Debate on Fire Emblem debating

[DeSu]

And so the heroes Faiya and ZXVR made peace speaking for their respective forces. The war ended peacefully before there was too much bloodshed.

Tactics: ☆☆☆

Survival:☆☆☆☆☆

Funds:☆☆

Exp:☆☆☆☆☆

Combat:☆☆☆☆☆

[Defeatist Elitist]

And so the heroes Faiya and ZXVR made peace speaking for their respective forces. The war ended peacefully before there was too much bloodshed.

Tactics: ☆☆☆

Survival:☆☆☆☆☆

Funds:☆☆

Exp:☆☆☆☆☆

Combat:☆☆☆☆☆

Man, that Cheeseburger really hurt our Funds, hey? Sorry 'bout that...

[Liz]

And so the heroes Faiya and ZXVR made peace speaking for their respective forces. The war ended peacefully before there was too much bloodshed.

Tactics: ☆☆☆

Survival:☆☆☆☆☆

Funds:☆☆

Exp:☆☆☆☆☆

Combat:☆☆☆☆☆

tactics and funds are too low.

make a better unit selection.

:o

I kid the debater topics! XD

[DeSu]

No problem. It's not like we could got much to begin with, it is a free forum ;). Still an A rank, right?

[canas is back]

And so the heroes Faiya and ZXVR made peace speaking for their respective forces. The war ended peacefully before there was too much bloodshed.

Tactics: ☆☆☆

Survival:☆☆☆☆☆

Funds:☆☆

Exp:☆☆☆☆☆

Combat:☆☆☆☆☆

Shiegeru says: nice job, I hope you grow further on your journeys

[_____]

And so the heroes Faiya and ZXVR made peace speaking for their respective forces. The war ended peacefully before there was too much bloodshed.

Tactics: ☆☆☆

Survival:☆☆☆☆☆

Funds:☆☆

Exp:☆☆☆☆☆

Combat:☆☆☆☆☆

lol, nub is a bad tactition. This is probably one of the easiest games to S-Rank.

On-topic: Glad this is over. Topic lock?

[Florete]

On-topic: Glad this is over. Topic lock?

Don't ask me why, but I have a feeling it should stay open.

[sandmanccl]

Probably because I haven't had my say publically yet. I've PM'd a few people about some things, people on both sides of this debate, and think I've had a few valid points.

The biggest point of contention is that there are people, on both sides, that don't like their ideas about what is good and proper contended. The debaters are apply rules to situations that those rules don't apply to. People (myself especially) really hate it when they are told they are wrong despite having perfectly valid strategies for going through the game easily and our responses (mostly my fault, and I apologize for this) have been incredibly toxic.

People need to stop phrasing things with such finality that they don't allow other people to have ideas that differ to their own. Example, people telling me that bows are the "worst weapon type". I love ranged units. Love them to death, especially in the latest installments of the series. Bows ignore the weapon triangle, which is nice because you are never at a disadvantage with the damage you can potentially inflict, and can attack without fear of being counterattacked, meaning I remove the potential to even take damage in a lot of instances. That for me is strategically more important than having my archer units have the ability to counter-attack from close range.

I know a lot of people are thinking I'm hypocritical with this, and you're right. When I got here, I was pooh-poohing all over swordmasters. I still don't like them, but my problem was the way I was telling people why I dislike them. The nature of the FE games, there really can't be any final "THIS IS BETTER THAN THIS" because as a well thought-out strategy game, there's always a give and take. There is no such thing as a unit that is the best in all situations. It just doesn't happen. The moment you tell someone that they are wrong for finding something strategically viable, you're going to piss them off.

I learn by observation so I hope you guys can at least see that I've tried my best to be as insightful as I could be.

additional: how the heck did I get another 10% warning? I haven't posted anything but this for an entire weekend. =\

Edited October 8, 2008 by sandmanccl

[Florete]

I have one more immediate problem: the over-emphasis on supports. It's like a character with fewer support options is automatically bad. Supports don't make a unit! A unit that's good on its own >>> a unit that's good with supports.

Another problem: Assuming characters will be used. In a debate between two characters, the only fair way I can see is if the only characters assumed to be used are the two in question and the lord(s)/any other required characters. For example, in the Rebecca vs. Wil debate, saying Lowen wants Marcus is meaningless, because you can't be sure he'll even be used later on. For debates, the rest of the "team" should be shaped based on the two in question, giving the two of them what's best for them to see who truly has the best potential. Since lords will always deployed, considering who they would rather have is probably valid.

[Jyosua]

I didn't even notice this topic. XD Anyways, my issue with people "debating" is that people tend to present their side as "X is good. This is why. If you disagree, you are wrong." and that is NOT how you debate. When you debate, you present facts that have statistical evidence, in order to back up your OPINION. Debating is about opinions, and swaying the other side to agree with you, not telling them they're wrong and castrating them for it. In my opinion, if we're going to have debates on this forum widespread, there should be a separate forum for them.

Edit: This does not mean if someone states something clearly false that you can't tell them they're wrong and prove it. XD

[Defeatist Elitist]

Probably because I haven't had my say publically yet. I've PM'd a few people about some things, people on both sides of this debate, and think I've had a few valid points.

The biggest point of contention is that there are people, on both sides, that don't like their ideas about what is good and proper contended. The debaters are apply rules to situations that those rules don't apply to. People (myself especially) really hate it when they are told they are wrong despite having perfectly valid strategies for going through the game easily and our responses (mostly my fault, and I apologize for this) have been incredibly toxic.

People need to stop phrasing things with such finality that they don't allow other people to have ideas that differ to their own. Example, people telling me that bows are the "worst weapon type". I love ranged units. Love them to death, especially in the latest installments of the series. Bows ignore the weapon triangle, which is nice because you are never at a disadvantage with the damage you can potentially inflict, and can attack without fear of being counterattacked, meaning I remove the potential to even take damage in a lot of instances. That for me is strategically more important than having my archer units have the ability to counter-attack from close range.

I know a lot of people are thinking I'm hypocritical with this, and you're right. When I got here, I was pooh-poohing all over swordmasters. I still don't like them, but my problem was the way I was telling people why I dislike them. The nature of the FE games, there really can't be any final "THIS IS BETTER THAN THIS" because as a well thought-out strategy game, there's always a give and take. There is no such thing as a unit that is the best in all situations. It just doesn't happen. The moment you tell someone that they are wrong for finding something strategically viable, you're going to piss them off.

I learn by observation so I hope you guys can at least see that I've tried my best to be as insightful as I could be.

additional: how the heck did I get another 10% warning? I haven't posted anything but this for an entire weekend. =\

I responded to this with a PM, although I should post similar here...

A statement is stated with finality because, well, does it matter that much? If someone tells me "X unit is the best unit ever" that isn't going to stop me from arguing against it. It doesn't really make a difference. If you believe it wrong, prove it.

[Defeatist Elitist]

I have one more immediate problem: the over-emphasis on supports. It's like a character with fewer support options is automatically bad. Supports don't make a unit! A unit that's good on its own >>> a unit that's good with supports.

Another problem: Assuming characters will be used. In a debate between two characters, the only fair way I can see is if the only characters assumed to be used are the two in question and the lord(s)/any other required characters. For example, in the Rebecca vs. Wil debate, saying Lowen wants Marcus is meaningless, because you can't be sure he'll even be used later on. For debates, the rest of the "team" should be shaped based on the two in question, giving the two of them what's best for them to see who truly has the best potential. Since lords will always deployed, considering who they would rather have is probably valid.

Well, Supports can make a mediocre unit good, and a good unit amazing. They can make massive differences...

And to this: characters are assumed to be used because they're "best". Again, in a debate if you don't like the characters the other person is assuming, challenge them on it. Show why you think other characters would be used. That's the thing about a debate. If you see something, you can challenge it. The opponent can try to back their point up, etc.

[Florete]

Well, Supports can make a mediocre unit good, and a good unit amazing. They can make massive differences...

And to this: characters are assumed to be used because they're "best". Again, in a debate if you don't like the characters the other person is assuming, challenge them on it. Show why you think other characters would be used. That's the thing about a debate. If you see something, you can challenge it. The opponent can try to back their point up, etc.

I meant to add that... Not character making, but yes, very good indeed.

Things shouldn't be assumed at all... You should only go with what is definite and consider all possibilities or your argument looks biased. Not everyone is using Seth or Titania or Marcus or any other high tier characters, so you shouldn't just assume they are, no matter how good the character generally is. The same happens with difficulties; FE7 has 4 modes to be played, but debaters only ever consider HHM just because it's the hardest. All of the modes should be put into equal consideration.

[sandmanccl]

Well, Supports can make a mediocre unit good, and a good unit amazing. They can make massive differences...

And to this: characters are assumed to be used because they're "best". Again, in a debate if you don't like the characters the other person is assuming, challenge them on it. Show why you think other characters would be used. That's the thing about a debate. If you see something, you can challenge it. The opponent can try to back their point up, etc.

They haven't been and that's what we've all been trying to say.

Example: SS told me bows were the worst weapon type in the entire game series. I find this laughable because I always field at least one archer unit and they are always a vital part to my success. If bows were so bad and axes were so wondeful, how come I find hundreds of situations where my warriors end up using their Steel Bow over using their S-ranked Axe because it's more strategically viable? I got the typical PEMN response and my entire point was thrown out the window because I'm not accepting the 'established school of thought' the FE Debate Squad laid down.

If our good points (like switching up supports for equally viable if not better end-game solutions) are null and void, what's the point of trying to debate with these people?

[Defeatist Elitist]

I meant to add that... Not character making, but yes, very good indeed.

Things shouldn't be assumed at all... You should only go with what is definite and consider all possibilities or your argument looks biased. Not everyone is using Seth or Titania or Marcus or any other high tier characters, so you shouldn't just assume they are, no matter how good the character generally is. The same happens with difficulties; FE7 has 4 modes to be played, but debaters only ever consider HHM just because it's the hardest. All of the modes should be put into equal consideration.

HHM (and ranked runs) is the only mode considered for a variety of reasons. Let me dig them up: (quote from Titania topic):

"Without a goal or idea, things become confused and pointless. For example, with no regard to BEXP, people could say any character is the best because they can just sit that character there surrounded by un equipped characters, picking off every enemy on the field one by one. That is to say, the debate standards are there to provide a goal to reach towards, a reasonable one, and one that the game itself seems to be flaunting.

Think of it this way. Logically, character's true value is tested best in Hard Mode (tell me if you disagree). This is because if something is harder it requires the character to be even better, in other words, raising the difficulty refines the remaining units until only the best remain. Now, Maximum BEXP is the only real goal we have in FE9 HM, and would make the game more difficult. Thus, if a character is actually good they should be one of the most useful units in said situation. This is what debating is based on, or something like it. It is difficult to explain. As Vincent said, it's more something that you learn from debating."

For example, I want too find out the best Soccer Player in the English Leagues. Now, I'm logically only going to go based on people's performance in the Premiership and highest level competitions, since being able to score 2 points a game in a piss easy environment doesn't make you better than someone who can score 1 in a much harder environment. This is the idea behind this.

They haven't been and that's what we've all been trying to say.

Example: SS told me bows were the worst weapon type in the entire game series. I find this laughable because I always field at least one archer unit and they are always a vital part to my success. If bows were so bad and axes were so wondeful, how come I find hundreds of situations where my warriors end up using their Steel Bow over using their S-ranked Axe because it's more strategically viable? I got the typical PEMN response and my entire point was thrown out the window because I'm not accepting the 'established school of thought' the FE Debate Squad laid down.

If our good points (like switching up supports for equally viable if not better end-game solutions) are null and void, what's the point of trying to debate with these people?

You use bows, you may be able too use them more effectively. But it is actually easier (as we have proven) overall to use better weapon types. Maybe your strategy is based on that. But as I said before, No Strategy > Strategy, and therefore bow users are inherently weaker in most of the titles. That is not too say they don't have strong points, it's just stating that they are generally eclipsed by other things. In general, other weapons will be better.

If you prove your supports better, then yes, they will be accepted. But much of the confusion seems to be based around this:

When we're debating, we tend to fight other people's good points. For example, the debate where I am supporting Wil. Many of you have made many valid points, although I have not admitted them. This is just because I wouldn't be defending my character well if I did. Rebbecca IS a better character. But if I'm defending Wil, I'm going to fight that with every fibre of my being. I'm going to bend things, and present them in a way that will make Wil look better. If I'm obviously proven wrong, I will admit it, but I will usually maintain my stance in an actual debate.

[Florete]

HHM (and ranked runs) is the only mode considered for a variety of reasons. Let me dig them up: (quote from Titania topic):

"Without a goal or idea, things become confused and pointless. For example, with no regard to BEXP, people could say any character is the best because they can just sit that character there surrounded by un equipped characters, picking off every enemy on the field one by one. That is to say, the debate standards are there to provide a goal to reach towards, a reasonable one, and one that the game itself seems to be flaunting.

Think of it this way. Logically, character's true value is tested best in Hard Mode (tell me if you disagree). This is because if something is harder it requires the character to be even better, in other words, raising the difficulty refines the remaining units until only the best remain. Now, Maximum BEXP is the only real goal we have in FE9 HM, and would make the game more difficult. Thus, if a character is actually good they should be one of the most useful units in said situation. This is what debating is based on, or something like it. It is difficult to explain. As Vincent said, it's more something that you learn from debating."

For example, I want too find out the best Soccer Player in the English Leagues. Now, I'm logically only going to go based on people's performance in the Premiership and highest level competitions, since being able to score 2 points a game in a piss easy environment doesn't make you better than someone who can score 1 in a much harder environment. This is the idea behind this.

I fully understand all that, that's why I didn't say hard mode should be considered less. But the majority of casual players, which is the majority of people playing the game, may never even set foot into hard mode. Thus, all the modes should be considered, especially in FE7 where there is a specific goal for each difficulty.

[sandmanccl]

You use bows, you may be able too use them more effectively. But it is actually easier (as we have proven) overall to use better weapon types. Maybe your strategy is based on that. But as I said before, No Strategy > Strategy, and therefore bow users are inherently weaker in most of the titles. That is not too say they don't have strong points, it's just stating that they are generally eclipsed by other things. In general, other weapons will be better.

Other weapons will be better in other situations. It's a strategy game. You use strategy. Strategy is saying "I'm going to weaken this unit with a ranged attack without fear of taking any damage so my other unit that couldn't quite one-shot him can now do so, meaning my front-liner won't risk taking any damage on my turn." They're not "inherently weaker", just the same as black people aren't inherently better at sports than white people.

I could debunk the whole "THIS IS BEST!!!11" thing if I had a way of recording my playthroughs for you guys to watch. Alack, I do not. Because I can't prove to those that don't believe that personal playstyle matters (without physical evidence) more than theorycrafting, you guys don't seem to want to accept it, just as I don't want to accept your ideals on what the best course of action is.

Remember, your values are not my values. I don't give a damn about max bonus experience. If I can milk a boss for 25 turns to gain 6 levels with even just one character, I've technically gained more battle experience than I could have potentially gained in bonus experience. Taking your values into the debates of people that don't care about your values will just spark anger. There's a reason you don't go to Republican rally to praise big government and tax increases.

[Doom103]

Why is this here, I mean can't we make debate threads and who ever doesn't like it, doesn't post

Edited October 8, 2008 by Doom103

[Tino]

There has been a lot of commotion around debating lately, so we had to resolve all the issues there were about debating. That's why this topic is here.

[sandmanccl]

Why is this here, I mean can't we make debate threads and who ever doesn't like it, doesn't post

Well, yeah. That was never the problem. It's applying "debate standards" to situations that didn't apply (ie: favorite character threads, where people say who they like and why and that's all) that got people on edge.

[Meteor]

In those "favorite character" threads, the "debaters" gave and answer and reasons for their preferences. No one has/had to start an argument with them...

[Florete]

In those "favorite character" threads, the "debaters" gave and answer and reasons for their preferences. No one has/had to start an argument with them...

Not so. They generally came in with a response as to why their side was right, not that it was their opinion.

[Meteor]

This is what I saw in a "who is your favorite lord?" thread.

Swordsalmon: Eliwood because he is the best.

Someone else: no he's not, etc.

[Florete]

This is what I saw in a "who is your favorite lord?" thread.

Swordsalmon: Eliwood because he is the best.

Someone else: no he's not, etc.

That's not even one of the threads in question...

[Meteor]

Would you kindly point me to one that is?