Age 47 Changes - comments

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!