[SPOILERS] Lurkerloos and map discussion

[Krill]

SS is almost always possible, the only times it isn't is when score victory is too soon due to lack of turns in the game; provided there are more than about 350 turns (and that is a conservative guess for number of turns needed) in a normal speed game it should be possible to win via SS and have the capability (but not certainty) of stopping a culture victory. I always feared that with the cost increase to tech culture would become a de facto victory strategy, but it seems that players still consider economy based victories superior in terms of flexibility and power to "override" other VC.

Question: I want to ask Plako how many espionage multipliers he has built in his cities. How would it be best phrased to ask that question?

[Boldly Going Nowhere]

SS is almost always possible, the only times it isn't is when score victory is too soon due to lack of turns in the game; provided there are more than about 350 turns (and that is a conservative guess for number of turns needed) in a normal speed game it should be possible to win via SS and have the capability (but not certainty) of stopping a culture victory. I always feared that with the cost increase to tech culture would become a de facto victory strategy, but it seems that players still consider economy based victories superior in terms of flexibility and power to "override" other VC.

Question: I want to ask Plako how many espionage multipliers he has built in his cities. How would it be best phrased to ask that question?

Maybe come at it in terms of your interest in knowing how well balanced he perceives the EP system to be in RBmod? Then as a follow up ask if he wouldn't mind disclosing what he's built for espionage multipliers.

[BRickAstley]

Question: I want to ask Plako how many espionage multipliers he has built in his cities. How would it be best phrased to ask that question?

Is there something wrong just asking it like that? He did just post a picture of the Espionage graphs, it's not like that would be a leading question.

[BRickAstley]

pindicator
lol
i guess we should ask the lurkers what to do

Oh God no don't start that bruhaha again.

[Krill]

All the same, I appreciate the situational irony.

[Ceiliazul]

Alternatively Lewger's cultural attempt might cause some headaches. I think I should be able to stop them early enough...

Yeah, if none of these guys do it for you:

Maybe I should declare war on Bigger/Lewwyn to get the idea across that the CV isn't happening and they're just wasting everyone's time.

scooter:
kind of would like the concession to happen so we can say we're alive at the end
pindicator
we could whip up a force and go fight bigger

If plako isn't stopping it, I will.

What a shame that Commodore and Serdoa don't care about the next line from Plako:

I think I should be able to stop them early enough, but in case I had to do the heavy lifting that might make me vulnearble somewhere else.

Yeah, the CV attempt is doomed. ...but wasn't the Zulu exodus doomed too?

[Boldly Going Nowhere]

How much, if any, of this conversation regarding bigger/lew's CV attempt on the part of the other players is a result of Serdoa's initial post in the tech thread regarding concession? I know it is basically impossible to give an answer to this with any authority. I think it would be better in general for us to handle concession anonymously, whether these comments have had anything to do with Serdoa's post or not. I think that lewger have a legitimate reason to play on and that they're in an awkward position having to explain (or not) to the other players why they want to go on. Would it be better to simply have players report to a third party non-player when the issue of concession is brought up and then given a straight count for vs. against without giving any specific information on who would prefer to play on vs. concede? Not that it isn't obvious to anyone who is paying attention that lewger are going for a CV, but I think doing this in future would avoid some of the awkwardness that lewger have unfairly (IMO) experienced. Thoughts?

[Ceiliazul]

it's a good idea, but something to vote in before the game. an option like 'anonymous concession'. I think I'd vote for such a thing, But it's not a big deal either way.

[Rowain]

I think it would be better in general for us to handle concession anonymously, whether these comments have had anything to do with Serdoa's post or not. I think that lewger have a legitimate reason to play on and that they're in an awkward position having to explain (or not) to the other players why they want to go on.

+1

[Mardoc]

I'm not so sure. Most of the time, concession happens whenever #2 decides that they're out of hope. But for that to mean anything, everyone else has to know that #2 is out of hope. Serdoa suggesting they concede is a lot different than Xenu suggesting it, right? But if you anonymize it, then people don't know.

Most times, most of the field knows they're out of it, just playing for #2 to have their chance and because it's fun.

Also, it only makes sense if diplo is off. That's more common than it used to be, but not universal.