Changes to beige to make it balanced

[Azaghul]

I propose bringing back beige from loosing wars with 3 mechanics changes to balance it:

In general, the point of these proposals is to keep beige as a mechanic that gives people space to get a reprieve and rebuild going into the next round of wars.  The problem right now is that beige gives people an unfair advantage in the round of wars they are in when they are beiged.  These changes reverse that, so that getting beiged puts you at a disadvantage in your current round of wars while maintaining the ability it gives you to rebuild and have a chance to fight effectively later.

1) The nation with the lowest resistance automatically loses when the war expires

All wars end with either a peace agreement or beige, no expiring wars.

2) Minimum beige time

I can think of two ways to do this: Either you can't leave beige unless you have less than 12 turns of beige left, or have a minimum beige time and each lost war adds 12 turns to it.

This mechanic would reduce the unbalanced advantage beige nations have of being able to come out whenever they choose.  With this change, you can use beige stacking as a tool to prevent someone from rejoining the war for a few days.

3) Nations on beige automatically accept peace offers from opponents

This prevents people from using beige as a way to avoid being countered while they beat up on weaker opponents who can't do anything to stop them.  It makes countering and beiging someone a viable tactic to relieve other people at war with that nation.

Edited June 28, 2020 by Azaghul

[Isjaki]

@Alex please consider these options

 

[Sir Scarfalot]

A lovely effort, but Alex hasn't been on this subforum before and never will be.

Besides, these suggestions have been made before. He didn't care or indeed even notice.

Edited June 28, 2020 by Sir Scarfalot

[Rin]

It would make slot filling worse though, i.e. having a nation hit a friendly but unallied alliance, and then get it beiged with minimal damage.

[Arawra]

6 minutes ago, Rin said:

It would make slot filling worse though, i.e. having a nation hit a friendly but unallied alliance, and then get it beiged with minimal damage.

I legitimately prefer slot filling being made legal over beige being removed.

[Azaghul]

5 hours ago, Rin said:

It would make slot filling worse though, i.e. having a nation hit a friendly but unallied alliance, and then get it beiged with minimal damage.

Are you talking about point one?  You can already beige someone attacking with only a few units to do minimal damage.

[Azaghul]

6 hours ago, Kratos said:

2 point is unbalanced & not necessary , otherwise it's a cool idea & can fix the moderation pain to 90% of the time with proper reviewed rules.

Point 2 is definitely the least important, though I'd be curious to know what you think is unbalanced about it.

Point 3 is the most important.  IMO one of the biggest problems with beige right now, and one of the biggest reasons people slot fill, is that it can be used to give you cover from being countered while you are still fighting your current wars, even if you are winning those wars.  

[Rin]

3 hours ago, Azaghul said:

Are you talking about point one?  You can already beige someone attacking with only a few units to do minimal damage.

For example, let's say B is getting curbstomped and A wants to slot fill B.

A could hit B with less troops on an unwinnable war, do like 28 resistance damage in total. B would fortify and turtle, fight the other wars. A would automatically win this war and turtle B. If B gets beiged by someone else, they could peace out with A, saying that they lost too much resistance to fight that war. If B won the other wars and didn't beige, A would beige B on timeout.

This is a harder call than previous slot filling. Before this, you could plausibly disguise your slot fill as a raid at best. This gives it a wider range of use.

Maybe one amendment is to get rid of Point 3, and change Point 1 so that it has to be a 50 resistance difference or so.

Or lowering the benefits of beige as per Point 2 would make beige less appealing. Maybe like reducing military rebuy capacity while someone is in beige. But this means that first to beige loses their other wars. It's still a better alternative than no beige, and yet balanced enough to keep a small alliance from pinning a much larger one.

 

8 hours ago, Hime-sama said:

I legitimately prefer slot filling being made legal over beige being removed.

Legal slot filling would basically mean two "alliances" hitting each other indefinitely. Maybe a CN style peace mode is a better alternative?

[Arawra]

9 hours ago, Rin said:

Legal slot filling would basically mean two "alliances" hitting each other indefinitely. Maybe a CN style peace mode is a better alternative?

That wasn’t to say I like the idea of legal slot filling, but that literally anything else is better than no means to recover (beige).

I also never played CN so I have nothing to offer in response to “peace mode.”

Edited June 29, 2020 by Hime-sama

[whiskerz]

How about just shorten the beige time to 12 turns no stacking 

[Prefontaine]

On 6/28/2020 at 7:08 PM, Sir Scarfalot said:

A lovely effort, but Alex hasn't been on this subforum before and never will be.

I'm here. 

Edited June 30, 2020 by Prefontaine

[Sir Scarfalot]

8 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

I'm here. 

Alright, then please tell me where you were the last dozen times this exact suggestion was made.

[Prefontaine]

1 hour ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Alright, then please tell me where you were the last dozen times this exact suggestion was made.

There as well. 

Edited June 30, 2020 by Prefontaine

[Tartarus]

On 7/1/2020 at 7:42 AM, Prefontaine said:

There as well. 

Oh so Alex (through a proxy of you?) is acknowledging and subsequently ignoring community supported changes and instead pushing out bullshit no one wants and are, surprisingly,  very much not in favour for? 

[Prefontaine]

1 minute ago, Tartarus said:

Oh so Alex (through a proxy of you?) is acknowledging and subsequently ignoring community supported changes and instead pushing out bullshit no one wants and are, surprisingly,  very much not in favour for? 

This should age well.

[Tartarus]

15 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

This should age well.

How're these for ageing well, mate? Don't worry, the whole community is behind Alex 

https://prnt.sc/ta5jhn

https://prnt.sc/ta5jsa

 

[Prefontaine]

5 minutes ago, Tartarus said:

How're these for ageing well, mate? Don't worry, the whole community is behind Alex 

https://prnt.sc/ta5jhn

https://prnt.sc/ta5jsa

 

You missed the third one I had locked.

Tsk tsk. Slacker.

[Wendell]

@Prefontaine
Why did you lock those threads?

[Alex]

On 6/28/2020 at 12:47 PM, Azaghul said:

I propose bringing back beige from loosing wars with 3 mechanics changes to balance it:

In general, the point of these proposals is to keep beige as a mechanic that gives people space to get a reprieve and rebuild going into the next round of wars.  The problem right now is that beige gives people an unfair advantage in the round of wars they are in when they are beiged.  These changes reverse that, so that getting beiged puts you at a disadvantage in your current round of wars while maintaining the ability it gives you to rebuild and have a chance to fight effectively later.

1) The nation with the lowest resistance automatically loses when the war expires

All wars end with either a peace agreement or beige, no expiring wars.

2) Minimum beige time

I can think of two ways to do this: Either you can't leave beige unless you have less than 12 turns of beige left, or have a minimum beige time and each lost war adds 12 turns to it.

This mechanic would reduce the unbalanced advantage beige nations have of being able to come out whenever they choose.  With this change, you can use beige stacking as a tool to prevent someone from rejoining the war for a few days.

3) Nations on beige automatically accept peace offers from opponents

This prevents people from using beige as a way to avoid being countered while they beat up on weaker opponents who can't do anything to stop them.  It makes countering and beiging someone a viable tactic to relieve other people at war with that nation.

I really like your ideas, and I've reintroduced beige on the test server with a variation of these implemented.

The most significant change I added was that if you're the aggressor (your offensive war) and you lose, you don't get Beige time no matter what.

I also reduced the amount of beige time from 24 turns (2 days) to 20 turns. This is less incentive to be beiged, but also hits 5 days of beige time if you got blitzed by 3 nations, and 5 days is the amount it would take to rebuild your units as well.

I think that forcing people to stay in Beige is also good, because it again reduces the incentive to be beiged. I implemented your last 12 turns being able to leave, and I agree that that is useful for organizing a comeback / counter. That means there are only 8 turns of forced beige for a first beige, though, and I do wonder if that will be enough. Then again, I see incentive to want to continue to beige after the first one because it forces the target out of the fight for longer.

In any case, with these changes on the test server they can be properly bug tested, as well as somewhat strategically tested (I know the test server isn't a very good approximation of the live server, but hey, it's better than nothing.)

[Sir Scarfalot]

10 minutes ago, Alex said:

I really like your ideas, and I've reintroduced beige on the test server with a variation of these implemented.

The most significant change I added was that if you're the aggressor (your offensive war) and you lose, you don't get Beige time no matter what.

I also reduced the amount of beige time from 24 turns (2 days) to 20 turns. This is less incentive to be beiged, but also hits 5 days of beige time if you got blitzed by 3 nations, and 5 days is the amount it would take to rebuild your units as well.

I think that forcing people to stay in Beige is also good, because it again reduces the incentive to be beiged. I implemented your last 12 turns being able to leave, and I agree that that is useful for organizing a comeback / counter. That means there are only 8 turns of forced beige for a first beige, though, and I do wonder if that will be enough. Then again, I see incentive to want to continue to beige after the first one because it forces the target out of the fight for longer.

In any case, with these changes on the test server they can be properly bug tested, as well as somewhat strategically tested (I know the test server isn't a very good approximation of the live server, but hey, it's better than nothing.)

Thank you >_<

[Shiho Nishizumi]

4 hours ago, Alex said:

I really like your ideas, and I've reintroduced beige on the test server with a variation of these implemented.

The most significant change I added was that if you're the aggressor (your offensive war) and you lose, you don't get Beige time no matter what.

I also reduced the amount of beige time from 24 turns (2 days) to 20 turns. This is less incentive to be beiged, but also hits 5 days of beige time if you got blitzed by 3 nations, and 5 days is the amount it would take to rebuild your units as well.

I think that forcing people to stay in Beige is also good, because it again reduces the incentive to be beiged. I implemented your last 12 turns being able to leave, and I agree that that is useful for organizing a comeback / counter. That means there are only 8 turns of forced beige for a first beige, though, and I do wonder if that will be enough. Then again, I see incentive to want to continue to beige after the first one because it forces the target out of the fight for longer.

In any case, with these changes on the test server they can be properly bug tested, as well as somewhat strategically tested (I know the test server isn't a very good approximation of the live server, but hey, it's better than nothing.)

Whilst I appreciate the intent, this is worthless. For the simple reason that people can have one of the D slots rush a beige, and the other two peace out before that beige time ends (while pinning in between), thus resulting in no meaningful beige time for the defender.

This doesn't even include the other problems present (no beige for off wars, 5 days of beige not actually being enough to rebuild to max [due to staggering], among other things).

 

[Dryad]

On 6/28/2020 at 8:47 PM, Azaghul said:

3) Nations on beige automatically accept peace offers from opponents

What Shiho said.

Imo this should, if at all, only work for a defender force-peacing an aggressor that gets beiged. Aggressors forcing peace on a beiged defender is just ridiculous.

[Prefontaine]

12 minutes ago, Dryad said:

What Shiho said.

Imo this should, if at all, only work for a defender force-peacing an aggressor that gets beiged. Aggressors forcing peace on a beiged defender is just ridiculous.

Agreed, only defenders should get the option for auto-peacing a beiged attacker. 

[Shiho Nishizumi]

Meh. It's a largely superfluous (if not detrimental, mainly for raiders) mechanic, as implemented in that set of test changes (assuming that glaring flaw does get patched).

Edited July 2, 2020 by Shiho Nishizumi
Clarification.

[Raphael]

On 7/1/2020 at 11:48 PM, Alex said:

I really like your ideas, and I've reintroduced beige on the test server with a variation of these implemented.

The most significant change I added was that if you're the aggressor (your offensive war) and you lose, you don't get Beige time no matter what.

I also reduced the amount of beige time from 24 turns (2 days) to 20 turns. This is less incentive to be beiged, but also hits 5 days of beige time if you got blitzed by 3 nations, and 5 days is the amount it would take to rebuild your units as well.

I think that forcing people to stay in Beige is also good, because it again reduces the incentive to be beiged. I implemented your last 12 turns being able to leave, and I agree that that is useful for organizing a comeback / counter. That means there are only 8 turns of forced beige for a first beige, though, and I do wonder if that will be enough. Then again, I see incentive to want to continue to beige after the first one because it forces the target out of the fight for longer.

In any case, with these changes on the test server they can be properly bug tested, as well as somewhat strategically tested (I know the test server isn't a very good approximation of the live server, but hey, it's better than nothing.)

Why shouldn't an aggressor get beige if they lose? That seems like it would flat out discourage aggressive wars if you think you might have a chance to lose, which is bad for activity in general. Wars are not usually a "duel of the fates" where it's a back-and-forth struggle. It usually a one-sided thing, so if an aggressor gets beiged that likely means he lost his military. Which should logically result in beige.

 

I would also seriously reconsider letting everyone escape once one person beiges you. That's potentially 7 other wars "lost" because one person got the upper hand on you. Typically if one person gets the upper hand, it means there's a hole in your military (ground, air, or navy), and with coordination the other nations should be able to flip their wars once one person flips theirs.

 

Otherwise great suggestion.

Edited July 5, 2020 by Roberts