How to screw up the plans of LTC players

[Baldrick]

That's my point. The way the mechanics are, it's a lot better if you use your whole team. But due to the move mechanics, that triples/quadruples your turn count (the group's superior damage output to a single unit in this case is offset by the fact they're getting a fraction of the resources, and you only have so many high-move cards). I wouldn't say that it's incentivizing fast clears.

[Irysa]

The end result won't be a tripled or quadrupled turn count compared to a solo run because a solo Durant would have to fight with enemies over the course of three turns by himself anyway or something to that effect since he would fail to get straight KO's by himself due to the repeated battle penalty. It's probably map by map dependant on how many enemies there are and how much Pow your best cards have though.

If you were trying to say that "the fact that any solo unit in YU has difficulty getting conclusive ORKOs" as some way of screwing up LTC plans, I'm not entirely sure I agree because as XeKr said, thats just the min TC within the constraints of that game itself. Ruining LTC comes down to the act of making it harder/impossible to properly plan or account for behaviour in a reliable way, raising the minimum turncount only makes it not as fast.

I think fundamentally the fact you're rewarded with extra stat points for going faster rather than going slower does mean you're incentivised to clear quickly.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Irysa

[Baldrick]

Solo units have difficulty, but it's not impossible. If you rigged a critical hit against bosses and troublesome generics, you won't get slowed down. It's like dondon said, optimising turn count requires significant luck. Compared to a series like FE, in which it's easy to reach a consistent ORKO threshold and you aren't punished for taking on the entire enemy army with a single unit.

Extra MVP is a benefit, but on the whole, I think there's more incentive to go slow and steady than to go fast.

EDIT: I kind of skimmed over the point about LTC not always being about absolute min TC, which is true. But even when using a full team, there's benefit in "wasted" turns that mean your turncount is not as optimal as it could be. Inflating your turncount by fighting enemies you can avoid and obtaining items that it's faster to skip is arguably even more important, since using a full team makes it more likely you won't be strong enough to handle the endgame.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Baldrick

[Snowy_One]

There is no way to stop LTC players short of forcing the game to follow specific strategies, rules, and turns. This is not healthy for the game. However it is possible to change it so that turn counts no longer become a good metric.

1) Change the balance of power. As-is units with high mobility are often well-rounded and just as capable, if not more-so, than their low-movement counterparts. The low-movement units also tend to have exploitable weaknesses (such as sages having low defense). The first step is to change this so that High-movement units and bum-rushing a map are no-longer viable tactics. The two best ways to accomplish this, IMO, is to handicap the defensive stats of mounted units, particularly avoid (how do you dodge on a horse anyways?) as well as set up situations where the low-movement units are valuable. A map with many generals and high-DEF units is very valuable for a mage but would suck for a melee unit.

2) Establish situations where fast runs are simply not smart. Imagine a chapter where defeating the boss allows progression, but there are several sub-bosses around as well. Defeating each of the sub-bosses grants a valuable reward (like a stat-booster) but they're spread out across the map. This won't stop LTCers, of course, but it will make it so that rushing the end is less favorable to taking the time to deal with each. Especially if...

3) Change weapon power-levels. One of the big problems FE has is that there is little reason to not upgrade your weapons unless you're grinding. Why waste valuable silver sword uses when an iron sword costs less, is more durable, and has the same effect after all? Why use a killer weapon at all unless you NEED that crit? Change it so that anything more than Steel is a rarity but is far more useful. Imagine if Hammers had no draw-backs to Steel axes beyond being more fragile. You'd want that, but they can only be obtained via beating sub-bosses. If you just rush you'll end up wielding almost entirely iron and steel with no specials.

4) Increase map tactical abilities. Part of what makes Disgaea so anti-LTC is the geo-panels. They can be extremely useful but charging in only to hit a level 1 enemy on an invisibility tile can stop you dead in your tracks. You can't kill him without getting him off that tile first. Imagine if, say, forts didn't just give a static bonus to both parties but, instead, granted all enemy units +25% stats but offered the player little to nothing. Suddenly just rushing up and fighting is a bad idea instead of bating or fighting from range.

5) Introduce random map elements. Imagine if, on each map, there were two 'ninja' units. Special units that could only be detected by, say, a thief before they attacked and only became active when player units entered into a certain range, but had stats on-par with bosses and could be ANYWHERE on the map (within reason). Maybe modify it so they go after armored units instead of clothies but, otherwise, are prime ambush material and can't be predicted. To top it off maybe beating them is required to unlock weapons/items in the shop (like in Valkyria Chronicles)? Even something as simple as randomizing enemy starting locations can throw a LTCer off their game as a viable flyer strategy before suddenly became null because the enemy snipers started close to the boss.

LTC players draw their power from predictability and speed. Their goal is to simply beat a map ASAP. The more questioning and doubt you throw in, the more you punish rushing, the harder their goal becomes and the less viable such a play style is. Fast play should be a matter of player skill, not number crunching. There will always be LTCers and people who try to rank by such means, but focusing on strategy over bum-rushing changes the dynamic of the game.

[Shrouded In Myth]

How is number crunching not player skill? Wouldn't player skill be using all the tools at your disposal to its fullest extent? Wouldn't effiency, meaning no limited resource is wasted, be player skill? Because all of that would require some number crunching.

[dondon151]

the funniest thing is that snowy claims to know all about LTCers despite never having even tried at being one himself

Edited August 19, 2015 by dondon151

[Snowy_One]

How is number crunching not player skill? Wouldn't player skill be using all the tools at your disposal to its fullest extent? Wouldn't effiency, meaning no limited resource is wasted, be player skill? Because all of that would require some number crunching.

No. Not like how LTC'ers use it. There is a difference between 'using all the tools at my disposal' and 'following a rigid and set strategy and pattern'. In MMO terms it's the difference between a group that tries only one, set, strategy (LTCers/numbercrunchers) and one that tries to adapt to the situation (actual skill). Number crunching can tell us that X unit should have Y stat at Z level. Skill is how we utilize those numbers and LTC is not skill. Not like how tier lists use them.

[dondon151]

snowy has me on ignore so this is not addressed to him but let me clear up a big misconception

the process of LTC involves using all tools available at one's disposal. we consider the tools that we have and select the best ones based on prior experience and empirical testing. sometimes we are wrong about what tools are the best and that's how LTC runs get improved.

[I.M. Gei]

the funniest thing is that snowy claims to know all about LTCers despite never having even tried at being one himself

tbf this is something i've noticed with a lot of people who hate LTC and efficiency in general

they accuse people who do those playstyles of telling everyone else what to do while jerking off about how they can't stand those playstyles, and are too cripplingly self-unaware to realise this

[Gradivus.]

LTC is not skill

lol

Let's get into details though.

LTC revolves around innovative strategies, using all useful tools at their disposal (the unuseful ones often don't matter in many contexts anyway; in fact, LTC does make use of poor longterm units early on for more firepower, which doesn't quite hold true for other playstyles). Positioning, resource usage (including boosters, staves and money), exp/wexp management and just figuring out how to kill enemies all are crucial and strategy-intensive parts of LTC. Reliability usually gets optimized in LTC strats too. It isn't simple bumrushing and definitely requires skill. RNG abuse is necessary for some games to be minimum-turned, but disallowing RNG abuse is completely arbitrary and some players just decide that they're fine using it. That doesn't negate any strategic components.

LTCers aren't "a group that follows a strict pattern and strategy", because most LTC players don't consider LTC their only playstyle and not all efficient playthroughs are strict LTC. There are efficient playthroughs with various sorts of extra restrictions; the most prevalent example are drafts.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Gradivus.

[Shrouded In Myth]

I see LTC'ers adpat to the situation a lot more than casual players. Some people think "adapting to the situation" means "my initial plan went so badly I needed to turtle and RNG abuse by resetting to actually beat the chapter." When an LTC player encounters a problem I usually see them analyze every one of their tools to see which one is the best for the situation, while more casual players often just use their favorites and force them to work. It kinda reminds me of fighting game scrubs who say that top players don't have real skill since they aren't using lower tier characters, aka bad tools, ignoring the fact that they analyzed and practiced with the characters extensively to figure out which one had the best chance of winning, and how to consistently get results.

[Snowy_One]

I see just the opposite with LTC players sitting down and finding the one or two 'best' strategies to beating a level then sticking through it. They're about as skilled as following a step-by-step strategy guide that they didn't even make. Yet they take this mentality and insist it's the ONLY way to play and rank units and anything that DARES oppose it is bad for the game!

0 Skill = People who follow a walk-through and pre-planned set-ups to the letter. A.K.A. LTC players.

Low skill = Newbies.

Medium skill = People who use units they like and understand the mechanics of the game.

Medium-high skill = People who have figured out the stronger and weaker characters.

High skill = People who can push themselves to achieve victory despite the odds.

'True' skill = There are no characters. The player understands the game well enough to make even bad set-ups viable and do well despite unfavorable circumstances barring absurd set-ups.

Show me a LTC player doing a LTC run who can do well while using the worst units in the game WITHOUT min-maxing or using a pre-planned strategy and I'll admit that they have true skill. But since all LTC players rely on pre-planned and idealized strategies utilizing the best units possible in the game I will have to admit nothing.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Snowy_One

[Baldrick]

It's funny that you accuse LTC players of being elitist when you label your preferred playstyle as "true" skill.

In my LTC experience, it's all about planning. You're not really adapting to the situation, more like making a contingency plan for every situation. It's a different kind of skill, e.g. the difference between being good at scriptwriting or being good at improv.

[Lord Raven]

Show me a LTC player doing a LTC run who can do well while using the worst units in the game WITHOUT min-maxing or using a pre-planned strategy and I'll admit that they have true skill. But since all LTC players rely on pre-planned and idealized strategies utilizing the best units possible in the game I will have to admit nothing.

I mean, I can do it, but that's not the kind of run I would record.

I don't know why this is "true" skill, just a different playstyle. I'd also like to ask you if you prefer military planning that is almost purely improvised and played on gut feeling or one that's planned to a good degree?

[dondon151]

0 Skill = People who follow a walk-through and pre-planned set-ups to the letter. A.K.A. LTC players.

lol has it occurred to you that LTC players need to write those setups in the first place

in fact the hallmark of a good strategy is one that can be written down and repeated with a high chance of success. that indicates that the LTC player really did his job well.

Edited August 20, 2015 by dondon151

[Shrouded In Myth]

It's funny that you accuse LTC players of being elitist when you label your preferred playstyle as "true" skill.

In my LTC experience, it's all about planning. You're not really adapting to the situation, more like making a contingency plan for every situation. It's a different kind of skill, e.g. the difference between being good at scriptwriting or being good at improv.

That is a good comparison. I say LTC needs adaption because you will have adjust your strategy each time you try a chapter, not just keep doing the same thing till it works. So this would be a script that went through several revisions.

[XeKr]

Thinking something is bad because it's highly reproducible/reliable is some of the weirdest logic I've ever seen.

[-Cynthia-]

I think what Snowy may be getting at is that reproducing another player's strategy exactly does not take a lot of skill, which may be fair. LTCers are usually looking to improve on strategies in some way/deal with FE's various random elements though, not just copy.

[Snowy_One]

I think what Snowy may be getting at is that reproducing another player's strategy exactly does not take a lot of skill, which may be fair. LTCers are usually looking to improve on strategies in some way/deal with FE's various random elements though, not just copy.

Exactly. Well... Almost. In my experiences LTC-ers will do their best to eliminate random chance all together instead of adapting to them. Adaption is a huge part of being actually 'skilled'. It is a part most LTCers lack.

Thinking something is bad because it's highly reproducible/reliable is some of the weirdest logic I've ever seen.

In Hearthstone there are many cards. Some are better than others there is no doubt. However many players seek to simply go online and copy a deck from someone else and employ it, likely sticking to the most basic of strategies. These decks are fairly reproducible and, in the hands of a skilled player, reliable. These players are not skilled. They can be trounced by simple plays and counters or end up being put in a position where the only reason they win is sheer statistical power as opposed to skill. This holds true for pretty much any game as well including Fire Emblem.

It's funny that you accuse LTC players of being elitist when you label your preferred playstyle as "true" skill

It's funny that you assume that I consider myself 'Truly skilled' instead of 'medium skill with knowledge of what true skill actually is'. I'm not 'elitist' either. Just spiteful of the people who go around declaring that the 'right' way to play FE is to focus on turncounts and everything else is casual/wrong and anyone who criticizes them is a unskilled scrub; which is the most common mindset of LTC people. It's a game where an entirely arbitrary measurement of 'skill' has come to dominate the entire mindset of a sizable chunk of its players.

[eclipse]

lol has it occurred to you that LTC players need to write those setups in the first place

in fact the hallmark of a good strategy is one that can be written down and repeated with a high chance of success. that indicates that the LTC player really did his job well.

Props to the people that blaze the trail/improve on it, then.

Though I don't consider myself a LTC player, I know things like unavoidable randomness screwed over plenty a draft run (like those moronic status staves in Father and Son, even with a freshly-applied Pure Water. . .drafting's FUN like that).

[Lord Raven]

It's funny that you assume that I consider myself 'Truly skilled' instead of 'medium skill with knowledge of what true skill actually is'. I'm not 'elitist' either. Just spiteful of the people who go around declaring that the 'right' way to play FE is to focus on turncounts and everything else is casual/wrong and anyone who criticizes them is a unskilled scrub; which is the most common mindset of LTC people. It's a game where an entirely arbitrary measurement of 'skill' has come to dominate the entire mindset of a sizable chunk of its players.

nobody is saying this nor is anybody implying it

you may be saying this because dondon does LTCs and says stuff about people not being good at FE. This isnt an LTC mentality; it's a fact that many people on this forum aren't good. This is not because they don't LTC, it's because most gameplay videos of FE that you see consist of people playing badly lol

[Shrouded In Myth]

Exactly. Well... Almost. In my experiences LTC-ers will do their best to eliminate random chance all together instead of adapting to them. Adaption is a huge part of being actually 'skilled'. It is a part most LTCers lack.

Minimizing the effect of the RNG is skill, actually I would argue that it is the main skill which the Fire Emblem series tests (and the TearRing Saga series by extension.) The series gives you so many tools to deal with the random elements, such as hit rates, crit rates, growth rates, etc. Compare it to a game like Battle for Wesnoth, where the probabilities of its random elements are fixed, so you just have to deal with it. This is why Battle for Wesnoth is more suitable for multiplayer. since its mechanics favors small risk, small reward strategies, which actually makes players take more risks. Fire Emblem on the other hand favors high risk, high reward strategies, aka LTC strategies, because you can eliminate the risk and reap the reward. I find the latter to more fun in single-player games and Fire Emblem.

[Espinosa]

Show me a LTC player doing a LTC run who can do well while using the worst units in the game WITHOUT min-maxing or using a pre-planned strategy and I'll admit that they have true skill. But since all LTC players rely on pre-planned and idealized strategies utilizing the best units possible in the game I will have to admit nothing.

A lot of the LTCing done in this community involves subjecting yourself to extra rules, aka enforcing a "challenge setting". 0% growths involves using units that don't grow and dondon is best known for these displays of tactical prowess, there's PKL who once did a low-tier LTC run through one of the harder difficulties of FE12, and many more.

Myself, I've done things like LTC FE8 with female units only (so no Seth, Franz, and actually nobody who becomes a reliable tank) or with foot units only (to address the complaint that LTC can't go without mounts). There's actually another FE8 LTC run I've got in progress that is relevant to the topic of your post a lot more than any other I've cited from any of the parties, but since I don't know if I will even continue that run, I'll not reveal what it is for now.

I gotta say though, using the best of the best doesn't make LTCing easy by any means. Hell, even LTCing an easy game with characters said to make it easy isn't easy. For example, I would loathe to LTC FE8 with no additional restrictions to change it into something drastically different because the requirements for the absolute lowest turn counts are dreadfully difficult to match, and many of them are extremely precise too (e.g. growing a certain amount of str or spd by a certain point, having certain defensive stats on certain units and being able to promote a unit before a specific point all while attending other similarly pressing objectives).

[Gradivus.]

Exactly. Well... Almost. In my experiences LTC-ers will do their best to eliminate random chance instead of adapting to them. Adaption is a huge part of being actually 'skilled'. It is a part that most LTCers lack.

LTCers do adapt to [the fact that] random chance [exists] by making their strats more reliable and adding contingency plans for the case that the RNG messes up. You don't provide any reasons why your assessment of skill would be correct; the ability to develop new strategies and making them reliable certainly is a skill because it requires strategic competency.

I'm not 'elitist' either.

Even if this is true, you are the only one here who tries to dismiss a different playstyle as unskilled and I think that's what Baldrick meant.

declaring that the 'right' way to play is to focus on turncounts and everything else is casual/wrong and anyone who criticizes them is an unskilled scrub; which is the most common mindset of LTC people.

No one in this thread has called you an unskilled scrub and I don't recall it elsewhere, either. You ignore vast amounts of arguments that disprove yours. Most LTCers also do casual (= with no specific goal besides getting through the game in a certain mode with whatever characters they want to use) playthroughs; I mentioned that just 10 posts ago and I'm surprised I have to repeat it. Non-LTC playstyles are completely fine by the logic most LTC players follow.

It's a game where an entirely arbitrary measurement of 'skill' has come to dominate the entire mindset of a sizable chunk of players.

People don't LTC just to show off skill. They do so because they like LTCing and are interested in it. Them coming up with good strategies indicates that they're skilled, which there's nothing wrong with. The arbitrariness in determining what is skill is on your part.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Gradivus.

[Snowy_One]

Minimizing the effect of the RNG is skill, actually I would argue that it is the main skill which the Fire Emblem series tests (and the TearRing Saga series by extension.)

I have no idea what Battle of Wesnoth is, so I can't say anything, but there is a huge difference between 'I am doing my best to handle risk' (A.K.A. normal players) and 'Even the smallest amount is unacceptable and I tolerate it only because I have to' (LTC players). It's not like casuals go in swinging Gamble around after all.

The thing is that LTC relies on things such as mount transfers, shove/smiting, pulling off specific KO's at specific times, getting certain level-ups, and so-forth. They are inflexible and rigid so their strategies cannot adapt to changes.

A lot of the LTCing done in this community involves subjecting yourself to extra rules, aka enforcing a "challenge setting". 0% growths involves using units that don't grow and dondon is best known for these displays of tactical prowess, there's PKL who once did a low-tier LTC run through one of the harder difficulties of FE12, and many more.

If they sat down, planned out their battles before even turning on the game, especially down to the move, and so-forth then it voids the point. Doing a 0% run where characters do not grow is also not utilizing the best units.

(so no Seth, Franz, and actually nobody who becomes a reliable tank

A certain trainee would disagree with you.

I gotta say though, using the best of the best doesn't make LTCing easy by any means.

You're following a pre-set strategy down to the move with little room for variation. There is no skill.

You don't provide any reasons why your assessment of skill would be correct; the ability to develop new strategies and making them reliable certainly is a skill because it requires strategic competency.

Because relying on one set strategy is rigid and no better than following a step-by-step guidebook. Even if I were to accept that the person with the strategy held 'true skill' and happened to turn it towards obtaining as low a turncount as possible anyone following said strategy would, likely, not because they're copying someone elses plans. This sort of thing is why you get both toxic and horrible players in things like LoL where they only select what the meta says is best and mock on anyone who picks differently despite that, at best, they're following the cookie-cutter build with no understanding of why it works while shunning someone who does understand their character well. I play Nova (among others) in HotS and, ATM, her 'ideal' build calls for anti-armor shells as one of her talents. But I've found it really doesn't suit how I play and rarely works out as well as explosive rounds for me. I know that the anti-armor may be better and, one day, I'll use them. For now though I'd rather practice with her and do my best to become as good with her than force myself into a build I'm not that good with just because the meta says its better.

Even if this is true, you are the only one here who tries to dismiss a different playstyle as unskilled and I think that's what Baldrick meant.

If they utilize other peoples skill then what right do they have to claim it as their own skill?

No one in this thread has called you an unskilled scrub and I don't recall it elsewhere, either.

I've seen it pop up tons of times, especially on Gamefaqs. Not to mention the general mentality that LTC is the ONLY way to play/measure skill/unit power.

People don't LTC just to show off skill. They do so because they like LTCing and are interested in it.

And do that by following other peoples strategies to the T with only the potential of discussing others strategies to the T.

Edit: The sort of play through I want to see a LTC player do is one where they utilize the worst characters with no pre-planned strategy yet still push their best to get as low a turn-count as possible. Since LTC plays require both great characters and pre-planned strategies it's an impossible achievement. Show me and I'll stop.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Snowy_One