Jump to content
Alex

Removing Beige or Severely Nerfing It

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

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. 

unless you go back and read it, he clearly started he kept nuking to force them to beige him, a smart tactic i agree, this was so they could hide the alliance bank, now if there was no beige you better believe he would not have simply laid down and nuked as it does less damage to infra thank ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're reaching dude. He keeps nuking simply to maximize infra destroyed. The fricktonne of beige time to use to hide the bank is just a very welcome bonus for them.

Edited by Shiho Nishizumi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/12/2018 at 2:21 AM, Thomas Meagher said:

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? 

literally go set yourself on fire.

 

also, suck my dick.

 

 

Edited by rollo
inserted 'go' because people here are fricking stupid and might have missed the point
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2018 at 7:04 PM, Buorhann said:

First and foremost, you need to realize that unless you drastically change the War module of this game - war slot filling will always be an issue, whether it's with beige mechanics or not.  Also, if defensive wars are the only ones that will get you beiged, that will not fix the issue you're having right now.  Maybe a little bit, but you'll still run into the same thing you're having here.

Second, like earlier, you can't keep altering your stance on the matter based on the number of reports.  You initially set the precedent that as long as damage was done, it's not war slot filling.  If people are being beiged, that literally fits the rule to what you've set in months past regarding the issue.

Third, you have to expect players to come up with creative ways to either find loopholes in the ruling or expand on new strategic moves.

You will always have mass member alliances or the few elite type alliances that will find creative ways to take advantage of the changes.

On 4/11/2018 at 7:31 PM, Horsecock said:

Not even loopholes, people are just figuring out effective ways to play the game within the rules that define the game, just like all players do and have always done in any game. In a good game design, you will see different strategies being applied depending on the situation the specific subset of players are in, and even on personal preference.

This sounds familiar. Politicians in a certain shithole state banned certain guns with detachable magazines. Gun owners found how to comply with the rule (bullet button) and it gets called a "loophole." They were trying to comply with the law, not get around it. Then, they changed it so the magazine had to be fixed and you would have to disassemble the gun (defined as separating the upper and lower) to reload. Well, people made lowers and uppers that would separate, but stayed connected to each other using a fulcrum. The politicians cried "loophole" again. Then people started removing the scary features that were banned and going featureless. Then that became a "loophole." There's no way to win when politicians (or Sheepy in our case) have their end goal decided and just want to diplomatically get what they want. Sheepy wants to cater to casual players to increase the player base, likely for money or a better resume. You can see this by his whole speech about people on the forums being the "vocal minority." Even as we point out flaws in his arguments, he continues unphased. 

Sheepy is literally Feinstein now. 

On 4/12/2018 at 8:00 PM, Jodo said:

Wasn't this suggested back in like, 2015? 

I seem to remember that now you say it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, sure, let people who just won a war on the now non-beiged guy declare another one one immediately. Removing beige altogether is the most moronic idea ever.

Just make it so that the timer can't increase. If someone gets beiged and is in multiple wars, and then gets beiged again, the timer stays where it is. There's your nerf. Just don't remove it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, TitoBroz said:

Yeah, sure, let people who just won a war on the now non-beiged guy declare another one one immediately. Removing beige altogether is the most moronic idea ever.

Just make it so that the timer can't increase. If someone gets beiged and is in multiple wars, and then gets beiged again, the timer stays where it is. There's your nerf. Just don't remove it.

Honestly this sounds fine. Maybe at most, just have consecutive beiges reset the timer to 2.1 days, if say the second beige comes in 3 turns later. 

I don't think it's really necessary, especially since it could be abused pretty easily, but its a compromise.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I will not be sorry to see war beige go. It is a flawed concept, it attempts to force a winning party to do so something against their best interest, namely giving their enemy a chance to rebuild and counter. Any mechanic that operates in this manner is flawed as the wining side will always attempt to get around it, see the current clusterfrick. Unless you make circumventing it so damaging that having to refight your enemy entirely is a better option, unfortunately this route fails in that this type of mechanic becomes unwieldy in an effort to obtain balance if it ever does. (The resistance system was a literally an attempt to do this.)  Moreover, its not really effective at what it was designed to do, which is stop one sided beat downs. It is honestly better to removed it entirely and other mechanics to serve the purpose added. And such mechanics don't even need to be directly tied to the war system, making rebuilds easier particularly after a beat down is a valid route. As would other changes that make it undesirable to drag out wars for both sides.

Also for those of you talking about beginner beige, this doesn't hurt newbies really as alex isn't saying he's getting rid of beginner protection. If anything this actually benefits them indirectly by making it easier to implement special mechanics for them as beige would become a color only for newbies.

 

tl;dr Beige doesn't do what it was designed to do and creates a convoluted cluster that makes no sense and generates a moderation headache, when other options could do the job better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i say just get rid of the multiple beiging, once you're beige you don't get more beige time by losing a war unless you leave beige, can this be exploited still? yeah, but still not as much as the current biege system

also allow nations to switch back to their color out of biege without waiting the full biege timer to expire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, ukunaka said:

also allow nations to switch back to their color out of biege without waiting the full biege timer to expire.

I thought you could already do this? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If nations on beige automatically accepted any peace offers for any wars, that would remove a lot of the situations where people would abuse it.

1) It would give people who are loosing a war to a beiged nation an out.  It would keep beige from being something someone uses to avoid being countered while they war still in a competitive war against an active opponent.

2) It would stop a lot of the war slot filling where nations avoid attacking someone because they don't want to add to that nation's beige timer.

Edited by Azaghul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, WISD0MTREE said:

I thought you could already do this? 

only to grey by attacking another nation, not to your actual alliance color

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2018 at 10:03 PM, Dr Rush said:

it attempts to force a winning party to do so something against their best interest, namely giving their enemy a chance to rebuild and counter.

ANYTHING that causes game balance and opportunities for the losing side is against the best interests of the winning side. Fairness is against the best interests of all sides. That's why cheating exists. That's why exploits are abused. That's why sheepy was shilled and spammed into removing fortify and why IQ kept reporting their enemies.

I've tried to rally support behind fairness initiatives before, but they have always failed because no-one can act so stupidly as to give their opponents a fighting chance and still remain able to compete, if they're using the same resources and options that their enemies are and their enemies are playing to win. Therefore, balance, fairness, and good sportsmanship absolutely must be mechanically forced. Sure, players are going to look for strategies to win in spite of or through those mechanics, but that just means the mechanics need to be sufficient to force the winners to do something that is against their best interest... which is to allow the game to continue, be fun, and have multiple competing sides.

In order to be won, the game must end. The only way to end the game is to prevent all opponents, existing and potential, from playing at all. This can absolutely be done via absolutely constant blockade cycling and attrition, or it can be done by insane toxicity. I've seen it happen and it is a nightmare that even describing in passing detail would be grounds for a permanent ban. Mechanics enforcing and deliberately tending towards balance can solve the first threat, the second requires a hard-skinned moderation team that isn't going to roll over and screw the mechanics and enable toxicity because they're willing to cave to player pressure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2018 at 10:38 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.

Simple solution:

If you're beiged, you lose a city.

If you beige someone, you gain a city.

That's not hard to figure out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dubayoo said:

Simple solution:

If you're beiged, you lose a city.

If you beige someone, you gain a city.

That's not hard to figure out.

And so it came to pass; that IQ turned upon itself and fed their cities unto Roquentin until his count surpassed 100. Grumpy ate Nuke Bloc cities until Nuke Bloc began unironically nuking single-city nations. And each alliance with the word 'knight' in their name ate each other until the day when Arrgh's admiralty finally were in range to hit Roquentin and thus blockaded him, shattering both spheres and both exposing and crippling the totality of the NPO deep state. And thus the pirates inherited the earth as well as the sea, and all saw that this was good.
 

 

If you, or anyone, wants to hear the full story of when the pirates did loot and capture the entire galaxy and everything in it, almost entirely due to this exact proposed mechanic, I'll be glad to tell it, though I make no guarantees that you'll believe it.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
Storytime anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a RADICAL effing idea. 

 

 

Remove beige altogether and remove nation the declare limit, as well as the amount of wars you can declare. Add a new player grace period of X score or X cities to prevent piling on new players. Let the game self regulate itself with how the wars work, maybe we then we can stop having a bunch of players unable to interact despite having the same amount of cities and shit, just because they're lower score.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Beatrix said:

Here's a RADICAL effing idea. 

 

 

Remove beige altogether and remove nation the declare limit, as well as the amount of wars you can declare. Add a new player grace period of X score or X cities to prevent piling on new players. Let the game self regulate itself with how the wars work, maybe we then we can stop having a bunch of players unable to interact despite having the same amount of cities and shit, just because they're lower score.

I remember a game like that... players quitted en mass because an entire alliance could be sat on by a single behemoth and that happened more often than one would think.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for necroing a dead thread, however, I just wanted to share some of my own ideas!

---

The problem with beiging is that its an artificial control system. In a true simulation, natural controls will be put into place organically to desensitize aggressors from wanting to repeatedly attack the same nation over and over again without pause. Its a fundamental issue with this game, and most games in this genre have the same issue with their war system and economy systems. No amount of artificial regulation will ever solve an issue, because people will just find and make new issues and try to game the system. 

So, what do I suggest?
The best thing to do is have natural variables put into place and allow controls to be organically developed. Remove all absolute Limiters such as:
- 3 Defensive Wars
- Max turn limit on wars
- 5 Max Offensive Wars
- Not being able to attack people who are beiged.

These all restrict player freedoms, and instead add a common sense war popularity/war weariness stat similar to in Civilization that should do exactly what you think it should do. A war going on too long and people are tired of their kids getting sent to die in a war they don't care about anymore? Attacking a weak nation with your super strong military? Wasting time by not finishing up a war you're clearly winning? Protests and weariness.

Adding war weariness and/or war popularity adds a natural variable that then creates common sense organic controls. If a nation has no war popularity and has too high war weariness, then the nation will have large debuffs reducing its capacity of production, recruitment, trade, etc. Alternatively, if a nation has high war popularity - then a nation could even have slight buffs going into a war.

This stops players from relying solely on war as it incentivizes rest periods and decentivizes prolonged engagements. Furthermore, nations could also gain massive war weariness if they attack nations far weaker than theirs rather than have a bullshit (pardon my language) "war score" limit which is an artificial and absolute control, causing nations to "game" the system to gain an edge (note: all absolute and artificial regulations/controls will and can be gamed). Instead, if large players attack tiny players, they would gain such large penalties to their nation that - while yes, of course, its possible to wage war, there's no real reason to do it since you will not benefit, and actually be harmed due to the debuffs that you will immediately incur from it. 

Furthermore as a protection similar to beiging through this natural system, if a player's nations have high war weariness or low war support, then any attackers attacking them will have increased war weariness as people would be wary against beating up an underdog. Same with having a ton of people gang up on one guy. Perhaps someone who has a lot of offensive wars would give higher war popularity (or lower per turn war weariness) to nations that attacked it (e.g. allies attacking the war-hungry ww2 germans). 

The game could even remove another bullshit artificial limiter which is the max war turns. The longer the war goes on for the aggressor, the more exponentially higher the war weariness penalty is for whichever party is in the lead (e.g. you're winning a war, your people will be angry that you're not ending it - so popular in your nation falls).

This system is natural, seems realistic rather than a random "oh 3 people are already fighting this dude, sorry guy that absolutely hates this guy too - you cant join." and would be an amazing addition to the game. You could even add policies and buildings that would counter weariness or decrease it, such as propaganda centers (I know its already a thing, but perhaps rebrand it), or have war preparation policies.

The game should focus on creating variables and managing the effect certain actions have on these variables rather than create absolute limits which invites people to game the system. If you create artificial controls, then people will create artificial ways around it. You're just restricting player's freedoms. However, if you allow natural controls to develop and manage it through variables, then the only way people can get around them is through doing what makes sense.

SUMMARY OF SUGGESTIONS:

-> Implement a war weariness and/or war popularity stat.
-> Remove 3 Defensive Wars. Instead, let any amount attack but the more people that attack, the higher the weariness and lower popularity.
-> Remove Max turn limit on wars. Instead, the longer a war goes on, the more war weariness the winner will get and the higher the penalties.
-> Remove 5 Max Offensive Wars. Instead, the more wars that you wage against people - the higher your war weariness will be. A soft cap. (Perhaps actually have a hard cap of like 50 or something to stop trolls, or just such high penalties at this point that their nation will never recover.)
-> Remove beige. Instead, people who attack nations who have just lost a war and that has very low war popularity or weariness will gain massive debuffs and the defender will gain massive buffs. (e.g. a nation like Germany or Russia in ww2, when backed into a corner will become amazingly patriotic.) People can declare on these nations that just left a war, but they will get massive debuffs and the defender will get massive resource boosts, recruitment boosts, etc.

TL;DR: Too many absolute artificial limiters hurts the game and causes people to game the system. A simulation needs to have natural variables that create organic controls instead of artificial ones.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2018 at 9:56 AM, Kyle said:

-snip-

What you're suggesting is a whole-cloth redesign of the entire game, and to a degree of complexity that requires unreasonable levels of precision and constant adjustments from the development team (one guy). Paradox Interactive, for example, has a huge team of professionals working full-time jobs in order to (amongst other things) consistently push balance patches to Europa Universalis and Hearts of Iron, and they're still constantly adjusting variables to ensure that the balance is working as intended. Riot games does similar things with League of Legends, literally paying people full time salaries to maintain their otherwise remarkably self-balancing game. (I'd embed a youtube link here explaining how League of Legends' cyclical balancing system is a masterwork of innovative game design, and probably should since it's exactly what you are saying you want, but I'd rather not break up my post with a video frame. Just look up Extra Credits' video about "perfect imbalance".) Only both of those are running major studios with valuable IP and can throw around millions of dollars to do this; this game is one dude's college side project while he works on his economics degree. Now, sure, it'd be amazing if we could expect Alex to be able to give us what we want with the quality, precision, and consistency of a world-class game studio, but that's millions of dollars out of his own pocket without any reason to believe that he'd get that investment back. We have to make do with hard limits to enforce what balance is available to us, and Alex has to maintain and enforce those limits against egregious exploitation. The fact is, Politics and War is actually a really well balanced game considering the constraints and lack of experience of the developer, and while it could definitely be better (fortify 10 resistance 4 action points was PERFECT damnit) it is apparently still pretty good.

Meanwhile, attempting to ham-fistedly implement 'soft' limits to allow anyone to attack anyone would absolutely cause the game to be rendered unplayable, because it would thus be not merely possible but fundamentally inevitable for competition to end entirely. Any attempt at war would result in an unstable equilibrium, wherein whoever got ahead even slightly would therefore have more resources with which to get further ahead, thus getting more resources to get further ahead ad infinitum. As long as that remains true, then merely putting a cost on the dominant side won't help no matter how large that cost is, since they are simply better able to pay it than the less dominant side... Who under your system would in fact be crippled due to their numbers concentrating their weariness penalties while spreading out the penalties across the side with more players in it. Then everyone but the most cancerous bloc quits, and then the cancerous bloc ends up quitting themselves until the game goes completely derelict and nobody plays it at all. I've seen this happen to literally dozens of games, usually at the request of people that don't understand how balance must work in perpetual games and are just frustrated that they can't 'win' a game that must never, ever be allowed to be definitively 'won'.

Tl;dr: Your idea would be perfectly reasonable for a MOBA that's worth hundreds of millions of dollars, but it is an irresponsible suggestion to make for a perpetual nation-sim game developed and maintained by a single amateur developer.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2018 at 8:39 PM, ϟħ̧i̧₣ɫ̵γ͘ ̶™💪😤🗡 said:

beige is only induced on defensive wars, being on offense doesn't beige you.

1
 

this is a good idea, beige only happens on defensive wars, but don't nerf it, cause nations need time to rebuild or they are out with first war lost!

also, you need more incentive for attackers to beige the enemy, 10% loot especially in alliance wars doesn't mean much, and it's better to keep a nation down than to get that money 

On 4/11/2018 at 7:08 PM, Alex said:

there can't be an incentive to "want to be beiged" or for real attackers to not want to Beige. 

by increasing the loot, or doing improvement damage to beiged nations, you can reduce the incentive to get one's self beiged. also, increase the incentive of beigeing someone. 

fixing both issues. w/o taking the much needed time to replenish armies away from the losing side imo.

Edited by Arash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2018 at 8:09 PM, Azaghul said:

If nations on beige automatically accepted any peace offers for any wars, that would remove a lot of the situations where people would abuse it.

1) It would give people who are loosing a war to a beiged nation an out.  It would keep beige from being something someone uses to avoid being countered while they war still in a competitive war against an active opponent. 

2) It would stop a lot of the war slot filling where nations avoid attacking someone because they don't want to add to that nation's beige timer.

this is also a good idea, though i have not seen it happen before. usually, beiged nations are almost wiped out so they can't really win wars, also i think beige timer should be dependent on nation size, as a larger nations take longer to come back from 0. 

the issue of down declaring is also something that deserves a thread and suggestion box of itself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2018 at 10:20 AM, Arash said:

this is also a good idea, though i have not seen it happen before. usually, beiged nations are almost wiped out so they can't really win wars, also i think beige timer should be dependent on nation size, as a larger nations take longer to come back from 0. 

the issue of down declaring is also something that deserves a thread and suggestion box of itself

This just made me think of another idea:

Instead of being beiged destroying a certain percentage of a nation's infrastructure, it destroys a certain percentage of a nation's improvements.

Right now improvement destruction is pretty weak and ineffective because attacks don't destroy many improvements.  And improvement destruction tends to have a lot more of an impact on a nation's ability to fight in the short to mid term than it does on their mid and long term economy, compared to infra destruction which has a limited impact on someone's short and mid term ability to fight but has a big impact on mid to long term economy.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Azaghul said:

This just made me think of another idea:

Instead of being beiged destroying a certain percentage of a nation's infrastructure, it destroys a certain percentage of a nation's improvements.

Right now improvement destruction is pretty weak and ineffective because attacks don't destroy many improvements.  And improvement destruction tends to have a lot more of an impact on a nation's ability to fight in the short to mid term than it does on their mid and long term economy, compared to infra destruction which has a limited impact on someone's short and mid term ability to fight but has a big impact on mid to long term economy.

Upvoted. just can't cuz of limit

Share this post


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

Instead of being beiged destroying a certain percentage of a nation's infrastructure, it destroys a certain percentage of a nation's improvements.

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?

Edited by Buorhann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, 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?

We always want more.

Alex just gives us something we didn't ask for.

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • 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.