RBP6 Lurker Thread

[pindicator]

This is a point. Sulla didn't ask how it works. He's stated (incorrectly) that it doesn't work. And what will telling him now accomplish? I think its best not to post ... I think.

[dazedroyalty]

IMO, there is a big difference between answering a mechanics question and pointing out an error. It just feels wrong to me, given it can change the outcome of the game. Now if its too late to make a difference, then...



Darrell

The problem is there's no way to say if it's "too late." What if Team 3 razes Beijing but Team 2 finds another way to build up a third city? In that case, Team 1 knowing would be a huge difference maker.

It feels funny to say but it's like lurkers have been/are playing Kingmaker in this game. Telling Team 1 earlier would have easily changed the games outcome. Now, it's still possible that it changes the outcome.

From a pure lurker standpoint, I'd love to tell TEam 1 and watch the fireworks, but it seems that it isn't that straightforward.

[VoiceOfUnreason]

I really think it's time to correct them on their mechanics misunderstanding.

It seems to me that introduces such a violent change in the team's plan that the default behavior should be silence.

Which is another way of asking -- "what's the role of lurkers in these games?"

[kalin]

What's the point of telling them now? If it can change the outcome it would be very bad. They will find out soon enough. I'd say lurkers should keep quiet until it's 100% certain it won't affect the outcome of the game.

Kalin

[Selrahc]

We all want to see Team 1's reaction to learning. If it happens while the game is still in motion then we get to see what would be a fun last minute plan.

I think we need to subsume that impulse, remain patient and let the game play out.

[VoiceOfUnreason]

Another variation of the same question - why does Team 1 get "for free" what the other teams had to work out for themselves?

Please forgive the loaded spelling of the question - I don't have time to remove the bias in the phrasing.

[T-hawk]

Another variation of the same question - why does Team 1 get "for free" what the other teams had to work out for themselves?

Team 1 did attempt to work it out for themselves. Sullla tested in worldbuilder. Their attempt went awry, because of a completely unrelated and completely unintuitive obscure game rule, that the game doesn't check for any victory in the first few turns. (So you can move your initial settler without losing because you have no cities.)

It's true that Sullla never asked. But should this turn on that tiny semantic point? If he'd just thrown in an "is this right?", does that tiny bit make for the red or green light to tell him?

What we're doing is letting Civ go Calvinball on team 1. "Ha ha you lose because of a rule you didn't know about!"

[kalin]

And how did Sullla come to test that? Wasn't there another lurker with a spoilerish post that was then removed after "lurker feedback"? I feel pretty strongly about not saying anything fwiw.

Kalin

[MWIN]

3 things:
1) Team 1 never got graphs of Team 2. All they know is that they are not researching any tech for a long time.
2) How strongly does Sulla suspect Team 2 culture attempt? Does he strongly believe that they are going for it and thinks that it would fail? I think we can tell him in this scenario.
3) Does he think that they don’t care or something else? We should not intervene in this case.

[T-hawk]

2) How strongly does Sulla suspect Team 2 culture attempt?

He just posted "It's obvious by now that Team 2 is going for a Cultural victory". This is the first time he's said that clearly without guessing or hunching, which precipitated this discussion.