DeletedUser
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.
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: