Jump to content

Beige Rework attempt 69


Raphael
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posting this here because we've rehashed it 1,000 times on the dev team. We'd like some public opinion on the  matter, try to stay civil, love yall mean it.

 

Reworking Beige attempt 69

 

There are multiple pieces to this proposal and they all work in concert to provide a new and improved beige experience that not only provides military reprieve for the loser but also provides a decent enough “punishment” for losing.

 

The thought is that beige is currently a good thing in the war meta. Victors do not want to give it, so they sit and time out their wars instead of finishing them. Losers desperately search for loopholes in slot-filling rules and every global we see people declaring offensive wars on Arrgh to bait beige or the Knights Templar declaring “raids” on their friends to give beige time. This is such a widespread practice that is basically part of the war meta itself.

 

We need to rework beige in order to close loopholes, simplify the meta, provide consistent relief for people who have their military wiped, and give incentive for people to want to win their wars in-game.


 

  1. Every war will end in beige or a peace deal. Beige will be given by reducing an opponent to 0 resistance or by wars timing out.

    1. If a war times out, the person with the lowest percentage of their nation score coming from military will receive beige.

  2. Beige now deals a flat number (potentially a range?) in infra damage instead of a percent. Every beige reduces infra in each city by 300 or 10%, whichever is the higher number. A full round of defensive beige will drop you by 900 infra in every city. The current 10% damage for most people right now roughly claims between 150-250 infra in the first few rounds of war, just to give you an idea of the increase. This is to help keep the pressure on people to either rebuild infra to keep military running or to help the winners pin down their opponents economically and force them to pull from warchests.

    1. The reason for this is that I believe politics should be the deciding factor in how or when a war ends. Right now it’s a purely economic question: If you’re losing and have taken a lot of damage, the incentive is to keep fighting until you can equalize that damage because there is little-to-no pressure on you to surrender. Most older alliances are barely dipping into their warchests to fight an entire global war. We need to make wars more expensive in large conflicts but without adjusting individual price points so that new players and raiders can still do their thing.

  3. The beige team current gives an income bonus (probably to help new players). This will be removed and refactored into a flat -15% net income reduction that affects cash and resource production while on beige. I thought about making this harsher but I think starting with 15% is good. The point being: You do not want to be on beige, you definitely shouldn’t be getting bonuses for it.

  4. You cannot leave beige until you have 18 turns or less remaining. This provides a further incentive for the victor to want to beige their opponent: It keeps them out of the fight for a bit and allows people to “divide and conquer” so to speak.


 

With this rework we see beige allowing people to rebuild their military - earning beige time from every war as long as their military score is a low enough percentage (again, potentially encouraging war-time minimum infrastructure spending).

 

This also provides a new framework for beige to be an economic and strategic negative rather than an economic and strategic bonus to the losers of wars, without getting overtly harsh.



 

I would also like to note that due to the new economic tweaks to beige, we should allow new players to start on any given color team but simply be protected from wars for 14 days through a different mechanic.

Also just to pre-empt some comments I know will come, if you have an alternative system to pitch other than the current beige mechanic and tweaks to said current mechanic, I kindly ask you to make your own thread. I'm strictly looking for input on tweaking beige itself.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 79
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some points to add.

  1. Need a clause for what happens in a tie if a war goes the distance and still has equal amounts of resistance left. I would suggest tie goes to the defender for a victory.
  2. What happens if a city doesn't have 300 infra left to lose? Is it reduced to 0.01 and nothing further? Does damage roll over anywhere else?
  3. An alternative could be number of beige turns x2 is the reduction percentage.
  4. GL with this one, it's not a popular one. You may want to think of a compromise of some trade off to be able to leave before 18 turns left. 
  • Upvote 1

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, there is already a publicly loved and voted for solution to beige that was given to Alex over 2 years ago at this point, was supposedly put on the test server, and then abandoned for some reason.

 

The wheel has already been invented. Stop trying to reinvent it again and again and just slap it onto a goddamn cart already.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Zei-Sakura Alsainn said:

Once again, there is already a publicly loved and voted for solution to beige that was given to Alex over 2 years ago at this point, was supposedly put on the test server, and then abandoned for some reason.

 

The wheel has already been invented. Stop trying to reinvent it again and again and just slap it onto a goddamn cart already.

Referring to this one? 

  • Upvote 1

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dream said:

I am sorry to say but none of these suggestions make sense. 

1. I don't think you're considering the extent of the infrastructure damage you're pushing for. 900 infra damage for someone at 3k infra is just too much and it'll way more easy to get someone at 0 infra. It'll just take like what 2-3 rounds for people at 2k infra? Even lesser for smaller nations. And it just makes it impossible to rebuild post war. Most alliances wouldn't be able to afford a rebuild after a war then other than the alliances who've been around for while and have a large warchest

2. Then there is the 15% reduction in income, like first off the easy way to zero out someone then reducing their income so they make even lesser. This just makes the wars way more easier to be won. Don't know how that makes sense at all. 

3.  I don't think forcing someone on beige helps with divide and conquer. If they have 6 days of beige they'll just use it to remil and counter like how it is done now. It just gives us more of a reason for not beiging them. Idk man, this doesn't make any sense to me. 

Thank you for your informative feedback, firstly.

 

The idea behind the current proposal is to make beige an unhappy place to be rather than one of the best places to be in the game.

So economic disincentives are part of that - beige is a mechanic designed to give military reprieve and most people fighting will be receiving resources from a bank during war so the -15% income piece really doesn't impact the majority of players. It's just a small push factor being added to make people actually feel like they lost a war instead of won rebuild time.

Additionally the divide and conquer piece falls directly into a piece from Azaghul's previous rework suggestion - keeping people on beige until the last few turns/days. So if someone ends up with six days of beige and this current proposal was enacted that person would be stuck on beige for at least 4 of those 6 days, unable to assist in the war effort but having plenty of time to rebuild themselves.

 

Finally, I'm not opposed to leaving out the infra damage piece all together if it's too harsh. I can see the argument there.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Justinian the Great said:

The thought is that beige is currently a good thing in the war meta. Victors do not want to give it, so they sit and time out their wars instead of finishing them. Losers desperately search for loopholes in slot-filling rules and every global we see people declaring offensive wars on Arrgh to bait beige or the Knights Templar declaring “raids” on their friends to give beige time. This is such a widespread practice that is basically part of the war meta itself.

This is indeed an issue, but it's not that widely abused because it is pretty quickly reported. At the end of the day, it will never be the deciding factor of a war if Arrgh beiges a few people.

51 minutes ago, Justinian the Great said:

 

  1. Every war will end in beige or a peace deal. Beige will be given by reducing an opponent to 0 resistance or by wars timing out.

    1. If a war times out, the person with the lowest percentage of their nation score coming from military will receive beige.

  2. Beige now deals a flat number (potentially a range?) in infra damage instead of a percent. Every beige reduces infra in each city by 300 or 10%, whichever is the higher number. A full round of defensive beige will drop you by 900 infra in every city. The current 10% damage for most people right now roughly claims between 150-250 infra in the first few rounds of war, just to give you an idea of the increase. This is to help keep the pressure on people to either rebuild infra to keep military running or to help the winners pin down their opponents economically and force them to pull from warchests.

Meh, you're merely changing the meta here slightly. Rebuilding infra + mil already exists in the current meta if you need to whilst losing. The more likely outcome is what normally happens which is to nuke/missile.

 

54 minutes ago, Justinian the Great said:

You cannot leave beige until you have 18 turns or less remaining. This provides a further incentive for the victor to want to beige their opponent: It keeps them out of the fight for a bit and allows people to “divide and conquer” so to speak.

Normally people are struggling for targets if they're winning, I very much doubt people will care if they're out of the war. It won't have the impact you're looking for.

 

  • Upvote 6

[11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Justinian the Great said:

Every beige reduces infra in each city by 300 or 10%, whichever is the higher number. A full round of defensive beige will drop you by 900 infra in every city.

53 minutes ago, Justinian the Great said:

We need to make wars more expensive in large conflicts but without adjusting individual price points so that new players and raiders can still do their thing.

New players and raiders will still be able to do their thing, as long as they are ready to rebuild like $1.2m (0-900 infra, no discounts) for each city after 3 beiges (a normal round of non DNR raiding). This "300 per city infra destruction proposal" would severely nerf low tier raiding and kill any raiding above c20. 

  • Upvote 4

Downloads.jpg.f8cec0ed86ab61876072ab7847b52f92.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Justinian the Great said:

The reason for this is that I believe politics should be the deciding factor in how or when a war ends. Right now it’s a purely economic question: If you’re losing and have taken a lot of damage, the incentive is to keep fighting until you can equalize that damage because there is little-to-no pressure on you to surrender. Most older alliances are barely dipping into their warchests to fight an entire global war. We need to make wars more expensive in large conflicts but without adjusting individual price points so that new players and raiders can still do their thing.

It's an economic question on lost income and this won't change that. Making wars more expensive merely pushes the peace time inbetween the wars to become longer.

  • Upvote 3

[11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, who is the "dev team", because they seem to be watching different wars to the rest of us.

Rather than rehashing the same conversation time and time again, maybe you should actually arrange to test something rather than keep talking about it until you get the answer you want... it's clear that the "dev team" doesn't really want to know what the playerbase wants, they just want to get some kind of evidence to back up their latest greatest idea.

The basis of this idea is flawed as you are trying to remove economic factors from the equation, by making things harm nation economies more...

There is no economic bonus to alliances of nations being sat on beige, especially when nations are almost always beige cycled anyway... beige nations don't get taxed. For alliances, getting 15% less of nothing is still nothing. And nations won't care whether they are getting -15% bonus on beige because they would just be getting resources from their alliances at that point anyway. All this would do is affect those that are low tier raiding/don't get support from their alliances.

You say that politics should be the deciding factor in when a war ends... how is the economy of an alliance not part of their politics? If they have no money and no resources, then there will be more pressure on the alliance leadership to sort something out. If they are in a position where they can continue in perpetuity then it will not matter.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Justinian the Great said:

Additionally the divide and conquer piece falls directly into a piece from Azaghul's previous rework suggestion - keeping people on beige until the last few turns/days. So if someone ends up with six days of beige and this current proposal was enacted that person would be stuck on beige for at least 4 of those 6 days, unable to assist in the war effort but having plenty of time to rebuild themselves.

This'll just make suicides harder to pull off. Shortening the span of a war, why would someone even rebuild after getting beiged. People would still sit on them like they do atm. And since the beiged won't be able to suicide anymore making the wars way more boring 😬

  • Upvote 2

image.png.53cb39df314b30232b410b94801b6f72.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mentioned this over a year ago when the beige mechanic was being looked at last time.  At the end of the day, you want to encourage winning the wars but need a mechanism for people to be able to recover.  So the mechanic that was introduced to take away beige was good - start with that, it eliminates any incentive to not win wars then.  Now that doesn't address the ability to rebuild though, so here was my proposal:

Just think about in real war, a nation surrenders then has a period of reconstruction - so this mechanic would be a "SURRENDER" option.  A player can select this, and when they do so, any military they have left is destroyed/removed (sold effectively) and the wars they have currently they automatically lose (meaning loot/4% infra destroyed - i'd push the infra destroyed to be a bit higher w/ this). They cannot declare any new wars during this reconstruction period and they earn no income and produce no resources outside of their daily login bonus, no trades, nothing.  You do want to make it punitive for using this, so not used to avoid big losses - but they'll always have an option to do this if they want to rebuild.

There should be a minimum time of "reconstruction", say 3-5 days where the nation can't do ANYTHING.  Then, after day 3-5, they have full control again to rebuild their military/nation.  However, wars still can't come - either offensive or defensive.  Then, when the period of reconstruction is over, say, 5 days later - they are eligible for DEFENSIVE wars, but no offensive wars for 1 or 2 more days.  The reason being, you don't want an alliance to have everybody go into reconstruction the same time, fully rebuild military and all come out and strike immediately, that would game the system.  As part of their surrender they lose the ability to declare an offensive war for 1 or 2 days when they're back on the market.  So yes, nations can be built back up, but it is punitive as it should be and doesn't screw over the side that's winning the war.  This makes it a lot harder to keep big nations/alliances down though compared to the old cycle beige tactics - meaning wars would be a lot more expensive if people were to fully rebuild their military.  May consider lowering the resources needed for war or up production as a counter to that.  Anyway, just an alternative thought to consider to address the issue.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 24
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vein said:

I have a solution, don't touch how the current beige system works and rather bring back the old war mechanics....also gib 50 score per city instead of 100 

This tbh, the changes in mechanics clearly didn't work, the meta keeps changing but none of those changes have ever 'fixed ' anything. We're just trying random things at this point hoping some of these changes work.

  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 1

tvPWtuA.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dryad said:

@hidude45454 Join dev-team pls.

@Justinian the Great You have to burn this concept of trapping people on beige. Your solution must work for any imaginable scenario that a loser can be in. Sometimes the two sides in wars are fairly even, other times one side is outnumbered 10:1 by the other and rebuilding military isn't even an option on the table. When it isn't an option people will need to fire missiles/nukes and do raiding type stuff with soldiers only; you cant make this impossible by trapping people on beige for a week, especially not with all this punitive stuff I see in @Lord Tyrions post, "where the nation can't do ANYTHING" while trapped on beige.

 

rofl

Just to clarify, there would be no beige in what I'm proposing.  It would be completely voluntary to surrender to then have a period of reconstruction (don't want to not be able to do anything for a few days, don't click that option and lose your war w/o beige time).  As long as there is a mechanic to allow people to recover, and having motivation to finish wars, that's the key.  Think of it in the context of one of the last globals.  Rose got caught unmilitarized and never could recover.  What if their entire group got an opportunity to fully rebuild?  Granted, in my proposal they'd not have been able to all declare offensive wars right away, but round 2 would have been a lot harder for HW and there would have been an opportunity for a comeback with the Rose nations all with full military - rather than down without ever having a chance to recover.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lord Tyrion said:

Just to clarify, there would be no beige in what I'm proposing.  It would be completely voluntary to surrender to then have a period of reconstruction (don't want to not be able to do anything for a few days, don't click that option and lose your war w/o beige time).  As long as there is a mechanic to allow people to recover, and having motivation to finish wars, that's the key.  Think of it in the context of one of the last globals.  Rose got caught unmilitarized and never could recover.  What if their entire group got an opportunity to fully rebuild?  Granted, in my proposal they'd not have been able to all declare offensive wars right away, but round 2 would have been a lot harder for HW and there would have been an opportunity for a comeback with the Rose nations all with full military - rather than down without ever having a chance to recover.  

I mean, sounds like something that with some tweaks could perhaps be an interesting addition to the current system? It's not a full substitute in any case. Cause like I said: what is someone that is outnumbered 10:1 going to do? Rebuilding their military isn't going to do them any good since they will just get rolled again with no chance of fighting back, so they simply won't use your system and then you have effectively just removed the current beige system in this scenario.

Biggest-Bloc-1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dryad said:

I mean, sounds like something that with some tweaks could perhaps be an interesting addition to the current system? It's not a full substitute in any case. Cause like I said: what is someone that is outnumbered 10:1 going to do? Rebuilding their military isn't going to do them any good since they will just get rolled again with no chance of fighting back, so they simply won't use your system and then you have effectively just removed the current beige system in this scenario.

Yeah that's fair.  I guess in my mind it's not much different than getting beige cycled either.  You can get rolled indefinitely if the attackers are good enough in the current system.

And even with the beige mechanics, you can still fully rebuild but if you're outnumbered 10:1 it's a pointless rebuild.  

 

Ultimately would love a scenario figured out that makes it make sense for people to win wars.  Maybe shortening beige time or eliminating it for offensive wars would be another solution there.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Tyrion said:

any military they have left is destroyed/removed (sold effectively) and the wars they have currently they automatically lose (meaning loot/4% infra destroyed - i'd push the infra destroyed to be a bit higher w/ this). They cannot declare any new wars during this reconstruction period and they earn no income and produce no resources outside of their daily login bonus, no trades, nothing

1 hour ago, Lord Tyrion said:

There should be a minimum time of "reconstruction", say 3-5 days where the nation can't do ANYTHING.  Then, after day 3-5, they have full control again to rebuild their military/nation.  However, wars still can't come - either offensive or defensive.  Then, when the period of reconstruction is over, say, 5 days later - they are eligible for DEFENSIVE wars, but no offensive wars for 1 or 2 more days.

That's too damn harsh. We'll see mass quits if this is ever implemented....
And I think someone explained why "surrender" is a bad concept. People can use it to protect themselves from damage, but either way your suggestion is way to harsh. I mean its like 5 days on nothing, another defensive war, then 5 days of nothing and it'll continue.....
People would just avoid using Surrender option if it were ever implemented so I don't think it actually resolves the loopholes that are present atm.

image.png.53cb39df314b30232b410b94801b6f72.png

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.