Age 47 Changes - comments

[Elurin]

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.

[Kees]

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

[avarice]

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

Yes.

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.

No.

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:

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>.

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.

[FireBones]

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.

[Someone]

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.

[celien]

The actual consequences of thievery being strenghtened as well as the source of ALL intel is the following....

A good post even if the guy posting lives on the wrong side of sweden i would read and lissend to it...

[Bishop]

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.

[FireBones]

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.

I disagree. I played an attacking thief this age and actually had more trouble having enough mana for all my self spells and CBs.
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...)

[FireBones]

Disclaimer: This is presuming the intel ops will be similiar to today's SoM in difficulty.

Thundergore clearly stated that they were aiming to make these ops of similar difficulty to the current magic ones.

An effort will be made to ensure that Crystal Ball and Crystal Eye are not significantly more difficult to successfully obtain than previously.

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.

[pmyraje]

No.

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.

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.

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.

[Magmalava]

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.

[Someone]

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.

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.

My guess is that they plan to make the new CB op MUCH MUCH MUCH easier than SoM.

An effort will be made to ensure that Crystal Ball and Crystal Eye are not significantly more difficult to successfully obtain than previously.

[maugrim]

CB should be called : this is the dumbest change ever
CE should be called : this is the stupidest idea ever

figure it out.

[protector]

Please stop trying to change the game.

What he said :(

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

[John Snowstorm]

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.