Musings on Moneyball and Grepolis

PizzaioloSteve

Guest
After a series of complaints and rants I thought I would post something with content to discuss instead, related to my earlier topic about the culture of Grepolis.

I would like to propose an analogy and ask why certain styles of play are demonized by others to the point where they passionately express hatred for them or where the name (e.g. Turtle, MRA) becomes a sort of curse term. Ultimately, I think there is an interesting analogy to the American sport baseball,and a recent book titled Moneyball.

I could say a lot, but tYping on this iPad is annoying,so I will summarize by saying that in Moneyball a baseall team tried a new strategy, and was for a while 'demonized' by traditional baseball. Their crime was trying to break from baseball tradition by trying a new player selection strategies based on statistics. The plan was to adopt players rejected by other teams as flawed, but which had positive results for their salary cost.

If the object is to win, why not use a strategy that was efficient in terms of resources and results; one that should work, but was ignored by others?

In this case the general manager of the Oakland As (American Pro Team), had a limited budget (sound familiar non gold users) and embraced statistical models that old school baseball people poo poohed. They argued that certain plays (like stealing bases) were losing propositions based on statistics, but popular due to the athleticism they represented. A base hit was valued far more than a walk, yet each had the same outcome.

Ultimately the oakland team had several successful seasons (playoffs) using rejected, but cheap players. The traditionalists argued that their failure to win it all meant that the old school was right, yet another team won the finals for the first time after recognizing the approach and adopting some of it.

So, I would love your thoughts on why offensive BP are admired above defensive BP. More fun? If you lack resources should you try unorthodox strategies? However isn't the negative press something that discourages this? The As got much criticism and the manager initially fought both internal and external critics to give it a try.

Are there ideas you would like to try in Grepolis but peer pressure prevents?

I had several great ideas presented within my own admitted MRA, that I thought were innovative and interesting. Ultimately they were shot down by the prevailing wisdom. Does the culture of Grepolis create a uniformity that makes the game ultimately less interesting?

Does 4 of the top 5 alliances using a huge head start to target and aim to crush small newer alliances and players create uniformity, but ultimately drive out innovation as they force a turtle vs aggressor with superior resources situation with predictable results?

I think it might, but would love your comments.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Yokhen

Guest
I think you would have to target specific strategies. Personally, everything I do, I do it because I learned it the hard way and not through "peer pressure". I had to fail a world (theta) horribly to learn when to nod and bow, and when to raise and speak. Now I am part of what I consider the most successful alliance in Marathon.
Unlike baseball, this game is all about winning and rarely about the crowds, so "athetically valued but low in points" moves are out of the question for me.
Also, since this is all about winning, I personally am always evaluating new and old war and diplomacy techniques. Always (to what it seems to me) coming up with better ways of doing things.
However, MRA is surely something pretty bad in my mind. For starters it doesn't inspire respect or fear. All the opposite.
If an MRA is ever successful (dominant of at least one continent) it is because nobody has attacked it ever or most probably has had it very easy early in its game. So far I have still to meet one who hasn't fallen to the hands of an aggressive alliance. Also, I don't know how exactly you see it, but I just don't see an MRA lasting long. They are characterized by low experienced of their members, as well as very probable low experience of their own leaders in war tactics. Due to their condition, they are hyperactive diplomats. Because of these characteristics, if they haven't been attacked by then, once the World Wonders era arrives, they will be more than easily crushed.

So, probably I have my eyes blind by own bad experiences as well as a little of "peer pressure", but I personally do not see how MRAs can be successful.
Perhaps, you can give me a different perspective?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Leneous

Guest
Offensive BP is typically perfered over Defensive because someone who sits around and sims a city while playing a war game would have loads of DBP and no ABP. However, a player with all ABP and no DBP shows that he is not willing to step in and help others. A good balance of both with a higher ratio of ABP shows someone is aggressive and willing to help. People often put too much emphasis on a single number or attribute instead of looking at the overall picture. In a conquest server DBP can tell alot about a team player more-so then a revolt server. I am most familiar with revolt servers as I prefer them.

I have nothing against turtles; Have turtled many cities myself when the time calls. You can stop someone from advancing on you as a turtle; but you cannot change the course of a war being a turtle.

In morale worlds, I have found that smaller alliances that were created later in the game actually have an edge over the larger more well established alliances that have a head start. It's much easier to get ahead when you are not in a core ocean fighting the experienced players who are shooting for the top positions.

The main reason MRA's have so much trouble; in my opinion; is that grepolis is a game where the individual player is too small of a component to really have an impact by themselves. A smaller team can grow together quickly and learn to work together; plus they can be very selective about who they recruit. A truly successful alliance will be built out of self-less people who do not worry about their own self interests but of the interests of the group. They look out for each other; helping those in need on a moments notice so that the group grows quickly. This type of mentality is critical to creating a leading alliance on any server. By massively recruiting you cannot ensure you have been picky enough to weed out the majority of players that put their own interests above that of the group.

Also, when you massively recruit; you will find many of your players you do not hear from until they need something. The group then spend valuable resources defending and helping people who were not interested in truly helping the alliance. They were not overly active until they needed defended. It goes back to the selfish nature that we naturally have when playing this game. Then people point fingers at each other as to who is contributing and who isnt.

Also in large alliances; divisions occur. There tends to be smaller alliances that form within the larger alliance. When a decision is reached that a segment really disagrees with they tend to break off of the main alliance. It makes it hard to have true unity.

If you can create a group of unselfish people from a large group then an MRA would work. I do not see how this would be possible but more power to anyone that will try.

You will find regardless of how you play the game; people will come at and insult your tactics. The poking fun part is a common part of any such game and to play you have to have relatively tough skin to take their comments and sort between what you want to take seriously and what you want to blow off. Massive recruitment alliances have been tried time and time and time again by many people who claim that they would be effective. The suffer from the same problems that ultimately lead to their downfall. You can almost time their fall to within a few weeks period though a few outlast.

More power to you if you want to try. You definitely wont have been alone. If you succeed you will truly have accomplished something few if any have.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Yokhen

Guest
Leneous said:
A good balance of both with a higher ratio of ABP shows someone is aggressive and willing to help. People often put too much emphasis on a single number or attribute instead of looking at the overall picture.
I would have to disagree on this. While hypothetical true, that's not always the case. Some alliances, and therefore some players have low DBP because they are hardly attacked, and that doesn't mean they don't work actively as a team. Judging teamwork from BP is kind of biased.

Leneous said:
A truly successful alliance will be built out of self-less people who do not worry about their own self interests but of the interests of the group.
Kudos on that!

And Bingo and applause on the rest of your message Leneous!
 

Cyllis

Guest
I'll try not to be overly verbose here because I think the above points reiterate my position. I too like to see a mix of ABP/DBP. However, awards can also be a decent indicator of a players possible performance or personal characteristics. All of this is dependent on if awards are displayed. For example if you see an award that has been given because a certain player has lost a large amount of troops while supporting other players, their DBP is a good sign that they might be a team players.

Steve, you make a good point that strategies shouldn't stagnate. Your moneyball example proves that point. I haven't been playing this game for nearly as long as many other posters in the externals, however, I would venture to bet that the "MRA Strategy" was one of the first strategies developed by players in the first few worlds. It was most likely an intuitive player who eventually discovered that being more aggressive in the beginning has large amounts of benefits in the long run.

C

EDIT: Spelling correction
 

Leneous

Guest
I would have to disagree on this. While hypothetical true, that's not always the case. Some alliances, and therefore some players have low DBP because they are hardly attacked, and that doesn't mean they don't work actively as a team. Judging teamwork from BP is kind of biased.
I understand and agree to a point. I do believe 100% that judging a person solely by their BP or any one figure is foolish. I was attempting to make that point and perhaps did not explain well. I do believe in a conquest world if someone is helping you hold cities with ground units and biremes most the time it will show up in the DBP stat. In revolt worlds and conquest world if they are helping other players against attacks (supporting them while getting attacked) I believe this will normally show up with the DBP stat. My DBP in Itacha is fairly high for only being personally attacked somewhere around 20 times since the start of the game. (I know its lame; I love being attacked and no one is doing it.) Cyprus64 is in the same boat but his DBP is very high as he would load cities with thousands of biremes and ground units when a player was revolted on the alliance. He also seldom gets attacked.

But that was not the point I was trying to make; I was just eluding that for people who only look at high ABP or high ABP ratios they may not be getting the whole picture of a player. One needs to take an overall picture of player and not just use one number or one ratio or one factor to determine their worth. All those things can help give you a picture; but you have to dig deep to find the overall picture of the player. I've met players that are all offensive and great ABP stats but made terrible teammate (and many who made great ones.) I've also met players with low DBP stats that made terrible teammates. And ultimately, it takes a variety of people to make a really good team. If everyone is 100% offensive or 100% defensive on a team you are not going to advance as you have a weakness that can be exploited. I do lean towards wanting more aggressive players overall as defensive units don't change the course of wars.

I believe this is still completely in line with what you are saying. I just don't think i explained myself well enough. I am still going to say if they have almost no DBP and its a few months into the server it could be a warning sign that they are not supporting other players (Where i personally gained most of my DBP). Maybe its not, but its worth investigating.

---

Also great addition pointing out the awards. +rep to both of you! Wonderful points!

Nevermind it will only let me +rep one of you :rolleyes: - Silly system and not letting me distribute rep like i want.

I also wanted to add that I believe even the most "elite" of alliances should have a few "n00bs" on their team - Even though that word is thought of as an insult in grepolis. (And most games.)

In all honesty I'm not far from being one myself. I have only been playing since January. I was taken by one of those "seriously limited" recruitment alliances and molded. It give you the ability to create a player who is exactly what you would like to see and exactly what you need them to be. (Or you might get a total train wreck; but you can always cycle through the worst performers.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

PizzaioloSteve

Guest
Thanks for the thoughtful and educational posts. As an admitted newbie I personally learned several new lessons. Thanks again.

By the way, one of the innovative ideas was to create a sort of assassins market, where a team would broker deals for a weaker team to pay resources to a strong player to take out a city for them either in revenge or to enable growth. Assuming the economics were thought through, it was an interesting idea. Structuring the 'hit contracts' seemed to me to be an interesting intellectual enterprise, as the BP, resources, and other favors could be part of the deal.

One can effectively 'gift' BP & trade resources. I also think ninja assassin alliance would be a role appealing to some. Likely a lot of holes in the idea to fill, but interesting. Could a neutral market maker role work? Likely not, but it evolved in the real world.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Leneous

Guest
I'd probably recommend setting the front up on the externals - how you'd drive traffic from the game to the externals no clue. Only a fraction of players read the externals. You could do it inner alliance but being that players should be doing that stuff for each other anyway i dont think you gain personally. No real way to "advertise" in game. (That I can think of; not saying ness. that there isn't)
 

Yokhen

Guest
But that was not the point I was trying to make; I was just eluding that for people who only look at high ABP or high ABP ratios they may not be getting the whole picture of a player. One needs to take an overall picture of player and not just use one number or one ratio or one factor to determine their worth.
Well, I look at the whole picture too, but many people like looking at ABP because those who normally have high ABP are normally those who are winning a fight or war, while those who are high in DBP are defending and in most cases, losing. That is why people look at ABP with more respect.
 

Yokhen

Guest
One can effectively 'gift' BP & trade resources. I also think ninja assassin alliance would be a role appealing to some. Likely a lot of holes in the idea to fill, but interesting. Could a neutral market maker role work? Likely not, but it evolved in the real world.
That would be pretty hard to be seen done. Considering morale, alliances are pretty balanced with small ones. So if a big alliance has a goal to take ocean X, and besides that they also offer mercenary services, their forces would be divided and the balance would be broken giving an advantage to the small alliance (with most likely, small players.)
 

PizzaioloSteve

Guest
That would be pretty hard to be seen done. Considering morale, alliances are pretty balanced with small ones. So if a big alliance has a goal to take ocean X, and besides that they also offer mercenary services, their forces would be divided and the balance would be broken giving an advantage to the small alliance (with most likely, small players.)
I agree that the idea would probably not work. Mostly due to the geographic and time elements key to the game. If you had a sort of teleport spell you could learn, then one team could pop in and commit a hit without hurting board position. In fact some way to (at a cost) overcome entrenched situations would be good. I guess flying units are the closest thing now. Build a manticore army for hire, for example. Much too expensive though again in the current scenario.

Anyone have any other wacky ideas on strategy? Interested if you Have you seen massive fake attacks tried.
 

hman15

Guest
I would just like to point out that the idea of MRA has changed a bit over time here.

MRA - Mass Recruiting Alliance

So to me, that means an alliance that at the start of an alliance (or at any time I guess, just usually starts at the beginning of a world) sends out a lot of invitations to as many players as possible and usually done without a personal message to that player, or a message at all. This usually ends up being an alliance that is spread across many oceans without any form of organization or strategic location. Usually has little clusters across those oceans as well.

What it seems to be now is where an alliance seems rather large and a bit spread. And example of this is just in this world. Earlier in this world, near the beginning, Eclipse was accused of being MRA just because we had complete control over 044. Now if taking control over an ocean early on means being an MRA now, well that is just sad. That is not MASS RECRUITING, that is strategic recruiting.

That is why I believe the idea or MRA is changing in peoples minds. People are becoming more judgmental towards all alliance and it seems just so they can criticize them. People should try to learn to not criticize an alliance right away, especially just based on their size, cause that alliance can come back to kick them. Though I would agree that position does play apart along with the size.

And I believe an example was asked as to when supposed MRA's have ever made it in a world. Well, I know of two alliances that were accused of being MRA but have made it in the world they were in. From the world Knossos, I know of the alliance ATALANTE that everyone thought was pathetic, MRA, and weak so everyone ganged up on, but they were organized enough to be able to support one another and to survive and are still around in that world today. Also in the world Delphi, the alliance G.S.A was claimed to be an MRA, little did they know that they would come through and destroy 3 major alliances. I'm sure there are more, but these are just some that have stuck to my mind. But like I said earlier, these accusations could have been made out of that harsher criticism of alliances now. So that is what seems to me to be the problem with MRA's now, that some of them not always are.
 

Yokhen

Guest
What it seems to be now is where an alliance seems rather large and a bit spread. And example of this is just in this world. Earlier in this world, near the beginning, Eclipse was accused of being MRA just because we had complete control over 044. Now if taking control over an ocean early on means being an MRA now, well that is just sad. That is not MASS RECRUITING, that is strategic recruiting.

That is why I believe the idea or MRA is changing in peoples minds. People are becoming more judgmental towards all alliance and it seems just so they can criticize them. People should try to learn to not criticize an alliance right away, especially just based on their size, cause that alliance can come back to kick them. Though I would agree that position does play apart along with the size.
Hmm... sounds like someone is a little buttheart from months ago. In any case, maybe they were called like that because of the massive amount of players that were in the alliance and not because they had control of O44. Just a hypothesis. I can't really tell since I didn't pay attention to Eclipse early in the game.
 

PizzaioloSteve

Guest
Personally, I find it ok and very interesting to debate what is a good tactic and what are strategies for success. Some good comments earlier. I find it a bit juvenile to take a strategy and turn it into an "accusation," though as I point out it is common in real life and the book Moneyball addresses the same topic, more or less.

Some elements of MRA can bring advantage. New ideas is just one. Replacements for players who have a real life crisis is another. Good point about strategic recruiting versus just mass. Problem with mass is that you need to weed out non-performers, which I think can erode your collaborative culture. Kick someone who became the pal of your top player and suddenly you have an internal drama.

Labels with negative context are for simplistic people. I say settle it on the battlefield. Obviously, every alliance is going to have a complex and unique history. If you don't like it, take care of business. If you do, use it and win. Proof is in results I guess.

That said, my point is that MRA's provide opportunities for new players to develop. I was accepted into one (more or less), a strategic MRA as was described, and I am having some decent results. The team helped and I have helped the team. Will it last? Don't know, but alone I might have been out already.
 

Aiolis

Guest
Personally, I find it ok and very interesting to debate what is a good tactic and what are strategies for success. Some good comments earlier. I find it a bit juvenile to take a strategy and turn it into an "accusation," though as I point out it is common in real life and the book Moneyball addresses the same topic, more or less.

Some elements of MRA can bring advantage. New ideas is just one. Replacements for players who have a real life crisis is another. Good point about strategic recruiting versus just mass. Problem with mass is that you need to weed out non-performers, which I think can erode your collaborative culture. Kick someone who became the pal of your top player and suddenly you have an internal drama.

Labels with negative context are for simplistic people. I say settle it on the battlefield. Obviously, every alliance is going to have a complex and unique history. If you don't like it, take care of business. If you do, use it and win. Proof is in results I guess.

That said, my point is that MRA's provide opportunities for new players to develop. I was accepted into one (more or less), a strategic MRA as was described, and I am having some decent results. The team helped and I have helped the team. Will it last? Don't know, but alone I might have been out already.
Very true. And many alliances that begin as MRA's evolve into top alliances, and even win worlds. This game is so long-term, that judging something at the moment is irrelevant.

You may be mocking a so-called MRA alliance now, but wouldnt you feel dumb if they turn around and take down your "elite" alliance? They can be surprising things. Ultimately, it will boil down to the leadership at hand and the effectiveness of the alliance. You can have a very organized MRA-style alliance vs. a corrupt and messy "elite" alliance, and the former would win.

Good discussion going from this thread, I wish I had started it haha ;)
 

Yokhen

Guest
Very true. And many alliances that begin as MRA's evolve into top alliances, and even win worlds. This game is so long-term, that judging something at the moment is irrelevant.

You may be mocking a so-called MRA alliance now, but wouldnt you feel dumb if they turn around and take down your "elite" alliance? They can be surprising things. Ultimately, it will boil down to the leadership at hand and the effectiveness of the alliance. You can have a very organized MRA-style alliance vs. a corrupt and messy "elite" alliance, and the former would win.

Good discussion going from this thread, I wish I had started it haha ;)
Organization is key. Yet that feature is the product of constant activity, starting from leaders and being contagious to the lowest of all members. Such activity is hardly possible by mass recruiting alliances who have a lot to weed out and a lot of the effort starts off into a lot of tasks for problems that good alliances don't even have. Therefore, if they happened to be organized, they wouldn't really be MRAs.

That is my humble amazing logic.
 

Minatomus

Guest
Here's a point that contradicts itself. Aren't MRA's after all selfless faceless unorganized alliances, who basically send mails to every single player in an ocean or even outside their premises without looking and evaluating the players? Then how does that resolve in having an effective alliance when most likely recruits haven't been even contacted rather directly invited?

Mostly MRAs suffer from having a lack of organization, and a long-term plan. It's "OK" to invite inexperienced players into an alliance, as long as they are very active AND willing to learn it would be fine. Hell, everyone started knowing nothing of the game. Communication is the key.

However, whether to believe that MRA's have a chance to actually win a world, would be a bit skeptical. They really wouldn't be MRA's from the first place if they actually fight and win a war. This game after all is about momentum and coordination (communication too). Without any of these, chances are much likely that the MRA would be rimmed. Mainly because of the dysfunctional system of the alliance itself.

Regarding turtle style gaming.. And why do people hate it. Naturally, people want easy targets and conquests. Since the game favors the defender and has very specific requirements via conquering, it will become much much harder for players to actually take a city 1 on 1. I guess that is why people hate it. Furthermore it's not preferred to have turtles in an alliance, otherwise goals are less likely to be met. Turtles are horrible attackers, they won't be able to get any cities for their cities are mainly defense and are less effective in attacking. Therefore alliances and their management are less in favor of turtles, and hence they are rejected. Turtles in grepo aren't really "playing" the game, it's more like screaming "Plz don't conquer me!" which is no gaming style at all. Then again, it's not that having defenses or some defense cities is bad, but being a pure defender waiting to be attacked is no gaming style at all.

What Turtles do:
1. Log in for 5 minutes a day.
2. Do noobish research.
3. Build more swords.
4. Cry out for help when attacked and communicate ineffectively on forums.
5. Log out and never hear from them again if they had a CS parked in their harbor.

What Turtles FAIL to do:
1. Communicate in the forums.
2. Ask and learn anything about the game and the fighting system.
3. Support alliance members.
4. Do coordinated ops, or even provide support in a conquest.
5. Improve and develop and gain more cities.
6. Actually attack anyone.
7. Attack with slings, hops, and horses.

Makes me wonder why do they even play. A player who barely gives out any attention to the game and hope to survive... For what? Where's the enjoyment in playing a war game then? Personally I don't see the enjoyment in that, maybe someone else does, but then again what do they accomplish in the game?

Eventually they get conquered, and send a hate mail, and hopefully it gets posted in the lolz and facepalm section :D

Personally though, I have nothing against MRAs or Turtles. However, it is disappointing itself is that MRAs get players killed because of the many lacks they offer rather than train and develop players and getting them to like the game. And hence, less players keep playing grepolis and servers dies much faster. Even many large alliances or the "Elite" ones fail to do all of the necessary things to boost their player's skills and motivate them further. Eventually attrition starts taking place and game becomes much slower and less active, leaving a very small amount of players. Because of MRAs, the standards of the players you would face would be more likely terrible, and offer less of a challenge. Hence it kills the game by time, since the turtles spent their efforts less effectively rather than improve and develop their own empire.

These are my thoughts, feel free to criticize or approve what I say :)
 

PizzaioloSteve

Guest
Here's a point that contradicts itself. Aren't MRA's after all selfless faceless unorganized alliances, who basically send mails to every single player in an ocean or even outside their premises without looking and evaluating the players? Then how does that resolve in having an effective alliance when most likely recruits haven't been even contacted rather directly invited?
....

What Turtles do:
1. Log in for 5 minutes a day.
2. Do noobish research.
3. Build more swords.
4. Cry out for help when attacked and communicate ineffectively on forums.
5. Log out and never hear from them again if they had a CS parked in their harbor.

What Turtles FAIL to do:
1. Communicate in the forums.
2. Ask and learn anything about the game and the fighting system.
3. Support alliance members.
4. Do coordinated ops, or even provide support in a conquest.
5. Improve and develop and gain more cities.
6. Actually attack anyone.
7. Attack with slings, hops, and horses.
...
Personally though, I have nothing against MRAs or Turtles. However, it is disappointing itself is that MRAs get players killed because of the many lacks they offer rather than train and develop players and getting them to like the game. And hence, less players keep playing grepolis and servers dies much faster. Even many large alliances or the "Elite" ones fail to do all of the necessary things to boost their player's skills and motivate them further. Eventually attrition starts taking place and game becomes much slower and less active, leaving a very small amount of players. Because of MRAs, the standards of the players you would face would be more likely terrible, and offer less of a challenge. Hence it kills the game by time, since the turtles spent their efforts less effectively rather than improve and develop their own empire.

These are my thoughts, feel free to criticize or approve what I say :)

So much to comment on, but I had promised to keep my posts shorter.

First, I generally dislike a rhetoric style based on setting up a straw man that is designed to be torn down.

Defining turtles or an MRA per your post, to include many unrelated items, is a logical 'non starter'. Your list is designed to demonize the player type "by definition.". Most items are obviously slanted to build the definition in an unfavorable light by including silly things like newb research.

You might as well say that the game designers should eliminate options because you never use them.

You then go on to say that this "player group" is bad for the game. This assertion is supported by speculation and not a single fact. An arguement can be made for many things causing players to lose interest in the game, and I doubt a slanted field toward survival is one of them

The post mixes many unrelated things with the apparent goal of supporting an arguement that defensive oriented strategies are bad.

I am sure you would still call someone a turtle, even if they only exhibited one or two of the items on your seriously flawed laundry list, so i am not sure you really intend to say they do all these things. I suppose it is a list of behaviors you don't like.

Isn't turtling sometimes necessary to survive? I know for instance that seal elites eternalak47 and courageunderfire are in turtle mode as their arch enemies in death fiber (led by atlan ra and tbrew) seek revenge by sending heavy attacks on their heals. Should they rather have given up? The drama of this battle has been intriguing to watch, as both sides seek allies and maneuver. It is quite a drama and the fact that evolving MRAish alliances are on the border of the battle adds further complexities. It is the kind of interesting situation that keeps me playing.

Anyway, your definition of an MRA is a non starter for discussion, as it is so narrow that nothing would actually fit. Few groups would fit, though perhaps to an outsider they might look like that. We dont see all the communication going on. I have decided to champion the MRA cause, though I suppose you would not think my alliance an MRA anymore.

In fairness, you successfully outline some serious challenges MRA strategies face, as well as ones turtle type strategies face. However can't strong defenders accumulate lots of BP and then expand?

There are interesting ideas in your post.

However, I disagree with your final comment as well about servers and player counts. It is hard for me to believe that a player who joins an MRA team, plays for a month, and gets conquered for being on a weak team will have a worse experience than a player who joins, builds a decent city and then is crushed by 20 experinced, pre-build alliance players all attacking in concert. Honestly, a MRA has kept me, a decent player in the game. If I had started near one of the teams with your philosophy I would long ago moved on with my life.

Sample size of one, but I disagree with you. The Grepo politics are too complex to be as black and white as you try to portray it.

Ps : sorry for the poor grammar, I am on a mobile device and editing is a pain.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jaggie Eggs

Guest
So much to comment on, but I had promised to keep my posts shorter.

First, I generally dislike a rhetoric style based on setting up a straw man that is designed to be torn down.

Defining turtles or an MRA per your post, to include many unrelated items, is a logical 'non starter'. Your list is designed to demonize the player type "by definition.". Most items are obviously slanted to build the definition in an unfavorable light by including silly things like newb research.

You might as well say that the game designers should eliminate options because you never use them.

You then go on to say that this "player group" is bad for the game. This assertion is supported by speculation and not a single fact. An arguement can be made for many things causing players to lose interest in the game, and I doubt a slanted field toward survival is one of them

The post mixes many unrelated things with the apparent goal of supporting an arguement that defensive oriented strategies are bad.

I am sure you would still call someone a turtle, even if they only exhibited one or two of the items on your seriously flawed laundry list, so i am not sure you really intend to say they do all these things. I suppose it is a list of behaviors you don't like.

Isn't turtling sometimes necessary to survive? I know for instance that seal elites eternalak47 and courageunderfire are in turtle mode as their arch enemies in death fiber (led by atlan ra and tbrew) seek revenge by sending heavy attacks on their heals. Should they rather have given up? The drama of this battle has been intriguing to watch, as both sides seek allies and maneuver. It is quite a drama and the fact that evolving MRAish alliances are on the border of the battle adds further complexities. It is the kind of interesting situation that keeps me playing.

Anyway, your definition of an MRA is a non starter for discussion, as it is so narrow that nothing would actually fit. Few groups would fit, though perhaps to an outsider they might look like that. We dont see all the communication going on. I have decided to champion the MRA cause, though I suppose you would not think my alliance an MRA anymore.

In fairness, you successfully outline some serious challenges MRA strategies face, as well as ones turtle type strategies face. However can't strong defenders accumulate lots of BP and then expand?

There are interesting ideas in your post.

However, I disagree with your final comment as well about servers and player counts. It is hard for me to believe that a player who joins an MRA team, plays for a month, and gets conquered for being on a weak team will have a worse experience than a player who joins, builds a decent city and then is crushed by 20 experinced, pre-build alliance players all attacking in concert. Honestly, a MRA has kept me, a decent player in the game. If I had started near one of the teams with your philosophy I would long ago moved on with my life.

Sample size of one, but I disagree with you. The Grepo politics are too complex to be as black and white as you try to portray it.

Ps : sorry for the poor grammar, I am on a mobile device and editing is a pain.
I'm done reading your post pizza steve (remeber the steve the pizza cutter from the pizza hut commercials?). Even if you reply I'm not reading. Your post are bloated with such useless jargon and rhetoric that it puts me to sleep. I find your narcissistic kind very obnoxious, getting a high from how smart they sound. Obviously efficiency isn't your strongest suit. I could sum up your garbage in 5 sentences. On to other things, I really grow tired of the MRA and Turtle finger pointing. Hey play the game however you want, I don't play that way nor advise it. If you think its a great way to play, then have at it.
 

marcofin

Guest
My humble opinion in response to your post.....

Defining turtles or an MRA per your post, to include many unrelated items, is a logical 'non starter'. Your list is designed to demonize the player type "by definition.".
It's called profiling, and while sometimes unfair and stereotypical, can be a very effective tool, hence its use worldwide

The post mixes many unrelated things with the apparent goal of supporting an arguement that defensive oriented strategies are bad.
Not necessarily a bad strategy if survival is your end goal, but will never win you the world

Isn't turtling sometimes necessary to survive? I know for instance that seal elites eternalak47 and courageunderfire are in turtle mode as their arch enemies in death fiber (led by atlan ra and tbrew) seek revenge by sending heavy attacks on their heals.
I think there's a huge difference here. Courage and eternal at war and under attack can really benefit from playing defensively, as they can still earn BP. Someone simply building as a "turtle" has to sim...ahem...sit and wait to be attacked to earn their BP. Besides I highly doubt these two started off as turtles.

The drama of this battle has been intriguing to watch, as both sides seek allies and maneuver.
I agree. Many battles being waged all across Marathon and they are all intriguing

However can't strong defenders accumulate lots of BP and then expand?
If they indeed have attacks to defend against. Still need offense to expand though, not very effective attacking with swordsmen and archers

So much to comment on, but I had promised to keep my posts shorter.
So.........what happened?:p
 
Last edited by a moderator: