7/13/2015 - Espionage Update

[Alex]

I asked if you considered it.

 

Well, I probably considered it for about a second. I gave you a pretty well-thought out reply that should very well illustrate my thought process on the matter.

[Conroy]

I'm not sure if you read the update, but I already reduced them by half. It's now $5,000/spy instead of $10,000.

Alright, I missed that part.

[LordRahl2]

Well, I probably considered it for about a second. I gave you a pretty well-thought out reply that should very well illustrate my thought process on the matter.

 

A bit forcefully - but alright.

[Lamia]

THank you for Change #8!! I truly appreciate it, however it wasn't applied to looking at alliance member lists. 

Edited July 14, 2015 by Lamia

[Alex]

THank you for Change #8!! I truly appreciate it, however it wasn't applied to looking at alliance member lists. 

 

Thanks for pointing that out, it should be available there now too.

[Aenir]

Do you have a timeline for when you plan on leaving alpha?

[Buorhann]

If you're one of those people who thinks that spies are now worthless, I guess what I'd recommend is that you just ignore that part of the game. Just because you don't think something, doesn't mean you have to take it away from everyone else.

 

For example, if you didn't like the Factbook change, and suggested I just remove it entirely because you won't use it, that would just be silly, wouldn't it? Not everyone uses Factbooks, but that doesn't make them worthless. They're very fun, useful parts of the game for many players.

 

Furthermore, this change isn't about making less people use spies, it's about getting more people to use them. Instead of a small percentage of players with large spy counts being the only ones that use spies, they're more applicable and useful for all players. I think that, in itself, is pretty neat.

 

 

 

First, you just compared a fluffy aspect of the game to a potential game altering aspect.

 

Second, are you going to limit Missles/Nukes now since not everybody is using them too?

[Shakyr]

I'll add my thanks for #8

[Shakyr]

Second, are you going to limit Missiles/Nukes now since not everybody is using them too?

 

There would be no purpose to limiting missiles/nukes, as having more of those, does not improve your offensive/defensive odds against missiles/nukes.

 

Speaking of bad comparisons.

[LordRahl2]

First, you just compared a fluffy aspect of the game to a potential game altering aspect.

 

Second, are you going to limit Missles/Nukes now since not everybody is using them too?

 

 

We tried that argument.  Spies are special in this way.

[Spooner]

Sheepy, have you considered making the "Quick & Easy" operations free? You could even tack it on to the CIA Project if you wanted.

 

It would make having spies actually interesting. Players could pay extra money for better odds, but could mess around for fun without any cost. I think it would breathe some life into spies & make the module actually fun, as opposed to something you buy 50 of and more or less ignore.

[Alex]

First, you just compared a fluffy aspect of the game to a potential game altering aspect.

 

Second, are you going to limit Missles/Nukes now since not everybody is using them too?

 

Shakyr made a great point, the number of missiles/nukes you have does not effect your odds of success.

 

Furthermore, missiles/nukes are very much late game weapons that you need projects to unlock. Spies are meant to be valuable at any level.

 

Sheepy, have you considered making the "Quick & Easy" operations free? You could even tack it on to the CIA Project if you wanted.

 

It would make having spies actually interesting. Players could pay extra money for better odds, but could mess around for fun without any cost. I think it would breathe some life into spies & make the module actually fun, as opposed to something you buy 50 of and more or less ignore.

 

It's an interesting idea. Let's see how things play out first, and consider this later.

[Alex]

Do you have a timeline for when you plan on leaving alpha?

 

I think that ignoring problems and letting them fester is bad for the game. Politics & War isn't the only game to have ever had changes after it was released. Some of the biggest games in the world, for example League of Legends and DoTA 2 are constantly being tweaked and improved with new content being added. I don't see any reason for P&W to stay static and never change, and eventually become boring and outdated and die. I think that improvements, new content, and balance tweaks are an important and necessary part of the game to make it last.

[T Servo]

Just saying "this is annoying" isn't helpful to what he doesn't like. 

Shove it you condescending ass.  What I don't like is the rules of the game changing as I play. 

[Vincent]

Are we still in Beta version? . Otherwise we should keep changes to the game at the minimal. If we keep changing the rules at the whims and fancy of a particular group. Sooner or later people lose interest in the game

Edited July 14, 2015 by Vincent

[Alex]

Are we still in Beta version? . Otherwise we should keep changes to the game at the minimal. If we keep changing the rules at the whims and fancy of a particular group. Sooner or later people lose interest in the game

 

Did you read my post?

 

EDIT: Specifically:

 

Also, as a sidenote, I understand this is a big change to a significant game mechanics. I have no intention or desire to make big changes like this to other aspects of the game. The espionage system is one that was flawed and needed a workover, and this change was made after weeks upon weeks of deliberation between myself and players. At the end of the day, I am the one who made this change, and many of these changes were my own original ideas, not the result of any one individual or group.

[Alice Lune]

Thanks a lot for this, Sheepy. I like the idea of limiting spies, though I think the problem is less about the capacity of spies for each person.

 

I think the true problem with spies is that, spies can only be killed by spies. A nation can have 10 nukes, 50 missiles, 200 ships and so on, and spies can kill them off with with little risk to themselves and it doesn't work the other way around. You can't use soldiers, aircrafts, or naval ships to kill spies, so it makes nations with hundreds of spies super powerful.

 

Might you increase the spy limit a little more but give nations another method of killing spies? Perhaps an aircraft operation or a surgical missile strike, the way Israel use to kill Hamas? Sure, this has an added effect of a chance to kill innocent civilians and destroying infra, but I think it will add to them game surely.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Alice Lune

[Atzuya]

The spy kill leaderboard is still accessible. There's no option for it on the dropdown, but my bookmark still works

 

But really, even if you fuzz the odds with '~', it's still perfectly possible to guess how much spies they have... by changing the spies you used then on various safety levels and operations, but eh. Not like everyone can be bothered to make their own calculator

 

I'm digging that page result thing

[Caecus]

http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/7386-new-spy-idea-building-on-the-new-update/

 

Perhaps this might make things more interesting with spies? 

[Rozalia]

There would be no purpose to limiting missiles/nukes, as having more of those, does not improve your offensive/defensive odds against missiles/nukes.

 

That makes little sense considering it increases your staying power and thus the total amount of damage you can inflict, but it isn't like it isn't inevitable it won't be changed at this point. I suppose we'll have just have to wait for someone to really load up on nukes and go rogue on someone whose voice is "quality" for it to suddenly make sense to limit them. 

[ELPINCHAZO]

Sheepy:

 

just give the odds qualitative descriptors instead of actual numbers so people get a feel for the range and remove the numbers.

 

e.g.   never,poor,fair,good,great,confident

[Alex]

The spy kill leaderboard is still accessible. There's no option for it on the dropdown, but my bookmark still works

 

But really, even if you fuzz the odds with '~', it's still perfectly possible to guess how much spies they have... by changing the spies you used then on various safety levels and operations, but eh. Not like everyone can be bothered to make their own calculator

 

Leaderboards should really be fixed this time.

 

And as for the odds, yeah, maybe you can get a close estimation to how many spies they've got, but you shouldn't be able to find a definite figure without doing a Gather Intel op. And even if you do get a real close estimation by playing around with the number of spies you send, etc. you're not gaining much; you start out with a real close estimation of your odds.

Sheepy:

 

just give the odds qualitative descriptors instead of actual numbers so people get a feel for the range and remove the numbers.

 

e.g.   never,poor,fair,good,great,confident

 

This isn't a bad idea.

[Phiney]

I like pinchys qualitative idea.

 

To those saying spies won't be used now, you're forgetting that the primary reason for using spies is not to take out your opponents spies, it's to take out what's behind them. Removing missiles nukes and ships is far too important for spies to not get used, and with the cheaper costs and lowered counts I strongly believe they'll be used more.

[Alex]

I like pinchys qualitative idea.

 

To those saying spies won't be used now, you're forgetting that the primary reason for using spies is not to take out your opponents spies, it's to take out what's behind them. Removing missiles nukes and ships is far too important for spies to not get used, and with the cheaper costs and lowered counts I strongly believe they'll be used more.

 

To tack onto this also:

 

50 vs 50 isn't a deadlock. The offense still has the advantage.

[Arthur James]

NOOOOOOOO, we got only 50 spies......

Yes, the spies finally hinden.

Is that meant we can deploy Velociraptors now? (Although I know it is a joke)