What Exactly Qualifies As Turtling?

[Ishi]

Dont know if this is turtling or just me being lazy but when i played the gba fire emblem games for the first time i placed two supporting characters next to each other for 30 turns before seizing throne. of course now i just keep to characters together for most of game hoping for at least a B rank support.

[Snowy_One]

"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.

Why am I not surprised you missed the point entirely? Let me put it in some FE turns.

As your character levels up in FE, their speed, and eventually movement (on promotion), will go up as they level up. However, saying that LTC is the 'only' way to play or the 'only' measure of ones skill is like saying that speed, in of itself, is the 'only stat that matters'. If that were to be true, you'd end up with little more than a bunch of fragile speedsters.

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.

Yup. Shot right over your head. As you improve you will get faster, but this isn't because you're trying to shoot for LTC, it's because you've learned more about how the game works. You've learned that certain moves are pointless and little more than 'fat' for lack of a better term, you've learned how to use your dancer properly, and things like that.

However, especially in this day and age, all it takes for someone to find a way to beat a chapter in as few turns as possible is searching around on the net long enough. Are you honestly going to tell me that someone following a guide, but is getting a lower turn-count, is more skilled because he has a lower turn-count than someone whose played multiple times on every game?

Even if LTC was the only measure of skill, at the least it's 'corrupted' since things like that exist. This, ironically, means that the person turtling is potentially more skilled than the person getting the lower turncount since, while he still has a long way to go, he's probably learning on his own, learning to avoid certain risks, and isn't using a guide to do so.

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.

A skilled surgeon will take his time to ensure no complications will arise while an unskilled one will likely rush through as they haven't had the experience to know what to avoid. Someone completing a course faster may be more skilled, or may be drunk. A skilled artist will know not to rush himself and to take his time with his painting to make sure it's of great quality, not to rush it out with the crack of a whip at his back and the threat of having his gruel taken away in a North Korean 'art department'.

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.

Because there is a huge difference between 'doesn't want to rush' and 'can't see how to go faster'. In your own post you pointed out how that isn't part of skill, just obsession.

This is why I hate 'LTC' so much. People act like it's the only way to play and people who don't are unskilled.

Anyways, just in case I forgot to offer my own definition of turtling, it's 'Moving slowly across the map, relying on defenses, in an effort to keep as safe as possible'.

[CT075]

As your character levels up in FE, their speed, and eventually movement (on promotion), will go up as they level up. However, saying that LTC is the 'only' way to play or the 'only' measure of ones skill is like saying that speed, in of itself, is the 'only stat that matters'. If that were to be true, you'd end up with little more than a bunch of fragile speedsters.

i think you're the only person who says that ltc is the only way to play

ltc is one measure of skill, and if you can't recognize that then... well, i've got some bad news for you

Yup. Shot right over your head. As you improve you will get faster, but this isn't because you're trying to shoot for LTC, it's because you've learned more about how the game works. You've learned that certain moves are pointless and little more than 'fat' for lack of a better term, you've learned how to use your dancer properly, and things like that.

and this mastery allows you to...

guess what? you shave off the "fat" and your turncount goes down.

However, especially in this day and age, all it takes for someone to find a way to beat a chapter in as few turns as possible is searching around on the net long enough. Are you honestly going to tell me that someone following a guide, but is getting a lower turn-count, is more skilled because he has a lower turn-count than someone whose played multiple times on every game?

LTC is not as simple as you make it out to be

especially in games that don't have a deterministic RNG

Even if LTC was the only measure of skill, at the least it's 'corrupted' since things like that exist. This, ironically, means that the person turtling is potentially more skilled than the person getting the lower turncount since, while he still has a long way to go, he's probably learning on his own, learning to avoid certain risks, and isn't using a guide to do so.

because nobody in chess uses the same strategies as other people, right? every single grandmaster independently came to the same set of openings/responses, and none of them just saw someone else and decided that "hey that strategy works!"

the entire point of LTC isn't just "to get the lowest possible turncount you can find on the internet"; nobody really gives a shit about that for this exact reason. the reason people play LTC is to take that guide of yours and make it obsolete.

A skilled surgeon will take his time to ensure no complications will arise while an unskilled one will likely rush through as they haven't had the experience to know what to avoid. Someone completing a course faster may be more skilled, or may be drunk. A skilled artist will know not to rush himself and to take his time with his painting to make sure it's of great quality, not to rush it out with the crack of a whip at his back and the threat of having his gruel taken away in a North Korean 'art department'.

well, we've already made it to the comparison that LTCers are north korean dictators

who wants to bet on how long it'll take until hitler comes up?

Because there is a huge difference between 'doesn't want to rush' and 'can't see how to go faster'. In your own post you pointed out how that isn't part of skill, just obsession.

itt snowy misses th epoint again

Edited July 16, 2014 by CT075

[Ein]

itt people argue about going fast

I actually wanna know when these FE competitions happen where the stakes are high and you get swag if you win by going fast.

[eclipse]

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.

While I agree with most of your recent content ("as fast as possible without increased risk"), I think that comparing bad players of FE to malpractice is far worse than what I did. The difference is that a relatively small and unimportant group of people will have any opinion whatsoever about this - to most people, it's "a video game". Malpractice, on the other hand, carries the risk of possible financial hardship, job loss, and ill psychological factors. While the group that is affected is also small, they have the ability to inflict consequences that can wreck livelihoods.

When being bad at FE is so disastrous that there's insurance specifically to protect against being bad at FE, I'll concede the point. Until then, I think that being judgmental over how someone plays a video game that had no direct effect on my well-being is. . .a waste of my time.

[Snowy_One]

i think you're the only person who says that ltc is the only way to play

ltc is one measure of skill, and if you can't recognize that then... well, i've got some bad news for you

And people seem to think it's the only way to play. Even here and now you're saying that less turns = more skilled. That's like saying that a unit with more speed is always of a higher level than one who has lower speed. As you get more skilled you will get better and you will move faster, but how fast you move, how few turns you take, is simply not the way to measure skill. 'Turtling' may not be 'the best' tactic, but to say that it isn't the best because it's not as fast and costs more turns? That's just not right.

LTC is not as simple as you make it out to be

especially in games that don't have a deterministic RNG

I KNOW it's not that simple. Like I said earlier, I worked hard refining how I played Valkyria Chronicles to be able to get as many commander/tank kills and still get an A-rank on a mission and it wasn't easy, especially considering I did it without a guide to help me on 90% of the maps. But there was a reason for that since A-rank gives more EXP and cash, so refining it had a direct reward on the game. FE, on the other hand, doesn't offer a reward most of the time for things like that and the few times it DOES you have plenty of lee-way to still get max BEXP. That's a huge difference.

because nobody in chess uses the same strategies as other people, right? every single grandmaster independently came to the same set of openings/responses, and none of them just saw someone else and decided that "hey that strategy works!"

the entire point of LTC isn't just "to get the lowest possible turncount you can find on the internet"; nobody really gives a shit about that for this exact reason. the reason people play LTC is to take that guide of yours and make it obsolete.

The tier lists say otherwise.

And no, I expect that the grandmasters worked hard and a lot of that was talking to others and developing their own strategies, but there is a huge difference. Chess masters don't care so much about how many turns they take. It isn't the measure of how good or bad they are. Their measure is on winning the game or not. Likewise, why should skill in FE be directly correlated to turn-counts, especially to the degree that taking a prolonged period automatically means 'bad player'?

Taking a long time showing someone to be bad because of problems that can happen = legit reason.

Taking a long time showing someone to be bad because it could be done faster (despite no reward) = bad reason.

well, we've already made it to the comparison that LTCers are north korean dictators

who wants to bet on how long it'll take until hitler comes up?

Considering you just brought him up...

Anyways, the point is more of that those are bad reasons since actually being skilled in those things has no direct correlation to speed. For things like the surgeon it may even be the exact opposite (taking a long time to make sure everything is done right as opposed to rushing through the operation) than anything else.

Edit: Let me see if I can make this clear. Being a skilled player means getting things done RIGHT. Not getting things done as fast as possible. Improving ones speed is, indeed, part of skill, but it is NOT the only part and saying that improved speed is a hallmark of more skill is simply not true. You can say it has a strong correlation to skill, you can say turtling is a bad idea for how many shots/chances it offers an opponent to hurt you, but saying that it means a player is bad because it's SLOW... That's just not true.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Snowy_One

[Irysa]

Snowy, do you think it's unfair to say a speedrunner who has the world record is a better player than you at the game he has the record in?

[CT075]

And people seem to think it's the only way to play. Even here and now you're saying that less turns = more skilled. That's like saying that a unit with more speed is always of a higher level than one who has lower speed. As you get more skilled you will get better and you will move faster, but how fast you move, how few turns you take, is simply not the way to measure skill. 'Turtling' may not be 'the best' tactic, but to say that it isn't the best because it's not as fast and costs more turns? That's just not right.

i disagree that there's a single way to measure "most skilled"

lower turncounts is a good way of demonstrating that skill, however

I KNOW it's not that simple. Like I said earlier, I worked hard refining how I played Valkyria Chronicles to be able to get as many commander/tank kills and still get an A-rank on a mission and it wasn't easy, especially considering I did it without a guide to help me on 90% of the maps. But there was a reason for that since A-rank gives more EXP and cash, so refining it had a direct reward on the game. FE, on the other hand, doesn't offer a reward most of the time for things like that and the few times it DOES you have plenty of lee-way to still get max BEXP. That's a huge difference.

all i'm hearing is "hey i'm so good at maximizing my resources under a constraint" which is, by the way, also an indication of skill. the very fact that you get more money and EXP out of it makes it easier for you to do so in the later chapters, no? why do games have to offer a reward for playing better? if anything, games that don't reward you for playing better make it even easier to display skill because it isn't a positive feedback loop (you kill extra enemies so you get extra EXP so you're stronger so you can kill more enemies faster which means you get even more EXP etc)

The tier lists say otherwise.

oh my god is this seriously what you're citing

who the fuck even uses tier lists anyway

anyone who understands enough to understand them doesn't need them and it's useless to anyone

And no, I expect that the grandmasters worked hard and a lot of that was talking to others and developing their own strategies, but there is a huge difference. Chess masters don't care so much about how many turns they take. It isn't the measure of how good or bad they are. Their measure is on winning the game or not. Likewise, why should skill in FE be directly correlated to turn-counts, especially to the degree that taking a prolonged period automatically means 'bad player'?

that is completely unrelated to what i'm talking about

nobody gives a shit how fast a chessmaster wins a game, that's not the point of the competition. the entire point of the LTC 'competition' is to see who can get the fewest turns

if there was a competition that involved a grandmaster beating an AI in the most skillful way (the closest comparison to FE), i'm sure that "fewest turns" would be the criteria

LTC is exactly what i've been saying it is - a demonstration of skill. people who don't LTC aren't necessarily worse players, they just haven't demonstrated their skill in that fashion. i completely agree that there are other metrics (i honestly liked the SNES ranking system) other than LTC, but many of them end up being trivial to maximise without some kind of time restraint (you can maximize EXP in FE4 really easily if you just stall out and let enemy commanders come at you with infinite reinforcements, for example)

can you not just cherrypick the things that i say?

Anyways, the point is more of that those are bad reasons since actually being skilled in those things has no direct correlation to speed. For things like the surgeon it may even be the exact opposite (taking a long time to make sure everything is done right as opposed to rushing through the operation) than anything else.

i actually disagree that going faster always equates to being better so i have no objection to this

[Wist]

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.

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

Comparisons suggesting "doing things quickly indicates greater skill" keep popping up in the thread, but they don't make any sense. They're the inapt metaphors I mentioned earlier.

Are we talking about low turn counts or real time speed? LTC keeps coming up. Chiki's post seems to suggest real-time completion speed isn't something people consider. You suggest turns are a "better metric".

So why the speed comparisons? Does a low turn count have anything at all to do with time?

Red Fox supports her position with the argument that a better chess player will make predictions faster than a worse chess player. But can you prove that, or is it just an intuition? It may make sense for Speed Chess, but in standard Chess time is essentially irrelevant. Is someone who plays twice as slowly and takes longer to make decisions a worse player even if they win consistently? There are arguments to be made for turn efficiency being a likely indicator of skill – if all players being judged seek to prioritize turn efficiency – but this is not one of them.

This is why we need a solid consensus as to what we're discussing, or to at least define our vocabulary as we use it. What is the argument being made here? A player who turtles is "usually a worse player" is much too broad and ambiguous to draw any meaningful conclusions. Just as a player who turtles is "less likely to remember a good way to go about the chapter afterwards" (the hell...?) doesn't work as a supporting argument because it can't be qualified. Statements like these don't mean anything because there's no attempt to frame them as falsifiable arguments.

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.

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=48640#entry3204963

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.

Mightn't malpractice better correlate to failing to beat a chapter than beating it more slowly than someone else?

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.

At least Narga frames his arguments in a sensible context (by sensible I mean something substantiated by more than a declarative tone of voice).

Sure, if you're turtling, you might suck. And if you suck, you might turtle. But turtling doesn't mean you're "worse". And playing with turn efficiency in mind doesn't mean you're "better".

Fire Emblem is fundamentally about playing odds. Choosing to play more "quickly" (fewer turns?) and potentially having to consider more odds doesn't make you a "better" player unless you refuse to entertain the idea that "better" may not intrinsically mean someone who prioritizes a low turn count. Are we happy with that definition? I don't know. That just feeds back to my previous post.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Wist

[Baldrick]

Do you mean we should define what it means to be a "good" FE player? For me, strategy is all about decision-making. Therefore, a skilled player makes decisions that yield the highest probability of the victory condition being fulfilled.

[CT075]

there is a difference between "playing quickly is an indication of skill" and "playing quickly is the only indication of skill"

LTC is a good approximation (demonstration) of skill because it shows an ability to construct a coherent strategy under a constraint - when playing with such speed, you have very few resources to spread around, which in turn makes it far more difficult to keep up the speed later in the game

is it the only way to show off your skill at The Fire Emblem Strategy Game? I don't think so. The FE9 perfect playthrough is an excellent example. I would argue that kinata, over the course of his run, did at least as many Strategy Calculations (generic term; maybe specific turn-to-turn unit placement isn't as important in his case but doing something like general formation to allow a certain weapon to be stolen is far more necessary) as someone like PKL does in a typical LTC run. is kinata more skilled than Aeine? I don't know (i would personally not say so, but i'm sure someone could make an argument). I disagree with there being a single objective measure of skill anyway

Edited July 16, 2014 by CT075

[arvilino]

If we ignore LTC it'd be spending an excessively large number of turns progressing or accomplishing a task or goal.

If you're spending dozens of turns every chapter and finishing long after enemy reinforcements stop showing up it's a pretty big show the player is being too conservative to really be considered good playing. I think a more appropriate description is that it's a wasteful playstyle rather than just "turtling" since you aren't remotely utilizing your resources(characters, weapons, items) effectively and its displayed in the turncount.

If we take the driving analogy. When I first passed and got my car I wasn't confident in reverse parking between other vehicles. I could do it but I took several minutes(unreasonably long) to the point other drivers got frustrated and my sister once exited the car beforehand when I was dropping her off at a train station because she knew how long it would take me. Now I can do it quicker while also reliably, it'd be a lie if I said I was just as skilled back then just because I could successfully carry out the manoeuvre .

Edited July 16, 2014 by arvilino

[solrocknroll]

I play slow-ish, but that's mainly just because of my unit choice.

I'm the kind of person who takes Fiona and Vika over Titania and Haar.

[Snowy_One]

If we ignore LTC it'd be spending an excessively large number of turns progressing or accomplishing a task or goal.

If you're spending dozens of turns every chapter and finishing long after enemy reinforcements stop showing up it's a pretty big show the player is being too conservative to really be considered good playing. I think a more appropriate description is that it's a wasteful playstyle rather than just "turtling" since you aren't remotely utilizing your resources(characters, weapons, items) effectively and its displayed in the turncount.

And it's comments like these that ruin any notion that this board doesn't believe in LTC being the only way to play. 'If we don't use LTC, no one will dare to complete chapters at anything but a snails pace. People will spend however long they want, possibly getting all items, possibly farming all enemies, IMAGINE THE APOCALYPSE THAT THIS WOULD BRING ON FIRE EMBLEM!'

[arvilino]

And it's comments like these that ruin any notion that this board doesn't believe in LTC being the only way to play. 'If we don't use LTC, no one will dare to complete chapters at anything but a snails pace. People will spend however long they want, possibly getting all items, possibly farming all enemies, IMAGINE THE APOCALYPSE THAT THIS WOULD BRING ON FIRE EMBLEM!'

I meant if we ignore LTC the qualifications for turtling would be "excessively large number of turns progressing or accomplishing a task or goal", I was removing LTC from the argument because it muddies discussion (and I don't want my argument seen as only existing through that perspective).

Even if you aren't going for a lower number turns, you can still identify where a player even with a slower play style could be wasting turns and missing opportunities/benefits which wouldn't even be a risk.

Edited July 16, 2014 by arvilino

[Chiki]

Wist has given a great explanation of what turtling is has tried to bring light on the subject.

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.

This is why I hate 'LTC' so much. People act like it's the only way to play and people who don't are unskilled.

And people seem to think it's the only way to play.

No, they don't. You're just whiny and jealous.

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=48125

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=45749

There's plenty of examples of LTCers doing other kinds of playthroughs.

Are we talking about low turn counts or real time speed? LTC keeps coming up. Chiki's post seems to suggest real-time completion speed isn't something people consider. You suggest turns are a "better metric".

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

Red Fox supports her position with the argument that a better chess player will make predictions faster than a worse chess player. But can you prove that, or is it just an intuition?

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.

Similarly, we intuit whether or not an LTCer is a good player.

The FE9 perfect playthrough is an excellent example. I would argue that kinata, over the course of his run, did at least as many Strategy Calculations (generic term; maybe specific turn-to-turn unit placement isn't as important in his case but doing something like general formation to allow a certain weapon to be stolen is far more necessary) as someone like PKL does in a typical LTC run.

I personally think that the playthrough is trivial. Bonus exp constraints are very generous and more than enough time to steal every item.

I think the hardest kind of playthrough is LTC, followed by 0% LTC (I think 0% LTC is easier because it's less complicated, since you don't have to deal with stat benchmarks at all), followed by speedrunning, which does require a lot of thought (should I use the analog stick or the D-pad to move in this certain spot? How do I minimize battle animations?). Soloing and stuff like doing Apotheosis with 3 units is much easier than it sounds. Strategies for such clears tend to be very simple. I did a Lute solo on FE8 HM when I was 13-14, and I was really bad at FE at the time.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Chiki

[Xator Nova]

And it's comments like these that ruin any notion that this board doesn't believe in LTC being the only way to play. 'If we don't use LTC, no one will dare to complete chapters at anything but a snails pace. People will spend however long they want, possibly getting all items, possibly farming all enemies, IMAGINE THE APOCALYPSE THAT THIS WOULD BRING ON FIRE EMBLEM!'

if two players want to get all items, the one who did it faster is the better player.

[Tryhard]

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.

What a fantastic statement.

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.

This has become rather comical.

[Chiki]

What a fantastic statement.

This has become rather comical.

I don't see the problem. Mind pointing it out to me, to give me a really good laugh?

Edited July 16, 2014 by Chiki

[-Cynthia-]

I admit that the categories of play "speeds" are often pretty hazy. There seems to be:

Turtling

Playing 'kind of slowly' but not turtling

Casual Efficiency

LTC

and possibly more. I'm not sure where one begins and the other ends myself.

[Narga_Rocks]

And it's comments like these that ruin any notion that this board doesn't believe in LTC being the only way to play. 'If we don't use LTC, no one will dare to complete chapters at anything but a snails pace. People will spend however long they want, possibly getting all items, possibly farming all enemies, IMAGINE THE APOCALYPSE THAT THIS WOULD BRING ON FIRE EMBLEM!'

and it's comments like these that ruin any notion that Snowy actually reads posts in their entirety.

Now, quick question, are you capable of cutting a few turns off your playstyle and still not vastly increasing your risk of death? From all these people unequivocally saying "faster = riskier" I'd argue a bunch of them can't. Can you? Now, if you can't replicate my playstyle, but I can easily replicate your playstyle, wouldn't that make me more skilled? I can do what you can do, and I can do what I can do. I can park forwards into a spot, and I can back into a spot. You can only drive in forwards. Are you of the same driving skill level as me?

Edited July 16, 2014 by Narga_Rocks

[Snowy_One]

No, they don't. You're just whiny and jealous.

http://serenesforest...showtopic=48125

http://serenesforest...showtopic=45749

There's plenty of examples of LTCers doing other kinds of playthroughs.

And I main Vi on LoL. I still play Lux and Sona from time to time and on scar, TT, ARAM instead of just the default. Just because you can play something differently doesn't mean you do it better or worse. Just that it's different.

if two players want to get all items, the one who did it faster is the better player.

If two players want to get all items, the one who did it RIGHT and didn't take an unneeded risk to get a lower turncount is the better player. If two players play, one using high-end peggy knights and paladins, and the other using knights and sages, and the former beats the game in 190 turns while the latter beats it in 195 turns, the latter, despite the handicap of lower movement (and potentially worse depending on the game), is better despite the higher turn-count by a 'speed measure'.

I admit that the categories of play "speeds" are often pretty hazy. There seems to be:

Turtling

Playing 'kind of slowly' but not turtling

Casual Efficiency

LTC

and possibly more. I'm not sure where one begins and the other ends myself.

If you ask me...

Turtling: Going slowly, possibly knowingly over the turn limit for a higher ranking, using defenses to push through a level with as low a risk as possible.

Slow-play: Minimizing risk, though not relying on defenses of necessity, most likely being unaware of the turn requirements for a higher rank.

'Casual efficiency': Trying to complete the map with a decently high grade, possibly the highest, but not caring about netting a lower turn-count of necessity, just getting as high a rank as possible.

LTC: BLARGBLARG! DIS UNIT SUXX BECAUSE IT COSTS ME 1 MROE TURN! YOU AR HORIBBLE BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW DIS STRAT TO SHAVBE OFF ONE MRE TURN! MY EPEEN IS DE BUGGEST BECAUSE OF MY LOW TC!

Now, quick question, are you capable of cutting a few turns off your playstyle and still not vastly increasing your risk of death? From all these people unequivocally saying "faster = riskier" I'd argue a bunch of them can't.

I can. I choose not to unless there is some reward.

Now, if you can't replicate my playstyle, but I can easily replicate your playstyle, wouldn't that make me more skilled? I can do what you can do, and I can do what I can do. I can park forwards into a spot, and I can back into a spot. You can only drive in forwards. Are you of the same driving skill level as me?

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?

[Chiki]

Just because you can play something differently doesn't mean you do it better or worse. Just that it's different.

This is why I hate 'LTC' so much. People act like it's the only way to play and people who don't are unskilled.

And people seem to think it's the only way to play.

Wow, you don't even pay attention to what you type... There's a reason why people think your posts are completely asinine, Snowy.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Chiki

[Snowy_One]

Find me a player, whom you respect and consider to be skilled, whom does not support LTC as a valid method of measuring skill and I will admit I'm wrong. And not just 'there are other ways', but 'LTC is not an accurate measure of skill'. If you can do that, I will not only admit I'm wrong, but swear never to post anything FE related again.

[Chiki]

Find me a player, whom you respect and consider to be skilled, whom does not support LTC as a valid method of measuring skill and I will admit I'm wrong. And not just 'there are other ways', but 'LTC is not an accurate measure of skill'. If you can do that, I will not only admit I'm wrong, but swear never to post anything FE related again.

This has nothing to do with anything I said. We were talking about LTC players being arrogant, not about people thinking that LTC is a valid method of measuring skill.

Anyway, I respect you and consider you skilled, Snowy.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Chiki