Administrators Popular Post Alex Posted June 28, 2020 Administrators Popular Post Share Posted June 28, 2020 War Slot Filling has been a hot topic recently, and it's become more apparent than ever that some thing need to change to make it less of a judgement call on my part to determine what is and what is not war slot filling. Therefore, I have updated the Game Rules to clearly and explicitly state that declaring wars on your allies is generally war slot filling. This means that going forward, you should not be declaring wars on allies, whether they're in your alliance or an alliance you're allied to. These wars, for the purpose of raiding, sending a notification to remind them to become active, etc. are not allowed. If you have a nation in your alliance that is inactive, for example, and you want to raid them, then you can kick them from your alliance and do so. At that point, I would generally not consider them still an ally. But leaving your alliance so that you can evade the mechanics and declare war on an alliance member, then immediately rejoining the alliance is now clearly and explicitly against the rules. The reason for this change is again to make it as clear as possible what is and what is not allowed so that I am not forced to make judgement calls which generally leave no one happy. Furthermore, for far too long the "beige" mechanic has left perverse incentives in war, such as not wanting to complete a war or intentionally defeating allies to help them. As such, I have removed "beige" time given from losing wars. New players will still start with 14 days of beige time, but going forward no one except these new nations will experience "beige." When you lose a war now, you will remain on your previous color. I understand that the point of beige is to help out the defender and give them a chance to rebuild, but unfortunately the unintended consequences are so problematic that it has been and still is a pressing moderation issue. By removing the beige time issued as a result of losing a war, it will be much easier to determine what is and what is not war slot filling because there will be no incentive to do a "fake" war against an ally that results in a defeat and beige time. My intention is not to make the game punitive and impossible to rebuild / recover from a lost war (or series of lost wars) and I will be exploring alternatives. However, the beige time from losing wars is a broken, abused mechanic that can no longer exist as-is, thus it's removal. Lastly, with these changes I have notified two players who recently received moderation strikes for war slot filling that their strikes have been removed. It is now crystal clear that what they did would be considered against the rules, but it was not so clear before, which is why I have removed the strikes. If you have suggestions for an alternative to the now deprecated beige mechanic for losing wars, I am all ears and would encourage you to make a post in the suggestions forum here: https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/forum/52-game-suggestions 1 1 4 10 93 Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Adrienne Posted June 28, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted June 28, 2020 3 minutes ago, Alex said: Furthermore, for far too long the "beige" mechanic has left perverse incentives in war, such as not wanting to complete a war or intentionally defeating allies to help them. As such, I have removed "beige" time given from losing wars. New players will still start with 14 days of beige time, but going forward no one except these new nations will experience "beige." When you lose a war now, you will remain on your previous color. I understand that the point of beige is to help out the defender and give them a chance to rebuild, but unfortunately the unintended consequences are so problematic that it has been and still is a pressing moderation issue. By removing the beige time issued as a result of losing a war, it will be much easier to determine what is and what is not war slot filling because there will be no incentive to do a "fake" war against an ally that results in a defeat and beige time. My intention is not to make the game punitive and impossible to rebuild / recover from a lost war (or series of lost wars) and I will be exploring alternatives. However, the beige time from losing wars is a broken, abused mechanic that can no longer exist as-is, thus it's removal. Can you leave this mechanic in place until you have an alternative ready to go? Otherwise, it'll do exactly what you say you don't want it to do should a war break out anywhere. 2 54 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TribemanStalin Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 Ok boomer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Shiho Nishizumi Posted June 28, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted June 28, 2020 (edited) ITT: "I'm too lazy/incompetent to properly moderate (and too cheap to hire someone else to do the job for me), so I'm knee jerk removing a fundamental war mechanic without bringing an alternative replacement in it's stead.". Edited June 28, 2020 by Shiho Nishizumi 23 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted June 28, 2020 Author Administrators Share Posted June 28, 2020 1 minute ago, Adrienne said: Can you leave this mechanic in place until you have an alternative ready to go? Otherwise, it'll do exactly what you say you don't want it to do should a war break out anywhere. No - I do not think it's worth keeping it around any longer, for it causes too many issues moderation-wise. However, with the most recent war changes (massive casualty reductions) I think that in a large-scale war without beige it would not be as punitive as it would have been pre-war changes, so I am less concerned about not having an immediate replacement. 1 46 Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Changeup Posted June 28, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted June 28, 2020 Absolute disaster of a change. Beige wasn't great, but no beige will be far, far, worse. 26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Dawgfan5555 Posted June 28, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted June 28, 2020 We need Beige. We can never rebuild in the next global... We need some sort of protection! 1 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post donsberger Posted June 28, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted June 28, 2020 Just now, Alex said: No - I do not think it's worth keeping it around any longer, for it causes too many issues moderation-wise. However, with the most recent war changes (massive casualty reductions) I think that in a large-scale war without beige it would not be as punitive as it would have been pre-war changes, so I am less concerned about not having an immediate replacement. You're right permanent rolling will just last longer cause no one can rebuild congrats on doing what NPO wanted yourself. Impressive to say the least. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted June 28, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted June 28, 2020 Alex you've been give a billion damned suggestions about changing beige for years. Even largely community supported ones, how are these not already taken note of? Here's my favorite: all wars end in beige. Regardless of resistance. The only difference is aggressors who lose get half and defenders in unfinished wars below say, 55 resistance get half as well. Ones above probably don't need any and don't get any. Ta-da, solves everything you mentioned above without designing something entirely new. 34 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katashimon13 Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 u mean go to grey right not stay on the same color? rawr 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Adrienne Posted June 28, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted June 28, 2020 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Alex said: No - I do not think it's worth keeping it around any longer, for it causes too many issues moderation-wise. However, with the most recent war changes (massive casualty reductions) I think that in a large-scale war without beige it would not be as punitive as it would have been pre-war changes, so I am less concerned about not having an immediate replacement. Massive casualty reductions don't much matter if you're outnumbered and have no means to recover. With removing beige, there's no barrier to stopping an alliance arranging perma-blockades and sitting on you for as long as they want. There really should be an alternative in place prior to removing a mechanic this important. Edited June 28, 2020 by Adrienne 18 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeric Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 Justice is served... And the game is broken now... I move to increase the current nap timer if a new system isn't put in place before the current nap expires. 2 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodosius Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Changeup Posted June 28, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted June 28, 2020 18 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawgfan5555 Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 Just now, Jeric said: Justice is served... And the game is broken now... I move to increase the current nap timer if a new system isn't put in place before the current nap expires. Agreed. We need some way to replace beige before NAP ends. I hate the NAP but we need some way to make war fair and enjoyable 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Denison Posted June 28, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted June 28, 2020 (edited) I'd just like to point out that an alliance can coordinate a sit on a person now. Whether it's a raid target or not, they're not free game now. Because you can decide when a war ends by reducing the resistance of a nation to 0, you can just as easily have an alliance member ready to hit that person as soon as you free up your slot. This will disallow others from being able to get a shot at a raid target for example. Making raiding for the average player that much harder now as there will always be people that go to these lengths for loot. Edited June 28, 2020 by Denison you could always sit to some extent, but not to this extent, but sitting on a raid target is a new one 14 Quote Janny Larpers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Alexio15 Posted June 28, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted June 28, 2020 Why not just cap beige 17 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Sphinx Posted June 28, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted June 28, 2020 (edited) If all you've got is a hammer then every problem looks like a nail. This change is going to cause more playerbase attrition than even NPO's wildest fantasies could cause, with the ability to now perma sit on players. Edited June 28, 2020 by Sphinx 1 19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Shiho Nishizumi Posted June 28, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted June 28, 2020 7 minutes ago, Alex said: However, with the most recent war changes (massive casualty reductions) I think that in a large-scale war without beige it would not be as punitive as it would have been pre-war changes, so I am less concerned about not having an immediate replacement. They'll just get defeated and re-slotted. One thing contributing to such tankiness was exactly beige deterring people from further action, which would give some respite to those nations to partially rebuild. But obviously that's gone without beige. Your actual thinking is that you fricked up a moderation decision because you were too lazy to properly look into it the first time around, and are too prideful to admit that you fricked up. So you're killing an essential mechanic due to your pathetic vanity. 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Critters Posted June 28, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted June 28, 2020 What about looting? Does that still exist? 8 Quote The Redneck Caliphate of Forrest's Critters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted June 28, 2020 Author Administrators Share Posted June 28, 2020 Just now, Critters said: What about looting? Does that still exist? Yes, the looting and infrastructure destruction from the end of a war all still remains unchanged. Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lossi Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 22 minutes ago, Alex said: War Slot Filling has been a hot topic recently, and it's become more apparent than ever that some thing need to change to make it less of a judgement call on my part to determine what is and what is not war slot filling. Therefore, I have updated the Game Rules to clearly and explicitly state that declaring wars on your allies is generally war slot filling. This means that going forward, you should not be declaring wars on allies, whether they're in your alliance or an alliance you're allied to. These wars, for the purpose of raiding, sending a notification to remind them to become active, etc. are not allowed. If you have a nation in your alliance that is inactive, for example, and you want to raid them, then you can kick them from your alliance and do so. At that point, I would generally not consider them still an ally. But leaving your alliance so that you can evade the mechanics and declare war on an alliance member, then immediately rejoining the alliance is now clearly and explicitly against the rules. The reason for this change is again to make it as clear as possible what is and what is not allowed so that I am not forced to make judgement calls which generally leave no one happy. Furthermore, for far too long the "beige" mechanic has left perverse incentives in war, such as not wanting to complete a war or intentionally defeating allies to help them. As such, I have removed "beige" time given from losing wars. New players will still start with 14 days of beige time, but going forward no one except these new nations will experience "beige." When you lose a war now, you will remain on your previous color. I understand that the point of beige is to help out the defender and give them a chance to rebuild, but unfortunately the unintended consequences are so problematic that it has been and still is a pressing moderation issue. By removing the beige time issued as a result of losing a war, it will be much easier to determine what is and what is not war slot filling because there will be no incentive to do a "fake" war against an ally that results in a defeat and beige time. My intention is not to make the game punitive and impossible to rebuild / recover from a lost war (or series of lost wars) and I will be exploring alternatives. However, the beige time from losing wars is a broken, abused mechanic that can no longer exist as-is, thus it's removal. Lastly, with these changes I have notified two players who recently received moderation strikes for war slot filling that their strikes have been removed. It is now crystal clear that what they did would be considered against the rules, but it was not so clear before, which is why I have removed the strikes. If you have suggestions for an alternative to the now deprecated beige mechanic for losing wars, I am all ears and would encourage you to make a post in the suggestions forum here: https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/forum/52-game-suggestions Here's a thought for you. Don't try to force people to play within your vision. Does slot filling suck? Sure but if it's mechanically possible with features intentionally coded by you, it shouldn't be against the rules. 4 1 1 Quote Quote Former leader of Chocolate Castle 4/1/2021 "It's pretty easy to get abused by Rosey without being a weirdo about it" - Betilius "Rosey is everything I look for in a fighter" - partisan "I’m very much not surprised that Lossi has you blocked tbh" - @MCMaster-095 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightside Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 Keep biege. We need it to allow for fair rebuilds. Just cap it instead like alot of people have been saying. That would fix alot of the problems with it 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Epi Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 (edited) 1 Edited February 18, 2021 by Epi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Vemek Posted June 28, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted June 28, 2020 Just going to say, thanks and good on you for listening to the community and making a fair decision in terms of the slot-filling. That said, I don't think removing beige is the best change going forward, especially with it being that much easier to consistently keep a target slotted, as well as taking some of the depth away in the war system as beige discipline has always been a rather important factor for alliances, and baiting beige was another tactic employed. 16 minutes ago, Akuryo said: Here's my favorite: all wars end in beige. Regardless of resistance. The only difference is aggressors who lose get half and defenders in unfinished wars below say, 55 resistance get half as well. Ones above probably don't need any and don't get any. This suggestion Akuryo gave honestly seems like a pretty good idea, and definitely better than both past and present iterations of beige, it creates a balance where you have to decide between giving your enemies beige time or causing more damage which ideally would be a case by case basis rather than "sit at x resistance and pin them" and would hence create a little more complexity in the currently relatively simple small-scale nation on nation warring. 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.