Jump to content

Beige paradox options


Sir Scarfalot
 Share

Options!  

29 members have voted

  1. 1. Options.

    • Keep beige as is.
    • Option 1, peace in our time
    • Option 2, frick pirates and frick micros
    • Option 3, pay for it
    • Get rid of beige, despite that being heinously stupid
      0
    • Keep beige as it is, but slot-filling and team beiging becomes legal and a recognized strategy
    • Beige protection is lost as soon as an offensive action is taken in extant wars


Recommended Posts

Three ideas to solve the beige conundrum.

1. If someone is beige, they automatically are forced to accept peace offers from any remaining combatants they're at war with. The others they're at war with are not forced to do anything similar, unless they're also beige, in which case either combatant can declare a unilateral peace at any time they wish. If both want to complete the war, they can do that (but who would)

2. If someone is beiged, then they automatically lose all the wars they've declared. And they are looted as such, and gain beige protection as such.

3. If someone is beige, they gain military action points for all extant wars at half rate.

All these options will immediately and permanently deal with the moderation paradox that recently happened, WITHOUT making the game completely unplayable for a ridiculously stupid reason.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
paradox, a paradox, a most bemusing pair of ox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

oooo tricky choice
I feel like the complaints are slightly valid, I went for option 3, especially if further beiges reduce MAP gain further, cause then they can still fight back but it slows em down
Option 1 further disincentives beiging so I don't like it, it would take us too much back to an old system where people avoid winning wars
Option 2 is also good but could damage a raiding style too much, its a counter raider's dream. But option 3 still allows for a counter raid to be effective as long as the people in the other wars are active. Frankly if you're inactive and at war you should be punished for that

As you sow, so shall you reap

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lilac Veritas said:

oooo tricky choice
I feel like the complaints are slightly valid, I went for option 3, especially if further beiges reduce MAP gain further, cause then they can still fight back but it slows em down
Option 1 further disincentives beiging so I don't like it, it would take us too much back to an old system where people avoid winning wars
Option 2 is also good but could damage a raiding style too much, its a counter raider's dream. But option 3 still allows for a counter raid to be effective as long as the people in the other wars are active. Frankly if you're inactive and at war you should be punished for that

Honestly option 2 kind of makes conventional raiding more attractive. It'd make it impossible to raid while under cheeky beige protection, like if you got ultra countered but you declared your next set of raids just before they triple beiged you so the new targets couldn't counter with their own dudes (which is a perfectly legitimate and fair strategy btw, assuming there's no collusion between the initial counters and the raider), but you WOULD be able to raid and expect to escape salty counters without being sentenced to perma-blockade (just perma-jumped-on after your beige is up, but that's life). Unless of course all 8 of your enemies chose to throw the war, in which case... well, missile 'em to the ground and laugh while playing keno with their money.

On top of this, it would make slot-filling unnecessary and unviable too, which eliminates two major moderation problems with one simple fix.

Less cheek, more honest piracy. Make P&W pirate again.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just keep it the way it is and make it a warnable/bannable offence to slot fill/beige to ensure loot. It sucks for raiders but thats not what beige was meant to be and is not really tactical in nature either. That's a difficult line to define and deserves a greater conversation but the beige system as is works fine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if they made it so you lose your beige protection when you launch an offensive attack in another war? That way if a person was really screwed they could continue to turtle and not have more war declared and it still gives some leeway to inactives. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Leopold von Habsburg said:

What if they made it so you lose your beige protection when you launch an offensive attack in another war? That way if a person was really screwed they could continue to turtle and not have more war declared and it still gives some leeway to inactives. 

Hm. I'll add it to the list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

so what happened that everyone is up in arms again?

T$ whale got mega looted. Cried to admin since the raiders were smart and used the beige they were going to get from earlier counters (or bounty hunters, one of the two) to their advantage and they couldn't be countered properly. Shifty reported on it. Sheepy threatened to remove beige entirely again since he doesn't like doing his job.

So, y'know, business as usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/10/2018 at 9:54 PM, Lilac Veritas said:

oooo tricky choice
I feel like the complaints are slightly valid, I went for option 3, especially if further beiges reduce MAP gain further, cause then they can still fight back but it slows em down
Option 1 further disincentives beiging so I don't like it, it would take us too much back to an old system where people avoid winning wars
Option 2 is also good but could damage a raiding style too much, its a counter raider's dream. But option 3 still allows for a counter raid to be effective as long as the people in the other wars are active. Frankly if you're inactive and at war you should be punished for that

How is option 3 better?
No, really. Explain it to me. Use some logical, rational thought and explain it.

Removing beige is bad right, it makes the aggressor almost always the victor, since the attacker gets advantage in big wars. So, how, exactly, is option 3 better than that? All that's going to happen is that the defender in a war is going to be screwed if their opponent is even slightly competent. No hilarious missile beiges from Scarf while being rolled by TKR. The point of not removing it is to not screw over people on the losing side from coming back. You did this and that's what would happen. 

IQ's pullback in Ayyslamic Crusade would never have been what it was if you had this crap going.

 

Frankly all of these suggestions sound absolutely worse than what currently exists. One is even named 'Frick raiders and micros" mate those people are fricked already why you lookin to go further. 

 

Honestly keep it as is and legalize the team beigeing, etc. Why?

 

On 9/11/2018 at 11:05 AM, Shadowthrone said:

Just keep it the way it is and make it a warnable/bannable offence to slot fill/beige to ensure loot. It sucks for raiders but thats not what beige was meant to be and is not really tactical in nature either. That's a difficult line to define and deserves a greater conversation but the beige system as is works fine. 

This is why. Just because you disapprove of something does rewrite causality to make it non factual Sorry friendo, but that is indeed tactical. Do you know what tactics even means or are? That's the definition of tactical. It's like having an army of swordsmen against an enemy entrenched on a hill with mostly archers. So you attack at night in the rain. Because the night makes it hard for them to see and the rain fricks with their bows and the arrows once fired. Is that what the night or rain was meant for? Of course not, they're just natural mechanics of our world, they become tactical when you take advantage of their advantage of their effects.

That's literally textbook what tactics even is. Even better coming from an NPO member - beige isn't there for you stop just short of inflicting it and sit on the war til it ends. According to Sheepy's definition of it, that's slot-filling, you declared a war with NO INTENT to actually win it, instead, stopping short and sitting there. That's like if i stopped hitting Dragon right now, he's one naval IT away from beige, 0 ships, and i've been one shipping him. I imagine T$ is upset i took the slot already, can you imagine how many complaints Alex would get if i did that?

Mechanics are always going to be abused, you can't prevent it. Institute any of these suggestions and i guarantee new cheesey, clever little uses of them -  uses that weren't intended - will arise. Will they be illegal too, because it's an unintended consequence? 

 

Here's an ever better suggestion than changing the legality of slotfilling/team beigeing. @Alex Hire or find someone, find meaning a volunteer, who won't mind doing the moderating instead. Maybe multiple someones. Cause you're probably better off, financially, with volunteers, and that means players, which means lots and lots of bias. I'll volunteer right now, i have too much free time, and there aren't many people less biased than me. You see, i'm quite happy to see everybodys nations and alliance go down in chaotic hellfire just so i can watch with "He's a pirate" playing as i sip Captain Morgan mixed with coke. And if any such volunteers make a decision that comes into question, you can create a fancy system whereby the other moderators will take a look, i'd say pass it up to the admin but we're trying to avoid you in the system here. Add in other rules to them, like for example if you're in oh say, NPO as a mod and you're fighting Rose and KT again and some KT guys get accused of whatever the frick, you would have to let a different moderator or moderators not involved in said conflict review it. Simple stuff. If they abuse this power, you own the crap, pick from a wide array of decorative and terrifying hammers and swing. 

Because in  the end at least we will moderators who actually want to do their job. A moderator who doesn't want to do their job is likely not to be very good at it either.

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

1 hour ago, Komiko said:

Here's an ever better suggestion than changing the legality of slotfilling/team beigeing. @Alex Hire or find someone, find meaning a volunteer, who won't mind doing the moderating instead. Maybe multiple someones. Cause you're probably better off, financially, with volunteers, and that means players, which means lots and lots of bias. I'll volunteer right now, i have too much free time, and there aren't many people less biased than me. You see, i'm quite happy to see everybodys nations and alliance go down in chaotic hellfire just so i can watch with "He's a pirate" playing as i sip Captain Morgan mixed with coke. And if any such volunteers make a decision that comes into question, you can create a fancy system whereby the other moderators will take a look, i'd say pass it up to the admin but we're trying to avoid you in the system here. Add in other rules to them, like for example if you're in oh say, NPO as a mod and you're fighting Rose and KT again and some KT guys get accused of whatever the frick, you would have to let a different moderator or moderators not involved in said conflict review it. Simple stuff. If they abuse this power, you own the crap, pick from a wide array of decorative and terrifying hammers and swing. 


Because in  the end at least we will moderators who actually want to do their job. A moderator who doesn't want to do their job is likely not to be very good at it either.

If we're going to get a moderator tribunal from the playerbase a la League of Legends, an idea which I wholeheartedly support btw, then those moderators should very much be anonymous. Just like the forum moderators, and for the same reasons.

(that said I also volunteer, same reasons as Komiko but hold the rum, I'll just have the coke thx)

1 hour ago, Komiko said:

hilarious missile beiges from Scarf

❤️

 

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

If we're going to get a moderator tribunal from the playerbase a la League of Legends, an idea which I wholeheartedly support btw, then those moderators should very much be anonymous. Just like the forum moderators, and for the same reasons.

(that said I also volunteer, same reasons as Komiko but hold the rum, I'll just have the coke thx)

That's a good idea too - if people don't know you're a mod they can't try and screw with you over it. 

And to clarify, Alex, i'm not saying give these people admin powers, obviously. That'd be insane. Just the moderating part. :P

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Komiko said:

This is why. Just because you disapprove of something does rewrite causality to make it non factual Sorry friendo, but that is indeed tactical. Do you know what tactics even means or are? That's the definition of tactical. It's like having an army of swordsmen against an enemy entrenched on a hill with mostly archers. So you attack at night in the rain. Because the night makes it hard for them to see and the rain fricks with their bows and the arrows once fired. Is that what the night or rain was meant for? Of course not, they're just natural mechanics of our world, they become tactical when you take advantage of their advantage of their effects.

That's literally textbook what tactics even is. Even better coming from an NPO member - beige isn't there for you stop just short of inflicting it and sit on the war til it ends. According to Sheepy's definition of it, that's slot-filling, you declared a war with NO INTENT to actually win it, instead, stopping short and sitting there. That's like if i stopped hitting Dragon right now, he's one naval IT away from beige, 0 ships, and i've been one shipping him. I imagine T$ is upset i took the slot already, can you imagine how many complaints Alex would get if i did that?

Mechanics are always going to be abused, you can't prevent it. Institute any of these suggestions and i guarantee new cheesey, clever little uses of them -  uses that weren't intended - will arise. Will they be illegal too, because it's an unintended consequence? 

 

Firstly, not beiging is a wholly different conversation from having friends beige you and creating unfair circumstances. By trying to make the two seem the same at best an obfuscation of the issue. Having friends beige me to ensure that I cannot be attacked is literally abuse of the mechanic as a whole. Its taking the idea of beige to the extreme by having your slots filled with friendlies and is pretty much different from tactical beiging as commonly seen in global wars or alliance wars. No where does Alex call for a nation necessarily winning a war and as long as war expiration is legal, its a valid tactic. Slot filling on the other hand has always been outlawed and if it takes different forms requires the same action in  each case. I have never slot filled in a war nor what I've done in four global wars can amount to slot filling because my intention is literally to fight the war as outlined by Alex. The fact you try to connect the two is ridiculous and at best a deflection from the issue at hand. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Komiko said:

That's a good idea too - if people don't know you're a mod they can't try and screw with you over it. 

And to clarify, Alex, i'm not saying give these people admin powers, obviously. That'd be insane. Just the moderating part. :P

The volunteer moderators don't even really need any powers at all; they'd just be called in and given the relevant evidence by Alex as needed for them to make a judgement on how they believe admin should handle the situation. Sort of an advisory thing, that way they're not able to snoop on anyone's private bank transactions outside of a credible report being made. In fact identifying information that's otherwise confidential can even be redacted to ensure that moderation cannot possibly (or at least easily) be used as a spying tool or a weapon. Better safe than another stupid bounty identity fiasco.

7 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

No where does Alex call for a nation necessarily winning a war and as long as war expiration is legal, its a valid tactic.

The rules on slot-filling do specify that wars are supposed to be legitimately fought; that does imply to me that you are supposed to win wars you are able to. Otherwise, you are, whatever your relationship to the target may be, filling that slot.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

The volunteer moderators don't even really need any powers at all; they'd just be called in and given the relevant evidence by Alex as needed for them to make a judgement on how they believe admin should handle the situation. Sort of an advisory thing, that way they're not able to snoop on anyone's private bank transactions outside of a credible report being made. In fact identifying information that's otherwise confidential can even be redacted to ensure that moderation cannot possibly (or at least easily) be used as a spying tool or a weapon. Better safe than another stupid bounty identity fiasco.

The rules on slot-filling do specify that wars are supposed to be legitimately fought; that does imply to me that you are supposed to win wars you are able to. Otherwise, you are, whatever your relationship to the target may be, filling that slot.

 

The rule states that nations that do not have an intention to fight are slot filling. We are fighting, just dragging the fighting out longer which is fair under the rules. The cop out at the bottom is a cop out with regards to specifically having token attacks. The language further implies the importance of the intention and by stating our intent is to fill slots is silly. Generally we also carry no navy and hence usually end up getting beiged easier than our opponents but thats something we choose to allow happen to us. If you want to start regulating on that, go ahead. But the basis for such arguments are straw men at best. 

Edited by Shadowthrone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

 

Firstly, not beiging is a wholly different conversation from having friends beige you and creating unfair circumstances. By trying to make the two seem the same at best an obfuscation of the issue. Having friends beige me to ensure that I cannot be attacked is literally abuse of the mechanic as a whole. Its taking the idea of beige to the extreme by having your slots filled with friendlies and is pretty much different from tactical beiging as commonly seen in global wars or alliance wars. No where does Alex call for a nation necessarily winning a war and as long as war expiration is legal, its a valid tactic. Slot filling on the other hand has always been outlawed and if it takes different forms requires the same action in  each case. I have never slot filled in a war nor what I've done in four global wars can amount to slot filling because my intention is literally to fight the war as outlined by Alex. The fact you try to connect the two is ridiculous and at best a deflection from the issue at hand. 

It's not ridiculous at all. It'd be the exact same as if i stopped attacking Dragon right now and let it expire. The intention, made for and shipped, of the war system is to reduce your opponent to 0 resistance and beige them. Slot filling does not do that, and neither does your alliance. The former is wrong in your eyes because of that, so how is what you do any different? 

Whether it's a good strategy or not is irrelevant. It's the same practical thing. The comparison is only ridiculous because it implicates YOU directly, and YOUR alliance, because other alliances don't typically do this. Most alliances usually use the war mechanic exactly as the tin describing the mechanics says it should be. 

So what's difference? Last i checked, slot filling could still be slot filling, even if you - as i have - have lunched full scale attacks against your opponent. If you stop short of beiging and sit there though, you're just occupying a slot, just as i would be, just as any slot filler in game history did, just as NPO has done in its wars. 

Do you see the point, yet? Let me spell it out real blunt for you. The only difference between the typical slot filler you're talking about, and how you fight wars,  is just public perception. They're the exact same thing, the only difference, is how people respond when seeing it. NPO's literal go-to war strategy IS SLOT FILLING, case shut and closed, it's just a slightly different variant, done by different people. A civic and a civic with a spoiler are both still Honda Civics. The difference is, you added a spoiler to yours, and now you're claiming it's not a Honda Civic, but a Honda Accord. 

That's the mental gymnastics going on here. The thing is though, and this is just as key as the actual point, nobody is saying you are wrong or should be punished for it. Nobody thinks you should be. They are however, pointing out that you're the pot calling the kettle black, when you're only a shade lighter yourself. Recognize your own tactics, admit they are tactics, admit they are an inevitable consequence of the mechanics, and lastly; admit that that's fine. If everyone played games the way the creator intended that'd be boring as hell. 

Like this is the strongest reason for just legalizing it in the rules. Major alliances literally use it as a tactic in full-scale wars. 

As for your argument on intent, that doesn't change it either. The difference between Murder and Manslaughter is intent, but either way you go to prison for killing somebody. That's what you did, you killed somebody, your charge merely reflects what they believe lead up to and caused that. You and a slot filler, did the same thing, but for different reasons. Nobody bats at an eye at you, but the other guy is the one they go after. 

Intent matters in that it changes response to what was done, but it doesn't change what was done.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Komiko said:

It's not ridiculous at all. It'd be the exact same as if i stopped attacking Dragon right now and let it expire. The intention, made for and shipped, of the war system is to reduce your opponent to 0 resistance and beige them. Slot filling does not do that, and neither does your alliance. The former is wrong in your eyes because of that, so how is what you do any different? 

Whether it's a good strategy or not is irrelevant. It's the same practical thing. The comparison is only ridiculous because it implicates YOU directly, and YOUR alliance, because other alliances don't typically do this. Most alliances usually use the war mechanic exactly as the tin describing the mechanics says it should be. 

So what's difference? Last i checked, slot filling could still be slot filling, even if you - as i have - have lunched full scale attacks against your opponent. If you stop short of beiging and sit there though, you're just occupying a slot, just as i would be, just as any slot filler in game history did, just as NPO has done in its wars. 

Do you see the point, yet? Let me spell it out real blunt for you. The only difference between the typical slot filler you're talking about, and how you fight wars,  is just public perception. They're the exact same thing, the only difference, is how people respond when seeing it. NPO's literal go-to war strategy IS SLOT FILLING, case shut and closed, it's just a slightly different variant, done by different people. A civic and a civic with a spoiler are both still Honda Civics. The difference is, you added a spoiler to yours, and now you're claiming it's not a Honda Civic, but a Honda Accord. 

That's the mental gymnastics going on here. The thing is though, and this is just as key as the actual point, nobody is saying you are wrong or should be punished for it. Nobody thinks you should be. They are however, pointing out that you're the pot calling the kettle black, when you're only a shade lighter yourself. Recognize your own tactics, admit they are tactics, admit they are an inevitable consequence of the mechanics, and lastly; admit that that's fine. If everyone played games the way the creator intended that'd be boring as hell. 

Like this is the strongest reason for just legalizing it in the rules. Major alliances literally use it as a tactic in full-scale wars. 

As for your argument on intent, that doesn't change it either. The difference between Murder and Manslaughter is intent, but either way you go to prison for killing somebody. That's what you did, you killed somebody, your charge merely reflects what they believe lead up to and caused that. You and a slot filler, did the same thing, but for different reasons. Nobody bats at an eye at you, but the other guy is the one they go after. 

Intent matters in that it changes response to what was done, but it doesn't change what was done.

 

The only mental gymnastics I see here are the ones put forth by folks who wish to connect dots where none exist. The slot filling rule in and off itself lies in intent. Thats the way Alex framed it and thats the most common sensical approach to the system. The intent behind the NPO is not to abuse or by extent protect the opponent nation from further attacks. The abuse comes in if that was the point and that really is not. What you're trying to do is to delegitimise my argument based on connections which are weak at best. The intent is not to slot fill. The intent is to win the war by maximising damage. 

In your case, I do not know the intent of why you entered the war, but if it was to maximise damage and not fill the slot to ensure tS cannot get a response, than thats fair game. If the intent is the latter than its slot filling and thats really where the fine line is drawn. The manslaughter/murder example is fine and dandy but works only if theres an intent to commit a crime at all. When there no crime committed, then that example does not work, just like how we have no intent to break the rules. 

Try harder. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/11/2018 at 1:35 PM, Leopold von Habsburg said:

What if they made it so you lose your beige protection when you launch an offensive attack in another war? That way if a person was really screwed they could continue to turtle and not have more war declared and it still gives some leeway to inactives. 

 

On 9/11/2018 at 1:38 PM, Sir Scarfalot said:

Hm. I'll add it to the list.



i agree with this but only when an action is used in a offensive war, if you keep fighting a defensive war after being bieged it shouldnt be removed.

(not sure if he meant that by offensive attack as that could be interpreted as such or just in general)

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.