Jump to content

Changes to beige - Last call


Prefontaine
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Alex said:

Sorry this was not made clear - but if the defender is the loser, and they have 50 or less resistance remaining, they would receive the beige time.

I got that from the changelog. You missed my entire point, which was built on understanding that the new meta will only allow for defending parties in wars to get beiged, and as aforementioned, that is no good. As some people mentioned in previous threads, and as I've outlined on the previous page, there are some serious issues that would come out of such war system - mainly easy nation cycling, permawarring possibilities and lack of viable opportunities to fight back and get respite.

I don't know, have I bungled my points? Mayhaps someone with better English can explain it better?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One concern I do have with the change that makes it so you can't leave beige is that it will hurt pirates. Considering how often raiders fight and get countered this change will make it so they aren't allowed to raid as much as they want anymore(because they can't leave beige). Which would make the game less enjoyable for them.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

Before the beige changes, @Alex, one of the ways people would break out of being perma-cycled was by declaring wars on less experienced members and trying to bait them into beiging you. It stopped easy nation cycling by preying on the less experienced and requiring individuals to be disciplined and milcom teams to be very on top of things in terms of keeping up with memberships and not awarding too much beige time to people. The concern people have is that even by giving beige back, without aggressive wars awarding beige (or some other change that accomplishes something similar), it is still too difficult for people to break out of being permablockaded and makes it too easy for the winning side to permablockade the other side.

In short, the old beige mechanics required a lot more strategy and skill to maintain permablockades, the recent changes and new proposals remove a lot of that strategy and also make it more difficult to break out of permablockades/turn a war around.

And again, if the concern is moderation, just rewrite the rule so that it only concerns itself with allies slot filling.

What's defined as an ally? Direct ties and whoever is in their temporary coalition. 

It'd be easier to change (especially given the bugs that invariably follow an update), it'd net the same end result, and it'd avoid having another rather poor update be pushed out. It simply makes more sense as a whole.

 

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

You still can't get out of permablockade with these changes. You could shorten the time a war expires to three days instead of five just to make sure the nation gets SOME time to build up unhindered.

And what was the reason of not exiting beige early. I mean the deal was if you declare on someone you agree to forfeit beige time. Is there something wrong with that mechanic???

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Adrienne said:

Before the beige changes, @Alex, one of the ways people would break out of being perma-cycled was by declaring wars on less experienced members and trying to bait them into beiging you. It stopped easy nation cycling by preying on the less experienced and requiring individuals to be disciplined and milcom teams to be very on top of things in terms of keeping up with memberships and not awarding too much beige time to people. The concern people have is that even by giving beige back, without aggressive wars awarding beige (or some other change that accomplishes something similar), it is still too difficult for people to break out of being permablockaded and makes it too easy for the winning side to permablockade the other side.

In short, the old beige mechanics required a lot more strategy and skill to maintain permablockades, the recent changes and new proposals remove a lot of that strategy and also make it more difficult to break out of permablockades/turn a war around.

Perhaps making beige a player controlled mechanic? Instead of being sent to beige when you are defeated in this system (even expiring wars ending in defeat/victory), you add time to a beige bank? This bank can be capped at a set number of turns (days) and those turns would expire after X days, maybe something like 10. Once you use your beige bank you're required to use all of the time in one go. If you have 6 days stacked up, you have to use all 6, however you do have the option to come out early in the last 12 turns (1 day) like in the current system. This would theoretically allow for a nation to start rebuilding in their own way, and can be coordinated by active alliances to allow for counter attacks in subsequent rounds. There could also be a temp beige status for anyone who was just defeated in a war, something like say 6 hours (3 turns) where a new war cannot be declared on that nation. This way, should a nation want to use that beige bank they have a window to do so without their slot being instantly re-filled. 

Effectively a nation would fight in the first few waves even while losing and then be able to deploy a prolonged beige status at the time of their choosing. These several days of beige allow for rebuilding and blockade expiration. Yes other active wars would still be going on, and perhaps any wars that end in defeat while in beige status add to the currently active beige timer.

Adds an element of strategy for both attacking and defending. Rewards active/organized militaries. Opening blitzes can cause more damage by prolonging the duration of exposure to attacks while bank building and still allows for the ability to come back from being knocked down.

EDIT: and to the point of attackers and defenders, losing a defensive war can give 2 days of beige bank, and attackers losing a war only get 1.

 

Edited by Prefontaine
  • Upvote 5

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting idea prefontaine it would solve afew of the problems that people have mentioned above. I would add on to it though that saved beige time would need to expire/decay if not used. As some problems would arise if that wasn't the case. Also declaring a war should remove your bank( so you can't declare a war then hide in biege)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

Perhaps making beige a player controlled mechanic? Instead of being sent to beige when you are defeated in this system (even expiring wars ending in defeat/victory), you add time to a beige bank? This bank can be capped at a set number of turns (days) and those turns would expire after X days, maybe something like 10. Once you use your beige bank you're required to use all of the time in one go. If you have 6 days stacked up, you have to use all 6, however you do have the option to come out early in the last 12 turns (1 day) like in the current system. This would theoretically allow for a nation to start rebuilding in their own way, and can be coordinated by active alliances to allow for counter attacks in subsequent rounds. There could also be a temp beige status for anyone who was just defeated in a war, something like say 6 hours (3 turns) where a new war cannot be declared on that nation. This way, should a nation want to use that beige bank they have a window to do so without their slot being instantly re-filled. 

Effectively a nation would fight in the first few waves even while losing and then be able to deploy a prolonged beige status at the time of their choosing. These several days of beige allow for rebuilding and blockade expiration. Yes other active wars would still be going on, and perhaps any wars that end in defeat while in beige status add to the currently active beige timer.

Adds an element of strategy for both attacking and defending. Rewards active/organized militaries. Opening blitzes can cause more damage by prolonging the duration of exposure to attacks while bank building and still allows for the ability to come back from being knocked down.

EDIT: and to the point of attackers and defenders, losing a defensive war can give 2 days of beige bank, and attackers losing a war only get 1.

 

This honestly seems like a pretty good system, though the length of time you can store your beige over would need to be tweaked pretty carefully because a pirate could very easily gather 5 days of beige, declare, deploy their beige at will and attack counter free.

Alternatively, you could cap the beige bank at say, 12-15 turns and use it in conjunction with the planned beige system, so getting beiged provides you with 20 turns of beige, as well as time added to the bank that you can use at will. This prevents raiders from being able to rush a beige against a target without any opposition since they'll get countered at the tail end of their beige time, but also means that the same element of strategy is added (though to a lesser extent).

This is a suggestion I came up with on like 3 hours of sleep so there's probably a couple holes in my idea that I haven't thought of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

Perhaps making beige a player controlled mechanic? Instead of being sent to beige when you are defeated in this system (even expiring wars ending in defeat/victory), you add time to a beige bank? This bank can be capped at a set number of turns (days) and those turns would expire after X days, maybe something like 10. Once you use your beige bank you're required to use all of the time in one go. If you have 6 days stacked up, you have to use all 6, however you do have the option to come out early in the last 12 turns (1 day) like in the current system. This would theoretically allow for a nation to start rebuilding in their own way, and can be coordinated by active alliances to allow for counter attacks in subsequent rounds. There could also be a temp beige status for anyone who was just defeated in a war, something like say 6 hours (3 turns) where a new war cannot be declared on that nation. This way, should a nation want to use that beige bank they have a window to do so without their slot being instantly re-filled. 

Effectively a nation would fight in the first few waves even while losing and then be able to deploy a prolonged beige status at the time of their choosing. These several days of beige allow for rebuilding and blockade expiration. Yes other active wars would still be going on, and perhaps any wars that end in defeat while in beige status add to the currently active beige timer.

Adds an element of strategy for both attacking and defending. Rewards active/organized militaries. Opening blitzes can cause more damage by prolonging the duration of exposure to attacks while bank building and still allows for the ability to come back from being knocked down.

EDIT: and to the point of attackers and defenders, losing a defensive war can give 2 days of beige bank, and attackers losing a war only get 1.

 

Good idea in theory but in practice as someone mentioned this could be easily abused to simply close off your defensive slots which just opens up a new problem of abused mechanics.

 

Just allowing all wars to give beige time would solve the issue. Slot filling, which seems to be Alex's main worry, is a moderation issue and unfortunately cannot be addressed via mechanical changes.

 

Make all losses give beige time, make all beiges give loot and deal infra damage, even expired wars.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prefontaine said:

Perhaps making beige a player controlled mechanic? Instead of being sent to beige when you are defeated in this system (even expiring wars ending in defeat/victory), you add time to a beige bank? This bank can be capped at a set number of turns (days) and those turns would expire after X days, maybe something like 10. Once you use your beige bank you're required to use all of the time in one go. If you have 6 days stacked up, you have to use all 6, however you do have the option to come out early in the last 12 turns (1 day) like in the current system. This would theoretically allow for a nation to start rebuilding in their own way, and can be coordinated by active alliances to allow for counter attacks in subsequent rounds. There could also be a temp beige status for anyone who was just defeated in a war, something like say 6 hours (3 turns) where a new war cannot be declared on that nation. This way, should a nation want to use that beige bank they have a window to do so without their slot being instantly re-filled. 

Effectively a nation would fight in the first few waves even while losing and then be able to deploy a prolonged beige status at the time of their choosing. These several days of beige allow for rebuilding and blockade expiration. Yes other active wars would still be going on, and perhaps any wars that end in defeat while in beige status add to the currently active beige timer.

Adds an element of strategy for both attacking and defending. Rewards active/organized militaries. Opening blitzes can cause more damage by prolonging the duration of exposure to attacks while bank building and still allows for the ability to come back from being knocked down.

I'd have to see it in action really but I like this part especially. In theory, it sounds like it could be neat.

Edited by Adrienne
  • Upvote 1

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Wiki Mod
31 minutes ago, Roberts said:

Good idea in theory but in practice as someone mentioned this could be easily abused to simply close off your defensive slots which just opens up a new problem of abused mechanics.

 

Just allowing all wars to give beige time would solve the issue. Slot filling, which seems to be Alex's main worry, is a moderation issue and unfortunately cannot be addressed via mechanical changes.

 

Make all losses give beige time, make all beiges give loot and deal infra damage, even expired wars.

I fundamentally disagree with the bolded part. 

Setting aside straight up cheating such as multis and exploits. Alex should never need to intercede into the actual gameplay. Any place he does need to indicates a failing of the mechanics. In this instance without Deus Admin the meta would be slotfill everything and stare. Which is obviously not workable, but that does not make banhammer a good fix. Here that fix has created the 'toe the line meta' in which various parties on all sides have pushed the limits of what they can get away with on everything from slot filling to bank hiding. Its lose lose lose for everyone involved. The only proper way to fix these kind of issues is to mechanically shift the meta so grey area tactics aren't appealing anymore. 

And, Yes I'm a mechanical purist.

  • Like 1

 

 

23:38 Skable that's why we don't want Rose involved, so we can take the m all for ourselves

23:39 [] but Mensa is the cute girl at the school dance and she's only dancing with us right now to get our friend jealous

23:39 [] If Rose comes in and gives Mensa what she wants, she'll just toss us aside and forget we ever existed

23:39 zombie_lanae yeah I do hope we can keep having them all to ourselves

23:40 zombie_lanae I know it's selfish but I want all their love

 

 

6:55 PM <+Isolatar> Praise Dio

Pubstomper|BNC [20:01:55] Rose wouldn't plan a hit on Mensa because it would be &#33;@#&#036;ing stupid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Alex @Prefontaine . The raiders agree with the changes except "not leaving the beige early". I don't see any setback to the war system if an individual (especially a raider) tries to break beige in order to declare on a guy with good loot. Keeping in mind that they don't rely on economic builds but raiding others for their income. Please consider this. :))

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Murtaza said:

@Alex @Prefontaine . The raiders agree with the changes except "not leaving the beige early". I don't see any setback to the war system if an individual (especially a raider) tries to break beige in order to declare on a guy with good loot. Keeping in mind that they don't rely on economic builds but raiding others for their income. Please consider this. :))

I think that this gives extra incentive to win wars. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CitrusK said:

I think that this gives extra incentive to win wars. 

Raiders are already winning their wars lol. What Murtaza is talking about is how if raiders can't leave biege then they won't be able to raid as much as they like. Which will badly effect their income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Dr Rush said:

I fundamentally disagree with the bolded part. 

Setting aside straight up cheating such as multis and exploits. Alex should never need to intercede into the actual gameplay. Any place he does need to indicates a failing of the mechanics. In this instance without Deus Admin the meta would be slotfill everything and stare. Which is obviously not workable, but that does not make banhammer a good fix. Here that fix has created the 'toe the line meta' in which various parties on all sides have pushed the limits of what they can get away with on everything from slot filling to bank hiding. Its lose lose lose for everyone involved. The only proper way to fix these kind of issues is to mechanically shift the meta so grey area tactics aren't appealing anymore. 

And, Yes I'm a mechanical purist.

I don't see any proposed solution that would successfully curtail the need for moderation. The current approach took a good suggested change to beige from a mechanical perspective and added in a caveat based on moderation worries that have nothing to do with the mechanical functionality. Furthermore, the caveat does not fully address the moderation issue in question which is slot filling. Defensive slot filling can be just as much of a thing even with these changes, perhaps even moreso because it's the only way to get beige time. The decision to worsen a mechanic based on some one-off moderation issue is frankly ridiculous. Figure out a way to deal with slot filling that doesn't punish normal players.

 

Also bank hiding isn't a "grey area tactic", it's a necessary part of the ecosystem of PnW. Metaphorically, you can't kick over every single sand castle on the beach and expect people to still want to build.

 

 

edit: also yeah please remove auto-accepting peace.

Edited by Roberts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few thoughts:

1) I really like Prefontaine's idea of beige banking where it's player controlled when you get it.  One of the main problems with beige right now is that you can easily avoid giving someone time to rebuild with beige cycling.

2) I didn't see much negative feed back on the auto-accepting peace mechanic and I'm confused about why it might be removed.   Maybe it's just my personal experience but a lot of the slot filling I've seen is people having friends beige them after launching offensive wars so they can't get countered.  Beige should be a mechanic to let you rebuild, not to let you avoid getting countered.

This mechanic also gives people an incentive to use in-game victories as a tool when countering someone.  Right now when countering someone, the incentive is to sit on them which is boring for everyone involved.  This offers a way to neutralize someone as a threat to people they have declared on other than just sitting on them.  The auto-beige instead of expiration removes an incentive to do this as well.

3) I strongly disagree with removing infra damage / loot from wars that end with auto-expiration.  I'd like to know what the reasoning was behind it.  Especially the infra damage, it's a good disincentive to avoid abusing beige and only bait it when you really need it.

4) I disagree with removing beige for aggressors.  I don't think *baiting* beige is a bad thing and it's good to have as a viable strategy.

The limit on when someone can come out of beige was intended as a balance to beige baiting, and I think it's a much better way to balance out the problems removing beige for offensive wars is meant to address than just removing beige for offensive wars all together.

12 turns is probably too restrictive... 24 turns is probably better.  The point is to create a potential cost for beige baiting: you get more beige that you want (6+ days) and end up sitting for a few days at full military that you can't use.  I don't think that's a bad thing, it doesn't prevent you from coming back out and launching a blitz (more interesting for all involved) but does give people an incentive to give you a long beige (it delays your blitz and gives them a few days where they don't have to worry about you.)

Edited by Azaghul
GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, lightside said:

Raiders are already winning their wars lol. What Murtaza is talking about is how if raiders can't leave biege then they won't be able to raid as much as they like. Which will badly effect their income.

If there are people trying to stop them from raiding, I don't think that's a bad thing.

Part of the problem is that the ONLY way to keep someone from raiding/attacking you is to just sit on them, kill their rebuys, and not beige them.  It's boring for everyone involved.

Minimum beige gives the side trying to counter someone an alternative to just sitting on them that will generate more interesting gameplay.

GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Wiki Mod
8 hours ago, Roberts said:

I don't see any proposed solution that would successfully curtail the need for moderation. The current approach took a good suggested change to beige from a mechanical perspective and added in a caveat based on moderation worries that have nothing to do with the mechanical functionality. Furthermore, the caveat does not fully address the moderation issue in question which is slot filling. Defensive slot filling can be just as much of a thing even with these changes, perhaps even moreso because it's the only way to get beige time. The decision to worsen a mechanic based on some one-off moderation issue is frankly ridiculous. Figure out a way to deal with slot filling that doesn't punish normal players.

 

Also bank hiding isn't a "grey area tactic", it's a necessary part of the ecosystem of PnW. Metaphorically, you can't kick over every single sand castle on the beach and expect people to still want to build.

 

 

edit: also yeah please remove auto-accepting peace.

Both slots and beige are broken. Both are constantly abused, it is not some one off issue. There is some major scandal related to it every single major conflict. Beige is meant to be a final fall back state that you do not want to be in. There only to prevent a rolling in to oblivion nothing more nothing less. It should always always be better to avoid being beiged. At no point in a game should strategy be based on hoping your enemy wins in a battle. Yet such is what beige is currently.

 

 

23:38 Skable that's why we don't want Rose involved, so we can take the m all for ourselves

23:39 [] but Mensa is the cute girl at the school dance and she's only dancing with us right now to get our friend jealous

23:39 [] If Rose comes in and gives Mensa what she wants, she'll just toss us aside and forget we ever existed

23:39 zombie_lanae yeah I do hope we can keep having them all to ourselves

23:40 zombie_lanae I know it's selfish but I want all their love

 

 

6:55 PM <+Isolatar> Praise Dio

Pubstomper|BNC [20:01:55] Rose wouldn't plan a hit on Mensa because it would be &#33;@#&#036;ing stupid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dr Rush said:

Both slots and beige are broken. Both are constantly abused, it is not some one off issue. There is some major scandal related to it every single major conflict. Beige is meant to be a final fall back state that you do not want to be in. There only to prevent a rolling in to oblivion nothing more nothing less. It should always always be better to avoid being beiged. At no point in a game should strategy be based on hoping your enemy wins in a battle. Yet such is what beige is currently.

Gonna have to disagree on that last point. Tactically, you are correct. However in the realms of Strategy and Grand Strategy, your enemy winning on a tactical level can sometimes be an unexpected massive gain (see: German 1918 Summer Offensive, a tactical victory, marred with the typical German strategical shortcomings that left the army in a worse position than before with less men and less supplies to hold that position).

The art of strategy itself mandates that, at times, to be defeated is the superior outcome to achieve overall victory. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Id like there to be a bonus too agressors whom win a war, Although my idea has been largely ignored by the community 

Edited by Grave
Meant agressors not defenders
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Azaghul said:


3) I strongly disagree with removing infra damage / loot from wars that end with auto-expiration.  I'd like to know what the reasoning was behind it.  Especially the infra damage, it's a good disincentive to avoid abusing beige and only bait it when you really need it.
 

I think this is because no one technically "won" the war when it auto expires aka no one removed all resistance.  Probably just another thing to incentivize us to actually fight to win. Also its not that he removed infra/loot from auto-expiration. That already doesn't exist. It looks he is just adding beige time to auto expiration.

Edited by lightside
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2020 at 5:03 PM, Azaghul said:

A few thoughts:

1) I really like Prefontaine's idea of beige banking where it's player controlled when you get it.  One of the main problems with beige right now is that you can easily avoid giving someone time to rebuild with beige cycling.

2) I didn't see much negative feed back on the auto-accepting peace mechanic and I'm confused about why it might be removed.   Maybe it's just my personal experience but a lot of the slot filling I've seen is people having friends beige them after launching offensive wars so they can't get countered.  Beige should be a mechanic to let you rebuild, not to let you avoid getting countered.

This mechanic also gives people an incentive to use in-game victories as a tool when countering someone.  Right now when countering someone, the incentive is to sit on them which is boring for everyone involved.  This offers a way to neutralize someone as a threat to people they have declared on other than just sitting on them.  The auto-beige instead of expiration removes an incentive to do this as well.

3) I strongly disagree with removing infra damage / loot from wars that end with auto-expiration.  I'd like to know what the reasoning was behind it.  Especially the infra damage, it's a good disincentive to avoid abusing beige and only bait it when you really need it.

4) I disagree with removing beige for aggressors.  I don't think *baiting* beige is a bad thing and it's good to have as a viable strategy.

The limit on when someone can come out of beige was intended as a balance to beige baiting, and I think it's a much better way to balance out the problems removing beige for offensive wars is meant to address than just removing beige for offensive wars all together.

12 turns is probably too restrictive... 24 turns is probably better.  The point is to create a potential cost for beige baiting: you get more beige that you want (6+ days) and end up sitting for a few days at full military that you can't use.  I don't think that's a bad thing, it doesn't prevent you from coming back out and launching a blitz (more interesting for all involved) but does give people an incentive to give you a long beige (it delays your blitz and gives them a few days where they don't have to worry about you.)

My thought on auto-accepting peace was that one person winning a war against you shouldn't potentially allow seven other people to escape their wars with you. It basically takes away a lot of nuance in individual wars for the sake of creating a new meta in an alliance-scale conflict. I see what you're trying to do, I think it's a cool idea, but I don't think it would have a net-positive impact on the game like your other suggestions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the proposed beige mechanic in this thread supposed to go hand-in-hand with the updates suggested in this other thread? @Prefontaine
 

 

Right now, it's super unclear what is the preferred plan of action. This current thread talks about replacing the old beige system with a new beige system. The thread I linked talks about replacing the old beige system with a new reserve mechanic, spy op changes, and blockade nerfing. Both threads imply or outright claim that Alex is going to go ahead with these ideas and wants last minute community thoughts. 

 

It's hard to properly comment on these proposed changes lately when so many are being presented so quickly and we don't know how they are all supposed to tie together (if it is intended for them to be tied together). 

  • Like 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.