PDA

View Full Version : The ethics of attacks



Speed ump
11-25-2012, 02:47 PM
I am reading a few posts here, and have others asking me questions about this subject. I will list how I feel on this subject, and also comment on what I perceive grees position to be.

This is a war game. I can honestly say I joined to war, expecting this was what the game involved from its name, and having no idea until I began to play. I don't think any player needs any reason at all to attack another player, or may list any reason he or she wishes for attacking, regardless as to wether that reason is founded or not. It's not a question of ethics in any form. If you are unhappy about being attacked, I suggest you either get strong enough to prevent it, find some way to ally the attacker, or quit playing the game, if the fundamental element of the game is going to be an issue for you. I've heard players call attacks harassment. They are wrong, it's the reason the game exists at all. Vulgar, or obscene language, personal threats, etc, are harassment. Smack talk is not, and it's a part of the game I really enjoy. I love the ones who get cutie with their smack, as opposed to recycling the same ole. Ethics come into play of you cheat in some fashion. I know many will want to argue my point of view is wrong, explain how they decide when to attack or not. Keep in mind that if you hold yourself to a different standard, that is your personal choice. I will not try to prevent this. But also do not mistake your way as being the right, or ethical way to play. Most everyone in the game is attacking. I'm sure the attacker isn't happy about it. If the nature of the game is an issue, find another. You should not ask others to old the same standards or rules that you decide should be in place. They are within the rules and boundaries of the game. You have all been here long enough by now to know what the rules are. I don't define them, neither do you. I have tried to help others,ayers in the past who I am friendly with when they have been attacked by another player, and the pirates will do their best to protect their own. It does not make it wrong in any way for another p,Ayer to attack a pirate, in fact it would be quite boring if no one did. It's what we enjoy, and why we play the game. I have many characters I play in this game. Some are Rey powerful, some are weaklings, who get pounded for all manner of reason. Some of my games have big loud mouths that get them in trouble. I will never complain about another player attacking any of my games, unless he is using some form of cheating to gain an advantage.

Many players have contacted gree on the past for being attacked, and they tried to claim being harassed, or because they were being attacked for a certain reason. Keep in mind this player need no reason to attack you. Grees position from responses others have received in the past is that the player is not violating any rules. Some players may feel this violates their own personal code of ethics, but again, you can't hold all players to your standards. And I for one would not ask you to change yours, I may only make you aware of mine. I'm not going to say that you are wrong for yours, and I do not expect others to say I am wrong for mine, though I know they will. Gree says his is a war game, and as long as all parties are within the boundaries of the rules of the game, there is no issue. If someone steps over the line with their language, or makes real world threats to you, please report them and gree will deal with the issue.

Bronson
11-25-2012, 03:00 PM
I agree with you, the word "war" is in the title for a reason, if you don't want to get attacked then don't play!

helli0n
11-25-2012, 03:03 PM
I agree, most of the time i get people complaining on my wall i attacked them because we have the same flag. Dont think that really matters to me lol

Speed ump
11-25-2012, 03:05 PM
One of my best ally's in the game originally had an issue because I attacked and I was same flag. The player now thinks that was silly

Ranger4Life
11-25-2012, 03:20 PM
I really think the only exception to this would be when someone is being attacked 24/7 by someone significantly stronger than them for NO reason. If they can't ally with them or out spend them, then they have no choice but quit the game.

I've never been in this situation in MW, but I still feel that this would be unnecessary. However, if someone does something to provoke that kind of attention, then all bets are off!

That being said this is a war game and ATTACKS ARE THE MAIN OBJECTIVE IN THE GAME!

Ramshutu
11-25-2012, 03:47 PM
War and attacking is almost mandatory in this game. While it seems that line breaks are optional or at least discouraged I agree there's a line.

To me the metaphysical line is when a person attacks another solely for the purpose of hurting, or upsetting the other over a prolonged period of time AND the opponent has no realistic chance of retaliation.

This is why some of the gang war, etc can be a bit stupid. Attacking someone a bunch of times for saying something I'll advised is one thing, a sustained attack on them over a period of weeks and months, without any realistic opportunity for repercussions just makes you a douchebag.

Speed ump
11-25-2012, 03:56 PM
Look to cc about gangs. It's a part of the game over there

Ryans67
11-25-2012, 04:16 PM
I used to refrain from hitting really weak players multiple times, just because I don't want them getting discouraged and quitting. Often, I would leave a bit of advice to strengthen themselves. Now that I'm in whale territory, I don't bother leaving advice, because viable targets take forever to find.

Also, if you have an inappropriate name, I surely visit their base and unload all 20 hits, just for being a ......

Speed ump
11-25-2012, 04:21 PM
It seems strange that you can give yourself a name that if you post it will get you banned for language

PIRATE JUSTICE
11-25-2012, 05:05 PM
If you get attacked 24/7, too bad, so sad; don't care.

This is a war game, fight or get demolished.

Besides, its all make believe anyway.

If you choose to field a fake army, expect it to be attacked.

If any of this bothers you, you have options.

But, as long as you play the game, you are subject to being attacked.

And, being allied is a two way street.

No one has to be your friend, so get used to rejection, or buy Gree supplied VIP.

This game doesn't have a NO ATTACK ZONE.

Until it does, and you aren't my ally, expect to be attacked.

I expect it, and get it all the time.

I then retaliate.

Modern War, people, not Modern Friend, Modern Farm, Modern Leave Me Alone; just Modern War!!!!

Kudu22
11-25-2012, 05:14 PM
I always attack. Rarely do I go after someone over and over. I pick people that attacked me and left a good tip. One guy continued to attack me for months and lost every time and I have stayed on him like white on rice. I pick up millions and he continues to post on my wall and attempts to raid me. Fine with me. I choose my fights wisely but if I get throttled and have 187 million on hand good for them having a better army to do it. No tears.... No complaints. I will build up and find a way to get it back.

dledour
11-25-2012, 05:40 PM
Hmmmm. what level are you?
I need 187 million for an upgrade, and I can't be bothered with buildings
maybe I could camp on your base?

Kudu22
11-25-2012, 05:50 PM
Come on by brother. Level 53 and have 34 mil on hand. I am in the giving mood.

Ranger4Life
11-25-2012, 06:49 PM
If you get attacked 24/7, too bad, so sad; don't care.

This is a war game, fight or get demolished.

Besides, its all make believe anyway.

If you choose to field a fake army, expect it to be attacked.

If any of this bothers you, you have options.

But, as long as you play the game, you are subject to being attacked.

And, being allied is a two way street.

No one has to be your friend, so get used to rejection, or buy Gree supplied VIP.

This game doesn't have a NO ATTACK ZONE.

Until it does, and you aren't my ally, expect to be attacked.

I expect it, and get it all the time.

I then retaliate.

Modern War, people, not Modern Friend, Modern Farm, Modern Leave Me Alone; just Modern War!!!!

Most would agree with what you're saying (especially the last sentence), but why would you want to attack someone 24/7 without a reason?

I think everyone's goal should be to have as many active members of this game as possible. This ensures that we all have plenty of competition; therefore, fuel to keep us interested in the game.

That being said the ones that whine and post vulgarities after getting hit, are not the kind of competition that I am looking for.

Sugarymama
11-25-2012, 07:17 PM
Speed, you know how I feel about the issue. War is war, but targeting someone for very personal reasons and rallying others to follow suit (e.g., they have a different opinion than your own; standing up for yourself after being openly threatened) is not trying to beat a worthy opponent who will be challenging because they have similar stats, or if they have a load of cash that you want to pilfer. To be attacked because you feel differently, well damn, that just sounds like bullying to an extent.

I've attacked and been attacked; won and lost battles alike. But there is a difference between being attacked and being specifically targeted, and repeatedly. We all know this. No matter how strong or weak someone is, nobody wants to feel as if they are being maliciously being sought out. Especially for petty reasons. This is Modern War, not Modern Sandbox.

Thevinegru
11-25-2012, 07:25 PM
If you found a camper who had around 2,000 wins and 19 losses, would you attack him just to wreck his record?

PIRATE JUSTICE
11-25-2012, 07:36 PM
If you found a camper who had around 2,000 wins and 19 losses, would you attack him just to wreck his record?

Who looks at someone's record?

Heck, i don't even look at their stats.

Sugarymama
11-25-2012, 07:40 PM
If you found a camper who had around 2,000 wins and 19 losses, would you attack him just to wreck his record?

To be honest, I can't always tell if the person is a camper. What I try to find is someone with similar stats to mine, or even a little stronger that I may have a chance to beat, because I have a better chance of getting higher BP, more valor, cash, etc. It's not really profitable to attack someone too much weaker, because you don't get anything, and you risk losing good units in the process..

Thevinegru
11-25-2012, 07:42 PM
Who looks at someone's record?

Heck, i don't even look at their stats.

For the last 11 months, all I've done is collect money and upgrade buildings while watching people attack me and lose. So this weekend I decided to actually play to get the event unit. I was shocked and annoyed when I attacked someone and lost. I looked at his stats and he was pretty powerful so I spent my accumulated 150 million to upgrade my army and now I'm attacking him over and over. Is this ethical? lol

Mcdoc
11-25-2012, 08:18 PM
If people can't handle the stress of War - there is always the Hello Kitty Kitchen when they can bake fake brownies and feel safe :).

There REALLY is a Hello Kitty Kitchen - it keeps showing up in my TapJoy :)

@Sugarmama - sometimes people throw rocks at a Hornets nest and try to run away from being stung - but it's always been my experience that Hornets can fly faster than I can run so I avoid any kind of nest that emits a humming sound.

Sugarymama
11-25-2012, 08:25 PM
Hey Mcdoc...you're absolutely right. It is impossible to outrun a hornet. But what if you never threw a rock, and the hornet came at you anyway? What if the hornet is just mean? Do you still run, or at least take a swat at it?

Hello Kitty
11-25-2012, 08:27 PM
If people can't handle the stress of War - there is always the Hello Kitty Kitchen when they can bake fake brownies and feel safe :).

There REALLY is a Hello Kitty Kitchen - it keeps showing up in my TapJoy :)

@Sugarmama - sometimes people throw rocks at a Hornets nest and try to run away from being stung - but it's always been my experience that Hornets can fly faster than I can run so I avoid any kind of nest that emits a humming sound.I saw Hello Kitty and am a McDoc fan...so not really following this thread. I downloaded this game for gold per corsair's or someone else's recommendation. Let me tell you...the real Hello Kitty runs a MEAN kitchen! I can't keep up. It's tougher than MW. Less drama too! :D

Mcdoc
11-25-2012, 08:46 PM
I saw Hello Kitty and am a McDoc fan...so not really following this thread . . . Awwwww - I guarantee I'm the biggest Hello Kitty fan - really big - like 6 foot 4 - 265 pounds - LoL

Speed ump
11-25-2012, 09:17 PM
It seems some players want to play different kinds of games than others. You can't expect them to do this because its not the way you want the game played. I , and most of my allies came to this game specifically to play war. This boycott thing has put a huge crimp in my style. I have taken a few shots with free bullets here and there, just to keep the guns cleared. No one needs a reason for attacking. Kudo, that could very well be one of my games. I have fun just annoying players with my weak games sometimes. I laugh my butt off imagining how stupid and crazy they must think I am for all the loses I incur. The thing is, all I lost is pixels. I can get them back with time. The funi have is priceless, and it's why I play. I have read the tos, and rules that are stated when we join. I play within those rules, though I do play much differently than most players. You may play by any set of rules you wish that don't conflict with grees rules, but you may not demand that I do the same. I won't ask you to play by mine if you do not wish. The fact that you might want me to stop actually puts you in the wrong. Fortunately I am under no constraint to abide by what other players may wish. I will abide by what my fellow teammates decide we want to take as a group. If gree changed their rules, I would be forced to adapt to any new changes. I won't judge that your way is wrong, and that mine is right, only that each one is right for that player. If the rules of the game do not suit you, you might find a game whose rules match the way you wish to play. Not everyone can be satisfied all the time. There are rules that I would currently like changed, but as long as I chose to play the game, I will abide by them. Any game creator has to decide what rules work for what they a looking for, and hopefully what their client base is looking for. We as the clients don't get to pick and cose those rules. We have recently spoken out about one who chose to violate the rules. Like pj said, this ain't modern lets make friends. Some players want this game to be something different than what it is.

Mcdoc
11-25-2012, 09:42 PM
You may play by any set of rules you wish that don't conflict with grees rules, but you may not demand that I do the same. I won't ask you to play by mine if you do not wish.

It's funny that you mention that no one can tell you how to play the game. My very first memory of the Pirates involved people being told they had to get more than 500 allies or suffer the wrath of constant attacks. I know it's old news - just pointing out an interesting observation.

Ranger4Life
11-25-2012, 09:43 PM
You may play by any set of rules you wish that don't conflict with grees rules, but you may not demand that I do the same.

I think this is the best line yet.

Dhusagar
11-25-2012, 09:51 PM
Everyone is entitled to play their game their way - within the rules set. This is not the same as discussing the "character" of the gameplayer.

I personally find players that feel the need to group together and attack another player to be lacking "character" - a little like the school kids that follow the bully, because it is easier than standing on your own two feet.

But hey - if it doesn't break the rules?......

Jhenry02
11-25-2012, 09:55 PM
I repeatedly attacked this one guy over and over, weakening his base for others. But because he was badmouthing an ally of an ally. He was wishing death and pain up on her. So a group of us beat him unmercifully. I believe we have called the siege for now. But once I grow, I will chase him down again.

-Jason

Speed ump
11-25-2012, 10:15 PM
Mc, if someone tells me I have to play their way, that's one thing. They may tell me all hey wish to. They may attacked me to make me abide by their wishes, and this has happened in several of my games. What they cannot do, is actually force to to abide, of I chose to resist it. The most powerful player in the game cannot make the weakest abide by his wishes, If the weaker player so chooses. I don't in my games, and many have not against the pirates. That doesn't mean that things may not be more difficult, but it's still my choice. A good argument to convince somebody of something can be considered a form of coercion. If people don't try to attack me, the game gets boring real quick, in fact, why would You even play.

Speed ump
11-25-2012, 10:31 PM
Chuck, just because you view a group tactic to be one thing , do snot make it so. Everyone sure seems excited about the upcoming group wars. Make no mistake, that was modeled after the success of the pirates. Just because you chose not o play this way, and most have not because it just never occurred to them, lack the creativity, or no one with adequate organizational skills got involved. You don't know the people involved obviously, or you would never say this. Each member is a great individual. Personally I feel playing as an individual is the way that is lacking in some ways. This is called a social game, how much more social can you get than what we have done. Individual play keeps players separated. Here we have a group that has a common goal, and who do not fight each other. We were lucky to have several people involve with enough desire and organization to get this going. It's not a need. Several of our members are one man armies in their own right. They surely have no need of others to accomplish anything they want. Many players have expressed a wish and desire to play as we do. Just look at the thread for players asking to try out for us. If Ou chose to play as an individual, more power to you. I won't knock you for that. We have some close ally's, who are not actually pirates, and have no desire to be for their own reasons. They're not wrong for that, just as we are not wrong for the way we play. In the end, make war anyway You wish, for any reason you wish, but please, make war. No one is going to continue to pay and play in a game where we are all friends.

chimera69
11-26-2012, 12:59 AM
There are 2 different things being discussed here by the nature of the OP. But, they're being incorrectly lumped together instead of being addressed separately.

The first is actual game design & play, specifically related to PvP play. On this topic, I agree with you completely, Speed Ump & PJ. Attack who you want, when you want, for whatever reasons you want, & for how long you want. If someone doesn't like it or actually leaves the game over it, then too bad (I'm sure we can all agree, this excludes those using vulgarity, racist comments, etc). No rules of the game will ever be broken, as you're playing this game exactly how it was designed. As I've said, I have no issue with this.

The second distinct topic relates to a person's strength of character or integrity. These type of terms have been spoken & discussed quite a bit over the past few days. Speed Ump, you did not title this thread "Rules of Engagement", but rather "Ethics of Attacks." So, let's focus on it.

How aggressive one is in PvP is not necessarily what defines one's character. But what occurrence triggers that aggressiveness certainly does. As does how a person interacts with others when here on this forum.

Many triggering events are irrelevant, as they are solely found within the game itself (the name of a base, what flag they hold, have they attacked your base, etc). And, whatever's found in-game is fair game, so to speak.

But what about a triggering occurrence that happened only here on the forum? I'm not referring to those who would deride others, use vulgar language, etc - if you behave like a donkey's butt on forum, you'll likely get just what you deserve in game. I'm talking about someone being attacked repeatedly in game only because they offered a differing view point or opinion than yours here on the forum.

You post that you will do what you want & won't change your gameplay to suit anyone. I respect that. What I'm asking is if either of you (or the Pirates as a whole) would ever attack a player in game strictly because they stated differences of opinion from you here on the forum? Also, would you ever use the Pirate's strength to explicitly or implicity tell any forum user how they should behave/what they should do here on the forum?

This has already been asked by a couple others, but your answers are unclear to me. And I think it's very important that each if you clearly state how you feel on this topic, so that we may all avoid any misunderstandings.

In essence, you've now brought us all full circle. In May/June on the forum, you & several other Pirates made a huge effort to debunk "misconceptions" about the Pirates. If I'm summarizing correctly (& please correct me if I'm wrong & link to the specific thread you refer to) regarding the very same topics being discussed right here - Pirates are respectful to all players in general (not bullys), aren't openly malicious to people, & don't attack people based only on discussions had on the forum.

Guess I'm just wondering if this is still true?

Speed ump
11-26-2012, 05:25 AM
No matter how we respond to your question, people will pick it apart to make some point they wish to be made. A great many players considers attacks made against them as bullying. I have seen many of the same ones who cry about being attacked doing the same excat things themslves from the posts i see on their boards. Some are campers who have hidden for a lng period of time out of the sight of all the battles, some by dropping very far down in ally count. Theres fresh meat to be found there if youre willing to drop down, and some players who may have rarely been attacked down there, maybe because they are the big dog there, or because theyve just kept to themselves, a now finding new players at their level attacking all. Somehow they want to feel that they are being singled out, and chosing to ignore the reason why thise players dropped down in the first place. If a certain players had not dropped down there, these campers would not have ever seen the new players at their level. Then threats get made because of the attacks, and when that happens i imagine the one making all the noise get even more attention. This is the same thing as ive seen haopen at the higher levels. Its nothing new, ots only new to the campers. They would like their peaceful neighborhood back. Again, i go back to the same old thing. If you are not prepared for war, dont play. If you dont welcome war, dont play. If war bothers, or upsets yoi, dont play. I ahve at times even metioned that i would be happy for every player in the game to attack me. I like war. You can attack me for any reason you care to give. You can not like me, not like my words, you can attack me and like me, you can attack because of my flag, or because i have a certain unit in my mix. You may attavk because i appear to be wealthy, or because my game appears ro be weak.you may attavk me once, or all day and all night. I personally have been attacked for every one of these reasons and more. I have been attacked for months at a time by the same player or players. Its all good. Its what the game is, its why i play. If you cheat and use that advantage to attack me, the we have an issue. If you trick me i. The game somehow, and it works to your advantage against me, well thats all part of the strategy of the game. You outplayd me, this time. Should someone stop attacking a player because that player feels its for a certain reason when the facts are not so. Ive seeen every reason you could think of why players feel they should not be attacked. If im being attacked, i try to devise a strategy to prevent the attacks. You dont stand up in the middle of the field when youre being shot at and cry foul. You change something to prevent being shot at. This is war, and in war you need to use strategy.

mickymacirl
11-26-2012, 05:32 AM
Personally I have a set of rules for attacking players, if they give 100BP or less, I hit them once, and once only, and move on to next target.

For valor missions, I have none left btw, I used to hit the highest level possible with the less stats showing, above 500 allies.

Cash buildings I hit no matter who the person is, but try and at least hit cash buildings of players near my stats as they can generate the most BP for the 1 point of stamina.

People CANNOT complain if you hit them once, actually, players are often thankful afterwards, specially the players from the 101 to 150 bracket range.

This is a war game, but it's not in anyway bad to mention on a persons wall if you think they have a great base or stats... always nice to hear that from someone.

Speed ump
11-26-2012, 06:14 AM
I used to look for much of the same micky. Ive been at lavel 200 a long time, i have no more missions, and i dont like playing the maps. I won the game itself many months ago. No one can defeat me. But there are many ways to play games within the game. Its a game of different straegies to me now. I can invent a new way to play, and have to devise new strategies to accomplish my new goals. In a way , i feel sorry for thise that can only see the game in a single fimension, only way way to play it. They deprive themselves of much more. At first everyone was very much against several of us playing as a group. Now it seems everyone is excited about the ability to play as a group. Im glad to see this. It opens up the possibilities, and adds new elements to the game. If the way you are playing isnt working well for you, dont whine about it, figure out how to change it. Thats what wins wars. If you cannot adapt to changing conditions, you are doomed to failure. I see the game as completely strategic. The players themslves give me more power over them than i actually have. This is what i use to my advatnage. If i can convince another player of something without having to even fire a shot, then i have won completely. Not everyone is going to be able to see things this way, and some of those ones will cry foul.

Sugarymama
11-26-2012, 06:15 AM
Everyone is entitled to play their game their way - within the rules set. This is not the same as discussing the "character" of the gameplayer.

I personally find players that feel the need to group together and attack another player to be lacking "character" - a little like the school kids that follow the bully, because it is easier than standing on your own two feet.

But hey - if it doesn't break the rules?......

Lol...right. And, if this is a thread about ethics, then it really doesn't have a place in this game. The definition of ethics is a set of moral principals. Cheating aside, when you really exercise ethics in a war game? Everyone will apply their own moral values, e.g. not attacking a player more than a few times, or not attacking a player signficantly weaker who has no chance of successful retaliation. In those cases, then players are free to strategize and play the game as they wish. I don't think anyone is really challenging that.

But like you said, this is more about the character of the player, and the tactics used to intimidate and "bully" another player for a non-war reason. Making it personal. That speaks to morals, and has nothing to do with the strategy of a war game.

Sugarymama
11-26-2012, 06:20 AM
Personally I have a set of rules for attacking players, if they give 100BP or less, I hit them once, and once only, and move on to next target.

For valor missions, I have none left btw, I used to hit the highest level possible with the less stats showing, above 500 allies.

Cash buildings I hit no matter who the person is, but try and at least hit cash buildings of players near my stats as they can generate the most BP for the 1 point of stamina.

People CANNOT complain if you hit them once, actually, players are often thankful afterwards, specially the players from the 101 to 150 bracket range.

This is a war game, but it's not in anyway bad to mention on a persons wall of you think they have a great base or stats... always nice to hear that from someone.

Micky, I have a line I post on players wall when they attack me and I win a nice sum of money. It's hilarious, and some of my rivals like it too (but of course some don't...lol)

I agree with you in the sense of trying to hit players with stats near to mine; I've learned it's not worth losing good units when I don't get decent BP or cash in return. But as of late most of my attacks have been counter attacks; PVP had become so unrewarding at one point I all but gave it up.

I still have valor missions, but it's so easy to lose valor units in battle, so it becomes counter productive to even complete them. I've just been concentrating on upgrades and IPH. The best way for me to secure my base right now.

Speed ump
11-26-2012, 06:26 AM
Sugar, this is where youre u it mix also affects the best way for you to play the game. You have chosen to hit ones near you for some of those reasons. I and most of my friends are all gold, and dont have to worry about losing units when we attavk. It does change how and why you attavk. I can understand why some players play the way they do, as their unit mix will help determine some of this. There are other ways of winning that dont cost units, and this is where many players cant see the possibilities.

digisyn
11-26-2012, 06:31 AM
Well spoken all.
I may throw an extra attack on someone who whines about me attacking them but someone who asks to be added because they took to bad of a beating I always add them out of respect.

Sugarymama
11-26-2012, 06:44 AM
Sugar, this is where youre u it mix also affects the best way for you to play the game. You have chosen to hit ones near you for some of those reasons. I and most of my friends are all gold, and dont have to worry about losing units when we attavk. It does change how and why you attavk. I can understand why some players play the way they do, as their unit mix will help determine some of this. There are other ways of winning that dont cost units, and this is where many players cant see the possibilities.

You're right Speed ump. It's called the art of war. However, the majority of players here do not have an all-gold war, and therefore do not have the option to strategize in that way. Doesn't mean it's wrong, it's just rare. I mean, what else is there to do when there is no one to challenge, no one to really beat? When all the missions are won and all the units and buildings bought and leveled to the max? Now it becomes a level of mind f****** people, and I guess the "little" man may have a shot there, because that level doesn't cost a dime.

Speed ump
11-26-2012, 08:07 AM
I even use that thinking with the lower strength games I play. Having already done it all, I don't feel the need to do it again. So I pester them with my losses, beat myself silly at their gates, and splatter by blood as far and wide as I can. It's truly amazing how mad some people get even when you lose against them.
Eats see, they get mad when they lose, they get mad when they win, they get mad when you attack, and are the same strength, stronger, or weaker than they are. They get mad because you attacked the same flag, they get mad because because because. Come on everyone, suck it up and play war. Who cares why they attack, or what flag, or strength. You always have options. If you chose to stand up and be a target, you're the one one who made the choice. You're free to draw that line in the sand wherever you chose. Just don't get upset when others ignore your line, or in most cases, never saw it to begin with. None of us made the rules in how everyone is grouped together, and if you think that's not fair, you should voice that opinion with the creators. This is how they designed the game, you know how it's designed, you always have choices about what games you chose to play. As I said earlier, there's things I would like to see changed, but those things arnt up to me, so I must play the game as its presented to me. I'm not going to apologize for being all gold, or the power that that gives me. Kind of the point, isn't it.

Sugarymama
11-26-2012, 08:23 AM
Apology not requested. You have the play the game the way you see fit based on your investment level, commitment level, strategy, and ethics, as originally stated. Everyone has a choice and right to play in his or her own way, as you also stated. And I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree here, because outside of blatant cheating, there really is no right or wrong.

Dhusagar
11-26-2012, 08:26 AM
Speed ump - you talk about this GAME as though it had equivalence with a real war. This is a game.

If you talk about the war as attacking either indiscriminately or with a gang of much superior force attacking a much inferior "enemy", then that is not war - it is called genocide.

If you are talking ethics, then look to the philosophy of John Stuart Mill,rather than the "bastardised" version of Neitzche philosophy.

And your attempts to rationalise your actions in the name of ethics is misplaced.

The art of war is as much about when NOT to wage war as it is about waging war.

But no doubt the Pirates will now attempt to make me see "the error of my ways"?

Force10JC
11-26-2012, 08:41 AM
If "War is Hell", then why shouldn't make-believe war at least have the potential to be make-believe hell?

Speed ump
11-26-2012, 08:42 AM
So, when we attacked Iraq, that was genoicide? We were vastly superior on every way. When we went in Bosnia, was that genoicide? In believe we were there to prevent just that. Every commander hopes to have superior forces in battle. Show me one who does not. So your wish is for all superior forces to quit the game? Of course you would, you just said it in so many words. You obviously have little concept of war, or the thought processes and goals that go into winning one. Everyone is free to also make alliances in the game. If you chose not to, that is your choice. If you were one of the stronger players you would feel differently. There is only one strong player in the game who has a different strategy, and that is ferr. I don't believe he came I to the game with winning as his strategy and goal. It was mine, it was in my allies mind, and like minded people found each other. I can win any battle as an individual, I can win the game as a group. What winning the game means is in my own mind, and I won't bother stating this, as it doesn't have meaning to most other players. I'm competitive by nature. Most of my teammates are also. This game is a big competition, why should it be so wrong to win? It's not.

Sugarymama
11-26-2012, 08:45 AM
Speed ump - you talk about this GAME as though it had equivalence with a real war. This is a game.

If you talk about the war as attacking either indiscriminately or with a gang of much superior force attacking a much inferior "enemy", then that is not war - it is called genocide.

If you are talking ethics, then look to the philosophy of John Stuart Mill,rather than the "bastardised" version of Neitzche philosophy.

And your attempts to rationalise your actions in the name of ethics is misplaced.

The art of war is as much about when NOT to wage war as it is about waging war.

But no doubt the Pirates will now attempt to make me see "the error of my ways"?

Probably. Because in war independent critical thinking isn't allowed. Shame on you for having your own opinion.

Well said Dhusagar.

Lt. Falcon
11-26-2012, 08:56 AM
I haven't read every single comment in this thread but have encountered a situation in which certain "REPEATED" attacks shouldn't have been made in lower levels (lvl 20-80). For instance, my LLP (Lift Ticket lvl 45) was attacked about 48 days ago by someone and I won the fight. He (lvl 43, 80+ allies) was on my newsfeed during a crate event so I attacked him and took many crates and cash from him. During the next month and a half this player has leveled up 11 times and has added 165+ allies and came back at me over the weekend, I won some and lost some and was not bothered by this as I know this player wants revenge as would I. Since I generally check my newsfeed before checking rivals lists when attacking, if I encounter a player on my newsfeed I have attacked who is 2-3 levels down, I will cease attacking that player and move on. However, this player is trying to capitalize on his allying up and leveling to unlock unit buildings to which I do not have access to yet to exact his revenge. I don't have a problem with it, as I said I won some and lost some, but I can see how this could be unfair "revenge" attack to others.

btw, these attacks took place during my sleeping hours and I woke up to 7 reports of his attacks, so I added 20 allies & 35 SSD's to increase my defense by 3000 and after he decided to come back for more, he has lost $270k in 9 straight attacks. I think he may need to add another 50-100 allies before he tries again and this time I won't be over vault. Also, I did refrain from attacking back or commenting his wall. I should have added all 50+ requests and demolished his base to add insult to his ego, but I play nice.

Again, I don't belive this is "unethical" but could be considered unfair by other players.

Sugarymama
11-26-2012, 09:04 AM
Hey Falcon. I still don't fully understand the rivals list. At first, players thought it was grouped by level, then later we learned it was a combo of level and ally count. Now, I can't make rhyme or reason of it. I can refresh my list and see players who are 30+ levels ahead of me, some with max allies, and some lower, and we are not even in each other's ballpark. Then I refresh the list again, and then I get all players who are so much weaker than me it doesn't even seem fair to attack them. I rarely get matched with players who have similar stats, level, and ally count than me. That would make for more exciting battles IMO.

Speed ump
11-26-2012, 09:28 AM
Falcon, I don't consider that issue unfair in the least. Let the buyer beware. If you attack someone, they just might come back after you. This is just using part of the gameplay to their advantage. It's the same as if you bought gold u it's, and then were more powerful. There is nothing wrong with either, and neither is unfair. You can always level up yourself. At those levels it really doesn't take much. Eventually you will fall off his newsfeed and it will be over. That's not any different than a more powerful player attacking a weaker one in the higher levels. Because I spent money to become strong, as is encouraged by gree, don't try to make players like me feel what we have done is unethical, as that's not correct. That's just sour g****s and envy.

Ferr
11-26-2012, 10:17 AM
Anyone ready for a verdict?

Ferr
11-26-2012, 10:27 AM
All rise...... ;)

Speed ump
11-26-2012, 10:31 AM
Hehe, go ahead ferr. You might as well chime in too. Dhu, I have no intrest in targeting you. Just because some of you say pure being targeted doesn't mean it has anything to do with the reasons you might state. I have also seen that there's always more than one side to a story, someone eggs another on, then crys wolf when the one they egged on seems to appreciate their base. I never said we don't target individuals. We do that all the time, for many reasons.

Mcdoc
11-26-2012, 10:36 AM
All rise...... ;)


Not that easy for some of us:)

They got pills for that - LoL

Poopenshire
11-26-2012, 10:36 AM
Guys, here is the simple version:

Does a name show up on the rival list? if the answer is yes then attack, if the answer is no your playing something else.

Ferr
11-26-2012, 10:39 AM
Before i verdict i have a question of fact. Does gree apply any standard as to where they forbid someone to attack any further? Ccm, perhaps you could tune in?

Mcdoc
11-26-2012, 10:39 AM
Guys, here is the simple version:

Does a name show up on the rival list? if the answer is yes then attack, if the answer is no your playing something else.

It's the ultimate of: either you're with me (my ally list) or against me (my rival list).

Hondo
11-26-2012, 10:43 AM
Are there any rules to this game? I've never seen any.

Sugarymama
11-26-2012, 10:59 AM
Are there any rules to this game? I've never seen any.

Not really. There are guidelines, and cheating and hacking are forbidden (obviously). There are forum posting rules, and specific things that are not allowed on here, but as far as how you play the game itself, there aren't really rules. But this topic of this thread was originally about ethics, which is something completely different. Things just got lost in the sauce.

Dhusagar
11-26-2012, 12:09 PM
So, when we attacked Iraq, that was genoicide? We were vastly superior on every way. When we went in Bosnia, was that genoicide? In believe we were there to prevent just that. Every commander hopes to have superior forces in battle. Show me one who does not. So your wish is for all superior forces to quit the game? Of course you would, you just said it in so many words. You obviously have little concept of war, or the thought processes and goals that go into winning one. Everyone is free to also make alliances in the game. If you chose not to, that is your choice. If you were one of the stronger players you would feel differently. There is only one strong player in the game who has a different strategy, and that is ferr. I don't believe he came I to the game with winning as his strategy and goal. It was mine, it was in my allies mind, and like minded people found each other. I can win any battle as an individual, I can win the game as a group. What winning the game means is in my own mind, and I won't bother stating this, as it doesn't have meaning to most other players. I'm competitive by nature. Most of my teammates are also. This game is a big competition, why should it be so wrong to win? It's not.

You - yet again - choose to be selective in your understanding of what you read. I am not saying what you choose to do is either right or wrong - what I am saying is trying to implicitly assert that your type of gameplay is ethical or morally right is open to debate.

To use your examples above, it could be argued that both Iraq and Bosnia followed the JSM doctrine of the greatestgoodfor the greatest number.

On the other hand the eugenics movement was bastardised to assert that the strongest group of people could effectively do what they wanted to a weaker group of people.

And while on the subject, buying gold to build your army does not make a person better; strategically superior; or provide greater intellectual capacity - it merely means that the person has paid for an advantage. I am a gold spender, so I class myself in this category.

The real strategists are the free players who use everything available to them to compete. I am not one of these.

But the beauty of free expression is that everyone is free to express themselves :-) didn't a certain country go to war just to assert that right?

Lt. Falcon
11-26-2012, 12:55 PM
Ethics? You want to know about ethics? Well...here it is! Me and da boys we no bout
ettics! No need for all this edikkated psycobubble...ethickks of attack? simple..if you
don't like someone...WHACK THEM!

Thanks a lot, I think my IQ just dropped trying to understand this "psycobubble" crap. I feel much more "edikkated"!!

Speed ump
11-26-2012, 01:48 PM
Funny victor, and true. It's a war game wack them. Just don't cheat doing it is all I ask. Dhu, I'm all for expressing your opinion. Some here want to believe they have been attacked for this reason. I have explained what may have, read between the lines, happened, but then they want to continue. To believe otherwise. I have never lied here, and in the end, I don't really truly worry about what anyone thinks of my actions other than those that are important to me. I've always told it like it is, whether anyone likes it or not. The pirates can have and will attack any they wish, anytime they wish, for any reason they wish. I have said this many months ago, and have never done anything to make anyone feel differently. I think most here would agree that this is all true, and if you go back far enough, I'm sure you can find what I have said. If a player chooses to believe something different, then I'm all fine and good with that too, and it won't change my actions either for or against that player. Some of you have attacked one or more of my games. Some have come at me hard( could be I gave a few reason to.lol) and some just a few times. I have never said a thing one way or the other. Never will. And not one has discovered that it was me. It would ruin all the fun If you did know. I have enjoyed some of the smack talk, and you telling me how badly you handed my butt to me. I like seeing that side of the players too. I hold no ill will towards that kind of play. There are a few players who I will always attack, as long as they are on the game. But most are just fun and games. I have even done it with some of my own teammates with a weak game, just annoy them, and see if and how long before they realize. Then when I reveal myself we all have a good laugh. So have fun with this thi g. It's a game, find diff ways to play. The missionary gets boring after a while

albeezy
11-26-2012, 02:01 PM
The missionary gets boring after a while

That's what she said! HAHA I'll be here all week folks. Make sure to tip your bartenders and waitreses!

MonkeyPuppy2012
11-26-2012, 05:15 PM
Hmmm I read the first couple of lines and I agree..

I stopped reading because honestly... paragraphs are your friend.

MonkeyPuppy2012
11-26-2012, 05:16 PM
If I had been in charge Iraq would be a glassy spot in the desert

Minister Timothy
11-26-2012, 05:37 PM
The big question of ethics comes in the moral question of bullying. Not meaning attacking someone because they are smaller than you, because only the newbies attack much larger opposition because they don't know how to check stats. I do not like losing when I pick a target, I lose enough when I get attacked. The moral part on each individual comes in when the person being attacked in effect asks for mercy because they know that there is no logical way, the way the game is set up that they can stop the attacker. Then one has to ask themselves the question do I continue to attack them. You are absolutely correct speed, this is a war game. The object of war is to make your opponent submit to you. The question then becomes do you acknowledge it as an attacker when it occurs. See that is the ethical and moral question we are dealing with here. This game, even though only virtual, does reflect the character of the controller. Everything that is in his/her base is up to them. Stay within the guidelines set forth. That is what is required. Then it is up to YOU, as to whether you are going to present yourself as a merciful person or a sadistic one who enjoys causing pain. The truth about that statement is there are probably very few in this game who would consider themselves, in REAL life, as being the latter. If you do! Then evil shall be returned to you, In REAL life!!! If not, why not present yourself as such. In war there MUST (in the imperative) be a thing in it that is called...HONOR! If not, then this is called...TERRORISM. "That is about all I have to say about that"

Speed ump
11-26-2012, 05:59 PM
Minister, you have not said, but did insinuate several things there. I agree with the fact that you may chise for yourself what you deem as the hinorable , if you wish to call it that, way to play the game. I cycle through my rivals list at times at hit each one once unless i find one with a lot of unvaulted money. Some may show up more than once, and i am not going to bother trying to remeber all the names. I sometimes catch greif from thise players. Just the way it goes. If i begin to let others define what is right and wrong for me and who i can and cannot attack, soon of i try to meet everyones expections i will find myself with no one to attack. What works for you is fine for you. If you limit attacks to none on the same flag you fly, i will think thats a little silly, but its all up to you.

Minister Timothy
11-26-2012, 06:17 PM
Attacking is PART of the game. Insinuating nothing! Stating everything. I only limit myself by the damage I am inflicting upon Myself. Not the victim. So that is that on that subject. What we are talking about here is whether or not a PERSON, not you speed, but to any it may concern who has the personality that says "I am going to continue to pummel this person looong after they have asked to ally, have a truce, wave a white flag, get on there knees and beg, even. Asking gree or any one else for help should not be the last resort. It should be no resort. I attack mostly abbandoned basses. Not concerned about rankings because android doesn't have them. But as you, if I find a rich man in the wrong neiborhood I shake him upside down. If he protest I tell him that Christ said that it is easier for a camel... If he ask for mercy, ie: to ally. I will, or treat him as I would like to be treated. Not as others treat me.

Speed ump
11-26-2012, 06:37 PM
Some of what you do is the same as what I do. I do not normally attack abandoned base though. There's enough players out there who get bent out of shape over one hit for me o have fun with, then to hit one that asks to ally. I won't ally, but I will usually move on if they have no money. I like the ones that cuss at me, threaten me, or in some other way draw my attention. If I see someone doing this to another random player, I will tell the one using the language he had better behave, or else. When he does what I expect he will do, I have found myself another new playtoy. There's plenty of them to go around too.

Minister Timothy
11-26-2012, 07:09 PM
What you have just written is that you do have a code of ethics when "tapping" quoting pj. this game. Moving on after there is no loot is a good thing. Especially when a player is to beaten up to fight. No one can ally with everyone who has asked. But the name of this thread is called the ethics of attack. You also stated that you enjoy the controversy involved. Nothing is wrong with that. It can keep the game interesting. Boredom is a hard part of this game for players who have stats in the upper stratosphere. but still, just as they have spent their tens of thousands of dollars in it and do not want their investment to be in vain. The same is true of those who have spent the same but in time upgrading and building their bases. When I was a kid we used to find each others club houses so we could tare them down. Looks like the same thing is going on here. What would be absolutely wonderful would be if gree were to institute some sort of tier system. Gold and free. That did not involve camping out in lower levels. That way players with over a certain amount of gold would only be accessed by the same. Then we will really see who is the best.

Speed ump
11-26-2012, 07:24 PM
It wouldn't work. First it's already established that gold can't destroy gold, so it's moot. Next, the game would just be bori g for everyone. Also, if we fight each other, then we don't have time to fight gree. Guess which way gree like it.

Minister Timothy
11-26-2012, 07:36 PM
Well lets call it pvgree not pvp. See who wins. But I think it is great to watch the leader board to see who will win. FerrvP.U.N. people want to see Maywhether/Pacman.