Notebook of a Gamer: \"Turtling\"
 

Starcraft

This is actually the game where I first heard the term “turtling”. Turtling is when you build a large number of defensive structures around your base. Turtling in Starcraft sucks.

Turtling is the natural newbie reflex in this type of game. What happens is, the bad player loses very quickly the first times he plays against a person. This is because he is slow and generally doesn't know what he is doing, so the good player can “rush” him with little difficulty, ending the game very quickly.

Why turtling sucks: Real-time strategy games are very much about resource development. Large numbers of defensive structures don't do much to improve one's control of the map, which often consists of numerous resource pools. While the new player is protecting his one base, the good player is often building an army, along with several other bases that are harvesting more resources so the good player can build more armies. In the end the good player is still going to win because the newbie isn't doing anything that is actually going to win him the game; he is leaving his opponents free to develop whatever advantages they need to eventually take him down.

It is true that rushes don't work anymore; the good player has to do some more work. But the turtling newbie still loses, he just loses more slowly.

Magic: The Gathering: There are several ways to win a match at this game, but the most common one is to kill the other player by dealing enough damage to reduce his life points to 0 over the course of the game.

While both players start with 20 life, it is possible to increase your life total using certain cards. While a lot of newer players tend to be attracted to such cards, it is pretty much universally accepted among competent M:TG players that life gain cards usually suck. There are exceptions, of course; any card that gains life and does other things may be improved by the lifegain ability, and sometimes a card that can gain a large amount of life can be worthwhile.

Why do lifegain cards suck? The intricacies of a Magic game are more complicated than anyone who doesn't play could possibly care about, but suffice it to say that this is what usually happens when someone casts a card that only gains life:

-Hero is winning: Not really worth discussing, do you see why?
-Game state is about equal: Hero gains 4 life, not doing anything to improve his board position. Villain improves his board position on his turn. If Hero has the advantage otherwise, see "Hero is winning." Otherwise, this is essentially the same thing as...
-Hero is losing: Hero casts card and gains 4 life. Villain draws a card, does something that deals 4 or more damage. Hero is in exactly the same state as he was before; he has not helped his game state at all by gaining the life.

So a losing Magic player who plays weak lifegain cards generally loses; he just loses more slowly.

MTT Poker

In poker there are a lot of people who realize that in a tournament there is the constant danger of going broke and not being able to rebuy, which can cause strategy to deviate from typical cash game play.

This causes some people to take an irrationally cautious approach to the game. They pass up slight edges early, sometimes even when they believe themselves to be the favorite, in the name of “not busting out”.

Most of these people are not taking their “board position” (i.e. chip count) into account. They ignore the fact that better players are often building stacks early that allow them to bully the other scared players around. They ignore the fact that waiting out too many hands causes their chip stack/blinds ratio to dwindle so badly that they will eventually have to go all-in on a desperation steal anyway. They ignore the fact that “I'm weak tight so please take shots at me” is just about the most suck-ass table image to have against other good players, especially if it's true.

In the end these people don't win; they lose more slowly. Just like in any other game I've ever played.

Re: Notebook of a Gamer: \"Turtling\"
 

Good old SC. I remember before I got any good at RTS games, I would play in like nr 15 minute games where everyone would turtle. Damn bastards! Good thing I learned how to play.

Re: Notebook of a Gamer: \"Turtling\"
 

Nice essay. I suggest writing it up with a little bit more polish and submitting it to the 2+2 Magazine.

Re: Notebook of a Gamer: \"Turtling\"
 

Very good post, the Starcraft and Magic examples really drive your point home.

Thanks!

Re: Notebook of a Gamer: \"Turtling\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
Starcraft

This is actually the game where I first heard the term “turtling”. Turtling is when you build a large number of defensive structures around your base. Turtling in Starcraft sucks.

Turtling is the natural newbie reflex in this type of game. What happens is, the bad player loses very quickly the first times he plays against a person. This is because he is slow and generally doesn't know what he is doing, so the good player can “rush” him with little difficulty, ending the game very quickly.

Why turtling sucks: Real-time strategy games are very much about resource development. Large numbers of defensive structures don't do much to improve one's control of the map, which often consists of numerous resource pools. While the new player is protecting his one base, the good player is often building an army, along with several other bases that are harvesting more resources so the good player can build more armies. In the end the good player is still going to win because the newbie isn't doing anything that is actually going to win him the game; he is leaving his opponents free to develop whatever advantages they need to eventually take him down.

It is true that rushes don't work anymore; the good player has to do some more work. But the turtling newbie still loses, he just loses more slowly.

[/ QUOTE ]

you do haave exceptions buddy. the general terran strategy is to turtle and expand with their superior long range weapons. as zerg and protoss player, it is very difficult to contain a terran when hes got siege tanks that can hit you from china.

i noteced you used the the term defensive structure, however the main defensive structure for terrans in quite easily the siege tank (a tier 2 unit), and serves a dual purpose of offense and defense while missile turrets are cheap and fast to build.

also note that as a terran player who has decided to turtle temporarily, it is often a grave and costly mistake to expand too fast since risking discover may in fact lead to losing over 400 minerals. this is an important note because by expanding you forego units and in fact need alot of time to actually reap the rewards of the resource edge. furthermore, in the turtled position, the terran player can also employ many harassment tactics (mainly drops and the occasional wraith abuse).

it is said that terrans, if placed and built properly, have an impenetrable defense. the terran race is much like lava spewing forth from a volcano, although somewhat slow, will turned everything it touches into ashes.

Re: Notebook of a Gamer: \"Turtling\"
 

Hi Goodnews,

As I understood the term "turtling," I didn't think it referred to people temporarily stationing Siege Tanks in their base while they built up a force, or planting a photon cannon at the edge of the plateau to prevent rushes. Turtling was the guy who builds almost nothing but sunken colonies and spore colonies, making it impossible to expand because his well-playing opponent has a mobile force that can take out attempted new bases immediately, meaning he sits there until he runs out of resources and loses to a bunch of reaver drops or siege tanks or whatever. I could be wrong, though, I haven't played that game in years.

Other than that I agree with everything you said.

Re: Notebook of a Gamer: \"Turtling\"
 

I disagree almost completly with this post.

In a MTT you WANT to play defensive early on to survive. Taking risks early on is going to get you burned, and it will get you eliminated.

What you want to do in a MTT is build you chip stack slowly without taking many risks until your in a position late in the tournament where you can change gears and become the agressor. You want to build you image up as a tight weak player, and then vary it as you go later.

Remeber, the longer you last the better chance you have at cashing, whcih is what its all about.

Everyone on this forum is always going for the final table. This is a dumb move. You want to go for the bubble, and have enough chips to make a push for the final table.

Everyone on this forums seems to thinkits final table or die trying, and thats the only way to play a MTT. This is not the right way to approch a MTT.

Re: Notebook of a Gamer: \"Turtling\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
Remeber, the longer you last the better chance you have at cashing, whcih is what its all about.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is blatantly wrong, and exactly the reason I made this post; the fallacy that taking steps to "not lose early" is the same thing as winning, which it isn't. You cannot limp into the bubble in MTTs consistently without taking risks, for the reasons I outlined above.

EDIT: Unless your opponents are awful, "Building your chip stack without taking any risks," is fantasy.

Re: Notebook of a Gamer: \"Turtling\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Remeber, the longer you last the better chance you have at cashing, whcih is what its all about.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is blatantly wrong, and exactly the reason I made this post; the fallacy that taking steps to "not lose early" is the same thing as winning, which it isn't. You cannot limp into the bubble in MTTs consistently without taking risks, for the reasons I outlined above.

EDIT: Unless your opponents are awful, "Building your chip stack without taking any risks," is fantasy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny enough, building your chip stack consistently while avoiding large risks is precisely what early aggression can do for you.

To the starcraft example: Expanding aggressively and focusing on 'turtling' with the Terrans isn't what the OP was takling about. The OP was talking about what I used to do, which was making sure that I had Toss Cannons on every square of map within there screens of my base.

When you said turtling, I actually thought of the days in my youth where I was hardcore into Killer Instinct and later Tekken. Seems like similar things hold in fighting games though. I could annihilate most opponents that were from 'bad' to 'decent' with an approach that focused on counter-attacks and letting the opponent make the first move. A good player would own me every time.

Anyway, to bring this back to poker: The survival mantra about MTTs is awesome, especially when EVERYBODY does it because they're "Better than the opposition" and therefore can "find better spots."

Re: Notebook of a Gamer: \"Turtling\"
 

Great read!

I think the arguement is a little skewed in the responses.

The OP is talking about a winning strategy. There are two stratagies for MTT:

1. To win
2. Place in the money.

Thats not to stay both do not share commom componants or are exclusive to one another.

Re: Notebook of a Gamer: \"Turtling\"
 

Hi LoginNameExists,

One thing I want to add; my OP is assuming that the competitive MTT player is trying to increase his EV in the tournament. My contention is that many "play to survive" players aren't even making it into the money with their strategy.

David Sklansky, TPFAP:

[ QUOTE ]
...many tournament players go too far trying to move up the ladder. They actually lose EV with their strategy that places too much emphasis on surviving in hopes of finishing higher.

[/ QUOTE ]

My real point was that decreasing your chances of a near-future loss, and increasing your chances of winning (or EV in the tournament since they pay multiple places) are not the same thing. If they do happen to be the same thing then defensive play can be correct. Wellwisher, a recurring lifegain card, could be a terror in Magic limited games because it could gain so much life that the player using it couldn't lose. It actually affected the dynamics of the game because it could essentially say "kill me or you can't win." In a poker tournament, if you're near the bubble or in the money and you have a clear, specific reason to believe that playing temporarily weak-tight will increase your EV in the tournament, go for it. But if the tournament pays 200 places, don't play for 500th place.

Turtling in chess
 

Interesting post!

Chess has a similar “turtling” phenomenon. A new player starts playing, and soon gets fed up with getting checkmated in ten moves or less. In most cases, the new player then starts building little fortresses around his king. This strategy also ensures defeat against a better player because the better player has nothing to fear from his opponent’s purely defensive play. The better player can deploy his pieces at will and use any strategy he wants. Instead of getting checkmated in ten moves, the new player gets checkmated in forty moves. Eventually, players begin to appreciate the value of attack, defense through counterattack, and having the initiative (dictating the course and tempo of the game.) A good player will castle early to give his king some protection, but the king is given no additional protection unless it is necessary.

I am glad that you described this in poker terms. Maybe this is why pros are more willing to bust out of a tournament early than try to squeeze into the money with just a chip and a chair…a situation I usually find myself in when I play big tournaments. Thanks!

Re: Turtling in chess
 

To continue the thought, if a good chess players is losing, he will often lash out at his opponent's king and sacrifice additional pieces in order to complicate matters. Doing so may offer him a small chance of getting back into the game. This is potentally better than simply defending, which gives him almost no chance to win or draw if the winning technique is clear. Most of the time, this just means a quicker loss, but it's the difference between a 10% chance of avoiding loss and a 1% chance.

As with a poker tournament, it's much better to pick a hand earlier to make a stand with if you're getting blinded to death. If you bust out, you bust out...but the chance of doubling up with a bigger stack makes it worth it.

ScottieK

Re: Notebook of a Gamer: \"Turtling\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
To the starcraft example: Expanding aggressively and focusing on 'turtling' with the Terrans isn't what the OP was takling about. The OP was talking about what I used to do, which was making sure that I had Toss Cannons on every square of map within there screens of my base.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that is what OP meant. I'll agree with XHad, the prototypical turtler is the one makes his base impenatrable. With Terran, that is seige tanks behind those buildings where you can put 4 marines. With Toss, it's cannons. With Zerg, it's sunken and spore conolies.

What OP appeared to mean is that, while the newbie has made an impenatrable defense at home, he's allowed his opponent to expand to all the minerals and gas on the map. Eventually, the turtler will run out of resources and have to expand. The person who has already expanded is either already there or has a large resource advantage which he can use to prevent the expansion.

Building cannons all over the map is something you just don't see on Starcraft, except maybe on Big Game Hunters.

Re: Turtling in chess
 

Regarding the chess analogies: Yeah, this is exactly why I suck at chess. I can do a decent job of not losing by making clever play after clever play, but I lack the ability to see the game in such a way that I am able to create a plan for winning. So I end up turtling because I don't know what else to do.

[ QUOTE ]
To continue the thought, if a good chess players is losing, he will often lash out at his opponent's king and sacrifice additional pieces in order to complicate matters. Doing so may offer him a small chance of getting back into the game. This is potentally better than simply defending, which gives him almost no chance to win or draw if the winning technique is clear. Most of the time, this just means a quicker loss, but it's the difference between a 10% chance of avoiding loss and a 1% chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is going a bit into a related concept of all games: the favorite prefers "usual" circumstances and low-variance, while the underdog prefers "unusual" circumstances and high-variance.

Interesting Magic example: Who's the Beatdown? That article probably doesn't make sense to people who don't play that particular game, but suffice it to say that the article can be summed up as saying, "Figure out whether your deck favors the long game, then from that decide whether to try to make the game go long (i.e. You're the favorite so reduce variance by giving your deck time to press its inherent advantages) or make the game go short (i.e. you're the underdog in the long run so make higher-volatility plays in hopes of cutting your opponent off before he is able to press the strength of his deck)."

Street Fighter example: "Low Strong" - David Sirlin doesn't know how to outplay his opponent, so he adopts a tactic so weird that just maybe his opponent won't figure out how to counter it.

EDIT: Of course the poker example would be David Sklansky's "The System," designed to give the "underdog" (i.e. clueless player) as much variance as possible against good players.

Re: Notebook of a Gamer: \"Turtling\"
 

Good post and I agree with some of it while disagreeing with others, but I still liked it.

Kind of on topic, but I first heard of turtling from Street Fighter where players generally stay away from the opponent timing small hits or combos and slowly chipping away at their opponent's life bar. Generally, bad/new players do this often, but there are always acceptions who can turtle and still win.

Re: Notebook of a Gamer: \"Turtling\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To the starcraft example: Expanding aggressively and focusing on 'turtling' with the Terrans isn't what the OP was takling about. The OP was talking about what I used to do, which was making sure that I had Toss Cannons on every square of map within there screens of my base.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that is what OP meant. I'll agree with XHad, the prototypical turtler is the one makes his base impenatrable. With Terran, that is seige tanks behind those buildings where you can put 4 marines. With Toss, it's cannons. With Zerg, it's sunken and spore conolies.

What OP appeared to mean is that, while the newbie has made an impenatrable defense at home, he's allowed his opponent to expand to all the minerals and gas on the map. Eventually, the turtler will run out of resources and have to expand. The person who has already expanded is either already there or has a large resource advantage which he can use to prevent the expansion.

Building cannons all over the map is something you just don't see on Starcraft, except maybe on Big Game Hunters.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, but I did it, and that's why I sucked (cannons all over the base really, not the map. I wasn't clever enough to use them offensively) The idea was the same though: games lasted a long time, but I almost inevitably lost [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Notebook of a Gamer: \"Turtling\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
Kind of on topic, but I first heard of turtling from Street Fighter where players generally stay away from the opponent timing small hits or combos and slowly chipping away at their opponent's life bar.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly what one of my friends told me when I pointed this essay out to him. He also said that was the first place he heard the term "pitbulling"...I love it, I've never heard that one but I'm pretty sure I know exactly what it means. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Notebook of a Gamer: \"Turtling\"
 

When I first saw this thread I thought it was about playing so long you forget to go to the bathroom--until it's partially too late. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: Notebook of a Gamer: \"Turtling\"
 

Interesting corrolation between Starcraft and MTT poker. Never tought I would hear that one. Thanks for the post.

Re: Notebook of a Gamer: \"Turtling\"
 

gg no re, bm t.t -_-;;

Re: Notebook of a Gamer: \"Turtling\"
 

You guys suck at SC from the conversation I'm seeing.

Re: Notebook of a Gamer: \"Turtling\"
 

i concur

Re: Notebook of a Gamer: \"Turtling\"
 

zerg rush T_T kekekeke [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: Notebook of a Gamer: \"Turtling\"
 

I'm almost positive the term turtling comes from 2d fighting games and not any of the games mentioned.

Re: Notebook of a Gamer: \"Turtling\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Kind of on topic, but I first heard of turtling from Street Fighter where players generally stay away from the opponent timing small hits or combos and slowly chipping away at their opponent's life bar.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly what one of my friends told me when I pointed this essay out to him. He also said that was the first place he heard the term "pitbulling"...I love it, I've never heard that one but I'm pretty sure I know exactly what it means. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]


This thread is really interesting to me being a long-time Tekken player. After I got into poker, and was still playing Tekken heavily (I don't any more, as I am now Old), it dawned on me that I would intuitively analyse Tekken decisions on the fly using a kind of game EV metric similar to poker. For example, if my opponent has given me an opening, and I'm considering whether to SS+launch+juggle, or throw. SS+launch+juggle does 60hp dmg and I give myself a ~40% chance of getting the launcher in to start the combo. Throw does 35hp dmg and I'm ~80% to hit with that. So (60*0.4)-(35*0.8) = Throw is +4hp EV.

My own and my opponent's remaining hp is a factor in the decision (the equivalent of stack sizes in no-limit tournaments, maybe?): if I am considering one of the two options above, and I have 1hp remaining and my opponent has 60hp, it becomes like +cEV and +$EV - the throw is the +hp EV decision, but in this case it's more +game EV to go for the juggle, as I can get the opponent with the throw and then will likely lose anyway, whereas 40% of the time, the juggle wins me the match.

Metagaming also plays a part. If in the example above I go for the juggle 100% of the time, as time passes EV(juggle) decreases and EV(throw) increases, as my opponent gets a better 'read' on my one-dimensional play. Mix-ups in Tekken are essential and it's not uncommon to find yourself thinking on the 2nd or 3rd level when considering how to attack or defend, and sometimes doing exactly what your opponent should 'expect' you to do in a given situation is the most surprising play of all (like fastplaying a monster, perhaps).

Anyway bit of a ramble and not all that on-topic but hey, I enjoyed writing it / thinking about it.

Re: Notebook of a Gamer: \"Turtling\"
 

great read, but i disagree entirely. with your entire analysis, both for poker and otherwise =P

Turtling is a legitimate strategy for most games, if used correctly its generally used to wear down the opponent and basically play a longer game that is more likely to be won by the turtler. (although its true that most newbies do revert to this style when they arent sure what they are doing.)

i dont really play strategy games, but i know that the initial concept for these games were set up on an RPS type system.

basically there was three strategies a player can employ:
FAST - MEDIUM - SLOW

Whenever any FAST-FAST matchup or similar occured the better player would win, however, an advantage would otherwise be given to the player who used the strategy that best counteracted his opponents strategy.

FAST beats SLOW
MEDIUM beats FAST
SLOW beats MEDIUM

Fast entails an early rush, with all money spent on small guys, so against a slow teching type player the rusher is able to bring down their base quickly before they can set up enough defense; meanwhile the fast player continues the attack while gaining more resources and armies around the map.

Medium is a balance of fast and slow, some defence yet also a fair bit of money on tech and resource development. when against a fast rushing player they are able to have just enough defensive troops to hold out the initial attacks, whilst in the mid-late game their advanced tech will be able to overpower the rusher who has used up their resources on now dead troops which are now wasted, the only option for the fast player is to switch to a medium style, but will now be significantly behind.

Slow is as said the player that sits back, and techs, gradually building the best troops and defences. However, a medium player doesn’t invest enough in initial attacks and as such cant take advantage of the slow players vulnerability. By the time the 2 armies really go to war the slow player’s armies and resources will have the same one-up on the medium player that the medium player had on the fast player in the mid-late game.

Of course new strategy games Im sure are way more complicated than this and so the concept is outdated, but that’s how it was originally supposed to be.

Fighting games are based on this RPS idea as well, the initial basics where, when getting up from an attack:
ATTACK beats THROW
THROW beats BLOCK
BLOCK beats ATTACK (because the blocker is able to counteract easily)

The ‘blocker’ idea here is where the ‘turtler’ gains the advantage. They are able to sit back and allow the attacker to open themselves up while doing minimal (chip) damage, then blast them away once the attacker finishes their attack. In fact in many fighting games today, the turtler is generally considered the superior strategy:

Marvel vs Capcom 2 = Sentinel, Storm, Spiral (all effective turtlers)
Tekken 5 = Marduk
SF series = Zangief, Ryu, Ken, Sakura


This is similar to how a turtling tactic works in MTTs for poker.

The turtler is able to sit back and fold out of pots earlier, manipulating their metagame image to a point where they are seen as weak/tight by the early loose aggressive players.

They then have the patience to wait for a really good hand to sit back and are able to just check/call, check/call and sandbag their way to huge pots that sacrificing small pots early has given them the power to gain. Eventually the players that were trying to push the turtler around become more and more wary of their checks and sandbagging until they get as much respect as any TAG on the table.

Of course in modern poker, similar to how the Fast strategy game player must switch their game in the mid-late stages, the turtler must also adopt a LAG or at least TAG strategy as the blinds get bigger and the players get more desperate and fewer in number in order to have any chance to win.

However if they do know how to make this switch and have an expert (I would argue it’s a harder style to play effectively than solid TAGGing) understanding of the game, the turtling strategy is one that already has good application, and as more and more players get more and more ridiculously LAGGy in the earlier stages of MTTs (it’s a trend) the turtling strategy has the potential to eventually become the rock to the Loose aggressive players scissors.

Re: Notebook of a Gamer: \"Turtling\"
 

Depending on how large the blinds are and how many people are at your table, the poker game changes accordingly.

Re: Notebook of a Gamer: \"Turtling\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
Very good post, the Starcraft and Magic examples really drive your point home.

Thanks!

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel exactly the same way - I am a high level Starcraft player (if anyone wants to talk strategy or play some games please feel free to PM me, I'm sure you all are better at poker than me) and played competitive Magic in the past (for those who are familiar with the game, Judgement to early Mirrodin, RG Beats / Mirari's Wake were my favorite decks.)

I think the real point is to really be relentless and take risks - the cliche is certainly right - "The best offense is the best defense". If your opponent is forced to always be on the defensive, it will be difficult for him to actually be aggressive towards you. I really do not have any sage poker advice I can say, but I can elaborate on the MTG and Starcraft examples.

Just like in a poker table, you can identify the relative skill of a Starcraft player within the first 5 minutes (I have an idea as soon as I enter his base with a scouting worker what kind of game I am in for), and indeed, most games are lost or won through opening game (at least in the mid/low-high skill levels).

It often hinges on one player taking a risk (to gain some sort of advantage, whether it be in technology or minerals), the other player not realizing the other players risk, and by not adapting, loses due to attrition and in the long run.

Similarly, in Magic, just as players in poker need to adapt to loose and tight players, a good magic player must identify their metagame (which is, what other decks are played in the area). If there are a lot of decks that rely on a certain concept, you may want to tweak your opposing deck to be stronger vs that sort of player. Although there is often one _best_ play in Magic, there are many close calls that really turns the odds of victory in your favor.

Ironically, I quit Magic after losing in a tournament I got deep in becuase I got "unlucky" twice. I then switched to Starcraft, where I felt the luck factor was less prevalent, and now here I am playing limit poker! What are the chances, or should I say odds, of that?