What Exactly Qualifies As Turtling?

[Baldrick]

It's going to be more or less effective for some, that's for sure. Someone who usually turtles probably won't get good results from suddenly going fast.

So the strategy itself is not less effective.

[Zkirsche]

The player wouldn't let him attack Mia.

Isn't this false though? I mean, we'd likely let him attack Mia with like a 1% chance of crit or something. I wouldn't say it's lacking skill to gamble a little like that if it can save time overall.

[Refa]

Yeah, there's a difference between avoiding risk at all costs and balancing risk and reward respectively, and I feel like the later is actually much more indicative of skill than the former.

[Florete]

So the strategy itself is not less effective.

Technically speaking, if a skilled player decided to turtle, they could minimize risk just the same, but as dondon previously pointed out, it leaves more room for mistakes.

Isn't this false though? I mean, we'd likely let him attack Mia with like a 1% chance of crit or something. I wouldn't say it's lacking skill to gamble a little like that if it can save time overall.

The argument was that a skilled player can play at a decent pace while eliminating risk. A 1% risk is indeed something most players would gamble on if it's beneficial, though.

[Chiki]

diarrhea is also painful, messy, and not very healthy. The ideal range is somewhere in between - not so slow that things are being backed up, but not so fast that it causes more severe problems. This holds true for other things in life (heartbeat, breathing, doing one's taxes, driving. . .especially driving, etc.).

His examples all involve skill. You can't teach yourself to make your heart beat faster..

The faster driver is obviously the more skilled driver.

Edited July 12, 2014 by Chiki

[Tryhard]

Aren't some of the best chess players also the ones that take the longest to make moves?

The faster driver is obviously the more skilled driver.

And also the more likely to end up in a smoldering wreck. I don't think "faster" means the same for you in this instance.

Edited July 12, 2014 by Tryhard

[Ownagepuffs]

His examples all involve skill. You can't teach yourself to make your heart beat faster..

The faster driver is obviously the more skilled driver.

I'd hate to get in a car with you behind the wheel. The better driver can afford to drive above normal pace because they are good drivers and can minimize the risk associated with fast drive. But a fast driver is not instantly a good driver. That is a terrifying thought.

[Xator Nova]

if both drivers can avoid risk on the same level, then the faster one is the more skilled.

[Chiki]

Aren't some of the best chess players also the ones that take the longest to make moves?

And also the more likely to end up in a smoldering wreck. I don't think "faster" means the same for you in this instance.

I'd hate to get in a car with you behind the wheel. The better driver can afford to drive above normal pace because they are good drivers and can minimize the risk associated with fast drive. But a fast driver is not instantly a good driver. That is a terrifying thought.

I said more skilled which is not synonymous with good driver lol. You guys really ought to read my posts.

[Rehab]

A good defense also makes for a good offense

Advancing slowly but without flaws puts pressure on the opponent to act

If they don't act, you surround them and overwhelm them

If they lash out, it's assumed that thanks to your defensive maneuvering, you blunt their attack and break off a piece of them, putting more pressure on them to make their extension worth something and thus speeding along their dismantling, all while expending as little energy as necessary yourself, which is obviously the best display of skill

(no, I don't think defense is actually better than offense, but you can make any argument look good with enough tautologies)

[Ercdouken]

It means keep defending and throw Sonic Booms.

[Wist]

What a mess of unqualified assertions, unsubstantiated probabilities, made up statistics, and inapt metaphors. And all in defense of a nebulously subjective abstraction – "better" – no one has made an sincere attempt at defining in a logical or even a relevant context.

If we're going to turn this into the discussion topic, let's at least clarify the operating assumption.

From what I gather reading this thread, it's roughly that someone who makes as much forward momentum as may be collectively agreed not inadvisably unsafe demonstrates a greater capacity to recognize and overcome strategic risk than someone who turtles when other options are available and thereby sacrificing efficiency (what that is; this needs a real definition too) and demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to calculate and respond to said strategic risks?

Which is roughly analogous to the "someone who plays quickly is 'better', someone who plays less quickly is not 'better' " backbone of the discussion, but gives us something of a tangible interpretation to work with.

So the real question is, does playing quickly actually typically indicate "better" play? It seems that prioritized efficiency (not using turns as buffers? making as much progress toward the mission objective as odds permit?) is accepted as a fundamental aspect of this "better".

So let's stress test this. Let's look at Fire Emblem 7. I like this game. It's pretty easy though. You can do an Eliwood / Marcus / Athos run in a few hours. Eliwood and Marcus don't need babying in the beginning, and aside from the time right before Eliwood can promote, playing with so few units guarantees Eliwood and Marcus remain significantly more powerful than any group of enemies (well, maybe Marcus would welcome a few stat boosting items as they are acquired) you encounter through the game. Eliwood / Marcus runs have always given me fewer headaches than playing with more units. Or how about an Ike solo run in Fire Emblem 9? What a stupidly easy way to play the game, even in hard mode!

In either case you quickly become overpowered which makes encroaching on enemy held territory very easy. And even if you refuse to let units die, you can move pretty fast compared to if you're having to drag a full unit load through each turn.

These aren't fringe cases. The way these games are set up makes the use of overpowered armies the most efficient approach. Despite reduced experience gains for higher levels, having so few units on the field helps your units level up very quickly and bequeaths rather unbalanced advantages (this last bit is my opinion).

But are you demonstrating strategic competence by doing this? You're making the game much easier for yourself, and stacking the odds in your favor much faster than if you were to play normally (I'm defining normally as with a full or near full unit load each chapter, and spreading experience such that units are roughly of equivalent level; object if you would define it differently). Are you a "better" player for recognizing playing with so few units is an efficient manner of play, or are you a worse player for doing as someone does while turtling: subverting risk with a cheap, exploitive ploy. How do we reconcile this apparent contradiction?

My compiled definition at the top of this post is obviously not up to the task. What should it be instead? Because without a strong criteria for determining if someone can be playing "better" than someone else, or at least discussion of what the criteria should be beyond "efficiency good, turtling bad", we're just beating each over the head with what we individually intuit as a "better" or "worse" play, and the only insight will gain is the realization that we're good at making long threads that go in little circles.

[Chiki]

So let's stress test this. Let's look at Fire Emblem 7. I like this game. It's pretty easy though. You can do an Eliwood / Marcus / Athos run in a few hours. Eliwood and Marcus don't need babying in the beginning, and aside from the time right before Eliwood can promote, playing with so few units guarantees Eliwood and Marcus remain significantly more powerful than any group of enemies (well, maybe Marcus would welcome a few stat boosting items as they are acquired) you encounter through the game. Eliwood / Marcus runs have always given me fewer headaches than playing with more units. Or how about an Ike solo run in Fire Emblem 9? What a stupidly easy way to play the game, even in hard mode!

People talk about turns when it comes to playing quickly, not real-time...

Edited July 15, 2014 by Chiki

[Snowy_One]

Turtling = Snowy playing Fire Emblem.

Yea. Except I don't turtle. Remember, I argued that vantage made Mia better because it was broken on the EP. If I'm turtling Mia would probably not be getting attacked in the first place.

I play by the method of 'try to complete everything as best as possible'. I just don't include 'as low a turn count' as one of those things unless it robs me of direct benefits. When I play Valkyria Chronicles I often replay maps multiple times just to figure out how to A-rank them while killing all essential targets for maximum EXP and cash for example. But if I have a 4-turn limit I'm not going to rush to complete the map on turn 1 either.

And it's a balancing act between offense and defense. Red Fox is right in that removing enemies is a major help and reduces incoming fire a LOT, but it is also risky and things can lose control quickly. Conversely being defensive is very useful for keeping control over a situation, especially if they can't respawn units, but you take a lot of unneeded time and if things ever exceed your defenses you're in trouble. It's like claiming that you should have either a ton of evade and no defenses or no evade and a ton of defenses. That high DEF may help a lot against normal foes, but when the armor-slayers and mages come a-knocking, you're in trouble. But with the evade if you ever get hit, especially by the 1%/1% curse... Ideally you want a bit of both, some rounded mix between them (Keep in mind that this is in the metaphorical sense, not the literal. I'm fully aware that plenty of units can get either 0% hit rates or enough health to make it not matter either way).

I don't agree with LTC. I don't agree that everything should just be a bums-rush to the end, especially with no direct reward for it. That does not mean I turtle though.

His examples all involve skill. You can't teach yourself to make your heart beat faster..

The faster driver is obviously the more skilled driver.

I'd hate to get in a car with you behind the wheel. The better driver can afford to drive above normal pace because they are good drivers and can minimize the risk associated with fast drive. But a fast driver is not instantly a good driver. That is a terrifying thought.

I'd say that the faster drive is, most likely, the drunk driver.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Snowy_One

[dondon151]

People talk about turns when it comes to playing quickly, not real-time...

a fast real-time run is also indicative of skill, because it requires more than basic knowledge of the game mechanics. but i think turns are a better metric anyway.

[Nicolas]

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

CH14 in FE5.

The only (?) damned chapter in FE when defensive position is best position.

But you still might want resire, because Lionoan with wrath and resire is great.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

In turn-based games: Waiting for enemy the enemy to come to you, usually in advantageous terrain that provides defense, evasion, healing, etc. A perfect example of this is how I played the final map in SRW Alpha Gaiden. I discovered the hard way that the boss had strong AoE attack that immediately required me to use a chunk of valuable resources to heal as much a I could while the bastard had another shot of the same AoE attacking waiting for the next turn, on top of that the mooks, minions, common enemies or whatever you wanna call them had as much HP as bosses I fought a few maps back so I could usually only kill 1-2 (out of 10 of them) each turn without wasting precious abilities I was saving up to use on the big bad himself.

So in my second attempt I pretty just sat all my units on advantageous terrain and let the enemy come to me so I could take them out at my own leisure without having to worry about big bad.

In fighting games: Sit in a corner press down and the direction towards the corner. A pain in the ass to deal with if your character lacks moves referred to as "overhead" or "stand the fuck up".

At least, that's how I see it anyway. You'll probably find people saying "x person did it by turtling" because they may have done it in less turns and want to be snobs about it.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Sirius

[dondon151]

CH14 in FE5.

The only (?) damned chapter in FE when defensive position is best position.

chapter 14 is weird; the best strategy doesn't really even count as turtling since you're not pressing forward. you're supposed to just kind of stand there without doing any damage.

[zorbees]

If you need to ask "am I turtling?", the answer is probably yes.

Other than that, dondon has pretty much answered the question already

[Snowy_One]

Except he really didn't.

There is a big difference between 'turtling', not rushing, and being unskilled for one. Likewise, there is an equally big gap between 'skilled', bumrush, and monkey-following-a-guide. Skill isn't something measured by getting a low turn-count, it's measured by being able to adapt to a situation and develop new plans and strategies to cope with it. As you get better you will, naturally, do it faster, but that doesn't mean you're more skilled.

There is a way to win at chess in 2-4 moves. Executing it requires a lot of luck and doesn't show any skill as it can be learned from a simple book. Sitting down and learning how to play chess at a masters level means taking a long time and, even though you are skilled, you'll have some very long matches.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

If you need to ask "am I turtling?", the answer is probably yes.

Other than that, dondon has pretty much answered the question already

Yeah, no. DonDon hasn't really given a useful explanation for what turtling is to Loki. He's just done his usual thing where he hops into a thread, makes some statement that only brings up more questions and might as well make this

Because it's not LTC.

A valid answer, which usually prompts some unnecessary discussion. Unless it involves LTC, DonDon makes little to no effort in helping those who aren't as experienced in the game as he or other LTC players.

I'll give that he's right when he says taking more turns brings more room for mistakes to be made but see, that's the kind of stuff people refer to as "NO FUCKING SHIT".

Wist has given a great explanation of what turtling is has tried to bring light on the subject. DonDon has done his usual shtick: Post ambiguous commentary, belittle whatever isn't LTC and not-so subtly flaunt his 0% growth LTC clears.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Sirius

[Florete]

As you get better you will, naturally, do it faster, but that doesn't mean you're more skilled.

"As you get better...but that doesn't mean you're better."

So as you get better you won't do things that show it? Try harder, Snowy.

There is a way to win at chess in 2-4 moves. Executing it requires a lot of luck and doesn't show any skill as it can be learned from a simple book. Sitting down and learning how to play chess at a masters level means taking a long time and, even though you are skilled, you'll have some very long matches.

Seriously, try harder. You're now talking like one must learn fast, but no one gets really good at something instantly (except for prodigies). It's going to take a long time to be really good at anything, but the more skilled chess players can predict and make moves faster than the less-skilled.

If this were anyone but you, I'd wonder if you honestly don't get it or are just being obtuse for the sake of it, but since it's you I suspect it's the former.

EDIT: Forgetting why I ever bother with you.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Red Fox of Fire

[dondon151]

Yeah, no. DonDon hasn't really given a useful explanation for what turtling is to Loki. He's just done his usual thing where he hops into a thread, makes some statement that only brings up more questions and might as well make this

A valid answer, which usually prompts some unnecessary discussion. Unless it involves LTC, DonDon makes little to no effort in helping those who aren't as experienced in the game as he or other LTC players.

wow, someone's bitter. i don't think i've answered, or even attempted to answer, the question in the thread title, and zorbees may have made a mistake in thinking that i have (though i have answered some questions). that's no excuse to complain about my posting style. 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.

most of my efforts in this thread have been dedicated to defending this statement:

no one said that turtling is bad. it's just the hallmark of worse fire emblem player.

it doesn't require much elaboration. a skilled surgeon can do the same operation more quickly than an unskilled surgeon without compromising quality. a skilled driver can complete a course faster than an unskilled driver without increasing risk. a skilled artist can produce a piece of art in less time than an unskilled artist and still make it look better.

somehow the response to this was to bring up non sequiturs about gastrointestinal movement, fast drivers, and competitive games (namely, chess). these responses do not deserve to be addressed, but i will do so anyway because it seems like some people are angry at me for deciding not to waste my time. if my GI tract is faster than yours but absorbs nutrients with the same efficiency, then my GI tract is better. if i can drive faster than you without putting other people at risk, then i'm a better driver. (xator nova and chiki already echoed what i just said about driving.) in competitive games, the only goal is to win, and efficiency is unimportant unless it's the metric by which the competition is judged.

I'll give that he's right when he says taking more turns brings more room for mistakes to be made but see, that's the kind of stuff people refer to as "NO FUCKING SHIT".

if this was so obvious, then i wouldn't have to bring it up as a reason for why turtling is not safe!

Wist has given a great explanation of what turtling is has tried to bring light on the subject. DonDon has done his usual shtick: Post ambiguous commentary, belittle whatever isn't LTC and not-so subtly flaunt his 0% growth LTC clears.

wist needs to take orwell's advice for writers. he also dedicated most of his post to addressing whether efficiency is a hallmark of a good player, not to defining turtling.

here are accusations that i will not stand for. if i've posted ambiguous commentary, please point it out. 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, unless you consider a statement such as "malpractice is the hallmark of a bad doctor" to be pejorative.) 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.

and don't capitalize my name. it's "dondon," thanks.

Edited July 15, 2014 by dondon151

[Irysa]

A valid answer, which usually prompts some unnecessary discussion. Unless it involves LTC, DonDon makes little to no effort in helping those who aren't as experienced in the game as he or other LTC players.

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.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Irysa

[Narga_Rocks]

Um, if you turtle because it's fun and you want to get all the items from late reinforcements or you want to capture every last enemy (fe5) or whatever, it's probably not indicative of low skill. Just obsession. 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.