[SPOILERS] RB PB7 LURKER Thread

[TheMusicMan]

I like Gaspar's advice of teaming with an experienced player for your first game. Also, take heart that a newbie can improve relatively quickly if you keep reading. Did you get into the "greens" pbem that was starting recently?

yes thank you. if there is an experienced player like yourself that wants to come and read and help then that would be really great.

[Krill]

Yeah, TMM did. Greens games with the looser lurker rules are good starter games. PBs with experienced players that are ruthless...not so much.

That said...PB5 (the casual pitboss thread in the general forum) probably would be a reasonable game to play in because it's a mod game, hint hint.

[dazedroyalty]

A player who is way out of his league left to tread water on his own is far more imbalancing to the game than helping that player do a tiny, tiny bit better than he otherwise would've.

QFT. And personally i can say I'd rather that guy gets help.

[Gaspar]

yes thank you. if there is an experienced player like yourself that wants to come and read and help then that would be really great.

Generally anyone lurking a greens game will pop in and offer some suggestions provided you update reasonably regularly. I can't stress enough how much just reading other games threads can help you. That, and updating regularly so you can have your mistakes pointed out to you will do more to help you become a better player than anything else (on this site at least. In general the best help is just playing more games.)

TBH, I don't think there's anything wrong with micro help to veteran or novice players. Where lurker intrusion irritates me the most is when they talk meta/big picture - that's the stuff the player really has to be completely alone on. Again it depends on the game as well - greens game, should be more liberal. Competitive game full of experienced players, should be more conservative.

Anyway, feel free to ignore me. I'm far from the best player here, I'm just one of the most opinionated ones.

[T-hawk]

sunrise has been given help that other players have not received, and I don't quite know why.

I'll tell you why:

1) He directly asked for it very early.

2) Once I got involved, I kept on going. I enjoy lurking our MP games most when I follow fairly closely along with one particular civ. I rarely follow a game worldwide, don't think I have since PBEM2 and Pitboss 2.

3) I like his posting and conversational style, and it's also a bit of a thank-you for his significant efforts to host the Pitboss games.

Also, I haven't really told him much of anything he didn't already work out for himself. Mostly I've just told him his already-decided plans are good, like when he did the Slavery revolt with the first settler traveling or his red dot city plan. The one significant thing I corrected was building a useless monument at his Golden Nugget city. Which brings me to this point:

I definitely think that the level of help sunrise has been given is unreasonable, partly because he doesn't have any real understanding of micromanagement - his understanding is probably in the bottom 4 in this game.

If he isn't that good at it, why isn't this reasonable? He's as deserving of such help as any other green player, or even more so based on his longevity and history of contributing here.

I did this with Kylearan in PBEM4 to an even greater degree, sometimes actually playing turns. Same situation, playing along with a longtime RB member to give advice on their weak area. Nobody complained. What's the difference? Just because Kylearan was never a factor to win that game while Sunrise is a leader here? Just because I officially declared as a ded-lurker for Kylearan but haven't here?

[Rowain]

If he was in a wonder race and we helped him speed it up by 1T that maybe affects the outcome on a broad scale, but if we tell him "um that's a bad way to manage your city, try X instead" - it doesn't matter because someone is still probably going to steam-roll him at some point in the next few months.

Yes but advicing him might delay the steamrolling maybe even postbone it so far that the game is decided.
Imagine we would have told Azza that it is better to build defenses than a settler when your neighbour jumps in power. What if thanks to good advice he build an Archer and a warrior more? Why should Seven profit from Azzas mistakes and LP/Plako etc not from HAK/TT?.

A player who is way out of his league left to tread water on his own is far more imbalancing to the game than helping that player do a tiny, tiny bit better than he otherwise would've.

A weak neighbour does unbalance the game but as long as you don't have 18 Krills (or Sevens or whom ever you fancy) playing the game you have unbalance. Additional this Map is not balanced in anyway. And the distribution of players is as much part of the hand you got dealed as is the distribution of Resources/terrain etc.
Perceving your opponents skills and deciding who might be a danger to victory and acting accordingly is also a huge part of the game.

I did this with Kylearan in PBEM4 to an even greater degree, sometimes actually playing turns. Same situation, playing along with a longtime RB member to give advice on their weak area. Nobody complained. What's the difference? Just because Kylearan was never a factor to win that game while Sunrise is a leader here? Just because I officially declared as a ded-lurker for Kylearan but haven't here?

In PBEM4 you were Kylearans dead-lurker/parttime teammate thats the difference. Had you decided to ded-lurk sunrise (or even teamed up with him) no one would find any fault.

[darrelljs]

Maybe I am misremembering things, but I could have sworn giving free advice was kosher in the past (as long as it was spoiler free).

Darrell

[Rowain]

Maybe I am misremembering things, but I could have sworn giving free advice was kosher in the past (as long as it was spoiler free).

Darrell

You are quite right but the problem is where do you draw the line?

What if someone has told Rome ' I'would scout the tiles near my cities better.' Would the be free advice or spoilerish? would it still be spoilerish if the one saying had no clue that there is copper on the one still fogged tile?

What if someone had told Azza ' If my neighbour had an power-spike I would build military and not a settler'. Simple advice or spoiler? Or is it only a spoiler if the adviser knows about the attack?

Where there not an incident where a Lurker only asked 'when will you finish wonder xy' giving the player the idea that he is in a race and making him hurring the production?

How would you feel as a player if one grand plan of you fails because a Lurker has given free advice?

[Azza]

You are quite right but the problem is where do you draw the line?

What if someone has told Rome ' I'would scout the tiles near my cities better.' Would the be free advice or spoilerish? would it still be spoilerish if the one saying had no clue that there is copper on the one still fogged tile?

What if someone had told Azza ' If my neighbour had an power-spike I would build military and not a settler'. Simple advice or spoiler? Or is it only a spoiler if the adviser knows about the attack?

Where there not an incident where a Lurker only asked 'when will you finish wonder xy' giving the player the idea that he is in a race and making him hurring the production?

How would you feel as a player if one grand plan of you fails because a Lurker has given free advice?

I think the wording would matter a lot, as well as what commentary the player has provided in their spoiler. So, with the Rome example, asking why they chose not to fully scout the dead end would be acceptable, but saying that you would've scouted the fogged tile would've been too far. Similarly with my demise, as long as I'd commented on the significant power spike, asking why I chose to continue building the settler would be ok, while saying that you would switch is more telling them what to do. Asking why someone is doing something also helps the player more IMO, since they will justify why they're doing what their doing, and if their reasoning is flawed it can be corrected in a less spoilery way.

[Krill]

The one significant thing I corrected was building a useless monument at his Golden Nugget city.

What is the difference between this, and telling HAK that building the GW (for the reasons he gave) are bad?

If he isn't that good at it, why isn't this reasonable? He's as deserving of such help as any other green player, or even more so based on his longevity and history of contributing here.

What would people think if I had gone to sunrise on t12 (after he finished his worker) and gave him the best MM plan possible? That would be...bad, same as if I did that for any player. What if I explain to him why roading the forest 8 of his capital instead of improving his corn is a decision? I think that would actually be fairly reasonable, but should I do it before or after he has finished? According to your position RE: HAK and the GW, I should do it after the fact, because I should let him make his own mistakes and explain to him afterwards why they are mistakes.

I did this with Kylearan in PBEM4 to an even greater degree, sometimes actually playing turns. Same situation, playing along with a longtime RB member to give advice on their weak area. Nobody complained. What's the difference? Just because Kylearan was never a factor to win that game while Sunrise is a leader here? Just because I officially declared as a ded-lurker for Kylearan but haven't here?

You were Kylearan's ded lurker in PBEM4: you didn't read the other threads, so in effect you were a full player who didn't necessarily play the turn. Basic rule of thumb: Ded lurkers can say whatever they want in the thread as they have no extra information.