If you have constructive comments after reading the recent announcement then include them below.
Many thanks.
Edit: No flaming, trolling, taking this thread off topic or otherwise breaching the forum rules.
Printable View
If you have constructive comments after reading the recent announcement then include them below.
Many thanks.
Edit: No flaming, trolling, taking this thread off topic or otherwise breaching the forum rules.
It's race/personality bonuses that need tweaking IMO. One need only look at the population stats of Utopia to see that there's a pretty clear imbalance at the moment, and minor tweaks to race/personality can often have a pretty major effect. When can we expect to see the new race and personality numbers?
Also I'm curious to see the reasoning behind making CB and CE a thief operation. Your reasoning is not clear from your post. What effect are you hoping to achieve with this change?
Spy on Military is used plenty often; I'm not sure that moving CE/CB to thievery for the sake of it is really a good change, imo. Also consider that this change probably actually weakens thievery, as stealth is a limiting factor and if you have to use stealth to get *all* forms of intel, you'll have less to spend on the destructive ops. It'll also lead to less variety in strat choice as everyone will have to have high thieves first to take intel, and second to defend against those with high tpa (for blocking against both intel and destructive ops). ATM it's ridiculously difficult to take an SOM with even a relatively minor TPA imbalance.
So now ALL intel operation will be done using thieves and NONE with wizzards?
that doesnt make the tiniest bit of sense.
now if you had decided that there needed to be some self ops to balance self spells i could understand it (why shouldnt clear sight be a self op? or town watch apart from having to do a new mechanic for it), but thieves already do alot of the leg work for intel gathering - infil, survery, sos, som.
did someone tell you they always have full stealth tank or something? thievery is already important, it has lots of direct damage ops that are widely used. if youre wondering why rogue wasnt popular its because the ops available to rogue only are largely useless when greater arson is nerfed because the whole server is artisan, prop is useless for dealing damage and is only used to honor whore and AW is a support for when your DEs cant NM.
So why not choose sage, have a better tpa, better military and better everything, seeing as 90% of the time what you want to do is riot and NS, or maybe get BG up.
please explain.
I consider the changes insanely idiotic. They seem to be a complete newbie suggestion to try and make gnomes and the idiotic new race halflings useful.
Thievery was already important espionage wise for SoM, SoS, etc.
Why are you making changes no one asked for like this crystal ball thing and a new race... Seriously...
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.
Moving CB and CE to thievery won't increase the importance of thievery. Non-mages can get CBs most of the time and non-thieves will be able to get them most of the time if you change it. In fact, you could argue that it weakens thievery, as thieves will have to either find someone else to get intel or waste their stealth on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thundergore
Intel magic: CB, CE (2)Quote:
Originally Posted by Thundergore
Intel thievery: Survey, SoS, SoM, infiltrate (4)
I'd say the balance is pretty good there, considering that CB is the most used. And 4 is definitely a bigger number than 2.
I hope you meant a "balanced thief race".Quote:
Originally Posted by Thundergore
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?
Uhm...aren't there really three kinds of thief ops: Espionage, Larceny, and Sabotage?
And...isn't there already a "strong thief" race... starts with "G," has five letters, sorta rhymes with a Jewish word for "Peace"?
And gnomes are plenty powerful...people just don't make use of the NW-economy correctly.
Seconded -- One list is better than 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by avarice
You wanted suggestions for the names of thief operations.
They are boring, but:
"Spy on Province"
and
"Spy on Kingdom News"
seem the most obvious.
Question: Would "Spy on Province News" be too powerful? I think that could be really interesting.
I vote for "Spy on Province" just because it sounds so... lame.
thats bec the thievery op for that IS lame
Names could be
CB: Observe or Steal Report
CE: Investigate or Discover History
Suggested names:
CB: Gather Information
CE: Contact Informants
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.
The actual consequences of thievery being strenghtened as well as the source of ALL intel is the following;
* Strong thief races or anyone with high enough tpa will be immune to intel gathering from pure attackers or A/m's
* This forces everyone to run high tpa if they don't want to blind hit
* This forces a uniform playstyle across the server, making 2 of the current 3 established attacking combinations have to dedicate a lot of ppa to tpa.
HOWEVER
* That tpa will be less useful than today to harm enemies, since the resource behind thieving damage is stealth. That stealth will now be needed to get all intel. Consider again the first 2 points which basically forces people to run high tpa. Thus, even if you are also high tpa yourself - the intel ops will not be auto-successes.
So what we have is a scenario where most of the server have to run high tpa, but only those with the highest tpa (high enough to get all intel on everyone else easily) can actually utilize it to do NS or other thievery ops that are interesting.
Nothing wrong with adding halflings, but please do not mess with the game mechanics beyond race numbers until someone making changes has full understanding of how the game works in practice. This is not meant to offend, but is AFAIK the reality.
Disclaimer: This is presuming the intel ops will be similiar to today's SoM in difficulty.
They really lost it.
What intell ops does a Mage have left now? Or are you changing Survey, infiltrate and SoS top become a mage-op?
Leave the intell ops like they are and improve the races/personalities.
We need (in)balance so you get more different styles.
This change only makes a thieve less powerful and a mage more powerful.
Less stealth for ops and more mana for spells.
Stop screwing it up and make changes where it is needed aka: Make changes to improve the diversity
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by pmyraje
No.Quote:
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.
The game used to be like this and it was changed for a very good reason. What better way to frustrate newbies than to make their attacks fail without any obvious reason? Why is it a good idea to make every successful attack a giant production involving Surveys, Spy on mystics, Spy on Military, and CB (some of which provides randomised data)? Either you're going to see a lot of oversends or a lot of bounces and a lot of unhappy players sitting on no stealth/mana with an even harder time finding random targets than before. It hurts the noobs and increases reliance on tools like Angel.
Also, @Jolt, I'm seeing a pretty disturbing trend with your recent posts:
When to be honest none of us really care (too much) about what you call the elites for halfling or the thievery intel ops, we care about the game and how it works, and question the need for two thievery races when the one that exists needs a lot of work already, and look with dread upon the (many, numerous, legion, etc) consequences of moving intel ops to thievery.Quote:
We're announcing <feature>.
We're not going to really respond to your feedback on <feature>. Instead, we'd like suggestions on a list of names for <feature>.
Guys, I agree that the focus should be fixing the known problems with the game [bugs, fake wars, a war system that does not promote warring, etc.], but let's try to see both sides of what we deem massive changes.
For example, the new system probably helps attackers. They now will no longer have to split their mana between keeping self spells up and doing CBs. Previously heavy attackers only needed stealth [really] for SoM...and that was only if they couldn't get someone else to do it. Now they will have a use for their stealth. One could say that this change actually balances thievery and magic for heavy attackers since they will be using both mana (for self spells) and stealth (for target finding) through normal game play.
In other words, these changes help attackers in ghettos or unorganized kingdoms who now have an easier time doing target finding.
Sure, there are other ways of doing this [making CBs only take 1 mana or losing less mana when you fizzle or having both a mystic version of CB and a thief version, etc.], but I can see some value in this change.
Even thought i dont play atm (because of time-related matters), I would like to ask you to rethink your plans of making CBs and CEs thief ops.
It wont increase the importance of thievery, as much as it will increase the importance of TPA. Unless you intend to make it unrelated to TPA (which would be even stupider, since it would then only draw stealth). This means that vs a thief-heavy (A/T gnomes, humans) kd, you would need alot of organisation, and alot of players online at all times to make sure that you have enought stealth to gather necessary intel at all times.
I dont know how SoMs work atm, but before, even if you had depleted stealth so you couldnt get SoM+SoM, you could use your mana to get a CB to be able to attack. Or the other way around. Meaning, you werent unable to attack until both your mana and your stealth was 0. With the system youre proposing, if you run out of stealth, youre ****ed. Unless youre in a kd active enought and have a friend use their stealth to get intel instead.
A good post even if the guy posting lives on the wrong side of sweden i would read and lissend to it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Elurin
Guys, i really shouldn't need to say this, but do not even think about spamming in this thread. This is the only warning you will receive (apart for thundergores long long long post about the forum rules previously).
stay strictly on topic, and don't try to be smart.
I disagree. I played an attacking thief this age and actually had more trouble having enough mana for all my self spells and CBs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kees
If you are playing a bandit [attacker relying on robbery to shore up a crappy economy], then I agree this change kills you...but if you have a sustainable economy, this can work to attacking thieves advantage since you won't be running out of mana trying to CB people.
I REALLY hope, though, they make the "CB equivalent" cost only 1 point of stealth...or at least make the loss of stealth small when you miss.
Another bonus: without magic-based CBs, you won't have that occasional, infuriating explosion when trying to get one. Over the course of time, that can make a pretty significant difference to how many wizards you have. This helps attackers in two ways: For attackers that are often at war, this means they can keep their WPA higher...for attackers who do not go to war, they can periodically release their wizzies back into their population for more soldiers [since their WPA is immaterial...only their guild percentage counts.]
(The above remarks about "attackers who don't go to war" is not intended as a particularly strong point...obviously choosing never to go to war has some pretty serious disadvantages...)
Thundergore clearly stated that they were aiming to make these ops of similar difficulty to the current magic ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elurin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thundergore
I think they idea that "Attackers will have to have high TPA to get any intel" is a weak one. Do attackers currently have to have high WPA to get intel via CB? No.
My guess is that they plan to make the new CB op MUCH MUCH MUCH easier than SoM. Yes, that means it is going to be hard to get intel on attacking thieves...but how is that different from the current situation where it is hard to get intel on (the very few) attacking mages? (I'm just referring to those that have high enough WPA that CBs are difficult to obtain.)
The only difference is that there are far more "attacking thieves" than "attacking mages," but this is simply due to the existence of TDs [no equivalent building exists for mages] and that gnomes are a far stronger race right now than elves. It has certainly not always been this way.
The game used to have 70,000 players back in the day when people had to use intel ops and show at least some kind of attention to details - it didn't put newbies off back then. And to be honest the game doesn't need the kind of new players who can't even be bothered to get full intel ops before making an attack. Utopia has always been supposed to be a game in which you need to apply at least some element of maths to make an attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by avarice
The idea that it increases the reliance on Angel is erroneous. If you attack someone with their army home then it is so trivial we might as well not even bother playing - i.e. just get the CB and send the right offence. If you attack when their army is out then you now have to work out what their defensive modifiers actually are from the mod def on the CB which places at least as much reliance on tools like Angel.
People will learn to deal with obtaining 'cb' and 'ce' through thievery. It will take a bit of time to get used to it, but in the end it doesn't make much difference if we take intel via thieves or mages.
Thats partly because you simply cant have both high WPA, TPA and keep a decent attacking power. Still, theres the stealth-problem. And if they make "CBs" basically non-stealth-consuming, they will more or less be free. Im not sure if thats such a good thing either.Quote:
Originally Posted by FireBones
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireBones
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thundergore
CB should be called : this is the dumbest change ever
CE should be called : this is the stupidest idea ever
figure it out.
What he said :(Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRock
Why are you making changes to the game but ignoring EVERY SINGLE SUGGESTION that has been made on the forums?
Crystal Ball and Crystal Eye have been part of Utopia since day 1. Why on bloody earth would you attempt to remove these, just for the sake of, in your eyes, making thievery important??? Do you even realize what impact thievery already has on the game? You already need it to gather Spy on Military. In some cases (like this age) it was also very benefitial to get a Survey to check for Guard Stations. If you're hunting science, a Spy on Science would be needed. Aside these default intel ops, there is a number of offensive thievery. (Nightstrike, Arson, Kidnap etc.)
Can you imagine an age without stealing gold from an inactive? Food when you forgot to build additional farms to supply the food you require? Runes for your spells...
Stop trying to CHANGE the game, and FIX it instead. Ambush bug is still in effect, there is a bug with gains which I've reported (I cant go into details on it to prevent abuse), Amnesia is supposedly still bugged, and certainly not the least important; you can still cast spells from (fake) war on an opponent which is NOT the one you are in war with IF that kingdom is unfriendly/hostile towards you.
Also, by changing spells from a single page to 2 pages (and thievery) you don't really help the already slow servers... everytime you need to cast a fireball you have to press Mystic and then Combat. It's just stupid
just as an addition to my previous post which i didnt include first time round because its so blatantly obvious:
the underlying premise that thievery needs to be made more important
"In order to increase the importance of thievery"
is incorrect. thievery is already a huge deciding factor in wars.
people not using rogue =/= thievery is unimportant.
You really should try to explain why you think a change is needed (all changes not only this one), your reasoning for it?
Show us that you have an idea about what impact it will have and what your intended goal is?
Otherwise it only looks like a suggestion from a newbie that can't see the whole picture.
You do have a reasoning behind this idea, right?
In what way do you think this will "increase the importance of thievery"?
Importance as in high TPA will be absolutely needed to play the game without having to do blind attacks now and then (this is after all a strategy game not the roulette in a casino)
And your future plan for randomization makes all of this even worse.
"two categories - Espionage and Sabotage"
What would stealing gc be?
Espionage? "I was just looking to see if he had a lot"
Sabotage? "no I don't need any gc, I just want him to be poor"
Or will you remove all possibility to steal?
Couldn't of said it better myself. I'd also like to add a few things:Quote:
Originally Posted by Elurin
Right now, A/M's utilize their mana for offensive/self spells and their stealth for Spy on Military and occasionally Survey, Spy on Science, and Infiltrate. A/T's utilize their stealth for offensive ops and their mana for self spells/CBs. This allows both rolls to use utilize their specialization to the fullest, not having to waste stealth (A/T) or mana (A/M) on espionage.
If this change goes through it would add more for the A/M to do as far as intel. However having such low TPA they would have to blow through all of their stealth attempting to get any information on an A/T. I assume A/M's alone wouldn't be able to get all of the necessary information (as it already takes a lot out of them to get a SoM on an A/T), which would make the A/T's dip into their stealth for espionage.
In the end, it weakens A/T's as they will be using less of their stealth on offensive ops and more of it on espionage. This is during war, of course. They will have it easy oow as it will be easy for them to get intel for random land grabs. The only other thing they would use their stealth for oow is stealing gold from randoms.
Really, It only CAN be Callled "Spy on Province" and "Spy on Kingdom News" anything else is out of line.
Also, if the Developers renamed the game Flukopiza had Noobs instead of Dwarfs, and elites of Noobzilla... I think someone would be mad.
Also, if Sean and Brian go ahead with this obvious 95% disapproval rate change, every player in the game is going to lose absolute faith in you. You need to work with us and our suggestions, not come up with stupid ideas yourselves.
another brilliant ideea to destroy the game, you are really good on that
it encourage multi cheaters,with or without payment for sitting, that is what you want ?
The difference is that it's not worth building extra guilds just to get higher WPA to make CBs on you harder, especially when that won't stop intel that thieves get.Quote:
Originally Posted by FireBones
It may well be a different story if the changes are implemented, as training extra thieves is far easier and will be far more useful if ALL intel gathering is done by thieves.
You run decent tpa and 20% wt:s and people will need to burn all stealth they can to get intel =p
This is good for player base thou, everyone will run one main province and one halfling superthief with max td:s. Multies ftw!
I hate myself for it but the jihad I quoted is right :[Quote:
Originally Posted by Mansoor
hi Mansoor!
I think people are really having some issues with the logic here. Do you really see people piling on a ton of thieves just to make "Spy on Province" hard? It still won't be worth it because the benefit of having a bunch of people in unorganized KDs get data on you will be less than what you lose by having to train the extra thieves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Osiris
Just think of how many wizards you have to have before CBs become exceptionally difficult to attain. Are you really going to raise your Modified TPA to 15 just to stop random hits by heavy attackers out of war? Inside war it won't matter since their thieves are going to be able to get the intel anyway.
Just think through the basic math here. Let's say that someone with 1 WPA can get CBs reasonably easily on people with 4 WPA [just as a ball park estimation]. Most people in warring KDs already run about 2 Raw/3 modified TPA, meaning you would be able to get "Spy on Province" on people with modified TPAs of up to 12 without breaking a sweat. Just training one more RAW thief per acre would bring that up to around 4.5 modified TPA for most folks, bringing the scope of "reasonably easy CBs" up to about 18 TPA [modified]. So, assuming attackers go up to 3 Raw/4.5 mod TPA you would have to push your modded TPA up to nearly 20 just to cause significant problems.
But how much of a gain would that be? A/t s would have modified TPAs of 10 [easily], and they could still get your intel, so you've used up a bunch of thieves trying to push up your TPA, and you are still vulnerable in all the following cases:
A. You are in war.
B. Your predatory is a A/t, A/T, T/A, or T/a
C. Your predator is in a KD that is organized to get someone to help with CBs on out-of-war hits.
In other words:
People will likely get about 1 more TPA raw and it won't be worth trying to get a bunch of thieves just to cover yourself from out of war random hits.
Math, people...it's your friend.
If you want to use 20% of your acres on WTs and the necessary 10-12 raw thieves per acre just to stop out-of-war randoms, go ahead...if you are an attacker, your army will probably suck...if you are not an attacker then these measures shouldn't be necessary and will make whatever inter-war pumps you are doing rather inefficient.
Hi Prot!
It is sad indeed. Even I know that this weakens thievery.
Scenario:
In war:
Kingdom with decent tpa and lots of watch towers will catch lots of ops. First you need CB, then you need som...damn can't break. Cb again....som...damn can't break. Cb again---damn out of stealth...can't hit...can't even try to blind hit as I cannot get an som and I am a noob that doesn't use mirc or msn for utopia so cannot contact anyone in the kingdom. But I have 100% mana, I fire ball instead...damn no runes. I can steal runes!!! YAY! oh wait, no stealth...bummer! I quit this game!!
I would sacrifise 15-20% of my land for wt:s, saves me from getting NS:d.
I can tell you that when randoming, mana is always near empty before you find a decent target. If you go out of mana you start to SoM. Now when you shifting both to the same you will incurage bottomfeeding even more as people won't dare to intel provinces their size and risk going out of stealth. This might not be a big problem for the 10 organised kingdoms left in the game but the ofter 40 kingdoms that are left, for them it is harder.
Main problems are still multies. Everyone, including me will make a halfler thief with max td:s for intelling. You are incuraging going multi!