Discussion in 'Player's Council /Community Discussion' started by Oelyndeus, Aug 10, 2018.
that is a good point. had not thought of that.
my one good one for the month
Strongly disagree. Breaking up an LS nuke into waves of 20 and hitting the same player in different spots tells you a ton about those cities. Easy to see by BP gained and reports if you hit LS/Birs/small number of LS so you wipe and the rest is transports/only transports.
This tells you a lot about the different city builds of a player and is not the same as sending 50 waves of 4-5 LS at the same player/same city just to spam
I think that most players know what spamming is, although opinions vary.
To me, spamming is getting endless pointless attacks with the intention of sounding the players alarm, making them move troops all the time, and draining the enjoyment from the game. Receiving pointless small attacks, or attack and cancel.
Getting spammed for a day like this is unpleasant, but i feel that the real crime is for players who have to deal with this for long periods of time, and are essentially being driven out of the game, kept up all night, and given little to no respite from pointless attacks. This sort of behavior is fairly easy to evidence, and is far less of a 'grey area'. Players should be able to contact moderators and have this reported and stopped.
And soon you have people reporting players for 1 attack every hour/few hours or favour farming. And all it takes then is a moderator being in a particularly bad mood and boom, there's a ban. Even if the player gets unbanned there will be damage done
Or if I trip an enemy that I know is handing off cities and they keep sending back the trip, making me check if they're in siege
Then they report me and I get banned because of it, despite it being a valid reason to attack
I honestly think prevention is a better solution here than simply making it against the rules
You make a valid point.
My point was aimed more towards the cases which are so glaring obvious, the spamming that goes on for more than a day and is relentless. Nobody tripping or HCing can be accused of spamming of this nature.
As for lower scale spamming, the discussion goes on.
To me unacceptable spamming is deliberately sending large numbers of attacks where the aim is harrassment and /or setting off the alarm/keeping others awake and/or slowing/freezing the victims computer.
Sending extra attacks to confuse/hc/catch troops as part of an op is a strategic move and is completely different. In this case it should be short term - 24 - 48 hrs max but the volumes involved mean that this can also be termed spam.
Ive read through this thread. I agree that the spamming seen is getting worse and that it ruins the game but i believe its almost impossible to find a set of parameters that will only affect unacceptable spamming. For example:
Player A - spammer
Player B - playing the game properly
1. 100 attacks with most recalled:
Player A sends 100 spam attacks from 1 or more cities and cancels them all
Player B sends 100 attacks to conquer a city - he times with anchors, he cancels and resends from 10 cities on average 10 times - 10 attacks are sent but 90 are recalled.
2. 100 attacks - none recalled
Player A sits in Ocean 9 with 50 cities and sends 100 attacks of varying strength to 10 different players. Main aim to trigger alarm.
Player B sends hc to 20 cities and clearing attacks when he finds a good target.
Ive used 100 attacks in these examples but it doesn't need 100 to keep someone awake each night - 1 every half hour is enough.
3. Then we have the situation where an alliance attack one player - maybe after mm
Alliance A receive a mm saying send a few attacks each to x player- 200 attacks sent randomly from a range of players to a range of cities (spam).
Alliance B receive a mm saying clear x and y cities which are stacked and within the core and keep them clear cs close by - 200 attacks sent from a range of players to 2 cities (not spam).
There is also the issue that one player may consider hes being spammed because he sees constant attacks for a few days but another may accept that he sends out constant attacks and that this is a war game so its reasonable to expect the same in return.
So what can we do?
I think it would be worth agreeing a set of conditions that could be spam. Accepting that none are necessarily spam but that if say 3/6 of these conditions are met then probably we have a spammer. Examples of these conditions could be:
1. 20+ attacks to one player daily over a period exceeding 48 hours
2. 40+ attacks to one player from a range of players within an alliance over a period exceeding 48 hrs or occuring regularly
3. 20+ attacks to one player where the tt is longer than 10 hrs in most cases
4. 10+ attacks which are cancelled when there is no cs attempt within 24 hrs
We need more here but this is the kind of situation that needs specifying.
Then next we need to know how to deal with this.
Firstly, I believe the community should play a part. Personally i have no wish to play with anyone who I know uses these tactics. In the current scenario I accept spam retaliation but with that exception I do what I can to stop spamming from my own players - i dont claim to be perfect. However if all decent players took a stance then eventually spamming would become an isolating activity.
Secondly, personally I do think proven serial spamming should be a bannable offence. I cannot see how this can be anything other than a subjective decision but by identifying a comprehensive list of behaviours that could be spamming that will be a start.
The more realistic answer to spam attacks is to get your whole alliance to spam them back in shifts.... once they felt a few days of barely any sleep they'll soon consider who they spam first.
The only other option i can think of is reducing the recall time per attack that's sent until eventually they can't recall.
Not the best example but ... much like trading with market place and how your trade percentages change everytime you trade.
Recall time first attack sent 10mins
Send attack again within 10mins and recall reduced to 8 mins so on and so forth
I got some heartburn reading all these complaints about "spam attacks"
I know the practice is annoying but that is EXACTLY why you do it.
It's called "harassing the enemy" which is a widely accepted tactic in warfare.
When the Alarm App was implemented it became impossible to sneak attack a city that was alarmed.
Spam attacks offset the alarm, so unless you want to stay awake 24/7, ya gotta ignore the alarm or turn it off.
You spam the target player for a week or two until he gives up on the alarm.
Same for the players that garrison his cities.
Spam is the logical counter tactic to the alarm.
It isn't evil or unethical... it's a tactic.
If ya wanna get rid of spam as defined above, then drop the alarm.
The long range spam attack is also important, and doesn't involve the alarm.
You want him under attack 24/7 so you can slip in a real attack when he loses his focus.
Another tactic is sending a hundred decoy spam attacks with a few killer waves quietly slipped in.
Slows down his client and makes his defensive response difficult.
Sending dozens of decoy spam attacks to each of the target player's cities is another great tactic to overwhelm and confuse his defense.
As mentioned above, the anti timer tactic alone can generate hundreds of attacks that look like spam.
There were other excellent examples of "spam" mentioned by others that are valid game tactics.
So I do not think you really want to patch out spam, even if we can all agree on a definition and feasible remedy.
The complainers in this post do not seem to understand basic game tactics or how difficult it is to capture an actively defended city without spam.
Especially, when the defended city is owned by a more powerful alliance.
To be honest, I disagree. The problem that I find with many of you guys is that you want to play a "war" game, but then do not want to deal with the issues related to "war tactics". Decoy and spam attacks are part of warfare. No army marches straight ahead to the enemy. They try to confuse the opposing army with fake movements and try to lower the response of the enemy. Alexander The Great used this tactic often to defeat the Persians. March and retreat. Move along the banks of rivers until the enemy gets tired and then cross the river.
I do agree with the previous poster. Do you want to drop the spam attacks then drop the alarm.
to1sky has already stated "spamming" is deployed to prevent instant golding of troops normally slings to break a siege -the gold system on Athens world when it 1st came in of halving build times was far superior to insta buy.
The definition of a spam attack will always be the problem - i have been the victim of spam attacks i have also requested these be retaliated against players whom did it....what constitutes spam...a player sending minimum pop attacks over and over allday no recalling just sending minimum pop over and over....what about players who (usually multi accounts but anyway) set up in ocean 9 or so on the far rim of a world with no one else and then send 100+ attacks with a 30hr TT at a player.....
Removing the alarm does not work due to grc tools & other alarms you just punish mobile players.
How did we play before app - we would dodge units when we went to sleep, stack a single defensive city on an island for all team mates...this worked.
A simple solution would be to give the alarm an additional setting so it can be as it is now or it can be set to only warn of conquest / revolt attacks - thereby a player only receives an alarm if a colony ship is detected - this must be feasible code wise.
Stonehail the offender's cities to rubble.
i'm sitting with 22 incoming spam attacks, the same guy who sent the same attacks a few hours ago. all 10 LS. There is no tactic. it is just to annoy.
We can retaliate, will we do it with spam? if we all send 10 LS attacks AND throw 1k spies and trades into it, we can grind the server to a halt. What purpose does any of this serve?
Fortunately,most alliances stopped doing that a while ago.