Age 47 Changes - comments

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Based on the previous responses, that is not clear at all...hence the reason Bishop mentioned it as well... and why some people keep comparing the new CB to SoM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by avarice

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.

---

See that is where people are just making blind assumptions. Now, depending on how it is implemented, it very well may be the case that people start needing more thieves to get information, but there is no guarantee that it will be that way. The proof for this is pretty obvious:

Think about your wizards. How many wizards do you need to be reasonably safe in war? Some people make due with 1 (raw), stronger kingdoms require more for "back door protection." But whatever that minimal number is (that people have for protection), it also turns out to be sufficient for most people to cast CBs. People don't load up with wizards just so they can get CBs...they get wizards [if they are smart] so that in war they are not ripped to shreds.

Similarly with thieves. Yes, it is easier to get thieves, but that does not necessarily mean people will do it. What if the 2 Raw TPA most people have is sufficient to get intel? We would have the same situation we have now..if the thieves you are already going to have will suffice for getting intel, then why would you get more? If you could, right now, train an extra wizard per acre, would you? Probably not...you probably have about as many wizards as you need for protection in war, and those suffice to do your CBs. The fact that you need wizards to get CBs has no material effect on how many wizards you have...so the argument that "wizards are different from thieves because you can train thieves immediately" is pretty weak.

So, once again, as long as Sean makes these ops easy, easy enough so that people are not compelled to get more thieves just to get intel, the effect you mention [where people book up on thieves just to get intel] won't happen.

As for the notion of "all the intel ops being on one pool," PUH-leeze. If anything, this argument goes against the point you are trying to make. Currently a heavy attacker has pretty much no need for stealth except SoM. They have to use mana to fuel all their self spells AND their cbs. This evens that out so that a non-thief, non-mage can more easily attack because he uses one pool for self spells and another for target finding.

Luth, for you it's half price :3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FireBones

Based on the previous responses, that is not clear at all...hence the reason Bishop mentioned it as well... and why some people keep comparing the new CB to SoM.



See that is where people are just making blind assumptions. Now, depending on how it is implemented, it very well may be the case that people start needing more thieves to get information, but there is no guarantee that it will be that way. The proof for this is pretty obvious:

Think about your wizards. How many wizards do you need to be reasonably safe in war? Some people make due with 1 (raw), stronger kingdoms require more for "back door protection." But whatever that minimal number is (that people have for protection), it also turns out to be sufficient for most people to cast CBs. People don't load up with wizards just so they can get CBs...they get wizards [if they are smart] so that in war they are not ripped to shreds.

Similarly with thieves. Yes, it is easier to get thieves, but that does not necessarily mean people will do it. What if the 2 Raw TPA most people have is sufficient to get intel? We would have the same situation we have now..if the thieves you are already going to have will suffice for getting intel, then why would you get more? If you could, right now, train an extra wizard per acre, would you? Probably not...you probably have about as many wizards as you need for protection in war, and those suffice to do your CBs. The fact that you need wizards to get CBs has no material effect on how many wizards you have...so the argument that "wizards are different from thieves because you can train thieves immediately" is pretty weak.

So, once again, as long as Sean makes these ops easy, easy enough so that people are not compelled to get more thieves just to get intel, the effect you mention [where people book up on thieves just to get intel] won't happen.

As for the notion of "all the intel ops being on one pool," PUH-leeze. If anything, this argument goes against the point you are trying to make. Currently a heavy attacker has pretty much no need for stealth except SoM. They have to use mana to fuel all their self spells AND their cbs. This evens that out so that a non-thief, non-mage can more easily attack because he uses one pool for self spells and another for target finding.

---

so you wrote tons of text and actually said nothing. You should be a politician for sure! Just read comments and think about it a little, you will understand what we are talking about.

More Potty Mouth.

:: see ya in 3 days ::

Robbing's very useful as a heavy attacker FireBones, I suggest you try it sometime. :)

Quote:

---

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 :)

---

That's pretty much the flaw I wanted to point out in your argument. Even taking your premises for granted (that this benefits the game in some way), the changes that you propose that go along with it make it such that there's a lot of baggage for something that's only slightly beneficial at best and downright wrong at worst.

As for the rest of your points I've addressed them all in a slightly more concise manner :p Have a look through the rest of the thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorbidAngel

so you wrote tons of text and actually said nothing. You should be a politician for sure! Just read comments and think about it a little, you will understand what we are talking about.

---

If you think I "said nothing," then it is due to a basic lack of reading comprehension on your part.

Here -- I'll make it really simple for you.

1. People assume implicitly that the number of thieves people already typically carry will not allow for sufficient success with "Spy on Throne"
2. Based on this assumption, people foresee "TPA inflation" in which people server-wide pump up their thieves as a necessary part of getting information.
3. Those people are concerned that this will work to the detriment of thieves because TPA inflation means they will not be able to NS, etc. very well.

Concern 3 is based on deduction 2, which is based on ASSUMPTION 1.... but we have no reason to suspect that 1 is true. It very well be the case that the minimal number of thieves already have are sufficient for them to get intel...just as the minimal number of wizards people already carry for protection in war are sufficient for getting CBs.

Note, there are really three different issues being raised:
1) The possibility that certain attackers can make themselves essentially invisible by having too many thieves to be easily spied upon.
2) The concerns over having sufficient stealth to do intel and other operations by thieves.
3) The concern that thieves will be punished by TPA inflation


My post [if you had bothered to read it carefully] was a response to Avarice's, which very specifically was a reference to number 3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by avarice

Robbing's very useful as a heavy attacker FireBones, I suggest you try it sometime. :)

---

Oh the Irony.
I DID play a robbing attacker...and had a fantastic build based on it....unfortunately I was too successful and got so big that I could not find targets with enough cash to match my rate of growth.

Look, I'm not saying I would have suggested these changes...I'm just saying that those people who believe they will lead to these terrible consequences are simply assuming that Sean and Co. will screw up the implementation....now, grant it...some would say that the devs have not done a good job implementing other changes....but in that case the argument should not be "This is a terrible idea that inexorably will cause mass catastrophe." It should be "This could work, but are you sure you devs understand what could go wrong and how to make sure they don't."

That's what I'm trying to do...indicate some changes that could be done to obviate the horrific chicken-little stories people are fretting over. They are going to do this change whether we like it or not...we might as well try to help them in the execution instead of just complain all the time.

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.

---

I do like the new names especially Snatch News :) .

This maybe a dumb question but was any intel still going to be accomodated under the magic side ?

I must have misread the original post , I thought CB could be achieved via magic or thievery which would be quite useful .

Age 47 Changes (preliminary)

The most significant changes for the new age will be in Thievery.<-- Sounds intresting.. ok

Halflings will be returning to Utopia as a strong thief race.<-- We dont need another race, and whats stronger than gnomishRoguish

Thievery operations will be split into two categories - Espionage and Sabotage. <- Training Wheels!!!!? stop it

There are already plenty of destructive thief operations, but not so many espionage operations.<-- All the intel ops are T ops? except CB

Crystal Ball and Crystal Eye shall be removed from spells and added as espionage thievery operations.<--- what the F*** are you doing... no, not ok..

Clearly Crystal Ball and Crystal Eye are not very thief-like names and need to be changed..<-- How about the discussion on not making this change

For this coming age, Crystal Ball and Crystall Eye will not be randomized, .<-- huh, you mean I can get CB with 1 T only.. ?

There will be some changes to bonuses and race mods, but not as many as in the last age. Mainly tweaking.. <--- ...

bring back undeads,halflings suck,also a cb is a mage op,not a thief op.guess you dont play the game.lolololol

The only way I see this could work is that CB and SOM is exclusively for Espionage Thievery race, and there would be one race for Espionage and one race for Sabotage. Either that or put CB and SOM into Rouge-only operations, forcing those who need these 2 ops to select rouge as personality.

Imagine having 2 specialized race in thievery - Gnome and Halfings
There are 2 more sub-thievery race - Humans and Avian
Elf have Clear Sight for their spells
DE have Invisibility spell

My feedback is that putting Clear Sight and Invisibility spell into Rouge Personalty and removing the +15% thievery bonus from Human and Avian would do a very huge/ big/ enormous/ large favor to strengthen thievery in the game. Secondly, I would suggest strengthening Mystic personality. Pull TOG, DICE, Mystic Aura, and Reflect Magic out and throw these spells into Mystic pers, along with +2 mana per tick would be nice.

Even though I disagree on what the developers are currently doing for next age (Age of Thievery), the full picture is not out yet. All we can do is to 'comment and feedback' and get nothing changed in return, just like the beginning of this age where the developers create a thread on thread but in the end get none of our feedbacks (Age of Orc-killings).

Would you change the name Eiffel Tower to Tin Man and The Louvre to Galleria
& why?
Because you
randomly decided to move them to New York City.

Crystal Ball & Crystal Eye are icons & not to be tampered with.
They are an important part of our cultural heritage.
They are SACRED.

*************************************************************************

Why another thief race?

There are 445 out of 6331 people playing the thief race. Split it in two, there'll be 222 playing halfling, 222 playing gnome.
Generally, a race type splits only when there is high demand (like the stock market)
Not .. when it's easing it's way into extinction.

The reason so few people are playing thief is simple. Thieves are 5/5 when everyone else is 9/2, 8/3, 7/4. They have no
attack power. They are forced to bottomfeed. They are weak. Very weak. Make them 6/6. They will flourish.

You think if you give them some more intel to do they'd be happy?

*************************************************************************

Incentive

People play thief for the honor from thief ops in war, the resources they can steal in peace.

They do not play for the love of gathering intel.

No one likes intel but me.

Why? There is no payoff.

Many, many people have said today you will kill their honor and their thief ops.
Most of these people are from the upper kingdoms. They are not happy!

Wait til you hit the middle/little who unfortunately won't be aware til the age begins.

They hate intel. They loathe intel. They definitely WILL NOT do intel unless forced.
Check out any pimp. See who does the intel.

So, guy wants to be the new halfer. Thinks cool - lots of honor & spare change for me.
Now finds out, his stealth is going to be cut in half ......... way worse in war when
he needs to get 6 bouncing soms & 6 bouncing cbs on all the people with mega
wt just for his own self and peeps are msg him "can you get me a cb?"

You honestly think this is going to pick up thievery?

Stop fixing thinks that work. Fix something in dire need of reform
ie War & Attack Range Mechanics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FireBones

If you think I "said nothing," then it is due to a basic lack of reading comprehension on your part.

Here -- I'll make it really simple for you.

1. People assume implicitly that the number of thieves people already typically carry will not allow for sufficient success with "Spy on Throne"
2. Based on this assumption, people foresee "TPA inflation" in which people server-wide pump up their thieves as a necessary part of getting information.
3. Those people are concerned that this will work to the detriment of thieves because TPA inflation means they will not be able to NS, etc. very well.

Concern 3 is based on deduction 2, which is based on ASSUMPTION 1.... but we have no reason to suspect that 1 is true. It very well be the case that the minimal number of thieves already have are sufficient for them to get intel...just as the minimal number of wizards people already carry for protection in war are sufficient for getting CBs.

Note, there are really three different issues being raised:
1) The possibility that certain attackers can make themselves essentially invisible by having too many thieves to be easily spied upon.
2) The concerns over having sufficient stealth to do intel and other operations by thieves.
3) The concern that thieves will be punished by TPA inflation


My post [if you had bothered to read it carefully] was a response to Avarice's, which very specifically was a reference to number 3.

---

nobody cares about tpa inflation or training more thieves, its about the uselessness of the transfer, the negated stealth, the 0 practicality, the nerfing of thievery, the complete disregard for all the useful and insightful suggestions that have been completely overlooked, i could go on forever

I haven't posted on this board for over a month now, but I just had to come back to address all of the stupid....

Why would anyone think that changing CB/CE over to thievery ops would make thievery more important? Like others have said, it makes tpa important, but not thievery itself... What an A/T normally does is blow however much mana he needs to get a CB and then use his stealth for useful things like robbing, NS, riots, etc. I have blown all of my mana just getting a few tough cbs in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeVille

Would you change the name Eiffel Tower to Tin Man and The Louvre to Galleria
& why?
Because you
randomly decided to move them to New York City.

Crystal Ball & Crystal Eye are icons & not to be tampered with.
They are an important part of our cultural heritage.
They are SACRED.

*************************************************************************

Why another thief race?

There are 445 out of 6331 people playing the thief race. Split it in two, there'll be 222 playing halfling, 222 playing gnome.
Generally, a race type splits only when there is high demand (like the stock market)
Not .. when it's easing it's way into extinction.

The reason so few people are playing thief is simple. Thieves are 5/5 when everyone else is 9/2, 8/3, 7/4. They have no
attack power. They are forced to bottomfeed. They are weak. Very weak. Make them 6/6. They will flourish.

You think if you give them some more intel to do they'd be happy?

*************************************************************************

Incentive

People play thief for the honor from thief ops in war, the resources they can steal in peace.

They do not play for the love of gathering intel.

No one likes intel but me.

Why? There is no payoff.

Many, many people have said today you will kill their honor and their thief ops.
Most of these people are from the upper kingdoms. They are not happy!

Wait til you hit the middle/little who unfortunately won't be aware til the age begins.

They hate intel. They loathe intel. They definitely WILL NOT do intel unless forced.
Check out any pimp. See who does the intel.

So, guy wants to be the new halfer. Thinks cool - lots of honor & spare change for me.
Now finds out, his stealth is going to be cut in half ......... way worse in war when
he needs to get 6 bouncing soms & 6 bouncing cbs on all the people with mega
wt just for his own self and peeps are msg him "can you get me a cb?"

You honestly think this is going to pick up thievery?

Stop fixing thinks that work. Fix something in dire need of reform
ie War & Attack Range Mechanics.

---

Listen to this man. He is smart. He understands the mechanics of the game.


According to everything you tell us S&B it's incredibly easy to make this kind of change with your sparkly new utopia supercode, but is it really necessary for you to tinker with your toy at our expense?

It's very fragile right now, you could break it and then nobody would get to play with it!

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.

---

I am reading them?

Apperantly you are only reading the 3 that agree with insane notion. If we took a simple "Would You Like This Change Poll" 1)yes or 2)no. It would be a locke that the community would show you how out of touch this idea is.

This change will be happening. :S

"And I don't care if 6000 of the 6000 players of the world like it or not" *TUT*

If a small portion of the players dislike something majority rules, push it on through. If 98 or of 100 players dislike it scrap it! SCRAP THIS ONE!

im sure with all these thievery changes they will see fit to remove then -days in SoMs...................right? NO such thing as an army thats coming back in -0.5days.......right?

Might need some more rune production bonuses though, if the 2 spells which cost the least amount of runes are gone

At least do something about dwarves too. There's a lot of focus in here regarding the inbalanced thievery change, and justly so, but it's no good if Brian (if he actually reads the thread) think the complaints on that means the game works well today. Remove fog and 10% BE from dwarves, add fog to elves. Take away 10% sci effectivness on sage. The playing field below dwarf in terms of races and below sage in terms of personalities is quite even, elf being inferior ofc, but presuming no big balancing effort will be made at lest a weakening of dwarf and sage will help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishop

why is everyone ignoring this?

---

Bishop... You know full well that if that is true, a thievery based CB would be harder anyway. Why? Because mod tpa > mod wpa due to there being more TPA modifiers, notably TDs, but also defensively, WT and CS. This is just as stupid as when they eliminated som+som by making soms 100% accurate. Awesome wasn't it? Stopped me from saving my mana doing destructive ops while I was playing as a/m. Why are they instating changes that decrease the usefulness of spells and ops when they're already so undervalued? Why do they think that making thievery more important translate to "Require stealth to be burned doing intel ops". If they think thievery is too weak compared to magic, why not buff thievery gains? If they think no one's picking gnome or rogue, why don't they buff those races/pers? It makes no sense.

All we want are logical reasons for any changes they make. Why can't they give us even that?

I was thinking...
Why not remove Traditional March option from the War Room and place it under Thievery Ops instead? That would be the same as putting CB and CE from Mystic to Thievery right? That would in turn, make Thievery race far more useful.

Assuming this is now set in stone, based on Brian's comment, in spite of all the opposition, please make intel ops use only 1% stealth if we must use thieves for all intel. I regularly go through half my stealth just to get a single SoM or Survey currently. Sure I have bad tpa, but don't force all attackers to have to run a high tpa just to get basic intel without failing so many that they run out of stealth. I know they are going to be no more difficult than the CB/CE, but still currently you have both mana and stealth to exhaust getting your combination of CBs and SoMs, etc rather than only stealth.

I'm not scared of change. I saw the same arguments and complaints when boats were removed, honor was added, dragons were added, horses added, etc.

The real issue I'd like to point out is the Topfeeding vs Bottomfeeding exploits that provinces are doing.


I saw the following occur multiple times this age:

Province A has 2k acres with 400k NW
Province B has 1.2k acres with 250k NW

Province A Suicides with all army on Province B and takes 300 acres.

Province A looses roughly 8k NW due to military losses.
Province B looses roughly 40k NW due to acreage and military losses.

Province B cannot Ambush Province A's full army that was sent.
So...
Province B makes a retal attack on Province A but only takes 60 acres. (Due to Topfeeding penalties)

Basically Province A can hit Province B and not worry about losses in return. This becomes a very dirty trick when your kingdom is sitting at around 8mil NW and an 11mil NW kingdom begins farming your kingdom. You cannot hit back because you get ****ty gains. While they take 300-400 acres per hit.


I can live with the CE/CB changes, but I cannot live with exploits like this being used by the top kingdoms to farm kingdoms trying to break into the world charts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeDLySMuRF

I'm not scared of change. I saw the same arguments and complaints when boats were removed, honor was added, dragons were added, horses added, etc.

The real issue I'd like to point out is the Topfeeding vs Bottomfeeding exploits that provinces are doing.


I saw the following occur multiple times this age:

Province A has 2k acres with 400k NW
Province B has 1.2k acres with 250k NW

Province A Suicides with all army on Province B and takes 300 acres.

Province A looses roughly 8k NW due to military losses.
Province B looses roughly 40k NW due to acreage and military losses.

Province B cannot Ambush Province A's full army that was sent.
So...
Province B makes a retal attack on Province A but only takes 60 acres. (Due to Topfeeding penalties)

Basically Province A can hit Province B and not worry about losses in return. This becomes a very dirty trick when your kingdom is sitting at around 8mil NW and an 11mil NW kingdom begins farming your kingdom. You cannot hit back because you get ****ty gains. While they take 300-400 acres per hit.


I can live with the CE/CB changes, but I cannot live with exploits like this being used by the top kingdoms to farm kingdoms trying to break into the world charts.

---

thats... random? And off-topic

I really can't believe BS would put this change through. Also the fact they refuse to tell us their reasoning behind it makes me highly suspicious. I think they thought this was an awesome idea, they then see the responses and their pride is hurt. They actually SEE its a bad idea, but they are annoyed at the responses and stubbornly do it anyway, "to prove a point".

Why is there a comments section when 99% of the Utopia populace hate this idea and are ignored?
There's a reason that people who've been playing this game a decade or more hate this change.
If they thought it was remotely a good idea they would say so.

cb is the cornerstones of Utopia. It is mystic.
som is theft.

You need one of these for every attack in war.

These changes will wreck this game.

There is a whole section of changes requested for this age in the
suggestions section. Doesn't sound like it's even been read.

Is better to make people happy than to break their toys & not give
a care what they think.

Dear Developers,

Please stop ruining our game. We were here first.

Thanks,
The Players

Lol, might as well call halflings space invaders and unicorns.

On a more serious note:
Intel gathering consists of using stealth+mana atm. As such, they already consume a great majority of the stealth+mana. By moving CB+CE onto stealth you just make it so that you need to consume more stealth for intel. So you say you'll make it easier to get CB in thievery form - using the same formula won't do the trick. It's much easier building up tpa+wts+tds than getting your wpa up to a reasonable level.

Don't fix something that's not broke. What is broken - bugs bugs bugs bugs bugs. Changing all intel into thievery doesn't add an aspect to the game that the majority of the gamers want, it doesn't deliver customer satisfaction, it doesn't balance the game. It does nothing other than change for the sake of change (a bad change).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeDLySMuRF

I'm not scared of change. I saw the same arguments and complaints when boats were removed, honor was added, dragons were added, horses added, etc.

---

Yes, some people will always complain about changes because it forces them to either adapt or stay behind. I see a lot of people complaining about moving CB+CE to thievery. I don't really mind this change but I'd rather have the full picture than just a close up on one of the details. Knowing all the changes for next age makes it a lot easier to determine if one change is good or bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lilith

thats... random? And off-topic

I really can't believe BS would put this change through. Also the fact they refuse to tell us their reasoning behind it makes me highly suspicious. I think they thought this was an awesome idea, they then see the responses and their pride is hurt. They actually SEE its a bad idea, but they are annoyed at the responses and stubbornly do it anyway, "to prove a point".

---

Random and Off Topic? I believe Brian stated to keep the comments and suggestions coming since he was reading it. This thread was to suggest names for CE/CB. Did you make any suggestions? I didn't think so. Just complaining.

Stop being so negative. All you guys know you'll find some other thing to exploit next age anyways. Roll with the punches. Instead of complaining make suggestions that might actually help the game. Such as the exploit I pointed out above.

here are some suggestions for the names:

CB: A stupid change by jolt
CE: Another stupid change by Jolt

STOP listening to the vast majority of the noobs on this forum or stop thinking, bring back the game of roughly age 7

How about a combination of the both?

Collect EyeBall

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DjTeddySpin

How about a combination of the both?

Collect EyeBall

---

Lol good one.... cracked me up.

On a more serious note: If u want to increase the importance of thievery ( which is already important enuff) and u HAVE to do it by adding intel (why? it works against its purpose) then plz give us back som+som or something. With your logic that will DOUBLE and yes I said DOUBLE the importance of thievery.... sigh