Jump to content

Replacing beige with a beige bank


Prefontaine
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is very easily abused and basically means that every war declared leads to the defensive person getting beiged no matter what. You may ask how, well let's say I declare war on you and do 1 ground attack to eliminate 10 resistance. All you need to do is. . . Wait, and you've won the war. There is no point in declaring offensive wars in a global because the defender will always get 6+ days of beige no matter what you do. Alex may be trying to get people to fight in wars that are declared, but I assure you this will do the exact opposite and make the meta literally not doing anything in defensive wars.

  • Like 6
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Potpie99 said:

This is very easily abused and basically means that every war declared leads to the defensive person getting beiged no matter what. You may ask how, well let's say I declare war on you and do 1 ground attack to eliminate 10 resistance. All you need to do is. . . Wait, and you've won the war. There is no point in declaring offensive wars in a global because the defender will always get 6+ days of beige no matter what you do. Alex may be trying to get people to fight in wars that are declared, but I assure you this will do the exact opposite and make the meta literally not doing anything in defensive wars.

Yes, nations who get zeroed out will eventually have the ability to rebuild and fight back. The alternative scenario is that you can hold someone down forever?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just gonna copy paste what I said in the discord tbh.

The only thing on the test server preventing is literally two small changes.

Ones that don't require having to bullshit people that it "adds a new layer of strategy" while anyone who actually understands what strategy is sees that it's just replacing one existing level with a different one.

Literally the only part about the "different one" I actually like at all is offensive nation's still get beige, and that the cap is higher than 5 days. AKA, the two changes to the current test server that would make your entire spiel irrelevant.

And that I'd frankly prefer to trying to plan and coordinate with noobs a week in advance of activity and actions just it utilize it properly.

Because shocker, most alliances aren't your proper TEst level of elite who can figure it out alone while you sip a martini.

Large alliances are already unwieldy to handle and coordinate, your "new level of strategy" just makes an already difficult task and leaves it so that maybe 3 alliances over 100 and 4 if you expand to over 75, would actually have the present skill, experience and sheer hands on deck to handle not being gutter trash.

And if you're TI forgetaboutit, at nearly 300 members you're just RIP.

  • Like 5
  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Alex's message about removing beige he 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" could you please explain how this is not going back to that, just with a different goal post for what losing a war is?

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Zoot said:

In Alex's message about removing beige he 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" could you please explain how this is not going back to that, just with a different goal post for what losing a war is?

 

If anything, it'd be worse in that regard.

But yes, I fail to see the point in making a suggestion which so heavily runs counter to Alex's stance on the matter. Unless if Alex changed his mind (unlikely), it's just going to be rejected.

That's nothing to say of the flaws already listed, and that others may list as well.

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

why does the beige have to last up to 8 days if a full rebuild takes 5?

I don't mind that it stacks up, but I don't think it needs to be stacked up for over 5 days.

maybe, we could add a max stack of 5 days and once that is reached (3 total beiges) all other wars automatically expire. This also means the loser will only be plundered 3 times and winners will likely race to be amongst the first 3 beigers thus, encouraging the proper use of beige.

That would ensure the defender 5 days of uninterrupted beige without nations "sitting" on them.

Another little tweak could be that a war must have at least 1 attack every 24 hours from either party or the war will expire. That's easily played around but it will also help the whole "sitting" strategy we are so used to to circumvent the purpose of beige.

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

53 minutes ago, Zoot said:

In Alex's message about removing beige he 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" could you please explain how this is not going back to that, just with a different goal post for what losing a war is?

Due to community feedback regarding the removal of beige, that was walked by over a week ago. 

 

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Seb said:

I like that you don't get beiged if you are the aggressor

Most up to date information can be found here.

51 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

If anything, it'd be worse in that regard.

But yes, I fail to see the point in making a suggestion which so heavily runs counter to Alex's stance on the matter. Unless if Alex changed his mind (unlikely), it's just going to be rejected.

That's nothing to say of the flaws already listed, and that others may list as well.

The "flaws" being, nations who are pinned down can escape from being pinned down and it being hard to coordinate a 300 man alliance? Okay. 

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Seb said:

I like that you don't get beiged if you are the aggressor

I must admit i had a great laugh,

Its funny you of all people has an opinion about the war changes

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prefontaine said:

Due to community feedback regarding the removal of beige, that was walked by over a week ago. 

Except the beige he's testing out is neutered in accordance to his priorities/considerations, which haven't changed.

Expecting him not only to return to old beige (which he clearly doesn't intend to do), but implement one which, for his purposes/considerations, is even worse, is unrealistic.

1 hour ago, Prefontaine said:

The "flaws" being, nations who are pinned down can escape from being pinned down and it being hard to coordinate a 300 man alliance? Okay. 

Before beige got removed, they could escape if they put the effort into it anyways.

As for flaws, just to cite a few:

People intentionally UF'ing (mind you, this was already happening to some degree last war), so to still kill units whilst not grinding resistance (so to deny beige to their foe). Thing is, there'd be a much higher incentive to do this now, since being just one res below the other guy would deny him the beige. Given that the infra/loot damage would also be fractioned, rather than the full value, taking this beige wouldn't be as punitive either. And no, the trade ratios wouldn't be that much of an issue with air, due to how dogfights work.

It wouldn't just be a matter of people not wanting to win their wars (which seemingly bothers Alex); people wouldn't even want to win those individual battles.


This is also a further nerf to aggression. Being the aggressor has it's own set of costs, which include political ones, if not properly justified (it doesn't matter that you're tired about that "old song and dance"; other people aren't, and it's a relevant matter for politics, and it'll continue to be a relevant matter for politics). It also takes genuine effort to put together a good offensive. These costs and efforts should come with a set of tangible benefits of their own. One of them being conventional control. This benefit has already been nerfed with the casualties reduction. Given that it's already harder to bring these nations down, they shouldn't just be able to rebound effortlessly. Else, there would be no incentive to be the aggressor, which would lead to no one wanting to be such, and with it, a staler (read:boring) game. 

And no, there isn't much disruption that'll happen, given that you'd be able to hold beige for 16 days. This is guaranteed two war cycles if all wars expires; else, it'd be more. It's simply too long for such to be possible, as you'd be all but guaranteed to get more than enough beige time for a comeback.
 

I'd also suggest you actually try to address the point raised by them, rather than just smugly reduce them to one or two talking points and discard out of hand. You're the one trying to argue for this mechanic; make a proper defence for it.

Edited by Shiho Nishizumi
Minor edit.
  • Upvote 5
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prefontaine said:

Most up to date information can be found here.

The "flaws" being, nations who are pinned down can escape from being pinned down and it being hard to coordinate a 300 man alliance? Okay. 

It's great that you were able to channel the disingenuous nature of your political career to your resume project too. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have time right this moment to address criticisms but I think this is a much more balanced system than before.  It allows people to eventually get a reprieve from being endlessly cycled while still giving a big advantage to those who strike first.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Azaghul said:

I don't have time right this moment to address criticisms but I think this is a much more balanced system than before.  It allows people to eventually get a reprieve from being endlessly cycled while still giving a big advantage to those who strike first.

No, it doesn't. I'd prefer you didn't waste everyone's time trying to claim otherwise either, it is for this specific reason when I talk about almost no one on this subforum knowing what a bigger picture is that you're one of the first names to come up. 

At least unlike pre you're not also blatantly disingenuous, you just chronically fail to observe other details than the primary one which has garnered your eye. When one seeks to solve a problem one must consider the other effects their solution may have. 

Honestly I think you're vastly out of touch from being in TKR for basically ever that you do not know or do not remember what it's actually like to be in an alliance that is not just generally all around good generally all the time.

I made my point with size, it gets exponentially harder the bigger you are, but allow me to illustrate how little size actually matters to my point.

Let's say it's a more middling alliance. 45 members. These mechanics are introduced and war has broken out. You were hit with a well executed blitz that completely rolled you and your allies, unsuspecting of it, into the dust. 

As milcom you just spent the last several days putting up the best defense you could, ensuring warchests were had, builds switched, units and their rebuys used and timed correctly, counters sent where they could be sent, communicating with your allies as you start to setup a centralized command structure and planning a large scale counter attack with the beige banks. 

Stuff looks pretty bad right now, you got blindsided hard and as a middling alliance, poor morale especially in the face of a superior enemy is a far greater concern to you than the Titans you tug the robes of. Even they are concerned, but your enemy all beiged you, no fancy delaying their timings or anything to screw you up, they made it easy!

So it's decided the beige banks will be used ASAP to launch a counterattack! Your new job is to now organize and manage 45 warchests, nation wide city builds, unit buys, activity, personal daily reset settings, beige banks, you need to setup squads, pick your targets, assign people to them, coordinate all of this with all the hundreds of other nations being managed by allied milcoms. 

And don't forget, if your enemies are intelligent you're also still managing current wars, more incoming, potentially counters for those or allies, oh and I almost forgot spy operations! 

All this while planning a coordinated blitz a week+ in advance and hoping people show up or don't quit or VM or leave or that your enemy guesses you're coming and correctly blunts you with their own counter blitz. And God forbid anybody particularly in gov, just can't spare the time because of life, lol.

Now all of this, doesn't sound that bad to you I'm sure. For Pre, he ran an alliance of elites, it wasn't necessary to do all that. For TKR, there's just so many bloody government members, not even counting retired ones who could still be called in to help, the task is great but so is the manpower to tackle it.

That, is straight up, not the case, for almost every alliance in the game. They either lack manpower or the knowledge or often both. Even in the four whole alliances I think could handle pulling an operation off like this, it's still alot of effort on the people doing it. 

And don't forget, bigger alliances attract more people, particularly people with skill and knowledge. A larger alliance is not merely more powerful because of its many members, but also because it's very power is a positive feedback loop that attracts more individuals with the ability to push that even further.

Which is a very long winded way of saying, most alliances simply cannot field a milcom department large or experienced enough to do this. TKR has probably what, 5+ what might as well be milcom heads, good ones even, if it needed that many? Syndicate has at least three, and they're some of the best period. Rose has Valk and DtC both of which have no life Roses milcom into actually existing single handedly before. Lastly, my own alliance, just in active gov currently, effectively has at minimum 5 major Milcom personnel who could walk into damn near any other alliance in the game and suddenly that alliance would have a respectable milcom. 

 

As much as I wish the game to be more skill oriented because I'm a self biased patrician who would benefit from such, go too hard in that direction and even I'll quit the game because I'll be bored, and everyone else will quit because why bother when the logistical operations demanded by these mechanics are so significant that compared to a TKR, they might as well not have an MA to begin with. 

And then at the end of it all, even if that entire anecdote is wrong, you will still be crushed and lose to a cadre of alliances who have more resources than you, more people to fight on, and more commanders to get them to do so.if you don't want 6 month long wars then at some point, making an enemy bend the knee and keeping it bent, must be possible. Perma warring is after all, included in the rules now.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

When a war ends by expiration, the defeated nation loses portion of the infra and loot they would normally lose. The portion depends on the remaining resistance of the defeated nation. If they have 50 resistance left, they only lose 50% of the infra and loot they would have lost. Is they have 25 resistance left, they lose 75% of the infra and loot they would have lost.

Why not make the war expire if the defending nation does not use MAPS in 24 turns?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like this idea, ultimately 5 days isn't a full rebuild when you still have people on you, and it takes 8-16  lost wars to get the full 8 days, makes sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2020 at 7:20 PM, Akuryo said:

No, it doesn't. I'd prefer you didn't waste everyone's time trying to claim otherwise either, it is for this specific reason when I talk about almost no one on this subforum knowing what a bigger picture is that you're one of the first names to come up. 

At least unlike pre you're not also blatantly disingenuous, you just chronically fail to observe other details than the primary one which has garnered your eye. When one seeks to solve a problem one must consider the other effects their solution may have. 

Honestly I think you're vastly out of touch from being in TKR for basically ever that you do not know or do not remember what it's actually like to be in an alliance that is not just generally all around good generally all the time.

I made my point with size, it gets exponentially harder the bigger you are, but allow me to illustrate how little size actually matters to my point.

Let's say it's a more middling alliance. 45 members. These mechanics are introduced and war has broken out. You were hit with a well executed blitz that completely rolled you and your allies, unsuspecting of it, into the dust. 

As milcom you just spent the last several days putting up the best defense you could, ensuring warchests were had, builds switched, units and their rebuys used and timed correctly, counters sent where they could be sent, communicating with your allies as you start to setup a centralized command structure and planning a large scale counter attack with the beige banks. 

Stuff looks pretty bad right now, you got blindsided hard and as a middling alliance, poor morale especially in the face of a superior enemy is a far greater concern to you than the Titans you tug the robes of. Even they are concerned, but your enemy all beiged you, no fancy delaying their timings or anything to screw you up, they made it easy!

So it's decided the beige banks will be used ASAP to launch a counterattack! Your new job is to now organize and manage 45 warchests, nation wide city builds, unit buys, activity, personal daily reset settings, beige banks, you need to setup squads, pick your targets, assign people to them, coordinate all of this with all the hundreds of other nations being managed by allied milcoms. 

And don't forget, if your enemies are intelligent you're also still managing current wars, more incoming, potentially counters for those or allies, oh and I almost forgot spy operations! 

All this while planning a coordinated blitz a week+ in advance and hoping people show up or don't quit or VM or leave or that your enemy guesses you're coming and correctly blunts you with their own counter blitz. And God forbid anybody particularly in gov, just can't spare the time because of life, lol.

Now all of this, doesn't sound that bad to you I'm sure. For Pre, he ran an alliance of elites, it wasn't necessary to do all that. For TKR, there's just so many bloody government members, not even counting retired ones who could still be called in to help, the task is great but so is the manpower to tackle it.

That, is straight up, not the case, for almost every alliance in the game. They either lack manpower or the knowledge or often both. Even in the four whole alliances I think could handle pulling an operation off like this, it's still alot of effort on the people doing it. 

And don't forget, bigger alliances attract more people, particularly people with skill and knowledge. A larger alliance is not merely more powerful because of its many members, but also because it's very power is a positive feedback loop that attracts more individuals with the ability to push that even further.

Which is a very long winded way of saying, most alliances simply cannot field a milcom department large or experienced enough to do this. TKR has probably what, 5+ what might as well be milcom heads, good ones even, if it needed that many? Syndicate has at least three, and they're some of the best period. Rose has Valk and DtC both of which have no life Roses milcom into actually existing single handedly before. Lastly, my own alliance, just in active gov currently, effectively has at minimum 5 major Milcom personnel who could walk into damn near any other alliance in the game and suddenly that alliance would have a respectable milcom. 

 

As much as I wish the game to be more skill oriented because I'm a self biased patrician who would benefit from such, go too hard in that direction and even I'll quit the game because I'll be bored, and everyone else will quit because why bother when the logistical operations demanded by these mechanics are so significant that compared to a TKR, they might as well not have an MA to begin with. 

And then at the end of it all, even if that entire anecdote is wrong, you will still be crushed and lose to a cadre of alliances who have more resources than you, more people to fight on, and more commanders to get them to do so.if you don't want 6 month long wars then at some point, making an enemy bend the knee and keeping it bent, must be possible. Perma warring is after all, included in the rules now.

 

 

  See my issue with this is you are micro managing every slight aspect of your members war effort instead of teaching them how to do it themselves and reprimanding those who don't meet expectations. 

  This also expands to MA/MilCom, you can make almost anyone who's active and willing to learn into someone capable of leading a large alliance. 

 

 

I guess the key here is you should teach a few people (MA)  really well so they can teach the rest of the alliance to be self sufficient so your MA can focus on coordinating the war and yelling at the few stragglers to learn and execute that learning. 

 

Edited by Grave
Alliance was plural
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Grave said:

 

 

  See my issue with this is you are micro managing every slight aspect of your members war effort instead of teaching them how to do it themselves and reprimanding those who don't meet expectations. 

  This also expands to MA/MilCom, you can make almost anyone who's active and willing to learn into someone capable of leading a large alliances. 

 

 

I guess the key here is you should teach a few people (MA)  really well so they can teach the rest of the alliance to be self sufficient so your MA can focus on coordinating the war and yelling at the few stragglers to learn and execute that learning. 

 

I think Akuryo's point is that we shouldn't replace a simple system with an overly complex system for no reason. When most of the players, including Azaghul who actually presented the original suggested change to beige currently being tested, agree that current beige wasn't broken. It just needed tweaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Roberts said:

I think Akuryo's point is that we shouldn't replace a simple system with an overly complex system for no reason. When most of the players, including Azaghul who actually presented the original suggested change to beige currently being tested, agree that current beige wasn't broken. It just needed tweaking.

The simple system allowed for nations to never be able to recover once zero'd out. It's really not that complicated, and we shouldn't hide from changes that are more complicated. Azaghul is also in favor of most aspects of this system. Azaghul stated they would give it a more detailed posted when they had the time. 

scSqPGJ.gif

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.