Alastor

This thread basically already proposed the idea of a beige bank. Others have already given solid feedback in that thread and in this thread. I personally do not think this beige bank idea will pan out the way you think it will. I also don't think unlinking beige from losing wars is a good idea. Please please please just move the test server changes on to live while removing the one or two pieces that turned out poorly. There was a whole feedback thread about those beige changes as well. Please please please fix the broken score change. I think the community at-large has either become overtly frustrated by these threads, or has begun overtly avoiding this section of the forums altogether because we've been at such a rapid-fire pace lately with several large suggestions and a few huge actual changes to multiple different systems - many of those changes needing to be retuned because they proved too powerful in one direction or the other. I don't want important pieces to get left behind because certain members of the dev team or whoever is excited to move on to the next "project."

This whole thread is almost as big of a shitfest as the war. I love it.

Great idea

Just to drop an example here: 56.6% of this nation's score comes from 22 cities. 2100 score. That's no military, no infra, no projects. So with no infra, no military, no projects, Example1 would be perfectly in range of this example2 nation. So example nation 1 would never escape being dog-piled no matter what he did. It is an actual disadvantage to have a higher-than-average city count because of the score changes.

I hope y'all do good work.

Please stay on topic guys.

Summary of the changes made to the formula as of 5/14: Score per City increased from 50 -> 100 (after City #1) Added a base +10 Score to everyone Changing military unit score to be closer to actual value: Soldiers: 0.0005 -> 0.0004 each Tanks: 0.05 -> 0.009 each Aircraft: 0.5 -> 0.2 each Ships: 2 -> 0.75 each Score from Missiles and Nuclear Weapons are capped at 50 each (the 51st Missile or Nuclear Weapon will not add to your nation score.) Suggested changes [bolded]: Score per City increased from 50 -> 75 (after City #1) Added a base +10 Score to everyone Changing military unit score to be closer to actual value: Soldiers: 0.0005 -> 0.0004 each Tanks: 0.05 -> 0.025 each Aircraft: 0.5 -> 0.3 each Ships: 2 -> 1 each Score from Missiles and Nuclear Weapons are capped at 50 each (the 51st Missile or Nuclear Weapon will not add to your nation score.) Why: The shortest version possible is that the score changes hardlocked people into tiers, it "tightened" war ranges. My contention is that it over-tightened based on city count instead of standing military. Your city count is not a good mechanism to be the main determinant of war range because it does represent your current military capability. The changes effectively have created an environment for wars where, even if you are zeroed, you can't escape people with a similar city count & max military. This is obviously very sub-optimal gameplay and probably unintended. I think the revised numbers will still keep war ranges tightened but not to the extreme we now see. tl;dr - Arrgh has been the guinea pig for these score changes for about a month now. Even while zeroed out we get slotted by people with max military: 2k planes, 20k tanks, 200 boats, max soldiers. That's impossible to get out from under, even while we're running extremely low infra builds. In a large-scale conflict, y'all are going to be in for a world of hurt if these score changes stay the way they are.

I swear I made a post earlier in this thread but maybe not. Basically great creativity on the suggestion, it looks like you closed a lot of earlier loopholes people mentioned. The bad piece is that this puts a lot more "favor" towards the defender than it does the attacker in my mind, and I don't see a way to avoid that due the nature of a beige bank. Giving complete control of rebuilding time to the losers of the initial blitz just seems, in my mind, to create a strategy of "wait to get your beige bank and we all go beige at once to rebuild and blitz." Then, despite only having a 12 turn window to leave beige before it expires, you basically have the ability to "counter-blitz" and then that pattern continues until someone runs out of rebuild resources. That doesn't seem like a better alternative to what we see now. With the proposed changes on the test server, the attackers can at least force someone out of the fight WHILE they rebuild for a set amount of time. Beige is guaranteed no matter what (unless you're an aggressor but hopefully that gets redacted @Alex ). I think Alex's original idea for beige, with a few tweaks now that we've had time to see how it works, would be a better fit for the game than the Beige Bank.

I like the idea of adding in new features to sow chaos but a few points: 1. You currently cannot nuke someone you're not at war with, meaning you always know where the nuke will potentially come from. This gives the opportunity to spy it away before it gets launched. This change would take that away. 2. I assume you just forgot, but there should be a limit for how many nukes/missiles a nation can take per day. 3. It's already very easy to disrupt the economy of a nation, not to mention an alliance. PnW is already an extremely PVP-oriented game. Would it be wise to add even more features to PVP people?

I think Akuryo's point is that we shouldn't replace a simple system with an overly complex system for no reason. When most of the players, including Azaghul who actually presented the original suggested change to beige currently being tested, agree that current beige wasn't broken. It just needed tweaking.

Definition of fascism 1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition So outside of the "authoritarian" piece of fascism, Authoritarian being a different word btw, fascism is almost exclusively defined by Nazi principles of racial purity, ubernationalism, and the like. Also nice troll, former GOON or NPO player.

My thought on auto-accepting peace was that one person winning a war against you shouldn't potentially allow seven other people to escape their wars with you. It basically takes away a lot of nuance in individual wars for the sake of creating a new meta in an alliance-scale conflict. I see what you're trying to do, I think it's a cool idea, but I don't think it would have a net-positive impact on the game like your other suggestions.

I don't see any proposed solution that would successfully curtail the need for moderation. The current approach took a good suggested change to beige from a mechanical perspective and added in a caveat based on moderation worries that have nothing to do with the mechanical functionality. Furthermore, the caveat does not fully address the moderation issue in question which is slot filling. Defensive slot filling can be just as much of a thing even with these changes, perhaps even moreso because it's the only way to get beige time. The decision to worsen a mechanic based on some one-off moderation issue is frankly ridiculous. Figure out a way to deal with slot filling that doesn't punish normal players. Also bank hiding isn't a "grey area tactic", it's a necessary part of the ecosystem of PnW. Metaphorically, you can't kick over every single sand castle on the beach and expect people to still want to build. edit: also yeah please remove auto-accepting peace.

Good idea in theory but in practice as someone mentioned this could be easily abused to simply close off your defensive slots which just opens up a new problem of abused mechanics. Just allowing all wars to give beige time would solve the issue. Slot filling, which seems to be Alex's main worry, is a moderation issue and unfortunately cannot be addressed via mechanical changes. Make all losses give beige time, make all beiges give loot and deal infra damage, even expired wars.

This looks like a much better version of Beige. Good work. edit for the edit: Aggressors should get beige. The logic that you can "slot fill for beige" can be done both aggressively and defensively. A loss is a loss either way. I'd also vote in favor of removing auto-accepting peace.

But... in that same vein, the "ally of the ally" could simply reverse the situation and declare war on "you" for extra beige time. Slot filling is a separate issue from beige in offensive wars. If you get defeated/beiged, the fact remains that you lost your military to get there. It's not the end of the world to not have it, but it doesn't make sense to exclude it. edit: Do we have an ETA on when Beige will return to live?

Hi. I know a lot of potential updates or changes to the test server do get announced. I've just noticed I usually hear about new mechanics being tested "through the grapevine." and I could be blind but I also don't see anywhere to post feedback for the changes. I feel like this can result in people being blindsided by changes when they get pushed to Live, and I also feel like this doesn't provide any appropriate avenue with which to discuss potential changes / give feedback. Feedback seems to be the most important part of the test server existing so I figured we might need a public area for it.

Why shouldn't an aggressor get beige if they lose? That seems like it would flat out discourage aggressive wars if you think you might have a chance to lose, which is bad for activity in general. Wars are not usually a "duel of the fates" where it's a back-and-forth struggle. It usually a one-sided thing, so if an aggressor gets beiged that likely means he lost his military. Which should logically result in beige. I would also seriously reconsider letting everyone escape once one person beiges you. That's potentially 7 other wars "lost" because one person got the upper hand on you. Typically if one person gets the upper hand, it means there's a hole in your military (ground, air, or navy), and with coordination the other nations should be able to flip their wars once one person flips theirs. Otherwise great suggestion.

Blockades currently prevent you from receiving or sending resources via trade, alliance banks, or otherwise. My suggestion is to change this to be more realistic as it would be virtually impossible to cut off a modern nation from all outside access. I have a few different ideas for how this could be done. 1. Receiving resources via trades costs twice as much PPU. The selling nation gets more money for "smuggling" rss into the blockaded nation. 2. Receiving resources via trades or alliance bank transfers or otherwise results in half of the resources being "lost at sea" AKA deleted. 3. Receiving resources via any method comes with a chance of losing a percentage of the resources to any nations with an active blockade on you. 4. Add a spy op to "smuggle" resources into a nation. So a friendly nation would need to have resources on-hand to send you (with a set amount of how much. like 1000.) and use a spy op to send the resources to you. These operations have their own separate limit from the normal defensive limit, so it can't be spammed but also can't be used to block enemy spy ops from happening.

Not trying to start an argument but we can be honest and acknowledge that 9 out of 10 game suggestion threads go unnoticed or at least un-commented by Alex to begin with. At least a small team that is "okay'd" by him can potentially begin moving things forward in terms of solutions and updates the players would like to see from him. This also has a nice benefit of having more than one person making snap decisions on game mechanics. ie - the latest removal of beige while the alternatives are still being worked out.

I feel like there are quite a few nations out there with great / hilarious themes that get largely no recognition. I'm sure I'm missing quite a few myself. Share what your nation theme is and drop a link for us to check it out if you've decked it out enough. https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=60967 Mine is obviously pirate-themed with a twist from the Princess Bride. Let me know what yours is!

Read the second sentence in my post

Please for the love of Space Jesus lower the amount of spies that die per attack. I lost 41 spies in two attacks just for clarification on this. The total is 50 (sans project). I lost 82% of my total intelligence crew in one "blitz." If we're adjusting casualties in the rest of the game's conflicts, might as well fix spies while we're here. This has been an issue since I started playing and I've made so many suggestion threads for it. Reiteration: the goal for PVP should be for competitive wars and gameplay. It should be extremely difficult to overwhelm and then pin down your opponent. You should never have to face indefinitely "pinning."