The Great LTC Debate Thread (Yay? Nay? Burn in Hell?)

[Narga_Rocks]

I believe his point is that people here are not very friendly towards people with differing opinions/ideas

That much is true sometimes.

[Anouleth]

Look, it's half their fault for having different opinions and ideas in the first place.

[Paperblade]

/thread

[Loki Laufeyson]

Exhibit A:

Has ANYBODY walked into this thread

http://serenesforest...0

and said "oh no, arena abuse is for amateurs, you should be playing LTC"????

No but thats kinda happened in other threads. A lot of people here are really anti-arena because "it breaks game". Well, it kinda does...i see that point. But others do argue that arenas are bad because it costs a lot of turns. I have seen people go "you shouldnt do it." And im like "wtf not if that person isnt worried about ranks or turn counts?" Yeah. It happens.

[Sunwoo]

Look, it's half their fault for having different opinions and ideas in the first place.

... I hope you're not serious about this. Because I can't find the words to even begin to think of a proper reply to this.

Edit: Why am I the @)(*%)P#*# Black Knight again!? -_-

Edited February 11, 2012 by Boron

[Refa]

... I hope you're not serious about this. Because I can't find the words to even begin to think of a proper reply to this.

Edit: Why am I the @)(*%)P#*# Black Knight again!? -_-

You must be around a lot of straight laced people in your everyday life if you can't detect sarcasm such as that.

[Sunwoo]

You must be around a lot of straight laced people in your everyday life if you can't detect sarcasm such as that.

No, I have at least one IRL friend who's so sarcastic he gets smacked quite often. But that looked as if it could be quite serious. Sarcasm doesn't translate well over the Internet. I know I haven't been a member on this site for long, but I have lurked enough to know that this community can get quite ... nasty at times about certain things.

Edited February 11, 2012 by Boron

[Progenitus]

I like how narga only starts seriously posting the moment I enter. I feel so popular. One has to wonder when int will join in the flame war fun.

Here's what I don't understand. Most discussion of turn counts happens in tier lists specifically created for that discussion. Every one is upset about there not being much discussion other than turn count play. No one would be upset with these people creating topics or tier lists to discuss the playstyle they enjoy. Why don't you DO that? Why not go make a tier list about all these different ways of playing besides the hated Efficiency/LTC? If that kind of play is appealing enough to the forum members, then people will discuss it. If it's not appealing enough, it's not the LTC players fault. If LTC players came in and started bashing the tier lists on the basis that "Not LTC u r nub", I'm positive mods would step in, or the poster would just get bashed from the rest of the community. For all this talk of LTC players stifling discussion, I've never seen another discussion to begin with.

Whenever someone that isn't part of the serenesforest niche makes a separate tier list, it either gets trolled to the ground or outright closed.

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=18866

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=19097&st=0

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=19003

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=20833

There are a handful of other examples that exist even on other sites; the serenesforest niche will deliberately go to other sites to troll down tier lists that don't conform to their standards.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/932999-fire-emblem-radiant-dawn/53510935/589695202

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/920189-fire-emblem-path-of-radiance/59086384

Do you honestly think people haven't tried before? The fact is that the serenesforest niche will only accept LTC.

Quote

Relevant story: A few years ago, I recall watching a debate on FEFF. I don't remember who was involved, but I know it was Oscar vs. Boyd. One of the debaters pointed out in his opening statement that his intent was not to prove that the other character was terrible, but rather that if a player, for whatever reason, had filled every other slot on their team and was choosing between those two for the last slot, then the player would get more of an advantage from picking his chosen character. There was an agreement that those two were two of the best characters in the game, and that an ideal team would include both of them. But the situation being considered was not an ideal situation. It didn't have to be. This is an idea much of the current Serenes community appears to have lost, whether discussing LTC or not.

What's your point? Are you saying that we are not considering non-ideal situations anymore?

Sorry, but it's hard to envision playing FE8 while you place handcuffs on Seth. If he's going to be fielded and used, take off his chains and let him go to work. It has the unfortunate consequence of many growth units becoming utter trash, but that's just the reality of the game. Either make a list where he is assumed to not be used at all (Sethless, it is there) or make a list where he is used fully (Sethskip). I question the meaning of a "Cuffed Seth" tier list.

Even in fe10, if Haar can reliably end a map in half the time it takes anybody else to do so, how is it in any way "efficient" to not do so?

idk narga what do you think

EDIT: Here's another example. The funny thing is that the list was actually about LTC, but the serenesforest members still trolled it to the ground simply because it was made by me.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/932999-fire-emblem-radiant-dawn/58835420

Edited February 11, 2012 by IMPrime

[Dark Sage]

[01:02] <@SevenDeadlySins> assuming something other than fighter/armor - dracoknight mu is in play (especially in trade for something as bad as mage mu) is kinda like assuming that people aren't using haar in fe10

[01:02] <@SevenDeadlySins> sure it's a possibility

[01:02] <@SevenDeadlySins> but really?

[01:03] <@the_pugilist> for ltc runs?

[01:03] <@the_pugilist> certainly

[01:04] <@the_pugilist> I mean people can user whatever the fuck they want for casual but that goes without saying

Because anything other than LTC play is casual amirite?

Oh.

Wait.

[aku chi]

EDIT: Here's another example. The funny thing is that the list was actually about LTC, but the serenesforest members still trolled it to the ground simply because it was made by me.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/932999-fire-emblem-radiant-dawn/58835420

You seem to have a persecution complex. The only person who trolled this topic was AndoSan, a known GameFAQs troll. I'd suggest that you were actually disappointed with how seriously people took this tier list thread that you created to stir up controversy over LTCing as a standard for tiering.

Edit: I also saw zero trolling in this topic: http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/920189-fire-emblem-path-of-radiance/59086384. We had a short discussion on how to evaluate low tier units, and that was the end of it. I readily admit that I was critical of the lower portion of your tier list, but that is far from trolling.

There are also a lot of serious posts from people who normally debate LTC efficiency in this thread: http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=20833&st=80.

Edited February 11, 2012 by aku chi

[Narga_Rocks]

I like how narga only starts seriously posting the moment I enter. I feel so popular. One has to wonder when int will join in the flame war fun.

But paperblade's posts were just so loooong and it's much easier arguing with you than arguing with him. More fun, too.

Sorry, but it's hard to envision playing FE8 while you place handcuffs on Seth. If he's going to be fielded and used, take off his chains and let him go to work. It has the unfortunate consequence of many growth units becoming utter trash, but that's just the reality of the game. Either make a list where he is assumed to not be used at all (Sethless, it is there) or make a list where he is used fully (Sethskip). I question the meaning of a "Cuffed Seth" tier list.

Even in fe10, if Haar can reliably end a map in half the time it takes anybody else to do so, how is it in any way "efficient" to not do so?

idk narga what do you think

I think you posted an example of me allowing for a non-ideal situation, that is Sethless. Good job. Thanks for the evidence and reminding everyone.

Edited February 11, 2012 by Narga_Rocks

[dondon151]

Whenever someone that isn't part of the serenesforest niche makes a separate tier list, it either gets trolled to the ground or outright closed.

I don't think "trolled to the ground" is the same thing as "pointing out logical inconsistencies in tiering ideology."

[Othin]

So now are we assuming tiering ideology must be ironclad, with no room for interpretation and questioning?

[Defeatist Elitist]

troll

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Florete]

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=18866

Obvious troll list.

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=19097&st=0

Was taken pretty seriously, though we had to point out the serious flaws in logic. Even Revan (who normally doesn't debate and isn't part of the "niche") stepped in on that much.

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=19003

You call that trolling? Did you post that just so people would agree with it and praise your genius?

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=20833

Just wasn't popular.

Smash, when will you learn that people disagreeing with you is not the same as trolling?

[Progenitus]

You seem to have a persecution complex. The only person who trolled this topic was AndoSan, a known GameFAQs troll. I'd suggest that you were actually disappointed with how seriously people took this tier list thread that you created to stir up controversy over LTCing as a standard for tiering.

For starters, people who trolled the list simply because it was made by me. For example, you.

aku chi

Posted 4/19/2011 6:25:15 PM

Albin0 posted...

Am I the only one who noticed that smash just posted a tier list that goes against everything he looks for in tiering? Seriously guys, smash isn't posting this tier list so we can debate it: he's posting it to satirize LTC play. Are we just going along with it? Surely I can't be the only one to have noticed this.

You are not the only one to notice. I'm not sure how to respond when smash fanatic behaves like this, because I don't know what he hopes to accomplish. So I'll continue to ignore such posts until I figure it out.

Edit: I also saw zero trolling in this topic: http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/920189-fire-emblem-path-of-radiance/59086384. We had a short discussion on how to evaluate low tier units, and that was the end of it. I readily admit that I was critical of the lower portion of your tier list, but that is far from trolling.

How about the fact that you didn't even address what my post said about tiering low tier units and you instead went off on your own tangent blabbling?

There are also a lot of serious posts from people who normally debate LTC efficiency in this thread: http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=20833&st=80.

For starters, int.

I think you posted an example of me allowing for a non-ideal situation, that is Sethless. Good job. Thanks for the evidence and reminding everyone.

Yeah, by saying anyone who considers the non-ideal situation should bring it up on a separate tier list, implying that they will be making a tier list that is inferior to the one you adhere to.

I don't think "trolled to the ground" is the same thing as "pointing out logical inconsistencies in what doesn't agree with LTC."

k

Obvious troll list.

His arguments were sound and consistent. The only reason why it was closed is because it didn't adhere to what the SF members had already deemed to be true or false.

Was taken pretty seriously, though we had to point out the serious flaws in logic. Even Revan (who normally doesn't debate and isn't part of the "niche") stepped in on that much.

How about all the trolling saying that CATS was apparently assuming the player is completely retarded and frothing at the mouth for starters? Did you even read the topic?

You call that trolling? Did you post that just so people would agree with it and praise your genius?

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=19003&view=findpost&p=851658

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=19003&view=findpost&p=851707

These are examples of me being flamed in the first page. Again, did you even read the topic? I know you posted sometimes to troll me unnecessarily, but surely you didn't miss all the other times of other people trolling as well.

Just wasn't popular.

because it wasn't LTC.

Smash, when will you learn that people disagreeing with you is not the same as trolling?

Fox, when will you learn that people agreeing with you is not the same as not trolling?

[Narga_Rocks]

So now are we assuming tiering ideology must be ironclad, with no room for interpretation and questioning?

No. But if the tiering ideology is not at least rather clear, it will be discussed. Which is what happened. And there's a vast difference between "room for interpretation and questioning" and "logical inconsistencies". Logical inconsistencies should be pretty clearly bad even to you.

Yeah, by saying anyone who considers the non-ideal situation should bring it up on a separate tier list, implying that they will be making a tier list that is inferior to the one you adhere to.

You are ignoring the reasons for a separate tier list. I don't see the other list as inferior at all. It's just that the difference between having Seth and not having Seth are so great that you can't reconcile the two thoughts onto the same list. Just take a moment to jump off your high horse and take a look at the two lists. How would you suggest we reconcile the two? We are talking about cutting the number of turns in half or something crazy like that. This isn't a minor change like using Haar or not.

I happen to like both lists and see them both as meaningful and information givers.

Edited February 11, 2012 by Narga_Rocks

[Aethereal]

Yeah, by saying anyone who considers the non-ideal situation should bring it up on a separate tier list, implying that they will be making a tier list that is inferior to the one you adhere to.

Um. Wut? That's a nice big leap in logic you made to attempt to prove your point.

He's saying rating things by two separate and sometimes contradictory standards doesn't make sense, and doesn't reflect either standard particularly well. Which, by the way, is true. This is not an insult. There is no implication that one is superior to the other. If you want to have a topic where you don't assume ideal stuff, like the sethless tier list which I think I believe is pretty popular, cool beans bro. It just makes little to no sense to try to do that alongside assuming for ideal situations.

[Florete]

His arguments were sound and consistent. The only reason why it was closed is because it didn't adhere to what the SF members had already deemed to be true or false.

You are laughable. I'm pretty sure the creator of it even admitted later that he was just trolling. The time around when it happened and some of the things on the list (Lyn at the bottom) make it obvious.

How about all the trolling saying that CATS was apparently assuming the player is completely retarded and frothing at the mouth for starters? Did you even read the topic?

Yes, flaws in logic. The OP says: --This list assumes that there is room for player error (tactically bad decisions resulting in death, ideal supports less viable, not always using the perfect team or strategy, etc.) It is not trolling to point out what is wrong with that. And I'm pretty sure at first it said something like "maximal error," which makes it easy to assume extremes like everyone except Ike dying. Which is pretty retarded.

Smash, we are not trolling because we point out flaws in logic, nor are we trying to get rid of any kind of thinking we don't already follow. We didn't like ranked discussion at first, but the FE7 ranked list ended up getting a lot of discussion.

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=19003&view=findpost&p=851658

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=19003&view=findpost&p=851707

These are examples of me being flamed in the first page. Again, did you even read the topic? I know you posted sometimes to troll me unnecessarily, but surely you didn't miss all the other times of other people trolling as well.

This is only an example of us being against you, not anything we don't already do. If someone else had posted it, we would have either argued it normally or closed it because we have another. We all know you and now none of us are able to take you seriously, try as we might. I'd say this is mostly your fault.

because it wasn't LTC.

It's not our fault that non-LTC/efficiency topics don't get popular.

Fox, when will you learn that people agreeing with you is not the same as not trolling?

...So when people agree with me, I should consider the possibility that they are actually trolling me? What is the point of this line?

And you wonder why we don't take you seriously.

[I.M. Gei]

http://serenesforest...ndpost&p=851658

http://serenesforest...ndpost&p=851707

These are examples of me being flamed in the first page. Again, did you even read the topic? I know you posted sometimes to troll me unnecessarily, but surely you didn't miss all the other times of other people trolling as well.

You have some ridiculously thin--thin as in a rack of ribs smoked for a whole week--skin if you consider that to be flaming and trolling.

[aku chi]

For starters, people who trolled the list simply because it was made by me. For example, you.

aku chi

Posted 4/19/2011 6:25:15 PM

Albin0 posted...

Am I the only one who noticed that smash just posted a tier list that goes against everything he looks for in tiering? Seriously guys, smash isn't posting this tier list so we can debate it: he's posting it to satirize LTC play. Are we just going along with it? Surely I can't be the only one to have noticed this.

You are not the only one to notice. I'm not sure how to respond when smash fanatic behaves like this, because I don't know what he hopes to accomplish. So I'll continue to ignore such posts until I figure it out.

Would you be so kind as to provide your operating definition for "trolling"? As I understand the word, creating a tier list (as you did) to try to incite a hostile reception is more fitting of "trolling" than recognizing an effort as such.

How about the fact that you didn't even address what my post said about tiering low tier units and you instead went off on your own tangent blabbling?

I suggested an alternative means of evaluating poor units in an efficiency tier list, which seemed especially relevant to the topic at hand (ergo: not a tangent). How such an effort could be construed as "trolling" is a matter beyond my understanding.

For starters, int.

There was some condescension in that topic (as there is in most tier lists), but it was far from the majority of the content.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Smash, please stop using the word troll, you seem to be sadly mistaken about what it means.

[Dark Sage]

This is only an example of us being against you, not anything we don't already do. If someone else had posted it, we would have either argued it normally or closed it because we have another. We all know you and now none of us are able to take you seriously, try as we might. I'd say this is mostly your fault.

WTF. Are you seriously saying that whenever smash posts something you just automatically disagree with him because it's smash? That's retarded.

[Progenitus]

You are ignoring the reasons for a separate tier list. I don't see the other list as inferior at all. It's just that the difference between having Seth and not having Seth are so great that you can't reconcile the two thoughts onto the same list. Just take a moment to jump off your high horse and take a look at the two lists. How would you suggest we reconcile the two? We are talking about cutting the number of turns in half or something crazy like that. This isn't a minor change like using Haar or not.

I happen to like both lists and see them both as meaningful and information givers.

Having Seth can still result in "not have Seth solo maps" and thus can still be incorporated into the main tier list. Assuming that Seth is fielded, thus he HAS to be soloing maps (because if he's not doing that, the "impact between having Seth and not having Seth" is in fact not significant to the point that a separate tier list has to be made to consider such a situation) goes back to my first post - that the SF niche playstyle is abusing the fuck out of the overpowered units, and that anything that doesn't conform to that playstyle has to be directed to a different tier list than the ones the SF niche argue.

You are laughable. I'm pretty sure the creator of it even admitted later that he was just trolling. The time around when it happened and some of the things on the list (Lyn at the bottom) make it obvious.

That still doesn't change the fact that no one actually tried to refute any of his arguments. What solide actually believes in (which means even if he was trolling when he made that list) doesn't weaken any of his points which the SF niche dismissed.

Yes, flaws in logic. The OP says: --This list assumes that there is room for player error (tactically bad decisions resulting in death, ideal supports less viable, not always using the perfect team or strategy, etc.) It is not trolling to point out what is wrong with that. And I'm pretty sure at first it said something like "maximal error," which makes it easy to assume extremes like everyone except Ike dying. Which is pretty retarded.

Smash, we are not trolling because we point out flaws in logic, nor are we trying to get rid of any kind of thinking we don't already follow. We didn't like ranked discussion at first, but the FE7 ranked list ended up getting a lot of discussion.

It is a strawman - and by extension trolling - to stretch "tactically bad decisions" into "the player is a complete retard".

This is only an example of us being against you, not anything we don't already do. If someone else had posted it, we would have either argued it normally or closed it because we have another. We all know you and now none of us are able to take you seriously, try as we might. I'd say this is mostly your fault.

Yeah, so instead of arguing the points the TC brings up, it's ok to flame him because of his reputation.

CSB

It's not our fault that non-LTC/efficiency topics don't get popular.

And you wonder why the people outside of the serenesforest niche do not like debating with your kind anymore.

...So when people agree with me, I should consider the possibility that they are actually trolling me? What is the point of this line?

And you wonder why we don't take you seriously.

Just because they agree with you doesn't mean they are not trolling me.

Was it really that hard to comprehend?

You have some ridiculously thin--thin as in a rack of ribs smoked for a whole week--skin if you consider that to be flaming and trolling.

It is still trolling, and quite severe one at that (completely dismissing or insulting someone just because that someone is hated among the majority of the community).

Tell me; if that isn't trolling, what is?

Would you be so kind as to provide your operating definition for "trolling"? As I understand the word, creating a tier list (as you did) to try to incite a hostile reception is more fitting of "trolling" than recognizing an effort as such.

google "trolling" if you want a definition.

I suggested an alternative means of evaluating poor units in an efficiency tier list, which seemed especially relevant to the topic at hand (ergo: not a tangent). How such an effort could be construed as "trolling" is a matter beyond my understanding.

Because you completely dismissed what I argued anyway.

There was some condescension in that topic (as there is in most tier lists), but it was far from the majority of the content.

Doesn't change the fact that several people posted in that topic just to troll it.

[I.M. Gei]

How is that behavior considered "trolling?" You immediately use that term--which has lost all its meaning--to refer to anyone who disagrees with you.That's really all they did, and you can't come to terms with it.

Edited February 11, 2012 by Black★Rock Shooter