Spy Change Poll

[Desertfalcon]

Currently there is a discussion thread for these changes, but no poll open to every member of the community. Seeing as community feedback is vital to any online game I made a new thread with a poll in order to provide us with a more accurate representation of the gaming communities thoughts on these changes.

 

The discussion thread can be found here if you wish to read it yourself.

 

http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/7323-incoming-spy-changes/

 

• Hard cap on spies for every nation at 50 - This will level the playing field for spies across the board, from big nations to small, and make espionage a unique part of the game
• 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
• Remove spies from counting toward nation score - 50 spies is only 5 points, so there's no reason for it to count toward your nation score
• Hide spies killed/captured on nation pages and in APIs (but still show  # of spies) - This will help with scrapers being used to identify assailants
• Change Spy Assassination formula to be capped at 25% of enemy spies + 4 - With lower spy numbers, we don't need as high of damages
• CIA Project Buff, allows an increase to your spy cap of +10 for 60 spies total - This will make the CIA project a little more useful, and provide a small advantage to your nation in Espionage
• Remove spy ranges from the game - I think these are a failed idea, and with the new spy cap unnecessary

 

[Diocletian]

Hell why not just eliminate spies and/or spying altogether? That way all the "liberals" will have their way on Orbis by increasingly screwing the game up for the rest of us! It'd be as realistic and fantastic as rl flag and 'Caitlyn' Jenner status changes!

 

Seriously though, please just leave the spy system alone.

[naTia]

I'm really on the fence about this. I'm not sure how I feel about a cap of 50. Everything else is well done and makes sense, but a max cap of 50 seems borderline trivial. As well, if the cap is raised or it stays the same closer to what it is now, 25% + 4 would need to be re-balanced.

[Caecus]

I'm really on the fence about this. I'm not sure how I feel about a cap of 50. Everything else is well done and makes sense, but a max cap of 50 seems borderline trivial. As well, if the cap is raised or it stays the same closer to what it is now, 25% + 4 would need to be re-balanced.

 

I agree. For now, the system is in the favor of the defense, but not so much as to entirely cut offensive operations out of the game. I think that the system is less than ideal, but if we don't have to change the system in the future, I'm willing to go with this. The spy system was changed 3-4 times, if I remember correctly, which is more than any other aspect of the game. The first time was the addition of spy ranges, second being buying spies based off of how many cities, third is retracting that, fourth is reducing operational success and kill rate. This would be the 5th time the spy system is going to undergo changes. I would be entirely content with this system as long as we don't have to screw with it in the future for a 6th time. The system looks good on paper, so I'm saying go with it. If spies gets anymore "developmentally dynamic" because of a fundamental change to how they work, then we have a problem.   

Edited July 12, 2015 by Caecus

[Buorhann]

I'm really on the fence about this. I'm not sure how I feel about a cap of 50. Everything else is well done and makes sense, but a max cap of 50 seems borderline trivial. As well, if the cap is raised or it stays the same closer to what it is now, 25% + 4 would need to be re-balanced.

 

Yeah, I'm not in favor of a hardcap.  It really does punish those who put effort into protecting themselves while at the cost of paying a upkeep to do so.

 

I'd rather see play-tests done to see if a softcap would work better instead.

[Kadin]

Hell why not just eliminate spies and/or spying altogether? That way all the "liberals" will have their way on Orbis by increasingly screwing the game up for the rest of us! It'd be as realistic and fantastic as rl flag and 'Caitlyn' Jenner status changes!

[Belisarius]

Hell why not just eliminate spies and/or spying altogether? That way all the "liberals" will have their way on Orbis by increasingly screwing the game up for the rest of us! It'd be as realistic and fantastic as rl flag and 'Caitlyn' Jenner status changes!

 

What the hell are you talking about?

 

<snip>

It should be interesting what the results would be \o/

[Diocletian]

What the hell are you talking about?It should be interesting what the results would be \o/

All these dumbass changes people keep suggesting. That's what I'm talking about. I made a "split dick" and flag analogy for the comparative level of stupidity of this change in the real world. Aka rl liberals &#33;@#&#036;ing about issues that wouldn't be an issue if not for intense amounts of butt hurt coming from the collectivist mindstate. Quite a lot of stupid suggestion threads as of late. Granted, I could of worded it better, but the point remains.

[Belisarius]

All these !@#$ changes people keep suggesting. That's what I'm talking about. I made a "split !@#$" and flag analogy for the comparative level of stupidity of this change in the real world. Aka rl liberals !@#$ing about issues that wouldn't be an issue if not for intense amounts of butt hurt coming from the collectivist mindstate. Quite a lot of stupid suggestion threads as of late. Granted, I could of worded it better, but the point remains.

 

 

The issue (according to Sheepy) is that older nations have too many spies, putting them at a clear advantage over smaller, newer nations. Sheepy's motivation is based on a desire to balance the game mechanics. It is not based on a desire to appease overly sensitive individuals, or to be politically correct. 

 

You can agree/disagree with his decision, but accusing Sheepy of being a collectivist or liberal isn't going to do much. After all, this is Sheepy's game, and a major source of income. He has a capitalistic interest in encouraging new players into this game, and entering a game that doesn't necessarily favor larger/older nations. Or favors the victors of the last war, who will inherently have more spies than the losers. 

 

Again, I'm not saying that you should be happy with his decision. Complain about the idea on its merits. But I don't see how projecting your aversion to liberalism here is actually gong to sway anyone's mind.

[Sailor Jerry]

What is it with everyone wanting everything fair in game. Just build up your nations like everyone else, how &#33;@#&#036;ing hard is that? If you folks spent half as much time on building your nations as you do about crying like a bunch of little schools girls (which I know some of you probably are) when little Jonny starts dating your friend instead of you and you start to scream, "It's not fair, it's not fair.....she has a better rack than me, she is super pretty and super bendy......I know, lets cut her boobs off, break all her bones and scar her face......that way we can all be the same"!!!!! Quit your &#33;@#&#036;ing &#33;@#&#036;ing and play the god damn game as its &#33;@#&#036;ing designed......or get the &#33;@#&#036; out!

Edited July 12, 2015 by Coach

[Belisarius]

What is it with everyone wanting everything fair in game. Just build up your nations like everyone else, how !@#$ing hard is that? If you folks spent half as much time on building your nations as you do about crying like a bunch of little schools girls (which I know some of you probably are) when little Jonny starts dating your friend instead of you and you start to scream, "It's not fair, it's not fair.....she has a better rack than me, she is super pretty and super bendy......I know, lets cut her boobs off, break all her bones and scar her face......that way we can all be the same"!!!!! Quit your !@#$ing !@#$ing and play the god damn game as its !@#$ing designed......or get the !@#$ out!

 

Who's "everyone?" Also, who's the one whining? Most of the complaints on the forums are being leveled against the change, not in support of it. So I have no idea where you're getting the idea that there's some movement that wants fairness over <insert virtuous adjective here>. Is there a massive thread of effeminate players pleading for mercy or something? I just don't see it.

 

Understandably, many of the people who have argued against this motion (and against the CDG in general) have resented accusations of being conspiracy theorists, "peasants," or other perceived insults (intentional or not). So why engage in this as well?

 

Also, what is Sheepy doing that is the equivalent of cutting off breasts off (for lack of a better term)? He's proposing a change for one aspect of the war mechanic, sensing an imbalance that will make ensure the continued dominance of certain players over others. His hope on the spy ranges hasn't entirely addressed this issue, but he's trying to fix that with this. 

 

Now, will it work? I don't know, and if you disagree, you can say your peace here. But what we can say is that these changes do not affect how you build your nation, how fast you develop it, or much of the vast majority of the game play in general. If the changes are implemented, I will lose a good portion of my spies, but at least I can see why the change may be necessary. Whether or not this will work can (and should) be discussed here. But equating some players with schoolgirls doesn't add much here.

 

Let me ask you this: why do you think Sheepy wants this change?

[Aenir]

The issue (according to Sheepy) is that older nations have too many spies, putting them at a clear advantage over smaller, newer nations.

Why shouldn't older nations have a clear advantage over newer nations? It's absurd to want to put a nation created today on equal footing with a nation created a year ago. And they're never going to interact with each other outside of trade anyway, even if the spy range gets removed again.

[Alex]

The issue (according to Sheepy) is that older nations have too many spies, putting them at a clear advantage over smaller, newer nations. Sheepy's motivation is based on a desire to balance the game mechanics. It is not based on a desire to appease overly sensitive individuals, or to be politically correct. 

 

You can agree/disagree with his decision, but accusing Sheepy of being a collectivist or liberal isn't going to do much. After all, this is Sheepy's game, and a major source of income. He has a capitalistic interest in encouraging new players into this game, and entering a game that doesn't necessarily favor larger/older nations. Or favors the victors of the last war, who will inherently have more spies than the losers. 

 

Again, I'm not saying that you should be happy with his decision. Complain about the idea on its merits. But I don't see how projecting your aversion to liberalism here is actually gong to sway anyone's mind.

 

I agree with your post, aside from the very first bolded part. The issue isn't that old nations have too many spies, it's that the spy system was never intended for anyone to have hundreds of spies. It was built around and works best when nations have tens of spies, not hundreds. The cap idea was a permanent resolution to the issue, not because people with 0 spies whined about it being "unfair", but because we want a more interesting, useful, and fun spy system that is built to last.

 

Why shouldn't older nations have a clear advantage over newer nations? It's absurd to want to put a nation created today on equal footing with a nation created a year ago. And they're never going to interact with each other outside of trade anyway, even if the spy range gets removed again.

 

I agree with you, that's why this is only being proposed for one small facet of the game: espionage. Allowing mid tier nations to engage larger nations in this one tiny facet should not be game breaking, but it would be more fun and interesting for the mid tier nations that would otherwise never interact with the large nations outside of trade. It gives value to newer, younger players that in a game like (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) are basically worthless.

[Phaik]

I agree with your post, aside from the very first bolded part. The issue isn't that old nations have too many spies, it's that the spy system was never intended for anyone to have hundreds of spies. It was built around and works best when nations have tens of spies, not hundreds. The cap idea was a permanent resolution to the issue, not because people with 0 spies whined about it being "unfair", but because we want a more interesting, useful, and fun spy system that is built to last.

 

 

I agree with you, that's why this is only being proposed for one small facet of the game: espionage. Allowing mid tier nations to engage larger nations in this one tiny facet should not be game breaking, but it would be more fun and interesting for the mid tier nations that would otherwise never interact with the large nations outside of trade. It gives value to newer, younger players that in a game like (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) are basically worthless.

I don't know if I pass for mid tier or not. I currently sit with a score of 864 and an in the top 400 nations. Is this mid tier or bottom tier? Because if I have 50 spies and try to run an op against someone else with 50 spies, it would take two days' worth of revenue just to fund one mission. That's a lot of money for someone like me. So, seeing the cost of those missions, I will almost never use my spies to attack upward. Cost of ops like that may not be such a big deal to nations 2-3 times my size, but to me it's huge.

[Rozalia]

I've seen one of the reasons thrown out is the current system favours those who invest in high amount of spies giving them an "unfair" advantage. However what does this change in itself create? A situation where the alliances with more members will naturally dominate. Sitting with say 250 spies on hand you could when thrown into war be somewhat confident that your spy defenses may hold up to keep your goodies safe (especially against certain alliances)... with 50 you're getting spy attacked before and after update and having all your spies eradicated. The player/alliance being attacked already has the disadvantage of facing a higher number of enemies who more then likely have far more money too, now one of the few things they could perhaps have counted on if they invested in it (spy defense) will go too. At that point just lock the mechanic to those outside VE/Rose/and such alliances because we certainly won't be needing the function being open to us. 

 

The spy range going only makes the above worse naturally and looking at some of the supporters of this change I can see reasons why they'd want it. Belisarius in particular is a happy camper no doubt.

[Belisarius]

What makes you think I'm a supporter? My posts here are due to the fact that some opposed to Sheepy's change are attributing it to an imaginary cohort of players who are too sensitive to accept disparities in spy numbers. That and the fact that many of those opposed don't understand Sheepy's motivations to bring some balance to the game. 

 

Whether Sheepy's motivations are right or wrong is a discussion worth having. But blaming that motivation on the charge on liberalism or political correctness isn't the proper way to go about it.

 

But no, no. It's all a plot from Rose to gain more power over something or other. Mhmm 

[Belisarius]

I agree with your post, aside from the very first bolded part. The issue isn't that old nations have too many spies, it's that the spy system was never intended for anyone to have hundreds of spies. It was built around and works best when nations have tens of spies, not hundreds. The cap idea was a permanent resolution to the issue, not because people with 0 spies whined about it being "unfair", but because we want a more interesting, useful, and fun spy system that is built to last.

 

I'm not sure why anyone is thinking you're lying or being disingenuous. But whatever you come up with, I think the intentions are good 

[Rozalia]

What makes you think I'm a supporter? My posts here are due to the fact that some opposed to Sheepy's change are attributing it to an imaginary cohort of players who are too sensitive to accept disparities in spy numbers. That and the fact that many of those opposed don't understand Sheepy's motivations to bring some balance to the game. 

 

Whether Sheepy's motivations are right or wrong is a discussion worth having. But blaming that motivation on the charge on liberalism or political correctness isn't the proper way to go about it.

 

But no, no. It's all a plot from Rose to gain more power over something or other. Mhmm 

 

I know your thoughts on the matter well enough from seeing past posts chronicling your "helping" of your lower tier members (or at least that is how you choose to present it anyway), your character that would lead you to being very happy to abuse this against certain characters, and your previous actions reinforce the latter reason... but all this is old stuff. 

 

All the dev group accomplished in all this was lose trust in it's totality with a lot of players while never actually being able to nail down a solid reason why it is in fact fairer (being fairer in one matter, doesn't mean we should discount it being unfair in others). I'd have imagined they'd have been ready already to deal with all this, but perhaps all this never in came up who knows (certainly not me considering I never saw this discussion they had).  

 

There you go with your usual banal defense mechanism. Lets not forget here that on IRC when I detailed just what alliances the mod group were in (which Rose came out ahead in significantly) I immediately stated that there is no point going down that road. I remember you being on and active considering how quick you were to state that the mods definitely aren't in Rose I believe when they got mentioned (not by me either), that and your nazi comment of course. As such your constant claims of people dreaming up you being a plot would be more credible if you yourself didn't dream up people dreaming up you being in a plot.

[Belisarius]

I know your thoughts on the matter well enough from seeing past posts chronicling your "helping" of your lower tier members (or at least that is how you choose to present it anyway), your character that would lead you to being very happy to abuse this against certain characters, and your previous actions reinforce the latter reason... but all this is old stuff. 

 

All the dev group accomplished in all this was lose trust in it's totality with a lot of players while never actually being able to nail down a solid reason why it is in fact fairer (being fairer in one matter, doesn't mean we should discount it being unfair in others). I'd have imagined they'd have been ready already to deal with all this, but perhaps all this never in came up who knows (certainly not me considering I never saw this discussion they had).  

 

There you go with your usual banal defense mechanism. Lets not forget here that on IRC when I detailed just what alliances the mod group were in (which Rose came out ahead in significantly) I immediately stated that there is no point going down that road. I remember you being on and active considering how quick you were to state that the mods definitely aren't in Rose I believe when they got mentioned (not by me either), that and your nazi comment of course. As such your constant claims of people dreaming up you being a plot would be more credible if you yourself didn't dream up people dreaming up you being in a plot.

 

Yes, I did help my members in defending against raiders by doing spy ops. But I made my peace with that change, and if Sheepy decides to change his proposal after taking public feedback into consideration, I still wouldn't have much of an opinion on this matter.

 

As for that chat in #politicsandwar, I wasn't talking to you:

 

[2015-07-10T22:07:25-0500] <Rozalia> For the record the breakdown is 8 Rose3 Brotherhood of the Clouds3 Vanguard3 Viridian Entente2 The Light Federation 2 Seven Kingdoms2 Terminus Est2 Sigma2 Suicide Squad1 United Purple Nations1 Cobalt1 Green Protection Agency1 Arrgh1 The Syndicate1 Alpha1 The Old Republic1 Guardian1 The Dutch East India Company1 Uranicus Socialitas1 Empire of Spades

[2015-07-10T22:07:42-0500] <Cody_K> Didn't you know Estelle, anytime somebody disagrees with you they are clearly butt hurt and just emotional.

[2015-07-10T22:07:49-0500] <+Estelle> apparently

[2015-07-10T22:08:03-0500] <+Saxplayer> Estelle, I just don't see the problem

[2015-07-10T22:08:11-0500] <Cody_K> Who are the two from SK?

[2015-07-10T22:08:14-0500] <CC> 2 BoC. I left.

[2015-07-10T22:08:16-0500] <Cody_K> Rozalia

[2015-07-10T22:08:20-0500] <+Estelle> Rose has 8?

[2015-07-10T22:08:26-0500] <Rozalia> Yup

[2015-07-10T22:08:26-0500] <+Estelle> That is kinda weird

[2015-07-10T22:08:50-0500] <+Estelle> I wonder how much of the mod team is from rose.

[2015-07-10T22:08:57-0500] <+Saxplayer> All of Rose's high gov is in there except me

[2015-07-10T22:09:00-0500] <Henri> i would say

[2015-07-10T22:09:19-0500] <MrBooty> Estelle, the mod team dosent have a rose member on it

[2015-07-10T22:09:22-0500] <MrBooty> to my knowledge

[2015-07-10T22:09:30-0500] <MrBooty> Rose-aligned people, sure

[2015-07-10T22:09:32-0500] <Henri> it does

[2015-07-10T22:09:36-0500] <Henri> I can't say who

[2015-07-10T22:09:37-0500] <+Saxplayer> On the dev team that is

[2015-07-10T22:09:38-0500] <Henri> but it does

[2015-07-10T22:10:24-0500] <+Belisarius> "it does, but i'm not saying "

[2015-07-10T22:10:48-0500] <Saeton> o.o

[2015-07-10T22:10:56-0500] <+Estelle> Rose is also the alliance with Sheepy as an admin in their IRC channel

[2015-07-10T22:11:03-0500] <+Belisarius> also, a lot of the reason that there are many Rose people in the dev subforum is because Kurdanak referred a lot of people, while others didn't

[2015-07-10T22:11:17-0500] <+Saxplayer> Estelle, present me a good argument as to what's wrong with the dev team, simply saying "It makes us unequal" is not enough for me

[2015-07-10T22:11:19-0500] <+Belisarius> you all know that's how people get in, right? referrals?

[2015-07-10T22:11:19-0500] <Saeton> sheepy has mod powers in a lot of AA channels

[2015-07-10T22:11:36-0500] • Belisarius: didn't ask to be in, but was referred by Kurd

[2015-07-10T22:11:37-0500] <Rozalia> Didn't even accuse you of anything and already the defences are coming

[2015-07-10T22:11:38-0500] <+Estelle> Saxplayer, did you even read some of the comments people have been making to justify it. Especially phiney.

[2015-07-10T22:11:45-0500] <+Estelle> They believe they are simply of "higher value" than us

[2015-07-10T22:11:46-0500] Conroy ([email protected]) left IRC (Quit: http://www.mibbit.comajax IRC Client)

[2015-07-10T22:11:55-0500] <MasterBlaster> sheepy (aka Shellhound) has multis in Rose

[2015-07-10T22:11:55-0500] • Saeton: bribes Belisarius for a referral

[2015-07-10T22:11:58-0500] <MrBooty> I was in the high gov of rose

[2015-07-10T22:12:11-0500] <MrBooty> There is no illuminati conspiracy with Sheepy loving Rose

[2015-07-10T22:12:19-0500] <+Belisarius> we're all multies of Sheepy

[2015-07-10T22:12:23-0500] thePVTandrew ([email protected]) joined the channel

[2015-07-10T22:12:24-0500] <Rozalia> Which is what they for all their smarts fail to understand. The push back against them only grew larger due to their arrogance

[2015-07-10T22:12:54-0500] <Henri> We're all 1 person named AJ

[2015-07-10T22:12:57-0500] <+Saxplayer> Estelle, I did not get that from Phiney's comments

[2015-07-10T22:13:04-0500] <+Estelle> That's literally what he said

[2015-07-10T22:13:12-0500] <Henri> We made this game because we couldn't find friends irl

[2015-07-10T22:13:24-0500] <Henri> We take on different personalities

[2015-07-10T22:13:32-0500] <CraySEC> Hello.

[2015-07-10T22:13:32-0500] <Henri> For example, I play the part of a troll

[2015-07-10T22:13:37-0500] <+Saxplayer> Maybe its because some of us are better than others

[2015-07-10T22:13:40-0500] <+Saxplayer> I dunno

[2015-07-10T22:13:48-0500] <+Estelle> ?? Loooll

[2015-07-10T22:13:54-0500] <tim_armstrong> Sheepy co-led Rose for like a week when I was there.

[2015-07-10T22:13:55-0500] <Henri> Estelle plays the part of the !@#$

[2015-07-10T22:13:56-0500] <+Estelle> okay so you think they're better than you, great.

[2015-07-10T22:14:00-0500] <+Estelle> I don't think they're better than me.

[2015-07-10T22:14:03-0500] <+Estelle> So yes I have an issue with it

[2015-07-10T22:14:08-0500] <+Saxplayer> Great

[2015-07-10T22:14:20-0500] <+Saxplayer> Estelle, I do not think they are better than me

[2015-07-10T22:14:34-0500] <MasterBlaster> [20:13] <Estelle> I don't think they're better than me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K63M1oMjfgA

[2015-07-10T22:14:36-0500] <CraySEC> What are you all discussing?

[2015-07-10T22:14:47-0500] <+Belisarius> the closed dev subforum is literally hitler

[2015-07-10T22:14:50-0500] <Rozalia> Saxplayer is HouseofJacks in game?

[2015-07-10T22:14:56-0500] <+Saxplayer> Yes

[2015-07-10T22:15:11-0500] <Rozalia> Shut up with your usual nonsense Belisarius, and stick to the communist theme

[2015-07-10T22:15:28-0500] <+Belisarius> lol

I first responded to Henry, not you. But you took that as me being defensive against you, when I was talking about Henry's comment. And me telling the reason why I was added to the Closed Dev. Group (Kurdanak's recommendation), was taken by you (with absolutely no proof whatsoever) as being "defensive." Why would I be defensive towards your word if I wasn't even talking to you? And given the tone of this conversation, why would I ever want to speak to you? I only spoke because you felt a need to mention my name here. 

 

Who's obsessed about who?

 

Also, banal defense mechanism? Is that your standard retort to me now? You may want to spice that up with something else. Just a suggestion.

 

 

[Rozalia]

 Yes, I did help my members in defending against raiders by doing spy ops. But I made my peace with that change, and if Sheepy decides to change his proposal after taking public feedback into consideration, I still wouldn't have much of an opinion on this matter.

 

As for that chat in #politicsandwar, I wasn't talking to you:

 

I first responded to Henry, not you. But you took that as me being defensive against you, when I was talking about Henry's comment. And me telling the reason why I was added to the Closed Dev. Group (Kurdanak's recommendation), was taken by you (with absolutely no proof whatsoever) as being "defensive." Why would I be defensive towards your word if I wasn't even talking to you? And given the tone of this conversation, why would I ever want to speak to you? I only spoke because you felt a need to mention my name here. 

 

Who's obsessed about who?

 

Also, banal defense mechanism? Is that your standard retort to me now? You may want to spice that up with something else. Just a suggestion.

 

I'm not going to get in such a match with you on that here naturally as I know how easy it is defend such a position. I'll simply say that you may fool some people with the faces you put on, but not me. 

 

Why did I say "shut up" would be the question I suppose? Well it was the first time after hearing your usual bunkum so many times that I addressed it and it didn't deserve anything other then that as a response. Threw in the communist mention so you might realize that it comes as a result of being tired of you using such a meaningless defense so many times, but oh well no matter it was a bad show of frustration there but it is out now so it's all good.  

 

I mention your name on here once == obsessed. If you must know I felt like mentioning a name as otherwise I'd be met with a response of "who exactly" and then asked to pony up a name and some people I actually would like to give some benefit of the doubt and not bother them with any possible unpleasantness. You? Not so much. Nothing more then that.

 

That above right there in my previous post? Cherish it because it is actually the first instance of me using such of a collection of words in reference to your tripe defense of going "lol you saying we nazis" in some manner or other. You've used it as a defense to me and others too many times as it is your go to cheap defense, made only worse because I know you can do better then that. Oh and yes I'd like to hear how a single utterance == standard retort too but I'm aware this is how you tend to try and work things. 

[Sailor Jerry]

Who's "everyone?" Also, who's the one whining? Most of the complaints on the forums are being leveled against the change, not in support of it. So I have no idea where you're getting the idea that there's some movement that wants fairness over . Is there a massive thread of effeminate players pleading for mercy or something? I just don't see it.

 

Understandably, many of the people who have argued against this motion (and against the CDG in general) have resented accusations of being conspiracy theorists, "peasants," or other perceived insults (intentional or not). So why engage in this as well?

 

Also, what is Sheepy doing that is the equivalent of cutting off breasts off (for lack of a better term)? He's proposing a change for one aspect of the war mechanic, sensing an imbalance that will make ensure the continued dominance of certain players over others. His hope on the spy ranges hasn't entirely addressed this issue, but he's trying to fix that with this. 

 

Now, will it work? I don't know, and if you disagree, you can say your peace here. But what we can say is that these changes do not affect how you build your nation, how fast you develop it, or much of the vast majority of the game play in general. If the changes are implemented, I will lose a good portion of my spies, but at least I can see why the change may be necessary. Whether or not this will work can (and should) be discussed here. But equating some players with schoolgirls doesn't add much here.

 

Let me ask you this: why do you think Sheepy wants this change?

I must have read this whole thing wrong right from the beginning. What I'm getting frustrated with, is few folks around here keep posting threads about equality and having things balanced like in their placing caps on cities and infrastructure. I mean one thread on the subject was locked so what did they do.....they started another one. So when I saw this, I sort of lost it and ranted a bit. My big issue with all this is that we had "Beta" and "Speed" rounds to try to handle all of these issues, both of which I around for. Now we are closing in on being live for almost a year and some major things are still being requested to be tweaked. I know this time around, Sheepy has another thread stating what he is looking at doing but part of me is wondering if this is of his own accord or his he getting a lot of flack/under pressure from the same folks who want thing all balanced for everyone. I also play over in another major game like this and have since '09. I keep saying to myself, man, how big would I be if I was there from the beginning from '06! I was pretty excited to be hers through the two test phases and when we started live, even though I rerolled right at the beginning because I screwed up the tutorial stuff. Have I grown my nation the most efficient way possible, no, am I still in the top 50.....yes.....why, the biggest part was because I started the game at the beginning. Now it seems with some of these changes, the work I and many others have put in, seems to be getting challenged every few months by those who want to nerf this or that or change something else. Its getting a bit tiresome.