Jump to content

Sheepy -- Please play your game.


Spooner
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is a fairly simple request. I would like Sheepy to play his game. I don't care if he only logs in once a week or whatever, mostly I want him to get experience with the war module within an alliance. 

 

Just create a 1500-infra 15-city count nation and actually play the game. I'd recommend you roll with our sphere or TEST since we understand the mechanics better than the other side, but if you want to join the other sphere that's cool too.

 

With all due respect, your intuition on a few mechanics (nukes, specifically) seems to be a bit removed from the experience many of the experienced players have. If you truly believe that hiding nukes from public sight/needing a spy op to even see if they are there/not beiging a player upon using it is in the best interest of the game, that's fine.

 

I'm speaking as someone with a nuclear plant, but I think that's a bit obscene. It essentially makes nukes uncounterable by players. Also, from a real-life/mechanical standpoint -- nations are aware when other nations have nuclear weapons.

 

The one avenue we have to pursue diplomacy/roleplay in this game was the Anti-Nuke League, however this update will remove this aspect to the game. So yeah, I have no problems with you nerfing our "side", but imo, this nerf is poor game design.

 

Also, the test server doesn't count. That's nice and all to sandbox out changes, but the dynamics of a "dead server" are totally different from active interaction.

  • Upvote 5

☾☆


High Priest of Dio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, please don't take this post as condescension. I get that you're trying to make changes that you feel are best for your game, and I'm not saying that you don't understand how your game is played.

 

All that I'm getting at here is that being an active player in the game you are designing would help set your initial gut-feeling on a more informed path, which i think everyone could agree is in the best interests of us all.

  • Upvote 1

☾☆


High Priest of Dio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Let's say I created a nation and was trying to build nukes - and every time I built one, someone spied it away within seconds, before I could even use it.

 

Do you think that would make me more or less sympathetic to your cause?

 

I'm always open to debating the merits of different changes, how it affects various gameplay and strategies, but I quite frankly don't care to spend the time building a nation and spending time engaging in alliance affairs, as well as developmental affairs.

 

Also, not to say one way or another, but you would have no idea whether I have a second account that I use to play the game or not. I get called out regularly for "not playing the game" but you really have no proof that's true. I understand that's not how the burden of proof is, but your claims are not as steadfast as you may think they are.

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admins should be impartial and if he was in one sphere or the other that might result in bias :/.

What are alternate accounts? 

 

our claims are not as steadfast as you may think they are.

Mind if I ask when your last war was? Just curious. I get that you want to make positive changes, but a neo-GPA alliance (haven't kept up with politics recently) isn't a great example. I'm sure everyone would feel better about these changes if you went to war recently. 

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say I created a nation and was trying to build nukes - and every time I built one, someone spied it away within seconds, before I could even use it.

 

Do you think that would make me more or less sympathetic to your cause?

 

I don't care if you're sympathetic to my cause. This is completely separate from how your changes effect MENSA.

 

However, I *do* want your decisions to be informed. Hiding nukes from the public knowledge is an obviously poor solution to any player who has used the espionage system. Regardless of how it balances one side vs. the other.

 

 

I'm always open to debating the merits of different changes, how it affects various gameplay and strategies, but I quite frankly don't care to spend the time building a nation and spending time engaging in alliance affairs, as well as developmental affairs.

 

Also, not to say one way or another, but you would have no idea whether I have a second account that I use to play the game or not. I get called out regularly for "not playing the game" but you really have no proof that's true. I understand that's not how the burden of proof is, but your claims are not as steadfast as you may think they are.

 

I believe you've stated earlier that you did not have a separate account that you played the game on (outside the test server). This may be my shitty memory. However, literally above that sentence you describe how you don't play the game.

 

Your interactions with the private dev team also seem to hint that you at least don't really participate in alliance war.

☾☆


High Priest of Dio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Sheepy created another account, he'd have to ban himself as a multi, just saying ;)

Sheepy uses mad-hax to block his own unique id from being displayed.

 

He could be in everyone's alliance without us even knowing.. oh god.. its everywhere!

  • Upvote 1

HoloSig2017.png.afe1505c82cc3db09be025a9

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I don't care if you're sympathetic to my cause. This is completely separate from how your changes effect MENSA.

 

However, I *do* want your decisions to be informed. Hiding nukes from the public knowledge is an obviously poor solution to any player who has used the espionage system. Regardless of how it balances one side vs. the other.

 

Let's debate the merits of the change, regardless of whether I play the game.

 

You don't need to know whether someone has nuclear weapons or not, and how many. You can still tell which nations are nuclear capable, and you can still do espionage operations to find out whether they have nukes/missiles.

If you really want to coordinate and keep track of people, you can count the number of days between espionage operations to gather intel, and then you'd know what the maximum number of nukes someone could have is. You could watch certain nations, have other alliances watch other nations, and create intel-sharing deals to coordinate your efforts.

 

If you're at war with someone, knowing whether they have nuclear weapons or not isn't a green light that you're going to be able to stop them from nuking you.

 

Quite frankly, I don't see why knowing an opponent's nuclear stockpile is such vital knowledge. If there's something I'm overlooking here, please enlighten me.

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's debate the merits of the change, regardless of whether I play the game.

 

You don't need to know whether someone has nuclear weapons or not, and how many. You can still tell which nations are nuclear capable, and you can still do espionage operations to find out whether they have nukes/missiles.

If you really want to coordinate and keep track of people, you can count the number of days between espionage operations to gather intel, and then you'd know what the maximum number of nukes someone could have is. You could watch certain nations, have other alliances watch other nations, and create intel-sharing deals to coordinate your efforts.

 

If you're at war with someone, knowing whether they have nuclear weapons or not isn't a green light that you're going to be able to stop them from nuking you.

 

Quite frankly, I don't see why knowing an opponent's nuclear stockpile is such vital knowledge. If there's something I'm overlooking here, please enlighten me.

 

1) You need to waste a spy op to learn the number of nukes the enemy has. You may need to do this once or more. This eats up 1 spy operation on your side, and 1 spy op cap out of the 3 per day limit of the opposing side.

2) You may end up trying to sabotage a nuke which isn't there, wasting 1 spy operation on your side.

3) If you want to assess the nuclear capabilities of another nation or alliance, you need to use gather information ops on all the members. This gives them forewarning of an attack.

4) If multiple alliances are fighting against the same people, all of them might end up doing gather intel ops, making it practically impossible to take out spies or nukes.

 

What would be a good fix? If you are hellbent on making this change, you can at least make gather intel ops not count for the 3 spy ops per day on a nation. That way, it's just a minor headache.

  • Upvote 2
77oKn5K.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) You need to waste a spy op to learn the number of nukes the enemy has. You may need to do this once or more. This eats up 1 spy operation on your side, and 1 spy op cap out of the 3 per day limit of the opposing side.

2) You may end up trying to sabotage a nuke which isn't there, wasting 1 spy operation on your side.

3) If you want to assess the nuclear capabilities of another nation or alliance, you need to use gather information ops on all the members. This gives them forewarning of an attack.

4) If multiple alliances are fighting against the same people, all of them might end up doing gather intel ops, making it practically impossible to take out spies or nukes.

 

What would be a good fix? If you are hellbent on making this change, you can at least make gather intel ops not count for the 3 spy ops per day on a nation. That way, it's just a minor headache.

1) Good, that's what spy op limits are for.

2) Good, get better at using spy ops.

3) Good, get better at using spy ops.

4) Good, get better at using spy ops.

 

Every single one of these issues can be fixed by getting better at using spy ops.  Sheepy is basically replacing a script that does all the work for you with actual gameplay.  Oh, no, you'll have to actually coordinate with other players to use spy ops effectively! How terrible!

  • Upvote 4

120209800_meirl2.png.0a9b257b4d3e0c1ac6d6b8be8184cba7.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the change will be made to prevent bots to spy away nukes the second it's bought then this is a good idea. Though it opens a bigger issue and that is to fight against all bots cause they are ruining game. Do you want everything to be automated and boring or people to actually make some effort and sacrifice their RL time in order to achieve something? But you ignore these stuff, when we reported that Ace used bot to launch an attack as soon as 3 of us declared you did nothing, if there wasn't Pre and his awesome mind all 3 of us would have lost a war against him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Good, that's what spy op limits are for.

2) Good, get better at using spy ops.

3) Good, get better at using spy ops.

4) Good, get better at using spy ops.

 

Every single one of these issues can be fixed by getting better at using spy ops.  Sheepy is basically replacing a script that does all the work for you with actual gameplay.  Oh, no, you'll have to actually coordinate with other players to use spy ops effectively! How terrible!

 

No, this is a misguided attempt to nerf the fact that we are already very good at spy ops.  

  • Upvote 1

☾☆


And Dio said unto him, "I trust you.  Share my word."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

1) You need to waste a spy op to learn the number of nukes the enemy has. You may need to do this once or more. This eats up 1 spy operation on your side, and 1 spy op cap out of the 3 per day limit of the opposing side.

2) You may end up trying to sabotage a nuke which isn't there, wasting 1 spy operation on your side.

3) If you want to assess the nuclear capabilities of another nation or alliance, you need to use gather information ops on all the members. This gives them forewarning of an attack.

4) If multiple alliances are fighting against the same people, all of them might end up doing gather intel ops, making it practically impossible to take out spies or nukes.

 

1. It's not a waste if you're using it to gather valuable intelligence.

2. That's a risk you'd take if you're not willing to be patient and gather intel first.

3. You'd only need to gather intel on nations that have the Nuclear Research Facility or Missile Launch Pad. As for forewarning, gather intel is an easy op with a high success rate - they may be alerted that someone is gathering intel on them, but they wouldn't know who. Furthermore, if having all your nuclear nations getting spied meant a war was coming, that would give you an easy way to stir the pot by spying a bunch of nuclear nations in an alliance and then not actually declare war. Maybe they'll pre-empt someone else. Sounds like fun to me.

4. Which encourages you to work together and coordinate with other alliances. What's bad about that?

  • Upvote 2

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. It's not a waste if you're using it to gather valuable intelligence.

2. That's a risk you'd take if you're not willing to be patient and gather intel first.

3. You'd only need to gather intel on nations that have the Nuclear Research Facility or Missile Launch Pad. As for forewarning, gather intel is an easy op with a high success rate - they may be alerted that someone is gathering intel on them, but they wouldn't know who. Furthermore, if having all your nuclear nations getting spied meant a war was coming, that would give you an easy way to stir the pot by spying a bunch of nuclear nations in an alliance and then not actually declare war. Maybe they'll pre-empt someone else. Sounds like fun to me.

4. Which encourages you to work together and coordinate with other alliances. What's bad about that?

 

1) This nerfs the already slow anti-nuke spying operations. To destroy nukes, you first have to get rid of the opponent's spy thicket that takes several days. By nerfing it further, you are making nukes remain untouched for a longer period of time.

2) If we spend 1 spy op per day on gathering intel, that slows down the time to destroy nukes by 33%. The only way to avoid this is to record the nukes at the first gather intel operation, then tally all the nukes launched in individual wars one by one. This is a !@#$ing spreadsheet nightmare and a chore.

3) Is this an actual counter-argument? It gives forewarning, and you do not contest that.

4) Let me tell you what's bad about that: We already have no way of verifying "spy slot filling." This will just make the situation worse, because whenever our opponents use gather intel ops to fill their daily spy op caps, we won't be able to even detect this or make accusations because "oh, probably one of your members used gather intel."

77oKn5K.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, this is a misguided attempt to nerf the fact that we are already very good at spy ops.  

 

But you're not "very good" at spy ops.  This makes it so that automatic scripts that check every minute are no longer useful.  Being "very good" at spy ops means that this changes very little.

 

So either you're "very good" at spy ops and this just means you're still going to be taking their nukes away all the time.

 

Or you're not "very good" and you're relying on a script/bot and it will expose that you're not that good.

 

Occam's razor says you're upset that an artificial advantage is being taken away.

  • Upvote 2

120209800_meirl2.png.0a9b257b4d3e0c1ac6d6b8be8184cba7.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you're not "very good" at spy ops.  This makes it so that automatic scripts that check every minute are no longer useful.  Being "very good" at spy ops means that this changes very little.

 

So either you're "very good" at spy ops and this just means you're still going to be taking their nukes away all the time.

 

Or you're not "very good" and you're relying on a script/bot and it will expose that you're not that good.

 

Occam's razor says you're upset that an artificial advantage is being taken away.

 

MENSA doesn't use any scripts.  I won't speak for others.

 

Seriously, we're widely regarded as the most active alliance and we also have a higher than normal amount of players with CIA.  It's not that hard.  Stop being dense.  And read up on Occam's razor.

Edited by Harrison Richardson

☾☆


And Dio said unto him, "I trust you.  Share my word."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

1) This nerfs the already slow anti-nuke spying operations. To destroy nukes, you first have to get rid of the opponent's spy thicket that takes several days. By nerfing it further, you are making nukes remain untouched for a longer period of time.

2) If we spend 1 spy op per day on gathering intel, that slows down the time to destroy nukes by 33%. The only way to avoid this is to record the nukes at the first gather intel operation, then tally all the nukes launched in individual wars one by one. This is a !@#$ing spreadsheet nightmare and a chore.

3) Is this an actual counter-argument? It gives forewarning, and you do not contest that.

4) Let me tell you what's bad about that: We already have no way of verifying "spy slot filling." This will just make the situation worse, because whenever our opponents use gather intel ops to fill their daily spy op caps, we won't be able to even detect this or make accusations because "oh, probably one of your members used gather intel."

 

1) You don't have to remove enemy spies first. You can take risks and attempt to spy away nukes when they have more spies, albeit at lower success rate.

2) That's not true at all, you could just take a gander at the "Nukes Launched" stat on their nation page and see if it's changed when you come back. The only reason you'd want to go through Timelines one by one is if you're a goober.

3) I'm saying that you can easily create a meta in which there is no forewarning. Just gather intel regularly without declaring wars, and it'll be normalized and people won't expect war when they get spied on. Easy meta-game solution.

4) I'll consider eliminating gather intel from the defensive limit.

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) You don't have to remove enemy spies first. You can take risks and attempt to spy away nukes when they have more spies, albeit at lower success rate.

2) That's not true at all, you could just take a gander at the "Nukes Launched" stat on their nation page and see if it's changed when you come back. The only reason you'd want to go through Timelines one by one is if you're a goober.

3) I'm saying that you can easily create a meta in which there is no forewarning. Just gather intel regularly without declaring wars, and it'll be normalized and people won't expect war when they get spied on. Easy meta-game solution.

4) I'll consider eliminating gather intel from the defensive limit.

 

1) You have never done this before, have you? I ran spy ops for the whole alliance for a long time, and the most cost and time effective way to get rid of nukes is to lower the enemy's spy count to 0-3, and then do sabotage nuke actions.

2) You said you are going to hide the nuke and missile information. When you did the same for spies, you didn't just hide the number of spies, but also the number of spies killed and casualties. I am assuming you will do the same with nukes and missiles launched and eaten based on your old design choices. If you have changed your mind regarding the design choice and not made this explicit, it makes you a goober.

3) That's not feasible or realistic.

4) If you only did this, most of my criticism would be resolved.

77oKn5K.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.