Jump to content

Changing Beige


Raphael
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi.

Beige is meant as a savior mechanic for losers in a war. Regardless of if the community actually beiges people or not, the mechanic is slightly flawed.

So instead of beige being a static number of turns based on a simple loss, I have a few changes that will determine how long you stay in beige.

 

Basically the idea is that when you lose a war you get a percentage of the current beige time depending on your current military. It would use your maximum possible military based on your city count.

Say you somehow go into beige with maximum military, you get 1 turn of beige.

You go in with 0% military, you get your full 24 turns (I think it's 24 turns?)

 

I also propose that damage (not loot) scale on the same principle. If you beige an opponent with max military you do 1% infra damage, if you beige an opponent with 0 military you do 10% infra damage (current max).

 

The only reason I exempt beige loot/alliance bank loot from this is raiding is often meant to go in and cause as little actual damage as possible so it wouldn't be very fair to nerf loot to those people.

 

tl;dr - make beige turns/damage a sliding scale based on how bad you got beat rather than a static number.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would max military be defined by score of military units present? For example if your max score of military units is 3000 and you have only planes. What I'm getting at is this would be an interesting change if accompanied with plane increase in score.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say this suggestion would work best if beige time in general was increased substantially as well.

That said, all wars resulting in beige would fix everything ever.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

What would this even improve? Take my alliance for example, we mainly only use planes, so all our other units will be more or less 0% so we would always have full beige.

That's why I inquired if itd go by score of units. If it did, and planes score was increased, would actually necessitate a change in thinking. I don't think it'd completely revolutionize strategies but it would add more to it.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tiberius said:

What would this even improve? Take my alliance for example, we mainly only use planes, so all our other units will be more or less 0% so we would always have full beige.

Beige as a mechanic is intended to shelter "losers" from further curbstomping.

With my suggestion the less you lose, the less beige turns you get.

 

Edit: your alliance's strategy would have to then factor in the new  beige design. More beige would benefit you though, right? My thought is to improve the intention of the mechanic, not necessarily reinforce the meta.

Edited by Bartholomew Roberts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Bartholomew Roberts said:

-snip-

The numbers are unbalanced, but the core concept is really solid. And these are the circumstances under which you can remove or diminish offensive beiges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't fix what isn't broken. Beige time can always be exited at will you are not forced to endure the allotted time frame. You are trying to put the decision making in the hands of game mechanics which could make the game less fun and more bland. 

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson

You will never get it to how everyone would want it, there will always be someone who complains and that viewpoint would change depending on if they are winning or losing the war.

Let me put it this way, Coalition A vs Coalition B.

At the start of the war, Coalition A is winning, they refuse to beige anyone in order to do as much damage as possible, more than likely would vote to have beige removed they are winning.

Two weeks later, Coalition B is ripping Coalition A apart, Now Coalition A complains removing Beige is unfair, you can keep someone down forever without any chance of them being able to rebuild.

This is how almost every war will go, the winning side is happy to have beige changes so they can get more damage in, the losing side thinks it's unfair.

Now if you really want to be fair then its a simple way to do it yet most will not like it, IF you lose a war all your wars end, your attacking wars and defending, you just lost this means your military failed and the second that happens all your tanks, troops, planes and ships should be removed due to that lost. As your wars have all ended you get 24 turns of peace to rebuild what you can before re-entering the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Elijah Mikaelson said:

You will never get it to how everyone would want it, there will always be someone who complains and that viewpoint would change depending on if they are winning or losing the war.

Let me put it this way, Coalition A vs Coalition B.

At the start of the war, Coalition A is winning, they refuse to beige anyone in order to do as much damage as possible, more than likely would vote to have beige removed they are winning.

Two weeks later, Coalition B is ripping Coalition A apart, Now Coalition A complains removing Beige is unfair, you can keep someone down forever without any chance of them being able to rebuild.

This is how almost every war will go, the winning side is happy to have beige changes so they can get more damage in, the losing side thinks it's unfair.

Now if you really want to be fair then its a simple way to do it yet most will not like it, IF you lose a war all your wars end, your attacking wars and defending, you just lost this means your military failed and the second that happens all your tanks, troops, planes and ships should be removed due to that lost. As your wars have all ended you get 24 turns of peace to rebuild what you can before re-entering the war.

Actually, my stance that all wars should result in beige has been consistent ever since fortify was nerfed. If anything, both coalitions have pretty consistently agreed on the matter that beige should not be removed, so please frick off with those accusations of inconsistency. Yes, there's some debate as to exactly how beige should be tweaked, but when the idea was floated that offensive losses should not result in beige it was shot down by both coalitions as stupid and unfair. Which it was.

As for your suggestion, hell yes most will not like something that ridiculously stupid. That suggestion would result in ground battle rushdowns to obliterate enemy military being the ONLY viable tactic in the meta. On top of that, 24 turns to rebuild? That's 3 buys at best. Know what you can max out with 3 buys? Nothing, not even soldiers since you'd have no reserves to pull on. That would be horrifically unfair for coalition B, since the whales would just need to burn through their aircraft by sheer ground/naval rushdowns. And yeah, I just called out something that would be unfair in my team's favor as unfair.

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

Maybe make beige time dependent on how long the war lasted. Quicker war, shorter beige and longer war, longer beige. If wars expire, then whoever has lower resistance gets beige. Or alternatively make beige more damaging so people want to win more often.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Menace said:

Maybe make beige time dependent on how long the war lasted. Quicker war, shorter beige and longer war, longer beige. If wars expire, then whoever has lower resistance gets beige. Or alternatively make beige more damaging so people want to win more often.

Making beige more damaging would do nothing since the whole reason beige is broken is that there's a way to prevent enemies from getting the benefits of beige; benefits that MUST exist in order to keep the game playable. That's why I've constantly been suggesting that very thing about wars expiring causing beige for the lower resistance.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to be a lot of bad suggestions during war when people want it changed to suit their situation. Although people need sleep, etc. Reducing beige time is a bad idea for player retention if you make their lives revolve around the game 24/7 without any breaks. Doing so all wars beige or at least give a break from war if someone uses it is the best change I’ve heard wanted for beige.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson
14 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Actually, my stance that all wars should result in beige has been consistent ever since fortify was nerfed. If anything, both coalitions have pretty consistently agreed on the matter that beige should not be removed, so please frick off with those accusations of inconsistency. Yes, there's some debate as to exactly how beige should be tweaked, but when the idea was floated that offensive losses should not result in beige it was shot down by both coalitions as stupid and unfair. Which it was.

As for your suggestion, hell yes most will not like something that ridiculously stupid. That suggestion would result in ground battle rushdowns to obliterate enemy military being the ONLY viable tactic in the meta. On top of that, 24 turns to rebuild? That's 3 buys at best. Know what you can max out with 3 buys? Nothing, not even soldiers since you'd have no reserves to pull on. That would be horrifically unfair for coalition B, since the whales would just need to burn through their aircraft by sheer ground/naval rushdowns. And yeah, I just called out something that would be unfair in my team's favor as unfair.

Well, most things are unfair when you are losing am I right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Frawley
On 7/15/2019 at 7:27 AM, Sir Scarfalot said:

I'd say this suggestion would work best if beige time in general was increased substantially as well.

That said, all wars resulting in beige would fix everything ever.

Yeah, for your side, back to the easy days of carefree kerbstomps, where you never had to worry about losing pole position.

How about, no wars result in beige.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Frawley said:

Yeah, for your side, back to the easy days of carefree kerbstomps, where you never had to worry about losing pole position.

How about, no wars result in beige.

"I'll propose a change that would allow us to do what I criticize others for allegedly wanting to return to."

__fujiwara_no_mokou_touhou_drawn_by_shan
Either way, beige is in a pretty solid position at the moment, with beiging being a conscious choice between dealing more damage and giving your opponent some rebuild time, or forfeiting the damage to keep him down. All or no beige would remove that choice, and would would mostly just benefit Alex and his moderation tasks (which more or less was his motivation when he suggested to remove offensive beiges).

Edited by Shiho Nishizumi
Adjustment.
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

"I'll propose a change that would allow us to do what I criticize others for allegedly wanting to return to."

__fujiwara_no_mokou_touhou_drawn_by_shan
Either way, beige is in a pretty solid position at the moment, with beiging being a conscious choice between dealing more damage and giving your opponent some rebuild time, or forfeiting the damage to keep him down. All or no beige would remove that choice, and would would mostly just benefit Alex and his moderation tasks (which more or less was his motivation when he suggested to remove offensive beiges).

I mostly agree other then people beiging shouldn’t be a moderation task. If someone uses their offensive slots to take damage for some beige time; don’t need an investigation into whether they collaborated. Better to not care so much & just use an offensive slot on someone you know will beige if in a situation you thinks it’s worthwhile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

I mostly agree other then people beiging shouldn’t be a moderation task. If someone uses their offensive slots to take damage for some beige time; don’t need an investigation into whether they collaborated. Better to not care so much & just use an offensive slot on someone you know will beige if in a situation you thinks it’s worthwhile.

It is due to the (seemingly ever changing) stance Alex has regarding slotfilling. If it was just a constant "allies/co-belligerents don't take each other's defensive slots", then no, it wouldn't be one.

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

Just now, Shiho Nishizumi said:

It is due to the (seemingly ever changing) stance Alex has regarding slotfilling. If it was just a constant "allies/co-belligerents don't take each other's defensive slots", then no, it wouldn't be one.

Think he should take a stance it isn’t then. Personally if I ever felt the need, would probably just let an Arrgh nation beige me. Would be impossible for Alex to know whether planned it with the nation, just know them, or hit a random nation in Arrgh assuming they would.

So he can’t moderate it if losing a war intentionally for beige is a rule break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Frawley said:

Yeah, for your side, back to the easy days of carefree kerbstomps, where you never had to worry about losing pole position.

How about, no wars result in beige.

The suggestion I made, and has been agreed with by many on your side as well as mine in fact, prevents ANYONE from EVER being able to maintain "pole position", and your suggestion would make losing "pole position" impossible by ANY MEANS.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
take =/= maintain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Frawley
1 hour ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

The suggestion I made, and has been agreed with by many on your side as well as mine in fact, prevents ANYONE from EVER being able to maintain "pole position", and your suggestion would make losing "pole position" impossible by ANY MEANS.

This has been torn to shreds multiple times, and is demonstrably obvious, if you look at wars, if beige treated both sides (higher tiered and lower tiered) evenly, surely Coalition B would be going bananas with it right now.

But it doesn't, it gives advantage to nations with larger rebuilds, and would mean that tier v tier wars either would not happen, or would take even longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Frawley said:

This has been torn to shreds multiple times, and is demonstrably obvious, if you look at wars, if beige treated both sides (higher tiered and lower tiered) evenly, surely Coalition B would be going bananas with it right now.

But it doesn't, it gives advantage to nations with larger rebuilds, and would mean that tier v tier wars either would not happen, or would take even longer.

Beige gives a demonstrable advantage to anyone that gets it, which is why both sides are indeed going bananas by desperately avoiding beige, and your coalition is going beyond the pale by demonstrably obvious scumbag means to achieve that avoidance.

Giving that advantage to the loser based on who has the lowest resistance at the end of the war does not actually give the advantage to the larger nation, since suicide attacks against them followed by their temporary victory simply open their defense slot for the next suicidal updeclare, which can eventually bring them down, especially with spy operations. Once done, that high tier nation gets a rebuild, but so do the updeclare nations. Who, due to score range, have the initiative the whole time. So quit that dishonest, self-serving crap about "oh but we want to be able to annihilate the whale for good"; nobody should ever under any circumstances be rendered unable to compete, not even your c20s.

Now, sure, it'd make wars fought for the specific purpose of chasing out competition from the game take longer. Which is a good thing. Such wars should never, ever have been the goal, but apparently your goal has been to do that the whole time, which is why you're salty at suggestions designed to prevent people from being chased out of competitive relevance.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Making beige more damaging would do nothing since the whole reason beige is broken is that there's a way to prevent enemies from getting the benefits of beige; benefits that MUST exist in order to keep the game playable. That's why I've constantly been suggesting that very thing about wars expiring causing beige for the lower resistance.

I agree that beige is in place to give nations time to recover from wars. However, there are some incentives that can be given to increase the amount people want to beige, without reducing the opposing nations ability to recover units. Presently winning a war destroys a small amount of infrastructure and steals some loot, not really harming a nations ability to recover, as it should. I propose having an option after winning a war to get added benefits, much like war policies are now. For example, "looting" option could steal an additional 40%, like pirate. "Scorched earth", increases infra destroyed by 10%. Perhaps something mimicking blitzkreig, "insurgency" for 24 hours after leaving beige the nation receives 10% more casualties. "Double agent", for X hours after leaving beige the enemy nation is 15% more susceptible to spy operations. These last two suggestions should probably be limited to one per beige (so if one allied nation puts insurgency on the nation another cannot) because stacking could get crazy. When you win a war you get to pick one of these options, making more people want to defeat an opponent. Add a little icon on the war history page next to defeat to show the type of loss and allow for planning. This would add a layer of strategy and I like the idea of things in threes; a war policy before the war, a war type when declaring, and a victory type.

Beige is a necessity to recover, but people should not want to lose wars either.

 

 

 

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.