[LURKERS] Sweet 16: Civ Party Fun Time and Philosophical Debate

[Old Harry]

Its also harder when you're on a team and you want your teammates to comment without holding up the turns for anyone else. If we're careful not to change builds, move or whip anything I don't see an issue. And given that I'm trusting you not to read my spoiler thread already I don't see why I can't trust people on that too.

I like the idea of enforcing Plako-style PYFT play though...

[Serdoa]

*sigh* Guys, could you at least take into account to what I replied? Jowy wrote:

At least in PB9 the lurkers decided that players are allowed to play their turn, end their turn, and then come back after others have played and react to their moves, even during war time.

And I replied that I don't see a reason for coming back after the other has played in war time and react to his moves. I even mentioned in my second sentence that it is about reacting to what someone did. All I wrote had nothing to do with reacting to a third party. Though if you wait to get metal from someone so you can whip, you should wait to finish your turn because else your war opponent will assume that you reaction-whipped to his moves OR even if you prove you wanted to whip all along he still would be at a disadvantage because he should have been able to see that you whipped and react accordingly. And yes, we could now also differentiate between cities visible to the opponent and cities that are not, or if the units can reach the front the next turn etc. But honestly, that is all only making it more complicated than it has to be. In PBEM if you don't have metal when you are attacked, you can ask someone and in the NEXT turn you will know if he agreed to it. I don't see why it would be necessary that you get it the same turn. I'd go even as far as to say that such a deal should only be proposed after you made your moves. At least if we act on the assumption that we use simultaneous turns because it is quicker with 7+ players than a PBEM but try to emulate it as far as possible in war-time to make it a fair experience. With fair being defined as behaviour as close to the PBEM-behaviour as possible.

@Harry: Either

1) your team needs to discuss what to do first and you are in the first half:

- your opponent can't play before you did in any case
- you just play after you all finished discussing

2) your team needs to discuss AFTER you played and you are in the first half:

- make screenshots and discuss the moves via those

I don't see why your war-opponent has to do the work of taking screenshots so he can check (and prove) that you didn't move anything instead of you. You want to discuss with your teammates, that's fine. But why should others have to suffer for it or do the work so you can do it?

[Fintourist]

I think this logging-during-the-wrong-half subject depends a lot on how easy-going players are and how much trust they have on each other. It's simply more work to take screenshot on everything so that you can discuss next turn's actions with your team if only part of the players manages to log in during your half. You also get a much better view on what's going on when you actually log into game. What I'm saying is that it makes your life easier if rules are not too tight and it's more about trust. Of course you can say that it's your problem if you can't log in during your typical 12-hour window and thus part of the game, but I prefer the attitude that does not make it a problem at all.

I agree with Harry that with open lurker threads worrying about actions during the wrong half is pretty minor and thus I haven't had problems with that. The other end is totally competitive and strict settings with clear turn-split rules and no public lurker threads like ISDG. I could imagine playing such a game too, as well as some kind of a compromise.

[Catwalk]

I agree with all of that Fintourist. Ultimately it's about player preference, and I'm definitely in the casual camp.

[Old Harry]

*sigh* Guys, could you at least take into account to what I replied? Jowy wrote:

At least in PB9 the lurkers decided that players are allowed to play their turn, end their turn, and then come back after others have played and react to their moves, even during war time.

And I replied that I don't see a reason for coming back after the other has played in war time and react to his moves. I even mentioned in my second sentence that it is about reacting to what someone did. All I wrote had nothing to do with reacting to a third party. Though if you wait to get metal from someone so you can whip, you should wait to finish your turn because else your war opponent will assume that you reaction-whipped to his moves OR even if you prove you wanted to whip all along he still would be at a disadvantage because he should have been able to see that you whipped and react accordingly. And yes, we could now also differentiate between cities visible to the opponent and cities that are not, or if the units can reach the front the next turn etc. But honestly, that is all only making it more complicated than it has to be. In PBEM if you don't have metal when you are attacked, you can ask someone and in the NEXT turn you will know if he agreed to it. I don't see why it would be necessary that you get it the same turn. I'd go even as far as to say that such a deal should only be proposed after you made your moves. At least if we act on the assumption that we use simultaneous turns because it is quicker with 7+ players than a PBEM but try to emulate it as far as possible in war-time to make it a fair experience. With fair being defined as behaviour as close to the PBEM-behaviour as possible.

@Harry: Either

1) your team needs to discuss what to do first and you are in the first half:

- your opponent can't play before you did in any case
- you just play after you all finished discussing

2) your team needs to discuss AFTER you played and you are in the first half:

- make screenshots and discuss the moves via those

I don't see why your war-opponent has to do the work of taking screenshots so he can check (and prove) that you didn't move anything instead of you. You want to discuss with your teammates, that's fine. But why should others have to suffer for it or do the work so you can do it?

I guess I wasn't particularly precise in my post. I don't know where Jowy got the double-moves-are-fine thing from PB9, my only memory of controversy in that game was that he would have accidentally double-moved AT a turn or two before a vital war turn, and so chivalrously chose not to attack. Was it a different incident Jowy?

Anyway, my point, if I even had one, is that if I've got a team mate 5 hours behind, who can't log into a game:
- The turn just rolled and one of the people we're observing a turn split with (don't even have to be at war, just being careful) has played
- The other person we're waiting for hasn't played
- It's my bed time
- I log in to take some pictures of the moves by the former
- Which allows my team mate to comment over night while I'm asleep
- Which allows me to play the turn straight away in the morning while he's asleep
- And so the clock ticks along happily

So it's more of a reply to William's strict no-login policy than your "don't double move" point (which I'm pretty sure everyone agrees on so I don't know why you're assuming we don't - which means I'm going to have to vote Serdoa for giving me a flashback to a couple of weeks ago. ) I guess you and Noble didn't have this trouble in PB11?

[WilliamLP]

I guess you and Noble didn't have this trouble in PB11?

I'm pretty sure you mean 12.

I think Fintourist makes a false dichotomy between entirely casual and entirely strict.

Where I stand isn't about trust, but possibly exploring simple ways to remove gray areas in rules and what you are expected to do and have to do to be competitive. Unfortunately you can't log in purely as an observer, you may have to actively make diplomatic decisions which can change some of the game. And I'd prefer a game where people aren't wheeling and dealing outside of their turn order in a war, and don't have anything to add beyond what Serdoa said.

Admittedly the culture of how to play here right now works pretty well, but I don't think that it means that it has reached its final evolution. A lot of areas are still pretty gray for my taste, and the incentives for using the clock a lot seem a little too sweet.

Examples: what constitutes grounds for a reload? If up to me, I'd remove all subjectivity that is reasonable: they would be only for severe game bugs, illegal moves, server issues, or maybe a drastic mistake but only if it severely unbalances the game for a third party. (If you just screwed up your own position and lost a major city by misclicking a big stack, don't do that next time.)

[novice]

Gavagai has problems figuring out the rationale behind Gasium's actions. IIUC Gasium correctly they're thinking they have to win a duel against Gavagai before they have any hope of winning the game (or, well, climbing the ranks). I think that's valid reasoning.

Besides, if they can extort concessions for peace from Gavagai they can swing their army west and make gains there. Gavagai argues that Gasium have wasted resources building an army, but they've only lost four HAs so far, so it really depends on how they leverage the rest of their army.

[Lewwyn]

Gavagai has problems figuring out the rationale behind Gasium's actions. IIUC Gasium correctly they're thinking they have to win a duel against Gavagai before they have any hope of winning the game (or, well, climbing the ranks). I think that's valid reasoning.

Besides, if they can extort concessions for peace from Gavagai they can swing their army west and make gains there. Gavagai argues that Gasium have wasted resources building an army, but they've only lost four HAs so far, so it really depends on how they leverage the rest of their army.

Bingo

[spacetyrantxenu]

To be fair, they did get their diversion/feint stack annihilated. But it accomplished its mission by having Gavagai out of position to defend the holy city, I'm sure Gaspar and Noble would agree that those losses were acceptable.

[Serdoa]

I'd really need overview-shots to be certain, but I think Gavagai is insofar correct in that they should have place to expand to. So it is probably not easy to understand why they attack instead him. On the other hand, he did set that tone himself with his worker-snipes I think. Sure they argue now that they have to get rid of him because his leader is stronger later on than theirs, and that's valid certainly. But if he had shown peaceful intentions, they might very well have instead aimed for expansion and wonder-building.

As for their army: Just from the point of what they get in return in raw food, commerce and hammers so far the trade was hurting both parties and not helping either. Of course getting rid of the holy city and therefore the culture does have its own merits which can't be translated to these "stats". But I agree, if they ask for his city (if they can hold and support it) and maybe can make gains elsewhere with the rest of their army it could become a net positive.

But in general I think - also from the discussions I had so far with Gaspar - that he focusses too much on the "duel"-aspect of this map. I think there is enough space that he could have instead expanded, but some more emphasis on commerce and bulb his way to a tech-advantage before Gavagais leader-traits really come into play. With Pyramids that does seem definitely doable for me. Probably at Knights / drafted Rifles latest. But I think they don't realize how much space they actually would have had to expand into.