Spies

[Guest Moose Master]

I'm sure spies are bugged. Is anyone else noticing really stupid failures when you obviously should have completed the objective?

 

I've read through the tutorial but it doesn't seem to match up to what actually happens in the game at all. Any thoughts?

[Falcoknight]

Spying works fine.

[Sound]

I have spied on people with 5 spies, and gotten half the information, then spied with 8 spies and gotten nothing at all.

[Falcoknight]

How come people have gotten used to attacking someone and having only 20% of their attack or defense work, but they're still shocked when sab or recon doesn't work 100% of the time?

[JDS]

if your spy fails, you cant spy. thats how it works. 1bill spy = not fail

[Sound]

Because it's hardly the same, Falco.

[Falcoknight]

It's exactly the same. As a matter of fact, I've found sabbing and recon to be more consistent than attacking or defending.

 

The people who !@#$%^&* about it not being consisten either A) don't know how to do it or don't have high enough covert.

[AstroProdigy]

1 billion spy is rubbish if the enemy has even a fraction in mercenary. It takes practice to figure out even a rudimentary spy/sabotage skill and even then only aileron has the formulas and thus the ability to take out 8k from me even when I have #2 sentry (4.3 billion sentry) and since he's a cheater that of course is the focus of his entire strategy. Edited November 25, 2007 by AstroProdigy

[Aileron]

I don't know the whole formula. There are two checks. I only know the first one. The best solution to the part I know though is "only send one spy every time". That way you have a 91% of passing it. The first check doesn't take spy or sentry into account.

 

The second check seems to involve spy, sentry, and the weapons gone after. I don't know the details to that check, but at the moment it seems that you need to limit yourself to 2000 weapons, more or less depending upon the person (though that's with my uber spy).

 

However, getting past the second check is mostly trial and error based upon memory of previous sabotage attempts. Send one spy and go after 2000 weapons. If you get caught, don't go after as many weapons next time. If you are having 90% success, you can probably go after more weapons next time.

 

I myself have been sabbing Astro for the past 3 months, and it did admittingly take a month before it started working.

[Sound]

That's the same as seeing if they have more or less def than attack and attacking, falco?

[Falcoknight]

I have people attack me with one turn, see they can attack, then attack me and succeed, and sometimes, but not often, they fail.

 

I recon someone, if I can see everything they have, I sab them. Usually I succeed, sometimes, but not often, I fail.

 

Considering I was a spider, then an Oldskool Spider the entire round up until a few days ago, this was my experience with sabbing, get this, _every single time I tried it.

 

 

So, yes, it's exactly like I said it was.

But I know you're too much of an idiotic !@#$%^&*bag to actually understand the first part of my post, so whatever.

[Sound]

Falco, it is not the same.

You can sab someone if you have one single statistic from a recon, you do not need everything. If you send 15 spies to sab, instead of 1, the only change that will occur is a DECREASE in chance of success. Whereas if you spend 15 attack turns, rather than 1, you will have a chance at getting more money, and less randomized attack power.

A successful sabotage attempt depends on these factors: Spies sent, (the more, the less chance of success),% of items being sabotaged (ex 1,000 out of 50,000), spy vs sentry, current recon status, and maybe more.

A successful attack depends on these factors: Attack vs Defense (the higher attack is over defense, the greater chance of success), Army Size (only changes if an attack is possible or not), Turns used (Raises or lowers % of money gained, raises for more turns; raises or lowers randomization of attack power, lowers for more turns.)

 

For a successful attack you do NOT depend on how many soldiers sent, how many items you chose to sabotage, or your current recon status.

Are these the same?!

 

Falco, your current tactic of argument is called inductive reasoning. This means that you are basing your argument off vague patterns.

My current tactic of argument is called deductive reasoning. This means that i'm basing my argument off facts.

That is not to say your argument could not be true... But what's more reliable at this time?

Edited November 26, 2007 by Sound

[Aileron]

um, inductive is the strongest type of reasoning, while deductive reasoning can run the risk of being a rationalization fallicy.

[Sound]

In this certain argument, and Falco's stated patterns being so vague, deductive reasoning is stronger. Anyways, that is the LEAST important part of my reply. Edited November 26, 2007 by Sound

[Guest Moose Master]

Falco:

 

I don't see why you're so aggressive about this. You are correct. I do not know how sabotage works nor do I know if I have a high enough spy bonus to be able to do it effectively. In my experience of trying to use spy recon and sabotage I've not seen much of a consistent pattern which was why I posted asking if anyone else has noticed bug-like behaviour.

 

The only problem is the lack of do!@#$%^&*entation.

 

Aileron:

 

I think the difficulty of spying & sabotaging is probably a good thing but should be made clear in the FAQs or perhaps another sticky specifically for it. Could you update the FAQ just to expand the spying section and mention something about it deliberately being incredibly difficult requiring huge amounts of spy bonus?

[Guest Moose Master]

um, inductive is the strongest type of reasoning, while deductive reasoning can run the risk of being a rationalization fallicy.

 

Off topic but inductive reasoning is not the 'best' form of reasoning. The whole concept is one of generalizations.

 

Inductive Observation

 

All pigeons I see are gray.

 

Therefore all pigeons in the world are gray.

 

Error: This is a completely inductive statement however it is untrue. All pigeons are not gray, some are white or partially white.

Whenever you make any generalisations you run the risk of them not applying to every element of what you generalise.

 

Another Bad Example

Every car on my street has 4 wheels so all cars in the world have 4 wheels. <--- Incorrect, some cars have 3 wheels.

 

 

Inductive logic is used but the main form is deductive. Of course this could be it's own thread so it might be worth moving posts on this to somewhere else if anyone keeps it going.

Edited November 26, 2007 by Moose Master

[JDS]

??? lets try to be cool and use bold and underline!@!! yay

[Sound]

Jds... The use of bold, underline, and italics are used to organize or emphasize main points.

[ra$ta420]

??? lets try to be cool and use bold and underline!@!! yay

[Sound]

You two are so dumb. =(

[Guest Moose Master]

??? lets try to be cool and use bold and underline!@!! yay

 

Thanks. I bet you have lots of friends, you seem like such a nice guy, always so welcoming and you have lots of useful comments that add so much to every discussion.

[JDS]

thanks i guess, i try.

[Sound]

??? lets try to be cool and use bold and underline!@!! yay

 

Thanks. I bet you have lots of friends, you seem like such a nice guy, always so welcoming and you have lots of useful comments that add so much to every discussion.

Word.

[Aileron]

Well, obviously no matter what your method of logic is, you can still make fallicies. In those two cases, the hasty generalization. The error in those two statements is in the generalization fallicy, not the inductive method itself.

 

It is impossible to prove that either method is illogical, because when used properly they both produce valid arguements.

 

I say inductive is stronger because I've seen it used ten times as often.

[Sound]

I wasn't saying his fallicy was in using the inductive method. I was just staying that at that time, deductive reasoning is more reliable.

Inductive is used ten times as often because it's ten times easier to use.