Shuri2060
Strategos
Edit: Idea pushed https://en.forum.grepolis.com/index.php?forums/ideas.8/
--------------------------------------------------------
What follows is a giant wall of text I didn't intend on making, but this is what happens when I seriously consider topics like this... (a reason I haven't participated in the spam debate up until now). Points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are the main things I want to bring out. I would appreciate it if this thread was shared to get more views and attention on the topic.
--------------------------------------------------------
Up until now, I have never heard of any restrictions on the number of attacks you can send/cancel. The only cases I've heard of players getting banned for spam were when they were using a script to spam and/or creating an alternate account to spam from (usually 12 hr atks from the rim). I even recall from en113 Support's stance on spam - it is part of the game as psychological warfare. EDIT: In fact --- https://support.innogames.com/kb/Gr...cks-notifications-even-at-night-What-can-I-do
I've always understood that it was generally agreed that although frowned upon, 'spamming' is a legitimate tactic in the game. That said - most players usually realise the Prisoner's Dillema scenario when it comes to spam. If you spam someone, they're likely to spam you back harder (possibly along with their entire alliance). At that point, you've either lost the spam war, or it escalates beyond the point of no return --- weeks of thousands of attacks until one side runs out of steam and multiple players VM/quit/ghost. Most people understand the consequences behind initiating a spam war, and so don't do it (in some cases players/alliances make explicit agreements with each other on the limitation of attacks).
That said - I've never known it to be an enforced rule on the en server. However, today I received a spam warning titled 'Fair Play Violation: First Warning' from Support. It also happens to be the first day I played seriously in the last few months (due to personal reasons), but even so, I've still followed updates, etc, and have never seen an announcement or similar regarding a change on these rules. Nor do I see any change in the official rules themselves.
So I find myself completely puzzled and slightly outraged at this. I'll even claim that what I was doing wouldn't be classified as spam by many (top) players who understand the game, but that is my personal opinion on my particular case and is independent from the points I would like to make in this post.
--------------------------------------------------------
What I ask from Inno Support/the moderators:
1. If you are going to introduce a change in rules, please make a public announcement on it, just like the updates for the game. On a topic as significant as this, I find it all the more important to do so - everyone should have received a message in game.
2. Before that, I would even say that it would've probably been for the best to announce a change such as this 1 week or so in advance in the forums to receive player feedback on the topic. (I do understand there have been lengthy threads on this topic in the past, however, and that these discussions tend to eventually derail into off-topic personal arguments which may be why this was avoided.)
3. When such rules are created, it should be explicitly said what is and isn't allowed. In my message I was told:
'I am writing to warn you that the level of minimum attacks and attack/cancel as seen on your account is unacceptable. Please moderate your behaviour or you will risk a ban.'
I find this level of ambiguity to be unacceptable - what exactly constitutes unacceptable in this case when there aren't even any guidelines or such in the rules???
Most can agree 10000000000 attacks a day is unacceptable, and 1 a day is perfectly acceptable, but where is the boundary!? In all discussions of spam I've seen so far, this has been one of the key points of debate. Everyone has their opinion on what is/isn't acceptable so it is no good just telling us to moderate our unacceptable behaviour when we don't know what is/what isn't!
You can accuse me of playing the Devil's Advocate here and tell me: 'Isn't it obvious what is/isn't spam? Just don't send 100 attacks a day, how hard is it to get??? Don't do it.'
Actually no - I argue that it is crucial we make it absolutely clear what constitutes as unacceptable spam. By receiving such a warning, I now have no idea when my attacks will break the threshold of acceptable/unacceptable. Now I cannot play without worrying about breaking the rules every time I want to attack a player more than just a few times. What if they report me and I get banned immediately? That forces me to limit my attacks to what obviously is acceptable and cripple my gameplay OR just risk getting banned when the next player I attack considers it to be spam.
I repeat: We need a clear definition of unacceptable or else it will cause confusion amongst players (and possibly mods) with regards to the rules. The game has no physical limitation on the number of attacks you can send/cancel and we have not been told such either. It is unfair on US for you to impose a rule ambiguously like this. This rule regards game mechanics themselves, unlike rules on player harassment, etc, and should NOT be subjective. Clear guidelines will assist BOTH the players and the mods in following/enforcing the rules of the game.
4. And so, if such a rule really is to be implemented, we need it to be quantified (even rough guidelines would help). The community will likely be divided on this matter - but in the end, some numbers MUST be chosen or we get nowhere (like the vague, uncertain situation we are in now).
Suppose a limitation of no more than 100 attacks a day per enemy player was set (for the sake of example). It is very likely a portion of the playerbase would be upset and disagree with this. HOWEVER, I argue having a quantified limitation is better than the position we are currently in. These would be ACTUAL numbers we can abide by, eliminating any uncertainty with regards to following the rules - in the end rules are rules created by the game developers/moderators, and once they are set, we follow them or get banned from the game. Yes, those rules can be changed (eg. if they turn out to be unpopular), but unless they change, they should be followed. This also will prevent Support from being flooded with spam reports on cases that quite obviously aren't spam (just hopeful players trying to eliminate enemies underhandedly).
5. I also argue that any spam restrictions should probably be hard coded into the game, like Shared Internet restrictions. In that way, players aren't even able to break the rules if they wanted to - the game itself enforces them and the issue goes away completely. It will likely change the way Grepolis is played quite a bit, but I believe such a change is healthier for the game when you look at it in the long run. There will be initial discontent among the playerbase, but players will gradually get used to it, leading to acceptance, and the issue of spam will no longer exist.
--------------------------------------------------------
What follows is a giant wall of text I didn't intend on making, but this is what happens when I seriously consider topics like this... (a reason I haven't participated in the spam debate up until now). Points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are the main things I want to bring out. I would appreciate it if this thread was shared to get more views and attention on the topic.
--------------------------------------------------------
Up until now, I have never heard of any restrictions on the number of attacks you can send/cancel. The only cases I've heard of players getting banned for spam were when they were using a script to spam and/or creating an alternate account to spam from (usually 12 hr atks from the rim). I even recall from en113 Support's stance on spam - it is part of the game as psychological warfare. EDIT: In fact --- https://support.innogames.com/kb/Gr...cks-notifications-even-at-night-What-can-I-do
I've always understood that it was generally agreed that although frowned upon, 'spamming' is a legitimate tactic in the game. That said - most players usually realise the Prisoner's Dillema scenario when it comes to spam. If you spam someone, they're likely to spam you back harder (possibly along with their entire alliance). At that point, you've either lost the spam war, or it escalates beyond the point of no return --- weeks of thousands of attacks until one side runs out of steam and multiple players VM/quit/ghost. Most people understand the consequences behind initiating a spam war, and so don't do it (in some cases players/alliances make explicit agreements with each other on the limitation of attacks).
That said - I've never known it to be an enforced rule on the en server. However, today I received a spam warning titled 'Fair Play Violation: First Warning' from Support. It also happens to be the first day I played seriously in the last few months (due to personal reasons), but even so, I've still followed updates, etc, and have never seen an announcement or similar regarding a change on these rules. Nor do I see any change in the official rules themselves.
So I find myself completely puzzled and slightly outraged at this. I'll even claim that what I was doing wouldn't be classified as spam by many (top) players who understand the game, but that is my personal opinion on my particular case and is independent from the points I would like to make in this post.
--------------------------------------------------------
What I ask from Inno Support/the moderators:
1. If you are going to introduce a change in rules, please make a public announcement on it, just like the updates for the game. On a topic as significant as this, I find it all the more important to do so - everyone should have received a message in game.
2. Before that, I would even say that it would've probably been for the best to announce a change such as this 1 week or so in advance in the forums to receive player feedback on the topic. (I do understand there have been lengthy threads on this topic in the past, however, and that these discussions tend to eventually derail into off-topic personal arguments which may be why this was avoided.)
3. When such rules are created, it should be explicitly said what is and isn't allowed. In my message I was told:
'I am writing to warn you that the level of minimum attacks and attack/cancel as seen on your account is unacceptable. Please moderate your behaviour or you will risk a ban.'
I find this level of ambiguity to be unacceptable - what exactly constitutes unacceptable in this case when there aren't even any guidelines or such in the rules???
Most can agree 10000000000 attacks a day is unacceptable, and 1 a day is perfectly acceptable, but where is the boundary!? In all discussions of spam I've seen so far, this has been one of the key points of debate. Everyone has their opinion on what is/isn't acceptable so it is no good just telling us to moderate our unacceptable behaviour when we don't know what is/what isn't!
You can accuse me of playing the Devil's Advocate here and tell me: 'Isn't it obvious what is/isn't spam? Just don't send 100 attacks a day, how hard is it to get??? Don't do it.'
Actually no - I argue that it is crucial we make it absolutely clear what constitutes as unacceptable spam. By receiving such a warning, I now have no idea when my attacks will break the threshold of acceptable/unacceptable. Now I cannot play without worrying about breaking the rules every time I want to attack a player more than just a few times. What if they report me and I get banned immediately? That forces me to limit my attacks to what obviously is acceptable and cripple my gameplay OR just risk getting banned when the next player I attack considers it to be spam.
I repeat: We need a clear definition of unacceptable or else it will cause confusion amongst players (and possibly mods) with regards to the rules. The game has no physical limitation on the number of attacks you can send/cancel and we have not been told such either. It is unfair on US for you to impose a rule ambiguously like this. This rule regards game mechanics themselves, unlike rules on player harassment, etc, and should NOT be subjective. Clear guidelines will assist BOTH the players and the mods in following/enforcing the rules of the game.
4. And so, if such a rule really is to be implemented, we need it to be quantified (even rough guidelines would help). The community will likely be divided on this matter - but in the end, some numbers MUST be chosen or we get nowhere (like the vague, uncertain situation we are in now).
Suppose a limitation of no more than 100 attacks a day per enemy player was set (for the sake of example). It is very likely a portion of the playerbase would be upset and disagree with this. HOWEVER, I argue having a quantified limitation is better than the position we are currently in. These would be ACTUAL numbers we can abide by, eliminating any uncertainty with regards to following the rules - in the end rules are rules created by the game developers/moderators, and once they are set, we follow them or get banned from the game. Yes, those rules can be changed (eg. if they turn out to be unpopular), but unless they change, they should be followed. This also will prevent Support from being flooded with spam reports on cases that quite obviously aren't spam (just hopeful players trying to eliminate enemies underhandedly).
5. I also argue that any spam restrictions should probably be hard coded into the game, like Shared Internet restrictions. In that way, players aren't even able to break the rules if they wanted to - the game itself enforces them and the issue goes away completely. It will likely change the way Grepolis is played quite a bit, but I believe such a change is healthier for the game when you look at it in the long run. There will be initial discontent among the playerbase, but players will gradually get used to it, leading to acceptance, and the issue of spam will no longer exist.
Last edited: