Jump to content

Removal of Beige


Tiberius
 Share

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Edward I said:

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.

I feel like you're reaching on this one, good sir.

I agree with you that the slot filling rule needs to be fleshed out though. The admin utilizing any communication tool at his disposal doesn't equate to unequal treatment or endorsement of said tool though. It's simply part and parcel for a multiplayer game to talk to one another. Discord happens to be a convenient tool to make quicker decisions with.

 

edit: Let's take this to moderation support though. I'll make a thread tonight unless you beat me to it wherein the community and hopefully admins can discuss fleshing out the slot filling rule.

Edited by Bartholomew Roberts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson
9 hours ago, Mandystalin said:

Maybe you're saving up for a nuke

Well that the other thing, with how ineffective nukes are and how pointless they are, they need buffing massively or reduced to 6 MAP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

War length is purely a function of the politics of the game, not the mechanics. That much has been proven ad nauseam this war, as IQ damn well knows. Trying to sell a mechanical suggestion as fixing a political problem is just flatly disingenuous.

 

If you really want a 'safe mode', though, then a way to implement it that won't be a bald-faced hegemonist power play by a toxic !@#$ with wishful thinking and a declared intent to drive everyone out of the game is to:

Any time a nation is at war, they can declare 'surrender'. In that mode, they cannot attack, and the first attack against them in every war instantly ends it with the current victory/defeat system. While in 'surrender', the nation cannot declare more wars nor can wars be declared against them, and once their current wars end they get exactly one week of security before their safety expires. Surrender mode can only be invoked again after a full month passes.

And there you go, a safety mode that leaves you in the meatgrinder for a solid month before you get a single rebuild. Which fully allows you to get into the fight, so you still can't be fully destroyed. Nobody's unhappy, unless they're disingenuous toxic !@#$ that just want mechanics that enable them to fully sit on their opponents forever with no possibility of rebuilding ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2020 at 7:12 PM, 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.

 

No ofc not, why would I want to use all my ships if I can win with less, it is called resource management.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

War length is purely a function of the politics of the game, not the mechanics. That much has been proven ad nauseam this war, as IQ damn well knows. Trying to sell a mechanical suggestion as fixing a political problem is just flatly disingenuous.

 

If you really want a 'safe mode', though, then a way to implement it that won't be a bald-faced hegemonist power play by a toxic !@#$ with wishful thinking and a declared intent to drive everyone out of the game is to:

Any time a nation is at war, they can declare 'surrender'. In that mode, they cannot attack, and the first attack against them in every war instantly ends it with the current victory/defeat system. While in 'surrender', the nation cannot declare more wars nor can wars be declared against them, and once their current wars end they get exactly one week of security before their safety expires. Surrender mode can only be invoked again after a full month passes.

And there you go, a safety mode that leaves you in the meatgrinder for a solid month before you get a single rebuild. Which fully allows you to get into the fight, so you still can't be fully destroyed. Nobody's unhappy, unless they're disingenuous toxic !@#$ that just want mechanics that enable them to fully sit on their opponents forever with no possibility of rebuilding ever.

Scarfy, scarfy, scarfy. Learn not to bring your IC hatred into OOC discussions please. I am sure you are fully well capable of acting like an adult outside of the games politics. You can always DM me on discord if you have any issue with me OOC that you want to resolve. 

My suggestion was derived from the community wanting the following:

- Mechanics that reward winning wars rather than the current status quo of not wanting to beige. 

- An option to be able to rebuild

- Give everyone a fair chance to fight back when declared upon rather than logging in to find your airforce wiped out

My suggestion covers all of those. As is normally the case with suggestions, they can then be built upon, modified etc 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) I don't agree with removing the initial MAPS.  The element of blitzes and gaining initiative ads tactics to what would otherwise be a pure numbers game.

2) I think moving to some kind of mechanic where you choose to move to beige/safe-mode/surrender whatever could make a lot of sense.  I wouldn't tie it to not being at war because that allows for perpetual cycling.  I'd propose mechanics be something like this:

- You can't move to it if you have any active offensive wars.
- You can't make any attacks or war declarations from it.
- It lasts for 7 days.  You can't leave it in fewer than 5 days.

Benefits:

- Gives people a chance to recover but can't be used to prevent being countered when launching offensive wars.
- Allows people to get out of perpetual cycling.
- Does offer some advantage to cycling because if they are cycled properly they lose 2 of the 7 days.
- The 5 day minimum provides a sense of balance, it takes you out of the war for a while.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
GnWq7CW.png

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.