LordRahl2 Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 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". It certainly appears that they do. EVERYONE has an agenda. I do, so do you, so do all the members of any group you assemble. Ashland, btw, does as well. Check his raw alliance spy numbers vs his most likely future opponent/also his last kurfuffle. And the change is absolutely moving the game in a 'save muh pixels' directions. There is really no debate here to be had about this point.... 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. Again, everyone has bias. You cannot remove it. From what sheepy said the players have to recommend people to this group of awesome. I cannot imagine that a self selecting group would display group think. 4 -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) 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. #spygate2015 Edited July 10, 2015 by Rampage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 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. The "spy range" addition hasn't even lasted long in the game as it is, it's still a recent change. 1 Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 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. Yes, but this change is going in within 24 hours... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) Mind listing how old the accounts are too while you're at it? Why don't you ask your leader. The group is very diverse, there are members from the VAST majority of alliances. Edit: here are the requirements sheepy set when inviting people. "There are no requirements in terms of length around the forums, what alliance you're in, etc. The only qualifications are that you're level-headed, reasonably smart, capable of constructively responding to something, and can offer a unique viewpoint." Edited July 10, 2015 by Phiney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 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. I just saw this. How is this not a problem? 1 1 Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braunsberg Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Yes, but this change is going in within 24 hours... Ah, Sheepy's post didn't mention that. He just said the near future, as I recall. Oh well, at least I've been stocking up on a few spies recently. "Bibant, quoniam edere nolunt." ~ "Let them drink, since they do not wish to eat." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) Why don't you ask your leader. The group is very diverse, there are members from the VAST majority of alliances. I'm asking you since you're trying to deter any suspicion of an agenda here. You don't have to answer, that's fine, but if you're adamant that this is the "will of the group think tank" here - I'd like to feel confident that my investment into this game has very little ( Preferbably none ) bias involved when these BIG decisions are made. Edited July 10, 2015 by Buorhann 1 Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 I just saw this. How is this not a problem? Because we actively look for people posting interesting and reasonable posts in the games suggestion forum and providing constructive criticism. People often suggest people they don't even know based on their posting content. Anyway, the point of this thread is so people can see the spy changes that are going in, not to discuss the dev discussion area. Back to the spy changes. Can someone against the change give a level, detailed reason why they are bad with stats to back it up? These changes havn't come out of nowhere, they have been analysed and combed through to come up with the optimum change, so in order to dispute them well, you'd need to do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) Can someone for the change give a level, detailed reason why they are good with stats to back it up? Edited July 10, 2015 by Clarke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ren Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Well now that there is a cap, there goes my idea of allowing the CIA national project to let you recruit 4 spies instead of 2. All well I guess. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I think this ought to be implemented. Chances are, anyone who buys the CIA project will already have their 50 spies at the time of purchase, so why not give them a bit of an edge when rebuilding. It would make the project an effective deterrent, as most nations would rather spy on someone who can't rapidly replace their losses over someone who can. It would also encourage the purchase of more CIA projects, and possibly, more credits to fund the project purchases. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crowley Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Capping spies is what will make them dynamic, though. Currently you either have a lot of spies, or you have hardly any spies, and when someone assassinates your spies, you lose a lot of progress. These changes will make spies more dynamic, and the first "even" playing field for nations of all sizes. Plus, the offense still has the advantage, you have 72% success odds in a 50 vs 50 simulation at the maximum caution level. The days of unlimited spying capability will be over, the days of a more even, balanced spy system will reign. Can't this be said about everything in the game????? Capping MISSILES will make them more dynamic. Currently you either have a lot of MISSLES, or hardly any, and when someone destroys your MISSLES, you lost a lot of progress. Theses changes will make planes more dynamic, and even the playing field for nations of all sizes. Change SPIES to any military unit of the game and what you say is the exact same thing. or..... Capping CITIES will make them more dynamic. Currently you either have a lot of CITIES, or hardly any, and when someone destroys your CITIES, you lost a lot of progress. Theses changes will make CITIES more dynamic, and even the playing field for nations of all sizes. A 2 per day spy build makes people come to a game daily to play. DAILY is the key to any game. Getting people to come back gets them more involved. Now, with 50 spies, I don't have to log in and do anything but once a week or so; unless I get an email that I was attacked or see actions on my Alliances forum, outside the game itself. You have eliminated the one reward players get for coming to the game daily. If you wanted to make it more "even" and fair, just make Spies like Cities and Infra. The city costs go up for each city and infra costs go up as you buy more. As you get more spies, the cost to hire and maintain goes up exponentially. Easy. Simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 I think this ought to be implemented. Chances are, anyone who buys the CIA project will already have their 50 spies at the time of purchase, so why not give them a bit of an edge when rebuilding. It would make the project an effective deterrent, as most nations would rather spy on someone who can't rapidly replace their losses over someone who can. It would also encourage the purchase of more CIA projects, and possibly, more credits to fund the project purchases. Yeah seems like a good change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pfeiffer Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Yo, Phiney...I got access like an hour ago, don't lump me in with the group on this decision. I disagree with a fair portion of this announcement, and would have said so if I had been included. ☾☆ Chairman Emeritus of Mensa HQ ☾☆ "It's not about the actual fish, themselves. Fish are not important in this context. It's about fish-ing, the act of fishing itself." -Jack O'Neill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Because we actively look for people posting interesting and reasonable posts in the games suggestion forum and providing constructive criticism. People often suggest people they don't even know based on their posting content. Anyway, the point of this thread is so people can see the spy changes that are going in, not to discuss the dev discussion area. Back to the spy changes. Can someone against the change give a level, detailed reason why they are bad with stats to back it up? These changes havn't come out of nowhere, they have been analysed and combed through to come up with the optimum change, so in order to dispute them well, you'd need to do the same. Open the books to the super secret discussion that has absolutely no bias from the group of players who are beyond reproach and in no way selected to encourage group think. Then I will provide you with such feedback. Saying that they are 'analyzed and combed through' and 'optimum' is not an argument. Show me the primary source. 1 -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Can someone for the change give a level, detailed reason why they are good with stats to back it up? I can try. I've already talked about why I think the 50 cap is a good move forward; it allows for the removal of the spy range, puts everyone at a level playing field regardless of nation size (no immense upkeep) and allows for interaction and teamwork. Smaller alliances that are active and engaged with the spy system can work to remove key members spies in larger alliances, hurting them in a war and making it more about co-ordination and activity than having the most spies and money. Activity means more than numbers. It only takes 25 days to get back to being on a level playing field with any and all members of the game that could be working to defeat you in the future, big or small, and you cant lose ridiculous amounts of spies in single attacks (50, 60) that take many many days to build but only 1 to lose, making people more likely to rebuild and engage with the system rather than try to ignore it and keep a small amount of spies in defense. Moving on from the cap, the 25% +4 system was chosen based on the following stats. Here's some numbers Sheepy ran in Excel. On the left is the number of operations, on the right is the number of spies the person has left. It presumes that you're killing the % listed, plus 2 (because it's plus 4, but you can buy 2 per day. Obviously if you were coordinating 3 nations to all assassinate someone's spies, they'd go down faster, these examples are assuming a 1v1 assassinate spies every day scenario. Also, keep in mind where it goes negative that's where they hit 0 spies, you can't actually go negative). This stops people very quickly being able to remove missiles and nukes from others, but requires work and co-ordination to be put into the system to get the reward. Remember, the real goal of the spy system isnt to remove others spies, its to get to whats behind them, so with the cap and this system it's not like no one will use spies as everyone has the same amount, the real goal is too important and not TOO difficult to achieve on anyone and everyone. I probably missed quite a bit but thats a fairly quick overview of my thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crowley Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Plus, the offense still has the advantage, you have 72% success odds in a 50 vs 50 simulation at the maximum caution level. The days of unlimited spying capability will be over, the days of a more even, balanced spy system will reign. Why the heck is this even the case? Offensive spies are more successful? So, I have 50 spies in my nation. Their job is to protect the nation and be on the look out for other spies. Yet, 50 spies from another nation have a bigger advantage in killing them, in their own nation, where they live and work, where they would be actively looking for enemy spies to come? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Why the heck is this even the case? Offensive spies are more successful? So, I have 50 spies in my nation. Their job is to protect the nation and be on the look out for other spies. Yet, 50 spies from another nation have a bigger advantage in killing them, in their own nation, where they live and work, where they would be actively looking for enemy spies to come? Because the game isn't based on realism, it's based on promoting activity and aggression over defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stetonic Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Having a cap on spies is not making anything level.A small nation will still not max out there spy count because of the daily upkeep.Also if they aint got missiles or a large military.They dont have anything to really protect.Also by capping spies you are also indirectly capping how many missiles and nukes i am going to keep.I mean why would i keep a large stock of either when i only have 50 spies to protect them. Having no cap gave me the choice of keeping a large stock because i knew i had the ability to protect them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) I throw my support behind this change. My biggest problem with this is still the spy success rates. I believe that the spy success rates still favor the defender a bit too much. Though I can also see why you wouldn't bring the spy rates up to the original numbers from the old system. I think buffing the success rates slightly would help encouraging more spy attacks. Edit: Again, and I have ranted about this in both the discussion area and on my own thread, 72% success means 28% failure. FAILURE IS THE CASE WHERE YOU ASSASSINATE ABSOLUTELY 0 SPIES. $3m for an op with more than 1 in 4 chance of just wasting it is sad. You need to buff the spy rates slightly, or else nobody is going to bother with spying offensively. I'm not asking to return it back to the old days, but buffing it slightly would be good. As a guy who just got rid of 156 spies this sucks. That's 10 million cash I'm not getting back with the update Apeman, that's a double standard you are running there. I don't remember you complaining when over the last update, you were able to launch your precious nuclear weapons because the spy system was dead. Let me be the first to give you your well-deserved slow clap. Edited July 10, 2015 by Caecus 1 It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) Can't this be said about everything in the game????? Capping MISSILES will make them more dynamic. Currently you either have a lot of MISSLES, or hardly any, and when someone destroys your MISSLES, you lost a lot of progress. Theses changes will make planes more dynamic, and even the playing field for nations of all sizes. Change SPIES to any military unit of the game and what you say is the exact same thing. or..... Capping CITIES will make them more dynamic. Currently you either have a lot of CITIES, or hardly any, and when someone destroys your CITIES, you lost a lot of progress. Theses changes will make CITIES more dynamic, and even the playing field for nations of all sizes. A 2 per day spy build makes people come to a game daily to play. DAILY is the key to any game. Getting people to come back gets them more involved. Now, with 50 spies, I don't have to log in and do anything but once a week or so; unless I get an email that I was attacked or see actions on my Alliances forum, outside the game itself. You have eliminated the one reward players get for coming to the game daily. If you wanted to make it more "even" and fair, just make Spies like Cities and Infra. The city costs go up for each city and infra costs go up as you buy more. As you get more spies, the cost to hire and maintain goes up exponentially. Easy. Simple. This is a very good point. Lets look at the key logical fallacy below. puts everyone at a level playing field regardless of nation size (no immense upkeep) Why should 'everyone be at a level playing field' irt spies? Why not cities, nukes, and national projects? Bottom Line: You wanted to nerf spies because it enhanced active alliances that spent time building then coordinating spy attacks. You want to fix the system? Revert the changes that were made prior to this. THIS will increase activity and encourage offensive actions by active alliances. EDIT: it's based on promoting activity and aggression over defense. Then you are doing it completely wrong. This change included. Edited July 10, 2015 by LordRahl2 3 -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) Smaller alliances that are active and engaged with the spy system can work to remove key members spies in larger alliances, hurting them in a war and making it more about co-ordination and activity than having the most spies and money. Well whoever called you bias probably has valid claims now since you pretty much alluded to your own alliance. I've already talked about why I think the 50 cap is a good move forward; it allows for the removal of the spy range, puts everyone at a level playing field regardless of nation size (no immense upkeep) and allows for interaction and teamwork. Smaller alliances that are active and engaged with the spy system can work to remove key members spies in larger alliances, hurting them in a war and making it more about co-ordination and activity than having the most spies and money. Activity means more than numbers. It only takes 25 days to get back to being on a level playing field with any and all members of the game that could be working to defeat you in the future, big or small, and you cant lose ridiculous amounts of spies in single attacks (50, 60) that take many many days to build but only 1 to lose, making people more likely to rebuild and engage with the system rather than try to ignore it and keep a small amount of spies in defense. But anyway why would anyone be against this change, well the reason has been present in every single major update related to the warring system. This change mildly supports activity, the primary thing that is does is supports first strikes which is what the game was suppose to move away from or at least should try to do. Now with this change nations don't have to worry about enemy spies, they can just keep 50 and not have to worry about building spies to remain competitive which wouldn't be a problem but as you say activity and co-ordination kicks ass which will make first strikes even more important. Ultimately all this change does is ensure one side in a war takes more damage than the other side and the winning side takes less damage. Perhaps that was considered but it looks like it either wasn't taken seriously or was ignored. Edited July 10, 2015 by Clarke 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Why should 'everyone be at a level playing field' irt spies? Why not cities, nukes, and national projects? Because the game works by allowing people to grow. That is the core of the game, growing. This is effectively an additional module of the game, the spy system. Sheepy is trying something different by having this module be a much more level playing field for all as something everyone can take part in and attack players of all sizes. Not all parts of the game have to work the same way, that would be boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Well whoever called you bias probably has valid claims now since you pretty much alluded to your own alliance. Just because I like to see alliances of all sizes being able to partake in the different parts of the game does not make me bias. Everyone has to draw on experience to make suggestions, that doesnt make it bias, you can still be constructive. I can provide more input from a small alliance perspective, others can provide more input from a large alliance perspective, hense having a range of people discuss suggestions. But anyway why would anyone be against this change, well the reason has been present in every single major update related to the warring system. This change mildly supports activity, the primary thing that is does is supports first strikes which is what the game was suppose to move away from or at least should try to do. Now with this change nations don't have to worry about enemy spies, they can just keep 50 and not have to worry about building spies to remain competitive which wouldn't be a problem but as you say activity and co-ordination kicks ass which will make first strikes even more important. Ultimately all this change does is ensure one side in a war takes more damage than the other side and the winning side takes less damage. Perhaps that was considered but it looks like it either wasn't taken seriously or was ignored. This is a fair point, but you have to remember this is essentially a different module of the game and can be used completely separately to war (see the BoC and Mensa stand off), so needs to be useful outside of war too. If you favour the defender you just make the system unused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Because the game works by allowing people to grow. That is the core of the game, growing. This is effectively an additional module of the game, the spy system. Sheepy is trying something different by having this module be a much more level playing field for all as something everyone can take part in and attack players of all sizes. Not all parts of the game have to work the same way, that would be boring. You are right. With no more alliance bank raiding, nerfed planes, and nerfed spies you are rapidly moving toward an exciting game that in no way encourages turtling and dull alliance webs with no war. What was I thinking. Sorry I ever doubted the almighty secret society of unbiased players who self selected into a non groupthink group. 1 -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts