Incoming Spy Changes

[Kemal Ergenekon]

I'm trying to think whether this update would make ships, missiles and nukes better or worse.

 

In the past, rich/large nations could protect their ships, missiles and nukes with humongous amounts of spies unilaterally. Now they cannot.

 

In the past, rich/large nations could easily destroy ships, missiles and nukes of their opponents with humongous amounts of spies unilaterally. Now they cannot.

 

So we "leveled the playing field" for ship, missile and nuke destruction/protection in favor of small nations, I guess. Being a midsize nation, I won't complain, but being rich/large just became less valuable.

[kalev60]

As a mostly defensive player believing in good preparations this change is totally awful and silly, 60 days of everyday log ins for nothing, 135k for over to months of upkeep payments ridiculous, to reward lazy people with game changes and punish people who actually care to play and build a militarily competitive nation is rubbish, way to cave into the whining lazy people !@#$ing about how someone willing to invest 60+plus days into everyday spy buying destroyed their nation. It's the worst "improvement"  so far!

What's next? City number cap, infra and land caps, soldier cap, missiles and aircraft caps, ow there are also ships and money and resources caps, if those don't level the playing field you wanna think about deleting the declare a war button?!

Edited July 10, 2015 by kalev60

[Buorhann]

It also caters to individuals who refused to keep up with the spy counts.

 

Mensa HQ had one of the lowest spy counts in the game as an alliance, but after the Ashland/BoC spy attacks - we're packing one of the most spy counts.  We adapted as an alliance to counter this.

 

I haven't been happy with the spy changes for a while.  This was something that we saw as a valid tactic wisely done by BoC and we adapted it to our own strategy, but ever since then - it seems more and more of those who refuse to adapt their builds are getting their way with the changes of the game ( Admittedly that's speculation ).

 

Like LordRahl said, the changes lately have favored more of a defensive 'save the pixels' mindset and it's frustrating.  The whole point of war is to learn and adapt.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Buorhann

[Godfrey]

I agree that it sucks for people who spent all this time building up spies (myself included), but I think the spy system has needed a serious reworking for a long time now and I'm curious to see how these changes will play out. I think these changes will turn out to be good for the game in the long run.

[Hooves]

I would like to emphasize the who is this we you're speaking of Sheepy. Regardless it's best to simply test how this new system works out before I voice anything.

[LordRahl2]

I agree that it sucks for people who spent all this time building up spies (myself included), but I think the spy system has needed a serious reworking for a long time now and I'm curious to see how these changes will play out. I think these changes will turn out to be good for the game in the long run.

 

Nope.  BL: Less offensive action is bad in the long term for the health of the game.  Without the 'war' part of politics and war it is very dull and people will just slowly fade away.  Unhealthy.  But I am sure the last people will have lots of pixels so 'hooray'?

[Buorhann]

I would like to emphasize the who is this we you're speaking of Sheepy. Regardless it's best to simply test how this new system works out before I voice anything.

 

 

I can agree with this.  Is there a small test server for players to play around with to test out new changes before implementing them?

[Guest]

Sheepy, who is this 'we'? You are getting some really bad advice.

There is a group of players from all different alliances who are part of what is called the "Development" group.

 

No one has a certain agenda they're trying to push in that group. There are members who don't get along IC and even OOC outside that forum but in that forum they're all giving their opinions on threads posted by Sheepy and suggestions made by players to which Sheepy then takes into consideration and makes a decision based on the content and such.

[Phiney]

I'll say what I said when these changes were being initially discussed.

 

You've got to remember, the big things this is bringing in is getting rid of the spy range so allowing everyone to use spies more effectively and more often which is great, and allowing people to build back up quicker as well as knock people down quicker. More dynamism.

 

That was what I originally loved about spies, it took some real coordination but allowed you to pre war do a bit of damage to an alliance if you were coordinated enough. 

With spy ranges this is no longer possible for smaller alliances, and it seems with this (read, the current system) huge nerf it'd simply take to long to have any effect on an entire alliance and so would never be used like that anymore. 

We need large casualties to make it useable, but I understand the frustration of losing lots very quickly. I just think theyre cheap, so does it matter? You just need to get back to it, and start building them up again. This is why it was better when the most spies anyone had was 50 though, At 50 spies max the spy game is very dynamic. 

 

The problem without a cap is that its pretty much impossible to balance spy vs spy damages for small and large amounts of spies, and it also necessitates the spy range which is a limiter making less people get involved. This change completely promotes co-ordination and planning and action over just sitting there and defending yourself and not using them. 

[LordRahl2]

There is a group of players from all different alliances who are part of what is called the "Development" group.

 

No one has a certain agenda they're trying to push in that group. There are members who don't get along IC and even OOC outside that forum but in that forum they're all giving their opinions on threads posted by Sheepy and suggestions made by players to which Sheepy then takes into consideration and makes a decision based on the content and such.

 

Can we get a list of these players?  I assume you are one.  Lets start gathering the stats:

 

Nation Name: Apex Nation Leader Name: Rampage Founded:

11/01/2014 (251 Days Old)

Spies:41

Lost:19

 

Nope no agenda or bias if you are one of these folks.

[LordRahl2]

I'll say what I said when these changes were being initially discussed.

 

You've got to remember, the big things this is bringing in is getting rid of the spy range so allowing everyone to use spies more effectively and more often which is great, and allowing people to build back up quicker as well as knock people down quicker. More dynamism.

 

That was what I originally loved about spies, it took some real coordination but allowed you to pre war do a bit of damage to an alliance if you were coordinated enough. 

 

With spy ranges this is no longer possible for smaller alliances, and it seems with this (read, the current system) huge nerf it'd simply take to long to have any effect on an entire alliance and so would never be used like that anymore. 

 

We need large casualties to make it useable, but I understand the frustration of losing lots very quickly. I just think theyre cheap, so does it matter? You just need to get back to it, and start building them up again. This is why it was better when the most spies anyone had was 50 though, At 50 spies max the spy game is very dynamic. 

 

The problem without a cap is that its pretty much impossible to balance spy vs spy damages for small and large amounts of spies, and it also necessitates the spy range which is a limiter making less people get involved. This change completely promotes co-ordination and planning and action over just sitting there and defending yourself and not using them. 

Nation Name: Phintopia Leader Name: Phiney Founded:

08/05/2014 (339 Days Old)

Spies:0

Lost:29

 

(zero - WHAT??)

 

No agenda here folks, moving on...

 

[Pfeiffer]

There is a group of players from all different alliances who are part of what is called the "Development" group.

 

No one has a certain agenda they're trying to push in that group. There are members who don't get along IC and even OOC outside that forum but in that forum they're all giving their opinions on threads posted by Sheepy and suggestions made by players to which Sheepy then takes into consideration and makes a decision based on the content and such.

 

Not all, Cynic.

 

Not even all of the major alliances are represented.

[Alex]

It wasn't just an individual strategy you've killed.  It was an alliance wide, long term strategy for us that took months of planning and investment.  So those alliances and individuals who were ill-prepared or too tight to pay the upkeep are now laughing.

 

I suspect most of this advice has come from people without many spies and with a vested interest in the strategy being removed.  I know Mensa had a big impact with spies in the last war and it's easier for people to complain about the system than buy their own spies and pay for them.

 

There are far too many changes to the military side of this game.  As soon as you are set on a strategy, something changes.  I thought it was out of beta before I joined.  Yes we can change strategy, it's not too big of a deal, it's just a shame.

 

Yes, I understand that it is a large change to game strategy, and I dislike making such big changes. But still, I do believe it's in the best long-term interests of the game that this particular aspect of the game is changed. Spying isn't the bread and butter of the game, it's simply an enhancement, and you have to keep that in mind. I know you and your alliance and other alliances have built up spying strategies, and I hate to render those null, but in this instance I think the benefits outweigh the negatives. Just because we're reworking spies a bit, don't think we're going to be tinkering with infrastructure/city mechanics next. I'm trying to minimize the more drastic changes.

 

Ah, I see.

 

My point was about Sheepy consistently listening to some group of players who have a clear agenda.  And the advice is pushing the game further and further in a defensive save my pixels direction.  This will damage the game's long term health far more than some random cheaters.

 

This isn't about anyone who has an "agenda" other than to better the game. These changes are intended to improve the game as a whole, and are not aimed at a "save my pixels" direction. If anything this change makes spying more dynamic and more volatile, and increases the ability to "lose pixels".

 

As a mostly defensive player believing in good preparations this change is totally awful and silly, 60 days of everyday log ins for nothing, 135k for over to months of upkeep payments ridiculous, to reward lazy people with game changes and punish people who actually care to play and build a militarily competitive nation is rubbish, way to cave into the whining lazy people !@#$ing about how someone willing to invest 60+plus days into everyday spy buying destroyed their nation. It's the worst "improvement"  so far!

What's next? City number cap, infra and land caps, soldier cap, missiles and aircraft caps, ow there are also ships and money and resources caps, if those don't level the playing field you wanna think about deleting the declare a war button?!

 

You did read the post and see that it's $135,200 per spy, yeah? That's a full refund on your spy and 35.5 days of upkeep. For free.

[Clarke]

I think Sheepy probably just included the loudest people in that group, not that there isn't some diversity. 

But as for all those involved I doubt there was any thought put into it. 

[Alex]

Not all, Cynic.

 

Not even all of the major alliances are represented.

 

The closed dev forum receives new players all the time. All it takes is a request by someone already in the forum to be added. There are about 5 different threads with lots of discussion from people all across the board about this spying dilemma, and we've finally come to what we think is an appropriate change. Even someone like Ashland, who has 180 spies and a lot to lose from this change agrees that it'll still make spying okay and he's on board with it.

[Phiney]

Nation Name: Phintopia Leader Name: Phiney Founded:

08/05/2014 (339 Days Old)

Spies:0

Lost:29

 

(zero - WHAT??)

 

No agenda here folks, moving on...

 

 

 

wanna play that game? I'm now listing the numbers of spies people have as I go along

 

59, 98, 52, 165, 82, 74, 126, 68, 212, 60, 70, 228

 

The dev suggestion team is selected carefully to get rid of bias, and anyone showing bias is removed. The fact your first thought goes towards having bias shows that you wouldn't be good material.

[kalev60]

Also Alliance members numbers will be ruling most of the future spy conflicts, the more members AA has the bigger the total Cap, the easier will be to kill smaller AA-s,   and smaller AA-s can't to much against it except coalition building or getting more members either by recruiting or multis.

 

Yeah i did read it one month refund thing, so that should balance out all the building and upkeep from the reset till now? What about the belief in once you build it it will be forever or at-least till some fellow player decides to destroy it. Why is it when game-makers decide to wipe out the achievements of players they call it improvements?

Edited July 10, 2015 by kalev60

[Isolatar]

Am I a part of the sekrit group?

[Clarke]

The closed dev forum receives new players all the time. All it takes is a request by someone already in the forum to be added. There are about 5 different threads with lots of discussion from people all across the board about this spying dilemma, and we've finally come to what we think is an appropriate change. Even someone like Ashland, who has 180 spies and a lot to lose from this change agrees that it'll still make spying okay and he's on board with it.

Ashland would have some bias with the current system considering he probably thinks he got shafted by it. 

[Yosodog]

Instead of a cap, why not just increase the price of spies as you buy them? Like infra or land.

[Isolatar]

Instead of a cap, why not just increase the price of spies as you buy them? Like infra or land.

 

But some people already have an advantage over others

[Buorhann]

wanna play that game? I'm now listing the numbers of spies people have as I go along

 

59, 98, 52, 165, 82, 74, 126, 68, 212, 60, 70, 228

 

The dev suggestion team is selected carefully to get rid of bias, and anyone showing bias is removed. The fact your first thought goes towards having bias shows that you wouldn't be good material.

 

 

Mind listing how old the accounts are too while you're at it?

[Phiney]

Instead of a cap, why not just increase the price of spies as you buy them? Like infra or land.

 

This was discussed, but again that just inhibits rebuilding and favours those at the top who will just be able to constantly beat others down without them being able to get back up to the top level due to costs. 

 

Also, one of the main points in this change is to get rid of spy ranges which really brings down the spy game and co-ordination in alliances. This is the only real way we can do that. 

[Dalinar]

In addition to the CIA giving +10 to the spy cap, what are your thoughts on allowing an additional spy purchase every day (3 per day instead of 2)? 

 

That might make it OP though, I can't decide (figured I mention it to see what everyone else thinks).

[Braunsberg]

 

Refund all spies over 50 at $135,200 each - This is to account for the cost of the spy itself and the large upkeep you pay per day on your spies

 

Just to be sure... wouldn't this mean that if we load up on spies now, we will profit from the refund? Spies only cost $50,000 and if we don't pay their upkeep for very long, $135,200 per spy would be significantly more than what we would spend on new spies.