Incoming Spy Changes

[Caecus]

 

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.

 

I would like to clarify that if I had to choose between having a working spy system that "does not encourage coordination and involve all alliance members" and a dead spy system that "does encourage coordination and involve all alliance members," I think I would choose the former. As would most people who commented on this thread, I assume. 

[Hooves]

To be fair in one side. You still only get 2 spies per day. So poor preparations for the sake of your daily income will still get you destroyed by espionage. Also, if you kill the spies you're still incredibly hampering your opponent because of this 2 per day cap. That'll take like 25 days to rebuild the 50 spies.

[Phiney]

I would like to clarify that if I had to choose between having a working spy system that "does not encourage coordination and involve all alliance members" and a dead spy system that "does encourage coordination and involve all alliance members," I think I would choose the former. As would most people who commented on this thread, I assume. 

 

please, explain why this change makes it unused.

[LordRahl2]

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.

 

Your opinion that having 100% of players above x score with 50 spies will encourage coordination is baseless.  I can confirm that BoC was organized when they conducted spy attacks on MENSA.  I can confirm that the old spy system kept MENSA active and organized in the meta during the War of the Dogpile.

 

So there you go.  Actual evidence that prior to the last (bad) spy change activity was encouraged.

 

I see absolutely no reason that this change will improve on the spy system prior to the old system.

 

Your next concept is fairness...ummm...all games like this favor older players.  Newer players/alliances need to adapt and develop methods to deal with that - encouraging coordination and activity.

 

So rolling back the changes to include spies to the way they were before nerf would encourage activity and involvement and I have evidence.  You lack evidence.  So based on YOUR criteria you should roll back the nerf changes (spies in particular).

[Yosodog]

I like the cap personally. It could end up like tech in... another game that a lot of us are familiar with. You used to not have to have a !@#$-ton of tech but nowadays you need a shit load. Then you have people who have so much tech that it's impossible to stop them. That could happen in this game, an alliance that has a ton of spies, and then they can just spy away other people who are trying to make more spies and hold a monopoly on spies.

 

I don't like how the spy range is going away. It's not fair that I can spy on a new nation, because they don't have enough money to afford spies.

[Caecus]

please, explain why this change makes it unused.

 

While you were having your rooster fight with Rhal, I was trying to show that the percentage chance of success are skewed in the favor of the defender. It's not skewed to the point where offense is a waste of money, but it still discourages using spies offensively. I would recommend buffing up the spy success rates, not to the former percentages, but ever so slightly to favor the offense more, instead of sitting on top of 50 spies and not giving a fat flying duck. 

Edited July 10, 2015 by Caecus

[Clarke]

While you were having your rooster fight with Rhal, I was trying to show that the percentage chance of success are skewed in the favor of the defender. It's not skewed to the point where offense is a waste of money, but it still discourages using spies offensively. I would recommend buffing up the spy success rates, not to the former percentages, but ever so slightly to favor the offense more, instead of sitting on top of 50 spies and not giving a fat flying duck. 

No BoC member should have any say on spies whatsoever. 

[Caecus]

No BoC member should have any say on spies whatsoever. 

 

Lol. 

[Kastor]

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.

 

 

I understand your concerns, but that's a 100% refund on the cost of your spy, along with enough to cover the upkeep of each spy for 35.5 days. You may have had your spies for longer than others, but across the board this is the best refund we can offer, and the fairest. 

Plus, while you've had your spies, it's not as if they've been useless. You've either used them in offensive operations, or they've acted as a deterrent to being spied on. Either way, you got some use out of them, and so if you only paid a week or two of upkeep after the refund, that's not a bad deal.

So you're saying I can't even get a 99% chance?

 

!@#$ this.

[Buorhann]

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.

 

I can't name one instance where, in the last big war, that Mensa had a issue with this.  I can only comment regarding the alliance I'm in because I cannot speculate for other alliances.

 

I would also argue the point that with a spy range it still does encourage coordination, but in a different way.  You're correct it doesn't involve all alliance members, aside from indirect taxation/funding from one nation to another to support spy ops of differing score ranges.

[PigInZen]

'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.

 

I was not intending to make an argument about how beneficial it is to argue from a perceived position of authority.  Quite the contrary.  I was attempting to point out that I have, in real life and in positions for which I have received a salary, observed similar actions that did not have positive outcomes.

 

Nowhere did I and nowhere would I *EVER* try to discount an opinion like you suggested I would.  That's not my style.  Not now, not ever.  Of course, exceptions do apply. If you were arguing up is down or that 2 + 2 ≠ 4 I might say that "I know this therefore I am right and you are wrong."

 

Diversity in groups matters.

[Rozalia]

So... where is the missile and nuke cap? Or is an unlimited amount "dynamic" already? 
Already called an idiot for taking the time and money to be prepared with a high spy count, and now you've proven them right... thanks I guess. Like 35,000 per spy is anywhere enough compensation. 
 
Also thanks for the 24 hours. I'd think if you have such a number of people on here against this, and only a few playing defence that just maybe a longer time period would be required but... well what do I know compared to the intellectual elite. 
 

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.

 
What arrogance. Well if making a suggestion in the suggestion forum is so pointless as we're all knuckle dragging neanderthals then I don't believe I shall do so again. I'll have to leave it to the self proclaimed geniuses like you.
Why is it even a thing with shining pillars like you around I have no idea so I suggest Sheepy close the suggestion forum entirely... in fact I'll go do that now. 
 

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.

Players with a small spy count who due to warring a lot know they are permanently stuck at a low spy count, and those at a high one who feel screwed by the last update making their spy numbers worth less. Focuses on those with few spies is a mistake they count on, their grouping is more "dynamic" then that.

[Phiney]

I can't name one instance where, in the last big war, that Mensa had a issue with this.  I can only comment regarding the alliance I'm in because I cannot speculate for other alliances.

 

I would also argue the point that with a spy range it still does encourage coordination, but in a different way.  You're correct it doesn't involve all alliance members, aside from indirect taxation/funding from one nation to another to support spy ops of differing score ranges.

 

Mensa has the benefit of having a large amount of members around the same score and so the range really doesnt effect you guys that much at all. Other alliances have a much bigger spread of score and that effects them a lot more. So you are correct in that it doesnt make a difference spy range or no spy range for you guys, but you guys arn't the only alliance in the game. Obviously you can funnel money, but you a) might not have enough members in a certain score range to do all 3 spy attacks to really hurt someone or b.) might not have enough members that are on at the same time in the same spy range or c) activity rates might not be right at that level or d.) they might not have enough spies at that level e.t.c. e.t.c. the list goes on. My point is that with no range it encourages MORE coordination, not that it didn't encourage co-ordination at all with the spy range.

[Phiney]

I was not intending to make an argument about how beneficial it is to argue from a perceived position of authority.  Quite the contrary.  I was attempting to point out that I have, in real life and in positions for which I have received a salary, observed similar actions that did not have positive outcomes.

 

Nowhere did I and nowhere would I *EVER* try to discount an opinion like you suggested I would.  That's not my style.  Not now, not ever.  Of course, exceptions do apply. If you were arguing up is down or that 2 + 2 ≠ 4 I might say that "I know this therefore I am right and you are wrong."

 

Diversity in groups matters.

 

I completely agree diversity matters and I think the group does have a great diversity. the initial member list (around 30 people) was compiled completely by sheepy and no one else and then people suggested additions (mainly from observing activity in the general game suggestions forum) from there.

 

I wasn't at all saying YOU would try to discount opinions, just that if you go into an internet discussion with people who have made their occupation known and clearly want to stand on that in the discussion, it is quite possible for that to happen. If you go into a discussion without each other knowing what you do outside of the internet, that will not happen (as much). 

Edited July 10, 2015 by Phiney

[Kadin]

No BoC member should have any say on spies whatsoever. 

 

Congratulations. You've earned it.

 

[Lord of Puns]

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

[Phaik]

How is this a level playing field? If nation A with 20k infra and 50 spies decides nation B with 10k infra and 50 spies shouldn't have missiles, it's going to be almost nothing (from a cost per mission standpoint) for nation A to take out all of nation B's spies and missiles. However, nation B (from a cost per mission standpoint) can't really retaliate. Nation B's spies are merely a defensive measure at that point and not a very good one with less than 30% chance of success. 3M per mission is 2+ days of revenue around 10k infra. I don't know what percentage of daily revenue 3M is for 20k infra. And the incentive for larger nations to do this to smaller nations becomes greater when the smaller nation is getting their very first nuke.

[Phiney]

How is this a level playing field? If nation A with 20k infra and 50 spies decides nation B with 10k infra and 50 spies shouldn't have missiles, it's going to be almost nothing (from a cost per mission standpoint) for nation A to take out all of nation B's spies and missiles. However, nation B (from a cost per mission standpoint) can't really retaliate. Nation B's spies are merely a defensive measure at that point and not a very good one with less than 30% chance of success. 3M per mission is 2+ days of revenue around 10k infra. I don't know what percentage of daily revenue 3M is for 20k infra. And the incentive for larger nations to do this to smaller nations becomes greater when the smaller nation is getting their very first nuke.

 

If you can afford nukes you can very much afford 3 mil on a vital spy attack. I'm not saying it's a completely level playing field, just a much much more level one than what used to exist before the spy range.

[Aenir]

Are you !@#$ing kidding me? $135,200 per spy is a !@#$ing joke.

[Caecus]

If you can afford nukes you can very much afford 3 mil on a vital spy attack. I'm not saying it's a completely level playing field, just a much much more level one than what used to exist before the spy range.

 

But the guy makes a good point. Larger nations can throw around $3m like it's nothing. Smaller nations can't. And while we are all capped at 50 spies, the fact remains is that higher level nations have that capacity to just throw money at someone's spies. Coupled with the removal of the spy range, it does benefit higher level nations. 

[Buorhann]

Mensa has the benefit of having a large amount of members around the same score and so the range really doesnt effect you guys that much at all. Other alliances have a much bigger spread of score and that effects them a lot more. 

 

 

You're right it doesn't effect us much.  We properly coordinate ourselves as an alliance.  Isn't that what you want with these changes supposedly?  ( I'd like to state it wasn't from administration changes that forced us to coordinate, but from an opposing alliance that did so.  We were force to adapt or continue being punching bags )

 

I would comment on the rest of your post, but it was just me talking over how an alliance should be properly led on both coordination and organization, as well as the diplomatic aspect by asking other alliances for assistance in matters they're shorthanded in.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Buorhann

[Buorhann]

But the guy makes a good point. Larger nations can throw around $3m like it's nothing. Smaller nations can't. And while we are all capped at 50 spies, the fact remains is that higher level nations have that capacity to just throw money at someone's spies. Coupled with the removal of the spy range, it does benefit higher level nations. 

 

Let's not forget the majority of players with a large number of spies have bigger nations as well.  So that large sum of cash they'll get for the extra spies will just further push up their income if it's wisely spent.

[Caecus]

Let's not forget the majority of players with a large number of spies have bigger nations as well.  So that large sum of cash they'll get for the extra spies will just further push up their income if it's wisely spent.

 

Well, to be fair, I'm not too big of a nation, and I'm pretty up there in spy counts. But yeah, with the cap, the amount of money higher level nations spend for spy defense just dropped like 5 times. They now have a higher capacity to do other stuff, and without the spy ranges, that other stuff equates to having an incredible potential to throw a crap load of money at other people.  

[Phiney]

nvm. 

Edited July 10, 2015 by Phiney

[Apeman]

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.

 

 

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.

My only complaint is that I deleted them two days ago. Nothing about the mechanics. Having known I would be recieving 10 mil would've made me hold onto them. Timing sucked, nothing more