Spam Attacking - Let us begin the conversation here

FutbolTango

Banned
Banned
Kal,
1) This is not about winning an argument but about trying to get an understanding of both positions.
Which is why you've insulted me and/or my opinion in every previous reply.


Actual in-game guerrilla warfare is great. Hell, deception strategies (primarily fake revolts) are standard OP procedure for most decent alliance. But spam isn't a representation of this, no matter how you slice it.



Not really. Let's compare them:
Guerrilla warfare: small attacks, not running headlong into enemy strong points so as to preserve troops, aim to win through attrition by winning small victories in each battle.
Spam: tonnes of tiny attacks, running headlong into every enemy position (no matter the strength) with no care as to whether the attacking units survive, basically never win battles (either dodged, or the attacking units die on a poor BP ratio), aim to irritate the player and worsen their game experience.


So your advice is to segregate the community because you like to worsen people's game experience? As I've pointed out before, spam is in no way complex. It requires practically no planning or intelligence, and is mainly used by players who can't play with any degree of complexity.

You started off this debate with an "I am the community" attitude, pushing that the entire spam issue be dropped for everyone because you like using it. When your arguments start to be picked apart, you move to the "you shouldn't force your opinion on me" attitude.
Dear Kal,
1) From my point of view, the purpose of this thread and discussion is the exchange of ideas not the imposition of our agendas over the rest of people. Hopefully this leaves to a closer understanding of the situation and the developers as well. I really regret that you FEEL insulted.

2) Please understand that you are not in our heads. I am aware of my thought patterns and ideas. I am also aware of the objectives and thinking of the people with whom I have worked together to take cities. I can clarify to you and our community that our AIM is not to driver players out or worsen their game experience or irritate them for the sake of irritating them.

I can not speak for others, but I can speak for me or the people with whom I have shared ideas on skype and sometimes with messages.

Our goal is to take cities or gain a tactical long term advantage in the game, which opponents classify as "spam".

We see or get inspiration from guerrilla warfare manuals (i.e. Art of War) when planning the small attacks. They do confuse the enemy or gives us important information or helps us to become aware of the defense movements of the defenders. A wealth of information can be collected among other issues.

3) Increasing choice for the consumer is something desirable for a firm and for the consumers as long as it is meaningful to the consumer. From this thread it seems that this is a meaningful topic to the community. Segregating a market is not a bad idea when you start to see polarized opinions. I am happy with the way it its. Ultimately, the company can explore different options. I know that if we start to get restrictions, I would take my money somewhere else. I like the way the game is now, perhaps not the current endgame. I like more World Wonders.

"In the design of marketing research, specific questions about product mix and pricing depend on the understanding of someone’s concept of choice. The S.T. Lee Professor of Business in the management division at Columbia Business School, Sheena Iyengar, is one of the world’s leading experts on choice, and she argues that cultural factors are essential to understanding both basic marketing principles and specific research findings.

Consumers only consider choice to be valuable when they can meaningfully distinguish between the options being offered. Being permitted, or compelled, to choose among a vast selection of things that seem essentially similar might inhibit choice or even lead to the rejection of the opportunity to choose."
 

Kal Gordon

Strategos
This is not about winning an argument but about trying to get an understanding of both positions.
Again, this seems to be the exact opposite of the vast majority of your replies to me.

From my point of view, the purpose of this thread and discussion is the exchange of ideas not the imposition of our agendas over the rest of people. Hopefully this leaves to a closer understanding of the situation and the developers as well. I really regret that you FEEL insulted.
Your early replies to me started with insulting me as a player and questioning my commitment to the game and the community. You then went on to tell everyone who didn't like spam that they shouldn't be in this game. That's insulting no matter how you slice it.

Please understand that you are not in our heads. I am aware of my thought patterns and ideas. I am also aware of the objectives and thinking of the people with whom I have worked together to take cities. I can clarify to you and our community that our AIM is not to driver players out or worsen their game experience or irritate them for the sake of irritating them.
The reason spam works is because it ruins the game for people. If they have the alarm, people like you keep them up all night to force them to turn it off. (The alarm is basically the only optional aspect of the game that I see players attempt to punish other players for using.) Even if they don't have the alarm, watching continual minimal size attacks hit your cities for days on end is insanely irritating. There are plenty of other ways to take cities without spam, so when people use spam it's generally because of the irritation factor.

I can not speak for others, but I can speak for me or the people with whom I have shared ideas on skype and sometimes with messages.
Given that we've actually both been in the same alliance at one point (en108's Victrix/Ferrata), I decided to ask players in that group to clarify their opinion on spam. I don't think I saw a single pro-spam response, and it's been the general opinion in most alliances that I have been in that spam is a tool resorted to when players or teams lack the skill to take a city without it.

Our goal is to take cities or gain a tactical long term advantage in the game, which opponents classify as "spam".
People classify spam as massed/continuous small attacks or anything else that clogs up the game or player's notifications. Spam is a method, not a goal (except for certain players, who appear to play purely to spam people, of which there are a few).

We see or get inspiration from guerrilla warfare manuals (i.e. Art of War) when planning the small attacks. They do confuse the enemy or gives us important information or helps us to become aware of the defense movements of the defenders. A wealth of information can be collected among other issues.
I'm yet to see how spam actually mirrors guerrilla warfare properly. The only real similarity is the small size of the attacking force (except that spam attacks are even smaller). Guerrilla warfare involves hitting only the weak points, in order to get positive results in as many battles as possible. Spam hits every single point, and usually loses the majority of battles.

3) Increasing choice for the consumer is something desirable for a firm and for the consumers as long as it is meaningful to the consumer. From this thread it seems that this is a meaningful topic to the community. Segregating a market is not a bad idea when you start to see polarized opinions. I am happy with the way it its. Ultimately, the company can explore different options. I know that if we start to get restrictions, I would take my money somewhere else. I like the way the game is now, perhaps not the current endgame. I like more World Wonders.
Certain splits make sense. Conquest and revolt, World Wonders and Domination, Morale and No Morale. In each case, there were large numbers of players on both sides of the debate. Spam appears to be a very different topic: the vast majority of the community who know about it are against it's use, and the arguments in favour of spam are generally weak (they do nothing to counter the fact that spam only works because it lessens the enjoyment of the game for everyone except the spammer, and fail to address why spam has any real strategic element).

Segregating the community can be useful at times, but not necessarily, especially in the case of spam. Who do you think would actively choose to play a "spam-enabled" world? The majority of players would rather play a world without spam, and that only leaves the spammers and people who don't yet know what it is. The people who don't know what it is will learn fairly quickly, and a lot will probably play no-spam worlds in the future. The spammers will have fewer and fewer players to use spam against, meaning a lack of variety in alliances and players, and that servers will likely turn into spam-wars, or spam will actually become minimal as the people choosing to play that world type won't care as much about being spammed themselves.
 

FutbolTango

Banned
Banned
Again, this seems to be the exact opposite of the vast majority of your replies to me.



Your early replies to me started with insulting me as a player and questioning my commitment to the game and the community. You then went on to tell everyone who didn't like spam that they shouldn't be in this game. That's insulting no matter how you slice it.



The reason spam works is because it ruins the game for people. If they have the alarm, people like you keep them up all night to force them to turn it off. (The alarm is basically the only optional aspect of the game that I see players attempt to punish other players for using.) Even if they don't have the alarm, watching continual minimal size attacks hit your cities for days on end is insanely irritating. There are plenty of other ways to take cities without spam, so when people use spam it's generally because of the irritation factor.



Given that we've actually both been in the same alliance at one point (en108's Victrix/Ferrata), I decided to ask players in that group to clarify their opinion on spam. I don't think I saw a single pro-spam response, and it's been the general opinion in most alliances that I have been in that spam is a tool resorted to when players or teams lack the skill to take a city without it.



People classify spam as massed/continuous small attacks or anything else that clogs up the game or player's notifications. Spam is a method, not a goal (except for certain players, who appear to play purely to spam people, of which there are a few).


I'm yet to see how spam actually mirrors guerrilla warfare properly. The only real similarity is the small size of the attacking force (except that spam attacks are even smaller). Guerrilla warfare involves hitting only the weak points, in order to get positive results in as many battles as possible. Spam hits every single point, and usually loses the majority of battles.


Certain splits make sense. Conquest and revolt, World Wonders and Domination, Morale and No Morale. In each case, there were large numbers of players on both sides of the debate. Spam appears to be a very different topic: the vast majority of the community who know about it are against it's use, and the arguments in favour of spam are generally weak (they do nothing to counter the fact that spam only works because it lessens the enjoyment of the game for everyone except the spammer, and fail to address why spam has any real strategic element).

Segregating the community can be useful at times, but not necessarily, especially in the case of spam. Who do you think would actively choose to play a "spam-enabled" world? The majority of players would rather play a world without spam, and that only leaves the spammers and people who don't yet know what it is. The people who don't know what it is will learn fairly quickly, and a lot will probably play no-spam worlds in the future. The spammers will have fewer and fewer players to use spam against, meaning a lack of variety in alliances and players, and that servers will likely turn into spam-wars, or spam will actually become minimal as the people choosing to play that world type won't care as much about being spammed themselves.
You seem to get fixated in previous perceived transgressions. I would suggest that you let it go.

It is okey. With time and more experience you will see the parallels. You are not there yet.
 

Kal Gordon

Strategos
You seem to get fixated in previous perceived transgressions. I would suggest that you let it go.
There are a number of people on the sidelines who share my opinions on your attitude (they just don't wish to get involved in it). I would add that I started replying neutrally, and your reaction was to make it personal, based upon your dislike of me from an old world.

It is okey. With time and more experience you will see the parallels. You are not there yet.
It's very hard to see parallels that don't exist. You've never adequately explained how spam actually mirrors guerrilla warfare, while I have pointed out the other in-game tactics that actually do represent guerrilla warfare.
 

FutbolTango

Banned
Banned
There are a number of people on the sidelines who share my opinions on your attitude (they just don't wish to get involved in it). I would add that I started replying neutrally, and your reaction was to make it personal, based upon your dislike of me from an old world.


It's very hard to see parallels that don't exist. You've never adequately explained how spam actually mirrors guerrilla warfare, while I have pointed out the other in-game tactics that actually do represent guerrilla warfare.
There are also a number of people on the sidelines who share my opinion on your attitude. They just do not wish to get involved in there.

I do not dislike you, Kal. Not at all, you made that victory the most sweetest. We really loved dismantling your mega coalition.

I have given you enough information, but you do not seem to grasp it. You will see it with time.
 

Rachel.L

Phrourach
gentlemen, for the sake of the thread, i ask that you let it go

kal, futbol sort of apologized (the best you'll get) tho then insulted you again
please accept it and also accept that fubol's pov (as i understand) is that if it is legal it should be an option
how that is implemented is/ was the intent of this thread
as a gpc member you have gather many more stories about the impact of this than we can know

futbol, please stop insulting kal
beating a team in which he was a member doesn't make him personally inexperienced, young, or naive
additionally he represents all of us in gpc
if you want any part of your opinion (spam is good) to be taken to IC and inno, i suggest being nicer
spam to drive out a player or clog notifications is unskilled play imo (agree with kal there)
your example of a couple waves from every city, i don't consider spam
part of why we are having this discussion is defining it
i agree with you that if it is legal, you have the right to do it
it is your choice to use the tactic
i said the same thing about cannibalization but inno changed that

players should be able to use all legal choices
however, as spam is defined in the original post, it is not legal
 

FutbolTango

Banned
Banned
Perhaps the issue is socio-cultural because I do not feel that I am insulting him. I apologize to you and him dearly for any hurt feelings that you might have. This is not my aim.

This dilemma in itself is relevant to our discussion of "spamming". It is, as a point in fact, a moral and ethical issue that is usually unresolved among philosophers, this is why I am pushing for the issue. "Spamming" will be hard to define, monitor, detect and enforce.

It will lead to endless fights and burden the moderators and limitations will do more harm than good. Just live with it and learn to counter it.

In addition, we do have to be aware that many people are pushing for it due to "sour grapes experiences". Perhaps my friend Kal is not the case, but I do not know that many people do not like to lose and will accuse of "spamming" any sort of operations that has small attacks.
 

dadofwildthang

Phrourach
Side note I do spam I'll spam 300 small attacks if I know you're sleeping and I do it for strategic reasoning I'll keep you up all night long and then have someone else spam you why I am asleep with no alarm but with my city's tripped I'll keep you up for a week until i troll you into no alarm then I come over and take your city's with a tenth of the troops it would take with you using a alarm idc if you don't like it or that not how you play iv seen you fail world after world do you really think your style of play is good or what
And this is a style of game play you employ and brag about
how pathetic, specifically the part about having .."someone else take-over..."
So now you have a group participating in .. Spamming.. an individual for the purpose of getting a city at a reduced causality costs.
and your criteria for employing this tactic would be????
There has been all this BS about legitimate rules of warfare... THIS IS NOT WAR.. its a frigging war game....There is a difference tween the 2
how you conduct yourself in this game is a indicator of you.. cuz no one-else is watching nor can they call you on your stuff face to face..
your justifications are without merit or basis.. they are just sad
 

Drubzie

Phrourach
I think the definition of spam is a hard point to nail down for sure but it's really not that complex. There are certainly players who cry "spam" in circumstances where they have just been out smarted because they are bad losers but in general the proliferation of spam attacks as a valid offense strategy has had an overall negative influence on the game.

In my opinion it is often (but not exclusively) perpetrated by the type of person who also feels that trolling is acceptable and to me it seems to be a similar behavioral activity.

Sending fake attacks to distraction targets in order to create an opportunity to conquer your primary target is not spam (even though i have often seen players who have lost a city this way claim it to be) and i would hope most if not all would agree with this. However i do believe that many players are now sending multiple fake attacks for long periods of time without even trying to take the city. Now i would assume the strategy here is to achieve one or all of the following:
1. Force a player to switch of their alarm
2. Force a player to quit
3. Force a player to go inactive
4. P*ss of someone you have taken a dislike to

In my opinion when placed in the setting of an online computer game that should be played for fun, these can only be viewed as underhand tactics employed by players without the ability, finances or the patience/dedication to out think a superior opponent. When people start quoting "Art of War" or believing that they are entitled to spoil the experience of others for their own gain maybe they are the ones that need to take a look at themselves because it isn't "life or death", it isn't even real life. So to get to the point where you are that desperate to win a computer game maybe they should have a little breather and take stock of themselves out in the real world for a bit.

Those who have played for a longer period of time know that the ability to ruin another players experience has always been there but it never used to be abused. Cites were still won and lost as were wars and crowns, big players were beaten by small players and vice versa. I believe if a player wants to be a slave to his attack alarm, super active and spend a fortune on gold then they have earned the right to top the charts.

Just saying "i will do it as long as i can get away with it" is a pretty bad philosophy for life. There are lots of things you can get away with in life like stealing, murder, polluting the environment or adultery; however if you can look at these things and say they are bad things to do even though you can, surely that sort of philosophy can be scaled down to maintain a good online game that has been keeping many people happy for the best part of 10 years?
 

FutbolTango

Banned
Banned
I think the definition of spam is a hard point to nail down for sure but it's really not that complex. There are certainly players who cry "spam" in circumstances where they have just been out smarted because they are bad losers but in general the proliferation of spam attacks as a valid offense strategy has had an overall negative influence on the game.

In my opinion it is often (but not exclusively) perpetrated by the type of person who also feels that trolling is acceptable and to me it seems to be a similar behavioral activity.

Sending fake attacks to distraction targets in order to create an opportunity to conquer your primary target is not spam (even though i have often seen players who have lost a city this way claim it to be) and i would hope most if not all would agree with this. However i do believe that many players are now sending multiple fake attacks for long periods of time without even trying to take the city. Now i would assume the strategy here is to achieve one or all of the following:
1. Force a player to switch of their alarm
2. Force a player to quit
3. Force a player to go inactive
4. P*ss of someone you have taken a dislike to

In my opinion when placed in the setting of an online computer game that should be played for fun, these can only be viewed as underhand tactics employed by players without the ability, finances or the patience/dedication to out think a superior opponent. When people start quoting "Art of War" or believing that they are entitled to spoil the experience of others for their own gain maybe they are the ones that need to take a look at themselves because it isn't "life or death", it isn't even real life. So to get to the point where you are that desperate to win a computer game maybe they should have a little breather and take stock of themselves out in the real world for a bit.

Those who have played for a longer period of time know that the ability to ruin another players experience has always been there but it never used to be abused. Cites were still won and lost as were wars and crowns, big players were beaten by small players and vice versa. I believe if a player wants to be a slave to his attack alarm, super active and spend a fortune on gold then they have earned the right to top the charts.

Just saying "i will do it as long as i can get away with it" is a pretty bad philosophy for life. There are lots of things you can get away with in life like stealing, murder, polluting the environment or adultery; however if you can look at these things and say they are bad things to do even though you can, surely that sort of philosophy can be scaled down to maintain a good online game that has been keeping many people happy for the best part of 10 years?
Drubzie,
Your comments are appreciated and your politeness too.
I would like to point out that once again you are relying on moral relativism.
For example, lets examine adultery. Perhaps, the woman in the marriage is in a loveless and abusive relationship. Perhaps the new lover treats her really well and she can not escape or get the divorce due to a variety of constraints. Will adultery be ethical incorrect?

We can make very similar moral counter arguments about stealing.

Is it really wrong to steal when you are hungry or you are in social/political system that exploits you and forces you to live in sub human conditions?

Is it really wrong to murder someone for self defence or when he/she has committed a crime?

Polluting the environment has the same moral dilemmas. We can argue that polluting the environment is necessary when save your self of starvation or when ensuring survival (i.e. sending an atomic bomb).

The point is that we can not agree ethically or morally on the topics that you listed as an example.

I am trying to point out that most of you ASSUME, wrongly, that the main objectives behind the "spammers" is to drive people out of the game or to annoy or any other dubious ethical motive. This is not the case, at least for me or other people that I know. It is to get a TANGIBLE tactical advantage (whether is information, time, movement, confusion, among many more.).

The "spamming" is a logical consequence of asymmetrical forces which have been created by differences in gold use or the bunching of mega coalitions and alliances. People do not join the game to start spamming. People join the game to compete and when they see overwhelming odds then they have little choice.

Going back to your arguments, people are not getting married to cheat or wake up thinking about stealing or murdering people. It is when they are put on positions that let give them little choice is that they engage in this behaviour.

The fun of the game is to compete. The Art of War can be used for any competition. This is the "fun".
 

OldDragon

Phrourach
As I commented earlier... spam (defined here as numerous fake attacks over a day or more to counter the effectiveness of the attack alarm) is a legal tactic that has a valid tactical purpose. I gave a few examples of other spam-like tactics with valid purposes. Other posters gave much better examples. But let's just focus on the purest form of spam.

But first...
Kal - you have given your time in service to this game and its players. I appreciate your contributions. I have no grudge or personal animus towards you. I simply and respectfully disagree with you about spam. I tend to agree more with Fubol in this regard, but his argument style makes me wince.

My team plays to win. The "fun" for us is the collective team effort we make to win. Grepolis is mostly a zero-sum game, which means someone else has to lose for us to win. It isn't easy or pretty. For example, if you can drive a player into quitting a world, then you can grab some of his ghosts very quickly and cheaply. This is how a war game works. The Art of War is worth a read, if you decide to play war games. If Sun Tsu was playing Grepolis, he would most likely use spam.

When we first started playing, there was no attack alarm. So we carefully researched our enemy players to predict when our large targets were offline so our attacks would be more successful and less costly. There was no need to spam back then.

Once the alarm was widely adopted, our nightly attacks generally failed with unacceptably high losses. Spam became necessary to give our small team a chance to take large cities from bigger alliances. We did not send 300 fake attacks - just a fake attack to every nearby enemy city every hour or so from over several nights. Enough to make the enemy players generally ignore the attack alarm. That is still spam, isn't it? But it isn't illegal or evil or unethical or unfair or immoral. It's just a tactic.

Our enemies spammed us too. If we eventually prevailed, it was because we were more dedicated and had a stronger team effort. I lost a lot of sleep over many months... but I never complained about spam. Because I understood the tactic. Now I see that you want to dumb down the game to make it more pleasant. Really? There are much bigger problems with this game.

Players don't quit because of spam. The player base has shrunk because the game is stale and Inno has overly monetized competitive gameplay to the point that Grepolis has become Pay-to-Win. The rampant cheating is also very disheartening. Trying to Fix Spam will just damage gameplay further.
 

Drubzie

Phrourach
It was a good post although I think it is easy and reasoned to see spam as unethical and unfair; certainly as bringing the game down to the lowest common denominator? I would be inclined to agree that in matters or life or death, survival or subjugation then it is easier to justify “crossing the line” to things that are morally or socially unacceptable. I guess where we differ is our belief of whether Grepolis (or any game) is win at all costs or not.

The art of war was written almost 2500 years ago as a masterpiece study of military strategy when people’s lives (or way of living) was on the line. While the theories can certainly be applied to all walks of life to encourage success it should also be tempered against moral right or wrongs based on what is at actually at stake.

My view? If your life is at risk then there is justification to do whatever needs to be done. As the severity of the worst possible outcome reduces then honour, respect for others and also respect for yourself should encourage you to move away from less ethical, unfair practices. For me that is the true sign of civilisation and human decency.

However some very good responses above have made me see that not everyone spamming is just being horrible. The lines that you can and can’t cross are just in different places for different people I suppose.
 

OldDragon

Phrourach
Drubzie - your posts are high quality, well written and well thought.

Like all war games, Grepolis is an abstraction of warfare. The true horror of war is absent.
No blood, no death... just virtual conquest.
When Grepolis was still a game of skill, players could personally experience conquest and warfare without the real life consequences. Of course, there was still emotional cost and anguish at losing, but no real harm.

A group of players would band together and experience the collective experience of conflict. Learn tactics and strategy first hand. See the value of teamwork, discipline, organization, and planning. Watch human nature unfold. See examples of sacrifice, treachery, and honor. Discover diplomacy and deal making. At its best, Grepolis was a marvelous learning experience.

As for winning at all costs... I generally admire players with the determination and drive to win, but I also believe in personal honor. We all have personal lines that should not be crossed. For me, betraying your alliance by sabotaging a wonder was the worse act of dishonor. Infinitely worse that spam. Still, sabotage is a legal and valid tactic, so I would never call for a Fix or to make it a Bannable Offense. It's part of the game and human nature. Better to learn how to deal with it in game before you must deal with it in real life.

Do you think a player likes to be rimmed? I don't enjoy doing that either but it is often necessary.

Do you think a player enjoys being blacklisted and hunted by thugs who use the game as a vehicle to play out their sick control fantasies?

The practice of "Move or Die" is also brutal, but how else do you secure a local ocean?

The entire area of intellegence gathering is murky at best - just like in real life. It requires a special degree of moral ambivalence to spy and deceive. I won't do it myself ... but I will use the information for my team.

So you see... the morality of spam is trivial compared to other parts of the game.
 
As I commented earlier... spam (defined here as numerous fake attacks over a day or more to counter the effectiveness of the attack alarm) is a legal tactic that has a valid tactical purpose. I gave a few examples of other spam-like tactics with valid purposes. Other posters gave much better examples. But let's just focus on the purest form of spam.

But first...
Kal - you have given your time in service to this game and its players. I appreciate your contributions. I have no grudge or personal animus towards you. I simply and respectfully disagree with you about spam. I tend to agree more with Fubol in this regard, but his argument style makes me wince.

My team plays to win. The "fun" for us is the collective team effort we make to win. Grepolis is mostly a zero-sum game, which means someone else has to lose for us to win. It isn't easy or pretty. For example, if you can drive a player into quitting a world, then you can grab some of his ghosts very quickly and cheaply. This is how a war game works. The Art of War is worth a read, if you decide to play war games. If Sun Tsu was playing Grepolis, he would most likely use spam.

When we first started playing, there was no attack alarm. So we carefully researched our enemy players to predict when our large targets were offline so our attacks would be more successful and less costly. There was no need to spam back then.

Once the alarm was widely adopted, our nightly attacks generally failed with unacceptably high losses. Spam became necessary to give our small team a chance to take large cities from bigger alliances. We did not send 300 fake attacks - just a fake attack to every nearby enemy city every hour or so from over several nights. Enough to make the enemy players generally ignore the attack alarm. That is still spam, isn't it? But it isn't illegal or evil or unethical or unfair or immoral. It's just a tactic.

Our enemies spammed us too. If we eventually prevailed, it was because we were more dedicated and had a stronger team effort. I lost a lot of sleep over many months... but I never complained about spam. Because I understood the tactic. Now I see that you want to dumb down the game to make it more pleasant. Really? There are much bigger problems with this game.

Players don't quit because of spam. The player base has shrunk because the game is stale and Inno has overly monetized competitive gameplay to the point that Grepolis has become Pay-to-Win. The rampant cheating is also very disheartening. Trying to Fix Spam will just damage gameplay further.
Ok so you are saying that If my team and I would start spamming some of your newer or even more experienced players relentlessly 24/7 that they wouldn't say "this game sucks, I can find a game that doesn't keep me up at night nor does it annoy me when Im online ,because imagine it or not that spamming someone online can be more effective then when they are offline.
 
Drubzie - your posts are high quality, well written and well thought.

Like all war games, Grepolis is an abstraction of warfare. The true horror of war is absent.
No blood, no death... just virtual conquest.
When Grepolis was still a game of skill, players could personally experience conquest and warfare without the real life consequences. Of course, there was still emotional cost and anguish at losing, but no real harm.

A group of players would band together and experience the collective experience of conflict. Learn tactics and strategy first hand. See the value of teamwork, discipline, organization, and planning. Watch human nature unfold. See examples of sacrifice, treachery, and honor. Discover diplomacy and deal making. At its best, Grepolis was a marvelous learning experience.

As for winning at all costs... I generally admire players with the determination and drive to win, but I also believe in personal honor. We all have personal lines that should not be crossed. For me, betraying your alliance by sabotaging a wonder was the worse act of dishonor. Infinitely worse that spam. Still, sabotage is a legal and valid tactic, so I would never call for a Fix or to make it a Bannable Offense. It's part of the game and human nature. Better to learn how to deal with it in game before you must deal with it in real life.

Do you think a player likes to be rimmed? I don't enjoy doing that either but it is often necessary.

Do you think a player enjoys being blacklisted and hunted by thugs who use the game as a vehicle to play out their sick control fantasies?

The practice of "Move or Die" is also brutal, but how else do you secure a local ocean?

The entire area of intellegence gathering is murky at best - just like in real life. It requires a special degree of moral ambivalence to spy and deceive. I won't do it myself ... but I will use the information for my team.

So you see... the morality of spam is trivial compared to other parts of the game.
You people take this GAME too far lol

This game was all about conquering cities but now people go and make this some kind of war simulator which is hilarious.

Whit attitude like that no wonder there arent many new players around....even a lot of old players left.
This community is toxic and unfriendly to new players and new players dont even want to stick around anyway.

and to top it off inno is only interested in squeezing as much money they can out of the current players.
 
Last edited:

FutbolTango

Banned
Banned
It was a good post although I think it is easy and reasoned to see spam as unethical and unfair; certainly as bringing the game down to the lowest common denominator? I would be inclined to agree that in matters or life or death, survival or subjugation then it is easier to justify “crossing the line” to things that are morally or socially unacceptable. I guess where we differ is our belief of whether Grepolis (or any game) is win at all costs or not.

The art of war was written almost 2500 years ago as a masterpiece study of military strategy when people’s lives (or way of living) was on the line. While the theories can certainly be applied to all walks of life to encourage success it should also be tempered against moral right or wrongs based on what is at actually at stake.

My view? If your life is at risk then there is justification to do whatever needs to be done. As the severity of the worst possible outcome reduces then honour, respect for others and also respect for yourself should encourage you to move away from less ethical, unfair practices. For me that is the true sign of civilisation and human decency.

However some very good responses above have made me see that not everyone spamming is just being horrible. The lines that you can and can’t cross are just in different places for different people I suppose.
Thank you for your insight. It is respected, but I do not share it.
I come to the game to explore different strategies and personas.
It is a constant experimentation on how to outplay my opponents in the economic, military and psychological aspects.

Since this is a war game, most of the time I do WHATEVER (within the rules) it takes for my cities and alliance to survive or outplay our enemies. It is about been creative, problem solver, team player, and a contributor of ideas to my alliance and the community.

Spionage, deception, betrayal, propaganda, spam, seduction ... you name ... it is a fair tactic in this game.
Our countries and civilizations are built on these whether you like it or not.

Yes, I might come across as brutal, but you can count on me to do whatever it takes to get the job done to help the alliance or group that I belong. If the alliance fails to do their end of the bargain, then I move to a group where we can have a mutually beneficial relationship.

"Men have imagined republics and principalities that never really existed at all. Yet the way men live is so far removed from the way they ought to live that anyone who abandons what is for what should be pursues his downfall rather than his preservation; for a man who strives after goodness in all his acts is sure to come to ruin, since there are so many men who are not good."

I think that I do not have to explain who wrote the sentence above.

By the way, this is not the way I am in real life. Here I am pragmatic and realist.

Sending small attacks is fair game if it gives you a tactical edge over your opponent.
I do not come to the game to be Mr. Nice or Mr. Decent.

Ps. It really kills me that people in this game are all negative about spionage. What do you think that our countries do to give us peace?
 
Last edited:

FutbolTango

Banned
Banned
I am sorry about the double posting. I realize that a new world will be opening. This world likely will not have "spanning". I likely will join there just to check it out. I encourage Kal, Ruthie, and all other ones who do no like spanning to go there.
Well done developers. Way to go!