Comparatively, we don't have that many people who regularly use the Forums to discuss things. Yet, I still feel like people in the same discussions are often approaching them from wildly different places, and I think that causes some unnecessary confusion for people seeking information/guidance. I think it would help if we had kind of an unofficial agreement to discuss things from a certain "baseline" or to at least acknowledge explicitly and clearly when we're not. I'll give a hypothetical example to hopefully keep from upsetting anyone:
Let's say we're talking about early game homeland city build order/strategy and someone says, "By the end of Day 3, if I'm playing a five or six city nation, I usually try to have a Recruiting Office in every city, at least a Level 1 Arms Industry in every city, and then hopefully have or be in the process of building a military base of some sort in every city." Then someone else comments and says, "I do better than that. By the end of Day 3, I always have a Level 5 Arms Industry in my Rare Materials city."
...ummmmm. Then you're clearly speeding up the build, bud. Does it not occur to you that's not really the general discussion we're intending to have here? In order for the conversation to be the most useful to the greatest number of players, it needs to be generally applicable, not the result of the exceptional thing you do to gain a unique advantage.
When I suggest or comment on something, I always assume the baseline for the playing is assumed to be the baseline for the discussion, unless otherwise stated. When I was in status where I retained Seasonal units permanently, if I was going to include their use in my discussion (which I tried not to do), I would point that out and acknowledge that not everyone may have that advantage,... rather than acting like having those units at my permanent disposal was the norm for all players.
Does that make sense? I don't know. I just saw something in a conversation a couple of weeks ago where a player was trying to get some advice, and they got an answer that clearly was not within the bounds of "unenhanced" play, and I was like "I'm not sure that player was asking for that sort of advice..."
Let's say we're talking about early game homeland city build order/strategy and someone says, "By the end of Day 3, if I'm playing a five or six city nation, I usually try to have a Recruiting Office in every city, at least a Level 1 Arms Industry in every city, and then hopefully have or be in the process of building a military base of some sort in every city." Then someone else comments and says, "I do better than that. By the end of Day 3, I always have a Level 5 Arms Industry in my Rare Materials city."
...ummmmm. Then you're clearly speeding up the build, bud. Does it not occur to you that's not really the general discussion we're intending to have here? In order for the conversation to be the most useful to the greatest number of players, it needs to be generally applicable, not the result of the exceptional thing you do to gain a unique advantage.
When I suggest or comment on something, I always assume the baseline for the playing is assumed to be the baseline for the discussion, unless otherwise stated. When I was in status where I retained Seasonal units permanently, if I was going to include their use in my discussion (which I tried not to do), I would point that out and acknowledge that not everyone may have that advantage,... rather than acting like having those units at my permanent disposal was the norm for all players.
Does that make sense? I don't know. I just saw something in a conversation a couple of weeks ago where a player was trying to get some advice, and they got an answer that clearly was not within the bounds of "unenhanced" play, and I was like "I'm not sure that player was asking for that sort of advice..."