Incoming Spy Changes

[stetonic]

Anyone for the change keeps saying its to promote a level playing field.Well if you want a level playing field remove the military build count during a war.You having more than me at the start and me not being able to build what i want Is more unlevel than i have more spies than you.

The war system is more unbalanced than anything spies do to the game

[PigInZen]

Sheesh this update will suck.  Using the law of diminishing returns would be a better move than a hard cap, in my opinion.  Make the cost increase for maintaining spies as the number increases as well as the cost of usage.  THAT would make a virtual cap but still provide the leverage for those alliances/players that wish to employ spies as a key component of their overall strategy.

 

As far as the dev forum membership is concerned, wouldn't it be more helpful to add people who have perspective from their real life experience as opposed to being obsessive internet gamers?  I dare say that you're encouraging serious groupthink with your current structure.  A self-selecting group.  Based on my 30 years of real life experience in corporate structure, projects and group dynamics, restricting your group membership in this manner automatically establishes bias.  Worse, you won't necessarily be aware of biases or preconceptions.  

[Phiney]

Sheesh this update will suck. Using the law of diminishing returns would be a better move than a hard cap, in my opinion. Make the cost increase for maintaining spies as the number increases as well as the cost of usage. THAT would make a virtual cap but still provide the leverage for those alliances/players that wish to employ spies as a key component of their overall strategy.

 

As far as the dev forum membership is concerned, wouldn't it be more helpful to add people who have perspective from their real life experience as opposed to being obsessive internet gamers? I dare say that you're encouraging serious groupthink with your current structure. A self-selecting group. Based on my 30 years of real life experience in corporate structure, projects and group dynamics, restricting your group membership in this manner automatically establishes bias. Worse, you won't necessarily be aware of biases or preconceptions.

That was discussed but sheepy decided the hard cap is the way to go, we did provide him with that alternative.

 

And for your other comment, this is the internet anyone can lie, and strong disvussion, reasoning and constructive criticism are valued more than pompous ego based negative comments.

[Caecus]

Sheesh this update will suck.  Using the law of diminishing returns would be a better move than a hard cap, in my opinion.  Make the cost increase for maintaining spies as the number increases as well as the cost of usage.  THAT would make a virtual cap but still provide the leverage for those alliances/players that wish to employ spies as a key component of their overall strategy.

 

That's what I suggested... :/ 

 

Anywho, peeps wanted a long-term solution and the removal of the spy ranges. Tripling or quadrupling the upkeep now would mean "we would have to come back to it in the future." Plus, if you triple or quadruple the upkeep, smaller nations would be unable to defend themselves, so you would still need to institute the spy ranges. 

 

For the record, I was against removing the spy ranges, but in light of the changes now, it works out fine. 

[PigInZen]

That was discussed but sheepy decided the hard cap is the way to go, we did provide him with that alternative.

 

And for your other comment, this is the internet anyone can lie, and strong disvussion, reasoning and constructive criticism are valued more than pompous ego based negative comments.

 

I get than anyone can lie but there are ways to prove your real life identity, and rather easily I might add.  And what you might perceive as being ego-based might actually be extremely beneficial.

[Clarke]

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.

 

 

It is used primarily for war, we don't need to cater to rare instances where it is used outside of war especially if it destabilizes the war system. 

I will reference the "level playing field" term that is used quite often here, this system doesn't favor the defender at all, it just favors that attacker mostly which isn't a level playing field. The defender as it stands with this update will lose and should have more favorable odds.

I highly doubt people will not use the the spy system for coordinating if changed, spying is vital to a war effort so you can't ignore it no matter what defensive odds you're facing.  

Edited July 10, 2015 by Clarke

[Phiney]

I get than anyone can lie but there are ways to prove your real life identity, and rather easily I might add. And what you might perceive as being ego-based might actually be extremely beneficial.

'I have done this therefore i know this therefore I am right and you are wrong' is much less helpful than 'I think this, what do you think?' Or 'I don't agree with this, because of x y z, how about this?'

 

Sheepy has decided attitude is more valuable than real world position.

[LordRahl2]

That was discussed but sheepy decided the hard cap is the way to go, we did provide him with that alternative.

 

And for your other comment, this is the internet anyone can lie, and strong disvussion, reasoning and constructive criticism are valued more than pompous ego based negative comments.

 

You are calling/implying that Pig is a liar?

 

Seemed like he was saying 'I have some experience with groups, here is where you guys went wrong'.  Rather than implying that he is lying you could try to substantivly reply to his concern.  Again, your bias and automatic assumptions makes you a poor choice for this group.

[Phiney]

It is used primarily for war, we don't need to cater to rare instances where it is used outside of war especially if it destabilizes the war system.

I will reference the "level playing field" term that is used quite often here, this system doesn't favor the defender at all, it just favors that attacker mostly which isn't a level playing field. The defender as it stands with this update will lose and should have more favorable odds.

I highly doubt people will not use the the spy system for coordinating if changed, spying is vital to a war effort so you can't ignore it no matter what defensive odds you're facing.

All valid points but we have to promote activity. What's more, to get those 75% odds you need to do the most expensive spy opp, which costs 3 mil. Do a cheaper spy opp and you won't have favourable odds, plus one in four won't work, so if you're doing it secretively before a war you're very likely to get caught AND waste 3 mil. That seems pretty favourable to the defender, its not like in war where an attack costs the defender in gas and munitions, spy opps only cost the attacker apart from the cost of the spies themselves.

[Caecus]

All valid points but we have to promote activity. What's more, to get those 75% odds you need to do the most expensive spy opp, which costs 3 mil. Do a cheaper spy opp and you won't have favourable odds, plus one in four won't work, so if you're doing it secretively before a war you're very likely to get caught AND waste 3 mil. That seems pretty favourable to the defender, its not like in war where an attack costs the defender in gas and munitions, spy opps only cost the attacker apart from the cost of the spies themselves.

 

In fact, I think a bit too favorable... Buff chances please. 

[Phiney]

You are calling/implying that Pig is a liar?

 

Seemed like he was saying 'I have some experience with groups, here is where you guys went wrong'. Rather than implying that he is lying you could try to substantivly reply to his concern. Again, your bias and automatic assumptions makes you a poor choice for this group.

Not at all, I'm saying anyone CAN lie, and sheepy values what he can see evidence of in the discussion forums over any potential true or false real world status. Let's not get into a flame war, try and keep it constructive and informative rather than sarcastic and pedantic.

[LordRahl2]

Not at all, I'm saying anyone CAN lie, and sheepy values what he can see evidence of in the discussion forums over any potential true or false real world status. Let's not get into a flame war, try and keep it constructive and informative rather than sarcastic and pedantic.

 

Did you read my post?

 

"Seemed like he was saying 'I have some experience with groups, here is where you guys went wrong'. . . you could try to substantivly reply to his concern."

 

There, without 'flames'.

[Buorhann]

Not a huge fan of the current group set up having this big of a impact over a game that has over 1800+ accounts in it.

 

No offense Phiney, I know you're replying straight with Clarke and a few others, but I'm not too confident about these big changes now - especially after the fact I now know there's a select few of individuals who choose themselves to be a part of this decision making.  Especially with the fact that LordRahl has mentioned concerned over an agenda, and there's been very little to deter from that fact ( As Clarke also pointed out briefly ).

 

It really does make me wonder where you guys, as a group, plan on taking this game.  This wasn't even discussed for any amount of time to the public, we have a 24 hour timer ( Less now ) to persuade you guys not to go through with this.

 

Granted, majority of us WILL benefit from this with the cash refund, but it doesn't mean we have to like this change.

 

It seems YOUR main concern is the spy range.  Something that was introduced recently and honestly?  I don't think it was a bad change.  I think it needed a gap increase, but overall, it's not too bad of an idea - at least to protect younger/newer nations.  I would much rather have that idea fleshed out than have it completely eliminated in favor of a hard cap.

 

I would also rather have a increase of spy recruitment the more you have, and perhaps a higher spy upkeep as well.  Which would enforce a SOFT cap ( Better than a HARD cap ).

[Phiney]

I responded to his comment... As I said, from what sheepy has said he values evidence of discussion abilities over evidence of real world capabilities.

 

OK, I didn't actually say that was sheepys opinion, but I did earlier quote sheepys guidance rules for adding people to the group. I didn't say he was wrong, Im saying that is what sheepy thinks and that is why he adds who he adds.

[Guest]

Not a huge fan of the current group set up having this big of a impact over a game that has over 1800+ accounts in it.

 

No offense Phiney, I know you're replying straight with Clarke and a few others, but I'm not too confident about these big changes now - especially after the fact I now know there's a select few of individuals who choose themselves to be a part of this decision making. Especially with the fact that LordRahl has mentioned concerned over an agenda, and there's been very little to deter from that fact ( As Clarke also pointed out briefly ).

 

It really does make me wonder where you guys, as a group, plan on taking this game. This wasn't even discussed for any amount of time to the public, we have a 24 hour timer ( Less now ) to persuade you guys not to go through with this.

 

Granted, majority of us WILL benefit from this with the cash refund, but it doesn't mean we have to like this change.

 

It seems YOUR main concern is the spy range. Something that was introduced recently and honestly? I don't think it was a bad change. I think it needed a gap increase, but overall, it's not too bad of an idea - at least to protect younger/newer nations. I would much rather have that idea fleshed out than have it completely eliminated in favor of a hard cap.

 

I would also rather have a increase of spy recruitment the more you have, and perhaps a higher spy upkeep as well. Which would enforce a SOFT cap ( Better than a HARD cap ).

Let's be clear here. Sheepy is the only one who controls the game and "where it's going". He makes the decisions based on suggestions and ideas made by this group. It is no different than the normal suggestion forums, other than there is more thought out, well presented responses and less "you should do this bc it's cool" nonsense you get if you walk into the other areas.

[Clarke]

All valid points but we have to promote activity. What's more, to get those 75% odds you need to do the most expensive spy opp, which costs 3 mil. Do a cheaper spy opp and you won't have favourable odds, plus one in four won't work, so if you're doing it secretively before a war you're very likely to get caught AND waste 3 mil. That seems pretty favourable to the defender, its not like in war where an attack costs the defender in gas and munitions, spy opps only cost the attacker apart from the cost of the spies themselves.

3 million isn't much to spend at all if it can be used to quickly kill off enemy spies and thus then nukes and missiles, in the short run it will be money extremely well spent. 

An alliance is likely to get caught but it's not all that relevant since the spy attacks will most likely occur at update time when war will also be declared and the 3 million wasted went to a good cause regardless even if it failed, the next spy attack has high odds to be successful. 

But I can see your point however I don't think it necessarily makes the game any better.

 

Politics & War seems to have taken the Cybernations approach to spies with the limiting of them, I think no point doing a half assed job with an element also in another game. Politics & War should base the odds a similar way and avoid all this high odds bullshit everyone in this game is use to. 

People here seem to be even afraid of the terrible low odds of 75%, I can't imagine how they would react to anything lower. 

But yeah spies are far too effective and with this change it hurts whatever little balance we currently have. 

So yeah 50% spies odds is the general direction from here with this change.

[Phiney]

Not a huge fan of the current group set up having this big of a impact over a game that has over 1800+ accounts in it.

 

No offense Phiney, I know you're replying straight with Clarke and a few others, but I'm not too confident about these big changes now - especially after the fact I now know there's a select few of individuals who choose themselves to be a part of this decision making. Especially with the fact that LordRahl has mentioned concerned over an agenda, and there's been very little to deter from that fact ( As Clarke also pointed out briefly ).

 

It really does make me wonder where you guys, as a group, plan on taking this game. This wasn't even discussed for any amount of time to the public, we have a 24 hour timer ( Less now ) to persuade you guys not to go through with this.

 

Granted, majority of us WILL benefit from this with the cash refund, but it doesn't mean we have to like this change.

 

It seems YOUR main concern is the spy range. Something that was introduced recently and honestly? I don't think it was a bad change. I think it needed a gap increase, but overall, it's not too bad of an idea - at least to protect younger/newer nations. I would much rather have that idea fleshed out than have it completely eliminated in favor of a hard cap.

 

I would also rather have a increase of spy recruitment the more you have, and perhaps a higher spy upkeep as well. Which would enforce a SOFT cap ( Better than a HARD cap ).

I'm attempting to convey the consensus the group has come to after having all these discussions and opinions you're having now. We have talked about these exact thoughts and this is the decision sheepy has made. In the end all we can do is suggest and reason, its sheepys game he can and does do what he wants.

 

Obviously there is no way to prove that we don't have agendas, but sheepy relies on us and trusts us to make suggestions to the benefit of the game and all I can say is that we try to do that. Since he doesn't play the game it's important for him to have a group of players that know the mechanics very well and can provide evidence based reasoning.

[Buorhann]

 

Politics & War seems to have taken the Cybernations approach to spies with the limiting of them, I think no point doing a half assed job with an element also in another game.

 

 

This makes me wonder considering the majority of the active forum base is from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) ( Or the other mirrored game ).

[LordRahl2]

I responded to his comment... As I said, from what sheepy has said he values evidence of discussion abilities over evidence of real world capabilities.

 

OK, I didn't actually say that was sheepys opinion, but I did earlier quote sheepys guidance rules for adding people to the group. I didn't say he was wrong, Im saying that is what sheepy thinks and that is why he adds who he adds.

 

His comment was related to the group that is providing this 'evidence'.  You did not actually reply to him.

 

 

I'm attempting to convey the consensus the group has come to after having all these discussions and opinions you're having now. We have talked about these exact thoughts and this is the decision sheepy has made. In the end all we can do is suggest and reason, its sheepys game he can and does do what he wants.

 

Obviously there is no way to prove that we don't have agendas, but sheepy relies on us and trusts us to make suggestions to the benefit of the game and all I can say is that we try to do that. Since he doesn't play the game it's important for him to have a group of players that know the mechanics very well and can provide evidence based reasoning.

 

Reread the OP.  Its a 'We've' decision.  Not a "I/Sheepy' decision.

[Lord of Puns]

At risk of being repetitive, I'm a huge spy supporter. I love the game mechanic because it allows for another type of warfare that has a lot less restrictions than actual warfare. And to someone that likes the ability to covertly run another alliance into the ground, capping spies is probably the biggest threat to the bettering of espionage and it's role in actual war. 

 

Once you cap something, you give it an end point. Regardless if an expensive project can better your chances in a spy fight, that's a mere boost with a cap. And despite trying to promote the longterm stability of the game, you instead literally cap it. By placing spots on nations where they have no further ability to build and grow, you give them more and more reason to begin to leave from boredom. 

 

I think the fact that there are so few caps in this game is what's made it prosper well, all nations have something to look forward to and are continually competing with one another to be the absolute best. Once you set a goal, people rush like mad to complete it, then leave. Setting a spy cap will dissever tons and tons of interest into the espionage part of the game. Because once they reach the cap, they're done, and boredom begins to set in. 

 

Also the espionage mechanics before the cap were f'n awesome. They actually allowed people to set up complex spy divisions which propelled my interest in a game not limited by caps and where you basically had free range to take advantage of the war mechanics and twist them into personalized strategies.

 

What I can see from a path like this is eventual (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) like warfare strategies: discouraging and lame. CM,CM,B,B,GA,GA. That's lame. 

 

tl:dr

Lame, gimme moar spies

[Phiney]

Reread the OP.  Its a 'We've' decision.  Not a "I/Sheepy' decision.

 

Possibly poor wording on his part. We provided a range of different options and opinions, he made a decisions based off of these and then posed that decision back to us, and we discussed it more and then he again made another post with what he thought were final changes and we said sure we agree. He is in charge, we consult.

[Phiney]

At risk of being repetitive, I'm a huge spy supporter. I love the game mechanic because it allows for another type of warfare that has a lot less restrictions than actual warfare. And to someone that likes the ability to covertly run another alliance into the ground, capping spies is probably the biggest threat to the bettering of espionage and it's role in actual war. 

 

Once you cap something, you give it an end point. Regardless if an expensive project can better your chances in a spy fight, that's a mere boost with a cap. And despite trying to promote the longterm stability of the game, you instead literally cap it. By placing spots on nations where they have no further ability to build and grow, you give them more and more reason to begin to leave from boredom. 

 

I think the fact that there are so few caps in this game is what's made it prosper well, all nations have something to look forward to and are continually competing with one another to be the absolute best. Once you set a goal, people rush like mad to complete it, then leave. Setting a spy cap will dissever tons and tons of interest into the espionage part of the game. Because once they reach the cap, they're done, and boredom begins to set in. 

 

Also the espionage mechanics before the cap were f'n awesome. They actually allowed people to set up complex spy divisions which propelled my interest in a game not limited by caps and where you basically had free range to take advantage of the war mechanics and twist them into personalized strategies.

 

What I can see from a path like this is eventual (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) like warfare strategies: discouraging and lame. CM,CM,B,B,GA,GA. That's lame. 

 

tl:dr

Lame, gimme moar spies

 

Not sure I agree with this. Spies arnt a growth element, they're a unit. If it worked that way, everyone would always have their current military cap (because there's a cap there too, it just depends on your growth level) and then say, look I'm complete in this part. Sure, there's now a target that everyone will aim for, but this isnt the core game, its a side game and Sheepy wishes to try something different in making it more level so that it's essential a micro game that anyone regardless of nation size can partake in at an almost equal standpoint. Obviously this is quite easily argued against and debated, but this is how Sheepy wishes to move forward with the spy system so it's best to think of the changes in relation to that goal instead of the current way they are in the game. 

 

There is still a lot of (even more in my opinion) complex planning and discussion that can be had internally in alliance regarding spies and in particular the actual using of them instead of just the buying of them. It really does encourage co-ordination and involves all member of an alliance. 

Edited July 10, 2015 by Phiney

[stetonic]

Makes you wonder if the players who are swaying Sheepys choices are not part of the development team at (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways).It would be an easy way to destroy this game from the inside.

 

Coz thats whats happening

[Buorhann]

Limitless spies also encourage coordination and involves all alliance members.

 

 

 

-----------------------------

Makes you wonder if the players who are swaying Sheepys choices are not part of the development team at (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways).It would be an easy way to destroy this game from the inside.

 

Coz thats whats happening

 

That's stretching it too far.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Buorhann

[Phiney]

Limitless spies also encourage coordination and involves all alliance members.

 

 

I get what you're saying but I'll say my thoughts one more time on this. 

 

Limitless spies without a spy range is bad because bigger nations who can afford tons and tons of spies can just crush little nations and not let them ever get up, and just stop them competing. Limitless spies WITH a spy range does not encourage coordination and involve all alliance members anywhere near as much as one without the spy range does.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Phiney