What Exactly Qualifies As Turtling?

[Narga_Rocks]

Do you realize that this is actually something very real that happens? People going to school and getting scores less than 100 and/or falling behind their class despite good grades and being shamed for it? I think the term is 'Tiger Mothering' but I could easily be wrong on that. And yes, binary things like this do exist and happen a lot. You can see it very easily in online games where someone who uses the 'noob tube' in CoD is automatically a 'bad player' simply because they use it.

'You are not a great a player as the guy who cuts your turncount in half while having the same success/survival rate as you?'

People who don't do as 'good' as what is accepted to be the 'best' are bad. Right there you established that people who don't function at a fast rate are worse than people who cut turn-counts down. If that's not what you meant I think you need to rethink what you're saying, because what I'm hearing is 'you need to cut turns to be good and if you aren't you aren't as good as someone who does'.

Not sure if trolling or just stupid.

And yes, I say "you aren't you aren't as good as someone who" can if you can't (not don't, btw) cut turns, but I am not saying 'you need to cut turns to be good", nor am I saying "People who don't do as 'good' as what is accepted to be the 'best' are bad", because that's a stupid thought. 90 is still good, even if it's not 95. And let's call the term "Tiger Mothering", why must you apply it to EVERYTHING and not just where people do it? The fact it happens out there (and a LOT) does not make it any less crazy, and you are then no less crazy for attempting to apply it to FE player ratings.

So, you know what else exists out there? Performance rating. We can't all be the best. You seem to want a happy little world where everyone is equally good so we don't hurt anyone's feelings. It's not like that in the working world, and it ain't like that here.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Narga_Rocks

[Irysa]

Sirius/Wist, do you inherantly believe a lower turn count and/or ability to achieve the same results as a slower player but faster is not an indication whatsoever of someone's skill or ability? Because I am getting an overall mixed interpretation of your posts. Sirius admits that he was impressed by dondon's 0% growth ltcs, but also seems to also want to insist the metric of turns is bad.

If you fundamentally believe that turns are not a useful measurement, then (ignoring a possible contradiction) what remains is the usual conundrum of when someone disagrees with the application of the word "better". That is to say, because all things are subjective and we only agree on their definitions as a convenience, attempting to attach an objective observation of "better" by way of measuring a subjective value only results in conflict. Generally speaking most people simply recognise that speedrunners or the like are better at them than a game, but there's always the guy who insists that the player taking damage to go faster via invincibility frames isn't as good as the one who did a 0 damage clear, the non glitch abusing player was "better" or something along those lines.

Would you be happier with "Lower turn counts are likely an indication of a player who is better at progressing faster than" or "Turtling is likely an indication of a player who is worse at progressing faster"? Because these statements are basically the same as what everyone else has been saying, except they don't assume that everyone accepts turns as a standard for quality in the same way.

If you refuse to accept speed or efficiency as a benchmark, then you should at least recognise that most people do for pretty logical reasons!

Edited July 17, 2014 by Irysa

[Xator Nova]

@Irysa: I think that even if we assume that one wants to consider an arbitrary restriction such as "no damage", "no glitch", or in the case of Fire Emblem, "no deaths", "full recruitment", "average stats", "100% reliability", etc. as an indicator of skill, then whom do we consider a better player if both of them achieve the same goal? Logically, the one who managed to do it faster with the arbitrary restriction in mind.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Xator Nova

[Irysa]

It isn't so much about the question of an arbitary restriction so much as an example of people disagreeing over "the better player" because an individual's personal values are all subjective. To be Devil's Advocate in an extreme example - the turtling player could have been considered to have the "safest" strategy, or perhaps someone will insist that because the turtler spent longer they exerted more effort and are thus "better". I don't intend to defend these positions, I'm simply asserting that even if it logically makes sense to me and to you to use turns as an overall metric, there is going to be someone who disagrees about the term "better" without more context, and that trying to argue about an objective defintion of "better" that is based upon a subjective value is futile.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Irysa

[Snowy_One]

@Irysa: I think that even if we assume that one wants to consider an arbitrary restriction such as "no damage", "no glitch", or in the case of Fire Emblem, "no deaths", "full recruitment", "average stats", "100% reliability", etc. as an indicator of skill, then whom do we consider a better player if both of them achieve the same goal? Logically, the one who managed to do it faster with the arbitrary restriction in mind.

Not really.

If we took the 'no damage' example and did a playthrough with that in mind, but one person accomplished it by being safe and the other did so by playing the odds and getting lucky, the former is more skilled regardless of turn-count since the latter took unacceptable risks. Likewise, no deaths, full recruitment, average stats, 100% reliability, and the like, taking an unacceptable risk is not a testament to skill, but luck.

Let's assume a character in Brawl had a FS that would randomly KO one character, including the user potentially. Now, it's POSSIBLE that the person using it would be highly skilled and use it as a last resort, but it's also possible for someone to just focus on evasion, grab the smash-ball, then use it and get lucky enough to win a tourney without any actual 'skill' (for lack of a better term).

I think a lot of this comes back to the negative stigma 'taking more turns' has acquired over the years. Even we were to agree unilaterally that faster=better that loops right around to people who don't playing for speed being worse, regardless of their actual turn-count. A player could just, naturally, be fast at turn-counts but still get considered 'less skilled' simply because they don't intentionally play for LTC. Sort of like how a player could get bashed in Pokemon for picking his favorite mons for a team even if his favorites just all happen to be top-tier mons and he built them right. The simple fact that he picked his favorite carries the negative stigma.

I don't think 'skill' should be measured by just turns by a long-shot, but that is what lies at the heart of this debate. We can question back and forwards if a lower turn-count is better or not, but the simple fact is that, even if it is 'better', it is NOT the only hall-mark of skill and a person CAN be more skilled than another even if the other takes more time. Especially since things like following pre-set strategies, being able to analyze risk, and plan ahead are also a huge part of skill.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there were user-made maps. Some maps would focus on speed, but some would also focus on defense, some would be random, some would be very hard, some would be very easy. If your skill comes from analyzing maps and rehearsing them and not through learning, innovation, and understanding, then you would struggle on such maps since you are being confronted with the unexpected. If your lower turn-count comes from learning to adapt, from learning how units work together, and learning how to plan ahead in the future, even if the strategy is the same, since the source is different, the latter has 'real' skill.

A good chess player learns new strategies to understand them and when to use them and when not to use them. A bad chess player uses strategies, but doesn't understand them or how to react when things change. The practical effect may be the same, but the source is different.

[Chiki]

Especially since things like following pre-set strategies, being able to analyze risk, and plan ahead are also a huge part of skill.

Snowy, these are necessary skills for LTCing. You likely can't be good at LTCing without them.

LTC players usually need a lot of skill (such as in the areas you suggest), talent, creativity and intelligence, and that's why it's the hallmark of being a good player.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Chiki

[Florete]

If we took the 'no damage' example and did a playthrough with that in mind, but one person accomplished it by being safe and the other did so by playing the odds and getting lucky, the former is more skilled regardless of turn-count since the latter took unacceptable risks. Likewise, no deaths, full recruitment, average stats, 100% reliability, and the like, taking an unacceptable risk is not a testament to skill, but luck.

Wow, it's like no one has ever said "while keeping risk minimal." "Average stats" and "100% reliability" are right there in your post! How can "an unacceptable risk" even be a part of 100% reliability?

You're so deep in your own mind that you're coming up with completely random non-sequitors. I can't say I'm surprised you're doing this, but I am continuously surprised that you can have gone on so long without learning a damn thing.

[TheMoniker]

I'm going to express my answer to the original question:

Turtling is taking much, much longer than absolutely necessary to clear a chapter. Advancing slowly but surely through a fortress isn't turtling. Not going LEEROY JENKINSSSS with everyone you have doesn't instantly make it turtling. Killing the enemies around you, then waiting 50 turn for reinforcements, then going a bit further, then waiting 50 turns in case you crossed an invisible line, repeat, is turtling. I may have been exaggerating a bit, but I don't consider turtling to be the mark of a bad player, just a too-careful or paranoid one. Some people consider not constantly pushing ahead to mean you obviously are taking way too long, although I feel its worth mentioning that sometimes, bad level design can force this. Lets say you're moving the whole group through a fairly wide hallway in a fortress(about 3 tiles?). Two enemy groups are coming at you. However, they are quite large and aren't very well staggered. One group is in the range of your good offense dudes, but you can't attack it without drawing the dangerous attention of the next group. So you have to move your defense dudes to the front. The first group hits them, they survive, but then the other group comes lining up behind them. The hallway ahead is now choked with units, and is simultaneously wide enough to bring plenty of enemies in, yet too small to move the might of your army in and crush them. So you have to continue to tank until eventually you can start killing them off. But while you're doing that, more enemy groups come in from other parts of the fort. More and more red guys pour into that little hallway, until you have no hope of getting out anytime soon. If you're really unlucky, you'll get dudes from behind too, forcing you to hold two fronts and then you really have no hope of getting out! You have to just wait until the reinforcements run out and the hallway clears, which could take any number of turns. I have this problem in a lot of ROMhacks, like dream of five(although i hear Astra is fixing it).

Myself, I advance slowly but surely, but when I actually have a reason to rush I go almost more all-out than I should.

[dondon151]

Your described scenario hardly ever happens in actual FE games, though. Even FE12 P-8 can be done without turtling.

[MartyTheDemonSlayer]

Some maps on no grind lunatic+ in fe13 might be almost impossible without turtling, or at least absurdly difficult for almost anyone, but I will concede that FE13 is still relatively new compared to the other fire emblems and more reliable strategies could be worked out in the future. In any other game turtling is always unnecessary though.

[CT075]

Turtling is taking much, much longer than absolutely necessary to clear a chapter.

so what defines "absolutely necessary"?

to counter your DoF example, I cleared an older version of 14A (the dragons) in 7 turns, 12 turns with all chests and member card. all accounts say that it's gotten easier recently. so if i've proven that 7 turns is all that's *necessary* for clearing the chapter, does that mean that everyone who takes longer is turtling?

[Snowy_One]

so what defines "absolutely necessary"?

to counter your DoF example, I cleared an older version of 14A (the dragons) in 7 turns, 12 turns with all chests and member card. all accounts say that it's gotten easier recently. so if i've proven that 7 turns is all that's *necessary* for clearing the chapter, does that mean that everyone who takes longer is turtling?

This is a large part of the problem too. I mean, we can claim LTC is this. We can claim A-rank/Bexp/whatever is this, we can simply define this as, well, anything. Is it invalid to say that beating a desert chapter in 15 turns is 'longer than necessary' because that's how fast it would take your armor units to move through the sand? Is it 3 turns because that's how long it would take your fliers? I mean, an all army/all peggy playthrough are both valid and is it really fair to condemn someone to being 'unskilled' just because he doesn't use a peggy?

Probably should answer these too...

Snowy, these are necessary skills for LTCing. You likely can't be good at LTCing without them.

LTC players usually need a lot of skill (such as in the areas you suggest), talent, creativity and intelligence, and that's why it's the hallmark of being a good player.

Here's the big difference. Let's go back to my VK example since the stats are a bit more set. I can go through the game following a video guide, curbstomping everyone by following it to the exact letter, and possibly get an all-A rank by doing so. That doesn't make me skilled. What makes me 'skilled' is what happens when the enemy gets that unexpected rocket shot on my Shocktrooper. I can sit down and learn the pre-sets, but if I can't deviate from them, which requires understanding why they work in the first place, I'm just going through the motions.

If you're truly skilled at Smash, you can fight on most maps instead of just FD and Battlefield, because you actually understand your character and how they function and can compensate for the sudden change. Maybe not perfectly, but you should still be able to.

If you are skilled at WoW, while you go in doing your research beforehand on how to beat a raid-boss, you can compensate (at least somewhat) for that idiot who stands in the fire instead of requiring a perfect, detailed, plan.

This is why I disagree with the notion of 'faster = more skill'. I can beat down almost any deck with my Chandra's Spitfire deck in four turns (assuming I don't get screwed of course). But if things go wrong in the slightest, I'm stuck near-defenseless with no spells, possibly no creatures, and having to go into late game. That deck is fast, but it doesn't require much skill.

'But that's different!'. Yes. So? If you are completing each map faster because you picked more mobile units, all you're really proving is that your units are more mobile than someone else. An army of fliers and horsemen will likely beat a map MUCH faster than foot soldiers, especially if there is the option to fly over terrain. Does that mean that the former army is better/requires more skill/anything of the sort? No. It's just more mobile.

Maybe there is truth in the 'speed = better/more skilled' argument, but if that statement is going to hold true than the more-skilled player should still be faster than the less-skilled even when things like peggies and paladins are removed. Why? Because they're more skilled. They know and understand the game and why certain things work and certain things don't. They know if risks are fine that others are unwilling to make and, thusly, waste extra turns.

Pointing to TheMoiker's example, maybe that was extreme, but what if you missed on a 99% hit rate and, as a result, had to take an extra turn? Are you unskilled or unlucky? What if an enemy moves in a different way than it's supposed to? Are you unskilled or unlucky? If you can't compensate for it, than the former is true.

Wow, it's like no one has ever said "while keeping risk minimal." "Average stats" and "100% reliability" are right there in your post! How can "an unacceptable risk" even be a part of 100% reliability?

You're so deep in your own mind that you're coming up with completely random non-sequitors. I can't say I'm surprised you're doing this, but I am continuously surprised that you can have gone on so long without learning a damn thing.

In my experience, people who argue turncounts=skill tend to rely on things like shove-chains, precise movements, and the like. A unit could be outright horrible stat-wise, but because they might have a skill like wrath, or the capability to fly/move on a horse, they'll consider them as 'better'. This is not something I have encountered just here though and, after years of encountering it (all the way back to the SS times), it has blurred together into a big mass.

I'm sorry that every time I hear 'less turns = better' I flash-back to the many arguments where people will debate exact tile placement, or if a unit can just squeak out enough of a weapon rank to use something by turn XX to slay an enemy with it on the next turn. That's simply the things I've encountered and had to deal with over many years.

Edited July 21, 2014 by Snowy_One

[CT075]

i agree (and disagree that turtling necessarily means an unskilled player)

if you ask me, turtling is sitting back and never making the first move on enemies

[Florete]

In my experience, people who argue turncounts=skill tend to rely on things like shove-chains, precise movements, and the like. A unit could be outright horrible stat-wise, but because they might have a skill like wrath, or the capability to fly/move on a horse, they'll consider them as 'better'. This is not something I have encountered just here though and, after years of encountering it (all the way back to the SS times), it has blurred together into a big mass.

I'm sorry that every time I hear 'less turns = better' I flash-back to the many arguments where people will debate exact tile placement, or if a unit can just squeak out enough of a weapon rank to use something by turn XX to slay an enemy with it on the next turn. That's simply the things I've encountered and had to deal with over many years.

You do not need shove chains and precise movements to get reasonably good turn counts (shove "chains" really aren't very common anyway). I'm pretty sure the only unit who's really poor stat wise but considered good in tier lists is Thany.

Wrath, lol, no one considers that a strong case for a character, and it's funny how you insinuate that characters shouldn't be good for having good base skills when that's actually considered a very novice point of view, at least in the Tellius series, because base skills usually don't mean much there, but it's the more casual players who will hype them up a lot (like Soren with Adept). And in games where the skill problem isn't like it is in Tellius, how the hell does having a good base skill not significantly improve that unit? You say "horrible stat-wise" but it's all relative, and if a skill boosts a unit enough, then they're good to go.

Then again, every time I respond to you I always wonder why I bothered because you never learn anything. Even this post of yours reeks of ignoring all the knowledge we've tried to pound into your skull over the years.

[Tryhard]

Then again, every time I respond to you I always wonder why I bothered because you never learn anything. Even this post of yours reeks of ignoring all the knowledge we've tried to pound into your skull over the years.

My question is why do you bother anymore, I mean you've said it several times. Just seems like you want to act incredulous whenever snowy posts.

[Narga_Rocks]

More like we just can't help it. We see a giant wrongness and are forever condemned to bang our heads against the glass wall in front of it in an attempt to break through and fix the wrongness. All we tend to get are splitting headaches, though, and his wall is ever strong.

[Florete]

My question is why do you bother anymore, I mean you've said it several times. Just seems like you want to act incredulous whenever snowy posts.

I write the response naturally before considering whether or not it's a good idea.

More like we just can't help it. We see a giant wrongness and are forever condemned to bang our heads against the glass wall in front of it in an attempt to break through and fix the wrongness. All we tend to get are splitting headaches, though, and his wall is ever strong.

That, too.

[Snowy_One]

Why do you guys get all the headbanging privileges? Can't we just agree we don't understand each others viewpoints at all and go on with our merry lives? Or at least let me in on the head-banging?

[dondon151]

You do not need shove chains and precise movements to get reasonably good turn counts (shove "chains" really aren't very common anyway). I'm pretty sure the only unit who's really poor stat wise but considered good in tier lists is Thany.

there's FE9 mordecai too, sort of, since he's mostly used for smiting and rescuing rather than fighting. but he can at least take a hit and dish one out.

Why do you guys get all the headbanging privileges? Can't we just agree we don't understand each others viewpoints at all and go on with our merry lives? Or at least let me in on the head-banging?

either both of us are wrong or one of us is right, and by "one of us" i really mean "the rest of us."

[Chiki]

Snowy, I'm trying to be nice to you, but I don't see the point anymore. Your arguments are really bad and your stubbornness about those bad arguments is the reason why many think you're not the sharpest tool in the shed. I don't know if you actually believe in these arguments or not, but you need to stop either way.

Here's the big difference. Let's go back to my VK example since the stats are a bit more set. I can go through the game following a video guide, curbstomping everyone by following it to the exact letter, and possibly get an all-A rank by doing so. That doesn't make me skilled. What makes me 'skilled' is what happens when the enemy gets that unexpected rocket shot on my Shocktrooper. I can sit down and learn the pre-sets, but if I can't deviate from them, which requires understanding why they work in the first place, I'm just going through the motions.

I don't care about people who follow a video guide. I care about people who manage to come up with good LTC clears without help (or much help). In my mind, people who follow a guide like that aren't LTC players. An LTC player must be original and talented.

Edited July 21, 2014 by Chiki

[dondon151]

yes, skilled players think of contingencies...

in cases like fire emblem now where much of the trail has already been blazed, it's probably better for a player to follow a guide and then develop skills along the way by experimenting with alternatives and developing contingencies.

[Ownagepuffs]

yes, skilled players think of contingencies...

in cases like fire emblem now where much of the trail has already been blazed, it's probably better for a player to follow a guide and then develop skills along the way by experimenting with alternatives and developing contingencies.

Going to agree here. Improving on the vast amount of existing knowledge is better than discovering old knowledge on your own. As long as you understand what makes the existing knowledge tick I don't see a problem.