Jump to content

No Beige If Recent Offensive War


Alex
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Administrators

To avoid moderation issues and basically just stupid abuse of the Beige system, I'm proposing what I believe is a minor gameplay change that will really only impact people trying to abuse the system.

My proposal is simply this: If you have declared an offensive war in the past 24 hours, and someone defeats you in a war, you do not get any Beige time.

I am talking a strict, actual 24 hour limit, not based on turns or the midnight update. I think this will eliminate any capacity for abuse like we've seen, without sharply diminishing Beige's role as a comeback mechanism for players that have really been defeated (and aren't trying to engage in additional offensive wars.)

Let me know your thoughts, and unless there are some major complaints, I will have this implemented live shortly.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 12

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

I'm fully against this as it won't stop the current meta like how you think it will. Just makes it even worse for the weaker side as the early rounds are even more if a slaughter if they decide to fight back or help eachother.

Edited by Malal
  • Upvote 3

Orbis Wars   |   CSI: UPN   |   B I G O O F   |   PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings

TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea.

On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said:
Sheepy said:

I'm retarded, you win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting idea... It wouldn't really damage blitzes that hard since it always, always takes at least 44 hours to win any given war (7 action points to start if we assume defender is blitzkrieg policy, 29 actions to do 5 navals 3 grounds, so 22 full turns).

That said this should very much go by TURNS and not by timestamp, so that we get the benefit of snore making it clear which side any given war is on.

Edit: There's still a huge problem in that this change makes pinning way more powerful of an exploit than it already was.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
blitzkrieg, not that anyone uses that crap
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
48 minutes ago, Malal said:

I'm fully against this as it won't stop the current meta like how you think it will.

It would absolutely eliminate the strategy of declaring a war right before you're about to get Beiged so that no one can counter you.

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

1 hour ago, Alex said:

It would absolutely eliminate the strategy of declaring a war right before you're about to get Beiged so that no one can counter you.

Actually, having thought about it, this would do that... but it would furthermore make the strategy of holding off on beiging WAY too powerful. I mean WAY, WAY too powerful. And that's a BIG problem.

All the aggressor has to do in order to ensure that no beige happens is wait until all the aggressive wars of his target expires or is won, then the guy doing the attacks can't follow through with anything since he'd be giving the guys pinning him the absolutely insurmountable advantage of a free refreshed defense slot. This should, if I am not mistaken, result in a lot of bullcrap 'you beige me' 'no you first' slot filling, basically making the strategy of pinning to expiration even more of an exploit than it already is. Not to mention you will get craploads of mails from newbies that weren't aware of the system asking why they're not beige. So, y'know, there's that. Exchange one headache for another.

Now, if the concept of war expiration could be changed so that when a war expires, the victor who gets loot and the defeated who gets beige is determined by who has the least resistance. If tied, the war expires without beige nor loot. That would work excellently with the proposed mechanic change here, and for that matter that should have been implemented years ago. I've suggested this like five times now...

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

5 hours ago, Alex said:

It would absolutely eliminate the strategy of declaring a war right before you're about to get Beiged so that no one can counter you.

So it stops T$ from getting raided again and everyone having a chuckle. Okay? Even though by all accounts i can see from talking to him personally, he was hit right after entering Arrgh. Even joked with us on the former members channel about some people just being haters. 

Yeah i don't see that as a problem. What i do see as a problem is that in big alliance wars it's not uncommon for you to lose at different times, and not uncommon for you to leave beige early and hit other targets. God forbid if your side is losing, because now you're screwed. People don't typically wait for all their wars to finish before striking out again or waiting out their week of beige before looking more enemies in big wars like that.

 

This ontop of what Scarf mentioned. Did you... not read a word i said in the other thread, Alex? I'll repeat it here for you again. No matter what you do, how you do it, how grand your plan and vision is, someone WILL find a cheeky, clever way to exploit the consequences of that, and then the person getting dunked on will complain. You're trying to avoid a problem that cannot be avoided. If you don't want to moderate, find people who do and let them do it.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Komiko said:

No matter what you do, how you do it, how grand your plan and vision is, someone WILL find a cheeky, clever way to exploit the consequences of that, and then the person getting dunked on will complain.

While I do agree with the fact that people will find loopholes, that doesn't mean it should stop Sheepy from trying to figure out a fix.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

While I do agree with the fact that people will find loopholes, that doesn't mean it should stop Sheepy from trying to figure out a fix.

That's not what he's trying to do, though. What he's trying to fix is his having to moderate anything by trying to stop exploits. That's not possible. The fact this would prevent something that isn't done very often just because a few people complained about it, all the while his fix creating an issue that will be much more prevalent, proves that.

It's the shortsighted thinking of somebody trying to quickly fix a nuisance that can't be fixed.

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

This will kill updeclaring. Being able to cycle your three updecs into beige and put another three nations in is just about key to being able to exhaust an enemy that has a lot more rebuying power. Without being able to do that it's going to drastically curtail the ability of nations with fewer cities to be able to coordinate to take out nations with significantly more.

There seems to be this tunnel focus on punishing the rest of the game for things Arrgh uses. I see the problem but it's using a sledgehammer to crack an egg.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
On 9/15/2018 at 12:52 PM, Prefontaine said:

The solution is doing your Job, @Alex. No matter the system you create, people will find ways to skirt the rules and do things to gain advantages. You will have to moderate. Suck it up.

The point of my suggestion, and in general tweaking game mechanics to eliminate this edge-case strategies, is not to eliminate moderation. You are correct, moderation will always be necessary; however, I would like to minimize it's necessity as much as possible.

This isn't just because I don't want to do more work, I'm pretty sure (you, in particular, but also the playerbase more generally) do not enjoy having pivotal game decisions be subject to my whims. I will never make a perfect decision, and the chances of me making an incorrect decision in any given situation is at least worth considering. If I were you (a player, generally) I would want the rules and mechanics as clear-cut as possible to minimize the possibility of moderation bias.

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

3 hours ago, Alex said:

The point of my suggestion, and in general tweaking game mechanics to eliminate this edge-case strategies, is not to eliminate moderation. You are correct, moderation will always be necessary; however, I would like to minimize it's necessity as much as possible.

This isn't just because I don't want to do more work, I'm pretty sure (you, in particular, but also the playerbase more generally) do not enjoy having pivotal game decisions be subject to my whims. I will never make a perfect decision, and the chances of me making an incorrect decision in any given situation is at least worth considering. If I were you (a player, generally) I would want the rules and mechanics as clear-cut as possible to minimize the possibility of moderation bias.

You do realize that if rather than tweaking the mechanics, you instead tweak the rules to be less restrictive, then both the rules and mechanics immediately become completely and 100% fully clear-cut? That is one very easy way to completely eliminate all possibility of moderation bias. Mechanics are self-enforcing; if anyone outright hacks the system then their actions are at least clearly and obviously in the wrong.

Of course you would need to balance the mechanics around the possibilities that the mechanics present, and there are definitely improvements to be made in that department (war expiration results in beige rather than stalemate, please please I'm literally begging you right now it would solve slotfilling and basically everything); but the suggestion outlined in the OP would for sure cause more problems than it would ever solve. You've seen arguments against it from 3 disparate blocs, which shows that our objections aren't motivated by ingame benefit (as so many suggestions tend to be).

The mechanics aren't what's unclear here, only the rules and the enforcement thereof. So why 'fix' the part that isn't broken?

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
bit of grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/15/2018 at 1:48 AM, Auctor said:

This will kill updeclaring. Being able to cycle your three updecs into beige and put another three nations in is just about key to being able to exhaust an enemy that has a lot more rebuying power. Without being able to do that it's going to drastically curtail the ability of nations with fewer cities to be able to coordinate to take out nations with significantly more.

There seems to be this tunnel focus on punishing the rest of the game for things Arrgh uses. I see the problem but it's using a sledgehammer to crack an egg.

Reposting cause it's a good point ?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

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.