Age 47 Changes - comments

Their stated reason was to make thievery more important. Them doing this by reducing how much we can use the actual destructive ops is just silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Snowstorm

well setting up farms becomes more attractive, cause you dont have to get intel. so all the more advantage to the farmers. gg.

---

I will play intel provs next age, you can get your CB for only $1 per target.

I think a lot of the Utopia community has voiced their opinions on this subject. For preliminary changes, this is really weak. The game is really out of balance right now, and you really should focus energy on making it balanced and getting bugs worked out, not implementing a big change like this, that really simply is not needed. your going to basically kill a/t, which is so fun to play for experienced players.

Not flaming, but go back to the drawing board on game changes, cept halflings, ofc, keep them, but make them useful at least

Or even better, hire a professional game designer and stick to programming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiskinator

Or even better, hire a professional game designer and stick to programming.

---

Now you're talking economics. Obviously WAY above a few heads. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheRock

Please stop trying to change the game.

I understand the desire to change things and make tweaks to keep the game dynamic, but the fact is that the game is STILL buggy and has major issues. Until you can get through an entire stable age, with little to no major bugs or issues, please stop trying to change things around to make them different.

The sad fact is that the development team has unfortunately repeatedly demonstrated that they do not understand the balance of the game, as reflected in the complete imbalance this age that made some races scarcely playable and Dwarf as the clear favorite with huge advantages. Until you guys can get through a solid, clean age, please don't try and make these big sweeping changes. Don't try to run before you can walk.

---

QFT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by avarice

Also just caught something.

"Thievery operations will be split into two categories - Espionage and Sabotage. "

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't split these up like you've split the two types of spells. Please continue to have them all on one page. Please?

---

omg... you've gotta be kidding me... as he said, PLEASE do not give us multiple lists for anything else. and PLEASE put magic back together!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pmyraje

I'm all in favour of some changes to thievery, but not moving CB and CE to thievery - having a balance between needing wizards and thieves for intel is good - moving all to thieves just takes the balance away from using wizards.

Instead why not get rid of the "dumbed down" modified offence and modified defence from CBs and force people to get the intel via SoMs, Surveys, etc and even bring in a Spy on Mystics op to see if people have TW, MP and whatever else cast.

---

I actually agree with pmyraje on something. The "dumbed down" CBs were the stupidest thing Mehul ever did, made cb + som a walk in the park and almost impossible to fail. Take out the ME from CBs and make people actually use their brains (and their calculators).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lichemaster

Why do they ignore everyone?

---

Very good question...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by avarice

Can you please answer our questions about the reasoning behind this change? There have been many responses in this thread detailing potential problems with your change - stealth as a limiting factor, dearth of strategic choice as a result of being forced to train high tpa, the possibility to easily deny intel, etc. A response to these concerns would go a long way towards bringing the community on board with these changes.

---

Would like to see a response as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean1

Very good point. I wasn't even thinking about that, but it's completely true. Stealing is going to become pretty useless, imo. The players that actually will look for the targets will have no advantage over the lazy ones that put in no effort, in that regards.

---

Maybe they're planning on making the Rob ops magic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorbidAngel

I will play intel provs next age, you can get your CB for only $1 per target.

---

MA, do you take paypal? :P

I think this has to be the most ridiculous idea in the history of utopia. And I can most certainly see by the mood of this thread that most are against the change, but the devs are refusing to listen. There has always been a choice in intel gathering, and now you are taking away our choices. For what? to weaken thievery? nice job devs....

FIX THE FRICKIN GAME before you make these stupid and nonsensical changes.

good grief almighty...

You people are so damn negative... ALL the time. First off, hi IS listening to the community. I can say this, because I made this very suggestion long ago. And yes, it was flamed as much as it is now by all the same people who "know it all" about the game.

Your arguments against it don't make sense, because they are all based on the assumption that "roles" need always remain the same. Attacker, Thief, Mage. This is erroneous. Utopia isn't about playing one of these roles, it's about creating a province that balances ALL aspects of these roles together. If any change "destroys mages", or "destroys thieves", the change will NOT change what the game is fundamentally about. And that, again, is creating a balanced province. What it WILL do is force you to reevaluate all your relied upon strategies and preconceptions as to how the game is "supposed to be played".

So now you won't be able to use your Wizards to gather intel. That'll allow them to be more destructive. Is this good or bad? I don't know, IMO it's just different. Your Thieves will now have to spend more stealth gathering intel. So, you'll either have to put more thought into who you gather intel on, or you'll have to increase your thief abilities to make up for the extra stealth you have to expend to get the same information as before. This won't "destroy thieves" or "destroy attackers" by any means, it'll simply mean everyone has to change their tactics.

Changes like this are by definition "perfectly balanced" when viewed from a game-wide perspective due to the fact that everyone gets "cut by the same axe" so to speak. The problems may lie in balancing individual races and personalities against each other in light of this change. However, as we haven't see ANY proposed changes, it's far to early to be complaining about imbalance and how said change will affect X race...

Far too often on these boards only those who disagree with a change/opinion seem to post en-mass. The same happened when other changes were announced. NW based gains, Happiness, removing happiness, adding races, removing races... Utopia is about change, and this is just another change to get used to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luth

Maybe they're planning on making the Rob ops magic?

---

Lol good suggestion! That'd actually even it out a little bit. However, it was a suggestion. Therefore....

Comport9, yes and no. It's like having a building option that's there, but nobody uses it because it's stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by comport9

You people are so damn negative... ALL the time. First off, hi IS listening to the community. I can say this, because I made this very suggestion long ago. And yes, it was flamed as much as it is now by all the same people who "know it all" about the game.

Your arguments against it don't make sense, because they are all based on the assumption that "roles" need always remain the same. Attacker, Thief, Mage. This is erroneous. Utopia isn't about playing one of these roles, it's about creating a province that balances ALL aspects of these roles together. If any change "destroys mages", or "destroys thieves", the change will NOT change what the game is fundamentally about. And that, again, is creating a balanced province. What it WILL do is force you to reevaluate all your relied upon strategies and preconceptions as to how the game is "supposed to be played".

So now you won't be able to use your Wizards to gather intel. That'll allow them to be more destructive. Is this good or bad? I don't know, IMO it's just different. Your Thieves will now have to spend more stealth gathering intel. So, you'll either have to put more thought into who you gather intel on, or you'll have to increase your thief abilities to make up for the extra stealth you have to expend to get the same information as before. This won't "destroy thieves" or "destroy attackers" by any means, it'll simply mean everyone has to change their tactics.

Changes like this are by definition "perfectly balanced" when viewed from a game-wide perspective due to the fact that everyone gets "cut by the same axe" so to speak. The problems may lie in balancing individual races and personalities against each other in light of this change. However, as we haven't see ANY proposed changes, it's far to early to be complaining about imbalance and how said change will affect X race...

Far too often on these boards only those who disagree with a change/opinion seem to post en-mass. The same happened when other changes were announced. NW based gains, Happiness, removing happiness, adding races, removing races... Utopia is about change, and this is just another change to get used to.

---

Except you're missing the point. We don't dislike crappy changes because we think unbalanced = unfair, it's because unbalanced = boring. No one enjoys playing when there's only one good way to do it. Then everyone is bored because everyone else is exactly the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by comport9

Changes like this are by definition "perfectly balanced" when viewed from a game-wide perspective due to the fact that everyone gets "cut by the same axe" so to speak. The problems may lie in balancing individual races and personalities against each other in light of this change. However, as we haven't see ANY proposed changes, it's far to early to be complaining about imbalance and how said change will affect X race...

Far too often on these boards only those who disagree with a change/opinion seem to post en-mass. The same happened when other changes were announced. NW based gains, Happiness, removing happiness, adding races, removing races... Utopia is about change, and this is just another change to get used to.

---

How exactly is it "balanced" when you are taking away our options?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian_

This change will be happening. CB is now Spy on Throne. CE is now Snatch News. Keep your suggestions and concerns coming, I am reading them. The more balanced your suggestion, the more likely it is to be taken seriously. It's 23:30 now, and I'm going home. Thanks for the support.

---

Short of all the criticism on the change itself, was "Snatch News" really the best you could come up with? Come on, this is a game that relies quite heavily upon a players imagination and the existence of magical creatures. "Snatch News" makes it sound like you're sending in your thieves with 2gc in their back pockets and telling them to grab the New York Times on the way out.

All this of course, is assuming the players are adult enough to use the definition of "Snatch" you're intending. Which we're not, so someone, please start with the jokes :)

I would recommend ANY of the following long before "Snatch News" ...
Kingdom Insight
Gather Intelligence
Discover Battleplan
Spy on Armies
Spy on Forces
Spy on Generals
Infiltrate Headquarters

etc etc.
=====
On the change itself - Well in reality, I suppose it doesn't really change anything. Yes sure, now everyone has to use an extra ~6% stealth (Assume 2 fails ... meh) every 12 hours (Note: that's 1/6 of the stealth you earn) but I suppose if everyone is doing it, it just means that NightStrike runs will be less effective. That being said, please expect everyone to have a high TPA next round, and for stealth to end up being nothing but pure intel gathering. Accordingly, i'd also expect to see a higher DE count next round, since the only decent mage operation we have in regards to killing troops quickly is Nightmares.

My comments essentially mirror that of Elurin, Post 16, Page 2, This topic.

In reality i'd dearly like to see the two of you utilise the time you've set aside for the moving / splitting of operation types, focused onto existing problems. Fixing Amnesia would be a great start, and fixing the Ambush bug which has brought about so many downfalls would be very much appreciated.

You're asking us to co-operate so I am, i'm telling you that we appreciate you can't spend much time on Utopia, and i'm telling you this is the wrong way to be spending that time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by comport9

Changes like this are by definition "perfectly balanced" when viewed from a game-wide perspective due to the fact that everyone gets "cut by the same axe" so to speak. The problems may lie in balancing individual races and personalities against each other in light of this change. However, as we haven't see ANY proposed changes, it's far to early to be complaining about imbalance and how said change will affect X race...

---

So by definition any change that affects a game mechanic is balanced? Ok :)

Sure, you're right that it'll adjust how we play our provinces. My concern, and one that has been echoed, is that instead of increasing diversity it will limit options that provinces can take. The game quite clearly needs fixing in many areas - this is not controversial as everyone from the devs to the players acknowledges this - and prior to today thievery was not really most people's concern. It is a patch to an area of the game that is not broken, that could have unforeseen (or possibly foreseen :)) consequences, and one whose actual purpose is ill-defined. Personally I don't see how it strengthens thievery. It would make it more mandatory to have some token amount of thieves for sure, though I'm not sure that actually accomplishes much. It likely nerfs the use of thieves as offensive powers in a game where offense = victory.

Yes, it makes the game "different". Making things different for the sake of being different is not exactly the noblest of pursuits. I fail to see how it makes the game *better*. And at this point, that is what we (and the devs) should be concentrating our attention on.

This is not a criticism, this is just my opinion. Any criticism I have is saved for the lack of communication surrounding what should have obviously been a very controversial issue.

Okay. It's pretty obvious that the game devs have had minimal, if any, experience at this game, and certainly no experience at a top level. This means they have a poor understanding of what it takes to make the game balanced

Unfortunately, it's also pretty obvious that they are disregarding this fact, and ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the players with experience (and who therefore probably know best what it would take to balance the game) are saying this will have the opposite of the stated desired effect.

So what it appears to all of us is that they are in effect children playing at pilots in a real plane sitting there with their hands over their ears going "lah lah lah, we can't hear you, we know best!" whilst their plane is flying straight towards a cliff face and the real pilots are stuck in the cargo hold trying to scream out advice before they are pancaked and roasted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by comport9

I can say this, because I made this very suggestion long ago. And yes, it was flamed as much as it is now by all the same people who "know it all" about the game.

---

So now we know who to blame.

Let me see if I can understand the reasoning. 1. A bad suggestion gets flamed 2. Brian and Sean take it 3. Give the community a huge FFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUU when it gets flamed again. Makes perfect sense.

There are plenty of good posts explaining why this is a bad idea...