[no players] CiVI Lurking Part II: Sophomore Slump

[Mardoc]

@OleDavy: I apologize for my tone.  A lot of my criticism was from the perspective of 'he's playing awesomely, except for this bit here', but I don't know if I ever actually said that. Also, I wanted you to win so badly that I was paying most attention to you, and what I wanted you to do differently, while other peoples' mistakes mostly prompted a reaction of 'ooh, I wonder if oledavy can take advantage of that'.

This was also super frustrating: 

Gee, if only there was someone with some free military, maybe a handful of horsemen, who could have hit Woden to distract him, split his forces, and give Alhambram hope and confidence...   

Like, you did see that I started moving towards him Mardoc, right? That he spotted me and there was no chance of it working due to the terrain? Plus, reading Alhambram's thread, I'm not even sure he could have been goaded into attacking Woden at that point. 

Yeah, I was definitely wrong about that one.  It was before I was paying enough attention to the map to understand the geography and the constraints it imposed.  Also, psychological military operations are usually under different constraints.

 - Did nobody process that these wars were undertaken with leftover military that would otherwise go to waste?

I still don't understand this theory.  How can military ever go to waste?  I'm under the impression that most of the time, you can just upgrade it to the next era, and save a ton of hammers later on that you can put toward other purposes, or toward a double-sized army.

Yes I was optimistic I would take Seoul - that was based on the totally unfounded idea that Singaboy would defend Frankfurt over prioritizing defense of Seoul 

So, I guess where I was coming from here was that it seemed quite possible that you would take Seoul while Singaboy held firm at Frankfurt...and then what?  Why would he have let you keep Seoul?  Wouldn't you have had to keep fighting him indefinitely?

Nevertheless, in practice it worked out beautifully for you, crippling Singaboy and giving you the breathing space to race ahead to field cannons.

Losing a few obsolete units did not put me out, but to read the lurker thread one would believe this was the worst decision I made all game. 

See...there's another way to read that sentence.  The worst thing you did all game was to lose a few obsolete units .

Likewise, using my leftover military to set up an attack on Woden - once again during a peaceful era when there was nothing else to do with it, also raised criticism. 

How was trying to set up a war between my two biggest opponents a waste of time? How would Woden have prosecuted a war against me at that point in the game with Alhambram next door at war with him? Did I ever say I wanted to 'win?' I just wanted to prod Alhambram in the right direction adn give him encouragement - maybe snap up a single city. Earlier you critiqued me for not offering Alhambram more concrete encouragement - now you criticize me for doing so.

It's not so much the action that I objected to, it was the general philosophy of 'leftover military that would otherwise go to waste'.  Which I would be happy to discuss further, if you want.

That said, I really misunderstood your thinking there, the idea that the important piece was to spark conflict and profit for yourself would be a bonus.  I had the impression that the important part was gaining a city and allying with Alhambram was how you were going to do that.  The way you actually played it, backing off from war once the important part failed, made a lot more sense than what I thought you were going to do.

How does being the first player to survive a GG rush not make me the plucky underdog? But to read this thead, I was the empire they couldn't wait to see fail. 

Honestly, it did...but there's no insight in a 'I hope OleDavy wins this' post.  So I felt that way, but I didn't say it, because why would anyone want to read that post?

The other thing is that as a lurker, I never revisited my earlier comments to compare them to how things actually turned out.  That would be a post about me, rather than a post about the game, and why would anyone care to read it? But I certainly made a lot of mistakes here, both in analysis and in my negativity.

[Ichabod]

I agree with Mardoc. Lurker threads have more criticism than praise because praise doesn't add anything to the discussion. Personally, I avoid commenting on plays I found cool/intelligent/nice because it just would take up space in the thread. On the other hand, when you make a critique of a play, you are trying to bring a new point forward, that perhaps the player didn't consider (or at least didn't mention in his reports), so a post feels justified. But that doesn't mean that the players don't deserve praise, they most certainly do.

And players that do great reporting will suffer the most of the critiques, because they provide content to discuss. And this game was great to lurk, so there was a lot of traffic, which generates even more comments. In that regard, I believe players should report when reporting is a pleasurable activity for them, never for the lurkers sake or expecting lurker praise. At the same time, the lurkers main duty is to not impact the game in any way possible, but they shouldn't feel compelled to avoid any criticism in the lurker thread, that's a lurker prerrogative. 

Regarding my comment about violation of AI diplo, I think I worded it in a way that made it look like a bigger deal than I thought it was. I said it then and I repeat that I don't think there was any ill intent by the players. I just think that communication between players should be kept to a minimun in AI Diplo, in order to avoid problems (especially because it's impossible to fix any damage done by outside the game communication -> every possible "fix" would just hurt the game even more). It was more in the spirit of "this should be avoided, as a rule" than "this specific move poisoned the competitive integrity of the game". But I realize my comment was worded in a harsh way and I apologize for it.

[Esteon]

Ummm. So apparently I'm not allowed to post any criticism here?

You're right OleDavy, I have not played a game here. I was, however, under the impression that in this thread we, lurkers are allowed to post their thoughts and comments. I am certain that I wasn't disrespectful in anyway, but if you (or anyone else for that matter) is hurt by what I wrote - sincerely and wholeheartedly apologize.
(As you can clearly see from my posts, I was rooting for Singaboy (after that dreadful start, who can blame me for supporting the underdog), so obviously whenever you clashed (which wasn't rare) I would be critical.)

I have to comment on one thing though:
"Every single player in this game vented in their thread frequently, but you are singling me out for criticism." (OleDavy)

You kidding me? I heavily criticised TheArchDuke for (in my opinion) sounding like an ass to Singaboy in the public forum. And my 'attack' on the language used by Woden started the list of toxic diplo games.

If that's your wish, I will never comment on your games again. Just say the word.

[oledavy]

@OleDavy: I apologize for my tone.  A lot of my criticism was from the perspective of 'he's playing awesomely, except for this bit here', but I don't know if I ever actually said that.  Also, I wanted you to win so badly that I was paying most attention to you, and what I wanted you to do differently, while other peoples' mistakes mostly prompted a reaction of 'ooh, I wonder if oledavy can take advantage of that'.  

 - Did nobody process that these wars were undertaken with leftover military that would otherwise go to waste?

I still don't understand this theory.  How can military ever go to waste?  I'm under the impression that most of the time, you can just upgrade it to the next era, and save a ton of hammers later on that you can put toward other purposes, or toward a double-sized army.

Yes I was optimistic I would take Seoul - that was based on the totally unfounded idea that Singaboy would defend Frankfurt over prioritizing defense of Seoul 

So, I guess where I was coming from here was that it seemed quite possible that you would take Seoul while Singaboy held firm at Frankfurt...and then what?  Why would he have let you keep Seoul?  Wouldn't you have had to keep fighting him indefinitely?

Likewise, using my leftover military to set up an attack on Woden - once again during a peaceful era when there was nothing else to do with it, also raised criticism. 

How was trying to set up a war between my two biggest opponents a waste of time? How would Woden have prosecuted a war against me at that point in the game with Alhambram next door at war with him? Did I ever say I wanted to 'win?' I just wanted to prod Alhambram in the right direction adn give him encouragement - maybe snap up a single city. Earlier you critiqued me for not offering Alhambram more concrete encouragement - now you criticize me for doing so.

It's not so much the action that I objected to, it was the general philosophy of 'leftover military that would otherwise go to waste'.  Which I would be happy to discuss further, if you want.

That said, I really misunderstood your thinking there, the idea that the important piece was to spark conflict and profit for yourself would be a bonus.  I had the impression that the important part was gaining a city and allying with Alhambram was how you were going to do that.  The way you actually played it, backing off from war once the important part failed, made a lot more sense than what I thought you were going to do.

How does being the first player to survive a GG rush not make me the plucky underdog? But to read this thead, I was the empire they couldn't wait to see fail. 

Honestly, it did...but there's no insight in a 'I hope OleDavy wins this' post.  So I felt that way, but I didn't say it, because why would anyone want to read that post?

The other thing is that as a lurker, I never revisited my earlier comments to compare them to how things actually turned out.  That would be a post about me, rather than a post about the game, and why would anyone care to read it?  But I certainly made a lot of mistakes here, both in analysis and in my negativity.

Mardoc, thank you very much for taking the time to respond. I really appreciate it. 

In regards to the leftover military point, during the war with Singaboy, I was making use of horsemen. Horsemen don't upgrade until Cavalry, and at this point my next planned conflict was a medieval one against Archduke. With that in mind, these units were likely to avail me little in that war and were just costing me maintenance in the meantime, so I was not averse to losing a few if it meant taking a city. The couple horsemen I did have remaining for the Second Pelepponesian War fared very poorly as a pillaging force - although I blame bad unit tactics partially for that one 

At any rate, that was the logic there. I did, however, lose a heavy chariot in that war I did not intend to offer up as a sacrifice, one that could have been a knight down the road. So I did screw up there. I hope this adds context to what I meant by "leftover military."

The military I used against Woden was a lot more valuable to me, as it all could be utilized in the coming conflict. But, I was willing to part with a unit or 2 if it meant sparking a war in the west. It seems you simply misunderstood my priority here, but if that had been the case, I agree wholeheartedly with your criticism. A solo attempt against Woden would not have gone very well at that point. 

I think your last two points are really insightful, and I don't mean to pin the idea that the thread was "Anti-Greece" to you. It was more my general sense from the thread than any one or two players' sentiment. 

Finally, I appreciate the fact that many of your comments were made months ago at this point, and that's something I should have perhaps bore in mind a little more. At any rate, I see the lack of logic in trying to revisit them now. 

At any rate, thanks again for taking the time to respond and I hope to see you again in the PBEM4 forum. Regardless of my feelings, it's always nice to feel like you're playing for an audience and seeing the lurker thread popping.

[oledavy]

I agree with Mardoc. Lurker threads have more criticism than praise because praise doesn't add anything to the discussion....

...At the same time, the lurkers main duty is to not impact the game in any way possible, but they shouldn't feel compelled to avoid any criticism in the lurker thread, that's a lurker prerrogative.... 

...It was more in the spirit of "this should be avoided, as a rule" than "this specific move poisoned the competitive integrity of the game". But I realize my comment was worded in a harsh way and I apologize for it.

Fair point, and one I should probably keep in mind more often. Academia is often guilty of this. 

I don't have any issue with criticism, it's non constructive criticism that rankles me. At any rate, I don't mean to imply lurkers should censor themselves based on what they think players might want to hear, but they should keep in mind that a living breathing person will eventually read their thoughts. Criticism should help us grow as a community and improve our play as we venture into Civ6, not be mean-spirited. And as a final addendum, lurking does not make you immune from having a player after the game disagree with your criticism or posit that your critique is unfair in some way. 

That's a fair point. I do appreciate that this stayed in the lurker thread and was not brought to the attention of players. I don't think messages between players concerning game issues are necessary a slippery slope, but I do agree with you that there is potential. Hopefully having a public diplo thread in PBEM4 will at the very least alleviate any gray area created by the interplay of no-diplo and the buggy game Civ 6 is.

[oledavy]

Ummm. So apparently I'm not allowed to post any criticism here?

You are. 

You're not inured to me responding to your criticism though.

[Esteon]

Even if it's obviously untrue? (e.g. regarding only criticising you?)

I had this overly optimistic impression that the players<->lurkers relationship is reminiscent of the sports(wo-)men<->fans.
You get the fame and money (not here obviously, but you get my point) and we're allowed to watch, comment, and choose sides. As long as we do not harass you, call you names, etc. we may not like your game and voice the fact. I Apparently I was very wrong.

I had no idea that my every comment should be constructive, I'll keep that in mind. Unfortunately, that almost bans me from posting - I do not have half the experience most people here. Well, back to only reading (next 10 years will fly by).

PS. Had to check inure (not English born, obviously) in a dictionary, so at the very least you've taught me a new word - thank you.

[pindicator]

Esteon, there's no rule that comments in the lurker thread have to be constructive. It's nice to do that of course,  and it's nice to be able to see someone's reasoning other than "that was a dumb idea" and be left wondering why.

But I think rooting for players like fans of a team can get you in trouble here, as I think -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that part of oledavy's objections to your comments are that they came off as being against him just because you were routing for a different player to win, not based on whether you thought oledavy made good plays or not.

And I wouldn't say lurker threads are a perfect analogy to sports fan venues because in the end the fans are also the players, if not in this game than in another.

[Singaboy]

I take all comments with a pinch of salt here. No hard feelings is better than bad blood for comments made in the heat of the moment. I am reading comments about me by other players that could potentially upset me. No point. The game is over and so should the animosities.

Most important is, we had a good time and lurkers had fun while watching from the sidelines.

[Dark Savant]

The players poured hundreds of hours into this one game.  Emotions are going to run high if someone makes a move you don't like, especially behind the shield of not actually knowing the others personally.

Even lurkers get highly invested and end up rooting for a player sports-team style.

Arguments are going to happen (unless people make a point of meeting each other in person).  I wouldn't take it too hard unless people make moves that seriously threaten the integrity of gameplay.

Emotions rising seems to happen all the time in Civ 4 MP; I'm not surprised it showed up here too.

I wouldn't let any of this get in the way of the fact that everyone played a skillfully played, entertaining, and well-reported game.  Thank you, everyone!