Spies and the use of.

[Vortan]

*BACKGROUNND*

I am sure that many players find spying a right royal pain in the ... I know I do. Like the rest of you though I use them to the fullest extent possible BUT, and this is a very BIG BUT, is the way EFF is impacted actually fair?

The benefits of a successful spy attack are plain enough to see, with the reduction in missile/spy numbers through sabotage, the theft of up to 15 POP or the crucial tactical data on spied out provinces. Failure in a mission has its own pitfalls - you have risked discovery for nothing and you have lost a spy, a valuable commodity.

I believe that to also reduce the victims EFF, which impacts on all aspects of the game is unjustified as an additional side effect.

The inclusion of a sabotage EFF option with a -2% hit for success would be fairer particularily if the attacker didn't get an EFF boost as well.

The compound effect of a successful round of spying currently lowers the victims EFF by up to 15% while increasing the attackers EFF by up to a similar amount. This means a massive difference in EFF which can destroy a players game particularily if they are hit by multiple players simultaneously.

*PROPOSAL*

I should therefore like to officially propose the following:

a. Add sabotage EFF to the existing spy mission options with success making a deduction of -2% on victims EFF this would represent attacks upon logistical and communication networks.

b. Successful spies return home for reuse. Why shouldn't they?

c. Routine EFF adjustment be they plus or minus be abolished.

*DISCUSSION*

In order to keep this debate to a sensible timescale I suggest a maximum of 7 days of discussion. Obviously comments regarding the necessary programming issues will NOT be attacked. If our devoted and overworked programmer cannot cope then so be it but let the debate run and perhaps it could go 'on the list of to do's'

[korexus]

EFF represents your morale level. Once you think of it like that, things start to make sense.

Stop trying to make the game easier!


korexus.

[trewqh]

Your ideas would lower the importance of EFF and of diplomacy (don't want to be spied on, sign NAPs). I wouldn't like to see that. The way spying works now makes you take care of your EFF instead of just going for other more directly lethal worker options and you have to figure out risks about how much you can profit from a successful/lose because of failed spying action. Wise diplomacy and spying can ensure you won't need to put workers on EFF for a couple of turns. It does take time to learn to appreciate it.

b. Successful spies return home for reuse. Why shouldn't they?

That would make spying too cheap and would benefit the one who is successful at spying even more and you don't want that.

[Vortan]

With the greatest respect to you Trewqh and in reference to your quoting point b. This would only be a problem if adopted as a single entity which was never the intention.

As for the proposal impacting on diplomacy - explain - call me stupid if you wish but I fail to see how this would change anything from a diplomatic point of view because I am sure that preventing spy attacks rates quite a way down the list when agreeing initial NAP's. More likely that the reasoning behind the diplomacy is to stop you being crushed early doors.

The proposal would not take away the need to include NO SPYING in your NAP's because the spies are still having an impact.

Currently, players who have been diplomatically and strategically brilliant are being crushed by multi-player spy assaults. To say it is something that you learn to appreciate over time sounds very much like - your new so shut your face - to me but of course I could be wrong.

korexus said - stop trying to make the game easier

Which is easier, actually having to plan a strategic military victory properly or just to get 2 other players to join you in a 5 spy each assault at the end of the NAP period. The effect - a potential loss by the victim of up to 45 EFF and gains to the attackers of up to 15 EFF each. If EFF does reflect morale as is stated by kor then would it really be impacted to such a degree. Answer NO. The presence of hundreds of foreign spies in the UK today is having little or no direct effect of the morale of the public, workers or none workers. Neither does it affect how accurate our nukes would be if fired. And with the exceptions of the theft of technical specs for military equipment or plans for operations and deployment they have little direct impact on the military. The army certainly do not suffer a 45% reduction in morale as a result of this presence.

[trewqh]

To say it is something that you learn to appreciate over time sounds very much like - your new so shut your face - to me but of course I could be wrong.

Sorry about that. Blame my English or the cultural differences if it's too straightforward. I appreciate your initiative and involvment in trying to make the game better, but, in this case, I think you're wrong.

[Early on] the reasoning behind the diplomacy is to stop you being crushed early doors.

So once you've learned that 3 players can lower your EFF so much that you become extremely vulnerable then including a clause about spying in your NAPs becomes a matter of survival.

If you don't have to worry about that (that spying will lower your EFF) then diplomacy becomes less important because you only have to negotiate with your neighbours. That is unless you're afraid players further away will supply your enemies with info on you, but since info itself is less threatening than info plus a lowered EFF so diplomacy becomes less important along with your proposal c).

Currently, players who have been diplomatically and strategically brilliant are being crushed by multi-player spy assaults.

Players who are crushed by multi-player assaults have NOT been diplomatically brilliant. See me in Fall of the Raj

Which is easier, actually having to plan a strategic military victory properly or just to get 2 other players to join you in a 5 spy each assault at the end of the NAP period.

As for the morale metaphor, I don't think analogies based on this metaphor should decide about anything. WoK is an abstract game not real life simulation. Still, (for the fun of making an argument ) the presence of spies doesn't lower morale, successful spying actions do. Of course, in real life the target does not learn about most of the successful spying actions.

[Vortan]

I don't mind being wrong - it does happen sometimes you know No really it does.

BUT, can I just clarify that spies COULD still have an effect on EFF but only IF that was their specific mission. If EFF is morale then call it a PROPOGANDA mission is you like.

The overuse of spies and hence the weakness in Trewqh's objection is that I did not say that people should not have NAP's including the words NO SPYING because if you do then you deserve everything you get.

I could give a very specific example relating to a currently running game in which Trewqh used just such tactics with his clan mate and another player to destroy, or attempt to destroy what was clearly a very strong position AFTER the NAP's had expired. All the NAP had done was to allow you to build more spies to further cripple your opponents via EFF.

I believe that similar strategies are being employed by others in Back to the Roots presently. As reported by both TBert and Calidus on subsequent turns.

Therefore, in the interests of a FAIRER AND MORE LOGICAL approach to this abstract topic I made the proposal. Spies would therefore have the OPTION to reduce EFF if that was the mission set. IT SHOULD NOT be an automatic additional consequence.

[trewqh]

BUT, can I just clarify that spies COULD still have an effect on EFF but only IF that was their specific mission.

I understand that you don't want spies to be as powerful as they are now.

The overuse of spies and hence the weakness in Trewqh's objection is that I did not say that people should not have NAP's including the words NO SPYING because if you do then you deserve everything you get.

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean that how powerful spies are makes the game unfair once NAPs end?

I could give a very specific example relating to a currently running game in which Trewqh used just such tactics with his clan mate and another player to destroy, or attempt to destroy what was clearly a very strong position AFTER the NAP's had expired. All the NAP had done was to allow you to build more spies to further cripple your opponents via EFF.

Since the other side of the conflict could have done the exactly same thing, how is it unfair? Doesn't the fact that I was able to convince people to work with me show I am a better diplomat? Isn't it a sign of skill to make sure you have enough workers on EFF so that your EFF is at 99% before the spying phase? Especially if you expect someone to attack you.

An alliance of players will always beat a single players with no allies. The way things are now you have to make sure you have allies in the game to back you up.

[Vortan]

What I mean:

Spies ARE too powerful. Simply that. Lets walk quickly through the facts:

POP breed and change into WOK and ARM.
WOK make things
ARM fight - provided EFF is good
MIS explode - provided EFF is good
SPY do damage, steal things, lower defender EFF AND raise attacker EFF.

Okay, you don't like the idea of the change as proposed well lets try out those diplomatic skills of yours, a compromise suggestion.

Spies ARE too powerful and the multiple effect on both parties EFF unbalances the game (in my humble newbee opinion) in order to remedy some of this imbalance remove the benefits/penalties for the SPYING player. He is already benefitting from doing massive damage to the enemies EFF without increasing his own as well. Surely a reasonable compromise?

[trewqh]

Just noticed that my post from 1.5h ago was not finished. The remarl about the morale metaphor was not an answer to the last thing I quoted.

Which is easier, actually having to plan a strategic military victory properly or just to get 2 other players to join you in a 5 spy each assault at the end of the NAP period.

That would depend on whether you're better at strategic planning or talking to people. Diplomacy is key in Standard WoK and your proposals won't change that. Personally, I wouldn't like that to change.

At some point in WoK history, Hannibal designed Duels for the purpose of showing strategic planning skill without having to do any diplomacy.

[Vortan]

SIGH

Getting slightly frustrated now.

I AM NOT TAKING ANYTHING AWAY FROM THE GAMES DIPLOMACY - JUST WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THAT NOTION FROM?

[TBert]

I can agree with Vortan that sometimes, spies are too powerful.

I got absolutely slammed in Back to Roots, 18 spies in one turn, and it quite effectively took me out of the game (though I was already very weak). But if you think about it 4 players, out of 10, devoted all of their spy orders, to bringing me down. That means the 4 of them have no information on any other player, and spent a significant amount of resources. They could have just as easily taken me down with missiles or armies, especially 4 on 1, but spies was just the chosen method of attack. There was nothing I could do. You can hide your armies from missiles, you can fortify a position against armies, but if I recall correctly the only defense against spies... is spies. And if you've got the time and resources to scatter spies into every province you own, you should be using that time to eliminate somebody that would be spying you.

Another example is the just-finished Scandinavia Duel-lite between Vortan and myself. I got lucky and took out one of his players early, and even though his other player had been left alone for 3 turns, he lost many armies to two bots because I had been spying him with both of my players for 2 turns. I barely even had to attack him, I just spied him mercilessly and he couldn't do anything.

And if you're unlucky enough to be going up against two people (see Forest Lake) and they get you good with spies, you've gotta be lucky to keep your eff above 90% for the missile and attack phase. It's bad enough fighting two people's armies and missiles.

Spying wouldn't be overpowered if there was some kind of defense against it. Short of spying someone else (and that depends on the OoP) there's no way to bring your eff back up before the vital missile and attack phase. And I'm completely guilty of spying the bloody crap out of anybody I'm fighting, because it's a quite effective tactic.

[Vortan]

I should like to take this opportunity to firstly thank TBert for his openness in his post. Also I need to advise that the current tactics being employed with spies is demoralising new players whose games are ruined as a result.

TheDragon has voiced her upset at the cowardly tactics used against her in her first game (Scandinavia). She is now on the verge of reconsidering her association with WOK. Her first game having been SPOILED by the exploitation of a weakness in the system.

I too am frankly disappointed that a community which claims to want to thrive and survive is actively allowing this to continue. If things remain as they are and players choose to continue this SPOILER TACTIC then I see myself reconsidering my own position as the FUN of playing the game is taken away when you have no defence to field as noted by TBert.

How many past players have been lost through this? Plenty I shouldn't wonder. So how many more will it take? I am sure there are those among you who would be glad to see the back of me as I won't then be around to rock the boat and you can continue to crucify the newbees to your hearts content.

My opinions I have stated, my reasons are clear as are the potential remedies. I shall say no more on the matter, I will merely watch and make my decisions accordingly.

With that Vortan fell silent and sat dejected in his seat at the conference table.

[trewqh]

Getting slightly frustrated now.

I AM NOT TAKING ANYTHING AWAY FROM THE GAMES DIPLOMACY - JUST WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THAT NOTION FROM?

I'm sorry that you're getting frustrated, but that IS the point of the matter we're discussing. TBert's post only supports my point that it's not the power of spies that 'unbalances' the game, but a couple of players ganging up on a single player.

Okay, you don't like the idea of the change as proposed well lets try out those diplomatic skills of yours, a compromise suggestion.

I'm getting the impression that you're treating me as the defender of WoK's status quo. No, I only express my own views. The fact that I don't agree with you doesn't change that people might think your arguments are better. If there was a vote and most people decided we should adopt your ideas there'd be nothing I could do but say how that makes the game less appealing to me.

Spies ARE too powerful and the multiple effect on both parties EFF unbalances the game (in my humble newbee opinion) in order to remedy some of this imbalance remove the benefits/penalties for the SPYING player.

By 'benefits/penalties' you mean removing only one of those, right?

He is already benefitting from doing massive damage to the enemies EFF without increasing his own as well. Surely a reasonable compromise?

Let's do a simulation of what happens when only the bonus is removed. Let's assume every player spies 5 times and all spy attacks in this simulation work (also the reuslts will be affected by OoP but can benefit either side so I'll ignore them):

In the case of 1-on-1:
a) with bonus:
both player A and player B gain 15 EFF and lose 10 EFF. Net both players gain 5 EFF.
b) without bonus
both players lose 10 EFF

In the case of 2-on-1:
a) with bonus:
attackers gain 15 EFF and one of them loses 10 EFF. Net one attacker 15 EFF the other 5 EFF
the defender loses 20 EFF and gains 15 EFF. Net the defender loses 5 EFF
b) without bonus
one of the attackers loses 10 EFF
defender loses 20EFF

In the case of 3-on-1:
a) with bonus:
attackers gain 15 EFF each and one of them loses 10. Net one attacker gains 5 EFF the others gain 15 EFF
the defender loses 30 EFF and gains 15 EFF. Net -15 EFF
b) without bonus
one of the attackers loses 10 EFF
the defender loses 30 EFF.

This shows that removing only the bonus would unbalance the game even more.

As for removing only the EFF loss, it would open a way for clanmates or allied players to gain EFF without putting workers on EFF by simply spying eachother out.

[korexus]

Vortan, sorry if this sounds like "shut your newbie mouth" but here goes...

WoK has a very steep learning curve. This is why we strongly recommend (indeed it used to be compulsary) that new players start in a clan. A new player without backup from more experienced allies will make all sorts of very avoidable mistakes. Getting on the wrong end of a spying battle is one of them.

When I enter a game, I try to NAP with as many people as possible, precisely because even the people who have no way to invade me could still choose to damage my EFF. Being hit by several people with armies may be the first thing to avoid, but spies are right up behind them.

Secondly, I always try to make sure I have at least one and preferably two people working with me. That way there are likely to be more spy orders going my way than against it. I think most advanced players work this way and it is the advice that both Brykovian and I gave Dragonette as a new scholar.

Your suggestions really would make the game easier, but easier is not necessarily better. The extra difficulty is much better dealt with by effetive mentoring methods than by reducing the complexity of the game as the latter option would not only reduce the enjoyment for vets but also for new players as they became more accomplished.

korexus.

[trewqh]

Haningitis

I should like to take this opportunity to firstly thank TBert for his openness in his post. Also I need to advise that the current tactics being employed with spies is demoralising new players whose games are ruined as a result.

I'm sorry if it makes you mad (because I'd rather keep it a cool discussion of arguments) but I still claim that the problem lies in players ganging up on other players not in the way spying works.

TheDragon has voiced her upset at the cowardly tactics used against her in her first game (Scandinavia).

I recall offering to extend the NAP we had. My condition was that she gives me a SINGLE province. A province that would allow me to perform an attack on a different player more easily, btw. She said she'd rather fight.

SPOILER TACTIC

You don't like the way spying works. I, on the other hand, don't like the fact that the way WoK rules work currently sleeping is the most effective tactics. My sentiment is to actually fight in a war game, but I don't think I can blame anyone for using a winning strategy.

How many past players have been lost through this? Plenty I shouldn't wonder. So how many more will it take? I am sure there are those among you who would be glad to see the back of me as I won't then be around to rock the boat and you can continue to crucify the newbees to your hearts content.

As I said, I appreciate the initiative. I also said that I only express my own views. It's been 5 hours since this discussion has started and only two people replied, please don't judge the community on that basis. I wouldn't like to see on of the more active members of the community be discouraged by the arguments of a single person. I'm not making any personal attacks. I'm not mocking anyone. You wanted to discuss an aspect of WoK rules, so I'm expressing my views about it.

[Vortan]

I know I said I would say no more BUT ...

You assume that everyone is/should be permanently spying on someone else.

I was under the impression that WOK was first and foremost a WARGAME.

If spying on other players is the only way to survive the game then perhaps the guidance (HA!) given to new players should point out that unless you do keep making and using spies that you may as well not play because others are and you WILL be stuffed.

Glad we clarified that Trewqh thanks ...

I ... oh what's the point.

[korexus]

I recall offering to extend the NAP we had. My condition was that she gives me a SINGLE province. A province that would allow me to perform an attack on a different player more easily, btw. She said she'd rather fight.

Yes, but your NAP offers always come across as threats. People don't respond well to threats...

*fanning the flames*


korexus.

[Vortan]

And TheDragon said no to your 'request' for a key strategic province but did offer to continue the NAP providing you included not allowing your clan mate to attack through you and YOU declined saying SEE YOU ON TURN 6.

Lets keep facts as facts - and kor is right it came over as a threat - to a new and inexperienced player of mercenary status. BULLYBOY!

[trewqh]

You assume that everyone is/should be permanently spying on someone else.

If you're at war with someone and you want to win, then 'yes', you'd better. On the other hand, in the mentioned Skandinavia game after taking out Sal I had two or three turns of peace during which I did no spying (I didn't have NAPs with 2 players). I decided not to spy because the info gain was not more important for me than making sure that unsuccessful apying actions don't lower my EFF.

If spying on other players is the only way to survive

No it isn't. I already mentioned what is more important.

your NAP offers always come across as threats. People don't respond well to threats...

Got me there! I never said I'm a good empath. I'm more into pragmatics. What you call threats I call being open about causal chains, what you call responding I call deciding once being shown the causal chains.

[trewqh]

And TheDragon said no to your 'request' for a key strategic province but did offer to continue the NAP providing you included not allowing your clan mate to attack through you and YOU declined saying SEE YOU ON TURN 6.

It's true, once TheDragon said she wouldn't give me #10, which was my condition, I said I didn't want to extend the NAP.

kor is right it came over as a threat - to a new and inexperienced player of mercenary status. BULLYBOY!

No mocking, no joking - I'm sorry my words were perceived that way! I honestly tried to be helpful by being open and straightforward. I failed it seems.