Colorstock restriction removal/change

[Dwynn]

Ok, so currently we thought there was a bug in the colorstock code.

 

(60*2)/(732+3^2*200)=4.73%

 

 

That's what the green bonus should have been at, yet they've been sitting on 7.82% for at least a couple days now. When it was brought up to Sheepy, he brought to light restrictions that were in place.

 

>299 score

Older than 10 days.

 

It's the second one that bugs me. Because if a new alliance forms (Brotherhood of Steel in this instance), they IMMEDIATELY affect the colorstock bonus by being nations on that color, with no negative effects.

 

So for the last 9 days, Green has had an artificially inflated colorstock bonus without any of the negative effects. When the colorstock change went in to place, Sheepy said it was to spread the colors out and to make colorstock a more viable tool in the game.

 

It seems to me that the tool is currently unbalanced, and abuseable. An alliance could form a colony to join an off-alliance color, immediately boost a color's worth and reap the benefits, then return to their own color. Rinse, repeat.

 

I suggested to Sheepy to remove the 10 day limitation to force alliances to police the colors on their own. He said if he removes it, it makes it easier for a 1-man alliance to colorbomb. The 10 day doesn't stop that, it delays it at best 10 days. During those 10 days, each alliance (the bomber and the others on color) are benefiting from unbalanced code implementation.

 

This needs fixing. Plain and simple.

 

When tanks were unbalanced, we got told "nobody is going to run an all-tank army". That happened and then it became an issue, then it became fixed. It wouldn't have been an issue if it was balanced to begin with. This is another example of unbalanced code.

[naTia]

A fair amount of potential for abuse in my opinion.

• Little nations benefitting without joining large alliances and having to be taxed
• People just making an alliance for the stock bonus
• People being paid to help out on color then bomb an enemy's after 10 days

List goes on.

Edited October 28, 2014 by The Captain Nao

[Quelye]

You don't have to be in an alliance to get the color bonus, though, do you? Why would you need to create a "colony" alliance when you could just switch to a different color for the increased bonus. I mean, obviously it would appear that you weren't in an alliance, but even if alliances did immediately have a negative impact people could still do this -- leave their alliance and just switch to a color with a good bonus.

[Geronimo]

You don't have to be in an alliance to get the color bonus, though, do you? Why would you need to create a "colony" alliance when you could just switch to a different color for the increased bonus. I mean, obviously it would appear that you weren't in an alliance, but even if alliances did immediately have a negative impact people could still do this -- leave their alliance and just switch to a color with a good bonus.

This is a solid argumentation. You don't have to build an alliance if you want to get more color stock bonus. So, the system that had been Sheepy set was to prevent any color stock bombing.

[Prefontaine]

To receive a color stock bonus your have to be in the same sphere as your alliance.

[Alex]

To receive a color stock bonus your have to be in the same sphere as your alliance.

 

Unless you're not in an alliance, you'll get the bonus for whatever color you're on. Quelye made a great point, removing the 10 day wait wouldn't add anything, and then we'd have no check against folks making one (or two or three) man alliances to try to sabotage color stock.

[Phiney]

Why is colour bombing a bad thing, it's a valid tactic. I don't see why You need to go about removing all non standard and intended ways to war, I'd users come up with something different that causes interest, it doesn't have to be removed from the game mechanics in my opinion. If its a permanent thing I could understand, but it would only be during a war and the bomber would also be receiving the stock reduction, and would clearly be a main target for the bombed alliance.

[Dwynn]

Why is colour bombing a bad thing, it's a valid tactic. I don't see why You need to go about removing all non standard and intended ways to war, I'd users come up with something different that causes interest, it doesn't have to be removed from the game mechanics in my opinion. If its a permanent thing I could understand, but it would only be during a war and the bomber would also be receiving the stock reduction, and would clearly be a main target for the bombed alliance.

This is a point I tried to make and failed at. Why are we removing non-standard war options? Wouldn't forcing alliances to police their own colors create more drama and more inter-alliance tensions, which in turn make the game more enjoyable for much of the playerbase?

[TheNG]

This is a point I tried to make and failed at. Why are we removing non-standard war options? Wouldn't forcing alliances to police their own colors create more drama and more inter-alliance tensions, which in turn make the game more enjoyable for much of the playerbase?

That was basically what the old system tried to do, and it ended up with tons color colonies and single alliances dominating a color and killing anything that tried to step on, generating gigantic bonuses. There were some flaws and problems, but I still think this generated the most drama and interest in color stock, right now colors have very little importance in the grand scheme of things.

 

I think the reason why some people don't like things like color bombing is that people like TAC can create a bunch of tiny alliances, and tank the bonus for everyone on the color, while also being immune to persecution and receiving a nice 5% bonus on beige.

I actually think this is a neat tactic, while being pretty much restricted to wartime, as everyone isn't on beige during a peace. That said, there is little reason for alliances to hunt down others on their color, as you would then end up with a situation like now, where the defeated nation's alliances are still hurting the bonus, but the defeated nations themselves aren't contributing, hurting the bonus for everyone. This means that this version of color stock is counterproductive to conflict and tension, as doing much of anything would just hurt the bonus for everyone instead of improving it, leaving alliances to just sit around, as we have seen.

[Dwynn]

I'm still not sure how this version is making things less dramatic? The coding change was put in to make colors more volatile based on change. The only problem with it in my eyes is the need for an alliance to exist for 10 days.

 

However you do raise a valid point, and one I hadn't though of. If an alliance is set to a color, and none of it's members are that color (ala beige/gray), then that alliance should be excluded from the colorstock formula.

 

The way the current system is though, while TAC (since they just did a color bomb as part of their war tactic) initially created a color colony, the members on the color immediately provide the bonus, while no negative effects are had. The only reason the color bomb is currently effective is because they moved TAC over to purple as well. So when

 

I just fail to see the attempts to make colorstock more volatile and part of the political and war scene, and then putting in game mechanics to limit the effect of colorstock being used as a tool. It's unbalanced and poorly implemented.

[Alex]

Ah, you just had to go and give everyone the bright idea to make split off alliances again!

 

I'll see about removing the 10 day restriction, but we still need something else to prevent people from abusing it. It needs to be something simple (like checking the age of the alliance is), because checking if everyone's color in an alliance will put far too big of a load on the server if we're doing it every time we want to calculate color stock.

[Dwynn]

I guess I'm confused how it's considered abuse though. It's a valid tactic and having arbitrary coding in place to limit it makes it a much less valid tactic.

 

It's akin to saying, "Hey, I'm going to give you this bazooka, however, it's only going to shoot nerf darts. So have fun with that." You're basically limiting a tactic of war if you restrict the negative impact a color bomb will have.

 

Leave the policing of colors up to the alliances. It will make for more dynamic interaction between alliances.

[Vincent]

Color bomb is a war tactic? Since when? As if anyone would really be affected by the so called 12K drop in daily revenue. Indeed I am impressed by this tactic.

[Dwynn]

Color bomb is a war tactic? Since when? As if anyone would really be affected by the so called 12K drop in daily revenue. Indeed I am impressed by this tactic.

 

Could you describe in my post where I said war? And downplaying the fact that you're getting less money is fine for the In-game forums, but please keep the bravado out of this thread. This is a suggestion thread about balancing a game mechanic that I feel is currently unbalanced.

 

What you're implying with your "herp derp I don't notice a difference" is that colorstock bonus has so little to do with anything that it may as well be removed, which I disagree with. Economic tactics are still tactics and a valid facet of the game.

[Phiney]

Sheepy, I know you're concerned about colony alliances, which was why the colour bonus changed in the first place, but this isn't what colour bombing is. Its a short term tactic that hurts both alliances involved, so only useful if you are on the losing side. It in no way creates permanent colour colonies like before.