Jump to content
Alex

Removing Beige or Severely Nerfing It

Recommended Posts

From my perspective, beige is necessary. Beige is intended as a stop-loss mechanic.

 

Military buying limits (population caps, daily caps, improvement caps) necessitate a beige mechanic that gives the beaten nation a break to rebuild. Otherwise you're creating a system that overtly punishes losing the first round of fighting.

 

So the core issue isn't necessarily that people are REWARDED by being beiged, it's that it's NECESSARY under the current war system to have a remotely fair chance of things. Adding additional penalties to a stop-loss mechanic doesn't make sense, it worsens the problem the nation already has (that it's losing a war.) So my vote, if beige is such an issue, is echoing Sweet Ronny D - lessen the time each beige gives.

 

But we also need to take a hard look at the military buying limits. If we make it easier to fight wars on even terms, we may not even need a stop-loss mechanic.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2018 at 4:54 AM, Buorhann said:

While I would normally agree to this, goodluck on maintaining player retention.

You have missiles and nukes that almost guarantee Improvement destruction.  Sheepy raised the chance of improvement destruction with Naval attacks, at which is doubled under Tactician and doubled FURTHER if the opponent is on Pirate.

How much more do you want?

If your baseline is a 5% of what it should be, then even doubling or even quadrupling it doesn't make much difference.  When most nations have well over 100 military improvements when fully armed up, and hundreds or thousands of total improvements, how much difference does an attack knocking out 1 or 2 improvements make?  Almost none unless you happen to hit a power plant.

At the end of the day, improvements are almost always a lot cheaper than infra.  And after demilitarization, most people will end up with at least as many non-military improvements after rebuilding than they had going into the war.

More improvement destruction would hurt someone's ability to fight more in THAT WAR, while having only marginal impact on their mid to long term economic outlook or capability to fight again in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baseline isn’t 5% though, if that’s what you’re basing your judgement on.

Tactician doubles.  If they’re on Pirate, it doubles.

If you have both (You on Tactician, them on Pirate), it’s quadrupled.

Then you have Missiles and Nukes which guarantee Improvement destruction if they hit.  Missiles can target specific areas.

So, once again, how much more do you want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just leave the war system alone. The fact is its fundamentally flawed at its foundations and no soft fix will change that. Best to allow sheepy to actually focus on other areas in the game that could use improvement. An improved ui, better tracking of stats for things like war, quality of life and navigation improvements, and fixing baseball to stop people from abusing the living shit out of it, just to name a few things.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2018 at 8:37 PM, Sketchy said:

fixing baseball to stop people from abusing the living shit out of it

DKUR9Tk.png

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thread also gave me an interesting idea of adding more peace options.

 

So something like this:

- Add in resistance so we can prevent beige again, but at a lower value so you can't permanently fortify out of beige.

- Beige does 15-20% infra damage but takes no resources

- Peace options added such as: can't declare offensive wars for 7 days, pays the winner resources and cash, forced decom'ing of nuclear weapons, forced decom of either ground/air/naval forces

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tl;dr entire thread... buuut....

You now have "treaties" in-game. Why not add an alliance level war-declaration in game. And you can only declare wars against alliances you've used the alliance war-dec on.

"But hey, that means I can't raid!"

No, it just means that your raiding alliance needs to declare war on the target raided alliance.

"But what if they're not in an alliance"

Well obviously then you wouldn't have to do an alliance-level war.

"Well then my opponent's allies will simply declare war against my opponent's alliance so they can war-slot fill"

Well they may, but as the gist of the issue here is that Alex is tired of having to moderate war-slot filling, this would alleviate a lot of his headache.

"So why make the change then?" 

Well a lot of what people have objections against is a change to the full on war-mechanics this late in the game. Sure things need to be tweaked now and then for bugs, but this is more of a convenience change. I'd be a bit upset for having a war-system overhaul after having a well-established system.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dwynn said:

"But hey, that means I can't raid!"

No, it just means that your raiding alliance needs to declare war on the target raided alliance.

"

wouldn't that force you to declare war on numerous alliances just for being within your raiding policy despite not actually wanting to be in a full on war with those alliances and possibly cause attacks against your alliance by those assuming you are planning hostile actions?

granted it would be beneficial for me as i could do without members going rogue outside the policy and having to raise their taxes or remove them but most alliance's raiding policy is nowhere near as strict as ours and is usually just anyone not in the top 50 or something like that, those alliances would have to declare on 150+ nanos and micros. so for that to work effectively the mechanic of raiding policies would also have to be applied in game.


I agree with adding the concept of alliance declarations of war but not giving the protection to those not directly declared on,
i think the better solution would be when they declare alliance wars it acts as an alliance 2 alliance embargo. though such suggestion is straying away from the topic about the problems with biege.


i think as to fixing biege here's what i think should be done:

  1.  Losing aggresive wars should not give biege (or for all the crybabies who protested this last time i said this, they should only be given 1/3rd or half time)
  2.  Consecutive bieging should give less time for each biege

    and maybe some other tweaks
Edited by Ukunaka
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Dwynn said:

tl;dr entire thread... buuut....

You now have "treaties" in-game. Why not add an alliance level war-declaration in game. And you can only declare wars against alliances you've used the alliance war-dec on.

"But hey, that means I can't raid!"

No, it just means that your raiding alliance needs to declare war on the target raided alliance.

"But what if they're not in an alliance"

Well obviously then you wouldn't have to do an alliance-level war.

"Well then my opponent's allies will simply declare war against my opponent's alliance so they can war-slot fill"

Well they may, but as the gist of the issue here is that Alex is tired of having to moderate war-slot filling, this would alleviate a lot of his headache.

"So why make the change then?" 

Well a lot of what people have objections against is a change to the full on war-mechanics this late in the game. Sure things need to be tweaked now and then for bugs, but this is more of a convenience change. I'd be a bit upset for having a war-system overhaul after having a well-established system.

This solves.... what problem again?
So Arrgh would just declare on everyone meaning you could still pay them to do it.
As for the situation that occurred recently, they could just leave their alliance first then fill your war slots instead of the other way around.

 

Congratulations, your wall of text with somewhat condescendingly written rhetorical questions is a solution to literally nothing if only the people breaking the rules give it approximately five seconds of thought. Since, as you seem to not be aware, alliance leadership typically aren't fans of war-slot filling, and will therefore not do as one of your questions described, meaning it will always be members who go rogue, meaning this actually creates more headaches by needing to be coded for no real noteworthy benefit to anyone or anything.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lairah said:

This solves.... what problem again?
So Arrgh would just declare on everyone meaning you could still pay them to do it.
As for the situation that occurred recently, they could just leave their alliance first then fill your war slots instead of the other way around.

 

Congratulations, your wall of text with somewhat condescendingly written rhetorical questions is a solution to literally nothing if only the people breaking the rules give it approximately five seconds of thought. Since, as you seem to not be aware, alliance leadership typically aren't fans of war-slot filling, and will therefore not do as one of your questions described, meaning it will always be members who go rogue, meaning this actually creates more headaches by needing to be coded for no real noteworthy benefit to anyone or anything.

It's my suggestion to solve the problem which Alex presented, which was the fact that he was having to moderate complaints about war-slot filling and intentional beiging. I know long threads can be hard to follow, and the course of the threads may change, but the heart of the problem is this:

On 4/11/2018 at 7:38 AM, 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.

This whole discussion is because Alex is tired of people trying to get away with war-slot filling. My suggestion, which you may not agree with, is to hardcode things in to the game so he doesn't have to moderate when someone wants to sneak by with questionable behavior. And sure, Arrgh could declare an alliance-level war on everyone, which would then put them at war with everyone. 

Congratulations, your condescending response to my suggestion clearly shows you've got no comprehension of who I am, had you given it three seconds of thought. Since, as you seem to not be aware, alliance leaderships typically aren't anything I give two thoughts about when I discuss mechanics or issues. Sure, members will go rogue, no debate there. But having something coded into the game to better alleviate the trouble Alex mentioned alleviates his frustration at being inundated with moderation reports every time a war breaks out.

Now, could you please describe how a hard-coded requirement for alliances to be at a declared state of war in-game before you can attack another alliance wouldn't alleviate some of the frustration and moderation concerns Alex has? If as you stated, it's usually going to be "rogue members" doing the war-slot filling, if there's literally a mechanic in-game that stops them from doing it how is that not a contributing solution to the problem Alex is intent on solving due to the salt that people dole out regularly when at war?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2018 at 12:27 AM, Ukunaka said:

i think as to fixing biege here's what i think should be done:

  1.  Losing aggresive wars should not give biege (or for all the crybabies who protested this last time i said this, they should only be given 1/3rd or half time)
  2.  Consecutive bieging should give less time for each biege

    and maybe some other tweaks

No, and no.

Beige should happen at the conclusion of every war, with whoever has the least resistance at the end of it getting beiged and looted. Consecutive beiges due to cycling should give *more* time for each beige, but beige can only stack up to 7 days maximum; any beige time that would otherwise be applied beyond that isn't applied at all.

This system is absolutely necessary for game balance; removing or nerfing beige even more than it already has been is an irresponsible suggestion. Such suggestions would absolutely result in anyone successfully suggesting it quitting entirely sooner or later on account of the game becoming a sterile, unplayable wasteland.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

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