What Exactly Qualifies As Turtling?

[Snowy_One]

...

...

Damn it Chiki. I don't know how to respond to that.

[Chiki]

...

...

Damn it Chiki. I don't know how to respond to that.

We agree on many areas, such as Mia being better than Zihark, when most people think otherwise. Why wouldn't I respect you? It takes a significant amount of skill to know something like that.

[Snowy_One]

Because I'm not the best. At anything.

I wasn't the best FE player, picking units like Rhys over Mist constantly and putting Lethe on my team, using units like Nino and Amelia, despite them being 'horrible', and the like. I'm far from the best writer in RP's. When I design RP systems other people find flaws and make better ones. I can't make a 'good character' stat-wise without serious outside help, I've never placed in a tourney of any sort beside one rifle-shooting one as a kid. I KNOW I'm a sucky player, not the best, or even really all that good, by any real measure. I'm still out there, trying to be the best and doing so in my own way, but because I shun things like LTC and Smogon I KNOW I'm far from being at the same level of play as people who do 0% runs and the like. I'm not someone who should be looked up to or respected, least... not in my own eyes.

[Ownagepuffs]

ITT A heartfelt moment between Chiki and Snowy. I need to grab a napkin because I shed a tear.

Oh yeah, gotta answer the OP.

Turtling is just taking extra long to finish a map in order to reduce risk.

[Chiki]

Because I'm not the best. At anything.

I wasn't the best FE player, picking units like Rhys over Mist constantly and putting Lethe on my team, using units like Nino and Amelia, despite them being 'horrible', and the like. I'm far from the best writer in RP's. When I design RP systems other people find flaws and make better ones. I can't make a 'good character' stat-wise without serious outside help, I've never placed in a tourney of any sort beside one rifle-shooting one as a kid. I KNOW I'm a sucky player, not the best, or even really all that good, by any real measure. I'm still out there, trying to be the best and doing so in my own way, but because I shun things like LTC and Smogon I KNOW I'm far from being at the same level of play as people who do 0% runs and the like. I'm not someone who should be looked up to or respected, least... not in my own eyes.

Ok. So this is why you've been so against LTC and LTC players? Because you're jealous?

You don't need to be good at a video game. I've never been very good at fighting games, either, and I'm jealous of people who are pros at it. But that doesn't give me the right to go around and be a dick to every Melee/Brawl pro. Same goes for you. It's just a game, and it's not a crime to enjoy it and be a bad player. I can still enjoy playing Melee or Brawl casually even if I know there's a lot of players better than me out there. Focus on something that matters, like a career or an academic field. Video games don't matter. Let it go. You don't need to take your anger at yourself out on others. Life isn't fair, so some people just happen to be more talented. Find your own talents and work on them.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Chiki

[Snowy_One]

I wouldn't say it's jealousy so much as frustration. I admire 0% runs and the like, even though I know that things like those could probably be set in stone with a turn-by-turn guide (no growths after all) yet get furious at LTC despite the randomness. When I tried to partake in a Smash tourney, I entered in using Zelda. I knew it was going to be an uphill battle from the start as I knew Zelda wasn't that highly ranked and I would see a lot of Meta-knights and the like. I instantly had people calling me horrible because I picked Zelda and, despite winning my first match against three other Meta-knights, didn't make it to the finals and, afterwards, had several people taunting me because I used Zelda.

When I played WoW I wanted to be a priest (well, not really, but that's a lengthy story and I did eventually enjoy being a priest above all else), specifically a holy priest, and people loved taunting me because I was a holy priest as opposed to a Disc priest or another class, even when I was healing perfectly well to the point of being really good. People would still point out I hadn't been in Icecrown Citadel or the like and mock me for it.

When I go play Pokemon and admit I use 'non-optimal' pokemon I got mocked for doing so. When I played LoL and used Fiora or Poppy, I got mocked. No matter how good I did or the like, it's been an unwinnable battle to just... win at something. Even now, working as a game reviewer, I still have people mocking me since it's not a high-paying job and the like.

[Chiki]

Most video gamers are really immature people who take gaming super seriously and genuinely think you're a bad person for making certain video game choices. Just look at this forum as an example. But as far as I can see, the LTC players on this forum are a lot more mature compared to the average person here. No LTCer here is going to mock you as long as you stop and apologize, I assure you. I don't look down on you for wanting to use Nino.

That's enough of going off-topic, though. I think Knight made the best post on this thread:

I guess it would be taking unnecessary precautions in how you move your units, like moving slowly to avoid danger where logically the problem could be solved more efficiently with the same net gain/loss. That's my definition I guess.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Chiki

[Snowy_One]

I agree with that post fairly well as well. While I'd say that there is a bit more wiggle-room, it's fairly accurate.

[CT075]

now kiss

[Loki Laufeyson]

now kiss

*munches popcorn*

Life isn't fair, so some people just happen to be more talented

Yes, but you see..the talented who are wise do not wave their dicks around saying they are better than others. Instead, they encourage others to grow.

/folds arms

[Ownagepuffs]

Can I be a part of this bonding?

[Irysa]

lmao this thread is godlike

I can't handle all these mixups and option selects being employed by Chiki. Are you sure you're not good at fighters?

Edited July 17, 2014 by Irysa

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

i come back from recovery from my eye sugury weeks ago and this is what i missed?

damn i miss you guys

[Chiki]

lmao this thread is godlike

I can't handle all these mixups and option selects being employed by Chiki. Are you sure you're not good at fighters?

Lol, maybe I'd be good at them if I got into it.

Yes, but you see..the talented who are wise do not wave their dicks around saying they are better than others. Instead, they encourage others to grow.

That's exactly what I did in this thread. Grow up.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Chiki

[Florete]

Yes, but you see..the talented who are wise do not wave their dicks around saying they are better than others. Instead, they encourage others to grow.

/folds arms

I'm sure both Chiki and dondon would be happy to help anyone who requests their help at being better at FE. Not me, though, because I'm a big ol' meanie.

Besides, acceptance is the first step.

[Irysa]

Lol, maybe I'd be good at them if I got into it.

Considering you just caught Snowy mashing on wakeup with your OS and converted into a hard knockdown, I'd say you have definite potential.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Irysa

[Narga_Rocks]

If you ranked how skilled a person is entirely on how they park, yes. But that's not all there is to driving by a long-shot. Even for parking it's not 'more skilled' by a longshot. You can back into a space, but can you do it without taking up two spaces? How well can you park in a crowded area? Most importantly, why do you think it's okay to call other people bad drivers because they can't back into a space?

That's your response? Seriously? Parking was part of the example, but why do you think parking is the whole thing? I specifically said that I can do what you can do, but you can't do some of what I can do. This is not limited to parking. Let me make it more clear for the slow. Any part of driving you feel skilled at, I can pull off. There are some aspects of driving that I can pull off that you can't. And I thought it was obvious that if I say I can do it, I can do it well. Similarly, if you think you can do something, when I say I can do it too, I'm clearly suggesting I can do it as well as you can.

Why do I have to pull teeth to get you to answer a question clearly without completely misinterpreting it?

And another thing, QUOTE ME WHERE I SAID OTHER PEOPLE ARE BAD DRIVERS BECAUSE THEY CAN'T BACK INTO A SPACE!!!!!!!

What the hell is wrong with you that you feel it's okay to misrepresent people? Just because person a is better at something than person b, why does that make person b bad? Is this some kind of binary issue you have? Everything is black or white? LTC players are 100% LTC and can't even think otherwise for one second? I guess this explains a lot. Is there only "good at" and "bad at" to you? How does this work in school for you?

I can just imagine this now:

Teacher teacher why did you say I'm bad at this!?!?

But I gave you a 90! Wha?

Yeah, but you gave this other guy a 95, and by saying he's better at it than I am, clearly you are saying I'm bad at this

Edited July 17, 2014 by Narga_Rocks

[Snowy_One]

ust because person a is better at something than person b, why does that make person b bad? Is this some kind of binary issue you have? Everything is black or white? LTC players are 100% LTC and can't even think otherwise for one second? I guess this explains a lot. Is there only "good at" and "bad at" to you? How does this work in school for you?

I can just imagine this now:

Teacher teacher why did you say I'm bad at this!?!?

But I gave you a 90! Wha?

Yeah, but you gave this other guy a 95, and by saying he's better at it than I am, clearly you are saying I'm bad at this

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.

And another thing, QUOTE ME WHERE I SAID OTHER PEOPLE ARE BAD DRIVERS BECAUSE THEY CAN'T BACK INTO A SPACE!!!!!!!

However, if you turtle because you CAN'T SEE the faster (still safe) solution, how could that not be a sign you are not as great a player as the guy who cuts your turncount in half while having the same success/survival rate as you? I understand people don't want to be called bad at something, and all that, but can't you just be a little bit objective here? If you can't go faster without dying all the time, and that's why you turtle, you probably aren't as good at the game as Chiki and dondon are. It should be obvious and I don't get why this point is being belaboured.

'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'.

[CT075]

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.

so why are you perpetuating it by applying it in situations where it doesn't actually

[Snowy_One]

Because he seems to be acting like it's an absurd thing that never happens when it is a very real thing that does happen. People get pushed to be the 'best' with any sort of failure not being tolerated in the slightest and their 'reward' for success can be as small as not being chewed out that day.

[CT075]

but it doesn't apply here? the sky is blue, but i'm not bringing that up everywhere i go in every discussion i'm ever involved in?

Edited July 17, 2014 by CT075

[Dr. Tarrasque]

if i've posted ambiguous commentary, please point it out.

Think it's safe to say that stuff going on in this thread is an indication of it:

playing defensively is like, never the smartest tactic in fire emblem

You just said you don't believe that you've made any attempt at answering the question and then you throw this statement without much substance into a conversation where someone seeks to understand the meaning an specific statement. This is open to having several interpretations and when you say something like "x is never the best", that's often have negative connotations which makes it unsurprising that there's talk of turtling being bad when supposedly.

no one said that turtling is bad.

Personally I'm not sure I believe this is really a big deal but it gets old to end up seeing so much pointless discussion and arguing over silly things like a misinterpretation of a statement. This thread could've easily been simple one with no more than a page but look at it.

if i've belittled not-LTC playstyles, please point it out. (stating that turtling is the hallmark of a bad player is not belittling in any way)

It still is though.

Belittle: to regard or portray as less impressive or important than appearances indicate

"Turtling is the hallmark of a bad player"

unless you object to being called a worse fire emblem player (by the way, it's okay to not be great at fire emblem), then no one suggested that turtling is "bad".

Which is pretty much saying "if you turtle, you're a worse fire emblem player than one that goes for low turn counts". I'm not going to argue whether or not these statements are technically correct or whatever but the fact that you ARE belittling non-ltc playstyles when you say this.

"Hey that is a great solution to this problem but because it isn't the most efficient solution it indicates that you're bad"

"Hey x, you accomplished what you set out to do but you're still worse than y".

In the context of whether or not you're belittling someone with these statements, the matter of them being true or not is irrelevant. In these statements, you are devaluing the results because it's not as good as something else or because it's different.

"2nd place is bad because it's worse than first place."

"x team put up a fantastic performance in that game but because it wasn't enough to get them the win, they're bad."

Hell I belittled your involvement in this thread because it doesn't really seem to have been of any use for Loki to gain some understanding on what she asked and here you have some random guy crediting you on doing something you yourself have said you've not tried to.

unless you consider a statement such as "malpractice is the hallmark of a bad doctor" to be pejorative.)

immoral, illegal or unethical professional conduct or neglect of professional duty

Malpractice is indeed the hallmark of a bad doctor and implying that the turtling by FE players is equivalent of malpractice by doctors is arguably you belittling a non-ltc strategy/playstyle by suggesting it as an equivalent to immoral, illegal, unethical behavior.

Whatever the case, I don't believe this analogy is a good one and to suggest that someone who disagrees with a perfectly legal strategy in a video being a hallmark of a bad player is also saying that such illegal, immoral and unethical activity as doctor is not a bad thing seems dirty.

if i've flaunted my 0% growth LTC clears, which i absolutely have not (aside from the fact that they're linked in my signature), please point it out. otherwise, keep your cursor away from the "post" button.

This one's pretty much a matter of perception. So, you've beaten Fire Emblem with lowest or very low turn counts while having all characters with 0% growths. Well done, I'm sure that anyone that cares is impressed. I was impressed each time you showed completed one, except maybe FE5 because promotion bonuses, low enemy stats, warp, weapons you obtain, innate attributes among certain characters, etc.

Now usually when people discuss characters and whatnot, you're always bound to get some reaction if you say something is bad, something sucks/isn't good and whatnot and often, you're pretty much expected to explain yourself, to have some substance with the things you say, specially when your statements contradict popular opinion/consensus. Often when I see you post in such discussions, this is you:

brighton blows

salem is definitely better, fin is arguable, and felgus is a chump.

felgus does not have instant brave sword use and he might as well not exist after chapter 7 and i wouldn't care

The pope's words need no substance, no explanation, no context. In every discussion whatever the pope says goes. He doesn't need to explain the context of his words, other people will do it for him

this is dondon; there there is literally no mode of "extremely fast" that is faster than his

In short you kinda just rub it in, whether you intend to or not and there's people that do it for you because obviously the pope is always right.

Are you talking about the context of GD threads? Because he's made some very helpful comments in various playthrough threads I've made about plenty of non LTC things.

I'm not sure what you mean by "GD" threads. If he's helped you then that's great. I didn't see it and I'm not going to deny, I don't stalk dondon or anyone so I can't possibly catch every single thing he does so I'm merely speaking from what I remember seeing.

His entire post was based on the confusion between efficiency being real-time or turn-based, so his entire post was pointless. Every single person on this forum other than Wist thinks efficiency is turn-based.

Not his first post in the thread

wow, someone's bitter.

Perhaps. Interpret it as you will.

if i didn't give you the benefit of the doubt, i would almost guess that you're looking for a fight rather than saying anything substantial.

I'm not looking for a fight.

I'm not going to say that my jab at you was an appropriate thing to do. Part of it was to illustrate a point and another part was to share a few observations that seem similar to what was going on here.

The point I was trying to illustrate is this: You don't like me belittling you or saying bad things about you, people don't like you belittling them or having bad things said about them. You could stand to develop some humility and be a little more careful with what you say.

I asked around a bit and some people described you as insensitive, rather self-centered, and the "the kind of guy that doesn't break any rules but gets a rise out of people by unapologetic and douchy", which I agree and I'm sure others think the same but aren't as vocal about it because the pope wins every argument.

I probably won't respond to a reply. It'll derail the thread and arguing with the likes of you and Chiki is rather boring.

[Chiki]

I'm sure both Chiki and dondon would be happy to help anyone who requests their help at being better at FE.

Unfortunately, I don't think you can teach someone to be good at LTCing. It's impossible to teach someone to play chess without practice. You also need a lot of creativity (Sonic Sword Ike, etc.) which may not be something that can be taught. I'd start by doing practices (LTCing individual chapters with or without hacks, doing efficiency playthroughs, doing restricted LTC playthroughs such as drafts or girls-only so you deal with less characters or LTCing 0% so you don't have to deal with stats). Oftentimes restricted LTC playthroughs are significantly easier since you don't have to deal with as many variables, so you don't have to think as much. An important exception to this is banning FE13 Renown and the Avatar Logbook, which makes it a lot harder. This is a good place to start, Snowy--since you like FE9, maybe you should do an FE9 efficiency playthrough without looking at my strategies.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Chiki

[Wist]

You're probably the first person on this forum to say efficiency = real-time. Everyone talks about turns.

Let's make sure we're on the same page then. Efficiency equates to turns used to complete a chapter. And it appears many people here would judge a player as "better" than another if they play more efficiently. But it also appears many agree there are other ways to measure skill.

So is a player who completes a chapter in fewer turns than another showing they are "better" at Fire Emblem?

You probably shouldn't be making arrogant posts criticizing others if you're making silly mistakes like these. Can you also prove that murdering innocent children for fun is wrong? No, it's just an intuition. We can't chemically react the morality of killing innocent children and prove that it's right or wrong. We intuit based on thought experiments. It's a matter of opinion whether or not the better chess player will make predictions faster or slower.

Evidently I have been unclear. The intended body of my argument was that you can only claim someone is "better" at something if you have a definition of what that "better" is in context, but that "better" is still meaningless as a general qualification.

You can say someone is better at beating a chapter in fewer turns; that's measurable. But you can't say someone is intrinsically better at Fire Emblem because they can beat a chapter in fewer turns. What if someone is significantly faster at calculating reasonable unit positions? What if someone plays such that a unit never dies? What if someone plays with fewer weapon uses than anyone else? These factors are completely ignored by the strict "fewer turns equals better play" criteria. But why should they be ignored?

I can't tell where you stand on this. On one hand you support the "fast driver is the more skilled driver" argument. On the other hand you agree the chess example is a matter of opinion.

In either case your analogy of determining if "murdering innocent children for fun" is unrelated. Wrong in that context is determined by a range of biological and philosophical factors. Better in the context of this thread has nothing defining it beyond arguments by assertion. My position is this invalidates claims made earlier in the thread. You are deliberately appealing to sentiment with emotive language instead of contending with the point I was making: there may be indicators of skill – i.e. how someone may be considered "better" – other than the turn count.

If you agree with my position, why are you reproaching my posts? If you disagree with my position, why should Fire Emblem be considered differently?

This is how the first few pages of the thread read to me. I hate arguing by analogy, but this should be easier to follow.

Capitalizing proper nouns and the first word of any sentence is widely considered a fundamental aspect of good English writing; it's certainly difficult to argue it's not. So it follows that someone who adheres to these rules is demonstrating they're a "better" writer than someone who doesn't.

I adhere to these rules. dondon151 does not. I claim not following these rules is a hallmark of a bad writer. So it follows I am a "better" writer than dondon151.

Clearly the logic here is absurd, in multiple ways. I haven't proven anything — unless of course your definition of a "better" writer explicitly assumes the demonstrated ability to capitalize letter according to style guides is more important than any other possible factors, and you pretend it couldn't be anything else.

"Better" writers are possibly more likely to use capitalization correctly than worse writers, just as "better" Fire Emblem players are possibly more likely to exhibit greater turn efficiency in their play. But even though these claims may makes sense intuitively, it's irrational to assume a black and white correlation unless you can verify the "general rules" you take for granted are demonstrably true.

I'm not saying it's not hard or admirable to do a low turn count run. Or that a player who turtles demonstrates more or equal skill than someone who doesn't.

I'm saying "turtling is the hallmark of a worse Fire Emblem player" is not a defensible position, and arguments that turn efficiency is indicative of "better" play are irrational. I'm posting in this thread because, when you break it down, the argument doesn't make sense. If someone can show how this position could be logically supported by more than "general rules" pulled out of thin air, I'll be happy to have learned something I hadn't thought of before.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Wist

[Chiki]

So is a player who completes a chapter in fewer turns than another showing they are "better" at Fire Emblem?

No. If Florina Stark started to play faster than she does, and she played faster than, for example, Camtech, because she tried really hard, that wouldn't make her better than Camtech, because Camtech could do better if he wanted to. Empirical testing can be deceiving due to this reason. It's much better to say that a player who can come up with lower turn count clears is the better player. We can use counterfactuals of the form "If x were to play LTC, x would get lower turn counts than y's attempts." If Camtech can come up with better clears than Florina, then yes, Camtech is the better player.

Why is LTC necessary and sufficient? It's a wonderful way of seeing how creative and talented a person is. Someone who can come up with better LTC strategies should also be able to come up with strategies for other playstyles, since other playstyles also need creativity and intelligence. People don't just have talent for LTC and then no talent for things like Lunatic+.

if you have a definition of what that "better"

This reminds me of this:

thereby sacrificing efficiency (what that is; this needs a real definition too)

You keep making the same elementary mistake here: you keep asking for definitions that you're never going to get. There's no definition for any word apart from mathematical terms: for example, try to define the word "chair." The most we can do is attempt to find necessary or sufficient conditions for every word by examining their usage, which itself is not easy. The most we can say about the necessary conditions efficiency is that it's a mixture of low turn counts and reliability, but just how reliable and how many turns we need to cut to be efficient is something everyone disagrees about. No one will ever give you a "real" definition of efficiency, nor is there one.

The intended body of my argument was that you can only claim someone is "better" at something if you have a definition of what that "better" is in context, but that "better" is still meaningless as a general qualification.

This has nothing to do with the fact that claims of goodness are not empirically verifiable.

You can say someone is better at beating a chapter in fewer turns; that's measurable. But you can't say someone is intrinsically better at Fire Emblem because they can beat a chapter in fewer turns. What if someone is significantly faster at calculating reasonable unit positions? What if someone plays such that a unit never dies? What if someone plays with fewer weapon uses than anyone else? These factors are completely ignored by the strict "fewer turns equals better play" criteria. But why should they be ignored?

My counterfactual analysis covers this problem. The person who can calculate the same action faster is likely to be the better LTC player, and a person who plays such that a unit never dies is likely to be the better LTC player. If an LTC player is not capable of this, it's likely that the other player, were they to start LTCing, would be the better player.

I can't tell where you stand on this. On one hand you support the "fast driver is the more skilled driver" argument. On the other hand you agree the chess example is a matter of opinion.

My views are different from this, but for the purposes of the debate, I'll go ahead and say that it's an objective matter of fact that the chess example is not a matter of opinion.

In either case your analogy of determining if "murdering innocent children for fun" is unrelated. Wrong in that context is determined by a range of biological and philosophical factors.

To say that morality is determined by biological factors is another big mistake. Attempting to base ethics off of biological factors does nothing to prevent the immorality of rape, and many other crimes, which is an important tool for spreading genes and preventing the species from going extinct.

And why is it not philosophical to think that good players are good at LTCing? The philosophical methods between discovering whether a good player is good at LTCing and whether murdering innocent children is wrong are identical: they're both based on a priori intuitions which have nothing to do with empirical verification. You don't need to draw the line at ethics for such analogies: aesthetics uses the same a priori methods as ethics does to figure out whether a work of art is beautiful or not. Why do we have to stop there? You can apply these sorts of a priori methods to any attempt to discover whether something is good or bad in a certain context.

One might object to this as follows: well, defining "efficiency" or a word like "kill" is a matter of empirical, a posteriori, investigation. You need lexicographers to determine what the word efficiency means, and what lexicographers do is attempt to figure out how people use the term "efficiency." Yes, lexicographers are enough to determine, but not with complete accuracy, what efficiency is. However, in the 1800s, it was common place to think of a good person as someone who owned slaves. It certainly does not follow that, based on usage, that a good person is a slave owner. We need different methods for determining what "good player" means as opposed to "efficiency." Most of SF thought that good players were ones who capped their units for the final chapter, at one point in time. It does not follow that it is actually the case that good players are the ones who capped their units for the final chapter. The similarity here is not coincidental. It's clear that finding out what "good player" and "good person" comes down to the same a priori methods.

I adhere to these rules. dondon151 does not. I claim not following these rules is a hallmark of a bad writer. So it follows I am a "better" writer than dondon151.

Clearly the logic here is absurd, in multiple ways. I haven't proven anything — unless of course your definition of a "better" writer explicitly assumes the demonstrated ability to capitalize letter according to style guides is more important than any other possible factors, and you pretend it couldn't be anything else.

Dondon isn't claiming that all turtlers are bad players. The counterfactual analysis works wonderfully here: If dondon were to write an essay, it would be better than Wist's essay. This does not contradict the position that poor punctuation is the hallmark of a bad writer, since most people with poor punctuation actually are poor writers.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Chiki