Jump to content

Removing Beige or Severely Nerfing It


Alex
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't get what the shock is. People have been doing this for years- If I know I'm about to be in trouble, I'm going to start wars I'm unlikely to win. I'll fight them as best I can anyway because I know the rule, but it doesn't mean I'm not picking people I think are likely to not be awake to coalition non-beiging policies. It's made possible because beiging itself is a self defeating mechanic; by crossing an arbitrary line with your attacks, they get some measure of safety. The mechanic should be thrown out. If there's a replacement mechanic to stop you from smacking an opponent around for as long as you like, it should be that your population isn't comfortable that you're still doing nightly air raids on cities that have been undefended for a month+ of in-game time. That way, you're actually fighting until defeat.

Edited by Avakael

Le1AjCa.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, rollo said:

Hey great idea.

It's not enough that someone with 3 or 4x as much military can down-declare on you
it's not enough that and alliance 4x your size can dogpile on you with their allies.

let's also make it so that alliance fighting against 4:1 odds and triple the military also has less time to regroup.

 

Do you sit up at night purposely thinking of ways to screw us?

 

Probably not nearly as much as you'd hope tbqh fam. Though if it gives you something to continually whine about, it's a net win, amirite? 

  • Upvote 1

"The happiness of the people, and the peace of the empire, and the glory of the reign are linked with the fortune of the Army."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Malal said:

During the last global war it was far worse and yet people payed to be beiged. It isn't a matter of damage so much as being in beige protects you and lets you rearm without counters.

Well, yeah.  lol.

4 hours ago, Frawley said:

  1. Addition – If the gap between the winner and the loser’s resistance exceeds 30%, the loser gets 1 day of beige, exceeds 50% :2 days, exceeds 75%: 3 days

     

  2. Addition - If the gap between the winner and the loser’s resistance exceeds 20%, the loser is looted at current loot rates

     

  3. Current infra destruction on losses to remain

 

 

Still doesn't fix the war slot issue.  Filling war slots serves a few purposes.  To name two right off the top of my head - You can either get someone to beige you freely or they take up a slot so no one else can declare on you.

 

Regardless of the beige mechanic, nothing will fix either of those issues here at this time.

Best bet is to get alliances to declare on those that are filling slots.  If I saw any one filling slots of my opponents, I'd just hit them instead.  It doesn't solve the issue directly, but it's a choice I could make and feel somewhat in control of.

 

The game is based off of Politics and War afterall.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, because new players not being beige or people with their entire military destroyed definitely won’t cause a large gap of war score between many nations...

Honesty Alex, stop caring about war so damn much and focus on other crap.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 5
"There's nothing you can know that isn't known,
Nothing you can see that isn't shown,
There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be,
All you need is love,
Love is all you need."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not just get another mod or two to help sort through game reports? If the major reason for you proposing this change is because of the massive amounts of reports you're receiving, wouldn't the least divisive and least time consuming option be to find someone in house or otherwise to help you dole out punishments to people who are abusing the rules?

Edited by Zaksaeling
Typo
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
16 hours ago, Sketchy said:

 

@Alex

  1. Make wars expire on a 3 day timer.
  2. Rather than have 100% resistance, and knock it down to 0%, just track resistance damage.
  3. The winner is the person who has done the most resistance damage dealt by the expiry of a war.
  4. The winner gets to loot the losing nation and their bank as per usual.

This seems like a pretty solid suggestion.

8 minutes ago, Zaksaeling said:

Why not just get another mod or two to help sort through game reports? If the major reason for you proposing this change is because of the massive amounts of reports you're receiving, wouldn't the least divisive and least time consuming option be to find someone in house or otherwise to help you dole out punishments to people who are abusing the rules?

It's not about me not being able to handle the workload, it's about the nature of the reports. They're such edge cases that it's nigh impossible to always determine the right course of action. Is destroying 50 resistance enough to count as a real war? What about 51? In the end, if I can remove the incentive that creates these weird predicament edge cases between the rules and the mechanics, everyone will be better off.

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Alex said:

This seems like a pretty solid suggestion.

It's not about me not being able to handle the workload, it's about the nature of the reports. They're such edge cases that it's nigh impossible to always determine the right course of action. Is destroying 50 resistance enough to count as a real war? What about 51? In the end, if I can remove the incentive that creates these weird predicament edge cases between the rules and the mechanics, everyone will be better off.

Resistance is a terrible metric to go by for the purpose of judging whether a war is real or just slotfilling. Reason being, the basic goal of conventional warfare is to ZM the opponent. That can be achieved with less than 50 res damage dealt, if you blitzed the target with other 2 companions. Furthermore, once he's ZM'd, there's no reason to race a beige (or beige at all) from a military standpoint (the incentive is mainly economic, such as loot {which vanishes if he and/or his aa evac'd their banks}, and for the infra damage dealt}. You're better off dragging it for as long as possible, denying him rebuy days and saving as much resistance damage as possible to use on attacks that actually kill mil.

Also, measuring by res damage would alow people to game the system really hard. For example, someone can get his D slots filled without getting punished for breaking the rules, if all the slotfillers need to do is 1ship him 4 or 5 times for it to count as a real war (and him to do some damage in return). The defender would be paying a negligible economic cost, while being able to basically war without the fear of being countered.

So no, just check the involved parties' military, and casualties to judge whether there's slotfilling going on or not. 

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
2 hours ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

Resistance is a terrible metric to go by for the purpose of judging whether a war is real or just slotfilling. Reason being, the basic goal of conventional warfare is to ZM the opponent. That can be achieved with less than 50 res damage dealt, if you blitzed the target with other 2 companions. Furthermore, once he's ZM'd, there's no reason to race a beige (or beige at all) from a military standpoint (the incentive is mainly economic, such as loot {which vanishes if he and/or his aa evac'd their banks}, and for the infra damage dealt}. You're better off dragging it for as long as possible, denying him rebuy days and saving as much resistance damage as possible to use on attacks that actually kill mil.

Also, measuring by res damage would alow people to game the system really hard. For example, someone can get his D slots filled without getting punished for breaking the rules, if all the slotfillers need to do is 1ship him 4 or 5 times for it to count as a real war (and him to do some damage in return). The defender would be paying a negligible economic cost, while being able to basically war without the fear of being countered.

So no, just check the involved parties' military, and casualties to judge whether there's slotfilling going on or not. 

Right, I understand that. The issue is that the same tactic of declaring and keeping the war open for as long as possible is the exact same strategy you would use if you wanted to fill the slot and prevent someone else from attacking them. The mechanics need to be changed so that there isn't incentive for the same strategy in both cases so that I can easily separate the two and moderate effectively.

Checking military/casualties isn't much better. How many casualties is enough casualties? Once I set a number, slot fillers hit that number and claim they're not slot filling. It needs to be a mechanic change to incentivize different behavior.

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/04/2018 at 3:38 PM, Alex said:

I am sick of people toeing the line of war slot filling rules due to not wanting to Beige or being intentionally Beiged, and me having to moderate it. I am throwing this out here for suggestions, either Beige needs to be removed or nerfed, there can't be an incentive to "want to be beiged" or for real attackers to not want to Beige.

So either I am going to seriously increase the damage or remove Beige time from winning wars if someone doesn't have a better solution.

I am not sure if this is possible, Could you not add an effect that if attacking nation does not attack within 26 hours (as 24 hours give you maximum MAP) they lose 10% of their totally army, after all they did attack. and the count down timer reset's every time they attack.

As for the defending nation, this is a little tricky as most times a defending nation would be facing 3 people at any given time, but if they also do not re-buy max troops (clearly if they do not have the resources they can not) every day they suffer in damage taken by the attacking nation? 

Another idea would be to base Resistance on the amount of damage done so lets say someone attacks and they kill 2k tanks and take zero damage by using planes, that should add 40% of the res, not sure if that is possible,  same as if they do ground attack and lose 5k troops and 100 tanks by kills 10k troops and 200 tanks that could be 15% of res done, maybe something like that i know my numbers are off but just to give an idea.

Edited by MoonShadow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Patrick Higgins said:

Yeah, because new players not being beige or people with their entire military destroyed definitely won’t cause a large gap of war score between many nations...

Honesty Alex, stop caring about war so damn much and focus on other crap.

> Politics & War

> stop caring about war

  • Upvote 4

 

1697243171_giphy(1).gif.e28014bf4d56866691a4003047141ff3.gif

FKA Wulfharth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Who Me said:

This is what happens when you have a dev that doesn't play the game. He has no idea what is within the rules he keeps changing and what is not and keeps reacting to the biggest whiners because it inconveniences him. Maybe a better idea would be to start giving out warnings to the people that are trying to game you with all the whining?

If you are going to change stuff perhaps you should change the fact that you can still be spied on while in beige making it impossible to rebuild your spies an nukes.

The sad fact is, you have no idea what you are doing and just make huge swings from one perspective to the other instead of finding a middle ground.

You are the one that keeps creating these problems and then you !@#$ about it when the players adjust to your changes.

I guess some people make it worst when they abuse the system, I mean didn't you pay to be beiged so you could hold on to BK bank for the war? its things like this is why Beige should be removed, so alliances can not hide their bank in nations that can not be hit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MoonShadow said:

I guess some people make it worst when they abuse the system, I mean didn't you pay to be beiged so you could hold on to BK bank for the war? its things like this is why Beige should be removed, so alliances can not hide their bank in nations that can not be hit

lol You really are an idiot aren't you? The only way I paid anyone to beige me was by launching nukes and missiles at them until they either beiged me or I beiged them.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alex said:

Right, I understand that. The issue is that the same tactic of declaring and keeping the war open for as long as possible is the exact same strategy you would use if you wanted to fill the slot and prevent someone else from attacking them. The mechanics need to be changed so that there isn't incentive for the same strategy in both cases so that I can easily separate the two and moderate effectively.

Checking military/casualties isn't much better. How many casualties is enough casualties? Once I set a number, slot fillers hit that number and claim they're not slot filling. It needs to be a mechanic change to incentivize different behavior.

Sketchy's proposal would largely remedy the issues put forth in the 1st paragraph, as the duration would be beyond the player's control, and a win/lose result would be unavoidable. For the slotfillers, yeah, it'd make it easier to tell one and the other apart.

And actually, no, it's not really that big of a problem. If you try to make everything so that you have to meet a minimum requirement in order to not to be breaking the rules, then you're setting up a system that's asking to be taken advantage of. The solution is quite simple. If the other guy has mil and you're not doing anything, even though you have a mil that can take on his, then chances are that there's slotfilling going on.

 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Who Me said:

lol You really are an idiot aren't you? The only way I paid anyone to beige me was by launching nukes and missiles at them until they either beiged me or I beiged them.

Nah not an idiot, just see things for what they are, you made sure that everyone beige you, YOU WILLING wanted to be beige in order to hold on to BK's bank, sure you might not have paid them but it does not change the point that you abused the beige in order to hide the bank. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- Remove being beige from defeated wars.
- Put an "armistice" button in alliance for leaders to push, and when pushed, in 6 turns, everybody inside alliance gets beiged for 24 turns (6 turns to prevent alliances to get blitzed and press the button for defense).
- If during those 6 turns, one nation inside that alliance makes an new agressive war, he will not receive beige (prevents some solo nations to push the button and declare new wars to abuse).
- Button has a cooldown to be pressed again for 15 days.
- Change "6 turns", "24 turns" and "15 days" to your flavor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MoonShadow said:

Nah not an idiot, just see things for what they are, you made sure that everyone beige you, YOU WILLING wanted to be beige in order to hold on to BK's bank, sure you might not have paid them but it does not change the point that you abused the beige in order to hide the bank. 

No, I am holding the bank because I am in beige. If they hadn't beiged me I would have continued to nuke/missile them until I beiged them. It's not my fault sheepy puts out poorly thought out, poorly tested and poorly implemented changes and doesn't listen to his player base when they tell him something isn't going to work they way he thinks it will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MoonShadow said:

Nah not an idiot, just see things for what they are, you made sure that everyone beige you, YOU WILLING wanted to be beige in order to hold on to BK's bank, sure you might not have paid them but it does not change the point that you abused the beige in order to hide the bank. 

Lol wtf. Getting multiple beiged by TGH/Rose during a war isn't abusing the system. He literally fought the war, got beiged and using the time to rebuild/hold cash. At least try to sound coherent lol. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fully support 

Quote

Make wars expire on a 3 day timer.

As well as this only temporarily and will still support a war module overhaul

Quote

Rather than have 100% resistance, and knock it down to 0%, just track resistance damage.

 

Edited by Hooves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Zeebrus said:

Maybe I’m completely wrong but I’m seeing it that the side winning the war will constantly declare wars over and over until the losing side has no military or infrastructure or anything, cause there’d be no time to build any amount of military that could defend much

I think this already happens.

9 hours ago, Zeebrus said:

Downdeclares would be INFINITELY stronger. Big Nation A hits small Nation B, knocks their military out, that’s it until the entire war is over. There’s no way for poor Nation A to defend themselves if every day the handful of military they buy could be easily wiped out by even a full military Nation C updeclaring

Wait for your alliance use armistice button. I think that downdeclares are infinitily stronger already, even with beige. But my suggestion is for beige only, not downdeclares.

9 hours ago, Zeebrus said:

War frequency. How are you gonna have a fight with someone if there’s nothing to fight. If my hypothetical situation were to happen (and I’d bet on it that it would) the war would eventually end but people would be ZI’d or have massive damage. And I think building an entire nation/alliance from the ground up would probably take a long time and a lot of resources and money.

Why you gonna spend munition and gasoline against people with no loot, low infra or no military?

9 hours ago, Zeebrus said:

I like your idea Kosonome, it’s really interesting! But I don’t see it possible to remove beige on war loss and have it work. Even an alliance wide beige system, in those 15 days (or even less) that’s good enough time to get a flood of attacks in

My numbers are just examples, so changing 15 days to 3 days, we have the opposite effect, and we have beige to rebuild anytime (although I don't recommend 3 days, lol).

 

Of course, my suggestion is not bullet proof, I just suggested something to make Alex/people think about it. We can also put this button into nations, not alliances. So every nation will decide when to use it, and good alliances will make good use of coordination to make it happen at same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.