New Rules on spam???

DeletedUser55916

Guest
Well done mate, thanks for your intelligent response!

if you can’t be bothered to switch your brain on and bring a reasoned, thought out discussion to the table, like shuri, perhaps you should just go back to trolling YouTube videos and Instagram posts instead.

Give us all a break hey!

You make a good point Shuri but I would argue (for myself) that the fact it is illegal is not really the reason why I wouldn’t steal someone’s golf clubs.
It's a WAR game Drubzie... Yes, the whole point of WAR is to test your security flaws and steal your golf clubs if the game permits. War is war. We kill, plunder, steal cities, steal favor, steal resources, steal WOW from those that try. Isn't THAT the point? How is ANY of it possible if you can't engage in WAR tactics in a WAR game. If they don't want it to be a WAR game, then take away those aspects of the game. Otherwise, let us play the way the developers wanted us to play. It's not rocket science and I don't understand how intelligent people can't get this very simple concept. SMH...
 

DeletedUser52860

Guest
The operative word is GAME!

If people are happy to act like douches in an (often unsuccessful) attempt to win a computer game then good for them. I'm still entitled to call it for what it is. This WAR (not sure why i shouted there, maybe you are rubbing off on me) game existed for many years with an amazing player base (3 times the number of people starting servers compared to now and oceans populated down to 67 and 66) but it has been declining and I think that is a shame. I believe that the win at all costs strategy that some people assume is partly to blame for that. You do not need spam wars or ridiculous BP boosting to win a grepolis server, why can't you just practice and try harder like the rest of us.

Jeez
 

DeletedUser56427

Guest
Congratulation spammers, you've won.
I'm not talking about you regular spammers, I'm talking about the spam-for-hire. I won't name you because you don't deserve more recognition, but you have successfully forced me to quit a game I enjoyed playing.
I don't blame inno or the mods for this. Nothing you can do about a vindictive, petty baby.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

destroxxi

Phrourach
Current definition of spam:
Current definition of spam:
(Based on what I have read so far, on other threads)
"Any attack I do not like that is bad when other people do it but ok when I some times do it because (paste hypocritical excuse here)."

This definition is not only a non definition but not going to help, and it is going to harm.

Because Mods/managers now consider this a public mandate to "fix spam!"

So they have pulled out their sledge hammer to remove what THEY consider spam Which aint what YOU consider spam thinking they are doing what the public asked for.
When their "solution" tanks the game they will not undo it because that would require them to admit they were wrong.

I have been gaming since PONG. I can not count the number of good games that tank because the devs listen to the loud cries and gnashing of teeth from a small but loud minority that in no way represents the average silent player.
And when they give the special snowflakes what they think they want, players start leaving, and even the snowflakes leave the ghost town they created.

Why there is no working definition of spam:
Players are too stupid, lazy, or cowardly to appropriately label different actions with unique labels so we know exactly what they are talking about.
Much easier to cry mmMC SPAM! BOO WHOO! so every one will agree with you and express sympathy.

Way to solve this:
First logically define spam.
Second come up with other logical labels for other naughty game actions you do not like.
If it is a good label it will stick.
If others dislike the appropriately labeled action as much as you, then it might get addressed.
If not it wont, and your just being a crybaby and it will get ignored while you are possibly ridiculed for being weak sauce.


The etymology of spam:
Spam is a tasty canned square meat that goes great with rice and eggs. Just ask any Hawaiian.
But some find it quite disgusting so it has become synonymous with "YUCK in a can."

Then came the internet and email. Along with that came advertising email. Or "unsolicited stuff you do not want that just clogs up your mail box" Or "SPAM."

Spam is:
"Any thing sent at you in mass with the sole purpose of clogging up your notifications and or locking you out of game in the hopes of causing you grief.
"
Usually as some response to some perceived slight or seeking a tactical edge.
But there are some people that are just &^%#s and they will spam you just cause they can.

The more serious problem:

A warning that does not define exactly How you broke a rule and how NOT to break the rule in the future is no warning by definition.
The purpose of a warning is so you can adjust your future actions to remain within the rules.
Right now the only purpose it serves is to allow mods to claim they were being fair because they gave you a "warning" before they banned you.

Further when you do not CLEARLY define your rules your game ceases to be a game.
The major difference between WAR and a WARGAME is a war game has previously defined and agreed upon rules.
War is just acts of aggression till one side is all dead or screams uncle.

You could even take it one step further and realize it is not even a rule at all.
A rule must be known and clearly defined so it can be agreed upon and followed.
That is the whole purpose of a rule.

What you have now is a popularity contest where those that are in the right crowd could easily be judged by a different criteria than those that are not.
Aaaand you would never know.
Since no criteria is clearly defined any one can be banned at any time once they are "warned."

I expect several of this "in crowd" to quickly respond with an "The end justifies the means." reply because this calls in jeopardy their ability to win.
Or simply have their friend delete it for the same reason.

Example of how the ends do not justify the means for the logic impaired:
Helping a blind old lady safely cross a busy street is a great end. A stereotypical good deed.
Removing on coming cars with grenades and clearing the cross walk of school children with a chain saw...... Kind of negates the good deed.


Inno does not give warnings nor reasoning they ban first without actual evidence based on speculation. This coming from a Veteran of this game of over 10 years. They have no magical tools if you play or are on to much you are botting, If you send something they don't like in a mail they will delete all the mails and perm ban the accounts. List goes on. They have proven time and time again they are just here for the green god of greed. End of rant. and yes I still play this game with all that being said because I have met some lifelong friends here while playing for so long.
 

Shuri2060

Strategos
Back to this topic, I have a better idea of what's going on now after hearing more cases of players warned/banned for excessive attack/cancels over the past weeks.

It does not seem to me that specific circumstances are being considered before sending out the warning. Indeed, I've heard of multiple players being warned for sending 1 attack to every city once (not repeatedly for long periods of time). When the target being HCed has 100 cities, that would mean 100 attacks, and Inno appear to find this 'unreasonable', although I think that's perfectly reasonable game play.

If you have more cities, you should expect more possible attacks on average - it is part of the skill required for handling large accounts. Controlling your location is important - if you have half your cities located on the frontline, then expect to get attacked in them regularly, of course.

-----------------------------------

To re-iterate what has been said before, I think it would be for the best if Inno abolish these new rules (which are not published anywhere) and instead look into hard-coded solutions to spam.

Right now, it would seem to me Support is being lazy in reviewing specific cases thoroughly before sending warnings out. The entire process seems to be subjective to me - that will cause more harm than good in the long run.

A player will not get spam warnings unless they are reported. But that would mean you can get away with excessive attacks/cancel as long as you are not reported. This encourages reporting of false cases - the tiniest provocation will make players report their opponents in the hope the will be warned/banned. This surely cannot be a good thing to introduce into the game.
 

1saaa

Strategos
Back to this topic, I have a better idea of what's going on now after hearing more cases of players warned/banned for excessive attack/cancels over the past weeks.

It does not seem to me that specific circumstances are being considered before sending out the warning. Indeed, I've heard of multiple players being warned for sending 1 attack to every city once (not repeatedly for long periods of time). When the target being HCed has 100 cities, that would mean 100 attacks, and Inno appear to find this 'unreasonable', although I think that's perfectly reasonable game play.

If you have more cities, you should expect more possible attacks on average - it is part of the skill required for handling large accounts. Controlling your location is important - if you have half your cities located on the frontline, then expect to get attacked in them regularly, of course.

-----------------------------------

To re-iterate what has been said before, I think it would be for the best if Inno abolish these new rules (which are not published anywhere) and instead look into hard-coded solutions to spam.

Right now, it would seem to me Support is being lazy in reviewing specific cases thoroughly before sending warnings out. The entire process seems to be subjective to me - that will cause more harm than good in the long run.

A player will not get spam warnings unless they are reported. But that would mean you can get away with excessive attacks/cancel as long as you are not reported. This encourages reporting of false cases - the tiniest provocation will make players report their opponents in the hope the will be warned/banned. This surely cannot be a good thing to introduce into the game.
hardcoding limits on spam is an interesting idea. Personally I think its an easy and lazy solution for Inno. But, I believe the issue with that solution would be that as soon as the hardcoded limits on spam are found out players will find a way around them and spam will continue.

Furthermore, if coded poorly hardcoding this could actually limit proper gameplay. I think mods using their own judgement to decide the nature of the spam and therefore whether or not to apply the bann would be the best case scenario.

Obviously the issue with this is that mods can be easily corrupt and even impartial mods can make mistakes.
 

DeletedUser41523

Guest
Honestly to anyone upset by this rule or even not upset by it, you have nobody to blame but yourselves. All this spamming stuff started up in 2014, roughly around Rhammus. So the community has had six years to figure the problem out for themselves and as much as I love the Grep community....they did with that time what they do best. They didn't come anywhere near close to doing enough on a meaningful issue. With six whole years to do so.

In my experience every player and leader is totally anti spam....until the spam benefits them. Then suddenly that fervor evaporates faster than a drop of water in the desert. Everybody also has a totally legit justification as to why they're spamming and it always involves them being the victim in the scenario. I've seen people who were really just being cleared daily or favor farmed claim that its spam. Hell I've played with leaders who abused their position and claimed that they were being spammed every time they got inconvenienced by the alarm.

Meanwhile over the last six years, the worlds have gotten smaller and smaller across all servers, a large reason to that is spamming. So yeah, I don't really see a better solution here other than taking the app alarm off entirely. Which likely will piss off a lot of the community and drive servers down even faster.
 

DeletedUser52860

Guest
Well said.

Unfortunately in all walks of life there will always be people who take things to the absolute limit and it is regularly demonstrated that “society” struggles to police itself.

Spam is one of the factors in the decline of this game but honestly we are kidding ourselves if we think it is the only reason. The people who are prepared to say to themselves “ I don’t care if my actions destroy this game as long as I gain an advantage” will just move on to the next loophole whilst more of the community decide they have had enough. Most people that spam would also be willing to BP boost or constantly abuse LMD. And probably troll people on the internet as well?

Honestly, everytime I have to think about leaving an alliance just to take an internal it has me grinding my teeth about how inconsiderate some people can be! They think they are so clever but actually don’t seem to realize that anyone could do the things they do; but most don’t because it is just really sh*tty behaviour.
 

Shuri2060

Strategos
RE last 3 posts:

I don't understand the mentality behind blaming the playerbase for this issue when it is a flaw in game design that is the actual issue.

If a game's design has flaws, how can anyone expect players not to use/exploit them? In fact, these flaws only come to light when they do so. That is why there needs to be constant improvement/fixes.

This particular 'bug' just hasn't been fixed for a long time. But you surely can't expect players not to utilise it in their favor when it's there. Asking everyone to pretend such tactics don't exist is asking the impossible. It is on the devs to come up with a solution. The 'solution' the moderators have implemented just doesn't work in the interests of keeping the game fairly refereed.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser52860

Guest
Aaaarrrrggggghhhhh!!!!


People who aren’t trying to exploit the loophole (or flaw if it makes you feel better) are not getting warned or banned.

So the answer is stop trying to exploit the loophole. You don’t need to! You can just play better!!!

What happens when they say “maximum 50 attacks” and then when you are trying to bust a wonder with your 120 cities and you can’t send all your offence because inno had to code it into the game to stop scroats being douchey! Well done you’ve ruined the game.

What happens when they change the game so you have to wait 72 hours after leaving an alliance before you can get full BP from an internal just to stop scroats being douchey. Well done you’ve ruined the game.

Why can’t individuals take responsibility for maintaining a pleasant, fair community for all to enjoy. The loopholes exist for a reason, legislating against them will also ruin other, non-douchey, legitimate aspects of the game.
 

Raydium88

Strategos
Back to this topic, I have a better idea of what's going on now after hearing more cases of players warned/banned for excessive attack/cancels over the past weeks.

It does not seem to me that specific circumstances are being considered before sending out the warning. Indeed, I've heard of multiple players being warned for sending 1 attack to every city once (not repeatedly for long periods of time). When the target being HCed has 100 cities, that would mean 100 attacks, and Inno appear to find this 'unreasonable', although I think that's perfectly reasonable game play.

My issue with this statement and a lot of the argumentation behind it, is that you are basing your observations on players who have received warnings/been banned for undergoing this behaviour. This means your data is skewed and tailored to rule breakers. I've said it many times, and I will say it again, no player will willingly admit to their peers of any wrongdoing upon being banned for whatever reason. They will extrapolate and highly inflate the handling of mods on their appeals, to make it sound like they have done nothing wrong.

As for the rest of the statements, I agree there is a lot of room for improvement, and I absolutely agree that there should be hard coded solutions to the issue of spam. What I do not agree, is that because of the lack of thoughtful game development that we should all flush our moral compasses down the pooper. I agree 100% that there should be improvements or added mechanics to mitigate the abuse (if to kill the App alarm, so be it), but I also believe on individual or even communal responsibility on the matter. These 2 aspects are NOT mutually exclusive.
 

NutsNBoltz

Strategos
I think part of this two is the "conquest vs revolt" mentality. Two very different game modes, thus requiring different tactics. Need to slam a CS into an enemy city to start a siege? Well you can't let them know where, put 100 flashing swords up, and let's make one stick. I would say that, to an extend, spam is almost required on some conquest worlds, simply because good players will thwart every attempt.

Now revolt, in what world of revolt is spam ever needed? Maybe during an op you send a few, but why would anyone ever need to be flash spammed on a revolt server? The fight is two phases, and phase 1 determines phase 2 success. Phase 1, how many revolts can you start? More revolts = less defense in each, phase 2, break and take. But I wouldn't ever say a need for a spam type mechanic, it would essentially only be in place to cause an opponent discomfort.

That is also likely a core part of the problem, what I do on conquest world 1, may NOT be spam, but needed. What I do on revolt world 2 is spam in every way. So the "fair play" gets distorted across two different mentalities, folded into one, which cause's a huge grey area.
 

DeletedUser41523

Guest
I wouldn't say that spamming is required in conquest. Hell a lot of teams just line up attacks and supports like anybody else. The really high tier teams aren't going to get worn down by spam enough to decisively put them out of the game. More normal teams might get worn down, but usually figure out ways to slow the bleeding. There's also ways to be very aggressive without spamming people. Revolt I agree is different having played and led on it originally. There's less opportunity for individualism and its way more dedicated to coordinated team work.

I don't like the grey area. But again its one of those things where everybody, especially conq people, had years to solve the problem for themselves. Instead they choose to play with those kinds of people. I just wish they'd be open about what the rule is ,since its mostly targeting one specific player. Unfortunately it looks like it has to be left as a grey area because if they hard define it, people will just look for loop holes and move on. Either way it hasn't hindered my game play and I'm still left to fight using the techniques that I was taught even if they ring the alarm more than average when I use them.
 

Shuri2060

Strategos
Aaaarrrrggggghhhhh!!!!


People who aren’t trying to exploit the loophole (or flaw if it makes you feel better) are not getting warned or banned.

So the answer is stop trying to exploit the loophole. You don’t need to! You can just play better!!!

What happens when they say “maximum 50 attacks” and then when you are trying to bust a wonder with your 120 cities and you can’t send all your offence because inno had to code it into the game to stop scroats being douchey! Well done you’ve ruined the game.

What happens when they change the game so you have to wait 72 hours after leaving an alliance before you can get full BP from an internal just to stop scroats being douchey. Well done you’ve ruined the game.

Why can’t individuals take responsibility for maintaining a pleasant, fair community for all to enjoy. The loopholes exist for a reason, legislating against them will also ruin other, non-douchey, legitimate aspects of the game.
The entire reason why I started this thread, and why I continue to find the current system to be an issue is because I feel the first thing you said isn't true. I'm saying that there ARE people playing fairly who are legitimately strategizing and are not looking for any 'loopholes' getting warned unfairly (I haven't heard of any unreasonable bans yet). This is my opinion on some cases I have heard of - perhaps you would disagree if you heard them yourself. That is part of the main issue here - like I say, the current solution is subjective and that is a problem, as long as players disagree on what is/isn't fair play. This will lead to over-reporting as players will report anything that is marginally close to spam in the hope their opponents are penalized for playing in a manner they do not like.

With regards to hard coded solutions to the problem - please consider that there are methods other than naive limitations such as '100 attacks a day'. I suggest a few here, but by no means are they all-encompassing solutions or complete - they are starting points to consider. I am not suggesting hard coded solutions that would seriously inhibit ordinary play, nor do I believe the devs would implement such.

My issue with this statement and a lot of the argumentation behind it, is that you are basing your observations on players who have received warnings/been banned for undergoing this behaviour. This means your data is skewed and tailored to rule breakers. I've said it many times, and I will say it again, no player will willingly admit to their peers of any wrongdoing upon being banned for whatever reason. They will extrapolate and highly inflate the handling of mods on their appeals, to make it sound like they have done nothing wrong.

As for the rest of the statements, I agree there is a lot of room for improvement, and I absolutely agree that there should be hard coded solutions to the issue of spam. What I do not agree, is that because of the lack of thoughtful game development that we should all flush our moral compasses down the pooper. I agree 100% that there should be improvements or added mechanics to mitigate the abuse (if to kill the App alarm, so be it), but I also believe on individual or even communal responsibility on the matter. These 2 aspects are NOT mutually exclusive.

Yes, the motivation behind me making this thread is my disagreement with how the current situation is being handled. From my limited perspective, I have seen more than a small number of cases which I consider to be unfairly handled. That IS my personal opinion on the cases, and it IS likely my 'data' is skewed. People bringing up this issue are likely ones who have received a warning, or know people who have. After all, there is no other way for other people to bring up the issue - there was no announcement on the rule change, no guideline publication, ... nothing. Players who have a lower attacking rate than those in the active community would not know of these changes unless they have talked to others. So my aim in starting this thread is to bring the issue into the open and raise awareness on it.

That said, I don't believe this should have any bearing on the debate on how these rules could be improved/better implemented. I have my own motives behind starting this thread to raise the issue, but I try to step away from my anecdotal experience with the points I make. I did not do that in the post you quoted, I agree - perhaps I should have avoided that there, but without examples, there is nothing supporting the point on subjectivity other than speculation. I believe many proponents of the current system were victims of spam in the past, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate their opinions/arguments on this topic.

In the first place, I am not even arguing against tackling the issue of spam in general - I believe it to be a flaw in game design as well. The point of my thread however, is I find the current system of handling flawed (I personally believe we were better off before without it) and I am suggesting better solutions to handle the situation, or at least to improve the current solution.

-----------------------------------------------------

I still stand by my belief that the onus is on the game designers, not the players to tackle this issue, whether or not they actually do it. Players cannot be expected to ignore flaws in game design if they can use such flaws to improve their chances of winning. To me, bringing the issue of 'morality' into this is in itself 'wrong'. How can you talk about what is right and wrong in a game outside of its published rules? We are not talking about player harrassment via DMs here, we are talking about utilizing a game mechanic (attacking/cancelling). The rules do not mention limitations on them (the FAQ I linked somewhere even explicitly said there were none). If there is any morality to be had in a game, I would label players doing something other than trying to win to be playing it 'wrong'. If they are using a legitimate tactic that improves their chances in doing so, I can only say they are playing it 'right'.

As the original FAQ said, if you are finding the alarms too much for you, then switch them off at night, or don't use them at all. In the first place, Grepolis isn't a game everyone can commit to playing - not all are willing to stay up or wake at night to defend themselves when they have commitments outside of the game to tend to. To me, this looks like it is inherent in the game's design, but it is up to the designers to change it if they feel the need. I agree there are improvements that can be made to the app alarm, but there isn't much anyone can do about it unless they are implemented - we have to use it as it is, for now.
 
Last edited:

destroxxi

Phrourach
I mean also Shurri just to point out if the command prompt exceeds over 2000 commands in game the player being hit cannot log in. That has been used in the past and its proven that inno cannot handle that kinda of server load.

I mean hell the player being attack in that instance is the one that got banned instead of the players doing the attacking.
 

Shuri2060

Strategos
I mean also Shurri just to point out if the command prompt exceeds over 2000 commands in game the player being hit cannot log in. That has been used in the past and its proven that inno cannot handle that kinda of server load.

I mean hell the player being attack in that instance is the one that got banned instead of the players doing the attacking.
Only heard of incidences like that in the past, know very little about it myself. If that is the case, the devs should implement a hard cap to avoid it then.
 

Shuri2060

Strategos
Oh wow https://de.forum.grepolis.com/index.php?threads/fairplay-regel-§-9-verbot-von-lahmlege-befehlen-und-pingangriffen.36202/

This is LONG overdue, but I've only just found this now --- it is from the de forums, a basic description of the fairplay rule which is so far non-existant publicly on the en side. This has existed since January 2019 there.

My, they even voted on this before implementing it (or at least the recent change on it over there). Not just uh... randomly implement it overnight with no notice and just start giving players warnings for a rule which doesn't officially exist in the published set of rules.

Come on now, this is exactly what players have been asking for with regards to 'fairplay'. We don't need exact numbers or anything of the sort, we just need a set of guidelines which the community can refer to + follow. Please.
 
Last edited:

1saaa

Strategos
Oh wow https://de.forum.grepolis.com/index.php?threads/fairplay-regel-§-9-verbot-von-lahmlege-befehlen-und-pingangriffen.36202/

This is LONG overdue, but I've only just found this now --- it is from the de forums, a basic description of the fairplay rule which is so far non-existant publicly on the en side. This has existed since January 2019 there.

My, they even voted on this before implementing it (or at least the recent change on it over there). Not just uh... randomly implement it overnight with no notice and just start giving players warnings for a rule which doesn't officially exist in the published set of rules.

Come on now, this is exactly what players have been asking for with regards to 'fairplay'. We don't need exact numbers or anything of the sort, we just need a set of guidelines which the community can refer to + follow. Please.
@Hydna
 

Thooury

Hekatontarch
as I do not feel like writing a wall of text...
I've suggested this in private chats to some people

Casual worlds exist, but I think most people agree that they are a bit too casual, no?
So, why not add a semi-casual world? Where Inno games adds hard limitations to the game.

The top-tier alliances and players would probably avoid these types of worlds on their "main" world, but could play these on a tad more casual basis.
In my opinion, this would have the following advantages

  • Inno games can test the effect of hard limitations
  • he interest of the players in the world are more aligned. There are many players in a world who don't want to fight top-tier players with 100+ cities, are on 12hours a day etc. (these are just examples). They are willing to lose a couple of hours of sleep a week, but not stay up for entire nights. These players might find a spot in worlds such as these

There of course issues with this idea; we would once again split up an already small player base, more types of worlds means that players have to wait for longer times before their "ideal" world settings drop etc.

this text is already too long...

PS. This is just an idea, and does not necessarily reflect my personal opinion
 
Top