RBP2 Lurker Discussion Thread - No Players!

[Rowain]

I'm just not sure what you expect lurkers to do otherwise, really.

To praise them for good moves after they have made them or criticise a bad one after its effects are uncureable. To help with rule-questions or easily found out game-mechanic questions (direct questions). But always allow the players to make mistakes else the competition (and MP is a competition) becomes lopsided.
Oh and if in doubt don't post.

[shadyforce]

I will say, however, that most of the lurkers who have posted advice have almost certainly done so in good faith, not intending to spoil the game.

Of course, I seriously doubt anyone is being malicious. It's somewhere between careless and a different idea of what lurkers can/should do.

In the eyes of what I personally feel is acceptable, lurker conduct has been terrible. On average across all lurkers (though clearly come lurkers are particularly bad and some are much more careful and considerate.)

They are pretty bad across everyone's threads though worse and more abundant in Spullla's thread.

If you want my opinion on what I think Lurkers should and should not do, go read Ruff_Hi's proposal and that is pretty close to it.

Ok so there are a few different types of posts that lurkers can make:
1. Reveal spoiler information
2. Give tactical advice, point out mistakes, make suggestions, etc. Basically play as part of the team.
3. Potential spoiler or tactically directing information. Stuff that may give something away or may lead them in a direction they would not have gone otherwise, etc. Or aren't clear whether it should be allowed or not. Basically that grey area.
4. Unambiguously permissible posts.

Ok so 1 is clearly bad and this happens only rarely. 2 in my opinion is also not acceptable and this happens ALL THE TIME. And 3 is my own personal pet peeve... seriously why should we have to have a debate about whether something is allowed after it has already been posted and potentially ruined the game? If there is any doubt at all, why can't we err on the side of caution and just not post?

Then again, ruff's proposal was voted down for PB3 so I guess I'm in the minority.

[Krill]

If this sites culture is "No spoilers" then that should really be followed.

[antisocialmunky]

Except there is no set list of conduct and we even thumbed down Ruff's list in PB3.

If all the old guys are so ticked about it, just make it so only players can comment.

[Jabah]

The 'no spoiler' rule is strictly for SP 'epic' or 'adventure' games. There is (afair) no rule for any other games (within all the limits written before).
For exemple, all the RB Succession Game have been with millions of lurkers giving advices (good or bad).

We are supposed to trust the lurkers a bit anyway, but during war time any suggestion has much more impacts than things like suggesting-commenting on settling places during land grab (which were not harmful at that time imho - preventing no contested race of course)

[Ruff_Hi]

The 'no spoiler' rule is strictly for SP 'epic' or 'adventure' games. There is (afair) no rule for any other games (within all the limits written before). For example, all the RB Succession Game have been with millions of lurkers giving advices (good or bad).

That is a really bad conclusion. RB has a 'do your best', 'battle through', 'no spoilers' defacto policy. It might say epics and adventures, but the whole concept also relies on TRUST. The single player can spoil himself by Ctrl-W (worldbuilder) or by replaying the starting save. RB Succession games are training exercise ... 'lets see what we can do with this variant!' ... so they shouldn't be used to judge any 'no spoiler' rule.

The whole idea of MP games is competitive ... direct competition, not situational competitions (2 or more playing the same game). If anything, the 'no spoiler' rule should be followed with even greater strength. Just think, if the 'no spoiler' rule didn't apply, why are teams posting in their own threads? Why not just have a free for all thread?

Let me ask you one question ... if a team fails in a war endevour, or gets defeated somehow, do you want that team to come back at you and say ...

"Why did you tell so-and-so our plans?" or
"So-and-so never saw that coming until you told them" or
"It was perfect, I had completely fooled them ... until you wrecked it all by bring it to their attention"

[T-hawk]

Yeah, and a "lurker" pointed that out to them. I really don't like the involvment of "lurkers" in this game: They give micro tips, correct tactical errors

I don't mind this, and even if I were playing I wouldn't mind lurker help like that to other teams. Sirian once wrote in the Civ 3 rules something to the effect of "we're running a strategy game, not a memory or attention test." I wouldn't want to see a city or war lost over an easily detected oversight. Real civilizations have dozens of military leaders to catch mistakes like that, while these game teams have 2 or 3 pairs of eyes.

because Sulla and Speaker have famous names and write excellent turn updates, they receive the most help of this kind.

This is undoubtedly true... but they're also getting dogpiled because of the exact same reasons. (There would not be this kind of organized effort against, say, Jowy if he jumped ahead in GNP.) So it kind of balances out.

[Rowain]

I don't mind this, and even if I were playing I wouldn't mind lurker help like that to other teams. Sirian once wrote in the Civ 3 rules something to the effect of "we're running a strategy game, not a memory or attention test." I wouldn't want to see a city or war lost over an easily detected oversight. Real civilizations have dozens of military leaders to catch mistakes like that, while these game teams have 2 or 3 pairs of eyes.

Sirians quote was for Singleplayer where everyone should play on an even field. Here in MP avoiding mistakes by memory, dedication and sharp eyes is part of the competition so lurker-influence here is bad.

[sunrise089]

Sirians quote was for Singleplayer where everyone should play on an even field. Here in MP avoiding mistakes by memory, dedication and sharp eyes is part of the competition so lurker-influence here is bad.

Agree, and where's the line drawn? Is it a "mistake" that they have a tile assignment wrong when they're trying to maximize production during their war? Is it a "mistake" if they build another axe then the enemy stack has more HA than swords? In both cases I think one could argue that sharper eyes would have caused the team to act otherwise, but I certainly don't think lurkers should be those eyes.

Of course this is coming from the guy who thinks the "overwhelming odds" or whatever remark in Sullla's thread was very spoilerish

[Sir Bruce]

Back to the action at hand:

Overall, not worth worrying about. If Nakor wants to jump into the war against us, and the entire western hemisphere wants our blood, we're probably doomed. That would actually be pretty funny, teams from a million miles away all rushing together to attack one team who had offered NAPs to all of them! Anyway, I think it's just a trick of the data from last turn. Can't see how a partnership with Dantski against us would benefit Nakor in any way, shape, or form. What would he get out of it???

Looks like Sullla has almost figured out the HRE is coming after them, but dismisses it as too ridiculous to be true. I can't wait to see the reaction when the HRE declares and then 8 praets show up at his doorstep.