Jump to content

Changes to beige to make it balanced


Azaghul
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Administrators
On 7/5/2020 at 10:21 AM, Roberts said:

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.

By removing beige for the offensive nation, it significantly reduces the abuse-ability of beige. I.E. You would no longer be able to declare a bunch of wars you had no chance of winning just to get free beige time by having the person you declared on defeat you.

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Alex said:

By removing beige for the offensive nation, it significantly reduces the abuse-ability of beige. I.E. You would no longer be able to declare a bunch of wars you had no chance of winning just to get free beige time by having the person you declared on defeat you.

What exactly was the problem with this though?

There's really only two scenarios where you get beiged in an offensive war:

  • Either you overextend on purpose in order to get beige time, which I don't see it as a problem because it gave people much needed rebuild time if they were struggling (which is basically the only time you'll overextend like that in the first place) and doesn't create any grey areas within the rules that could be debated. 
  • You get caught out by counters and are genuinely losing your offensive wars, in which case you really will need that beige time.

To my knowledge, nobody considered baiting beige (through legitimate wars) as problems within the war system. If you manage to do so, that simply goes down to you taking the risk and being 'skilled' enough (with the relatively low skill ceiling there is) to bait the beige as well as your enemy being incompetent/unaware. It punishes lack of knowledge/skill and rewards having knowledge/skill. 

Alternatively, if you really dislike the 'abuse' of beige here, it's a much better suggestion to just reduce the beige time you get from offensive wars. It reduces the effectiveness of doing this, meaning that you'd only do it in more extreme circumstances while still making it viable.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
3 minutes ago, Vemek said:

What exactly was the problem with this though?

There's really only two scenarios where you get beiged in an offensive war:

  • Either you overextend on purpose in order to get beige time, which I don't see it as a problem because it gave people much needed rebuild time if they were struggling (which is basically the only time you'll overextend like that in the first place) and doesn't create any grey areas within the rules that could be debated. 
  • You get caught out by counters and are genuinely losing your offensive wars, in which case you really will need that beige time.

To my knowledge, nobody considered baiting beige (through legitimate wars) as problems within the war system. If you manage to do so, that simply goes down to you taking the risk and being 'skilled' enough (with the relatively low skill ceiling there is) to bait the beige as well as your enemy being incompetent/unaware. It punishes lack of knowledge/skill and rewards having knowledge/skill. 

Alternatively, if you really dislike the 'abuse' of beige here, it's a much better suggestion to just reduce the beige time you get from offensive wars. It reduces the effectiveness of doing this, meaning that you'd only do it in more extreme circumstances while still making it viable.

There have been quite a few times where people have done this and been reported for war slot filling, as declaring a war with no intention to win (i.e. over-extending yourself to get free beige time) is explicitly against the Game Rules and outlined as war slot filling. Removing offensive-war beige removes the incentive for this and the gray area it creates in determining what is a legitimate war where you accidentally bit off more than you could chew, and what was a fake war as an attempt to get free beige time.

I agree that in the second case where you really do lose your offensive wars it would be ideal to get some beige time to recover, but the problems and perverse incentives it creates are just too difficult to moderate (not that I can't issue strikes for war slot filling--I have many times in the past--but most people are not happy with my determinations it seems.)

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you want to punish any strategic game play got it. If the defenders are too stupid and do beige you to give you the build time thats a mistake on their part not your part especially during a global war. The failure for you to see this on a global war scale is a very big oversight by you. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alex said:

There have been quite a few times where people have done this and been reported for war slot filling, as declaring a war with no intention to win (i.e. over-extending yourself to get free beige time) is explicitly against the Game Rules and outlined as war slot filling. Removing offensive-war beige removes the incentive for this and the gray area it creates in determining what is a legitimate war where you accidentally bit off more than you could chew, and what was a fake war as an attempt to get free beige time.

I agree that in the second case where you really do lose your offensive wars it would be ideal to get some beige time to recover, but the problems and perverse incentives it creates are just too difficult to moderate (not that I can't issue strikes for war slot filling--I have many times in the past--but most people are not happy with my determinations it seems.)

Thanks for the explanation, I can see why you'd want to distance yourself from moderation considering the nuances of slot-filling and the backlash with every decision taken in regards to it, but honestly I don't think there's much of a need to consider it as slot-filling.

My main question is why exactly it needs to be considered as such: I'm basically reiterating my points in the previous post but beige was intended to help people get back up after losing a war. You're really only going to overextend to get some beige time because you're losing a war, and need to a window to build back up in without any further attacks. It's definitely not a foolproof tactic as you can get punished if even one of your offensive wars  decides to sit on you instead of beiging. 

It rewards 'skill' and punishes a lack of it, gives beige in cases where people genuinely need it and also provides a better comeback mechanic, hence I don't really see a downside to it. Although this definitely isn't a horrible change that ruins war, it takes away some of the depth in the war system when it's already incredibly simple. If you choose to not regard this as slot-filling, it takes away the only real problem I can see besides the 'tainting' of beige, which is naturally going to be there regardless of whether offensive wars no longer provide beige.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just have slot filling be limited to keeping allies from filling each other's slots, and call it a day. Maybe make an exception for some really obvious cases (example, guy in an AA at war declares on some people not at war, who would have the incentive to beige him ASAP to get rid of him) if you'd like. It definitely doesn't warrant making it nigh-impossible for someone downed to rebound.

  • Upvote 3
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
22 hours ago, Vemek said:

Thanks for the explanation, I can see why you'd want to distance yourself from moderation considering the nuances of slot-filling and the backlash with every decision taken in regards to it, but honestly I don't think there's much of a need to consider it as slot-filling.

My main question is why exactly it needs to be considered as such: I'm basically reiterating my points in the previous post but beige was intended to help people get back up after losing a war. You're really only going to overextend to get some beige time because you're losing a war, and need to a window to build back up in without any further attacks. It's definitely not a foolproof tactic as you can get punished if even one of your offensive wars  decides to sit on you instead of beiging. 

It rewards 'skill' and punishes a lack of it, gives beige in cases where people genuinely need it and also provides a better comeback mechanic, hence I don't really see a downside to it. Although this definitely isn't a horrible change that ruins war, it takes away some of the depth in the war system when it's already incredibly simple. If you choose to not regard this as slot-filling, it takes away the only real problem I can see besides the 'tainting' of beige, which is naturally going to be there regardless of whether offensive wars no longer provide beige.

Again I don't really disagree with the way that you're explaining it, but allowing this method allows face "copycat" methods where you could, say, declare a war on an ally or an ally of an ally and do no real attacks claiming that you're just overextending because you need some time to recover, when in reality you're just filling their slots for their benefit. Then they could just really take their time to turn around and win the war, for example, keeping their slots filled the whole time.

In my opinion it just creates too much room for abuse, and people get really creative at coming up with ways to abuse things.

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alex said:

Again I don't really disagree with the way that you're explaining it, but allowing this method allows face "copycat" methods where you could, say, declare a war on an ally or an ally of an ally and do no real attacks claiming that you're just overextending because you need some time to recover, when in reality you're just filling their slots for their benefit. Then they could just really take their time to turn around and win the war, for example, keeping their slots filled the whole time.

In my opinion it just creates too much room for abuse, and people get really creative at coming up with ways to abuse things.

But... in that same vein, the "ally of the ally" could simply reverse the situation and declare war on "you" for extra beige time.

Slot filling is a separate issue from beige in offensive wars. If you get defeated/beiged, the fact remains that you lost your military to get there.

 

It's not the end of the world to not have it, but it doesn't make sense to exclude it.

 

edit: Do we have an ETA on when Beige will return to live?

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

40 minutes ago, Roberts said:

Slot filling is a separate issue from beige in offensive wars. If you get defeated/beiged, the fact remains that you lost your military to get there.

Not sure why this is so hard to understand, and why beige got removed because of this. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I don't see what is preventing Alex from simply rewriting the rules to acknowledge the reality at hand. It'd be preferable as it's easier to modify that than it is to rewrite the code and have it not be bugged for weeks on end (on top of the initial time invested which is much more substantial).

  • Upvote 3
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
On 7/8/2020 at 5:25 PM, Roberts said:

But... in that same vein, the "ally of the ally" could simply reverse the situation and declare war on "you" for extra beige time.

Slot filling is a separate issue from beige in offensive wars. If you get defeated/beiged, the fact remains that you lost your military to get there.

 

It's not the end of the world to not have it, but it doesn't make sense to exclude it.

 

edit: Do we have an ETA on when Beige will return to live?

Allies declaring war on you just to give you beige time (not to fight a real war) is very obviously slot filling, and it's a lot harder to claim that it's something else.

And it's not true that you have to lose your military to get to beige. You could, for example, declare a bunch of offensive wars on allies, let them all beige you with ships or something, while keeping full ground and air forces.

There is no ETA at this time.

  • Downvote 1

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Alex said:

You could, for example, declare a bunch of offensive wars on allies, let them all beige you with ships or something, while keeping full ground and air forces.

Which is why there's been dozens of suggestions regarding military being damaged directly when losing wars.

It's long since been quite silly for someone to "sign a peace treaty" without disarmament anyway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
9 hours ago, Roberts said:

Bump.

 

Can we see at least the #1 point implemented while you guys spend the next year working out a beige alternative

Number 1 point is very important 

(that way I don’t have to waste my army to win bounties)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Bump.

I know the admin team has drifted away from these small tweaks in favor of a new, more complicated, more controversial idea...

but I’m just going to continue lobbying for this anyway. This is an extremely popular suggestion that shouldn’t get lost to the depths of the forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Roberts said:

Bump.

I know the admin team has drifted away from these small tweaks in favor of a new, more complicated, more controversial idea...

but I’m just going to continue lobbying for this anyway. This is an extremely popular suggestion that shouldn’t get lost to the depths of the forum.

There was nothing wrong with beige in the first place. It was simply people throwing a fit that they weren't able to hit people whenever they wanted unhindered by ANYTHING.

Much like middle and high school, when you're in a popular alliance you should have the privilege to do anything you want including breaking game mechanics and pushing people you don't like out of the game, as long as there are zero consequences. It's like nobody has learned from the 8 month rolling NPO and IQ delivered. 

Removing beige, however answered a burning question. Will removing beige really get people to attack without hindrance when they are also affected by the same game breaking action? The answer: We all love each other when there is a common threat.

If I was Alex I would never have been as merciful. I wouldn't reinstate beige before the NAP ended. Instead, I would let it end without a replacement to prove how middle school minded most people are in this game. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 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.