Jump to content

Espionage Changes


Shakyr
 Share

Recommended Posts

Beige Nations cannot spy or be spied upon, except for Gather Intel

Isn't the whole idea of Beige, a safe harbour for nations to rebuild? Seems really odd to me then, that you can basically destroy a nation via repeated spy attacks, while they are Beige.

Lower the cap for attacks

I'm sure quite a few players have Spy Satellite now, which adds +50%. Even accounting for that, Espionage attacks do way too much damage.
- Sabotage Tranks should not be regularly killing off almost 2k tanks. At most, they should be killing off 500 tanks (base, 750 with Spy Satellite).
- Assassinate Spies should not be killing off over 1/3 of the maximum spies. This means within a single day, you can go from max spies to nothing. It should maybe be killing off at most 5-6 (base), per attempt.
- The others likely need similar changes, but as I haven't seen them myself, I can't comment (and the Battle Sim seems to be outdated).

Repeated espionage per day should decay

Once an episonage attack is used, it should make subsequent espionage harder, until that nation's military reset. Put it down to the nation going into high alert. The only time this should not happen is if gather intel is used and no spies are caught. I'm not saying it should be much, maybe a +5% (for a total of +10% after 2 espionage attacks).

EDIT: It seems that that are some changes that are already under development, so I'm happy to cross out the last two points ... 

 

Edited by Shakyr
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 2

sig_cybernations.PNG.8d49a01423f488a0f1b846927f5acc7e.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If spies killed 500 tanks maximum, and spy kills were max 5-6, then there would be 0 purpose for me to organize 500 spy ops for our coalition each day for the first 5 days to wipe your coalition, on average 5-10 hours per day organizing this.

The issue here is the lack of a spy team on your side, not a broken mechanic. You're only complaining because you are losing heavily.

  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, dtc justice said:

Lol wow, rawr is salty af

Reality is, our side did 5x++ more spy ops than your side in the first few days and they were ops strategically done. We put in the time and effort, and money for said spy sats, so yes it should be one sided for the spy game right now.

hurr durr, we dogpiled

Edited by Vero
sTrATegY

Cry harder

Wanted dead or alive for the following crimes:

Thoughts of attempting rebellion, leaking, being a femboy, being a weeb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

DtC, both you and I know how the spy game is something that largely favors raw numbers for securing. Cases where it happened otherwise (e.g. NPOLT) was because of a combination of disjointed foes and the bulks being handled separately (NPO entering once Leo's BK and Covenant were already wiped).

Your side has a 2:1 advantage and actually opened with spy ops on us in the interim between CTO/TEst's hit and our hit on HM. We have the spy team (which is why you're practically 0'd, for example), but given the other factors winning it wasn't a realistic prospect in the first place. So you'd be best served to pocket that "git gud" card for the time being.

During NPOLT, our side was outnumbered 10:1 in the spy front because of the two spheres having spies depleted from surfs up, and we flipped it. Its not all just purely who has the numbers. The mechanics themselves aren't broken.

 

Lets say for example spy kills capped at 6, your rebuy is 3-4, and with that ratio you will never really be able to grind an alliance down enough to spy military.

 

Lets also say you only kill 500 tanks per op, that basically makes spying irrelevant, so why bother?

Reality is there has been long days assigning ops to put us ahead. It is amusing that its always people on the losing side that says x should be nerfed, its simply just the way we all are, we all complain when we shit the bed

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really not sure what people expect of the spy sat.
First of all I wish to repeat that nearly everyone who has the spy spatelite bought A missle pad, A space program and a Spy sat, this was (assuming interbellum prices) around a billion (bit less) (if they are refunded the market would be flooded etc, return wouold not be the same, demand lower supply suddenly higher..).

Now lets calculate here.  (750x2000)-1M = 500K profit per op.
This would be 2000 succesfull tank spy ops, if people could only spy on tanks (which they cant because soon enough in 5-10 days youd regularly lose spy ops because spies are rebuild.) So it would take 1000 Days ROI, assuming you did a spy op every day of the war, you never failed a single spy op, you never lost spies (which well, I dont know about you but Ive been at zero all day long, so this is not the case). .

Next up you say at most 750 , this means it would in practice (following the current distribution) be 525 on average. Let us do the maths once more.
We make a profit of 50K per spy op (assuming we only spy tanks, and never fail etc..). I am not sure how I feel about that ROI. But wanna calcualte the ROI of that?
10000 Days (of war that is)

This does assume indeed that you dont make spy ops if you do not have have a satalite. If you would otherwise do them it would be a ([525-350]*2000) 700K per day profit (assuming only tanks and 100% succes).  Would be around 1400 ops to pay back, imagine if you had a beautifull city (or like three) for 700 days instead.

Now let us talk about our friends without a spy satelite, because I think it is important to touch up on. Assumign you do literally everything perfect you would LOSE 350K per spy op (assumign you only spy tanks etc..)

Good next up, lets say we do nerf it. That seems like hundreds of millions in wasted money, you could invest it in cities for example. A spy sat takes 3 (!) slots, do you know what you can do with free project slots. Lets say a new spy sat will only cost 400M because of a sudden inflation of the market, the ROI is still miserable (its not even funny) so people just buy a city and ignore it.

Killing 7-9 spies per attempt is really little It would make spies completly useless. 
Why?, Well assumign your opponent does nothing to stop you, and you never fail an op, you can kill (assuming you have a 3/2 ratio majority) 24 spies per day. But this leaves some very important calculations out of the maths. First of all that your opponent will fight back, you will not be able to win every spy op. This will lead to a perpetual stalemate, 100% certainly if they can also rebuild in their beige.

Next up, time: I speak from personal expierience and observation, some people quite literally put hours and hours in this sheet, even not counting the nerf of spy ops, just the nerf of units would not make that long term viable (damage too little for the time it takes). If you do include the spy kill changes it is literally not worth it, it would take hundreds of hours for very little return (over the duration of the whole war).

I feel with this that your proposal is not backed up by math or practical expierience.


Then for people who argue that spy stats are based on numbers (more people win) I wish to point out that euhm, well this is also the case in literally every other aspect of the game. 
You might say "better fighting alliance will preform better in wars though!" and yes, you would be correct. The same applies to alliances who organize better. Obviously though, numbers is a very important aspect.

Footnotes::

*Indeed spy sat does cost somewhat less than 1B, but if you take into account that you will not only spy tanks, spies of you will get killed, you will fail ops, you will make human error etc this is a fair estimate in my opinion.

** I wrote this at 4AM excuse my writing.

Edited by BelgiumFury
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dtc justice said:

During NPOLT, our side was outnumbered 10:1 in the spy front because of the two spheres having spies depleted from surfs up, and we flipped it. Its not all just purely who has the numbers. The mechanics themselves aren't broken.

That is misleading. Chaos was de-spied thoroughly (brought down to 20sh spies), sure. KETOGG, not so much. The 10:1 ratio also doesn't actually pan out in practice because BK's reinforcements came in staggered, which was chiefly beneficial for conventional as they practically came in as rebuys became available, but also for espionage.

I'd suggest you re-read what I said. I didn't say "purely". I said "largely".

10 minutes ago, dtc justice said:

Lets say for example spy kills capped at 6, your rebuy is 3-4, and with that ratio you will never really be able to grind an alliance down enough to spy military.

Lets also say you only kill 500 tanks per op, that basically makes spying irrelevant, so why bother?

Reality is there has been long days assigning ops to put us ahead. It is amusing that its always people on the losing side that says x should be nerfed, its simply just the way we all are, we all complain when we shit the bed

The changes being suggested aren't part of my argument, or the point I'm making. Which is why I didn't quote it. 

  • Upvote 2
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, dtc justice said:

During NPOLT, our side was outnumbered 10:1 in the spy front because of the two spheres having spies depleted from surfs up, and we flipped it. Its not all just purely who has the numbers. The mechanics themselves aren't broken.

 

Lets say for example spy kills capped at 6, your rebuy is 3-4, and with that ratio you will never really be able to grind an alliance down enough to spy military.

 

Lets also say you only kill 500 tanks per op, that basically makes spying irrelevant, so why bother?

Reality is there has been long days assigning ops to put us ahead. It is amusing that its always people on the losing side that says x should be nerfed, its simply just the way we all are, we all complain when we shit the bed

Okay firstly, we should not have won the spy war in NPOLT. It was due to extreme luck, as well as diligence from our coalition that we managed to get back those numbers.

Secondly, because of the spy changes and the increase of spies killed, comparing these two conflicts just does not match up. 27 spies killed in one op is unheard of prior to spy sat era. We could kill 15-17 at 60 spies and rebuild was 3 so your point of having an unproportionate ratio of spies killed to bought is mute.

Even just halving the effectiveness of spy sat would at least make things slightly more balanced since spy sat is purely offensive and there are no projects to increase defense spies other than a war policy that could be better used as something else. 

I won't comment on the amount of units killed in a spy op since I personally do not really care, nor can you make me care.

Even when Quack sphere opened (later) with our spies, those who were on the receiving end of our members who have spy sats were even like wtf.  https://discord.com/channels/216800987002699787/677356210290425896/771881609627566080

Edited by Vero
grammar
  • Upvote 1

Cry harder

Wanted dead or alive for the following crimes:

Thoughts of attempting rebellion, leaking, being a femboy, being a weeb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Vero said:

Okay firstly, we should not have won the spy war in NPOLT. It was due to extreme luck, as well as diligence from our coalition that we managed to get back those numbers.

Secondly, because of the spy changes and the increase of spies killed, comparing these two conflicts just does not match up. 27 spies killed in one op is unheard of prior to spy sat era. We could kill 15-17 at 60 spies and rebuild was 3 so your point of having an unproportionate ratio of spies killed to bought is mute.
 

Even just halving the effectiveness of spy sat would at least make things slightly more balances since spy sat is purely offensive and there are no projects to increase defense spies other than a war policy that could be better used as something else. 

I won't comment on the amount of units killed in a spy op since I personally do not really care, nor can you make me care.

Even when Quack sphere opened (later) with our spies, those who were on the receiving end of our members who have spy sats were even like wtf.  https://discord.com/channels/216800987002699787/677356210290425896/771881609627566080

And those who wanted to buy the sat had to give up near 1bn, we had c20s that sacrificed 2 cities value to obtain the spy sat. With the cost of the project so high, it should be as strong as it is.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dtc justice said:

And those who wanted to buy the sat had to give up near 1bn, we had c20s that sacrificed 2 cities value to obtain the spy sat. With the cost of the project so high, it should be as strong as it is.

According to my knowledge, they didn't "sacrifice" anything. Spy sat was a requirement. 😛

Cry harder

Wanted dead or alive for the following crimes:

Thoughts of attempting rebellion, leaking, being a femboy, being a weeb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Vero said:

According to my knowledge, they didn't "sacrifice" anything. Spy sat was a requirement. 😛

A one billion investement, is a one billion investement
Seen from a macro view, letting every member have 2 (nearly 3) extra cities has a better ROI than a 1B into nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, BelgiumFury said:

A one billion investement, is a one billion investement
Seen from a macro view, letting every member have 2 (nearly 3) extra cities has a better ROI than a 1B into nothing.

That's because you see spy sat and spy ops completely separate from war, which in itself is false. Space program admittedly is a gateway project to other projects so I'll concede that point. But MLP can pay off itself with the missiles used as it just doesn't sit there idly unless you chose to use it like that.

Spies can also help give the edge for odds in ground attacks or airstrikes you might not have had without them. In simpler terms (not doing the math because it's complicated) if a spy op help you get ground control to destroy their airforce/land to give you the edge you needed to win, then the spy op had more benefits than just the tanks destroyed. 

Also I'll state this here since you seem to have a misconception, I do not agree with Shak's numbers or suggestions, I am here to point out the logical fallacies that dtc brought into the argument. If I had to come up with a compromise, either a project that increases spy defensive capabilities or you cannot be spied on while in beige. (The latter idea being @Leopold von Habsburg's idea)

Edited by Vero
  • Like 1

Cry harder

Wanted dead or alive for the following crimes:

Thoughts of attempting rebellion, leaking, being a femboy, being a weeb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BelgiumFury said:

I'm really not sure what people expect of the spy sat.
First of all I wish to repeat that nearly everyone who has the spy spatelite bought A missle pad, A space program and a Spy sat, this was (assuming interbellum prices) around a billion (bit less) (if they are refunded the market would be flooded etc, return wouold not be the same, demand lower supply suddenly higher..).

Now lets calculate here.  (750x2000)-1M = 500K profit per op.
This would be 2000 succesfull tank spy ops, if people could only spy on tanks (which they cant because soon enough in 5-10 days youd regularly lose spy ops because spies are rebuild.) So it would take 1000 Days ROI, assuming you did a spy op every day of the war, you never failed a single spy op, you never lost spies (which well, I dont know about you but Ive been at zero all day long, so this is not the case). .

Next up you say at most 750 , this means it would in practice (following the current distribution) be 525 on average. Let us do the maths once more.
We make a profit of 50K per spy op (assuming we only spy tanks, and never fail etc..). I am not sure how I feel about that ROI. But wanna calcualte the ROI of that?
10000 Days (of war that is)

This does assume indeed that you dont make spy ops if you do not have have a satalite. If you would otherwise do them it would be a ([525-350]*2000) 700K per day profit (assuming only tanks and 100% succes).  Would be around 1400 ops to pay back, imagine if you had a beautifull city (or like three) for 700 days instead.

Now let us talk about our friends without a spy satelite, because I think it is important to touch up on. Assumign you do literally everything perfect you would LOSE 350K per spy op (assumign you only spy tanks etc..)

Good next up, lets say we do nerf it. That seems like hundreds of millions in wasted money, you could invest it in cities for example. A spy sat takes 3 (!) slots, do you know what you can do with free project slots. Lets say a new spy sat will only cost 400M because of a sudden inflation of the market, the ROI is still miserable (its not even funny) so people just buy a city and ignore it.

Killing 7-9 spies per attempt is really little It would make spies completly useless. 
Why?, Well assumign your opponent does nothing to stop you, and you never fail an op, you can kill (assuming you have a 3/2 ratio majority) 24 spies per day. But this leaves some very important calculations out of the maths. First of all that your opponent will fight back, you will not be able to win every spy op. This will lead to a perpetual stalemate, 100% certainly if they can also rebuild in their beige.

Next up, time: I speak from personal expierience and observation, some people quite literally put hours and hours in this sheet, even not counting the nerf of spy ops, just the nerf of units would not make that long term viable (damage too little for the time it takes). If you do include the spy kill changes it is literally not worth it, it would take hundreds of hours for very little return (over the duration of the whole war).

I feel with this that your proposal is not backed up by math or practical expierience.


Then for people who argue that spy stats are based on numbers (more people win) I wish to point out that euhm, well this is also the case in literally every other aspect of the game. 
You might say "better fighting alliance will preform better in wars though!" and yes, you would be correct. The same applies to alliances who organize better. Obviously though, numbers is a very important aspect.

Footnotes::

*Indeed spy sat does cost somewhat less than 1B, but if you take into account that you will not only spy tanks, spies of you will get killed, you will fail ops, you will make human error etc this is a fair estimate in my opinion.

** I wrote this at 4AM excuse my writing.

I couldn't care about maths or RoI, as quite a few people in t$ will tell you (I bought Moon Landing on a whim, just because I could). I couldn't care less about who's winning or not in the war either (for those saying that I'm only posting because I'm "losing").

What I do care about is the fact that it is absolutely shattering to see weeks of daily logins to buy spies, evaporating in an instant because the game is not properly balanced. The fact that a single spy attack can kill more tanks than is supported by a single Factory (are the spies using pocket nukes?!). The fact that for all the billions that are invested into getting a Spy Satellite, it does jack all to protect you from Spy Attacks (I was being nice and not adding that to OP). The fact that protecting Beige nations from war declarations means jack all, if they can have their money stolen and their military destroyed.

Espionage as it currently stands, is not balanced properly and needs a discussion.

sig_cybernations.PNG.8d49a01423f488a0f1b846927f5acc7e.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree that having units sabotaged in beige is against the spirit of the mechanic and should not be possible.

As for Spy Sat, it should not affect spy kills, and any nerfs to it shouldn't come with a refund either. Everyone's involved in this war, you all had your fun with it, now fix it because it's definitely busted. I've seen people lose 25 (half) of their spies in a single spy op; meaning that your spies can be zeroed on an opening blitz and you never even have a chance to resist, and there's no coming back from an already lost spy war.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Hime-sama said:

Agree that having units sabotaged in beige is against the spirit of the mechanic and should not be possible.

As for Spy Sat, it should not affect spy kills, and any nerfs to it shouldn't come with a refund either. Everyone's involved in this war, you all had your fun with it, now fix it because it's definitely busted. I've seen people lose 25 (half) of their spies in a single spy op; meaning that your spies can be zeroed on an opening blitz and you never even have a chance to resist, and there's no coming back from an already lost spy war.

You had me up until the second part. There's already a discussion about changing the spy kill ratio in place and I don't think there should be any changes to Spy Satellite taken until we see how those pan out. Double nerfing spy sat straight off the bat would be a terrible idea.

Pinging @Shakyr as well, in case you weren't aware of this thread.

Edited by Adrienne
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 2

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Adrienne said:

You had me up until the second part. There's already a discussion about changing the spy kill ratio in place and I don't think there should be any changes to Spy Satellite taken until we see how those pan out. Double nerfing spy sat straight off the bat would be a terrible idea.

I'll be honest, I forgot there were already ideas of nerfing spy kills so that wasn't a consideration until now, but fair. However, I am still concerned with just how powerful the project is. I think with it being as strong as it is, it's a must-have for most alliances, except that, most alliances cannot really afford to distribute it.

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hime-sama said:

I'll be honest, I forgot there were already ideas of nerfing spy kills so that wasn't a consideration until now, but fair. However, I am still concerned with just how powerful the project is. I think with it being as strong as it is, it's a must-have for most alliances, except that, most alliances cannot really afford to distribute it.

It being a necessity is, in reality, probably more of an upper tier thing due to the costs and how many slots you need before you can obtain it and those individuals are able to afford it. Additionally, if an alliance wants to fund it, there are options if it's outside their reach currently, such as taking out a loan. It's all a matter of budgeting and expense really and alliance econ shouldn't be considered in discussions on the project itself, in my opinion. If alliances want it, they'll find a way.

  • Like 1

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Shakyr said:

I couldn't care about maths or RoI, as quite a few people in t$ will tell you (I bought Moon Landing on a whim, just because I could). I couldn't care less about who's winning or not in the war either (for those saying that I'm only posting because I'm "losing").

What I do care about is the fact that it is absolutely shattering to see weeks of daily logins to buy spies, evaporating in an instant because the game is not properly balanced. The fact that a single spy attack can kill more tanks than is supported by a single Factory (are the spies using pocket nukes?!). The fact that for all the billions that are invested into getting a Spy Satellite, it does jack all to protect you from Spy Attacks (I was being nice and not adding that to OP). The fact that protecting Beige nations from war declarations means jack all, if they can have their money stolen and their military destroyed.

Espionage as it currently stands, is not balanced properly and needs a discussion.


Obviously the ROI is something to take into account.
Imagine if all your other attacks only did a maximum of 700K in damage, we would all go retire and play a diffrent game.
 

1 hour ago, Hime-sama said:

Agree that having units sabotaged in beige is against the spirit of the mechanic and should not be possible.

As for Spy Sat, it should not affect spy kills, and any nerfs to it shouldn't come with a refund either. Everyone's involved in this war, you all had your fun with it, now fix it because it's definitely busted. I've seen people lose 25 (half) of their spies in a single spy op; meaning that your spies can be zeroed on an opening blitz and you never even have a chance to resist, and there's no coming back from an already lost spy war.

Depending on how it is fixed I would say it facilitates a refund or something similar. 
You dont get CP and ACP back after one city, you dont get this project back after 1 war. 
Some nerfs that are proposed would completly decimate spy kills, and just the spies as a unit, in that case it probably should be.
What this man (OP) originally proposed could just as well be filled in as a complete deletion of spies from the game. 
With the cost an organization needed tought in balancing is needed. 
This is sadly enough one of the issues with these huge projects, its very hard to nerf extremely expensive things into the ground. 
 

6 hours ago, Vero said:

That's because you see spy sat and spy ops completely separate from war, which in itself is false. Space program admittedly is a gateway project to other projects so I'll concede that point. But MLP can pay off itself with the missiles used as it just doesn't sit there idly unless you chose to use it like that.

Spies can also help give the edge for odds in ground attacks or airstrikes you might not have had without them. In simpler terms (not doing the math because it's complicated) if a spy op help you get ground control to destroy their airforce/land to give you the edge you needed to win, then the spy op had more benefits than just the tanks destroyed. 

Also I'll state this here since you seem to have a misconception, I do not agree with Shak's numbers or suggestions, I am here to point out the logical fallacies that dtc brought into the argument. If I had to come up with a compromise, either a project that increases spy defensive capabilities or you cannot be spied on while in beige. (The latter idea being @Leopold von Habsburg's idea)


1: Eh, missles arent per say good
2: Yes this is true, Isolating the point was easier for the maths.
3: Fair. I indeed think if you want to nerf spy sat (which I don't think we should but let's be constructive) the fairest way without doing injustice to people. Making a project which is as expensive as the spy sat and causes around -25% spy damage. (-25% instead of -33% because it would also protect you against people without spy sat). This does seem like a more balanced perspective than just deleting 1B. "National Security Satelite" if I might suggest a name. Seeing it is added as a game balance and is probably the most fair way of doing it, i would also suggest a free project slot. 
 

56 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

It being a necessity is, in reality, probably more of an upper tier thing due to the costs and how many slots you need before you can obtain it and those individuals are able to afford it. Additionally, if an alliance wants to fund it, there are options if it's outside their reach currently, such as taking out a loan. It's all a matter of budgeting and expense really and alliance econ shouldn't be considered in discussions on the project itself, in my opinion. If alliances want it, they'll find a way.

I would tend to agree with Adrienne here. I would actually go a step further and suggest we should have more very expensive very strong projects, as a way to balance things and give more use to an alliance. Maybe even Alliance projects, which give alliance wide boost and are extremely expensive. Poor alliances also can't get the ACP or CP, something which would give their members a big boost, yet quite a lot of people don't complain about those, while their ROI is actually pretty decent.

People talk about adding new projects all the time, I would tend to say that it would be nice if more of these projects cost like a billion (or hell why not 5) and in return give a strong boost. This would however implicate that people get some stability in return for their 5B investement, people will not (and rightfully so) invest in a 5B investement with the chance that after 6 months or after 1 war it will be nerfed to hell.

If small / badly run alliances or nations can not get something, that just seems like they have to get better (or die). They will probably lose in the long term because not being able to invest in (insert expensive project here) implicates not being able to invest in more cities, something which leads to a far bigger disadvantage in our current war system.
 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spies are super broken,  The fact that I can kill 45 out of 60 spies in 2 spy attacks is pretty ridiculous.  Which I did before my spies where all wiped out 15 mins later.  But yeah I ran a spy attack on a guy with 30k tanks, and took out 2.2k tanks in one shot.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Adrienne said:

It being a necessity is, in reality, probably more of an upper tier thing due to the costs and how many slots you need before you can obtain it and those individuals are able to afford it. Additionally, if an alliance wants to fund it, there are options if it's outside their reach currently, such as taking out a loan. It's all a matter of budgeting and expense really and alliance econ shouldn't be considered in discussions on the project itself, in my opinion. If alliances want it, they'll find a way.

I don't think it's only a necessity for upper tier nations, moreso that it is not feasible to obtain for non-upper tier nations. 

Re budgeting: I don't think taking out loans or whatever other means of obtaining it are really plausible, here's why: The Spy Sat project doesn't provide any fiscal benefit (except a minor spy op cost reduction), so it's more of a money sink for extremely rich alliances/people. Imo obtaining these projects isn't really a matter of budgeting, instead it's a matter of some alliances having the money to throw around and others not. Those select alliances that can afford it, gain a significant advantage over those that can't, and I personally see that as an issue, as I don't think necessary projects (think IA and PB) should be unobtainable (feasibly) by the majority of alliances.

Also, while alliance econ doesn't have much to do with the physical project itself, I believe it does matter when discussing the project; Its obtainability and who the beneficiaries are (and by how much), could be important considerations for how a project should be implemented/changed.

11 hours ago, BelgiumFury said:

Depending on how it is fixed I would say it facilitates a refund or something similar. 
You dont get CP and ACP back after one city, you dont get this project back after 1 war. 
Some nerfs that are proposed would completly decimate spy kills, and just the spies as a unit, in that case it probably should be.
What this man (OP) originally proposed could just as well be filled in as a complete deletion of spies from the game. 
With the cost an organization needed tought in balancing is needed. 
This is sadly enough one of the issues with these huge projects, its very hard to nerf extremely expensive things into the ground. 

For clarity, I'm just responding to this because it was the direct response to me:

As (you) mentioned previously in the thread, a refund is not possible. To add onto that, however, the value the Spy Sat project has provided in this war is immeasurable and invaluable, so I believe the project has already served its (important) purpose. Also note, I'm not advocating for the gutting of the project as was proposed in the OP, only the removal of its affect on spy kills, and maybe a minor reduction in the sabotage bonus. 

You might not get a monetary ROI after 1 war, but you certainly gain several militaristic advantages that are again, immeasurable and invaluable. The 6,000 tanks that can be destroyed across 3 ops, could very well save a nation from sustaining much higher damages than if those 6,000 tanks remained. Going even further, the additional spy kills, allowed for unit sabotages to commence on this hypothetical nation sooner than without the project. The 6,000 tanks sabotaged that could save a nation from sustaining higher damages, was all possible because of the project's bonuses to spy kills and unit kills.

The spy war existed before Spy Sat was ever conceived, so any nerf or even removal of its spy kill bonus would not "completely decimate spy kills."

I agree that skill should be rewarded, but not excessively either. (It was also argued earlier in the thread, vigorously, that this is not an issue of "gitting gud," instead that this project genuinely needs a fix.)

I don't believe my ideas would constitute as "nerfing it into the ground," but even so, investments come with risks. If you buy a project and it loses value afterward, that's unfortunate and all, but it happens.

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hime-sama said:

The spy war existed before Spy Sat was ever conceived, so any nerf or even removal of its spy kill bonus would not "completely decimate spy kills."

I was indeed meaning the nerf to  5 - 6 kills. My bad.

1 hour ago, Hime-sama said:

I agree that skill should be rewarded, but not excessively either. (It was also argued earlier in the thread, vigorously, that this is not an issue of "gitting gud," instead that this project genuinely needs a fix.)

It is noted however, that the current war system in the game also is also very numbers based. If you have enough people you will win *ever* war, on *every* front. And indeed so deos the spy war.

1 hour ago, Hime-sama said:

I don't believe my ideas would constitute as "nerfing it into the ground," but even so, investments come with risks. If you buy a project and it loses value afterward, that's unfortunate and all, but it happens.

Here I will make the argument not that it does or does not nerf it to the ground, but that "risk" is all good and well if there is a predictability in the risk. As I said earlier, I would love for projects that cost as much as 5B to exist, but for that you need predictability. This wasn't some dice roll, or calculated risk, lets say it does get nerfed to completly shit (not saying it will, hypothetical) this won't have been used to the point that it is worth it. This makes it very hard to trust the game for people and alliances, what is a "safe" investement, isn't it "too good" to invest in. If an alliance wants to buy all their members a 5B project for example this leads to a very direect dilema. "How will it get nerfed in the future". In reality a question they should not ask.

This is not just my idea either, just take a look at hearstone (if a card gets nerfed you can discard it for its full dust cost instead of the usual half cost).
Games like LoL, Dota, CS:GO, Overwatch etc.. are easier to balance because you never take away "grinded" achievement.
 

Edited by BelgiumFury
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Hime-sama said:

I don't think it's only a necessity for upper tier nations, moreso that it is not feasible to obtain for non-upper tier nations. 

Re budgeting: I don't think taking out loans or whatever other means of obtaining it are really plausible, here's why: The Spy Sat project doesn't provide any fiscal benefit (except a minor spy op cost reduction), so it's more of a money sink for extremely rich alliances/people. Imo obtaining these projects isn't really a matter of budgeting, instead it's a matter of some alliances having the money to throw around and others not. Those select alliances that can afford it, gain a significant advantage over those that can't, and I personally see that as an issue, as I don't think necessary projects (think IA and PB) should be unobtainable (feasibly) by the majority of alliances.

Also, while alliance econ doesn't have much to do with the physical project itself, I believe it does matter when discussing the project; Its obtainability and who the beneficiaries are (and by how much), could be important considerations for how a project should be implemented/changed.

That same argument can be used for those "rich" alliances too though. Any alliance, regardless of how "rich" or "poor" they are, has to make decisions. If an alliance is spending their money on spy sats, they're sacrificing growth. That is true regardless of whether you have the money on hand for spy sats or you have to take a loan. It's a case of budgeting and priority.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

That same argument can be used for those "rich" alliances too though. Any alliance, regardless of how "rich" or "poor" they are, has to make decisions. If an alliance is spending their money on spy sats, they're sacrificing growth. That is true regardless of whether you have the money on hand for spy sats or you have to take a loan. It's a case of budgeting and priority.

The problem is that smaller/poorer alliances cannot reasonably sacrifice growth like that. There is obviously a disproportionate effect that this 'sacrifice of growth' has between a poor/small alliances and a rich/big alliance, which is why it's not a realistic avenue to take a loan or budget for it. A loan accumulates interest, for an investment that has (basically) no monetary return, it's essentially a depreciating investment. Budgeting for it would take up too much of the resources, again, for a project that provides no real monetary benefit. It's a great project for other reasons, but remains out of reach for most alliances/players.

Ideally, it would be nerfed and lowered in price to compensate, without refunds.

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.