[SPOILERS] RB PB7 LURKER Thread

[dazedroyalty]

That's perfectly fine. That 118 is _after_ the Expansive bonus is applied. The granary costs 60, so the overflow is 58, and no hammers are lost.

The chop is superfluous, the granary would complete without it from the previous overflow, but the chop isn't lost at all, it'll just overflow into the next build. It gets multiplied by Expansive now then divided again by Expansive after overflowing, which comes out in the wash to no difference.

Oh I forgot they're playing on Normal speed! That does make a big difference.

[Krill]

That's perfectly fine. That 118 is _after_ the Expansive bonus is applied. The granary costs 60, so the overflow is 58, and no hammers are lost.

The chop is superfluous, the granary would complete without it from the previous overflow, but the chop isn't lost at all, it'll just overflow into the next build. It gets multiplied by Expansive now then divided again by Expansive after overflowing, which comes out in the wash to no difference.

It's not a great time to build the granary though, looking at the food bar. He is 2 hammers short of finishing a settler: perhaps he could have just 1 turned a worker, dumped the overflow into a settler which he could then slave, and finish the granary at size 3 which much greater food production which would be saved by the granary?

[scooter]

Hah I didn't notice the plains riverside cottage in HAK's capital. I really am curious why he built it there instead of on the grassland. But yeah, I'm amazed by some of the not very good play going on here.

It's not a great time to build the granary though, looking at the food bar. He is 2 hammers short of finishing a settler: perhaps he could have just 1 turned a worker, dumped the overflow into a settler which he could then slave, and finish the granary at size 3 which much greater food production which would be saved by the granary?

Educate me - what's wrong with the granary at this point in the food bar? The food bar is over half full so wouldn't it start half full at size 6? Or are you referring to the fact that he's at the happy cap and therefore isn't going to grow until he whips again?

[Krill]

He has about 18 food saved already, once he finishes that granary he will have 22 food saved, none of which is in the granary. The granary will save the next 8 food if he continues to grow at this pace, but the granary is capable of saving 15 food: he isn't making the most of the granary. He could feasible get the 14 food by toggling on avoid growth, then dropping off the ph (plains hill) to work the gf (grass farm), but...it's just slower than other options he had before.

[Ellimist]

Is there any way it could be appropriate to discourage HAK from working so many unimproved tiles?

I'm all for non-interference in the game and all, but IMO other players have already gotten more substantial advice from global lurkers.

[kjn]

Is there any way it could be appropriate to discourage HAK from working so many unimproved tiles?

I'm all for non-interference in the game and all, but IMO other players have already gotten more substantial advice from global lurkers.

It depends. If someone asks for advice, then I think it's OK to give it, as long as it is strictly limited to what is shown in the thread (eg if someone asks about how to build a worker and a granary most efficiently with the whip, with a city screen).

But unsolicited advice or questions that implies it (like "why do you work all those unimproved tiles") should be off-limits, except for dedlurkers.

[Nicolae Carpathia]

HAK is a Lunatic

(I was going to post that screen here with a vomit smiley, but I thought it was poor form )

I think it's worth calling out bad micro decisions in threads, as it affects them only. It's probably less okay calling out bad metagame decisions, as that affects their relationship to everyone else. Or maybe I've been making judgement calls about who needs advice the most.

[scooter]

Is there any way it could be appropriate to discourage HAK from working so many unimproved tiles?

I'm all for non-interference in the game and all, but IMO other players have already gotten more substantial advice from global lurkers.

It depends. If someone asks for advice, then I think it's OK to give it, as long as it is strictly limited to what is shown in the thread (eg if someone asks about how to build a worker and a granary most efficiently with the whip, with a city screen).

But unsolicited advice or questions that implies it (like "why do you work all those unimproved tiles") should be off-limits, except for dedlurkers.

I actually feel differently about this than kjn. I think the community as a whole really over-reacted to PB2 which was a circus and not normal due to the players involved... Since then - lurker comments in threads have gone drastically down because everyone is utterly paranoid to "spoil" things. I don't see a problem at all at popping into HAK's thread and suggesting he work his capital differently - I just usually refrain so I don't get pounced on by those who disagree. But I don't see the harm in giving minor pointers - suggesting that working unimproved tiles and cottaging a plains over a grassland is not going to massively impact a game. Just the fact that he's making those decisions says to me he cannot win, so might as well help him learn a little right?

Now yeah, it's really different when we're talking about meta decisions like kjn mentioned - suggesting that player X should attack player Y has a major impact. If I was a player in this game and lurkers told another player they should attack me, I'd be upset. If I was playing in this game and lurkers tried to help a player who is clearly struggling, I'd have no problem with that.

[T-hawk]

Is there any way it could be appropriate to discourage HAK from working so many unimproved tiles?

I think we can say so, after the fact when he's got the Great Wall done. Saying so beforehand leaks the fact that nobody is competing with him for it. If he were in a close race, then the unimproved hills would indeed be the right thing to do.

[Krill]

Well reasoned :b: