views on how to play the game and only because armshift isn't viable to you ≠ it isn't viable to everyone else.

Actually, I'm pretty sure people will agree with my view of better. For a skill to be good, it has to do well in a way that we consider meaningful. For example, the easiest way to beat L+.

[Interceptor]

Actually, I'm pretty sure people will agree with my view of better. For a skill to be good, it has to do well in a way that we consider meaningful. For example, the easiest way to beat L+.

It's amazing to me that you can say this without a hint of irony, in a thread where 1) nobody else is supporting your position, and 2) your opinion got crushed about six to one in your own poll.

[comingsoon]

Actually, I'm pretty sure people will agree with my view of better. For a skill to be good, it has to do well in a way that we consider meaningful. For example, the easiest way to beat L+.

Why doesn't everyone grind then since it makes the game easier?

If I do a 0% growth and galeforce isn't viable; does this mean the skill is bad?

Same concept

[Chiki]

Why doesn't everyone grind then since it makes the game easier?

If I do a 0% growth and galeforce isn't viable; does this mean the skill is bad?

Same concept

Because people consider it unfair.

Let's do this context then: beating Lunatic+ easily without grinding.

It means it's not as good, but it's still good due to how it does in other contexts.

It's amazing to me that you can say this without a hint of irony, in a thread where 1) nobody else is supporting your position, and 2) your opinion got crushed about six to one in your own poll.

Okay, it's pretty clear that you've lost this debate, since the best argument you can come up with is "no one agrees with you." That's a very basic argumentum ad populum. Since you completely ignored my argument, we can try again in another thread, if you like. But I hope that next time you'll be more mature and prepared.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Chiki

[algae]

Tell me I'm not the only one who's not sure what's going on in this thread anymore.

[comingsoon]

Because people consider it unfair.

Let's do this context then: beating Lunatic+ easily without grinding.

Once again your opinion ≠ everyone else

What if I think growths is unfair? What if I think restarting after a death is unfair?

These are rhetorical for you to understand the concept but I don't think it is working.

Okay, it's pretty clear that you've lost this debate, since the best argument you can come up with is "no one agrees with you." That's a very basic argumentum ad populum. Since you completely ignored my argument, we can try again in another thread, if you like. But I hope that next time you'll be more mature and prepared.

He lost the argument because he showed you a poll where 1/3 people agree with you? I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

[Interceptor]

Okay, it's pretty clear that you've lost this debate, since the best argument you can come up with is "no one agrees with you." That's a very basic argumentum ad populum. Since you completely ignored my argument, we can try again in another thread, if you like. But I hope that next time you'll be more mature and prepared.

Is anyone keeping track of how many times that Chiki has unilaterally declared himself the victor of this "debate" that we are not having? I think I am up to at least four or five. This has got to be some kind of record.

Incidentally, you do realize that you're the one who made the argumentum ad populum, right?

Actually, I'm pretty sure people will agree with my view of better.

"People", huh? Not only is this weasel-wording, but the contradiction is as visible as a sore thumb at the top of every page of the thread. It was your poll.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Interceptor

[comingsoon]

It means it's not as good, but it's still good due to how it does in other contexts.

Ok I did not see that because you edited it. EXACTLY YOU FINALLY UNDERSTAND (I THINK)!

Only because armshift has no viable use to how you play the game "it's still good due to how it does in other contexts"