Jump to content

Removal of Beige


Tiberius
 Share

Recommended Posts

My suggestion is to remove the beige mechanic and replace it with the following:

 

  • War period last 3-5 days (dependent on what the community prefers)
  • Wars start off with 0 MAPs, to remove the advantage of first strike
  • MAP generation changes to 1 every 3 hours if wars last 5 days, or stays the same if wars last 3 days.
  • You can carry out as many attacks over the war period as MAPs allow, removing the resistance mechanic.
  • At the end of the war period the Nation who has done the most damage loots the Nation who has done the least damage
  • Implement a "safe mode" - if you are not involved in any wars you can enter safe mode. For the first 3-5 days you get the 500k bonus that is currently given if you are in beige mode. However every day you are in safe mode after that first 3-5 days incurs a -250k cumulative penalty. I.e day 6 $250k benefit, day 7 0k, day 8 -250k.

In my opinion, this will ensure that everyone will fight to try and win wars. Players will still have the opportunity to hit safe mode to rebuild, but if they do so to hide from war it will eventually become economically devastating. Players will still be able to loot.

Edited by Tiberius
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. There are much better solutions. For example this could bed fixed by just giving nations biege time when any war expires if the resistance the nation has is below a certain amount(or maybe even to whatever nation has less resistance). While not applying loot/infra damage as no one won the war. This would be like the united nations enforcing a ceasefire in a war and stopping future conflict for a short time. This would incentivize winning the war instead of just not ending it.  Effectively this would allow bieges to serve there original purpose

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, lightside said:

I disagree. There are much better solutions. For example this could bed fixed by just giving nations biege time when any war expires if the resistance the nation has is below a certain amount(or maybe even to whatever nation has less resistance). While not applying loot/infra damage as no one won the war. This would be like the united nations enforcing a ceasefire in a war and stopping future conflict for a short time. This would incentivize winning the war instead of just not ending it.  Effectively this would allow bieges to serve there original purpose

The problem here is that wars that include beige increase the length of alliance wars. There needs to be the opportunity for an alliance war to be won conclusively so that wars dont drag out for months/years. A further suggestion could be that post being in a war, you get a 50% discount on infra purchase costs. So while the war will be more damaging it is easier to rebuild post war. 

Edited by Tiberius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There should be a hard cap on the amount of beige a nation is allowed to have. Instead of additional losses adding 25 turns on top of a nation's current count, it should bring them back up to 25. No more 

ribbon - golden steak.png

Feeding the alliance, one conquest at a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, lightside said:

I disagree. There are much better solutions. For example this could bed fixed by just giving nations biege time when any war expires if the resistance the nation has is below a certain amount(or maybe even to whatever nation has less resistance). While not applying loot/infra damage as no one won the war. This would be like the united nations enforcing a ceasefire in a war and stopping future conflict for a short time. This would incentivize winning the war instead of just not ending it.  Effectively this would allow bieges to serve there original purpose

That doesn't fix the slot-filling issues, and it would actually exacerbate them. Under that formulation, instead of just the losing nation getting some free beige from a bunch of 1 ship attacks by a friendly "enemy," both friendly nations would get free beige.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beige is a load bearing beam in the rotten structure that is the war system. You can't just change it without having cascading consequences. Give how easy it is to be zeroed and how hard it is to build up in comparison, beige is not the most pressing issue surrounding war length. The necessity of drawing wars to allow the continual suppression of an opponent, with the lack of available counter-play on the losing side, needs a far more complex and all encompassing solution than making beige go away.

Hopefully the post war update will bring sweeping changes to the mechanics.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

The problem here is that wars that include beige increase the length of alliance wars. There needs to be the opportunity for an alliance war to be won conclusively so that wars dont drag out for months/years. A further suggestion could be that post being in a war, you get a 50% discount on infra purchase costs. So while the war will be more damaging it is easier to rebuild post war. 

The point of biege is too prevent nations from beng held down forever, Which is a good thing

13 minutes ago, Edward I said:

That doesn't fix the slot-filling issues, and it would actually exacerbate them. Under that formulation, instead of just the losing nation getting some free beige from a bunch of 1 ship attacks by a friendly "enemy," both friendly nations would get free beige.

If this happened this would count as slot filling and would be reported under the rules. So its not an issue

31 minutes ago, Valid User Name said:

There should be a hard cap on the amount of beige a nation is allowed to have. Instead of additional losses adding 25 turns on top of a nation's current count, it should bring them back up to 25. No more 

Honestly this would fix alot of problems with biege

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, lightside said:

If this happened this would count as slot filling and would be reported under the rules. So its not an issue

The burden of proof for slot filling is very high, it's easy to circumvent what restrictions do exist, and the mere incentive to slot fill (in the form of beige time) is problematic, including in Alex's view:

It's definitely an issue because, including in the eyes of the moderation staff, the current reporting and moderation system is flawed and inadequate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, lightside said:

If this happened this would count as slot filling and would be reported under the rules. So its not an issue

lol. this is something you should most definitely not rely on. a bunch of people thought the current thing going on is super obvious slot filling, but Alex prove us all wrong. Also, you would get beige time if you lose and if the war expires but not if you win right? Then that's an incentive not to win obviously.

Biggest-Bloc-1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson

Maybe the best bet is a stacking debuff.  So once you are at 12 MAP and you fail to attack you take a 5% debuff to all troops every turn, so if you sit at 12 MAP for one day you lose the use of 60% of your units, tanks, planes, troops and so on until you use all your MAP then it reset. This would fix one problem.

As for slot filling, simply change it so when someone orders an attack they have to send all troops they can not choice how many ships or planes they send in this would fix that issue as well, And yes when i was fighting i would use one ship attacks as i had nothing left to use and it was cheap.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Bjorn Ironside said:

Maybe the best bet is a stacking debuff.  So once you are at 12 MAP and you fail to attack you take a 5% debuff to all troops every turn, so if you sit at 12 MAP for one day you lose the use of 60% of your units, tanks, planes, troops and so on until you use all your MAP then it reset. This would fix one problem.

As for slot filling, simply change it so when someone orders an attack they have to send all troops they can not choice how many ships or planes they send in this would fix that issue as well, And yes when i was fighting i would use one ship attacks as i had nothing left to use and it was cheap.

 

people would just fortify to avoid this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently the game rewards mechanically losing wars so much that losing wars is actually desirable.
The very fact that people want to lose wars mechanically is the clearest possible sign that the current war system is completely and absolutely broken.

In my opinion, almost anything would be better than what we have now, and yes, that includes this suggestion. Additionally, the only big problem I see with this suggestion is the safe mode. As the suggestion currently stands, a nation isn't guaranteed the chance to enter safe mode it seems as before they get the chance, they could get declared on or have their wars staggered out.

Love you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2020 at 12:15 PM, durmij said:

Beige is a load bearing beam in the rotten structure that is the war system. You can't just change it without having cascading consequences. 

This is my concern with any changing to the war system.

Whatever change is made, just make sure that some problem is fixed and that things are not made worse. The worse case scenario with any fix is that nothing changes while those on the losing side have an even harder time fighting back. 

new_forum_sig_2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2020 at 12:15 PM, durmij said:

Beige is a load bearing beam in the rotten structure that is the war system. You can't just change it without having cascading consequences. Give how easy it is to be zeroed and how hard it is to build up in comparison, beige is not the most pressing issue surrounding war length. 

I find it crazy how often I see you post this exact post in the suggestion subforum lmao. I whole-heartedly agree that any change to beige will be devastating for the game unless other concurrent changes are made.

I would like to note that I support the removal of beige in favor of the addition of better recovery mechanics.

 

Things like:

- Buffs to Daily Troop Buy Amounts if you've just lost a war.

- Flatly increasing the amount of units each military improvement allows you to purchase per day.

- Some sort of non-VM peace mode where you take a significant debuffs to economy and military capacity.

- Reduced casualties

- Start wars with 0 MAP's, as Tiberius suggested.

On 1/14/2020 at 12:32 PM, Edward I said:

The burden of proof for slot filling is very high, it's easy to circumvent what restrictions do exist, and the mere incentive to slot fill (in the form of beige time) is problematic, including in Alex's view:

It's definitely an issue because, including in the eyes of the moderation staff, the current reporting and moderation system is flawed and inadequate.

I got reported for slot filling when I bought a treasure and raided the guy for it. Alex actually DM'd me on discord about it. It definitely gets looked into, even in questionable cases.

16 hours ago, Tymeier said:

Make nukes cost less points. I want to win with nukes

Add MIRVs

Or at least refund the 12 MAP's if your nuke gets shot down by the Iron Dome. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson
14 hours ago, Mandystalin said:

I can't support a penalty for hitting 12 MAPs. What if it happens while you are at work, or overnight, or some other occasion when you can't check your nation for a reasonable period of time.

it takes 24 hours to get to 12, so i dont know, use them instead of saving them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bartholomew Roberts said:

I got reported for slot filling when I bought a treasure and raided the guy for it. Alex actually DM'd me on discord about it. It definitely gets looked into, even in questionable cases.

So moderation is haphazard and favors Discord-active players who've, presumably, interacted with Alex or the mods on Discord already and whose Discord handles are known to them.

Great. I'm happy to hear that your confidence in the moderation team is based on a style that better resembles personal diplomacy than it does the impartial, even-handed, formulaic practices that should be in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Malleator said:

Currently the game rewards mechanically losing wars so much that losing wars is actually desirable.
The very fact that people want to lose wars mechanically is the clearest possible sign that the current war system is completely and absolutely broken.

In my opinion, almost anything would be better than what we have now, and yes, that includes this suggestion. Additionally, the only big problem I see with this suggestion is the safe mode. As the suggestion currently stands, a nation isn't guaranteed the chance to enter safe mode it seems as before they get the chance, they could get declared on or have their wars staggered out.

The reason I suggested safe mode as it is, is I think the beige mechanic forces wars to last much longer than they need to be, however it rewards activity and forces better co-ordination. If you are active you can slip into safe mode, if your opposition is slack on co-ordination you can slip into safe mode. The option to VM will also be still there. So you could conceivably VM and when you return hit safe mode. I've attempted to ensure wars will be won such as intended and given the opportunity for a mode where Nations can rebuild, as well as ensuring length of alliance wars are shortened. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Edward I said:

So moderation is haphazard and favors Discord-active players who've, presumably, interacted with Alex or the mods on Discord already and whose Discord handles are known to them.

Great. I'm happy to hear that your confidence in the moderation team is based on a style that better resembles personal diplomacy than it does the impartial, even-handed, formulaic practices that should be in place.

How is active investigation of every report indicative of haphazard moderation?

Sorry an active admin that actually participates in the community upsets you so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Edward I said:

So moderation is haphazard and favors Discord-active players who've, presumably, interacted with Alex or the mods on Discord already and whose Discord handles are known to them.

Great. I'm happy to hear that your confidence in the moderation team is based on a style that better resembles personal diplomacy than it does the impartial, even-handed, formulaic practices that should be in place.

According to Alex the last thing he checks is discord, which explains why I often take 3 days or more to get a reply if one at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bartholomew Roberts said:

How is active investigation of every report indicative of haphazard moderation?

Sorry an active admin that actually participates in the community upsets you so.

The rules should define what is and isn't slot-filling to the maximum extent possible. Significant "investigation" should be at a minimum because, ideally, rule-breaking should be disincentivized and readily apparent to begin with. The word of someone in a Discord message doesn't change what did or didn't happen in the game and should have no bearing on the moderation of said game in the first place.

Unless Discord usage becomes mandatory to play PW, it should play no part in moderator interactions with players concerning actions in-game or on the forums. I'm not annoyed about an active admin; I'm annoyed about an administration that gives even the appearance partiality to players who use Discord over those who don't. The former group tends to be louder and more inclined towards lobbying Alex to begin with, and this only encourages lobbying him about moderation actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Bartholomew Roberts said:

I find it crazy how often I see you post this exact post in the suggestion subforum lmao. I whole-heartedly agree that any change to beige will be devastating for the game unless other concurrent changes are made.

Remove Beige is up there with Add Subs for worst, most frequent suggestion.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
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.