Age 47 Changes - comments

[FireBones]

Okey, so next age there will be lots of gnome/halflings kd's running 30+ mod tpa suiciding all over the place? Gl getting 'cb'+som from those mofos

Until they go to war and get slaughtered with that strategy.

Or until the KD gets big enough that it runs into organized KD who just has a decent thief to do a few CBs and give the attackers super easy hits.

Or until the human A/ts eat them for lunch...

Seriously folks, people are not fully appreciating that the official word is that these "CBs for thieves" are going to be made really easy.

At the very worst, OMAC could just make Watch Towers only work against sabotage operations and TDs only increase a provinces OFFENSIVE TPA...

[Lilith]

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.

what is wrong with you people? have you not a single ounce of SENSE in your brains?
This is a BAD idea. I truly have the feeling you guys want to kill off this game instead of saving it. Lets insert retarded game changes that noone wants, make sure its bugged and coded wrongly, then not listen to the community some more and hope everyone QUITS!

Seriously, you are killing this game, and taking all fun out of it.

EDIT: oh, and those names you picked Brian, really really sucky.

[Fiskinator]

Coming from someone whose kd played a/t this age this change does NOT increase the importance of thievery. Instead it makes us blow a USEFUL resource (stealth) to get intel instead of a USELESS one (mana). That is a nerf, that is not making thievery more important. If you really want to give people the option of gathering more info through thievery then fine. But do NOT remove CB and CE. Make the intel ops shared

[Mickster]

Y'all keep it up with the profanity and name calling, and I'll ban you into the next decade.

[FireBones]

Your "math" isn't math at all... it's blatant assumptions with little empirical evidence.

A) A person with 2 raw wpa still has a problem CBing a person with 8 mod wpa. When your province news is full of spell ops, you KNOW it's a CB / CE.
B) A person with 2 mod tpa still has a problem getting an SoM on someone with 8 mod tpa.

First of all, WHY ON EARTH are you assuming that the new CB will be as hard as an SoM???? CBs are way easier than SOMs and the original post said that the new thief op will be as easy as a traditional CB.

They said it.
I reminded you in my post.
Bishop has now reiterated the same thing.
What is so hard to get about "The New CB is not going to be as hard as SoM?"

Also, you speak of such horrid mod tpa's such as 10 mod, or even 15 mod. Try 30 mod. Easy as hell to get with gnome sage.

Sure it's easy to get 30 mod TPA...but it won't be worth an attacker getting it for that reason. Are you really scared of gnomes sages being unbreakable attackers? You are talking about a relatively small population of players becoming harder to hit....and then only when not in war...and only when the attacker is in a KD that has no organization.

As I said earlier, there are easy solutions to whatever nightmare scenarios you are talking about...just make WTs only work against sabotage and make TDs only work on offensive ops.

[Sean1]

First of all, WHY ON EARTH are you assuming that the new CB will be as hard as an SoM????

We're assuming that b/c 90% of the server is going to be running high tpa just to compete.

And also, now all you need to guard your intel is WT, and not guilds, too. So every1 is probably going to have at least some % of wt integrated into their build... if they're smart.

[FireBones]

We're not. If 1 op is going to take 3 stealth and be 50% successful with a slightly lower tpa, then it's giving the negative effect we're all talking about.

Why on earth would you make this assumption?
Is it currently only a 50% proposition to get a CB on someone with only a slightly higher WPA? No. You can easily get CBs on people with twice your WPA.
And I already suggested making this op only take 1 stealth.

As long as OMAC takes a few precautions, there shouldn't be any problems:
1) Make the new op as easy as CB [which they already said they are going to do].
2) Make WTs only work against sabotage ops [which include robbery].
3) Make TDs only work on offensive ops [not contribute to your defensive TPA]
4) Make the new "CB" take only 1 stealth and the new "CE" take 2 or 3.


None of these break other facets of the game. WTs still do what they are meant to do, TDs still do what they are meant to do, etc.

[MorbidAngel]

Y'all keep it up with the profanity and name calling, and I'll ban you into the next decade.

okay, ban me

[John Snowstorm]

"At the very worst, OMAC could just make Watch Towers only work against sabotage operations and TDs only increase a provinces OFFENSIVE TPA..."

so now you want them to add two potentially flawed, bugged and unnecessary changes to counteract problems with another potentially flawed, bugged and unnecessary change. gg.

*sigh* even if you have the cb be incredibly easy to take its still 1 stealth tank for ALL intel taking. good luck at start of age trying to find 3-4 acres targets, then getting gc targets and still having enough stealth to rob them.

the only way its feasible is if all the intel ops now cost 1 stealth or you have a seperate stealth tank for intel and offensive ops. if you're gonna have them in seperate departments you might as well.

[Nuriho]

why is everyone ignoring this?

significantly more difficult != easier and does not take stealth at all.

having all 6 intelligence gathering ops on one set of attempts (stealth) vs spreading out between 2 attempts (stealth and mana) is what we're complaining about. Having the difficulty not harder doesn't mean anything at all when it leaves less room to use SoM; i still have to cast CB, whether using stealth or mana!

All this is doing, by Thundergore's words (no quote, so i'm not sure if it's devs, Sean and Brian's, is showing us that the devs are changing something we deem major in the mechanics of the game. Without extra changes to how those mechanics work, we have no faith-actually we protest greatly-that this will work; it will do the opposite of what they wish to accomplish!

Given their track record of 6 month game delayed 6 months delayed 3 months with huge bugs that haven't been fixed in 6 months, i think it's NOT us being mad, but simply lack all trust in them to work together with us, as they've not listened very well to proposals by us (take Dwarf Artisan this age, there were at least 50% of the people on this forums spamming it's a bad idea, and unbalanced, yet it was still implemented. I only respond to your question, Bishop, but it brings the big point, will our protests against this be ignored by the devs and be implemented anyway?). This stuff just gets frustrating, and lowers at the very least my own faith in the devs to bring out a good game. Yes i'll wait for confirmed changes, but i want to make a note here that I think this is a bad idea, because I cannot trust them to change game mechanics to make it work without causing serious bugs that (given their track record for bugs) they will not fix.

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.

This is where my faith breaks down now. I refresh the page to see what i missed, and Brian_ says he doesn't care for our concerns by not even addressing what he plans to to do make it balanced. He says on one hand through Thundergore that he wants thievery to be strengthened and viable, but all his suggestions without elaboration + in depth detail from our concerns are not addressed to us! What is going on Brian_?! What game mechanics do you propose to change to make it balanced in order to strengthen theivery? Your current one doesn't seem at all likely. I can elaborate again: Your current forced, by word of the dev, change will only weaken thievery by making every intelligence op rely on it instead of spreading it out between CBs and SoMs. Now, my kingdom personally doesn't have this problem, but we're in the top 10, and i've played in top 50 kingdoms since 6 years ago, been playing since age 3, and i've never had an issue with CBs and SoMs to find targets - I simply have 3-4 tpa raw and 3-4 wpa raw after week 4. I'm sure your changes will not affect me the slightest, as i'll just have 7 tpa raw, taking the wpa and moving to tpa. This will still, unless game mechanics are changed as well, give the same results that you seem to think people are complaining about.

My main problem with this is in order to make it balanced, game mechanics will have to be changed, and i do not have confidence you can do that, as developers, since you haven't been able to fix the bugs that have been lurking since beginning of alpha. Please, reconsider your statement, and do not add this change! Keep things balanced as far as mana and stealth usage oow. During wars is always situational, so it's unfair to punish everyone because someone complains that a certain kingdom has a certain strategy that makes it very unreliable to have thieves at all!

tldr; I think this suggestion is bad. Brian_, please read this, but if you do not because it's too long, simply attempt to reassure us that you'll change game mechanics without introducing more bugs to make this a viable solution to this seemingly nonexistent problem.

[Sean1]

*sigh* even if you have the cb be incredibly easy to take its still 1 stealth tank for ALL intel taking. good luck at start of age trying to find 3-4 acres targets, then getting gc targets and still having enough stealth to rob them.

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.

[avarice]

Firebones. We're all well aware of the fact that the thief CB op will be no more difficult than the wizard CB op. The potential difficulty is only a minor issue that will (hopefully) be resolved. Personally I'm more concerned with the fact that this is likely a thievery *nerf* (less stealth = sadface), everyone will have to run high TPA to take intel effectively (it's much easier to train thieves than wizards, regardless of the twiddling you do with TDs and WTs to fix the mods for intel taking) therefore limiting strats - which we've already seen leads to an age that's not as fun as it could be since everyone plays Dwarf/Art.

When you start getting to the point where you need to tweak mana and stealth usage of ops to be different from pretty much every other op, and tweak the numbers on buildings in a way that only makes sense in the context of this change in the first place, in order to make the change not break the game, I question the purpose behind the change in the first place :)

[John Snowstorm]

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.

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

[Tamer]

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.

But why? Can you tell us at least why you feel it necessary to make this change?

[Sean1]

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

Feeding the scripters. What another obvious sign that they're intentionally running it into the ground?