Why is LTC hated?

[Espinosa]

And tell me, if a chimpanzee can do LTC and it's not challenging, how does that make LTC better than anything else?

The strategy still needs to be figured out before it can be copied. Nevertheless, very few people (if any at all) repeat others' strategies step-by-step.

Olwen's FE9 LTC also isn't available in a format where one could repeat every action and get the same reliable results. You would have to match his understand of the chapters, planning and both short-term and long-term goals if you were to replicate it.

LTC isn't "better" than any other playstyle (building supports or boss-abusing); it is simply the only reasonable approach we have for measuring units' worth and comparing them to one another.

Indeed. People who tier are different. But tiering itself requires a familiarity with the game and a degree of both understanding and devotion to it to even discuss it in such a manner. Not everyone who graduates college graduates for the same reasons, but a college graduate is much more likely to actually know what they're doing (at least in their field of expertise) than a high-school dropout. Obviously there are exceptions. But likewise, spending time tiering means I'm familiar with the game and it's workings on some level instead of a mere surface association. If I wasn't, I couldn't present an argument after all.

I may disagree with where the goalposts are, but I still know how to kick the ball.

It stops being a proper match when one player (or more) grabs the ball and prevents the game from going on.

[Snowy_One]

You say anyone can imitate what LTC'ers do. Then prove it.

I said anyone can follow a cut-and-paste strategy. If someone provides me a link to a LTC fixed (to reduce RNG screwage) walkthrough, I could duplicate it easily. Even Chiki said a chimp can do it. The whole point is that anyone following a guide can manage a 'LTC' run. Unless you're willing to provide said guide it's pointless to ask me. Even if you did, I don't care enough about LTC to set the time aside. Norma hugging Grune rates higher on my interest list as does finishing Revolutionary Girl Utena.

[Espinosa]

Even Chiki said

You found a very reliable narrator to support your claim I see.

I said anyone can follow a cut-and-paste strategy. If someone provides me a link to a LTC fixed (to reduce RNG screwage) walkthrough, I could duplicate it easily. Even Chiki said a chimp can do it. The whole point is that anyone following a guide can manage a 'LTC' run. Unless you're willing to provide said guide it's pointless to ask me.

You've been on this forum long enough, discussing the same game over and over and claim expertise in the field (which others do not find necessary for themselves). Surely you're aware of some resources created by other users and how said resources relate to the thing you're addressing.

Even if you did, I don't care enough about LTC to set the time aside. Norma hugging Grune rates higher on my interest list as does finishing Revolutionary Girl Utena.

Then why are you still bugging us about it, out of spite?

[Chiki]

I was joking when I said a chimp could do it, but I'm sure even you could pull it off, Snowy.

[Narga_Rocks]

Think of your race. Now think of an extremely derogatory way of referring to your race. Would you want to be shoved into that category? How 'bout if I referred to all men as chauvinistic pigs, with my justification being that "you're too sensitive if you don't like it"? The issue runs deeper than words - it's a matter of pigeonholing people into things they may not want to be seen as. I'm a woman, but that doesn't mean I'm a soccer mom, and I wouldn't appreciate being called one right now. I don't like being told by others what I should be; I'll decide that for myself.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding me. I am a "man". I take no issue with being called a "man". There are chauvinistic pigs out there who are also "men". When a person calls me a "man", I do not immediately translate that in my head to "you are a chauvinistic pig". Similarly, if I call you a "woman", why would you translate that into "soccer mom".

Casual is as massively broad a category as "man", and thus it should be compared to being called a "man", not to being called a "chauvinistic pig". Unless you believe that "causal gamer" is a much more limited category. Which is fine. You'd just have a different opinion of the phrase "casual gamer" than Olwen does.

If I call a "square" a "polygon" and I also call a "triangle" a "polygon", am I calling a triangle a square? Don't think so. They both happen to fit into one, broad, category, but by naming them a part of the category they are in, I am in no way shape or form equating the two. A triangle is not a square. Similarly, by calling two very different people "casual", I am not stating that snowy has the same gamer IQ as my little cousin who playes wii sports.

Edited June 19, 2013 by Narga_Rocks

[Randa]

Well triangles are lame and can be "squares". I think the major offense people take is that its not defined well. It's weird. I understand where both sides of this are coming from. The term is very poorly defined, because people have different definitions, and it upsets people. It's a catch 22 situation no matter how you handle it will fall apart.

[Rehab]

Then what's the point of art

If you believe my creative writing teacher, to relate the human experience

[Chiki]

Well triangles are lame and can be "squares". I think the major offense people take is that its not defined well. It's weird. I understand where both sides of this are coming from. The term is very poorly defined, because people have different definitions, and it upsets people. It's a catch 22 situation no matter how you handle it will fall apart.

I don't think eclipse meant that.

I don't like being told by others what I should be; I'll decide that for

She doesn't want to be something that makes her uncomfortable, though it'd be true by definition.

[eclipse]

Perhaps you are misunderstanding me. I am a "man". I take no issue with being called a "man". There are chauvinistic pigs out there who are also "men". When a person calls me a "man", I do not immediately translate that in my head to "you are a chauvinistic pig". Similarly, if I call you a "woman", why would you translate that into "soccer mom".

Casual is as massively broad a category as "man", and thus it should be compared to being called a "man", not to being called a "chauvinistic pig". Unless you believe that "causal gamer" is a much more limited category. Which is fine. You'd just have a different opinion of the phrase "casual gamer" than Olwen does.

If I call a "square" a "polygon" and I also call a "triangle" a "polygon", am I calling a triangle a square? Don't think so. They both happen to fit into one, broad, category, but by naming them a part of the category they are in, I am in no way shape or form equating the two. A triangle is not a square. Similarly, by calling two very different people "casual", I am not stating that snowy has the same gamer IQ as my little cousin who playes wii sports.

I think context is very important. I also think that the best example I can think of. . .may tread on some toes.

(warning: if you're sensitive about racial issues, please stop reading, kthx)

Thanks to many years of language evolution, "haole" went from referring to any foreigner to referring to white people. Sometimes, it is used in a very negative context (usually describing someone who is white, arrogant, pushy, loud, unreasonably stubborn about the wrong thing, and/or spoiled). Othertimes, it is used to describe a white person, without the rest of the aforementioned adjectives attached to it. Thus, the "fucking haole who ran a red light" is the former and "the nice restaurant run by the haole couple" is the latter. Now, if someone really hated being called a haole, and always interpreted it as the negative meaning, would it be right to apply that label to that person, even if you meant it only as a race descriptor?

This topic illustrates that at least one person defines "casual" in an extremely condescending way; this is why I'm wary about justifying a separate label for a certain type of gamer. What one person sees as "casual" may be another person's full effort, and to brush off that person's effort in such a manner is pretty rude, IMO.

Also, Chiki, assuming what I'm thinking is really fucking rude. Cut it out. Signed, How To Interact With People Without Looking Like A Chauvinistic Pig

[Chiki]

Also, Chiki, assuming what I'm thinking is really fucking rude. Cut it out. Signed, How To Interact With People Without Looking Like A Chauvinistic Pig

That's a lot ruder than anything I said towards you. It's uncalled for.

Care to explain what you meant instead of losing your cool?

Edited June 20, 2013 by Chiki

[eclipse]

That's a lot ruder than anything I said towards you. It's uncalled for.

Care to explain what you meant instead of losing your cool?

It's not a matter of words, it's the concept. Assuming what other people think is far more rude than anything I've said. You are NOT that person, you do NOT know what's going on in their head, and talking as if you know their motives is in extremely bad taste. It's also a really fast way to piss me off, because I had far too many people do this to me (so if you're reading this, third grade teacher, fuck you for telling all the girls in the class that they shouldn't be good at math). Glad I got your attention, though.

[Chiki]

It's not a matter of words, it's the concept. Assuming what other people think is far more rude than anything I've said. You are NOT that person, you do NOT know what's going on in their head, and talking as if you know their motives is in extremely bad taste. It's also a really fast way to piss me off, because I had far too many people do this to me (so if you're reading this, third grade teacher, fuck you for telling all the girls in the class that they shouldn't be good at math). Glad I got your attention, though.

There's a huge difference between saying that someone shouldn't be good at math and saying that someone is casual. The key word is should, and that's where the difference comes from: when you use that word, you're telling them to change their lifestyle. There is no such thing implied when you call someone a casual player.

Edited June 20, 2013 by Chiki

[Sunwoo]

Sometimes words can hurt even if they were not meant to hurt at all. And if being upset by such a thing makes a person "thin-skinned," then so be it but sometimes there are times when you just have to shut up and say, "I'm sorry."

Chiki, perhaps you honestly don't mean anything when you use the word "casual". But it's clear that there is at least one person on SF (and likely more) who don't appreciate that term being used. Whether you meant to use it in a condescending manner or not, some people take it as such. That is not something that is "their problem". People are shaped by experiences, and sometimes even something meant to be innocuous can be hurtful. Sometimes you don't even realize you're doing it. And if you do accidentally offend someone, the answer isn't to continue to try to justify yourself. In that case, you say, "It wasn't my intent to imply such a thing, but sorry if I accidentally offended you." Sometimes, you just need to say "I'm sorry."

Also, another thing with this "there is no such thing implied" business. I was reading a book the other day about sundown towns. These nasty towns that actually bar people from living in them because of their skin color. These towns can be very racist, and they throw around racist terms unthinkingly. According to the book, people in these towns who use such terms as this say that "there is no offense meant" in the terms, but no duh people are going to get offended by racist terminology, even if it's not applied to them. "There is no offense meant" should not be a defense for accidentally offending someone. Perhaps you didn't mean harm, but you're not going to convince anyone that you meant no harm if you don't apologize for it.

[Steampunk]

So...how 'bout them Cowboys?

There is no such thing implied when you call someone a casual player.

For some people, there are implications behind the term. Now I'll be the last to say the world needs to become PC obsessed; but when it's clear something you say is bothering someone else and you (the general you, not you in particular) show complete disregard for that, it's usually a sign of dickishness or Antisocial Personality Disorder. Neither are looked highly upon in my experience.

[Chiki]

So...how 'bout them Cowboys?

For some people, there are implications behind the term. Now I'll be the last to say the world needs to become PC obsessed; but when it's clear something you say is bothering someone else and you (the general you, not you in particular) show complete disregard for that, it's usually a sign of dickishness or Antisocial Personality Disorder. Neither are looked highly upon in my experience.

When should we stop caring when people are bothered, though? If a child cries because you told them they were cute, would you take that seriously? Or is it because the child is too sensitive? Is it really your fault or is it theirs? I think this is the situation here.

[Constable Reggie]

I think you're retarded.

Don't mind me, just using my own definition of retarded, which is "an excellent individual". It really is your fault if you take offense to it.

[Steampunk]

When should we stop caring when people are bothered, though? If a child cries because you told them they were cute, would you take that seriously? Or is it because the child is too sensitive? Is it really your fault or is it theirs? I think this is the situation here.

There is no cut and dry "rules of social engagement" for these things. Each person has their own things that set them off. "Retard" is a great example. That is technically a medical/psychological term (Mental Retardation). There are also many people with mental disabilities who take issue with that term (despite it's medical usage) because of the implications it carries due to the way some people use it. I personally wouldn't consider it ridiculous for someone to take issue with me calling them retarded because I understand why someone would have a problem with that and respect the fact that it's something they take seriously.

If I encounter someone who suffers considerable psychological trauma from me calling them cute, and the reasons they get upset make sense to me, I'll respect that as well. There are people who look for things to get bothered about, but we can't assume that everyone is looking for something to be offended by just because they take issue with things we don't. Just because I don't get upset over someone calling me a retard doesn't mean that I think it's stupid if someone else does.

Edit: Lol, epic ninja post Reggie. Absolutely epic.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Sheik

[Chiki]

There is no cut and dry "rules of social engagement" for these things. Each person has their own things that set them off. "Retard" is a great example. That is technically a medical/psychological term (Mental Retardation). There are also many people with mental disabilities who take issue with that term (despite it's medical usage) because of the implications it carries due to the way some people use it. I personally wouldn't consider it ridiculous for someone to take issue with me calling them retarded because I understand why someone would have a problem with that and respect the fact that it's something they take seriously.

If I encounter someone who suffers considerable psychological trauma from me calling them cute, and the reasons they get upset make sense to me, I'll respect that as well. There are people who look for things to get bothered about, but we can't assume that everyone is looking for something to be offended by just because they take issue with things we don't. Just because I don't get upset over someone calling me a retard doesn't mean that I think it's stupid if someone else does.

Edit: Lol, epic ninja post Reggie. Absolutely epic.

Does calling someone a retard have the same implications as calling someone a casual video game player?

[Constable Reggie]

Does calling someone cute have the same implications as calling someone a casual video game player?

[eclipse]

When should we stop caring when people are bothered, though? If a child cries because you told them they were cute, would you take that seriously? Or is it because the child is too sensitive? Is it really your fault or is it theirs? I think this is the situation here.

The day I answer this will be the day you admit to stepping on someone's toes, apologizing, and never doing it again. Empathy's a good thing to have when dealing with other people.

[Chiki]

The day I answer this will be the day you admit to stepping on someone's toes, apologizing, and never doing it again. Empathy's a good thing to have when dealing with other people.

No, this is completely ridiculous. I'm supposed to apologize for assuming what you think (big deal), but it's perfectly fine for you to call me a chauvinist pig, ignore others to make threads in FFTF for no reason other than to mock me, and ignore the person calling me retarded 3 posts above yours? I've never seen such hypocrisy.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Chiki

[Sunwoo]

Chiki, how can you say it is not hypocritical for you to do the same things that you get upset at other people for doing? You're saying to eclipse that it's not a "big deal" that you assumed what she thought, but you're upset that she called you a chauvinist pig? Look. Her calling you a chauvinist pig upset you. Well, you assuming what she thought upset her similarly. Why are you brushing off her getting upset by saying "big deal" like it's supposed to mean nothing, while you get to be "righteously" upset at her calling you a chauvinist pig? The way I see it, you said something that upset her, and she said something that upset you. However, you are refusing to even acknowledge that you may have said something to offend her, even if you didn't mean to, and you are only seeing your side. This isn't a one-way street, and you yourself are being hypocritical. You expect eclipse to not get upset at something that offended her, but you have the right to be offended all you want?

[Chiki]

Why apologize for something that was responded to with a far worse attitude?

[eclipse]

Hi Boron.

No, this is completely ridiculous. I'm supposed to apologize for assuming what you think (big deal), but it's perfectly fine for you to call me a chauvinist pig, ignore others to make threads in FFTF for no reason other than to mock me, and ignore the person calling me retarded 3 posts above yours? I've never seen such hypocrisy.

It was a call to empathy. You don't like being called such things, and I am fully aware of this. Now, take that feeling to heart. Remember how much it hurts. This is what you're doing to others, whether you intended to or not. Do you like it when other people do that to you? Do you think the other person should apologize to you? Reverse the positions, and that's what you do when you ignore other people's preferences and throw names around. I don't know if you're doing it on purpose, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, and attempting to explain it to you. I couldn't reach you with words the last time, so I used emotion this time.

With that being said, I apologize if you were hurt by it. Can you do the same?

[Sunwoo]

Look. You said something that bothered eclipse. She said something that bothered you. Not so pleasant when you're on the receiving end of it, isn't it? It's not really a matter of "who offended who more" because the question of whose question was more offensive is actually up to debate. (And I actually agree with eclipse that it is very rude to assume what people are thinking unless you are a mind reader.) What the matter IS, however, is that you're only seeing your side. You don't seem to care when people get offended by your calling them "casuals" or assuming what eclipse is thinking. You see it as "their problem". But you're suddenly justified when they say things to you that you don't like and it's not "your problem" but they're "mean"? Can you not see the hypocrisy in this?

Hi eclipse