Limit the nation spy range

[Clarke]

Currently anyone can spy on anyone in this game as long as they're not in beige I think, needless to say this plays into the advantage of older nations and makes it unfair for younger newer nations so could be dismantled by someone >30 times more powerful than them.

 

Limiting it to the same as the war range is more feasible, 3 spy attacks against a nation each day is too much as well, this should be reduced to just 2 spy attacks that a nation can receive to give them more balance and make spies play a more major role in Orbis. Currently 3 spy ops a day ends the spy war more quickly than it should as a nation can be dismantled in almost a single day. 

[Reagan]

I agree. Just as larger nations can't attack much smaller ones, nor should they be able to spy them. Once established nations can easily afford to keep a decent quantity of spies, it becomes too easy and too tempting to use them against younger, smaller nations who can't afford any defense against them. It feels like an exploit.

[Prefontaine]

I agree. Just as larger nations can't attack much smaller ones, nor should they be able to spy them. Once established nations can easily afford to keep a decent quantity of spies, it becomes too easy and too tempting to use them against younger, smaller nations who can't afford any defense against them. It feels like an exploit.

 

This was suggested earlier as well, but make smaller nations harder to infiltrate by large ones. Think of it like it's easier to sneak into a larger crowd unnoticed versus sneaking into a small group. I think basing it off the number of cities you have is the way to go, Someone with 5 cities should have a hard time spying someone with 1-2, very hard time. 10 cities hard time with 5, and so forth. 

[Phiney]

This was suggested earlier as well, but make smaller nations harder to infiltrate by large ones. Think of it like it's easier to sneak into a larger crowd unnoticed versus sneaking into a small group. I think basing it off the number of cities you have is the way to go, Someone with 5 cities should have a hard time spying someone with 1-2, very hard time. 10 cities hard time with 5, and so forth. 

 

This makes sense. Alternatively if you want something simpler it could be that you can only spy someone with a max of 2 cities less than you.

[Prefontaine]

This makes sense. Alternatively if you want something simpler it could be that you can only spy someone with a max of 2 cities less than you.

 

Or you could just make it increasingly expensive for smaller nations. You have to bribe more important people to sneak into a smaller group, costs more. So someone could spy someone else with a handful less cities, but it might not be worth the cost.

[ELPINCHAZO]

No,I think the game has its own imposed limits regarding spying with larger vs smaller nations.

 

If you can afford to have 50 spies as a smaller nation you won't be able to do much against that economic power house that can hold 50-100.

 

The problem is that people aren't prepared to start with.

 

BUT

 

If you want to impose something. Then make a sliding scale for spy upkeep with regards to infrastructure.

 

I think this option would allow for more dynamics and letting players make both good and bad decisions on their own.

[Ayayay]

How about -50%/+150% range for spies as opposed to the -25/+75% for war range? Still OP but might be a little better.

Edited December 13, 2014 by underlordgc

[ELPINCHAZO]

How about -50%/+150% range for spies as opposed to the -25/+75% for war range? Still OP but might be a little better.

meh,then it just becomes another military unit as it then takes on a similar dynamic to those.

 

the lack of a range made it interesting.

[Memph]

How about -50%/+150% range for spies as opposed to the -25/+75% for war range? Still OP but might be a little better.

Or -50% to unlimited? I don't see a reason for an upper range. For wars, I can see it, like new nations that don't know what they're doing screwing themselves over - and also just being a pain to the big nation by making them have wartime upkeep while posing no real threat.

[WISD0MTREE]

How about -50%/+150% range for spies as opposed to the -25/+75% for war range? Still OP but might be a little better.

But me being able to take out Lambdadelta's ships with impunity was a bonus.

[Clarke]

Changes should be made to this system,

[Jodo]

If you add a range, then how am I suppose to ruin the day of some very special people who need it? 3 ops a day received is enough of a nerf as it is.

[Phiney]

I don't think it should be a hard limit rather a soft one if one is added at all

[Shellhound]

I don't think you should make a limit as to who you can spy but I think you should make sure who you're spying is damn worth spying on. Personally I don't see why a large nation would even bother spying on a small one, I think this might be a scenario where we're creating problems that don't exist; but then again just because I haven't seen/heard of it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I like the idea of making it more expensive if the nation is a lot smaller than you, you can still do it, but if you're going to you're going to have a good reason for doing so.

[WISD0MTREE]

I don't think you should make a limit as to who you can spy but I think you should make sure who you're spying is damn worth spying on. Personally I don't see why a large nation would even bother spying on a small one, I think this might be a scenario where we're creating problems that don't exist; but then again just because I haven't seen/heard of it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I like the idea of making it more expensive if the nation is a lot smaller than you, you can still do it, but if you're going to you're going to have a good reason for doing so.

Basically this. I sent 3 spies into a country with no spies to destroy stuff. I got about $7,000 worth of stuff destroyed for $83,000. Most of the time spying on someone at your level isn't worth it, much less someone weaker. 

[Tim Armstrong]

meh,then it just becomes another military unit as it then takes on a similar dynamic to those.

 

the lack of a range made it interesting.

I agree with this statement. Also, I wanted to point out that coordinating with others, especially at other levels, to use spies is a fun way to get to know other players and build community with people we might not otherwise interact with.

[Clarke]

Basically this. I sent 3 spies into a country with no spies to destroy stuff. I got about $7,000 worth of stuff destroyed for $83,000. Most of the time spying on someone at your level isn't worth it, much less someone weaker. 

In the past I sent spies in to destroy tanks on a small rogue, if the value of steel was calculated at certain periods I would have destroyed more equipment than the cost of sending the spies.

Keep in mind this was an 80 score nation when I was 500 score.

[WISD0MTREE]

In the past I sent spies in to destroy tanks on a small rogue, if the value of steel was calculated at certain periods I would have destroyed more equipment than the cost of sending the spies.

Keep in mind this was an 80 score nation when I was 500 score.

Who ever said I destroyed tanks? 

[Clarke]

Who ever said I destroyed tanks? 

No one, the point is that it's not always a major cost to damage difference to spy someone at your level or a lot lower. 

[Shellhound]

I think when we have to pull out examples of "one time a while back" we're not really facing a problem.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Shellhound

[Khestra]

Meh, spies are fine the way they are.  If I want to send 10 of them into some miserable little pesthole nation to butcher troops for the thrill of it, I'm perfectly happy to expend the money to do so, especially if they're using the already-impeding war range to hide behind their weakness and presume you can't get to them when they're mouthing off. The fact that spies can't sabotage infra is enough of a limiter.

[Princess Bubblegum]

Sorry for the grave dig, but this issue has become apparent again. I'm being spied on by a top-ten nation with 50 spies. My nation strength is 12. I obviously have no way to defend or respond to this. My nation will forever be deprived of spies (except for buying it for 1 day use before they are killed) as long as this person keeps it up.

 

Is it really reasonable that I can lose 100k worth of material each day as a 12 ns nation when a 900 ns nation can spend 200k to kill them? Think of the differences in income here.

[Dwynn]

Sorry for the grave dig, but this issue has become apparent again. I'm being spied on by a top-ten nation with 50 spies. My nation strength is 12. I obviously have no way to defend or respond to this. My nation will forever be deprived of spies (except for buying it for 1 day use before they are killed) as long as this person keeps it up.

 

Is it really reasonable that I can lose 100k worth of material each day as a 12 ns nation when a 900 ns nation can spend 200k to kill them? Think of the differences in income here.

 

Well if you hadn't dropped all your infra when sheepy created the bug to get down to 12ns, you wouldn't have the resources to spend 100k a day on spies. Think of the broken economy you have because you're merely living off spoils of war at a greater level. Your argument is illogical because spies are not MEANT for 12ns nations.

[Princess Bubblegum]

Well if you hadn't dropped all your infra when sheepy created the bug to get down to 12ns, you wouldn't have the resources to spend 100k a day on spies. Think of the broken economy you have because you're merely living off spoils of war at a greater level. Your argument is illogical because spies are not MEANT for 12ns nations.

 Ok so spies aren't meant for 12ns nations, but that just means 900ns nations can target something else. I had originally bought them to defend against other incoming spy attacks. Now you'll just have gobs of tanks or soldiers or planes being blown up, again with no way to respond or defend since it's 99% success rate for the attacker. And actually I would have the resources with or without infra. I did before that bug and I will be able to gain them again when I rebuy infra. 

 

Edit: My suggestion would be that if an attacker is targeting a nation smaller than he or she is, it should be: 

 

If (Attacker's NS) > (Defender's NS)

(Attacker's NS)/(Defender's NS) x Cost

 

So if the attacker is 2x's the strength, it costs twice as much; 3x's, three times as much, etc.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Princess Bubblegum

[Clarke]

Sorry for the grave dig, but this issue has become apparent again. 

It was never an issue, I'm just ahead of things.

 

I do like the idea of it costing more the more of range a nation becomes, less NS wise anyway. 

You're a terrible example nation to use though since shall we say you're out of norm of where this issue may actually lie. 

 

 

If (Attacker's NS) > (Defender's NS)

(Attacker's NS)/(Defender's NS) x Cost

 

So if the attacker is 2x's the strength, it costs twice as much; 3x's, three times as much, etc.

 

I think if a nation is outside another nations down-declaration war range then it should automatically cost x3 times the cost as default. 

And perhaps continue with so using your formula after that.