Incoming Spy Changes

[Buorhann]

Don't forget, they're vital at taking out blockades/protecting ships too.

[Wayne]

Don't forget, they're vital at taking out blockades/protecting ships too.

 

That's some James Bond shit right there...

[rollo]

Removing the range is bad idea

[Callisto]

The spy cap is a good addition to the game because it prevents people from gathering huge amounts of spies and being able to easily spy anyone.

Edited July 11, 2015 by HouseofJacks

[Cody K]

P.s. it's 2.30am and this discussion has been going on for 4 hours as I've been (in my head at least) trying to bridge the gap a bit between the dev forum people and the rest by explaining the discussions that have been going on so please excuse the post coming across badly.

 

There shouldn't be a gap between the "dev forum people" and the rest of the players. Why does a select a few get to hold an undisclosed discussion simply because they were arbitrarily referred by an existing member of this closed group? You say you try to prevent bias but what checks and balances exists to make sure the group does not suffer from it? Why has it just now been made public that this "dev forum" and "dev group" exists? 

 

I have no issue with the change that is being made. I have an issue with how this change was conceived. 

[Phiney]

The gap didn't exist until this post. I believe Some people took issue with the wording used by sheepy.

 

People are not arbitrarily added, when making a suggestion to sheepy about adding someone, reasoning is required as to why you think they would be a good addition. For example a guy messaged me yesterday after this post with a request to be suggested, in his messagw he provided evidence of his previous contributions and the skillsets he can provide to the group. This was passed on to sheepy and another user also vouched and then they were added. Also, much less people have been added by the members than were initially added by Sheepy.

 

As for checks maybe there should be some more formal ones, but currently the users check each other, it is not a group of friends and people are very aware that bias is unwanted and looked down upon In the group. Sometimes this leads to a small amount of thread derailing through discussions and claims of bias but mostly it is handled pretty well. People have indeed been removed in the past due to it.

 

It also hasnt just now been made public, people were aware of it for quite some time, and this has indeed been discussed by the group. Sheepy even posed the question of making the group visable to all but not able to post in, but it was unanimously (17-0) agreed this would be detrimental and would bring about more situations such as this one instead of less.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Phiney

[Clarke]

I was going to say about how bad suggestions and ideas shouldn't be forced on the game by such a narrow focus, I'm looking at some of the names in the group and I can see why this change was supported. 

Last187 was in the group? c'mon this isn't a group of people who is interested in what is best for the game. Not that everyone should be painted with the same brush, human nature for people is to support things that help themselves and not necessarily things that are better for the world. 

No one can run from their bias for how they want things to be.

 

As for reasons to implement a spy cap, the best argument someone made was referring to technology in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and that spies would be the same as tech in the way the game is broken. I disagree however since technology is a primary part of (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and is what does damage in the wars, spies aren't so and are not going to weigh down everyone like tech does in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) by forcing people to obey those with higher amounts of tech.

Someone with 500 spies isn't going to be wield that sort of power and isn't going to be some unstoppable force breaking the game. 

Most if not all the arguments against the spy cap seem new to this group of people suppose to be analyzing the game to make it better. 

So it looks like this group is broken if they aren't actually asking the important questions, and from the arguments given in support of this change so far the pros don't outweigh the cons. 

[Bilal the Great]

Ahahaha, yes. This is perfect.

[LordRahl2]

It also hasnt just now been made public, people were aware of it for quite some time, and this has indeed been discussed by the group. Sheepy even posed the question of making the group visable to all but not able to post in, but it was unanimously (17-0) agreed this would be detrimental and would bring about more situations such as this one instead of less.

 

So the secret cabal universally agreed to remain secret.  FYI- this is not a shock.

 

I am sure the 'reasoning' is that it would be detrimental to them personally.  I am positive that the existence of a secret cabal will bring about MORE situations such as this.  I don't know why I have to bring in 'evidence' of this statement but fine.  People distrust shadowy groups that make decisions or 'advise' out of the light of day.  Conspiracy theorists thrive on the things and they have large followings.  In this case you do not even need a conspiracy.  There actually IS a group of secret players advising admin outside of the public eye.  The only way into this cabal, according to Sheepy, is to be recommended by a member of this secret society.

 

How in the world you fail to see the negative aspect of that is, frankly, beyond me.

Edited July 11, 2015 by LordRahl2

[Hodor]

I am all for the dev group. That's fine by me, one glance at that list of people and you can see that many of them openly disagree with each other nearly constantly. To think there is some conspiracy where they all work for some unified purpose and then act as if they don't like each other on OWF is absurd.

 

For those of you butthurt because you're not in the dev group, ask to join. If you seriously don't think those players have invested time and effort into this game, you're blind. Likewise there are a significant amount of people in that group which would negate the opinions of the few you claim have superiority complexes.

 

Finally, I do think this is a terrible change for the game for almost all the reasons already listed. I do hope that the delay in implementation is a sign that this change is being reconsidered.

[LordRahl2]

I am all for the dev group. That's fine by me, one glance at that list of people and you can see that many of them openly disagree with each other nearly constantly. To think there is some conspiracy where they all work for some unified purpose and then act as if they don't like each other on OWF is absurd.

 

For those of you butthurt because you're not in the dev group, ask to join. If you seriously don't think those players have invested time and effort into this game, you're blind. Likewise there are a significant amount of people in that group which would negate the opinions of the few you claim have superiority complexes.

 

Finally, I do think this is a terrible change for the game for almost all the reasons already listed. I do hope that the delay in implementation is a sign that this change is being reconsidered.

 

Firstly, I do not care to be added to that group.  Below I will ask for screen shots specifically because I really do not want to be added.

 

Hodor, I really like you as a player from what I know of you.  Now, I think that your post perfectly represents the flaw in how the player base perceives this incident and the BGE group.  You state you are all for the BGE group.  You then immediately post that the change that the BGEs endorsed was 'terrible'.  How can a good concept and a good group go wrong.  Well it happens all the time and I provided, over and over, the reason why, namely group-think happened.

 

Apparently, there is a misconception here that group think cannot happen among a group selected that do not normally agree with each other.  This is dead wrong.  in fact in many case studies this enhances the negative influence of group-think.  So dispel that from your minds.

 

I can dissect what happened and provide a tldr feedback to sheepy if he cares.  I would need some screen shots of the discussion(s) and I am most interested in the original post from Sheepy and any subsequent pieces of guidance from him.  If he provided me those I could give him a 50% answer.  Other enhancing views of the discussion would enable a more thorough analysis.  If the secrecy of the BGEs is so important than black out their names and just call them player 1/2/3 etc.

 

To reiterate, the concept of an advisory group is a good one.  I concur with that.  However, something broke down here because the bad idea (spy change) would not have made it out of the BGE forum otherwise.  Something is wrong, however, it can be fixed.  I offer that service for free and can provide an academically sound tldr written to this audience or to sheepy.

 

I doubt you will accept because I am vocal and directly challenge authority in these forums.  Whatever you desire but I have offered.

Edited July 11, 2015 by LordRahl2

[Phiney]

I think the problem I have with your post here is that you are saying it's a bad idea just because you believe that so. You have no proof and no one does on either side until it is put into action and we can judge it 2 months down the road. I don't agree with You basing your conclusions of a group on your opinion of an idea.

[LordRahl2]

I think the problem I have with your post here is that you are saying it's a bad idea just because you believe that so. You have no proof and no one does on either side until it is put into action and we can judge it 2 months down the road. I don't agree with You basing your conclusions of a group on your opinion of an idea.

 

Perhaps you misread my post.  I am forwarding that group think occurred and stating that I can provide an analysis of it.  I can do a much better job with this with access to primary rather than secondary sources.

 

In addition to that it is true that I believe the spy change is negative and biased.  That it favors certain people/groups at the expense of others is undeniable.  That it is a long term deterrent to war (and excitement) is something that is merely well reasoned opinion.  The risk/reward ratio, however, strongly supports not taking the proposed action.

Edited July 11, 2015 by LordRahl2

[ELPINCHAZO]

Perhaps you misread my post.  I am forwarding that group think occurred and stating that I can provide an analysis of it.  I can do a much better job with this with access to primary rather than secondary sources.

 

In addition to that it is true that I believe the spy change is negative and biased.  That it favors certain people/groups at the expense of others is undeniable.  That it is a long term deterrent to war (and excitement) is something that is merely well reasoned opinion.  The risk/reward ratio, however, strongly supports not taking the proposed action.

I suggest that you present that to sheepy off the forum in a pm or IRC, because at this point everything has become so confrontational and accusatory that it isn't helping anything at all.

[Phiney]

I don't think i misread anything. Your conclusion was that a group is good, but this group doesn't work because you believe this proposed change is bad. So at the same time as saying 'here are facts that the group doesn't work' you're also saying the 'facts' are completely based upon your opinion that the spy change will be bad. Just seems a bit of a squif analysis to me.

[Caecus]

I think the problem I have with your post here is that you are saying it's a bad idea just because you believe that so. You have no proof and no one does on either side until it is put into action and we can judge it 2 months down the road. I don't agree with You basing your conclusions of a group on your opinion of an idea.

 

The only reason why I'm going along with this update is under the assumption that we won't have to screw with the spy system 2 months later. If that is something we should be expecting, then we might as well duke this out now. This is ridiculous, stop screwing with numbers and systems. It's hard enough as is to predict politics and the next great war. Don't add to our miseries by having to try and predict radical game changes too. 

[Alex]

The only reason why I'm going along with this update is under the assumption that we won't have to screw with the spy system 2 months later. If that is something we should be expecting, then we might as well duke this out now. This is ridiculous, stop screwing with numbers and systems. It's hard enough as is to predict politics and the next great war. Don't add to our miseries by having to try and predict radical game changes too. 

 

This is how I came up with the idea of a spy cap. It would ensure no changes were necessary later on.

[LordRahl2]

I don't think i misread anything. Your conclusion was that a group is good, but this group doesn't work because you believe this proposed change is bad. So at the same time as saying 'here are facts that the group doesn't work' you're also saying the 'facts' are completely based upon your opinion that the spy change will be bad. Just seems a bit of a squif analysis to me.

 

OK...then you generally miss-correlated what I said.  My conclusion is not that a group is 'good' or not.  I do not make such judgements really.  I paraphrased Hodor who basically said the group was 'good'.  I did say the concept was good.  That does not mean it was well executed or the end result is 'good'...nor does it imply that it is 'bad'.

 

I did say that the group is likely using group-think.  It is an incorrect caricaturization to state that I said that it 'doesn't work'.  They are not the same.

 

I am saying that if I am provided access to primary source data I can provide a good explanation of how the group-think occurred.  That I can do this is independent of 'good change' or 'bad change' being true.

 

You are correlating my feelings about the spy change with my understanding of group interactions and offer of providing analysis of the group dynamic.  I tried to separate the two but it is obvious that I did not succeed.

 

There is no 'good' or 'bad' associated with group-think.  There simply is or is not, if you will.  The results of it can be damaging - though often group think results in efficient results.

Edited July 11, 2015 by LordRahl2

[Moreau]

Uwutm8?

Edited July 11, 2015 by Moreau

[Jefferson Davis III]

Personally, 50 is a bit weak in my opinion, but your the boss sheepy. As for everything else, that's good too, but, oh well, that's the game.

[Conroy]

This is how I came up with the idea of a spy cap. It would ensure no changes were necessary later on.

 

Let's be honest here sheepy, there have never been any necessary changes to the spy system aside from bugs. All the changes you've made to it have been to appease the complaining players(who didn't want amass of spies) and have progressively made the spy system less and less usable. Now the latest proposed update if you push it through will cease the use of spies offensively(because it's no longer cost effective) except from cases where they outnumber the opposing spies by far. So please just revert the spy system to way it was when the spy range was first put in(as a middle ground) or remove them altogether so we no longer have to waste money on spies for defensive purposes only.

[kalev60]

This is how I came up with the idea of a spy cap. It would ensure no changes were necessary later on.

I believe that if this update is made there will become an outcry in next couple of months or at-least after the next global war. The coalition with less member-nations will lose at-least in the spy section of warfare just because they have collectively less spies  and they'll start demanding a more fair spy system or maybe we will see very few spy-op next war only the biggest/richest nations taking out some of their opponents nukes and missiles, rendering the spy section useless for smaller nations again leading into players starting to want change in spy mechanics. Also proposed mechanic is too attacker friendly is the odds when attacking 50vs50 spies, what exactly gives attacker 72% success odds in a 50 vs 50 simulation at the maximum caution level? Wouldn't the maximum caution level logically mean sacrificing getting more enemy spies for lower risk of losing your own spies while yes improving success odds at the expense of inflicting maximum casualties. Yes, there is the moment of surprise but it should be darn impossible to surprise a bunch of spies of all the people. They should see it coming if they are any good at their job.   So, that also might push some people to demand a fairer play-field.

Edited July 12, 2015 by kalev60

[Placentica]

As someone with 166 spies, not sure I like this change, but if I'm being honest....when you lose a war and lose all your spies - it does make it rather hard to rebuild.  I get that this change was needed and the CIA change is very good.

 

I just think if I spent all that cash, over 3 months to buy spies, with all the upkeep....I should be allowed to own most people in spy attempts.

The easier fix would've been to just make it harder to sabotage spies, which looks like you've done a bit here.  Overall, meh...it was expected.  But now I fear it'll be too hard to protect a nuclear stockpile.  6 spy attacks at update, would pretty well kill off my spies now right?.  That was my main reason for buying so many spies.

 

But getting rid of spy capture numbers....THANK YOU.

Edited July 12, 2015 by Placentica

[Atzuya]

This whole thread

 

If I knew it would get this heated, I would've said something on all that spy threads... but then again, I know very little when it comes to spy operations on larger scale. Eh

[Alex]

We're reviewing the feedback received in this thread and will releasing an update shortly.