Spies Input

[Letum]

I would seriously suggest changing "Spy" to "Special Forces". Not only is it a more accurate representation of what they do, but it will avoid confusion with the forum espionage that is Political Suicide amongst alliances.

Other than that, it would seem that chances of success and failure are too dependent on the number of Spies.

In my nation for example, Tech and Land account for a total of 54.6 Counter Intel strength, while spies would be 550 once maxed out (And seriously, everyone will max them out). Take into account that tech levels usually aren't extremely different amongst nations in the same strength range, and that will mean that Attacker Spy Strength and Defender Counter Intelligence Strength will be almost equal in most cases.

I don't know how exactly you have those two values interact in your code, but if there is some kind of division between them then the number would almost always equal 1, and at the same time, the similarity in values would mean that every spy operation, no matter who it was performed by or on who, would have roughly the same result/chances of result. If you have already taken care of this somehow, you can ignore my inane rumblings

Furthermore, I would favor an extra boost to the formula for the defending nation counter-intel systems. Sabotage is supposed to be a risky business. Perhaps factoring a + (Total Population/Infra Level) into the defender's chances would help. Plus, that would mean that should the defender buy many soldiers and increase his total population, the chances of Sabotage are lower, and let's face it, it's much harder to blow something up if there are people with AK-47's everywhere, unless you are James Bond.

[President Pierce]

Peace mode already has enough onerous burdens already. It's also the game sole ability for nation "suspension". If we are going to do this the let's simply discard the peace mode feature and tell the member base that nations will always be at risk every day. Then the members can decide if a 24/7/365 constant game is the right one for them to play.

Wrong. Peace mode should still exist but like I said if they get caught spying they should be dragged from peacemode. This allows peacemode to exist exactly as it does now, allows peacemode nations the ability to spy and be spied on, and also offers a punishment for them if they get caught. I'm pretty sure that the proposal of dragging a nation from peace to war mode if caught meets everybodies objections about peace mode. If theres anything it doesn't cover please somebody share.

Messing with the trade system by exposing trade partners is nothing but an opportunity for more alliance extortion and yet another difficulty in an already difficult aspect of the game.

Again, when you enter a trade agreement your offered the chance to trade "in secret" or "open". If your not actively "hiding" yiour trade tie it should in some form be free game to spies. It also forces people to really get in touch and keep good ties and communication with thier trade partners. Anybody complaining about this suggestion is just crying because they MAY(again it doesnt force a drop) have to take 2-3 days and find a new trade ally or trade in secret.

As for the entire spies concept, I'm against it as it is written now. Changing it to simply adding modifiers to the existing war system is the path I would be comfortable with. As it stands now I'll be wasting 55 million and cutting my daily gross income by $4 simply to avoid the feature as much as I can.

Thank you. Anybody that is complaining that "But..I might lose nukes or tech or infra...or have my trades exposed!" can simply hulk up on defence. No different from buying tanks and nukes for defence when your surrounded by people that have them. Nukes cost a decent bill chunk yet a lot have them for defence.

[Allnighte]

Wrong. Peace mode should still exist but like I said if they get caught spying they should be dragged from peacemode. This allows peacemode to exist exactly as it does now, allows peacemode nations the ability to spy and be spied on, and also offers a punishment for them if they get caught. I'm pretty sure that the proposal of dragging a nation from peace to war mode if caught meets everybodies objections about peace mode. If theres anything it doesn't cover please somebody share.

exploitable. the biggest penalty to peace mode is that you *must* collect taxes before you exit peace mode. if you allow someone to get "dragged out" of peace mode, then they no longer have a penalty to their collection.

[fuzzycat]

I would seriously suggest changing "Spy" to "Special Forces". Not only is it a more accurate representation of what they do, but it will avoid confusion with the forum espionage that is Political Suicide amongst alliances.

As has been suggested already, "saboteur" might be a far better name. Even now the "Gather Intelligence" mission has been added its only 1 spy-mission against 12 missions that are actually saboteur-missions.

---

Also the "Incite Government Propaganda" and "Incite Religious Propaganda" missions are IMHO just redicolous. I as supreme ruler of my nation cannot change what my people desire, through any propaganda, but a lousy spy can? Com'mon.

---

And this whole issue of spies as additional tools not using war slots. How much sense does it really make? It is very likely that most alliances will treat caught spy missions as hostile acts, and reasons as a spark for inter-alliance war like a normal decleration of war. In fact on one hand, all it will be is yet another weapon to be thrown at each other at war. On the other hand, spies will make tools to interact between friendly nations, like transfering tech, or changing the desired goverment for a friend.

Also revelealing the trade partners, yes nice idea there, but it will not actually change much of the game. Why? If an alliance is an peace it will not be spied upon. That means your tradepartners are as secret as always. If you are at war with another alliance, they will use spies against you as weapon also. Now they now you are trading with whom they don't want you to trade with. What will they do now, declare war upon you?

[ArchSorcerer]

IMO Prices should be

Destroy Infra - 10,000 (Max 10)

Most nations can afford more than 10 infra a day so this shouldn't be a problem. Also allows weaker nation to utilize spying.

Steal tech - 80,000 (Max 10) 1 x Nation Strength

This keeps it below the market value so that there is a profit in having a successful mission.

Edited September 13, 2007 by ArchSorcerer

[Liffer]

While changing the formula to make things riskier is one possibility, how about a small possibility not only of the spy being revealed, but also being interrogated? Example, you catch a spy, you wouldn't immediately execute them; you'd try to learn what they know. So why not create a possibility of the spy being captured and tortured/interrogated. With the resulting information, the defending country would do the same to the attacker as the mission the spy was sent on.

Example,

Spy is sent by X to Y to steal tech.

Spy fails in stealing tech, but is caught and forced to reveal where X stores its tech.

Nation Y gets up to 3 tech from X.

Even if the mission is successful, the effects would be mimicked in the attacking country.

Granted, this should only be a small possibility, but it would make nations think twice about using spies as missions are more risky (closer to real-life).

[+Zeke+]

Wrong. Peace mode should still exist but like I said if they get caught spying they should be dragged from peacemode. This allows peacemode to exist exactly as it does now, allows peacemode nations the ability to spy and be spied on, and also offers a punishment for them if they get caught. I'm pretty sure that the proposal of dragging a nation from peace to war mode if caught meets everybodies objections about peace mode. If theres anything it doesn't cover please somebody share.

Exactly what percentage of players in peace mode are there because they are accused spies?

Maybe less than .01% perhaps?

Rules need to be made for the vast majority of users. Peace mode is the safe mode for a darn good reason. It allows the players to have real lives without restarting the game repeatedly. You can bet donation players aren't going to keep donating if they have to keep restarting their nations.

Furthermore, Allnighte makes a very valid point. Kicking someone out of peace mode is a massive exploit for a large nation to use. Imagine a large nation purposefully sitting in peace mode for two weeks and facing that lousy collection at the end. Better to offer a friendly nation a bit of cash to get them to pull you out before collection.

Again, when you enter a trade agreement your offered the chance to trade "in secret" or "open". If your not actively "hiding" yiour trade tie it should in some form be free game to spies. It also forces people to really get in touch and keep good ties and communication with thier trade partners. Anybody complaining about this suggestion is just crying because they MAY(again it doesnt force a drop) have to take 2-3 days and find a new trade ally or trade in secret.

Try being in a small color team. I don't get dozen of options when looking for a trade. Maybe a get a total of 5 or so. That includes those that have their trades set already. It already costs me millions simply to get my current trade set. Why would they care to trade in secret with me and lose that additional income?

If you do not think that this will not be used for extortion to isolate alliances then you haven't been in a small alliance in a while. Pay 50 tech or we will attack your trade partners so they drop you. This will take tech raiding to an entirely new art form. Color team senators are given a small allowance of sanction slots to precisely limit this type of abuse. Adding this feature essentially gives every large nation the ability to sanction a player.

Thank you. Anybody that is complaining that "But..I might lose nukes or tech or infra...or have my trades exposed!" can simply hulk up on defence. No different from buying tanks and nukes for defence when your surrounded by people that have them. Nukes cost a decent bill chunk yet a lot have them for defence.

Did I not propose changing the system to combat modifiers? If someone wants a chunk of me then they only need to declare and bring it the old fashioned way.

What I don't like is the ability to destabilize an already delicate resource trading system, the prospect of alliance extortion, a host of new exploits that weren't intended, yet another reason for recognized acts of war amongst alliances because of n00b stupidity, messing with players on hiatus, and having to rewrite every last treaty the game currently is observing.

Instead of simply building and testing a spy system before revealing it, I think it would have been better if Kevin had allowed the community to weigh in on the initial foundation of the program and worked out the logic flaws first. We actually do a pretty good job doing that in the suggestion area if an idea seems like it can gain some traction. Let us define and refine the parameters until all the flaws are revealed and dealt with. Then you poll it.

This isn't a mere new feature for the game. It will fundamentally change the foundations of gameplay. Given that I've already seen a half dozen potential exploits that weren't expected mentioned here and it hasn't even been tried by the player group, I expect there to be a a whole host of unexpected consequences within a month of installation. Something of this impact should have a much more solid rationale and physical underpinnings behind it even before it gets to the testing and discussion phase.

Kevin wants spies in the game? Fine. But let's start this idea from square one, shall we? Let's list the intended goals so we can define the mechanics. Then look at the mechanics for unintended consequences in game play and alliance play. Then it might be safe to attempt the coding.

[edit] Seems that alliances are already trying to squash the concept as "dishonorable" as evidenced by this thread:

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=1661

Edited September 13, 2007 by +Zeke+

[Syzygy]

You make some good points but this one is the most important. Suggestion for ways around this exploit? My thoughts are to still allow nations only one attack per day but nations will have to defend against up to 3 spy operations per day. This still doesn't close the exploit, just makes it more difficult to use.

1. make it a 3-3 System like for war (3 offensive Spying Slots, 3 defensive) - also follows KISS.

2. the exploit can be shut down as follows:

- spying operations on nations wearing the same AllianceAffiliation are not allowed

- you can only change your AllianceAffiliation every 3(5, 7) days (will also shut down all this AA-switching during war to disturb other ppl)

Long time an effective AA-Management system with "Invitation Offers" (like trade offers) that have to be sent before someone can join your alliance would probably be the best choice.

The Exploit would not be "entirely" out of the game, because allied alliances (blocks) for example could still abuse it, but the security risk is a LOT higher, someone from the other alliance could make it public/screenshot it or report it otherwise. But in the end its nothing more then looting in war, in theory you could "abuse" this as well by "allowing" free attacks on a banking nation that has all its slots filled. There could still be 2M cash be stolen per day in 2 successfull ground attacks.

However, i suggest to make DETECTED spying operations public available on a nations view page. This is needed because of course alliances will use Spying Operations as casus belli for war. But Screenshots and MessageLogs can be MOST easily faked. If a spying operation has failed and the spy has been revealed, show the Operation on an overview page, like "Show War" and "Show Aid". It also would help to detect exploit users, because if they try to do it on an allied nation and the spy get caught - it will be shown there.

[admin]

This isn't a mere new feature for the game. It will fundamentally change the foundations of gameplay. Given that I've already seen a half dozen potential exploits that weren't expected mentioned here and it hasn't even been tried by the player group, I expect there to be a a whole host of unexpected consequences within a month of installation. Something of this impact should have a much more solid rationale and physical underpinnings behind it even before it gets to the testing and discussion phase.

Kevin wants spies in the game? Fine. But let's start this idea from square one, shall we? Let's list the intended goals so we can define the mechanics. Then look at the mechanics for unintended consequences in game play and alliance play. Then it might be safe to attempt the coding.

Er, I'm not sure where you've been for the last few months but the community and I have been discussing this at length since July. This is not something that I just pulled out of my hat overnight in an effort to stick a quick update on the game. There's 19 pages of discussions on goals, mechanics, consequences, etc.. on the spy feature here: http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/...showtopic=78003

Don't assume that because I came here for input at this point that I don't know what I'm doing or that this hasn't been thought through. We can talk about spies for months but it doesn't do much good until I've started to code the feature and know for myself how it will work so that I can provide accurate descriptions of it to the community for final input. That's where we're at now which is way past figuring out rationale and physical underpinnings for the thing. Sure problems will come up, I expect that, but coming here as has been proven already, will help reduce the problems that may show up later.

Regarding your comment about alliance position on spies, I expect certian groups to oppose the use of the feature. The majority of the operations available are aggressive and destructive in nature and as I mentioned in the thread linked above I want spies to work similar to and somewhat in conjunction with the war system.

[MegaVolt]

If a nation can be "attacked" by 3 spy missions in a day, then they should be able to conduct that many of their own. As with wars, they should be against different nations, but if 3 enemies are targeting me, I should also be able to target each of them back.

The 1:3 system will place unaligned nations and small alliances at a major disadvantage. Even if I know the identities of all of my attackers, I can only strike back against one of them. Not fair.

Also, will the notification PM go out even if the mission is a failure and the identity isn't revealed? Something like "Unknown nation tried and failed to do X".

this.

In addition: The spy simply walks into the Pentagon and convinces the President to change the defcon level? Yea right ...

Changing the national religion should also be impossible on a spy mission.

I don't like the trade spy feature either. Big alliances get a HUGE advantage since they can have trade cycles, small alliances will be pressured to drop trades in war times which is a very, very bad thing (especially combines with the 3-1 ratio).

In addition, spying not being affected by peace mode is very dangerous in my opinion: We will get "spy rogues" that, in the long run, will even be worse then nuclear rogues. They can hide in peace mode forever, sending a spy out every day.

I generally think a spy feature is a god idea but as it is now I hope it won't get implemented.

[fuzzycat]

Also what I wonder why nobody has mentioned it yet. IMHO without a feature to proof caught spying this all could be in the long run a huge disaster, destroying the politics of the game, the one interesting thing for a majority here, and transform it into a everyone vs. everyone PvP. Yes FAN will be happy, but the majority of people here will not.

What I mean is a tab panel on the nation, where you can view evidence of spies it has caught. Oh yes, someguy will just answer, you can screenshot the PM the game gives you. Well you can, but you can also easily manifacture that.

Another one will post, oh its not RL compatible. No it is, when I catch an opposing spy, I can show him to the world. Look nation X has tried to spy against me. Same as when he left fingerprints back.

Without public checkable spy evidence, political incidents will degenerate into a flamefest fast.

A: Alliance X spied against me, and destroyed all my money.

B: Proof?

A: Here are screenshots the PMs, I even caught 2 nations in the act.

B: Oh well you, I have photoshop too!

Oh and the one spy mission that really is missing, reveal all recent spy missions of the other nation.

Oh and nerfing peacemode, if you hate peacemode get it simply out of the game, before removing it sense layer by layer. Its there for a reason. And I agree with previous poster, Spy-rogues in peacemode are going to be an utter pain.

[abaddonis]

Admin: I'm noticing a trend of posts here. Perhaps you could add something to let people know that spies can't change your religion or government, rather they change your desired religion or government.

Hopefully that would cut down the posts that keep saying "They shouldn't be able to change you religion. How can they do that?, etc..."

Edit: I did HTML tags and not bbcode

Edited September 13, 2007 by awesome-o

[fuzzycat]

cut down the posts that keep saying "They shouldn't be able to change you religion. How can they do that?, etc..."

Wel they shouldn't be able to change your *desired* religion. How can they do that?

If you as suproeme commander of your nation cannot change the desired religion, how should a lousy spy be able to do that?

[abaddonis]

Wel they shouldn't be able to change your *desired* religion. How can they do that?

If you as suproeme commander of your nation cannot change the desired religion, how should a lousy spy be able to do that?

Does the name Martin Luther ring a bell? One man CAN spark a swing in desired religion.

[fuzzycat]

Does the name Martin Luther ring a bell? One man CAN spark a swing in desired religion.

a.) Martin Luther = Way Off Topic

b.) Martin Luther was not a spy.

c.) It took him a life time. Its not today this tomorrow that.

Edited September 13, 2007 by fuzzycat

[Cyrogen]

You make some good points but this one is the most important. Suggestion for ways around this exploit? My thoughts are to still allow nations only one attack per day but nations will have to defend against up to 3 spy operations per day. This still doesn't close the exploit, just makes it more difficult to use.

just make it so that you need spies to spy on people...

something along the lines of

if(attacknationspies=0)

{

send message

sorry but you can't use the spy feature at this time, please buy some spies...

}

also make it so you can't spy on someone in your nation and if you have spied on someone in an another alliance you cannot change your AA to that alliances AA for a period of 10 days

Edited September 13, 2007 by Cryogen

[abaddonis]

a.) Martin Luther = Way Off Topic

b.) Martin Luther was not a spy.

c.) It took him a life time. Its not today this tomorrow that.

It's unrealistic to have soldiers carrying money into battle (you lose money when you lose battles). It's unrealistic to have an entire army refuse to fight and destroy an enemy's nation because they have no soldiers. If we're not going for realism (which I think we can all agree that realism and CN don't mix) what is stopping us from letting one person change people's desires?

It's an interesting new feature that will add another side to game play. Why quibble over small semantics?

[Serendipity]

Also what I wonder why nobody has mentioned it yet. IMHO without a feature to proof caught spying this all could be in the long run a huge disaster, destroying the politics of the game, the one interesting thing for a majority here, and transform it into a everyone vs. everyone PvP. Yes FAN will be happy, but the majority of people here will not.

What I mean is a tab panel on the nation, where you can view evidence of spies it has caught. Oh yes, someguy will just answer, you can screenshot the PM the game gives you. Well you can, but you can also easily manifacture that.

Another one will post, oh its not RL compatible. No it is, when I catch an opposing spy, I can show him to the world. Look nation X has tried to spy against me. Same as when he left fingerprints back.

Without public checkable spy evidence, political incidents will degenerate into a flamefest fast.

A: Alliance X spied against me, and destroyed all my money.

B: Proof?

A: Here are screenshots the PMs, I even caught 2 nations in the act.

B: Oh well you, I have photoshop too!

Oh and the one spy mission that really is missing, reveal all recent spy missions of the other nation.

Agreed.

Add some feature to allow spy missions to be revealed--otherwise nations act in complete anonymity with no way to discover the culprit of the attacks (or so I understand).

As Paradigm mentioned earlier--allow one of the missions to allow spies to discover the last 10 spying missions a nation has been on (or something of that nature). If not that, some other method of discovery beyond failed missions would be useful. Or something public like fuzzycat mentioned.

Another idea--like the "wars across the globe"/"foreign aid offers across the globe" show "spy missions across the globe": allowing anyone to see which nations have conducted spy missions, however not listing who the mission was carried out against or what that mission was--thus the only method of discovery would be if that mission failed (then only the recipient would know), or if the curious nation sent out their own spy mission to discover such information.

Edited September 13, 2007 by dictadora

[fuzzycat]

It's unrealistic to have soldiers carrying money into battle (you lose money when you lose battles). It's unrealistic to have an entire army refuse to fight and destroy an enemy's nation because they have no soldiers. If we're not going for realism (which I think we can all agree that realism and CN don't mix) what is stopping us from letting one person change people's desires?

It's an interesting new feature that will add another side to game play. Why quibble over small semantics?

Did you start with Martin Luther "realism" or I?

Its not just unrealistic a spy can change the desired religion, this stuff will have gameplay effects, people whose nation desires an undesireable government will just post in their Alliance, hey guys and somebody please spyattack me to change the desired religion? I'll set readiness on a minimum also... I'll owe you a favor for this..

[fuzzycat]

Add some feature to allow spy missions to be revealed--otherwise nations act in complete anonymity with no way to discover the culprit of the attacks (or so I understand).

To be explicate, revealing is currently planned, but it should NOT just be a PM on the nations owner. It should be publically visible and checkable that (s)he catched this or that nation spying on him/her nation.

[Myalam]

Admin delayed the release of spies during the FAN conflict and he gave plenty notice.

They don't change the choice of gov't or religion. They change desired religion and gov't

Couldn't that lead to alliances getting smaller members to change larger members' government so that they (as an example) could have monarchy as the preference of the population when it wasn't before?

Few short points...

2) Peace mode nations should be spied on and be able to spy. Even Canada has spies...when was the last time you saw canada get uppity and hostile?

You can also attack Switzerland with a nuclear weapon in real life...

EDIT: Makes a bit more sense now.

Edited September 13, 2007 by Myalam

[abaddonis]

Couldn't that lead to alliances getting smaller members to change larger members' government so that they (as an example) could have monarchy as the preference of the population when it isn't?

People will find a way to screw the system. If admin prevents inter-alliance spying, alliances will outsource it to other alliances

[admin]

To be explicate, revealing is currently planned, but it should NOT just be a PM on the nations owner. It should be publically visible and checkable that (s)he catched this or that nation spying on him/her nation.

There will be a searchable list of revealed spy missions just like all wars and all foreign aid across the world. If you get caught, you get placed on that list. If you go undetected, you don't.

[Terry Howard]

oh a nice way to kick of wars i like this option very much

[abaddonis]

There will be a searchable list of revealed spy missions just like all wars and all foreign aid across the world. If you get caught, you get placed on that list. If you go undetected, you don't.

That is a great way to implement it. Will it tell what kind of spying took place?