DeletedUser54775
Guest
Kal,
1) This is not about winning an argument but about trying to get an understanding of both positions.
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."
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."